LHTR: Larry Harris Tournament Rules

[Jennifer]

If you hate SBR, use the Low Luck version where you can do 3 damage to the attacker but take 4 damage in return for every SBR. (Best you can hope for is to break even at 3 and 3.  Worst is 2 damage to enemy, 3 damage to self.)

LL SBR is most broken thing in the game.  Should be reversed.  You can do 1 IPC more dmg then you take.  IMHO.

Other then that, SBR becomes an attack of convenience.  If it’s convenient for me to buy a new bomber, I attack.

[Lucifer]

Low luck does not apply to SBR. At least not in the tripleA version of low luck.

[Jennifer]

Low Luck Rules for SBR:

Bomber does 2 damage on a roll of 1, 2, 3 and 3 damage on a roll of 4, 5, 6
Bomber takes 3 damage on a roll of 1, 2, 3 and 4 damage on a roll of 4, 5, 6

That’s the way FoE and DAAK (and probably AAMC) diceys run it.

[Lucifer]

I never used those rules, atm I play only the triplea version of A&A.

Me and my friends used low luck when playing the classic boardgame.
Had to use calculator manually to figure out the hits.
I favoured attacking with 2 tanks and defending with 3 inf, that was the simple way of playing A&A  :-P

[Romulus]

Only two tanks attacking?!?!?!
But if your friend defends with three inf you are almost doomed!
:roll:

[General_D.Fox]

Can someone just explain what the difference is between the 1.3 Stukas and the 2.0 Stukas? Was there any change at all? If so, what kind?

[Ranor]

They are pretty much the same with one great diffrence in LHTR 2.0 the rule applies only to land-based attacks.

“…the fighters hit on a roll of 5 or less in land battles only.”

[Guest]

Correct.  In 2.0 Stukas are no longer the scourge of the seas…

[a44bigdog]

Could some one point out to me where in LHTR 2.0 it states that existing fighters at an IC territory can be placed on a new carrier?

[Guest]

@a44bigdog:

Could some one point out to me where in LHTR 2.0 it states that existing fighters at an IC territory can be placed on a new carrier?

Look Under Phase 5:  NONCOMBAT MOVE.  Specifically under “Where Units Can Move” and “Air Units”

There is a rule that reads as follows:
“Exception to normal fighter landing space rules:  Your Fighter may also end its move in a sea zone adjacent to an industrial complex you own if you have purchased an aircraft carrier that turn and will subsequently place that carrier in the sea zone where your fighter ends its turn.”

The above quote is from LHTR 1.3 page 11 of 21 on the print-out.  I expect in 2.0 you will find that exception printed in the same location.

[a44bigdog]

I have already read that switch, which states that existing fighters can end their move on the seazone where a new carrier will be placed. I could find no reference to where existing fighters in the same territory as the IC can be placed on newly built carriers.

[Guest]

@a44bigdog:

I have already read that switch, which states that existing fighters can end their move on the seazone where a new carrier will be placed. I could find no reference to where existing fighters in the same territory as the IC can be placed on newly built carriers.

That is in the OOB rules.  It was changed in LHTR.

[tekkyy]

you should be able to right?

switch’s quote lets you move fighters to a sea zone adjacent to an industrial complex you own and that you are going to place a new carrier there

so for a44bigdog’s “existing fighters in the same territory as the IC” (or anywhere for that matter) can just move to the LHTR’s “sea zone adjacent to an industrial complex you own” ?

[Jennifer]

@tekkyy:

you should be able to right?

switch’s quote lets you move fighters to a sea zone adjacent to an industrial complex you own and that you are going to place a new carrier there

so for a44bigdog’s “existing fighters in the same territory as the IC” (or anywhere for that matter) can just move to the LHTR’s “sea zone adjacent to an industrial complex you own” ?

Assuming they have enough movement points to get to the sea zone, then yes.

[axis_roll]

It must be a non-contested sea zone (i.e. no enemy ships except for submerged subs) since you can not end your non-combat move anywhere that would result in combat.

[Jennifer]

Yea, I don’t like the idea of letting the enemy build in contested sea zones either for that matter.  If you cannot land your planes there, then you shouldnt be able to build your carriers there either.

[tekkyy]

@Cmdr:

Yea, I don’t like the idea of letting the enemy build in contested sea zones either for that matter.  If you cannot land your planes there, then you shouldnt be able to build your carriers there either.

yeah thats a funny situation in terms of logics

and then theres the two opposing ICs building into the same sea zone
“first come last served”

[Jennifer]

I believe the idea was that you declare that you are building in that round and to prevent units from being “lost” without entering combat they allowed you to build in contested sea zones.

Honestly, I don’t like it.  I understand it.  I just don’t like it.  Then again, since when do I get everything I like???  Not like you all have declared me Empress of the Universe for Life yet!

[Krieghund]

@Cmdr:

I believe the idea was that you declare that you are building in that round and to prevent units from being “lost” without entering combat they allowed you to build in contested sea zones.

Honestly, I don’t like it.  I understand it.  I just don’t like it.

The alternative is to allow subs to completely bottle up naval production at an IC for as long as they can manage to avoid air strikes and submerge.  Not very appealing.

@Cmdr:

Not like you all have declared me Empress of the Universe for Life yet!

I didn’t even know you were running for the office!

[Romulus]

Canal Question.

From LHTR 2.0 (page 6):

Canals

There are two canals on the game board, artificial waterways that connect two larger bodies of
water. The Panama Canal connects the Pacific Ocean (sea zone 20) to the Atlantic Ocean (sea
zone 19), while the Suez Canal connects the Mediterranean Sea (sea zone 15) to the Indian Ocean
(sea zone 34). A canal is not considered a space, so it doesn’t block land movement: Land units
can move freely between Trans-Jordan and Anglo-Egypt. Panama is one territory: no land
movement points are required to cross the canal within Panama.

If you want to move sea units through a canal, your side (but not necessarily your power) must
control it at the start of your turn (that is, you can’t use it the turn you capture it). The side that
controls Panama controls the Panama Canal. The side that controls both Anglo-Egypt and Trans-
Jordan controls the Suez Canal. If one side controls Anglo-Egypt and the other controls Trans-
Jordan, the Suez is closed to sea units.

What about air units? Tey are not directly addressed in the rule.
If a fighter is in sea zone 15 (Mediterranean) and wants to go in sea zone 34 (Indian Ocean) is it allowed to use the canal passing directly from sea zone 15 to sea zone 34? (As if it was a sea unit)
This move makes sense to me considering that the “canal is not considered a space, so it doesn’t block land movement”. So the aircraft should go through the canal? Is this correct? Or the fighter have to pass through Egypt or Trans-Jordan?

I have always moved the aircrafts in this way… but I am having the doubt if this is really correct!