I sent this to his company. We'll see if there is response.
Hello, I am one of the members of the Axis and Allies forumini, one of the websites dedicated to the Axis and Allies miniatures that you developed. We are still going strong and have lots of members passionate about all three minis games you created. We sincerely appreciate the work you put into making Axis and Allies minis a big success with the fans. I am writing because there have been many questions that have erupted about the Axis and Allies Naval Miniatures piece from the Surface Action set, the Heavy Shore Battery. Because it is an installation and not a ship, the question as to whether or not it can be crippled has come up. This has led to many other questions about what happens to the HSB because Installations are not in the rule book and "unit" is defined as a ship, submarine, or aircraft. So, specifically I was wondering if you could give some thought to these questions and then provide some answers.
1) Can Installations be damaged and crippled like Ships? 2) If not, how is the process different? 3) Can Installations contest objectives? 4) Do they attack during the Surface Attack Phase? 5) How do special abilities that reference Ships (Excellent Spotting, Covering Fire, Press the Attack, etc.) interact with Installations?
My friends and I would certainly welcome clarification on these questions and any other insight you may have on Installations or anything else associated with your wonderful games. All the best,
Post by Solomiranthius on Jun 7, 2017 18:27:12 GMT
Bravo northstars. I hope he has the chance to respond and still has the interest to do so thoughtfully. I remember him supplying a very thoughtful response to a question that I was lucky enough to pose to him during Team Neptune (I think by PM, as he was registered with the forum at the time).
"You like ships. You don't seem to be lookin' at the destinations. What you care about is the ships, and mine's the nicest." ~ Firefly ~
As a long time warmer and big fan of WAS; and Understanding some simple logic about this game.
1; The creator of the game meant it to be simple with some historic credibility ; its not a simulation 2; The rules were also not meant to be "column, line and square; the blend of SA's and fleet build points gave it that extra measure of lure. 3; The creators were not going to belabor errata; that is up to us [ like it or not.]
By all standards this game should treat Installations as Ships; Their are many technicalities we can chose to dwell on that say no, "for example how do you shadow a fixed position" but its simple, its the way the game is built. I don't see especially with how far this game has progressed under the Forum; adding units; adding SA's; under what ever pretense you see it making unplayable units to playable ones, That simplicity is not the answer. Even if you need the letter of the rule i say again; House Rule it; Agree; or if; not roll a die. Simple but effective.
Actually, I agree with Solo, Swizzle, waratsea4, et al. that Installations should essentially be treated as a ship. I think all of us have being doing that "automatically" up until now. As you guys say, it is common sense. I just wanted to see if anyone knew of anyplace in the Rulebook that would validate it since I couldn't find anything. I am fine with treating Installations "as a ship" for all purposes except where we actually have clarifications from WotC (like stacking limit one, does not affect line of sight, etc.) But I do think that should be announced/house ruled ahead of any tournament or game just to make sure there are not any arguments. In serious tournament play for prizes my guys are always looking for "an edge" and any loophole they can find is a gold mine to them. And I have been "bullied" at GenCon more than once by someone that did not want to give in on what they thought was a game-winning rule hole.
So - what are the implications if we just say "treat Installations as if they are Ship." We did that with the Forward Air Base (treat as a carrier) and it solved a huge list of potential problems we were running into, but there are still people that don't like what we did. There is no way to cover everything. For a house rule can we just say "Intallations count as a Ship?" Or are there other issues that need to be addressed?
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care" Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship!
Sho-Go's General Pursuit is the weirdest issue. Otherwise, it's the objective contest. Not insurmountable, but significant on the right map.
Three of the four maps would allow contesting one objective. I don't think that is a terrible problem. Our local game club has terrain rules for allowing each player to place two islands and one shoal on the map before fleet deployment. We quickly learned that we had to restrict island placement to only allowing one to be adjacent to an Objective. You can bet that one Objective is always adjacent to island in most of our games. It hasn't really been a problem though. That "gambit" quickly gets old because there are multiple ways to take out the offending unit on the island.
As to Sho-Go. Ugh! No matter what we do there will be issues. I guess we will need a statement that says Installations cannot move once placed. Obvious, but not.
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care" Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship!
I believe we have been treating installations as crippled, applying the hits on 5 or 6 vs 4, 5, and 6's. One of these days I need to post our fairly wide variety of installations available to our group. We may have a better opportunity to use the class then most groups.
As I think about it more, it's not really a major problem as to whether or not an installation can contest an objective. They have to be ADJACENT, and that will be rarely the case. It will happen only if the map even allows it, in which case it makes sense!
It would be "simple" to consider installations as ships-that-cannot-be-torpedoed for all SA's. That is tempting.
Großadmiral Swizzle
Browncoat by fandom; Cossack by blood; American by birth; Virginian/Husband/Father by wife; Libertarian by choice; Human by race; Christian by grace.
As I think about it more, it's not really a major problem as to whether or not an installation can contest an objective. They have to be ADJACENT, and that will be rarely the case. It will happen only if the map even allows it, in which case it makes sense!
It would be "simple" to consider installations as ships-that-cannot-be-torpedoed for all SA's. That is tempting.
Hold on Lcdr; wasn't there a movie were a truck got torpedoed!!!
Hi -- Nice to meet you, so to speak. I haven't looked at AANM rules or thought much about them in the last several years; as much as I loved working on AANM, I'm always working on something new, and I just haven't continued to explore the details of unit interactions or special abilities that could use some clarifications. If you want an official answer, I recommend sending a note to customer support at Wizards of the Coast -- they have a pretty good team there.
That said, I'll share a couple of snap answers to your questions in case you find them useful.
1) Yes 2) (see above) 3) A guarded "yes" -- the HSB can't claim the objective because it can't ever move into that space, but I think it's okay that the enemy player can't do so either until he removes the HSB from the area. Go secure the other objectives if that's too much trouble. 4) Wow, that's a surprising oversight on my part. Yes, it attacks in the surface attack phase. 5) Some of the them probably ought to work, but for the purpose of clarity, I guess I'd say that they don't. Installations aren't Ships.
Like I said, I wouldn't consider these official. I hope that helps! And I'm glad you're still enjoying AANM, that was one of my favorite things to work on!
Well done MN, we could have argued this until we were blue in the face. I'm willing to take RB's ruling as gospel but I didn't realize WotC still supported the game and I'm half curious how they'd answer that.