Looking for a copy of A&A 50th Anniversary

@taamvan said in Anniversary 2017 Reprint - rule changes?:

The reprint could have re-organized the setup charts, which are not very rationally laid out and appear to just wander around the area and put the units in a different order in each list. In the better organized versions, the lists are alphabetical, or some snake around the land then the sea–but it would be more rational to have some uniformity to that, rather than just a messy list without any rhyme or reason.

As to the tournament rules, the game is VASTLY different in that setting than OOB. The NOs add a ton of money, the tech adds a lot of randomness. I think the tech favors the allies because they are well-positioned to invest in that starting on turn 1, and would probably make better use of most of the random outcomes than the Axis.

I find both games to be quite imbalanced, towards the Allies. There are no other maps where fighters can fly in one move from US to London, then from London unblockably to Moscow (over the top, 4 moves). There are more layers of buffer territories for moscow–almost as many territories in the “maze” as global. In the 42 scenario, the Germans just punch themselves out really quickly trying to fight in the russian maze. And the 5$ tanks are a big boon for Russia because it can fight Germany on even terms. You might argue that goes both ways, but in most of our 41 and 42 games, Germany has to buy DEFENSIVELY, all game–not just $5 tanks. The Allies have easy choices of what to buy–tanks for russia and fighters for the other two powers, until Russia is absolutely untakable. India without a factory is a lost cause. Both setups are an easy 5-turn KGF, OOB.

In the tourney, its a 6 turn game with less than a 6 bid for either side. The Allies won 1-2 more games than the Axis did, in 2018, under these parameters. I think the only way this is possible is for the Axis to grab Sydney, India, Karelia, and then hold those, plus the original Axis cities. They can lose 1 and still win a tie, I believe.

Not having watched the invitational games in detail, that’s the only conclusion I can draw from the available data.

This is an odd reply to a question about the rules being reprinted…

what are “the strait rules from G40?”

You sir, encapsulate the spirit of the game!  I can’t say that I’d do the same… (I went so far as to slap some paint and decals on my minis), but at the end of the day - I’m with ya.  I did apply clear tape to my AAA50 box though - kinda laminated in a cheap way, but it travels with me on occasion (over the Atlantic in a suitcase).

You call others “die hard” players?  Perhaps, but in my book you’re the step up, the “hardcore” player!

Welcome Cobblepot!  AA50 is a great game.  If you run into problems finding opponents and/or time to play,
then check out AA50 Modules for Battlemap, and try PBF (Play by Forum) here on this website.

No, it can’t.  Just passing through the Philippines sea zone counts as two movements (one in, one out), since the fighter doesn’t actually enter the island territory.  However, attacking the Philippines territory would cost two extra movements: one to enter the Philippines from the sea zone and another to exit the Philippines back into the sea zone.

Your example would look like this:

1. Japan to sea zone 62.
2. Sea zone 62 to sea zone 60.
3. Sea zone 60 to sea zone 50.
4. Sea zone 50 to Philippine Islands.
5. Philippine Islands to sea zone 50.
6. Sea zone 50 to sea zone 49 (carrier).

As you can see, a standard fighter would be out of movement at the Philippines, with nowhere to land, making this an illegal move.

However, if the same fighter took off from a carrier in the Japan sea zone, it could attack the Philippines and land on a carrier (perhaps the same one) in the Philippines sea zone:

Sea zone 62 (carrier) to sea zone 60.
Sea zone 60 to sea zone 50.
Sea zone 50 to Philippine Islands.
Philippine Islands to sea zone 50 (carrier).

Each time a plane crosses a boundary between spaces (whether between land or sea or both), it uses one movement point.

BUMP

can we possibly sticky this, as it is helpful?