LHTR: Larry Harris Tournament Rules

[Romulus]

I agree.
No one may say that SBR is not an option.

However you must have the willingness to risk. I usually prefer not to take this risk. But this not means that SBR is not worthy to be used.

[Jennifer]

If you hate SBR, use the Low Luck version where you can do 3 damage to the attacker but take 4 damage in return for every SBR. (Best you can hope for is to break even at 3 and 3.  Worst is 2 damage to enemy, 3 damage to self.)

LL SBR is most broken thing in the game.  Should be reversed.  You can do 1 IPC more dmg then you take.  IMHO.

Other then that, SBR becomes an attack of convenience.  If it’s convenient for me to buy a new bomber, I attack.

[Lucifer]

Low luck does not apply to SBR. At least not in the tripleA version of low luck.

[Jennifer]

Low Luck Rules for SBR:

Bomber does 2 damage on a roll of 1, 2, 3 and 3 damage on a roll of 4, 5, 6
Bomber takes 3 damage on a roll of 1, 2, 3 and 4 damage on a roll of 4, 5, 6

That’s the way FoE and DAAK (and probably AAMC) diceys run it.

[Lucifer]

I never used those rules, atm I play only the triplea version of A&A.

Me and my friends used low luck when playing the classic boardgame.
Had to use calculator manually to figure out the hits.
I favoured attacking with 2 tanks and defending with 3 inf, that was the simple way of playing A&A  :-P

[Romulus]

Only two tanks attacking?!?!?!
But if your friend defends with three inf you are almost doomed!
:roll:

[General_D.Fox]

Can someone just explain what the difference is between the 1.3 Stukas and the 2.0 Stukas? Was there any change at all? If so, what kind?

[Ranor]

They are pretty much the same with one great diffrence in LHTR 2.0 the rule applies only to land-based attacks.

“…the fighters hit on a roll of 5 or less in land battles only.”

[Guest]

Correct.  In 2.0 Stukas are no longer the scourge of the seas…

[a44bigdog]

Could some one point out to me where in LHTR 2.0 it states that existing fighters at an IC territory can be placed on a new carrier?

[Guest]

@a44bigdog:

Could some one point out to me where in LHTR 2.0 it states that existing fighters at an IC territory can be placed on a new carrier?

Look Under Phase 5:  NONCOMBAT MOVE.  Specifically under “Where Units Can Move” and “Air Units”

There is a rule that reads as follows:
“Exception to normal fighter landing space rules:  Your Fighter may also end its move in a sea zone adjacent to an industrial complex you own if you have purchased an aircraft carrier that turn and will subsequently place that carrier in the sea zone where your fighter ends its turn.”

The above quote is from LHTR 1.3 page 11 of 21 on the print-out.  I expect in 2.0 you will find that exception printed in the same location.

[a44bigdog]

I have already read that switch, which states that existing fighters can end their move on the seazone where a new carrier will be placed. I could find no reference to where existing fighters in the same territory as the IC can be placed on newly built carriers.

[Guest]

@a44bigdog:

I have already read that switch, which states that existing fighters can end their move on the seazone where a new carrier will be placed. I could find no reference to where existing fighters in the same territory as the IC can be placed on newly built carriers.

That is in the OOB rules.  It was changed in LHTR.

[tekkyy]

you should be able to right?

switch’s quote lets you move fighters to a sea zone adjacent to an industrial complex you own and that you are going to place a new carrier there

so for a44bigdog’s “existing fighters in the same territory as the IC” (or anywhere for that matter) can just move to the LHTR’s “sea zone adjacent to an industrial complex you own” ?

[Jennifer]

@tekkyy:

you should be able to right?

switch’s quote lets you move fighters to a sea zone adjacent to an industrial complex you own and that you are going to place a new carrier there

so for a44bigdog’s “existing fighters in the same territory as the IC” (or anywhere for that matter) can just move to the LHTR’s “sea zone adjacent to an industrial complex you own” ?

Assuming they have enough movement points to get to the sea zone, then yes.

[axis_roll]

It must be a non-contested sea zone (i.e. no enemy ships except for submerged subs) since you can not end your non-combat move anywhere that would result in combat.

[Jennifer]

Yea, I don’t like the idea of letting the enemy build in contested sea zones either for that matter.  If you cannot land your planes there, then you shouldnt be able to build your carriers there either.

[tekkyy]

@Cmdr:

Yea, I don’t like the idea of letting the enemy build in contested sea zones either for that matter.  If you cannot land your planes there, then you shouldnt be able to build your carriers there either.

yeah thats a funny situation in terms of logics

and then theres the two opposing ICs building into the same sea zone
“first come last served”

[Jennifer]

I believe the idea was that you declare that you are building in that round and to prevent units from being “lost” without entering combat they allowed you to build in contested sea zones.

Honestly, I don’t like it.  I understand it.  I just don’t like it.  Then again, since when do I get everything I like???  Not like you all have declared me Empress of the Universe for Life yet!

[Krieghund]

@Cmdr:

I believe the idea was that you declare that you are building in that round and to prevent units from being “lost” without entering combat they allowed you to build in contested sea zones.

Honestly, I don’t like it.  I understand it.  I just don’t like it.

The alternative is to allow subs to completely bottle up naval production at an IC for as long as they can manage to avoid air strikes and submerge.  Not very appealing.

@Cmdr:

Not like you all have declared me Empress of the Universe for Life yet!

I didn’t even know you were running for the office!