Posts made by BlackWatch

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However, Larry has apparently withdrawn his objection and the CLARIFICATION that will include a blackletter exclusion of what they felt was already in the rules will be posted shortly.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

@genken:

I have been playing this game about 13 years now and I have never come up against this situation until now.
1.  I am Axis (GER and JAP), opponent is Allies (UK, RUS and USA)
2   Opponent (a novice) has Heavy Bombers and Industrial Technology for both UK and USA.
3.  I am close to capturing either country (although all of us always think we’re close).
4.  I already have RUS.
5.  If I capture UK or USA, does the conquering country get the weapons technology?
6.  I have looked everywhere and did not see this scenario addressed.

Opinions, guidance?

Hmmm…

If you already have Russia, and you capture UK or EUS, you win, and have no further need of their technology anyway. ;)

In about 300 on line games I’ve bought the extra BB for the UK twice and the subs v Japanese IT once - all three were won games. If I remember right, the buy of subs was accompanied by a very cheap acquisition of super subs. Japan was already struggling and threw in the towel as soon as the first purchase was laid down.

I voted for the transports. The basis for this is the following:

1. The assumption is that the purchase will be for a country that needs naval units to achieve its ends. This would almost always exclude Germany and Russia, which would be buying ground units in 99.999% of cases.

2. The game is ultimately won or lost on the ground - only transports allow you to make a naval purchase that directly affects what you can do on the ground.

3. Excess transports allow greater flexibility of attack options.

The exceptions:

a) If BOTH UK BB’s survive G1, but Germany otherwise has a relatively strong opening, I would consider buying a 3rd BB to allow the UK to economically cripple Germany by way of offshore bombardment. 1 inf, 3 BB shots per round v Germany can do a LOT of damage to the Axis.

b) If Japan has secured Industrial Technology (but not HB’s), I would consider buying a fleet of subs for the US to compel Japan to buy naval defending units at nearly full price rather than infantry at bargain basement cost.

c) If the US loses both BB and CV in the Pacific in rounds 1 & 2, I’d buy a CV, most likely with a transport.

@RogerCooper:

In the 3rd edition of the Classic rules, air units were allowed to retreat. The 3rd edition also provided for sub submergence. I will need to add the stack thing.

The third edition was the CD version. The CD allowed many illegal actions (plus it did have some optional rules that you could use or not use at your discretion). The items I listed above were not permitted by the rule set that was published with the game. The programming was flawed, allowing the actions you describe to occur, and many CD players then played the game allowing the use of these flaws, incorrectly interpreting the flaws as rules revisions.

It did not make it part of the “classic” rule set.

If you want to add another subset for comparison, then by all means add “3rd edition” - enough online CD players used the rules you cite to qualify it as a separate rule set, but if you are not going to distinguish it as a separate rule set, then I would encourage your comparison chart to use the published rules for Axis and Allies 2nd edition as the point of reference for “classic”.

Classic retreat rules:

Attacking subs can withdraw after any round, independent of whether other attacking units retreat. In amphibious assaults in classic, ALL units including air units are in to the end - there is no retreat for any attacking unit whatsoever.

Classic stack rules - unlimited numbers of units in a stack, but you can only have as many stacks as you have actual units to put on top (e.g. 3 bomber groups maximum - but put as many chips as you have cash for underneath to represent additional bombers in the group).

Classic transports. No such thing as submerged subs… Can load in a contested seazone (just can’t move again, must offload in combat in the same seazone to an enemy territory)

Several advancements and revisions have occurred and the LHTR rules v 1.3 is about ready to be adopted in final form.

There are changes to six sections. Please see:

http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=9306#9306

Let us know soonest if there are issues, otherwise we’ll be good to go.

BW

@trihero:

Well, I sort of look at it this way -

The sub’s way of retreating is submerging, right?

The order of play is always attackers, then defenders.

Therefore, attackers get to retreat first (by either moving to a seazone or submerging).

Then the defenders get to retreat (by submerging).

I don’t tend to look at submerging as a separate step from retreating. I would say you do all your retreating/submerging at one time. And given that, then it is easy to see that the attackers get to opt out first.

And that’s just freaking clever using retreats like that. I would never have thought of it in a million years! Have you talked to Larry about it?

Well - part of the issue is that it is not clear that a sub ONLY retreats by submerging. I think it will shake out that an attacking sub can also retreat on the surface with all other attacking sea units.

Larry has chimed in on the discussion on his own web site:

http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=8

Feel free to join in there - it’s getting too hard to keep up in multiple forums.

And I agree - it was a very clever ploy - always good to see new tricks!

BW

@trihero:

I admit it’s a very clever way to force the assault to continue, but just because it’s clever doesn’t mean it should be allowed.

The original scenario that brought the issue forward was equally clever (but needed the assumption that the attacking units could retreat first.)

UK had 6 transports, plus other units in the Baltic. They also had some ground units in Finland.

Germany took Karelia in force, threatening the ground troops in Finland. Germany built a sub in the Baltic, meaning that the transports could not noncom the Finland units out of harm’s way.

The UK player came up with the strategy to leave the baltic with 6 transports, use 5 of them to pick up 10 units from Finland and return to the Baltic to fight with 6 transports v 1 sub, declaring a followon assault into EEu. The intent was to have one round of rolls (the transports could not sink the sub), then retreat the loaded transports into the North Sea Zone. It could only retreat the transports if the defending sub was still in play.

While the order of attacking sub, defending sub, all attacking units may seem a bit arbitrary, it does parallel the order of battle, and we thought it would be easier to remember. Attacking and defending subs each get an opening round shot, before all other units fire, with the attacking sub actually rolling first.

BW

After a year plus of play, there has been a flaw exposed in the LHTR rule set that requires an amendment to the LHTR rules.

The problem exists in the rules for retreat of sea units when submarines are involved.

1. It is not clear whether attacking subs can retreat to another sea zone or if they can only retreat by submerging.

2. There is no clear order of retreat for sea battles (who gets to retreat first - attacking units or defending subs??)

The amendment currently under consideration will clarify both issues.

Attacking subs may do EITHER: submerge or retreat to a different sea zone from which at least one attacking sea unit came.

The order of retreat would be as follows (note that each step could only occur if there are still opposing units remaining on the battle board)

1. Attacking subs may submerge
2. Defending subs may submerge
3. All attacking sea units including any attacking submarines may retreat to a sea zone from which at least one sea unit came. Attacking subs MAY NOT submerge if this option is used.

As an example of why a rule like this is needed consider the following combat declaration:

6 trns (with 12 units aboard) + ftr attack a seazone with 1 sub, followed by

12 units from seazone amphibiously assault a land territory which has 8 defenders.

In the first two rounds of rolls the ftr misses twice and the sub hits twice. The attacker wants to retreat from the sea battle, aborting the amphib. The defender wants to submerge the sub, forcing the amphibious assault to proceed. (Note than when a submarine submerges, it is removed from the battle board and placed on its side on the map board. If it submerges BEFORE the transports can retreat, then the transports have nothing to retreat from and the amphibious assault must go forward).

Your input and comments would be appreciated.

If you want to see a more extensive discussion of this issue, please feel free to visit:

http://www.dicey.net/nuke/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=2693

Thanks,
BW

…might be kinder…

@Washington:

By Dana Milbank

Wednesday, September 28, 2005; Page A06

The House Select Committee on Hurricane Katrina did a heck of a job on Brownie yesterday.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) ordered a Democratic boycott of the hearing, calling it a “sham” and a “photo opportunity.” But, as defrocked FEMA director Michael D. Brown can attest, Pelosi’s concerns about a whitewash proved unjustified.

Rep. Christopher Shays, a Connecticut Republican, called Brown’s account of events “feeble,” “clueless,” “shocking” and “beyond belief.” Said Shays: “I’m happy you left, because that kind of . . . look in the lights like a deer tells me that you weren’t capable to do the job.”

Rep. Kay Granger, a Texas Republican, told Brown: “I don’t know how you can sleep at night. You lost the battle.”

Rep. Gene Taylor, one of two Democrats who ignored the boycott, said Brown was in way over his head. “You folks fell on your face. You get an F-minus in my book,” he attested. The Mississippian added: “Maybe the president made a very good move when he asked you to leave your job.”

Chairman Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.) offered Brown no help, giving members unlimited time to abuse the witness and adding his own barbs. When Brown argued that the White House “was fully engaged . . . behind the scenes,” Davis interjected: “They had to be behind the scenes, because I think we didn’t see anything out front.”

Brown displayed the command of facts that made him famous over the past month. He did not know how much FEMA had spent on communications, guessing, “a boatload of money.” He had to ask members of his entourage how many MREs were in a trailer load. “I don’t have a clue how many [people] were truly in the Superdome,” he volunteered at one point. Asked whether he is still a federal employee, Brown said: “You know, I don’t know.” (He is.)

With 12 Republicans and no Democrats on the dais when the hearing opened, Brown started by blaming the media and Louisiana’s Democratic officials. “I do believe there are a couple of specific mistakes that I made,” he said. “I failed initially to set up a series of regular briefings to the media,” he lamented. And his “biggest mistake,” he said, “was not recognizing . . . that Louisiana was dysfunctional.”

“I do not want to make this partisan,” he said, proceeding to do just that, “so I can’t help it that Alabama and Mississippi are governed by Republican governors and Louisiana is governed by a Democratic governor.”

Pointing his finger, pounding the table, Brown veered from his prepared testimony to insist: “I get it” and “I know what it’s all about,” and “I know what I am doing” and “I do a pretty darn good job.” This display produced gasps and chuckles in the gallery.

Brown did nothing to win over his questioners. Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) had to repeat a question because Brown was reading his BlackBerry. Shays had to repeat one because Brown was engrossed in his notes. When Shays pressed him about his performance, a petulant Brown complained: “So I guess you want me to be this superhero.”

One hour and 36 minutes passed before Brown acknowledged that “FEMA has a logistics problem.” Gradually, Brown’s admissions grew more damaging.

Money for “catastrophic planning” for a New Orleans hurricane “was removed by the Department of Homeland Security,” he said. Brown said he should have asked for President Bush’s help earlier, and should have urged the military to come in sooner. He said it was a mistake that FEMA had no contingency contract for recovering dead bodies.

Rep. Henry Bonilla (R-Tex.) elicited the biggest confession. “One of my frustrations over the past three years has been the emaciation of FEMA,” Brown told him. Speaking of dwindling funds and a “brain drain,” Brown said he struggled just “to keep that place together” and asserted that he “predicted privately for several years that we were going to reach this point.”

As the questioning progressed, Brown turned his fury on the administration. “I probably should have just resigned my post earlier and gone public with some of these things,” he told Granger.

Yesterday, he might have been better off to keep some things private – as when Jefferson complained about the lack of ice in New Orleans and Brown replied: “I think it’s wrong for the federal government to be in the ice business, providing ice so I can keep my beer and Diet Coke cool.”

Taylor, incredulous, asked, “How about the need to keep bodies from rotting in the sun?”

Jefferson added: “One of the major reasons that old people just suffered and died is because there was no ice.”

Brown, losing control, demanded four times that Taylor not “lecture” him.

But the lecturing continued – in a way even Pelosi would have approved. “I have come to the conclusion that this administration values loyalty more than anything else,” Shays said, “more than competence or, frankly, more than the truth. And you have reinforced that view. . . . I’m left with the feeling [that] the administration feels they have to protect you.”

“Well,” Brown answered, “you should come over here and sit in this chair and see how protected you feel.”

It’ll be interesting to watch the next spectacle as Governor Blanco sits in the hot seat…

BW