You must physically control each territory to earn that territory’s income.

BW

@ncscswitch:

Thanks Black Watch :-)

The short version is that there is in fact NO single, 100% universal set of rules that everyone agrees on as being official :-D

Agreed. However it might be useful for anyone wanting to play competitively in the online clubs or at ftf tourneys to print and learn the LHTR rules - it’s what you’ll be playing with there, and you don’t really want to learn them in your first experience in the clubs.

Also - the same notion of non-universality of rules can be seen in other situations, but you better be sure you learn the local rules before entering the game. To use traffic rules for example:

1. In Quebec (at least the last time I drove there), there is no right turn on a red light allowed. If you do it and are caught, it’s the same fine as if you ran straight through.
2. In Ontario, those fancy dressed up pedestrian crosswalks absolutely require any driver to yield the right of way to pedestrians - it’s not optional.

BW

@ncscswitch:

Well, the ruling from the folks who actually authored the written LHTR (the 3 existing versions) are of a mind that the UK ships absorbing hits was NEVER legal under the rules (this is at odds with Larry’s own posts on the subject previously).

However, Larry has apparently withdrawn his objection and the CLARIFICATION that will include a blackletter exclusion of what they felt was already in the rules will be posted shortly.

I have no idea what the distribution is for LHRT revisions, or even what makes them "official"  Afterall, LHRT are TECHNICALLY just house rules that a lot of folks use.  And since there are currently 3 versions (LHRT, LHRT1.1, LHRT 1.2) and about to be a 4th (LHRT 1.3) plus the original rule manual AND the original manual with errata revisions both from Avalon…

So you tell me, with 5 “official” rule sets in existence, what does it take to make the next set “official”?

LHTR v 1.2 is the current “official” rule set in use by the major on-line clubs and by the moderators/gamemasters of the major face to face tournaments. If and when the update under discussion is put into effect, it will likely be issued as LHT 1.3. It will be available on-line as a web document at http://dicey.net/revised/index.php . A link will also be provided there for a pdf version (English first, with German following in a month or so, if history repeats itself.). The German online club DAAK, maintains the site where the pdf versions are kept. AAMC maintains the site where the web version is kept.

What makes them official is the recognition by the clubs’ leadership that they are the rules in effect for club play. If your local club has printed variation rule sets, then those are the official rules for your local group. Their “officialness” is only a question of degree of universal acceptance. I would be delighted to have AH/WOC lift the LHTR rule set in its entirety and post in on its website, but frankly Scarlett, I don’t think they give a damn. They’re making money with no effort and do not seem to be concerned that they have a defective product on the market.

BW

@critmonster:

usa hits german subs with only air and uk boats are there, germany gets to pound those ships?

Nope. If US is attacking it is USA v Germany and UK is totally out of play.

I waded through much of the AA Pacific rules where this issue is treated differently (the UK ships WOULD be in play). As an interesting side note, the example given involved the UK having a destroyer in the Japan Seazone. Japan then built a sub, which the US air then elected to attack. In AAP a friendly destroyer MUST be present for any air unit to attack a sub. The UK destroyer is considered to be “present” in order to allow the US air units to even try to hit the sub. Since it has an actual value to the US, there is at least some logic to making it an eligible return fire target for the defending submarines. (None of this is applicable to Axis and Allies Revised - LHTR rules).

BW

@ncscswitch:

But BlackWatch…

That goes counter to Larry’s posts discussing this very topic… game mechanics should not override the rules.

The Battle Board is a playing aid

The reality is that all of the units are IN that sea zone, and in no version of A&A are you EVER allowed to target a single nation’s forces when there is more than one nation’s forces in that area.  And Germany (using the previous example) IS targetting just the US ships and ignoring the UK ships that are in the same zone when he fires.

Extrapolating…
USA trannies an AA gun from the US to somewhere in central Europe (perhaps Eastern)
Germany flies over Eastern to get to Belorussia to attack.
The US is NOT a participant in the attack in any way, shape, or form.
Does the AA gun fire?  It is not being attacked, and the battle is between the Russian forces in Belorussia and the German AF.  By your reasoning, it would not, since the United States is not being attacked, and it is not their turn.

But that is NOT how it works.  Even though the US is not being attacked, their gun gets to fire… because it is THERE.

And that is the point of the UK ships in the above example… they ARE there.

By the rules, they can;t shoot (just like the German planes can;t fire into Eastern on their way to Belorussia), but they ARE there, to DO exist, and as such should be subject to being hit and, according to undispited black letter rules, the 2 players controlling the multination force CHOOSE their loses.

OK, that is the last I have to say on this subject.  The rules for the Tourney are set.

We’ll let the Game Designers determine what clarifications to make to the rules (because one way or another, this potentially FREQUENT situation needs to be dealt with (it happened 2 times in the game I am currently playing)

Let’s first discuss the issue of intent.

The authors of the game (Larry and Mike Selinker) had several objectives and intents in mind when they created Axis and Allies and developed a rule set to express those intents. Once they published the game, those intents were then cast in stone. Someone who has a copy of the game in the middle of the Sahara doesn’t have the luxury of being able to get on line and ask what Larry meant by something - he has to go with what is in print in front of him.

When AAR was initially published there were many ambiguities created by rule writing that tried to reflect the intent of the authors, most often because what they intended for one part of the game conflicted with an intent they had for another part of it. Larry and Mike both worked with a committee of players to re-write the rules so that they were internally consistent, while preserving as much of the intent of the authors as possible. We would often whittle an issue down to two or three possibilities then ask Larry or Mike for a final ruling, “Which way do you want this to work, A or B?” They would decide, and the wording could then be nailed to the door as gospel. BOTH Larry and Mike acknowledged that post publication interpretations of “intent” was not satisfactory - the intent had to be translated into hard and fast rule, and that ultimately the written rule is what needed to be observed, not intent.

Second. “Intent” is a moving target, based on a number of human factors. Written rules are fixed. That’s why they are written down, since the authors acknowledge the necessity for a common base of understanding for how to play the game.

So - can we please move any debate away from “intnent” and focus on what is actually written? The rules “rule” (that’s why they’re called rules).

Now let’s deal with one other issue.

“The Battle Board is a playing aid”

Sorry. That is not so. It is an integral part of the game, and pieces are required to be placed on it when conducting combat (please check your own rule book, and you will see this is so). Most players can ignore this requirement as a matter of convenience when playing, but that is what they are doing - ignoring a game rule to speed up play. The rules specifically require that all attacking and defending units must be placed on the battle board in their designated locations.

The battle board is set up with a casualty line on the defender side which is where pieces are placed by the defender after they are hit, but before they had a chance to have their last roll. I don’t have either battle board with me right now, but the second edition rule book at least specifically states that attacking transports get placed on the battle board “below the line” on the Attacker’s side of the board (see page 19 of the Basic Rules). This allows them to participate in the battle even though they don’t get to roll (remember that attacker’s losses are removed as soon as the defender has rolled all the dice for each of the defender’s columns).

This language has not been repeated in the LHTR rules set. It may well need to be added as a clarification on this point (unless the battle board itself designates a spot for attacking transports - I don’t have a copy with me at the moment).

Edit: Yoper has informed me that the Battle Board that comes with Axis and Allies Revised has a spot for attacking transports with a “0” hit value.

BW

The other issue to keep in mind is the prescribed method of conducting combat when playing AAR using LHTR rules.

In order to conduct combat (i.e. resolve a battle using dice), you are required to place all the pieces that are involved in the battle on the separate battle board. Most players don’t do this in practice, unless there’s a really big battle going on. Nevertheless the rules must still be observed as if this were happening in all cases.

In order to put the pieces on the battle board, they go into the column that shows their respective outline, and which specifies a “hit value” for each such silhouette. So, for example, subs go into the column with a “2” hit value.

Most of the individuals active in the debate on Larry’s board will concede that if the US attacks an Axis fleet in a seazone that also has a UK sub present, the UK sub does not get to roll. Where the proponents of allowing the UK sub do not seem to grasp is that there is no place on the battle board for casual non-participants. The UK sub does not belong in the 2’s column, nor does it belong anywhere else on the battle board. Ergo, it’s not in the battle - period.

Axis and Allies Pacific (which has a one line reference allowing the use of ally’s ships as losses) probably needs a thorough rules review. As I see it, even if the AAP wording about allied ships were in LHTR, it would need a lot more clarification.

@ncscswitch:

I do not know where this “per bomber” thing is coming from…

…

It’s coming from the official Avalon Hill website FAQ’s for Axis and Allies Revised. The original rule is broken. The fix is broken. They have been so for years now.

AH will not fix their broken rule set. Bleachh…

BW

@Craig:

Thanks BW.

I was looking in other places in the LHTR that had references to AA Guns.  I did not look at that paragraph.

This is a problem at times like this.Â

There are four different places where AA Guns are talked about.Â

1. Phase 3: Combat Move, Special Combat Moves, Air Units, Antiaircraft Guns, pg. 7

2. Phase 4: Conduct Combat, Combat Sequence, Step 2: Conduct Opening Fire, Antiaircraft Guns, pg. 8

3. Phase 4: Conduct Combat, Special Combats, Strategic Bombing Raids, pg. 13

4. Appendix I: Unit Profiles, Antiaircraft Guns, Special Abilities, Shoot Down Air Units, pg. 17

The first and last one are similar in what they say concerning AA Guns.  The third is just a quick reference about the firing of AA Guns against bombers during SBRs.Â

The second is the only one that includes the statement that makes the extra clarification about how to specifically roll.  It talks about the separate roll for fighters and for bombers.

Craig

In reading the LHTR rules, anyone would be best advised to consider exactly what information they want. In particular - where in the course of a turn does the situation occur that gives rise to the question, then look in the associated action section for the answer first.

If you want to know what a piece can do during combat movement, check the combat movement section first.

In the case given here, “Do you roll all air units at once, and pick and choose amongst bombers and ftrs for AA losses, or do you roll one die for each individual piece?”, go to the section “Conduct Combat”.

The unit profile section does contain valuable, accurate (as far as it goes), but not necessarily 100% complete information about what each piece can do in every situation.

The LHTR rule were written so that you could have the page open for the stage of play you are at in every part of a turn to see what you need to do at that point, and then do it with confidence that you don’t need to be checking other parts of the manual for exceptions or variances.

BW

From the LHTR Rules (Opening Fire sequence):

Antiaircraft Guns
If the defender has an antiaircraft gun present and the attacker has air units in the attack, then the antiaircraft gun fires during this step. The defender rolls one die (only one antiaircraft gun fires) for each attacking air unit. You roll all anti-fighter dice at once, then all anti-bomber dice. For each type, the air unit owner allocates hits amongst the air units that are being shot at. For every roll of 1, one attacking air unit is destroyed; its controller moves it into the casualty zone of the battle board. If there are not aircraft present, ignore this step.

I’m not seeing what the issue is with LHTR. If you have 3 ftrs and 4 bombers attacking an AA gun location, roll 3 dice for the ftrs and pick which ftr you lose if any 1’s are rolled. Then roll 4 dice for the bombers and do the same.

What am I missing???

BW

Hmmm…

I’m just glad to see that all the kids in Lake Wobegon, Minnesota truly are “above average” as Garrison Keillor proclaims… :)

BW