@Krieghund Thanks again for all your fast replies. And seems I am getting most issues right.
Having said that: being VERY far removed from your level of (tacit) knowledge of all things A&A among some of the guys (sorry no ladies unfortunately) that I play with I am known as ‘the guy that is looking for rules issues and strange/improbably combinations of rules…’ - and in this case: cards :)
Rules - Phase 2 Zombies Attack
-
My reading of this rule doesn’t seem right. Here’s the situation…
Britain is shuttling men over to Russia helping out Russia, and these territories are full of zombies. For example, on the Russian turn Caucasus has:
1 Russian INF
2 British INF
15 zombies
Zombies roll and score 2 hits on Phase 2 Zombies Attack.My reading of the rules says that only the Russian troop is killed (converted to a zombie, in this case).
In fact, if there were only British troops there, then there isn’t even a zombie roll.Here’s how the rule reads (my emphasis added):
"… For each zombie unit in a territory YOU control, roll one of the special zombie dice. On a result of D, you remove one of YOUR combat units from that territory.
Thoughts?
Thanks! -
I noticed this apparently counterintuitive rule a while back, and submitted it for review in the FAQ. Hopefully it will be resolved therein.
-
@Krieghund
We decided to play it where the zombies rolls take as many pieces as possible, with the soviets choosing which pieces to take (just like combat casualties). I suspect that this is probably the way it should play. -
@Krieghund and @mosuper ,
thrasher’s URL service :)
Krieghund covered this in this thread at BGG:
https://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/2109774/confusion-about-phase-2-zombies-attack
My take on this:
For me it seems rather natural that the hits are (can be) assigned to all units on that very territory. So yes, follow standard rules for multinational (defending) forces.
Then again: who deceides.
There I would say indeed: players can disuss. If they cannot agree the ‘owner’ of the area deceides. -
Thanks for reply, so it sounds like most of us agree that the rule is written poorly and that there is a logical “AA” way to interpret it, thanks!
Suggested Topics
