Rules Comparison Between A&A Revised & 1942 Editions

[RobEng]

On the dice issue, I agree that having dice with more sides would provide a better spread of combat capabilities for the the various unit types. My preference would be D12s. However, due to the fact that dice with a number of sides other than six seem to be two or three times more expensive, I doubt that Wizards would ever consent to their use. It's just a fact of economics.

Can anyone think of a war game that uses dice other than d6s? War games which are touted for realism more highly than A&A still use a d6. The attempt to make A&A more "realistic" is relative to A&A. I mean I have seen war games that take into account water supply for units.

Bringing it back to the Revised vs. 42 discussion, if you don't like the changes in the 1942 set, keep playing Revised.

[GTO_Krieghund]

Actually, there are many wargames that use dice other than D6s. In the WWII genre, Xeno Games' Europe at War and Pacific at War use D8s. In other genres, Ikusa (reprint of Shogun/Samurai Swords) uses D12s, and Fortress America uses D6s, D8s, and D10s.

[RobEng]

Actually, there are many wargames that use dice other than D6s. In the WWII genre, Xeno Games' Europe at War and Pacific at War use D8s. In other genres, Ikusa (reprint of Shogun/Samurai Swords) uses D12s, and Fortress America uses D6s, D8s, and D10s.

Thanks for reminding of those. I've even played the latter 2.

[jsimmons]

I will gladly pay an extra IPC for armed transports.

Let me counter the thought of realism. If the claim is for more realism on tranport assaults, think of this; why not allow for a transport to escape via a die roll? As we know, the aerial attacks as well as U-boat threats were largely dependent upon weather / sea conditions. This was clearly evident in the Northern sea vicinities where the visibility and weather was often terrible.

The current hit rate for ANY unit against lone trannies is 100%. I just think that is un-realistic.