Best posts made by Krieghund

@superbattleshipyamato It’s not a loophole. It’s no different than the Central Powers avoiding the revolution by not meeting its conditions. The revolution occurs when its conditions are met. You just have to be aware of how the rule works.

@crockett36 No, it is not. In the case of Germany and Italy, Germany is at war with UK and France, so it is not neutral (even though it is not at war with the Soviet Union), which allows it to move into territories controlled by Italy. In contrast, in this case the Soviet Union is under the restrictions of a neutral power on the Pacific map, so it cannot move into territories controlled by any other power. The situation is similar, but different.

The Renegade version of the rulebook can now be viewed and downloaded on the Renegade A&A Resource Page. There are no actual rules changes from the Avalon Hill version, but the text has been updated with the material from the FAQ.

@The_Good_Captain The rule applies in all sea battles where there are sea units allied to the attacker present, regardless of the type(s) of defending German sea units. The rule mentions only German subs because the author failed to take into account the possibility that the situation could also exist with German surface units if they were mobilized in a hostile sea zone. This oversight was corrected in the Axis & Allies Pacific Rulebook.

The site is down for maintenance. I have no word yet on how much longer this will take, but it will return.

@Stucifer said in League General Discussion Thread:

I do think G42 which is unofficially Larry Harris 1940 Global 3rd edition is very interesting to play especially given the constraints of live tournament play.

As it changes the start date, it is actually a variant, not a separate edition.

@PrivateerPuffin Supply tokens are not units, but they can be loaded during the Reinforce, Repair, and Deploy step. Your example is legal.

Larry has purposely never mentioned specifically how many of anything any unit represents, as the games are not intended to be simulations. The only sure thing is that they all represent more than one.

@Cernel said in Classic rules, and some disagreements.:

@djensen renamed this section as “Axis & Allies Classic” (it was called “Axis & Allies 2nd Edition”, or something like that, in the old forum, I recall), that I think it is going to be confusing (we have a good example right here). I suggested to name it “Axis & Allies (Classic) 1st/2nd/3rd Edition” or “Axis & Allies 1st/2nd/3rd Edition” (just adding “Classic” between parenthesis or in the description), but this has been already discussed here:
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/32567/chicago-nfl-team-bears
Calling it the current way would have been fine if the description would have been something like:
Includes MB Gamemaster Series 1st and 2nd editions, and the two Hasbro Interactive (CD-ROM) 3rd Edition.
or like it is called in the official Larry Harris forum:
Original Axis & Allies 1984-2004
(though this is rather vague, or surely not very clear)
but I see it currently is:
The original MB Gamemaster Series game from 1984-2004
that is substantially a wrong description, as long as @Krieghund or anybody can confirm the 3rd edition is Classic too, as I believe it is, and those are not part of the Gamemaster Series.

Yes, 3rd Edition is part of Classic. I’m not sure what your problem is with the nomenclature, though. While “Classic” may mean different things to different people, its proper usage is really in reference to the MB version and its computer offshoots.

@Krieghund can you please confirm this is what it is supposed to happen:

If you have 1 submarine and 1 fighter attacking 1 transport and 1 submarine, if the attacking submarine misses and both defending units hit:

• In 1st/2nd edition, you only lose the attacking submarine, as long as the attacking player doesn’t take a fighter as casualty when the transport hits (that would be absolutely idiotic).
• In 3rd edition, you lose both attacking units (you are not permitted to do the trick of assigning the transport’s hit to the submarine, thus being unable to assign the submarine’s hit to anything else).

Confirmed.

If the above is true, I’m curious what is the implied intended rule for assigning defensive submarines and others hits (say, if you would be playing by 3rd edition rules on a board). Should defending submarines hits be assigned before anything else or should you assign them at the same time, but taking care to lose the maximum number of units you can (I know in practice both would work the same)?

The latter.

Harris Game Design is back up!

It is legal to move a fighter to attack a sea zone as long as it’s possible (no matter how unlikely) that the fighter can be picked up by a carrier afterwards. (One carrier cannot be used to justify attacking two different sea zones, as it cannot be in two places at once.) If the fighter survives and a carrier can move to pick it up (either the original or another one), it must do so. The fighter may only be allowed to crash if the circumstances after all combat is complete make it impossible to pick it up. If more than one fighter has to be picked up, but there is only one carrier available, the owner may choose which fighter to pick up, if a choice is available, but one must be picked up.

@reloader-1 Hmmm, it looks like you’re right. It is listed as MiG in the Rulebook, and that seems to be an error. I have modified the list accordingly.

I’m going to go with the principle that all combat movement is simultaneous, so the bomber is fired at by the AA gun as it is being captured by the tank.

@cernel said in Is Larry Harris' website down again?:

@panther So this came to my mind because I wanted to ask if it is correct that in Revised OOB naval bombardment cannot target air units, whereas in Revised LHTR it can.

Yes, that’s correct.

I’m as sure as I can be that all I just said is correct, but I don’t see this distinction being made in the “Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition Rules Changes” paper posted by @Krieghund on the Harris’ forum, so I was wondering if this is something missing in the paper (and, if it is so, I would suggest @Krieghund to update the paper by adding this matter), but I cannot see any official place where I can reference to it any longer…

It’s on page 2, under “Amphibious Assaults”. This document can also be found on BGG.

I also wanted to point out that in the
https://www.axisandallies.org/wp-content/uploads/AAR_LHTR_v2.0.pdf
at page 12 it says “Each battleship fires once during this step against enemy land and air units in the territory being attacked.”, which is arguably vaguely confirmed at page 19, saying “Each battleship fires once during the opening fire step of the first round of combat against enemy units in the territory being attacked.”, yet at page 27 it says “Each battleship fires once during the opening fire step against enemy land units in the territory being attacked.”, which is reiterated at page 28, saying “Each destroyer fires once during the opening fire step (using its attack of 3) against enemy land units in the territory being attacked.”. So there is one instance in which it is said that the targets of naval bombardment are land and air units, another instance in which it is said that the targets are whatever units (which would be the same as saying land and air ones if the meaning is that every unit in the battle can be targeted) and two instances in which the targets are land-only units (thus excluding air units). I’m as sure as I can be that the occurrences at page 27 and 28 are incorrect, in that they are either missing to say “land and air units” instead of “land units” or just simply saying “units” instead of “land units”, but may a LHTR 2.1 (or whatever) rulebook be released fixing these oversights (and I guess it can realistically only be released on the Harris’ forum if anywhere)?

Yes, the references on pages 27 and 28 are errors. I’m not sure a new release is practical, as it’s been a great many years and I’m not sure anyone has the original document anymore.

@gamerman01 said in L22 playoff, OOB Lowluck, crockett (L+30) vs myygames (X):

OOB I’m >90% sure the German sub does disrupt the Russian NO when Italy is at war with Russia. But it’s been a long time since I played OOB.

This is because
a) Russia is at war with Euro-Axis (Italy)
b) Italy and Germany are allied, because they are both at war with the UK
c) The NO rule says when the Soviet Union is at war in Europe (they are at war in Europe because at war with Italy), 125 has to be free of Axis warships. German sub is an Axis warship.

Weird because Russia is not directly at war with Germany, but according to the letter of the law here, Germany doesn’t have to be at war with Russia to disrupt the NO.

Yes, that’s correct. This NO represents Lend-Lease aid to the Soviet Union. It is intended to require cooperation between the Allied powers to keep it flowing. Whether or not Germany and the Soviet Union are at war, Germany is still raiding UK and US shipping, and thus interfering with the flow of Soviet aid, and it’s in the interest of those powers to stop it from doing so.

An Axis is warship is still an Axis warship, even if the owning power is not at war. If the intent were that Germany had to be at war to block the NO, it would say, “a warship belonging to a power with which the Soviet Union is at war”. or something to that effect.

Updated for North Africa and Renegade’s Guadalcanal reprint.

OK, I have an official answer. It was never Larry’s intention that transports in Classic should be able to load in a hostile sea zone, but the rules as written do not reflect that intention. However, he’s not going to revise an FAQ for a game that’s been around for as long as Classic has and is now out of print for something this minor.

The bottom line is that in Classic, per the rules, you can load transports in a hostile sea zone during combat movement, though this was not intended. This ruling does not apply to any other A&A game besides Classic.

@SuperbattleshipYamato Yes, he’s involved.

The “1942” version of the AA50 box above is prototype artwork for the box cover. It was released only as advance promotional material for the game, and no copies were printed using that design. I know this because I worked on the project.

I suspect that the same may be true of the “385” Pacific version, due to the piece count. I know that there were some discussions during development around the pieces that might be included.

I’m not sure about the Revised versions, but the second one may also be a prototype, as it is also a “flat” view of the cover art, and not in three dimensions.

I hope this helps.

@Martin Confirmed.