LHTR: Larry Harris Tournament Rules

@ncscswitch:

Saying that it is not Avalon Hill sanctioned or Hasbro Sanctioned is not valid is like telling me that my 1st Edition AD&D books are all invalid and trash because they have E. Gary Gygax’s name and the TSR logo on them instead of Wizards of the Coast.

I see.

If I had known that I didn’t have the right to post my opinion, I wouldn’t have bothered.

I read this post and people have posted 2 or 3 differences in the tournament rules and the rules that came with the game.  Any more that I should be aware of?  If I play recreation with my friends FTF is there going to be huge differences than if I just taught them the tournament rules without them really knowing?

Germany taking over UK on G1… now thats scary!!

SBR is another that always comes to mind.  Under the original rules you could bring 20 bombers & bomb germany back to the stone age.  Under the new rules total losses per turn can’t exceed the territories value.  Most of the other changes are clarifications.

Does that revised Luftwaffe Dive Bombers rule include attacks on sea zones?

God help a lone transport, or even a small fleet with no AC, if that be the case.

A quick question here regarding whether a move is legal or not.

In a PBF game here I attacked West Russia and seized the territory purely with infantry, I won the combat and occupied Wes Russia. In my next combat move I then proceeded to blitz with tanks through West Russia and seized Moscow.

The other player tells me that this is an illegal move, but the rules says I can blitz through territories that I control, and/or through territories that are enemy controlled but un-occupied (the ones that came with the 2004 edition, I bought it about a week ago).

Was this a legal move?

To the best of my knowledge, this wasn’t an illegal move, since I was blitzing through a territory I had just seized.

@Yahoshua:

In a PBF game here I attacked West Russia and seized the territory purely with infantry, I won the combat and occupied Wes Russia. In my next combat move I then proceeded to blitz with tanks through West Russia and seized Moscow.

The other player tells me that this is an illegal move, but the rules says I can blitz through territories that I control, and/or through territories that are enemy controlled but un-occupied (the ones that came with the 2004 edition, I bought it about a week ago).

Was this a legal move?

To the best of my knowledge, this wasn’t an illegal move, since I was blitzing through a territory I had just seized.

It was an illegal move.  All combat moves happen at once, so your tanks are not allowed to blitz through a territory just siezed.  They would be part of the initial attacking force and stop in West Russia for combat phase.

oops

Hi All,

First post to your board but I have been playing wargames since 1976.  Life got in the way of playing for the past decade or so but I’m starting to get some more time to play again and AAR is what I found under the Christmas Tree.Â

Quick question on the LHTR rules.  The first link from “switch” is broken but the second link from “Craig” works.  Are the rules at the second link the “Official” rules?

I read the little back and forth in this thread but I am trying to find a good set of rules to use for an upcoming day of gaming at the house with some friends and I really don’t want to deal with the rules that include  “SBR’s do the roll of the die or the IPC value of the territory, whichever is GREATER” [emphasis added].  Given my tendency to end up on the winning side and for having the rules committed to memory, I don’t want to have to deal with that whole “what the rules really mean” situation.  It is much better if the rules actually state what I claim they say when my secret surpise attack appears out of nowhere.

Is there a good link for the errata and is there a good reason for preferring LHTR over just out of the box and errata?

Thanks for the information that is already postered here.  I have learned a lot in the last few hours and look forward to hearing more from you all.

@Baghdaddy:

… is there a good reason for preferring LHTR over just out of the box and errata?

There are a still few of us who prefer OOB rules and balancing factors to house rules (LHTR).I have found that the NAs add alot of flavor to the games.In our groups experience giving the axis 10 to 12 advantages (chosen by the allies) and the allies 6 to 8 advantages (chosen by the axis) usually evens the game up pretty nicely .

Yes, we get it, some of you like OOB rules.  I do at times too, but I’ve become accustomed to LHTR (Larry Harris) because that’s Standard Operating Proceedure for PBEM/PBF/Online play.

@eggsaladsandwich:

@Baghdaddy:

… is there a good reason for preferring LHTR over just out of the box and errata?

There are a still few of us who prefer OOB rules and balancing factors to house rules (LHTR).I have found that the NAs add alot of flavor to the games.In our groups experience giving the axis 10 to 12 advantages (chosen by the allies) and the allies 6 to 8 advantages (chosen by the axis) usually evens the game up pretty nicely .

Thanks for the viewpoint.  How do you handle the “glitches” that allow for Strategic Bombing of a US IC in China to eliminate all US production?  Is there some “approved” revision to OOB that takes care of the “whichever is greater” statement for IC loss on Rocket Attacks?  Both of these rules in the OOB set can really cause some problems in an otherwise friendly game.

How do you handle the “glitches” that allow for Strategic Bombing of a US IC in China to eliminate all US production?  Is there some “approved” revision to OOB that takes care of the “whichever is greater” statement for IC loss on Rocket Attacks?Â

AH has FAQs and Errata on their website that states the book is wrong and that sbr damage is limited to terrain value per bomber and an ic can only be attacked by 1 rocket per turn (so thats limited).True if someone attacks a US ic in china with 15 bombers they may be able to get 30 ipcs out of it but if someone (Japan) has more than 1 or 2 bombers then the allies dont deserve to win anyway :?.Just look at your particular example of the ic in china and think of the damage as representing the massive amounts of cash it will take the us to rebuild and maintain a factory system(IC) half a world away and all but surrounded by the enemy.

As for the other so called glitch that brought about LHTR rules, “Operation Sealion” was a historical possibility that could very well have been successful during ww2, so i say if Germany wants to attempt this on G1 then “Bring it on”.If i’m playing Allies and Sealion fails then i will annihilate Germany with “wrath of god” style and a smile on my face.If it succeeds (which i’ve never seen in any of the many,mnay games i’ve played) then i will take it as a challenge to get back on top of the axis powers.If i’m playing Germany, although i doubt i’d ever attempt the operation, it’s nice to know that it will be in the back of the allies mind as a potential distraction.This game should be all about possibilities, lets not limit them because we are worried about having the war end to soon, just restart and play again.

I must have missed the FAQs and Errata on AH’s website.  Anyone got a link?

@Baghdaddy:

I must have missed the FAQs and Errata on AH’s website.  Anyone got a link?

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/faqs/axisrevised

Thanks.  I’ll add this to the collection of options we can play with.