Wording error in the rules re: air units defending?

[ReeferMadness]

Apologies if this is covered somewhere but I searched for it but didn’t come up with the answer.

I just bought A&A and played my first game.  There was a debate at one point over whether territory-based air units would defend against a sea attack in an adjacent zone.  I argued against it but the other player had more experience so I relented.

The rules that come with the game say this:
“Fighters and bombers can attack and defend in both territories and sea zones”.  (page 24 Air Units).  His logic was that since a bomber can’t land on a carrier, the only way it could defend a sea zone is if air units could defend coastal sea zones.

I’ve since seen a copy of the “Larry Harris” rules that say this instead of the above:
“Fighters and bombers can attack and defend in territories.  Both can attack in sea zones.  Fighters stationed on carriers can defend in sea zones”.

So, my question is, have the rules changed since the “Larry Harris” rules were written or are the rules that came with the game poorly written?

TIA.

:? :? :?

[tekkyy]

Thats right. Bombers can’t defend in sea zones. Thats the intention.

Always use LHTR (Larry Harris tournament rules).
Its less ambiguous and is what the game maker (Larry Harris) intended.

Sticky thread has download link for latest version (2.0).

[newpaintbrush]

@tekkyy:

Thats right. Bombers can’t defend in sea zones. Thats the intention.

Always use LHTR (Larry Harris tournament rules).
Its less ambiguous and is what the game maker (Larry Harris) intended.

Sticky thread has download link for latest version (2.0).

Gary Gygax intended a lot of things for Dungeons and Dragons, but that’s not what you see these days.

I wouldn’t recommend LHTR based on what “the game maker” intended, particularly since Axis and Allies Revised was a collaborative effort involving lots of people!  (unless Larry Harris poops out Axis and Allies Revised sets, which WOULD be pretty cool, but I don’t think is the case)

[Guest]

Most of LHTR is not just “Larry’s Opinion”, but is a collaborative effort of many folks (Blackwatch comes immediately to mind, Craig also if I am not mistakent) who worked, not to CHANGE the rules but to CLARIFY the rules.

LHTR is considered to be the ONLY official rul set by nearly all online gamers (globally).

IF you are going to use the rules that came with the game, you MUST at least add the errata and clarifications form the Avalon Hill website to clear up the most glaring errors.

[Romulus]

I do not know if LHTR are Larry Harris opinion or if they are the right ruleset, and I am not interested in knowing that. What I do know is that they are more clear, that NA are more balanced, and have corrected more wording error.

Come to mind SBR, on OOB rules, with said that you must surrender to the bank the result of the SBR roll or the IPC amount of the nation wichever is GREATER.  :-o

First time I read it … I ran on the internet looking for someone that may explain me why if British SBR on Berlin have a result of 1 German loss have to be 40 IPC!!!
Luckily that I have played at A&A 2nd edition, A%A 3rd edition and A&A Pacific before… otherwise…

Regarding the ruleset Revised is really defective of any quality management (ISO 0000, maybe!). And another complain is: according to the AH where we should place the game pieces? In the single, small, ridicule and useless cardboard box inside the gamebox?!?!?!  :?

[tekkyy]

I was referring to the LHTR’s clarification of ambiguous parts, as in the OP.

LHTR indeed have new rules. Some national advantage are obviously completely new.

[ReeferMadness]

Thanks to everyone who replied.  It definitely makes more sense for only carrier based fighters to defend sea zones.  In the game we played, the U.S. managed, with 2 transports and about 30 fighters and bombers, to take Japan.  :cry: :cry:

I’ll be a bit more circumspect about the way I read the rule book.  And I’ve downloaded the LHTR for future reference.

BTW, WTH is Karma?

[Romulus]

Good karma to you for having asked about karma!

:-D

[newpaintbrush]

@ReeferMadness:

Thanks to everyone who replied.  It definitely makes more sense for only carrier based fighters to defend sea zones.  In the game we played, the U.S. managed, with 2 transports and about 30 fighters and bombers, to take Japan.   :cry: :cry:

I’ll be a bit more circumspect about the way I read the rule book.  And I’ve downloaded the LHTR for future reference.

BTW, WTH is Karma?

Karma is wat u do when u wanna say GOOD POST or BAD POST.

when u get lotsa karma u evolve to the next level

imma be a raichu, yeah

[tekkyy]

Karma gives you more ideas about a member beyond post number.

I see people who wants to be frank, talk straight, or sharp tend to receive lots of negatives.
People who give well-rounded or soft responses get less negatives.

[newpaintbrush]

@tekkyy:

Karma gives you more ideas about a member beyond post number.

I see people who wants to be frank, talk straight, or sharp tend to receive lots of negatives.
People who give well-rounded or soft responses get less negatives.

Damn, I wanted to smite you for that, but I uh, slipped, yeah, that’s it.

[Guest]

@tekkyy:

I see people who wants to be frank, talk straight, or sharp tend to receive lots of negatives.

I must be those things personified then!  LOL

<–----  look at all the negatives!