Dummys that dont want to read the rules…

Welcome, Miket2424!

You could try reducing transports’ defense value.  If a transport rolls a 1, roll again and only hit on a 3 or less.  This would effectively halve their defensive capability.

You could also try using the transport rules from the new Anniversary game (see pages 13-16, 18-19, 21 and 31).  This is a bit more radical approach, and may require tweaking the setup a bit to counter the reduction in combat strength of some fleets.

Brilliant, logical and brief. Many thanks for the explanation.

That depends on how dull the knife is, though.  My husband’s mother has knives so dull I use her spoons to cut my food.  Lord knows the knife is completely useless!

@General_D.Fox:

@Baghdaddy:

Stupor or no, I doubt he is as distracted as he pretends to be.

I’ve played a few board games in the barracks and behind all the smack talking, the brains are going furiously.

I recall on game where a guy brought his “girl friend” (she was a dancer at a local club) and she made it a point to do everything but actually service the folks playing the game all as part of his master plan to win just once!

No, he did not win and yes his “girl friend” spent the night in the barracks room.  Four guys, four beds, one girl, 'nuff said.

So I take it you guys played musical beds all night with the winner getting the bed and a good night’s sleep?  :wink:

We drew straws and the loser slept on the couch. Yep, that’s what we did.  :roll:

Thankfully, given her profession as a dancer, we had no body shyness problems in the morning as we dealt with the issue of five people and one bathroom.

LOL, that person definitaly played to much RISK!
'cause in RISK you can do the move you are talking about, but not in A&A…

you can see it on the left of the chart of every axis and allie:
first you have combat move
then you have conduct combat

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.