Thx everyone, I think now we can spice up our games
LHTR rules amendment…
-
After a year plus of play, there has been a flaw exposed in the LHTR rule set that requires an amendment to the LHTR rules.
The problem exists in the rules for retreat of sea units when submarines are involved.
-
It is not clear whether attacking subs can retreat to another sea zone or if they can only retreat by submerging.
-
There is no clear order of retreat for sea battles (who gets to retreat first - attacking units or defending subs??)
The amendment currently under consideration will clarify both issues.
Attacking subs may do EITHER: submerge or retreat to a different sea zone from which at least one attacking sea unit came.
The order of retreat would be as follows (note that each step could only occur if there are still opposing units remaining on the battle board)
- Attacking subs may submerge
- Defending subs may submerge
- All attacking sea units including any attacking submarines may retreat to a sea zone from which at least one sea unit came. Attacking subs MAY NOT submerge if this option is used.
As an example of why a rule like this is needed consider the following combat declaration:
6 trns (with 12 units aboard) + ftr attack a seazone with 1 sub, followed by
12 units from seazone amphibiously assault a land territory which has 8 defenders.
In the first two rounds of rolls the ftr misses twice and the sub hits twice. The attacker wants to retreat from the sea battle, aborting the amphib. The defender wants to submerge the sub, forcing the amphibious assault to proceed. (Note than when a submarine submerges, it is removed from the battle board and placed on its side on the map board. If it submerges BEFORE the transports can retreat, then the transports have nothing to retreat from and the amphibious assault must go forward).
Your input and comments would be appreciated.
If you want to see a more extensive discussion of this issue, please feel free to visit:
http://www.dicey.net/nuke/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=2693
Thanks,
BW -
-
- It is not clear whether attacking subs can retreat to another sea zone or if they can only retreat by submerging.
I don’t see why your issue number 1 is a point of confusion. A sub is a naval unit like any other. It can retreat to another sea zone like any other naval unit.
The attacker (never the defender) can retreat
during this step. Move all attacking land and
sea units in that combat to a single adjacent
friendly space from which at least one of the
attacking units (excluding air units) entered.
All such units must retreat together to the
same territory, regardless of where they came
from. The attacker may retreat only if enemy
units remain on the battle board.The amendment currently under consideration will clarify both issues.
Attacking subs may do EITHER: submerge or retreat to a different sea zone from which at least one attacking sea unit came.
This is already the case. You could never both submerge and retreat. Can you please explain why you think LHTR ever makes the allusion to you only being able to retreat by submerging with subs? Subs simply have 2 ways of retreating (submerging, normal retreat). You choose one way to do it.
Edit: I read the wording again and I guess it is indeed a little bit unclear since it says subs can retreat by submerging; it is unclear whether this means that is the only way for the sub to retreat. I’m sure we can imply that subs can retreat like other naval units to another sea zone, but it is slightly unclear so I after all agree with this slight wording change.
I disagree with the way you fix #2 though. I think it should go:
1. Attacker declares a retreat if he wants.
2. The attacker can submerge a sub instead of retreating it to another seazone.
3. The defender can submerge a sub, which only happens if the attacker hasn’t already retreated and if the attacking force hasn’t all submerged.The way you propose to fix it forces the amphibious assault to continue. I don’t think it’s the intention of the game to make it so you’re forced to attack with inferior forces because of a clever interpretation of the rules. I think the attacker should have the choice to retreat immediately after all the firing has been done in one round. To me it makes more sense that, after losing a couple of trans, the attacker would be able to call of the amphib assault.
I admit it’s a very clever way to force the assault to continue, but just because it’s clever doesn’t mean it should be allowed.
-
I admit it’s a very clever way to force the assault to continue, but just because it’s clever doesn’t mean it should be allowed.
The original scenario that brought the issue forward was equally clever (but needed the assumption that the attacking units could retreat first.)
UK had 6 transports, plus other units in the Baltic. They also had some ground units in Finland.
Germany took Karelia in force, threatening the ground troops in Finland. Germany built a sub in the Baltic, meaning that the transports could not noncom the Finland units out of harm’s way.
The UK player came up with the strategy to leave the baltic with 6 transports, use 5 of them to pick up 10 units from Finland and return to the Baltic to fight with 6 transports v 1 sub, declaring a followon assault into EEu. The intent was to have one round of rolls (the transports could not sink the sub), then retreat the loaded transports into the North Sea Zone. It could only retreat the transports if the defending sub was still in play.
While the order of attacking sub, defending sub, all attacking units may seem a bit arbitrary, it does parallel the order of battle, and we thought it would be easier to remember. Attacking and defending subs each get an opening round shot, before all other units fire, with the attacking sub actually rolling first.
BW
-
Well, I sort of look at it this way -
The sub’s way of retreating is submerging, right?
The order of play is always attackers, then defenders.
Therefore, attackers get to retreat first (by either moving to a seazone or submerging).
Then the defenders get to retreat (by submerging).
I don’t tend to look at submerging as a separate step from retreating. I would say you do all your retreating/submerging at one time. And given that, then it is easy to see that the attackers get to opt out first.
And that’s just freaking clever using retreats like that. I would never have thought of it in a million years! Have you talked to Larry about it?
-
Well, I sort of look at it this way -
The sub’s way of retreating is submerging, right?
The order of play is always attackers, then defenders.
Therefore, attackers get to retreat first (by either moving to a seazone or submerging).
Then the defenders get to retreat (by submerging).
I don’t tend to look at submerging as a separate step from retreating. I would say you do all your retreating/submerging at one time. And given that, then it is easy to see that the attackers get to opt out first.
And that’s just freaking clever using retreats like that. I would never have thought of it in a million years! Have you talked to Larry about it?
Well - part of the issue is that it is not clear that a sub ONLY retreats by submerging. I think it will shake out that an attacking sub can also retreat on the surface with all other attacking sea units.
Larry has chimed in on the discussion on his own web site:
http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=8
Feel free to join in there - it’s getting too hard to keep up in multiple forums.
And I agree - it was a very clever ploy - always good to see new tricks!
BW
-
Several advancements and revisions have occurred and the LHTR rules v 1.3 is about ready to be adopted in final form.
There are changes to six sections. Please see:
http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=9306#9306
Let us know soonest if there are issues, otherwise we’ll be good to go.
BW
Suggested Topics
