LHTR 2.0 revision

LOL!

You know, I don’t know explicitly which rule you’re talking about, but I TOTALLY understand the frustration with LHTR.

:-D

I haven’t played A&A/AAE/AAP in years–though I play AAR often–but: Wasn’t that always the rule, even in out-of-the-box rulebooks?

:-o
I coudn’t agree more. But, I guess it would take to much print to say," keep the overland units seperate from the Amphibious units, during the combat phase, etc…etc…etc… :wink:
Sometimes the rule makers just get tired I guess and oversimplify a condition, rather than take a chance of over complicating it. Who can fully understand why they print these things, then have an erratta sheet all ready to go before the game even goes to print. :?

Actually that rule is not new to LHTR 2.0, or to LHTR in general, or even to Revised.

That rule goes back at least as far as Second Edition which I first played in the late 1980’s/early 1990’s.  It has consistently been in every version of A&A I have played and every rule set I have ever reviewed.

I know it sucks (I have had it screw me over before where I just wanted to get a BB shot in, the dice went south for the main land force, and I had to stick it out…) but that rule for amphibs being “to the death” has been around from the beginning of the game.

I have a somewhat related question, and this seems as good a place as any to ask it.

If you originally declare a mixed overland and amphibious attack with your combat move, are the overland troops still committed to the death if the amphibious troops never make it to battle - either because you withdrew from the sea battle or the transport(s) sank?

My interpretion is that it is no longer an amphibious assault.

Even one unit arriving to a battle site from a transport means the whole battle is considered to be an amphibious assault.

Thanks! That was my assumption but I hadn’t found the reference.

Think of it this way, at least they changed it so your fighter and bomber pilots can be smart enough to retreat, even if your infantry, artillery and tanks cannot!

Can’t even begin to guess the number of 2nd ed games I lost because I was afraid to attack because if the battle went bad I’d lose my fighters and bombers too.

The way I read the mixed attack rule…

The land units were already moved into the contested territory, so even if the amphib units do not show up, the units that walked/rolled in still have to fight it out for one round before they can retreat (combat MOVEMENT had already occurred before the naval battle was fought and lost)

I think the question is whether or not the land units can retreat after the first round of combat if all the amphibious units were sunk in the naval engagement before landing.

Honestly, I’d say no.  It was am amphibious assault when declared and it cannot change just because your landing craft were killed off.

I could be wrong though.

If no navally landed units actually make the landing, it is no longer an amphib.

@Cmdr:

Can’t even begin to guess the number of 2nd ed games I lost because I was afraid to attack because if the battle went bad I’d lose my fighters and bombers too.

I can’t say it lost me games, but I recall how annoying it was and remember first reading the rule adjustment in AAE (or was it AAR?) and going “sweet.”

And who knows, since aircraft have gained a retreat option over the years, maybe they’ll eventually give non-amphibous units the same option.

LHTR 2.0, page 19 (Amphibious Assaults):

If no land units survived the sea combat, or if the attacking sea units withdrew from the sea combat, then any other units that were designated to participate in the land attack (including air units) must still conduct one round of land combat in a regular attack on the intended hostile territory before they may withdraw.

I hope this clears things up!

Thank you Kreig for finding the specific reference to back me up :-)

@hyogoetophile:

And who knows, since aircraft have gained a retreat option over the years, maybe they’ll eventually give non-amphibous units the same option.

Yeah I think over time the rules will become more logical.

Depend on which post you read (at harrisdesign) LHTR 2.0 was just short of some changes.
To me it should have been called LHTR 1.4 or something.

@Craig:

@tekkyy:

Yeah I think over time the rules will become more logical.

Depend on which post you read (at harrisdesign) LHTR 2.0 was just short of some changes.
To me it should have been called LHTR 1.4 or something.

There are reasons (that will become quite evident eventually) why an thorough edit good was embarked upon and put forth as v2.0.

Craig

You know, I used the same reason at a bar posing as a government agent.

“Young miss, there are reasons - that will become quite evident eventually - why you must remove your underwear right here right now.”  8-)

“Orly?”  :?

“Yarly.  We is teh gub-mint.  We don’t lie.”  8-)

“Uhm, okay?”  :|