G40 Delta 1st Edition

@Young:

I’m happy with this…

1A - Airborne Assault Troops
Up to 2 infantry units from a friendly operational airbase may attack an enemy territory up to 3 spaces away, provided that the target territory is also being attacked by land units coming from an adjacent territory, or sea zone via an amphibious assault. The enemy territory under attack must contain at least 1 enemy land unit. There must also be an equal or superior number of attacking  air units to the number of defending air units.

That sounds pretty good to me. Not that I take issue with this, but by saying “air units” you include bombers and tacs in the mix of aircraft that count. Again, I do not have a problem with this exactly, but I assume you wanted it to read that way.

The bold was just a syntax revision on my part. I think it makes it a little clearer. Your choice whether to use it or not though.

Will there be any sort of Delta manual - like a rulebook - which gives all the SAs and Objectives and explains them in (perhaps) greater detail than on the card? I am just thinking that the whole system will need some further explanation for someone who has never seen it before and a Delta Rulebook would address that and also any loopholes or FAQ on some of the Advantages.

@Young:

The cards can only fit so much in their description, so players will need to refer to the document on page #1 of this thread for further clarification.

This actually opens up an interesting option that would allow the same cards to keep being used even when the house rules change, without needing to re-print them: have the cards simply show the title of each rule, accompanied by a nice picture, plus a card category title (SA, etc.) and possibly the number of the game round to which it applies. All the other details would be kept in a rules document, which could be edited at will since a change to its contents wouldn’t affect the cards themselves.  A little less convenient than having the details on the card, but much more stable and much less expensive with regard to printing costs.

A variation: use this same approach, but laminate the cards in such a way that each has a clear pocket at the back.  Print out the rule details on paper, cut them into neat rectangles and slip them into the appropriate pockets, facing outward.  The front of the card is the stylish stable element.  The back (pocket) side of the card gives the details of each rule.  This format would actually give you room to include all the details of each rule on the printed paper, thus eliminating the need for a separate rulebook.  If a rule changes, discard the old paper from the pocket and replace it with an updated version.

You didn’t just change the wording, you also changed the rule. Now if an equal amount of aircraft are present on both sides, you can do the airborne assault. In your previous wording, you couldn’t.

@Zombie69:

You didn’t just change the wording, you also changed the rule. Now if an equal amount of aircraft are present on both sides, you can do the airborne assault. In your previous wording, you couldn’t.

Yes, that was his intent. At least based on version 1 wording and current version.

He wanted to make it so that even if there are enemy planes in a territory, you can still use paratroopers providing your planes are equal to or greater in number than the defender.

@Young:

@Zombie69:

You didn’t just change the wording, you also changed the rule. Now if an equal amount of aircraft are present on both sides, you can do the airborne assault. In your previous wording, you couldn’t.

Gonna go back to the no fighter unit restriction, it’s cleaner and easier to explain. We will revisit this advantage during 2nd edition discussions if a change is necessary.

That is not a problem. It is simpler that way.

@Young:

I understand what you’re sayin, I’ve already wrapped my head around a lot of the suggestions you’re talking about. In the end, the ability to have players look down at each card trumps referring to a separate manual every time.

Do you guys understand “trumps” or is that a Canadian thing?

No it translates. Ever play Euchre, maybe Pinochle? Lots of trumps there.

As for a manual… it really would not be difficult to create one. Just type up a list of the rules, their explanation and any relevant FAQ you can think up. It could just be a simple Word document or PDF… not necessarily as fancy as the cards. I suppose you could simply copy and paste everything you have in your first post and save yourself the typing.

I do agree that just being able to look at the cards is way better than having to refer to a manual, but with the size of these cards, I don’t think you will be able to include all the information that will be ultimately necessary for full understanding… as you have stated yourself. A large and extensive rulebook is not the goal, but just to expand on and clarify the rules more than is on the cards. The idea, obviously, is to get to a point where people don’t need to refer to it, but all players will need to for some time at least.

You could just put the document up as an attachment on page one and leave it at that… let people download and print it themselves, that way it is there, but you don’t have to worry about it.

Heck, I might volunteer to do this for you.

@Young:

That would be awesome if you want to do that, perhaps you could include some example diagrams to help explain some of the more complicated advantages.

I might try to… it just depends how much time I can devote to it, but I would like to. Unfortunately, I don’t have any cool photo editing software to make it look really slick, like the cards do… but I can at least get a framework down. I will undoubtedly need your help in choosing the correct examples or interpretation, since they are your rules and you know what is intended. And also you have already played with them.

Young Grasshopper,
I must have not been checking your updates to the Delta rules. There are a few things that I am now unclear about:
1 > The Progressive Advantage for Japan: Kamikaze Honor. You said that the Russian Winter was the only “one time” advantage so Russia may now roll for another 25 points to do it again later in the game. However, you didn’t clarify this for Japan. Can they also roll for another 25 points to reload the Kamikaze again?

2 > Around the Clock Bombing == When the British bombers do an SBR during the USA’s turn, if the US also wants to do an SBR on the same facility (let’s say the German IC in W Germany), do they all attack at the same time? If so, how do you choose casualties from interceptors or AA guns? OR, would it be better to do the British bombers first then do the US bombers?

3 > V-Rockets == It states that they must “Pass all SBR Defense Systems”. I thought that rocket attacks were not intercept able by fighters or AA guns. Have you changed this?

4 > Airborne Assaults == I have to agree with Zombie69 on this one. The way you have it now, if even a single enemy fighter is in the territory, you can not use paratroopers. I think this is way too restrictive. I like the earlier version where you can use paratroopers as long as you have equal or more fighters attacking than defending fighters. Leave Tacs and Bombers out of it.

Thanks YG. Whenever I have a question regarding the new rules, I don’t stop to think that even that helps you in designing this project. I also agree with LHoffman that you should get what you can on the cards (I know there will be a limit on space) and also have a sort of manual available that further explains each rule. So if you are fairly well versed, the cards will be enough but if a situation comes up where you are not sure if a certain advantage would work here, then you can make a quick check of the manual.
Having people simply print out the first post themselves should be good enough. That’s what I’m going to do once you get the cards finalized.

I totally agree with Kamikaze Honor. On the next 25 points, they just reload to 6 but stay at the same attack level (3). God! Could you imagine Kamikazes hitting @ 4? Japan could wipe a small fleet out.

So the British and US bombers go at the same time on the USA player’s move. I find that cool because if one side or the other has fighter escorts available, they can both get the benefit from them. If I’m defending a factory and the attacker brings escorts, I will usually NOT send up interceptors unless I really have a lot of them. Otherwise it ends up being a waste of fighters for me. Also, if the US has Superfortresses, that would be an easy choice for AA casualties since the US bombers are immune.

On the V-Rocket attacks, so the facility basically gets one roll @ 1 (@ 2 if UK has Radar) for each Rocket. It’s basically the same as if a single bomber were leading an SBR against that facility. That actually sounds great. First, AA fire is fairly weak so in most times you probably will get through. Also, since I think this weapon is basically referring to the V-1 rockets and some of them were shot down by British AA Artillery so it’s actually realistic. Secondly, since you are now adding +1 to the damage and these are basically free attacks for Germany (not having to risk a bomber or tac), I think this would be a really good advantage for Germany.

Thanks for changing the Airborne Assault. I just think it would be much better if the attacker has fighters, they can escort the paratroops. If the defender has more fighters available, then it makes sense that the transports wouldn’t risk the mission.

I really want to play test these new rules, but I’m still going to wait for the cards because I think that will make it much easier to incorporate them into the game.

Started work on the ‘official’ DELTA - G40 manual.

Unfortunately, I cannot give it the professional look of the A&A Rulebook, since I don’t have the software to do so, but once I am finished you can spruce it up however you would like. All of the text will be there and maybe some pictures too. I will see what I can do with it.

Thanks LHoffman. We appreciate your efforts too. We don’t need anything fancy.

@knp7765:

Thanks LHoffman. We appreciate your efforts too. We don’t need anything fancy.

But I like fancy, or at least a quality production. So I will do what I can.

Sweet, looking forward to it.