Axis & Allies and Zombies Q+A

We are going to need an errata on the 1942 setup.  The American setup has no navy and lists infantry in seazones -_-.  Also not sure if West US and Hawaii losing a fighter each is an intended balance change.

Begins chant to summon Kreighound

Wizards is in the process of creating an FAQ/errata document.  I’m passing issues raised here along to them.

Some rules questions

1.  Do Zombies stop Blitz moves?

2.  If you are attacking zombies, does the 6 (zombie) roll count for kills as well as the usual roll?

3.  If the defender is destroyed and there are only attacking planes and zombies left, is there still 1 round of anti-zombie combat with just planes?

I would expect the answer to be yes for all of these, but the rules are a bit vague.

@RogerCooper:

Some rules questions

1.  Do Zombies stop Blitz moves?

2.  If you are attacking zombies, does the 6 (zombie) roll count for kills as well as the usual roll?

3.  If the defender is destroyed and there are only attacking planes and zombies left, is there still 1 round of anti-zombie combat with just planes?

I would expect the answer to be yes for all of these, but the rules are a bit vague.

1.If the first move is into a zombie or opponent controlled territory, yes.
-Though a related question, does a tank attempting to move two spaces have to stop after the first movement if it goes into a friendly territory that contains a zombie?

2.Yes, both the “6”/zombie  and the usual to hit roll will kill them.

3. I also expect yes, but the rules don’t explicitly say yes to this.  The only reference I have found is it is 1 round is when initiating a combat against zombies with just planes.

-My own question:  I understand in an attack against a player controlled territory that contains zombies you can end combat and claim control as soon as the (living) defenders are dead.
What about attacking a zombie only controlled territory?    I assume you have to clear out the zombies before claiming said territory and getting the liberation bonus.  Though I can’t find an explicit reference in the rules though supporting that over,say, walking into a zombie only territory and claiming it without fighting.

@Striker:

-Though a related question, does a tank attempting to move two spaces have to stop after the first movement if it goes into a friendly territory that contains a zombie?

No.  A territory controlled by you or an ally is still friendly, even if it contains zombies.  Remember, a tank move through a friendly territory is not a blitz - it’s simply a two-space move.

@P@nther:

@Striker:

I understand in an attack against a player controlled territory that contains zombies you can end combat and claim control as soon as the (living) defenders are dead.
What about attacking a zombie only controlled territory?� � � � I assume you have to clear out the zombies before claiming said territory and getting the liberation bonus.� � Though I can’t find an explicit reference in the rules though supporting that over,say, walking into a zombie only territory and claiming it without fighting.

A surviving land unit is enough to take control of the territory.

@rulebook:

If you win a combat in a territory that is controlled by an enemy power or by zombies,
and you have one or more surviving land units there, you take control of (capture) it,
even if there are zombies remaining in the territory.)

HTH :-)

However, you would have to fight one round of combat and have at least one land unit survive in order to gain control of the territory.

Hello I have some questions regarding the combat phase of this game. The rule book states that any excess hits beyond those necessary to eliminate defending units are assigned to zombies. Okay that’s simple. But then the rules say that each roll of the special symbol will hit a zombie and each zombie unit that is hit is removed from the battle board. So does this mean a special symbol is an instant kill before the remove casualties step? Then the rule books says in step 7 to remove all casualties including zombies. Well it’s sort of a contradiction to the insta kill symbol. Here is an example of combat we had.

Attacker has 2 infantry and 2 tanks. Defender has 2 infantry and 1 zombie is present. Attackers get 4 hits and defenders and zombies get none. At what point are zombies taken as casualties? What according to this example would the outcome be? Any clarification would help.

Normal hits are allocated to normal units. Zombie hits (6) are allocated only to zombies.
Once all the enemy is dead, extra hits spill over to kill zombies.

Then, any infantry that went down become zombies–as long as no enemy units survived you can either fight on and try to exterminate them or take the territory.

The zombies already first-strik’d so instant killing them isnt relevant, you’re only racking up the zombie hits and extra hits each side gets. And it still cant kill the to-be-created zombies that are about to pop up after you resolve this step. Only question each battle is enough hits landed to kill the zombies that were alive on the final round of regular combat.

A better example might be if you were fighting 2 enemy infantry and 5 zombies–your four "1"s would hit 2 enemy and then 2 zombies and 3 would be there next turn, plus 2 new ones. Then, i’d suggest occupying the territory.
HTH

Thank you for the clarification. Knowing that you can’t kill the to-be-created zombies helps a lot and I can go through the combat phase correctly now. Bad news is I need to start a new game.

@Panther said in Axis & Allies and Zombies Q+A:

No speculation or house rules in this thread, please.

Panther, David,

Can we start a ‘House Rules’ discussion for AAZ?

If, due to the drawing of a escalation card, two cards are drawn with both having the hidden supply cache bonus, do the cards “stack”? IE: Would it be be two dice rolls and two extra free units from each liberated zombie territory?
(This came up in a rather game deciding way last time, where russia had this happen and had 5(!) zombie territories within its reach giving a possible 15 free units! We rolled off on interpretation and went with did not stack, but still 10 units…)

At least under “Phase 1, Play a Zombie Card”, it doesn’t directly speak to this. However, I say they do stack; my logic is–if you got two different cards, you’d get both of those bonuses, so why should a player that draws two identical cards of a certain type get shorted by that and only get 1 instance of the effect. Many of the effects can be applied separately (move two half stacks of zombies), you could partially move the same stack twice, or move two stacks into the same zone, applying the card text by completely resolving 1 card, then the next. For the cards that cannot clearly be applied separately/discreetly, I think they should stack in effect to avoid shorting that player a substantial benefit of his draws wherein other permutations, both (or more, with more escalations) can be applied + resolved without controversy.

@taamvan said in Axis & Allies and Zombies Q+A:

Many of the effects can be applied separately (move two half stacks of zombies), you could partially move the same stack twice, or move two stacks into the same zone, applying the card text by completely resolving 1 card, then the next.

Please mind that if you got two ‘Move half of the Zs present’ cards and you play them both on the same area then you still cannot move all Zs.
Example: area contains 7 Zs. Card one: you can move 4 Zs. So 3 left. Card two: you can move another 2 Zs.
Just my interpretation but I am pretty sure of this…

ADDITION:

OK, I thought about this. And this came into my mind. Back to the 1990s. Back to the famous Axis and Allies FAQ of Peter Goudswaard.

In a brief discussion of where a submarine may withdrawn to this statement is made:

"Note: I personally disagree with this statement from MB, as it
violates a principal that I have noted the spirit of throughout
the rules.  **The principal is that "the state of the board at the
beginning of the present turn defines what is legal."**  This idea
applies to legal landing spaces and use of canals, even to the point
that, for example, if during the first turn Egypt falls to Germany 
and *then* the UK sub south of Turkey is attacked and missed, it
can go through the canal even though Germany has already captured
Egypt.  However, I recognize MB as the experts and thus will accept 
it, pending further questions -- Dewey Barich."

(I added the **s here. Sorry, turned out BOLD did not work here.)

I always remembered this ‘principle’. So if we apply this to the great-grandchild of Axis and Allies Classic, AAZ, one can argue that the ‘half of the Zs’ part refers to the situation of an area AT THE BEGINNING of the turn. So then you can argue, OK first cards let you move half of the Zs that were in that area at the start of the turn (no difference with my interpretation above). But then the second card also allows you to move half of the Zs that were inh that area AT THE BEGINNING of the turn. So that would mean you could move all Zs by playing these two cards.

BTW: Does anyone remember these FAQs by Peter Goudswaard?

(Link to FAQ: https://mozai.com/writing/house_rules/a%26a.faq.txt )

@thrasher1

No, it would mean half then half of half, if you moved the same stack.

My point was that some can be applied separately and cleanly (the zombie moves) while others would appear to overlap (giving you 3 or more units for liberating a zombie territory). That’s it. And I think you should get the 3 units because if it was $3 for removing a zombie, you’d get to remove up to 2. If it was replacing an zombie with an infantry, you’d get to replace up to 2 zombies with 2 infantry. Not replacing 2 zombies with 1 infantry, or removing 1 zombie and getting $6.

@taamvan said in Axis & Allies and Zombies Q+A:

@thrasher1

No, it would mean half then half of half, if you moved the same stack.

That was indeed my first thought. Play first card, then play second card. But then this ‘general principle’ came to my mind. See post above: ** The principal is that “the state of the board at the
beginning of the present turn defines what is legal.” **

But I see your point of course. Any chance we will have official word on this?
(And other AAZ questions…)

Krieghund,

Can you tell us how these two cards should be played after each other?