Rules clarifications re: Shore Combardment and AA guns

@bb82:

I think it’s:
1)Yes
2)No
3)No
4)Yes

You’re right, whether using the box rules or LHTR.  Taking a power’s IPCs by taking their capital is not income, so you can collect it even if your capital is held by the enemy.

haha, just bought Anniversary. get this, im taking the pieces out of the cases and getting things in their trays ready for gameday this weekend and I turn around and my dog is chomping on the edge of the cover box!!! 100 bucks and the corner of one box is ripped off. what a bummer. (though at least she wasnt munching on the board!)

anywho, im going to get revised this weekend as well. found a cool shop that has all the versions and im going to pick one up each week until I have the complete set!

Thankyou team. Most helpful.

Trusty

There are numerous errors in the rule book that comes with the game.  You may want to check out Larry Harris Tournament Rules (which are available from a link on the main page of this website).

The only “opening fire” that repeats after the first round of combat is Submarine Sneak Attack.

BB Shore Bombardment and AA fire are limited to only opening fire of the first round of combat.

visit house rules section and find our team… we are remaping the DNA of axis and allies

Both land and naval units that engage in combat remain in the area of combat and cannot be moved in the non-combat phase.  Retreated units have to stay in the territory/sea zone they were retreated to.  The only units that can move after Combat (and in fact HAVE to move in almost all cases) are aircraft.

If you need a basis in reality for this rule, consider those forces to be being re-supplied, repared, reinforced, replacing casualties, etc. as well as securing the area, reparing damaged infrastructure (bridges, airfields, etc) during the non-combat phase.  For retreated units, consider them to be regrouping, replacing lost equipment, etc.

Heh I really can’t understand why both you and donmoody keep using the word “arbitrary” like it has any meaning. Arbitrary means without reason, and I’m sure that the designer had some sort of reason to change the rules. Larry doesn’t like changing them very much, and for him to have done so in the first place means that he was receiving some sort of complaint or player feedback, which is more than a valid reason to tweak the game to be more understandable/accessible. Doing something for a reason, even if some people consider it “dumbing it down”, is not arbitrary. You can use the words “superfluous” or “irrelevant” or “unnecessary”, etc, but using “arbitrary” is just a wrong use of the English language. You can say the change did not improve the game or is not needed, but to say that there is no reason behind the change (arbitrary) is entirely a subjective and uninformed view of the matter. I would really like to know why both of you like to incorrectly use this term, it really bothers me. I can respect that you think the change wasn’t needed or that you liked the previous ruling, but to say something else entirely different, that it had no reason behind it, just makes no sense to me.

I can just as easily say that I think it’s more intuitive for fighters to land in seazones for carriers than it is for them to land in territories with complexes. To me, hey that’s where the carrier is going to be, so why not just have the fighter there already so you don’t forget to redeploy onto it? Why move units during the mobilization phase? It could very well be that you’re smarter and both are equally intuitive to you, but again, this does not make the change arbitrary (only to you perhaps). I’m sure Larry changed it based on player feedback, and since it is a game after all that requires changes and tweaks, that is hardly a reason to call it arbitrary.

Actually, it gives 5 spaces of movement either way because suddenly you can ‘land’ in an illegal spot.  Your range has still been extended by one.

By the way, more flawed reasoning. Extending a fighter’s range by one by allowing it to land in an illegal spot does not increase its range to 5. Prior to “illegal” landing, you could theoretically only move 3 spaces, since the 4th would be illegal. Thus, with “illegal” landing, you have increased the range to the full 4, not 5. You can never make it look like a fighter is moving 5 spaces under LHTR, while you can do so under box rules (deploying on a territory with a complex). And the space is nt really seem illegal because a carrier is going to be there, which is consistent with the other rules about fighter/carrier landing.

no sir, it would only fire if the planes are attacking teh island. it does not protect taskeforces on the open sea =[