Rule Changes from Revised to AA:50

Hi,

I’d just like a standard map for this version of the game thats not modded or has any personalization and thats not too big a file -I’ve seen some pdfs that scroll very slowly and thats not very useful.

@taamvan said in Anniversary 2017 Reprint - rule changes?:

The reprint could have re-organized the setup charts, which are not very rationally laid out and appear to just wander around the area and put the units in a different order in each list. In the better organized versions, the lists are alphabetical, or some snake around the land then the sea–but it would be more rational to have some uniformity to that, rather than just a messy list without any rhyme or reason.

As to the tournament rules, the game is VASTLY different in that setting than OOB. The NOs add a ton of money, the tech adds a lot of randomness. I think the tech favors the allies because they are well-positioned to invest in that starting on turn 1, and would probably make better use of most of the random outcomes than the Axis.

I find both games to be quite imbalanced, towards the Allies. There are no other maps where fighters can fly in one move from US to London, then from London unblockably to Moscow (over the top, 4 moves). There are more layers of buffer territories for moscow–almost as many territories in the “maze” as global. In the 42 scenario, the Germans just punch themselves out really quickly trying to fight in the russian maze. And the 5$ tanks are a big boon for Russia because it can fight Germany on even terms. You might argue that goes both ways, but in most of our 41 and 42 games, Germany has to buy DEFENSIVELY, all game–not just $5 tanks. The Allies have easy choices of what to buy–tanks for russia and fighters for the other two powers, until Russia is absolutely untakable. India without a factory is a lost cause. Both setups are an easy 5-turn KGF, OOB.

In the tourney, its a 6 turn game with less than a 6 bid for either side. The Allies won 1-2 more games than the Axis did, in 2018, under these parameters. I think the only way this is possible is for the Axis to grab Sydney, India, Karelia, and then hold those, plus the original Axis cities. They can lose 1 and still win a tie, I believe.

Not having watched the invitational games in detail, that’s the only conclusion I can draw from the available data.

This is an odd reply to a question about the rules being reprinted…

Splitting this Colonial Outpost idea out into it’s own thread.

I would stick with 2 dice (or maybe 2@3). This pick best is just ridiculous. Seriously, the more and more errata (and “FAQ” - lol) they add, the worse the game becomes.

Gents

Thanks for all the input.  Much appreciated.

cool…thats what we thought “sounded fair…and right”.

I think all the units, and particularly naval units have been handled very well in AA50.  I don’t think they can add anymore units or do much better with design for this type of game.

Flying Tiger is correct.  Sorry if my original post was unclear.  :oops: I’ll try again.

You place an existing fighter on a new carrier by moving the fighter in either combat or noncombat movement, whichever applies, into the sea zone where the new carrier will be mobilized.  Air units don’t actually “land” until the end of the Mobilize New Units phase, though they must be in the space in which they will land by the end of noncombat movement.  The active player may only move pieces from one space to another during the combat movement and noncombat movement phases.

In Classic A&A, you can’t place fighters (new or existing) on new carriers at all.  In Revised, you can place existing fighters on a new carrier in the way you described in your original post.  In LHTR, it works the same way as it does in AA50.