New Rules I Made

Welcome, coolhandluke!

To further clarify, Germany may move out of the sea zone in combat movement even if its ships end up in a friendly sea zone.  Moving to avoid combat in this situation is considered a valid combat move.

welcome to the forums!

@mallimoosh:

1. Can you fly air units over enemy sea and land territories without AA during noncombat?

yes.  you can always fly air over whatever you want so long as the air units can land.  you could also fly air units over AA during noncombat too, but the AA gets to shoot at you depending on which version of the rules you are playing.

@mallimoosh:

2. If an attacker fails to take an occupied enemy territory and the attack is over, can he then go back into that same territory with other units during the same combat move?

no.  all combat moves are considered to take place at the same time, and, one you’ve started rolling, you can’t go back and make another combat move.

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!

Got ya Krieghund, thanks.

@tekkyy:

I see people who wants to be frank, talk straight, or sharp tend to receive lots of negatives.

I must be those things personified then!  LOL

<–----  look at all the negatives!

It’s kind of hard to search for an  obscure rule clarification…

And the threads could still contain multiple people’s opinions, with a consensus emerging as the discussion evolves.

Yes, the 3rd fighter which he forgot to mention where it came from, came from Africa (Libya I beleive now). my plan was to land that one in Western Europe.

all the fighters had a place to move. so it was no problem.

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.