Is there solitaire rules for revised

Hiya Forum,

Here is a video I have created on youtube of the set up of AnA 1942 Spring Revised Edition. I hope it come to some help for you to enjoy the game!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y251pxrrg8Y

Enjoy,

BH

Hi Forum,

Here is a video of a timelapse I have created on youtube of the set up of AnA 1942 Spring Revised Edition. Enjoy!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjpOJmiCSGQ

BH

Did you try doing a closed auctions search on Ebay?

For the most part though the folks who end up with those things in the first place are ones who’d keep them. As opposed to a lot of the other types of convention exclusive items that will end up in the hands of resellers in the first place.

@bb82:

I think it’s:
1)Yes
2)No
3)No
4)Yes

You’re right, whether using the box rules or LHTR.  Taking a power’s IPCs by taking their capital is not income, so you can collect it even if your capital is held by the enemy.

That depends on how dull the knife is, though.  My husband’s mother has knives so dull I use her spoons to cut my food.  Lord knows the knife is completely useless!

@Craig:

c) Naval units can be placed with other naval units or in territories adjacent to a power’s land

This would create some interesting bids… in games where the bid was high enough
(but with the auction bid system, I doubt there are many bids of + or - 8 or more to allow naval units)

Heh I really can’t understand why both you and donmoody keep using the word “arbitrary” like it has any meaning. Arbitrary means without reason, and I’m sure that the designer had some sort of reason to change the rules. Larry doesn’t like changing them very much, and for him to have done so in the first place means that he was receiving some sort of complaint or player feedback, which is more than a valid reason to tweak the game to be more understandable/accessible. Doing something for a reason, even if some people consider it “dumbing it down”, is not arbitrary. You can use the words “superfluous” or “irrelevant” or “unnecessary”, etc, but using “arbitrary” is just a wrong use of the English language. You can say the change did not improve the game or is not needed, but to say that there is no reason behind the change (arbitrary) is entirely a subjective and uninformed view of the matter. I would really like to know why both of you like to incorrectly use this term, it really bothers me. I can respect that you think the change wasn’t needed or that you liked the previous ruling, but to say something else entirely different, that it had no reason behind it, just makes no sense to me.

I can just as easily say that I think it’s more intuitive for fighters to land in seazones for carriers than it is for them to land in territories with complexes. To me, hey that’s where the carrier is going to be, so why not just have the fighter there already so you don’t forget to redeploy onto it? Why move units during the mobilization phase? It could very well be that you’re smarter and both are equally intuitive to you, but again, this does not make the change arbitrary (only to you perhaps). I’m sure Larry changed it based on player feedback, and since it is a game after all that requires changes and tweaks, that is hardly a reason to call it arbitrary.

Actually, it gives 5 spaces of movement either way because suddenly you can ‘land’ in an illegal spot.  Your range has still been extended by one.

By the way, more flawed reasoning. Extending a fighter’s range by one by allowing it to land in an illegal spot does not increase its range to 5. Prior to “illegal” landing, you could theoretically only move 3 spaces, since the 4th would be illegal. Thus, with “illegal” landing, you have increased the range to the full 4, not 5. You can never make it look like a fighter is moving 5 spaces under LHTR, while you can do so under box rules (deploying on a territory with a complex). And the space is nt really seem illegal because a carrier is going to be there, which is consistent with the other rules about fighter/carrier landing.

@merkle:

Tri and NC.

You 2 should play each other.

Tri, you be the Allies and show 'em how it’s done.

NC, you be the Axis and demonstrate Japan’s crushing power.

We did… And Japan played VERY well, but my Germany was NOT up to par…

There are 2 threads in the Games section (the first game you can disregard, it was my first ever game of Revised, and I lost Berlin in Turn 2).  Then second shows better how I use my Japan forces…