MOVED: Summer/Fall Spring 42 2E Tournament Sign-up/Rules

@greyleaf3

Don’t confuse yourself by introducing the term “retreat” to the situation you describe.
The decision to retreat occurs during conduct combat phase (Step 6 of the General Combat Sequence).

Your scenario is at the beginning of the Combat Move Phase - and the “Sea Units Starting in Hostile Sea Zones”-rules (rulebook page 12) apply. So this is about combat movement, not about retreating.

And in this phase sea units can move their full range.

The enemy destroyer of course has no effect on the submarine’s movement here - as the submarine is already there - and does not enter or move through a hostile seazone containing an enemy destroyer.

I am very interested with this idea. I have a channel running right now called “Hunter Jones”. Just send me a PM or respond to this post.

@MarineIguana:

Hi Dave,

This is Andrew, and I participated in last year’s Kublacon tournament.

I agree that the tournament plays very differently, and that Axis has a major edge. 15+ to allies seems like a reasonable range. By far the most important VC is Karelia because it’s the most contestable. France, Phillipines, and India are also considerations.

I’m having a hard time thinking of a tie breaker that i’d feel satisfied with. It seems undesirable to establish tie breakers that alter the immediate game. How about just giving out two prizes without a winner? Short of that, i suggest just rolling a die.

My specific issue with your 4 suggested options is that all favor either the allies or axis.
#1 if both players are strong, the allies will seek to preserve 7 VCs while the axis seeks to capture 1 VC to go from 6 to 7. If one person wins as allies and the other wins as axis, the axis player will come out ahead per this rule.
#2 IPC totals favors Allies heavily, net captured favors Axis heavily
#3 same as #2
#4 heavily favors allies

Even in a single elimination, when you have two strong players against each other, somebody loses and probably too early in the tournament.

For #1, this is how standard tournament rules work. 7+ VCs and you win.

In a timed format, one side or the other will have an advantage. A bid is there to even out those chances. In this format, bids to play the Allies might need to be very high.

I think I’m going to go with:
First tie breaker: total VCs
Second tie breaker: captured territories (not your starting territories)
Third tie breaker: coin toss

I’m also going with 2 finals matches: a game for 1st/2nd and game for 3rd/4th. Anybody left over will be invited to play for fun. Maybe top 4 get prizes? 1 picks before 2 picks before 3 picks before 4.

Thanks for the responses and welcome, guys!  I love the game and am glad to be here.

I wanted to compile a list so we could see at a glance how frequently and by how much the value of specific territories has been changing. I want to highlight some of the more significant changes that have occurred, based on a comparison with the nearest older world map boards (Revised and AA50).

The following territories or regions have seen changes in their total IPC value, which in my mind demonstrates that IPC values are abstract and should be considered flexible. The territories discussed here reflect the same basic space on the map, but different IPCs values depending on which board you look at.

Game: Territories and IPC value

Revised: Southern Europe 6 ipcs, split into two territories afterwards
AA50: Italy 6 ipcs and Balkans 3 ipcs, (for a regional total of 9 ipcs)
1942.2: Italy 3 ipcs and Southern Europe 2 ipcs, (for a regional total of 5 ipcs)

Revised: Norway 3 ipcs, split into two territories afterwards
AA50: Norway 3 and Finland 2 (for a total of 5 ipcs)
1942.2 Norway 2 and Finland 1 (for a total of 3 ipcs)

Revised: Balkans 3 ipcs, replaced with
AA50: Bulgaria-Romania 2 ipcs, and Czech-Hungary 2 ipcs (for a total of 4 ipcs)
1942.2:  Bulgaria-Romania 2 ipcs (for a total of 2 ipcs)

Revised: Eastern Europe 3 ipcs, split into
AA50: Poland 3, Eastern Poland 1, Baltic States 1 (for a total of 5 ipcs)
1942.2: Poland 2, Baltic states 2 (for a total of 4 ipcs)

Revised: Western Europe 6 ipcs, split into
AA50 and 1942.2: France 6 and NW Europe 2 (for a total of 8 ipcs)

Revised and AA50: Algeria 1 ipc, split into
1942.2: Morocco 1 and Algeria 1 (for a total of 2 ipcs)

Revised: Ukraine 3 ipcs, split into
AA50: Ukraine 2, and Eastern Ukraine 1 (for a total of 3)
1942.2: Ukraine 2 (for a total of 2)

Revised: Moscow 8
AA50: Moscow 6
1942.2: Moscow 8

Revised: W. Russia 2, Belorussia 2 (for a total of 4 ipcs)
AA50: W. Russia N/A replaced by Belorussia 1 (for a total of 1 ipc)
1942.2 W. Russia 2, Belorussia 2 (back to a total of 4 ipcs)

Revised: Archangel 2 and Novosibirsk 2 (for a total of 4 ipcs)
AA50: Archangel 1, Novosibirsk 1, and Urals 1 (for a total of 3 ipcs)
1942.2: Archangel 2, Novosibirsk 1, and Vologda 2 (for a total of 5 ipcs)

Revised: French Indo China 3 ipcs, split into
AA50: French Indo China 2, Burma 2 and Yunnan 1 (for a total of 5)
1942.2: French Indo China 2, Malaya 1, Burma 1 and Yunnan 1 (for a total of 5)

Revised: Kwangtung 3 ipcs
AA50:  Kiangsu 2, Fukien 1, Kwangtung 1 (for a total of 4)
Revised: Kwangtung 2, Kiangsu 2 (for a total of 4)

Revised: Philippines 3
AA50: Philippines 2
1942.2: Philippines back to 3

Revised and AA50: Okinawa 1
1942.2: Okinawa 0

Those are the main ones that jump out at me, there are probably more, and if you look back to Classic there are yet other differences in IPC value. But the point to stress is that there is a degree of variation (especially in the range of 1 ipc plus or minus to a specific region.) To me this indicates that A&A is willing to tolerate a margin of flexibility between 1 and 2 ipcs on several areas of the map board. I would suggest going forward that an additional 1 ipc should be added to area/territories of the map that do not see much action. Clearly you know where I’d like to see them (in the Pacific islands!) At least as far as every other area of the map goes, A&A has already proved itself less rigid and inflexible regarding IPC value than it seems to be with the Pacific. Why? Can anyone explain this to me? I find it odd, since on every board the Pacific vs JTDTM dynamic persists without resolution, even after several editions.

I say stop trying to create new territories out of existing ones, or shuffling numbers around, and instead focus on changing the values of those territories which currently have little to no in game value (IPCs). Give them an additional value of 1 ipc the same way all those other territories mentioned above have seen adjustments at 1 ipc. I find the decision to remove yet more ipcs from the Pacific islands in 1942.2 totally baffling. Clearly the gameplay in previous editions (and yet again in the current one) would have recommended doing the exact opposite, if the goal was to make that region of the board more active. Does anyone else see that?

Ok I just found the answer in the FAQ post! Thanks for posting the link!

No plastic ics is at the limit ok
but no paper money is like selling monopoly with no money and asking to count it on a separate piece of paper
Also they miscounted the value of the territories on the map (germany should be 41 and uk 31) it’s kinda lame

Me two I had only revised and 2nd ed was my first upgrade. I like the bigger map and the new sculpt and the new unit cruisers
And has you said
@Sean.C:

All in all it seems like a good “upgrade”, but if i didn’t have stuff from an older version of the game, i would likely be really upset.

But I bought it for 40$ so I’m not disappointed
Still a great game

@Sean.C:

@adaptation:

I don’t know why people say Pearl Harbor cannot be done anymore - don’t forget that the Japanese sub is now absolutely untouchable with the new rules and can always go for Pearl Harbor. You can get 3 fighters(9), 1 bomber(4), 1 cruiser(3), 1 sub(2) and 1 AC(1) (grand total of 19) VS sub(1),destroyer(2),AC(2),fighter(4) (Grand total of 9).

Over 95% chance of victory with average IPC losses around 16-18 depending on if you chose to lose a bomber or fighter after your sub.

Then you end up defending with 2 fighters ( 8 ), 1 cruiser (3), and 1 AC (2) (grand total of 13) VS 2 fighters (6), 1 bomber (4), 1 destroyer (2), and 1 battleship (4) (grand total of 16).

Over 95% chance of losing your Japanese fleet with an average IPC loss around 18-20 for America depending on if they chose to kill a fighter or bomber after their destroyer.

Plus US player submerges the sub right at the beginning of the J1 attack, allowing it to participate on the counter on US2…

Then you have to consider that UK1 has almost a 70% chance of wiping out the other half of your japanese fleet

You’re goal here is India, not America.  The only reason people did it before was it was a slam dunk with no losses most of the time with units you didn’t need for India anyhow.  It’s a completely different story now.  Now your looking at the annihilation of a majority of your fleet that you actually need to help take India.

Yup, if the UK attacked SZ37 then Japan has to wipe out any remaining UK fleet from that attack and get the UK transports as quickly as possible. Attacking the US fleet almost removes Japan from the Pacific after US1.