@Krieghund thanks for your answer.
Is Larry Harris' website down again?
-
I’ve been trying to go onto the webpage, but each time I’m told the site can’t be reached. Hopefully this is only a temporary issue, since the website has some amazing stuff on it.
-
There is a connection time out indeed, unfortunately.
Let’s hope it will be back soon. -
The site is currently experiencing technical difficulties. It should return relatively soon.
-
So, has the site been deliberately nuked?
If I want to read the latest errata and clarifications of Axis&Allies Revised (or such), where should I go if anywhere @Krieghund? How about the “Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition Rules Changes” paper posted by you on the Harris’ forum? Have such things been reposted elsewhere? Am I the only one having such questions?
-
@cernel To answer myself on the specific (still wondering about anything else though), I see Revised is covered here:
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/33761/axis-allies-revised-faq -
@cernel After the 2019 shut down of Larry’s website @Krieghund added some documents to the respective forum categories.
However the (eventual) loss of Larry’s forum would mean a loss of much valuable information for enthusiasts. Personally, I - for example - loved the forum-documentation of the Alpha-development that led from 1940 Global First Edition to 1940 Global Second Edition.
-
@panther So this came to my mind because I wanted to ask if it is correct that in Revised OOB naval bombardment cannot target air units, whereas in Revised LHTR it can. I’m as sure as I can be that all I just said is correct, but I don’t see this distinction being made in the “Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition Rules Changes” paper posted by @Krieghund on the Harris’ forum, so I was wondering if this is something missing in the paper (and, if it is so, I would suggest @Krieghund to update the paper by adding this matter), but I cannot see any official place where I can reference to it any longer…
I also wanted to point out that in the
https://www.axisandallies.org/wp-content/uploads/AAR_LHTR_v2.0.pdf
at page 12 it says “Each battleship fires once during this step against enemy land and air units in the territory being attacked.”, which is arguably vaguely confirmed at page 19, saying “Each battleship fires once during the opening fire step of the first round of combat against enemy units in the territory being attacked.”, yet at page 27 it says “Each battleship fires once during the opening fire step against enemy land units in the territory being attacked.”, which is reiterated at page 28, saying “Each destroyer fires once during the opening fire step (using its attack of 3) against enemy land units in the territory being attacked.”. So there is one instance in which it is said that the targets of naval bombardment are land and air units, another instance in which it is said that the targets are whatever units (which would be the same as saying land and air ones if the meaning is that every unit in the battle can be targeted) and two instances in which the targets are land-only units (thus excluding air units). I’m as sure as I can be that the occurrences at page 27 and 28 are incorrect, in that they are either missing to say “land and air units” instead of “land units” or just simply saying “units” instead of “land units”, but may a LHTR 2.1 (or whatever) rulebook be released fixing these oversights (and I guess it can realistically only be released on the Harris’ forum if anywhere)? -
@cernel said in Is Larry Harris' website down again?:
So, has the site been deliberately nuked?
Yes. It’s unfortunately not coming back.
If I want to read the latest errata and clarifications of Axis&Allies Revised (or such), where should I go if anywhere @Krieghund?
I believe the FAQs for the OOP games are all posted on this site under their respective games.
How about the “Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition Rules Changes” paper posted by you on the Harris’ forum? Have such things been reposted elsewhere?
That is posted in the Files section of that game’s entry on BGG.
-
@cernel said in Is Larry Harris' website down again?:
@panther So this came to my mind because I wanted to ask if it is correct that in Revised OOB naval bombardment cannot target air units, whereas in Revised LHTR it can.
Yes, that’s correct.
I’m as sure as I can be that all I just said is correct, but I don’t see this distinction being made in the “Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition Rules Changes” paper posted by @Krieghund on the Harris’ forum, so I was wondering if this is something missing in the paper (and, if it is so, I would suggest @Krieghund to update the paper by adding this matter), but I cannot see any official place where I can reference to it any longer…
It’s on page 2, under “Amphibious Assaults”. This document can also be found on BGG.
I also wanted to point out that in the
https://www.axisandallies.org/wp-content/uploads/AAR_LHTR_v2.0.pdf
at page 12 it says “Each battleship fires once during this step against enemy land and air units in the territory being attacked.”, which is arguably vaguely confirmed at page 19, saying “Each battleship fires once during the opening fire step of the first round of combat against enemy units in the territory being attacked.”, yet at page 27 it says “Each battleship fires once during the opening fire step against enemy land units in the territory being attacked.”, which is reiterated at page 28, saying “Each destroyer fires once during the opening fire step (using its attack of 3) against enemy land units in the territory being attacked.”. So there is one instance in which it is said that the targets of naval bombardment are land and air units, another instance in which it is said that the targets are whatever units (which would be the same as saying land and air ones if the meaning is that every unit in the battle can be targeted) and two instances in which the targets are land-only units (thus excluding air units). I’m as sure as I can be that the occurrences at page 27 and 28 are incorrect, in that they are either missing to say “land and air units” instead of “land units” or just simply saying “units” instead of “land units”, but may a LHTR 2.1 (or whatever) rulebook be released fixing these oversights (and I guess it can realistically only be released on the Harris’ forum if anywhere)?Yes, the references on pages 27 and 28 are errors. I’m not sure a new release is practical, as it’s been a great many years and I’m not sure anyone has the original document anymore.
-
@krieghund Honestly, this doesn’t come as a surprise. I guess the whole thing wasn’t considered valuable enough to pay somebody to archive it into a series of static pages.
So, not my business, but curiosity makes me wonder if there is now an other forum, or similar place, where Larry Harris is communicating, like talking about War Room or whatever, or he’s just back to the good old pre-internet times, sharing opinions only with friends and acquaintances.
-
@cernel If he’s going to talk anywhere, it’ll be at the Nightingale Games Forums.
-
@krieghund said in Is Larry Harris' website down again?:
I’m as sure as I can be that all I just said is correct, but I don’t see this distinction being made in the “Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition Rules Changes” paper posted by @Krieghund on the Harris’ forum, so I was wondering if this is something missing in the paper (and, if it is so, I would suggest @Krieghund to update the paper by adding this matter), but I cannot see any official place where I can reference to it any longer…
It’s on page 2, under “Amphibious Assaults”. This document can also be found on BGG.
So, I had to register to that forum in order to be able to visualize the document…
In this document I see no mention at all of what naval bombardment can or cannot target, which means I see nothing telling that, starting from “LHTR”, naval bombardment receives the ability to hit air units too.
Also, per the headers, I think it is confusing to call Revised OOB as just “Revised” and Revised LHTR as just “LHTR”. That seems (wrongly) affirming that only Revised OOB is the actual Revised, whereas LHTR is not Revised.
-
@cernel That actually appears to be an order version of the document. I will update it. As for the headers, I don’t think they’re confusing to anyone familiar with the subject matter.
-
@krieghund Ok: I see it now. Thanks for the new version. However, I would write the release date (if not a proper versioning) within the document itself, so you can reference whether or not you are actually looking at the correct one after you download it, also since I assume the site-given date of September 28 of 2021 is not the correct one, as I understand this version was not made after my recent querying but released a long time ago (and just never added to BGG). I’m not sure if it is opportune to leave the old version available at all (and I guess it is there only because BGG doesn’t allow you to take it out?).
Side note (which I’m fairly sure you know), the phrase “may not” in English is a bit risky to use because it may be easily misunderstood. For example, some may understand “air units may not be hit by bombardment” as meaning that “it can happen that air units are not hit by bombardment” (without completely excluding the possibility that they may be hit). However, I agree that the correct meaning of “air units may not be hit by bombardment” is either “it is not possible for air units to be hit by bombardment” or “it is not permitted to hit air units by bombardment” (both correct).
-
Actually, I made some research in internet dictionaries, and now my understanding is that, if “may” is used for permission, “may not” means that you are not permitted, yet, if “may” is used to refer to possibility, “may not” means that there is the possibility of something not happening (so, contrary to what I assumed, it doesn’t actually mean that there is not the possibility of something happening).
If my understanding is now correct, then the following sentence
“air units may not be hit by bombardment”
may mean either that
“it is not permitted to hit air units by bombardment”
or that
“it is possible that air units are not hit by bombardment”.
Clearly, saying that “it is possible that air units are not hit by bombardment” is substantially a meaningless statement because that can simply happen under every rules-set in which air units are not the only possible targets of bombardment, and this is actually true for each of the rules-sets.
So I understand that the sentence in question can be correctly read in a way giving useless information unless one can assume that every instance of “may” in the document expresses permission (not possibility), thus making its meaning both unambiguous and correct. Especially since I’m not a native English speaker, I’m far from sure.
I mostly made this reply just to correct what I said in my previous post, but I wonder what others think. -
There were photographs of the original 1942 prototype Larry Harris made of Axis & Allies in the 1970’s on there. Does anyone have those preserved, or can convince Larry Harris to take more photographs if he still has it?
-
@playing-kid said in Is Larry Harris' website down again?:
There were photographs of the original 1942 prototype Larry Harris made of Axis & Allies in the 1970’s on there. Does anyone have those preserved
Exklusive Bilder aus dem “private War Room” und von der Ursprungsversion von Axis and Allies
-
@cernel best interview ever
Suggested Topics
