Landing ftrs on a carrier not there [Archive]

axis_roll

07-01-2004, 06:15 AM

I have a question as to whether this is legal under LHTR 1.1

In a game I am playing, I have ftrs in range of a sea battle in SZ 6. However, they would be moving 4 to get there (they're in Caucasus).

Larry Harris rules say planes have to end their moves in the Sea Zone in which they are to be placed on newly built carriers. I would buy an A/C for UK and drop that in SZ 6. Now my ftrs have a place to land, so they can technically be in the battle.

Can I take advantage if this rule to give my ftrs an extra move in combat?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Personal comment:
Regardless of the outcome of this rules question, this is the reason they should've made the rule regarding mobilizing existing ftrs to:

Fighters to be placed on newly purchased A/Cs have to land in land territory of IC where A/C is being built, and have at least 1 movement point left to be allowed onto newly built carrier. No extra movement can be given to the ftr using this rule (actually is a little 'punishment' for using an existing ftr)

Krieghund

07-01-2004, 06:34 AM

That is my understanding of the rule.

smo63

07-01-2004, 07:56 AM

Yes you may...

AxisRoll

07-01-2004, 08:40 AM

Yes. there are times when this new rule extends a fighters range.

cousin_joe

07-01-2004, 08:43 AM

Personal comment:
Regardless of the outcome of this rules question, this is the reason they should've made the rule regarding mobilizing existing ftrs to:

Fighters to be placed on newly purchased A/Cs have to land in land territory of IC where A/C is being built, and have at least 1 movement point left to be allowed onto newly built carrier. No extra movement can be given to the ftr using this rule (actually is a little 'punishment' for using an existing ftr)

This is what I originally suggested as well. I think what they probably found out though is that designing the rule this way would help the Axis more than the Allies. On G1, Germany could use all their FTRs, and still be able to land on the new AC. With the 2 UK FTRs that start in UK, however, they would be unable to participate in combat (Norway and SZ 5 are 2SZ away, therefore, they wouldn't be able to "tag up" with the UK prior to landing on a new AC)

The other thing to consider is that AC's already extend FTR movement, in a sense, because they allow them to attack units 3SZ away (then AC follows to provide a landing spot) instead of just 2SZ, if they were ground based. This is analogous to the situation here as all you are doing is providing a landing spot, but the FTR still only moves 4 spaces. What you are not doing, is letting the FTR move 5 spaces, which is what happened inthe original AH rules.

smo63

07-01-2004, 11:12 AM

cousin joe,

I don't have the rules in front of me but I believe you are correct. Allocating the fighters final move to a SZ gets rid of the extra move space and places the unit on the carrier when it is place during this phase of the game.

So, there planes still can only move 4.

By the way, I have a cousin joe...?

GS :)

SquishyBall

07-01-2004, 11:52 AM

That is illegal. A units move ends on the non-combat phase, not on the place-units phase. The fighter must be landed before the new carrier is placed.

The manual explicitly specifies that the fighters actual landing is the last thing that occurs during the NC phase. Thus, if there's no carrier there, it crashes. (or rather, would have been prohibited in the first place).

You cannot fly out 4 to do battle where there is no carrier, and just hover till the place phase. You have to land in the zone where the IC is, then build the carrier, then the fighter is moved out onto the carrier.

But you absolutely do have to complete the fighters landing during the NC phase.

I believe the LHTV disclarifies this some, as it's very cut-and-dried in the original rules... but by game rules, it's illegal.

cousin_joe

07-01-2004, 12:08 PM

Squishy,

His question was whether this was legal under LHTR 1.1 (not AH rules) and indeed it is.

SquishyBall

07-01-2004, 09:01 PM

So, what... LHTV has arbitrarily changed the rules so that planes no longer have to land on the non-combat phase? The manual is very clear on this, it needs no change...

Especially seeing as the LHTV was so in favor of sub stalling since moving a transport out and non-combating units onto/off of the tranny was sooooooo against the traditional concept of the A&A phase system, and here LHTV is proposing scrapping the phases so planes can now hover beyond the NC phase --- which has never been allowed, and still is not.

I'm sorry, but that rule is just not needed. It adds nothing, and violates the rules.

I'm all for clarifications, but changing gameplay is just not right.

So you've just given fighters 5 movement on the combat phase by not requiring them to land on NC. A plane that couldn't reach a battle by real rules can now reach, if you just build an acc in the zone, or in a zone that the fighter CAN reach.

The AH rules allowed you to "extend" a planes movement AFTER it landed.. Fly out two, fly back two, then land in a zone with an IC, then move it out onto an ACC newly built.. but it still has to live by the rules during the actual combat phase, and it still has to land.

This rule, if so, is just an arbitrary technicality by creating rulesets of your own instead of clarifying the existing rules.

The manual is VERY clear that a plane cannot engage in battle, if it cannot land on the non-combat phase. -NOT- on the place units phase.

LHTV very much should clarify this, or its whole principle of "improving or clarifying" the rules is moot, as it's arbitrarily changing core rules here.

axis_roll

07-01-2004, 09:21 PM

I have to agree with Squishy here... it just doesn't seem right... but I guess it's an exception that would let that happen.

07-01-2004, 10:02 PM

It is 100% legal unger LHTR (hoping to exploit this little doozy, I already spoke with Carico to confirm this) :rolleyes:

Panther

07-02-2004, 04:24 AM

It is 100% legal unger LHTR (hoping to exploit this little doozy, I already spoke with Carico to confirm this) :rolleyes:

You are correct, DY.
The ftr moves 4 spaces and lands in NC move, ac comes in mobilize phase.

BTW: This does not violate the game mechanics, moving pieces in mobilize phase does.

SquishyBall

07-02-2004, 09:23 AM

BTW: This does not violate the game mechanics, moving pieces in mobilize phase does.

This absolutely does violate the game mechanics. The manual clearly states that all planes must land on non-combat phase, and any planes that cannot land on non-combat phase (possibly due to an ACC being lost in combat) will crash.

In NO case do they "hover" until the mobilize new units phase.

The manual also CLEARLY states that a plane that could not land on the non-combat phase CAN NOT fly out to do combat. (Thus, this move is prohibited in the first place, and the crash/no crash is not even a decision to be made) It MUST be able to reach a landing spot on the NC phase in order to be allowed to legally engage in combat.

Whether or not you allow a plane to hover is irrelevant, because of the core rule that a plane cannot fly out, at all, unless it COULD land on the NC phase. And if it COULD land on the NC phase, then it has the movement necessary to reach the IC territory, land there, and then build out onto the new ACC.

The rules are not vague. All this variant rule does is illegally extend a planes movement to 5 spaces for nations that can afford ACC's. It is a technicality that comes out of changing the rules. Learn to play by the rules, don't change them to add more technicalities that only ppl aware of some variant will know to exploit.

SquishyBall

07-02-2004, 09:33 AM

By the way, I'd have to say this variant trumps the "sub-stalling" variant as the most ridiculous yet. Giving ftrs a 5 movement, and removing the rule that they have to land on the non-combat phase in order to fly out to combat is just a needless bashing of the rulebook.

Many ppl made good points... that some techs (like SS and JP) had to be stronger, thus I was sort of okay with that mod. But these game-play mods & technicalities that are arising out of the rules changes are just ridiculous.

Mike Selinker came out here and definitively ruled against sub-stalling, and we now know it does not in any way inhibit the ships movements... likewise, all planes must be able to land on the nc phase if they're going to go out to battle.

If you choose to allow the plane to hover, so as to not have to move it to the land, then build it out onto the carrier, that's fine... tho the original rule still stands that a plane which could not reach a landing spot on the nc phase cannot engage in said combat.

If anybody ever tried that against me, I could point them to 5 places in the manual that clearly rule it out. The one-liner in the LHTV is not going to trump the many core rules it violates.

Remember, let's keep focused on improving the game... not just arbitrarily changing core rules or intent of rules.

Mike Selinker

07-02-2004, 09:56 AM

If anybody ever tried that against me, I could point them to 5 places in the manual that clearly rule it out. The one-liner in the LHTV is not going to trump the many core rules it violates.

I've never said anything about the LHTR, except that I wouldn't make rulings on it. I may not like most of the rules in that set, but I'm heavily biased toward the box version, and you should make your own judgments.

But based on the above comment, I must make one point that I think is crucial: If you've decided to play with the LHTR set, you can't simultaneously use the manual. The two are incompatible. The whole point of the LHTR set is that it contradicts the manual in many places in ways that the creators of LHTR felt necessary and desirable. Using the Operations Manual to settle issues in LHTR is as ineffective as using the Milton Bradley version to settle issues in the Revised game.

Mike

Krieghund

07-02-2004, 10:08 AM

Giving ftrs a 5 movement, and removing the rule that they have to land on the non-combat phase in order to fly out to combat is just a needless bashing of the rulebook.

...

If you choose to allow the plane to hover, so as to not have to move it to the land, then build it out onto the carrier, that's fine... tho the original rule still stands that a plane which could not reach a landing spot on the nc phase cannot engage in said combat.

The LHTR do not give fighters a 5 movement. The rule was simply changed from allowing fighters to "hover" until the end of non-combat movement to allowing them to do so until the end of new unit deployment. The effect of this is to allow existing fighters to land on newly-built carriers without getting an extra movement.

SquishyBall

07-02-2004, 11:05 AM

The LHTR do not give fighters a 5 movement.

Sure it does. Picture a *** Industry on FIC, US navy / fighters off the coast. J wants to attack the US navy sitting off FIC, but its 2 fighters happen to be sitting in Novo. The US player KNEW this when he put his fleet there. The 2 fighters can't reach FIC because they're in Novo, and Novo is 4 spaces from the FIC sea zone. It would take a movement of 5 to land in FIC.

Those fighters CANNOT attack. (unless J scores LRA). They would have to fly 4 spaces to the FIC sea zone, and could not land, and since they cannot land on NC phase, they cannot do the combat in the first place. What this rule allows, is for those fighters to fly out 4 to attack a sea zone, not worry about landing, then just build an ACC on FIC to land them.

That is illegal.

Now if the fighters started on Sink instead (one territory closer) then it's fine. It's only 3 to get to the FIC sea zone, and a 4th to get to FIC to land, and then build the ACC in FIC, and the fighters move out onto the carrier.

You DO have to land the planes first tho.

I have played this game for so many years that I can appreciate the changes made in the box rules. Every change contained therein has a good purpose. Changing fighters to be able to do combats that they couldn't previously do is just wrong.

You might as well make up a whole new game... but don't call what you're playing A&A, cuz it's not. You may use the pieces & board, but you're not playing the game. You're playing some game where fighters can, on occasion, move 5 spaces w/o having LRA.

Mike, thank you for the comments! It's awesome to here from the guy who's changed so much in the game I grew up playing, and made it about 100x better than it ever was. I just can't bring myself back to playing the old game, now that this is so improved.
-Squish.

Krieghund

07-02-2004, 11:34 AM

Sure it does. Picture a *** Industry on FIC, US navy / fighters off the coast. J wants to attack the US navy sitting off FIC, but its 2 fighters happen to be sitting in Novo. The US player KNEW this when he put his fleet there. The 2 fighters can't reach FIC because they're in Novo, and Novo is 4 spaces from the FIC sea zone. It would take a movement of 5 to land in FIC.

Those fighters CANNOT attack. (unless J scores LRA). They would have to fly 4 spaces to the FIC sea zone, and could not land, and since they cannot land on NC phase, they cannot do the combat in the first place. What this rule allows, is for those fighters to fly out 4 to attack a sea zone, not worry about landing, then just build an ACC on FIC to land them.

That is illegal.

If you insist on viewing LHTR in the paradigm of the box rules, this is a pointless discussion. You are comparing apples and oranges. The fact is that the rule you are quoting was changed in LHTR, therefore by definition it is not illegal. The fighters move only 4 spaces, since they are not required to land in FIC before moving onto the carrier.

squirecam

07-02-2004, 01:43 PM

This absolutely does violate the game mechanics. The manual clearly states that all planes must land on non-combat phase, and any planes that cannot land on non-combat phase (possibly due to an ACC being lost in combat) will crash.

In NO case do they "hover" until the mobilize new units phase.

The rules are not vague. All this variant rule does is illegally extend a planes movement to 5 spaces for nations that can afford ACC's. It is a technicality that comes out of changing the rules. Learn to play by the rules, don't change them to add more technicalities that only ppl aware of some variant will know to exploit.

What you have to remember is that people wanted planes to land on newly built carriers. Overwhelmingly. So overwhelmingly that it shocked Larry Harris and caused much heated arguments. Which I take great pleasure/pride and also great blame/remorse for starting.

This modified "rule" was the product of balancing two objectives: Not moving pieces during NCM (which Larry was adamant about) and allowing the carrier rule, which by far was the best change Mike ever made.

While it does "allow" some planes to reach carriers they otherwise wouldnt, it also prevents planes from reaching carriers they otherwise would have. Its a balancing decision that overall accomplished the two objectives above. And "hovering" was already in the game prior to the rule change.

Squirecam

nergal

07-02-2004, 03:23 PM

Hey SquishyBall!

You are right, this move is illegal.

In the LHTR-Variant it is legal.

You spend so much energy to attack this rules/variant you never are going to play, why?

The simple answer of this topic is, that it works.
Your comments are off-topic and belong to the
"LHTR VS AH rules" threat.

I hope you realize this, before you spam the next rulequestion with your opinion about the LHTR-Variant.

Or start your own threat, like "I´m against LHTR". If the people are interested in this, it will be always at the top of the forum.

My 0,02€

Peace!
Nergal

SquishyBall

07-02-2004, 07:12 PM

Hey SquishyBall!
You are right, this move is illegal.
In the LHTR-Variant it is legal.

You spend so much energy to attack this rules/variant you never are going to play, why?

Peace! Nergal

Why? Because I love the game, but look at some of the rules changes, and just have to scratch my head and go... "so how does that improve the game?" I'm in favor of a few of the mods, but some of them so drastically alter play, and create more technicalities than they alleviate.

So that's all. No, I probly won't ever play the variant, cuz some things like planes hovering till the mobilize phase, and subs eliminating transport moves are just poor rules changes. Not to mention, eliminating tech.

-Squish

Panther

07-03-2004, 01:28 PM

Why? Because I love the game, but look at some of the rules changes, and just have to scratch my head and go... "so how does that improve the game?" I'm in favor of a few of the mods, but some of them so drastically alter play, and create more technicalities than they alleviate.

So that's all. No, I probly won't ever play the variant, cuz some things like planes hovering till the mobilize phase, and subs eliminating transport moves are just poor rules changes. Not to mention, eliminating tech.

-Squish

So you still did not answer Nergals question.
If you dont like LHTR you could just play the game with the out of the box rules and dont care about LHTR.
Why are you arguing in a thread what was only about a LHTR rule question?

Scott_WAR

07-03-2004, 02:47 PM

I can answer that, because LHTR is being forced on people at tourneys and in PBEM. If it was being treated as a rules variant, that would be fine, but it isnt. The guys who created them are attempting to make these rules, the "official" rules by claiming that they are clarifications that had to be made, and balance issues that had to be dealt with. The thing is some are being dealt with poorly and some of the clarifications are outright rules changes that are uneccessary, all of which makes it seem that some of the motives used in creating this rules set is that certain people didnt want to change their strategy to fit the new rules, but rather, decided to change the rules to fit their old strategy. The fact that 5 or 6 guys got together and created these rules, with no real input from the rest of the community, then decided that these rules were going to be used at tournaments and in PBEM clubs is the problem. When you try to force things on people, you have to be expecting the flaws in it to be pointed out. Now that some of the rules are being clarified through the FAQ and forums, it is becoming more obvious that some of the logic used in "clarifying" the vague rules for LHTR was flawed.

The motivation for the LHTR has been stated to be to clarify rules that were vague, and to balance the game. One of the so called clarifications became the topic of another discusion on the forums. To make it short and simple, one of the guys that worked on the LHTR rules claimed that a rule we wanted clarified for the AH rules, had been clarified for the LHTR and that we should use that clarification, becasue it was the correct clarification. Well, Mike clarified and this person was wrong. So a clarification in the LHTR is in fact NOT a clarifiacation, but a change. Now since the purpose of the LHTR was to clarify, and this rule has been officially clarified, we should be expecting that particular rule to be changed? I dont think so, they have already commited to these rules, naturally, the testing done on them was extensive I am sure :p .

SquishyBall

07-04-2004, 10:31 AM

So you still did not answer Nergals question.
If you dont like LHTR you could just play the game with the out of the box rules and dont care about LHTR.
Why are you arguing in a thread what was only about a LHTR rule question?

Well I can't really, because these crazy rules are, like Scott said, being forced upon me. A rather small group of people have created a ruleset that fits their strategy best, and expects the rest of the world to just accept them, and their technicalities, like moving a fighter 4 spaces to attack, and not having to land... when by any rules of A&A ever, that is definitely illegal. It doesn't improve the game any to change it, and thus, it's just an arbitrary rules change.

Now especially when it comes to tournaments, you should use the standard rules, with possibly a few clarifications, which AH has already addressed most of in the FAQ.

So if the LHTV was, really, to clarify the problems that arise out of the box rules, then its drastically changing things like letting fighters fly 5, or subs stall ships, or eliminating tech, violates the very premise of the LHTV's creation.

If LHTV wants to retain any credibility outside of the small group of creators, then it should return to its roots, and acknowlege that it was only to clarify, not change the rules.

Besides, who is to arbitrate technicalities that come out of the variant? At least with the real rules, we have an authority we can go to (AH) which has been very responsive at providing answers to the FAQs. But with LHTV - what... if AH rules one way, and (whoever leads the LHTV) rules another way, are we to take some player's conservative, anti-tech, sub-stalling, fighter-hovering opinion of A&A as MY rule correction?

See, we all have differing opinions of the game. Many ppl will like sub-stalling, many ppl hate tech. But we all have the same rules.

Panther

07-05-2004, 07:13 AM

No one is forced to use the LHTR.
You are free to play FTF, PBEM games with the "out of the box" rules or with whatever rules you want.
People like Carico put a lot of work in organizing their tourneys.
If you dont like LHTR just make your own tourney...

Carico67

07-05-2004, 08:01 AM

please do, and refocus 1/2 of the time you spend being negative about the game and do something to help it.

we have an authority we can go to (AH) which has been very responsive at providing answers to the FAQs.

--Sorry, we have that... it's highest source. Not the ever-changing myriad of game producing officials that AH keeps whirling through its doors, in a system clogged with corporate inefficiency...

Mike Selinker

07-05-2004, 08:38 AM

--Sorry, we have that... it's highest source. Not the ever-changing myriad of game producing officials that AH keeps whirling through its doors, in a system clogged with corporate inefficiency...

Last I heard, Chris, you guys were trying to get Avalon Hill to adopt your rule set. I take it from that comment that you've given up in that goal.

Mike

Carico67

07-05-2004, 02:35 PM

That's Larry's ground till he asks me to take it, I don't want two of us stepping on toes, especially the same one's without knowing. Also, I don't know the details behind your departure from AH (I am guessing the worst, perhaps as a pessimist) but when guys like you and Rob seem "left behind" or dismissed after hard work, that is corporateness at its peak IMO. We both know there are a some things we see differently between the 2 of us for example, but from our short time working together I think they're most unwise 'letting you go' (regardless of who's move to do so, they should have tried to retain you) following the work you have done (and here, even now on these boards, continue to do...) and what you have helped to give them. I don't know specifics, and whose choice (yours or theirs), but I do know when AH was bought by WOTC it put a lot of the MA/CONN guys in limbo, guys who were serious about gaming; so I have some apprehensions with the status quo I guess.

I am hoping that some parts, if not all, are adopted at the least to help the games future. Clarity of rules, and having it so that 1st time players and veterans end up clearly playing the same game can be important, and save lots of future troubles for rules admins at PBEM and f-to-f tournies. You and Larry did a tremendous job, and I think what was done these past few months moves us a step closer in the right direction; if adopted or accepted in part or whole. You yourself did a great deal of revision on the wording parts, and I think (though we see extent differently) agree in some parts to that... C2

Scott_WAR

07-05-2004, 02:53 PM

Sorry Carico, you may delude yourself into beliving what you said. The simple fact is the game is made by AH. Not Larry, not Mike. They authored it, and helped create the rules, but AH owns the game. Give them credit for what has been done to this day, but AH, and only AH decides the official rules, not the group of 5 or 6 guys you got together with. And yes, these rules are being frced on us, at tournaments andin rated PBEM club play. If you want to play a rated game in PBEM, it will have to be with these rules. The fact that a few guys created it, wth no imput from the rest of the gaming world, then has the arrogance to say, "these are the rules everyone is going to use if they play rated" is utter garbage.

Again, if you had clarified that would be different. You didnt though, you changed the game. If being an official in a club and having to do what was expected of you, as far as clarifying rules, making decisions on rules questions, was too much, then dont take the position, but dont try to change the game to make your job easier.

Carico67

07-05-2004, 03:26 PM

Done sticking your foot in your mouth Scott?

The fact that a few guys created it, wth no imput from the rest of the gaming world, then has the arrogance to say, "these are the rules everyone is going to use if they play rated" is utter garbage

Your quote, and it's inaccuracies, is garbage. I won't waste time typing beyond that FYI...

Scott_WAR

07-05-2004, 03:37 PM

If you cant deny it just say so, If you can, then prove it. Dont say what I have to say is wrong, then refuse to give any kind of proof. My proof is in the thread that announces these rules, and the fact that the majority of those that posted there DID NOT LIKE THEM. So obviously very few had any input whatsoever.

Carico67

07-05-2004, 03:52 PM

Well, you're proving something Scott, but I won't say what....

Scott_WAR

07-05-2004, 04:25 PM

What is that? Proving that you dont have an answer, and that I am right, since your best argument is that you refuse to discuss it? If you really want people to adopt these rules as "official", maybe showing that I am wrong is a better idea then refusing to discuss it. But, then I would have to be wrong wouldnt I?

Wasnt there a thread somewhere that outlined all the changes, and the reasons for them? Post a link to that , and I will go through it and show point for point what I am talking about. You see, I am willing to prove what I say.

Mike Selinker

07-05-2004, 04:37 PM

Also, I don't know the details behind your departure from AH (I am guessing the worst, perhaps as a pessimist) but when guys like you and Rob seem "left behind" or dismissed after hard work, that is corporateness at its peak IMO. We both know there are a some things we see differently between the 2 of us for example, but from our short time working together I think they're most unwise 'letting you go' (regardless of who's move to do so, they should have tried to retain you) following the work you have done (and here, even now on these boards, continue to do...) and what you have helped to give them.

Chris, with all due respect, this is totally misinformed. See the other thread. With the exception of my design partners whom I counted on for such things, no one EVER tried to change my decisions regarding the content of the Avalon Hill games I worked on.

Mike

Scott_WAR

07-05-2004, 04:47 PM

Whatever the reason, I also think it was a bad decision.

Stephen

07-05-2004, 05:22 PM

I feel two ways about the LH Tournament rules. On the one hand I respect the desire of competitive, rank-interested players to change the game to fit their parameters, and solve issues they have. In some ways they clarified vague rules to make things more clear (very good and very helpful) and in others they modified rules to remove certain strategies (less helpful to players like me, but obviously desired by competitive players). To me that's not that different from any other game where something is added to standardize and assist competition.

On the other hand, I don't like the idea that there are now two sets of rules competing for interest. I recall seeing a post from a player offering to play another using the LHTR by PBEM in a personal game. If the LHTR becomes that kind of a standard by players, the AH rules will gradually fall in stature. If there were unclear AH rules, clarify or fix them. But as a player who has only played the AH rules thus far, am I playing some kind of a lesser game? I don't believe so, although there must be some out there that would think so, assuming they feel the LHTR to be both a more clear and superior ruleset.

Consider the issue of fighters landing on new carriers. The AH rule and the LHTR rule are (IMO) interchangeable, in that in some cases the AH rule would work in your case and the LHTR not, or vice versa, depending on the situation. This difference between the two games is rather significant and bothers me the most. Is a given strategy using the AH AC rule now impure because it benefits from the AH rule in a way that is prohibited by the LHTR rule? Or vice versa? These kinds of debates will be quite irritating and will contribute towards the standardizing of the game in one direction or the other (likely the LHTR but whichever way, some people's desired rules will lose some of their legitimacy).

BTW, I want to be clear that I am not a tournament player, nor do I play much PBEM and generally don't play outside my circle of friends. I can't solve or develop the game mechanics or interpret the effects of things as well as others. But as a casual gamer, and I would think there are many out there, all we ask for is clear rules that are official, and allow us to get enjoyment from the game. If I had a vote, I would ask for the AH rules to remain the standard, with the LHTR as recommendations for tournament play. In this, I support and agree with calling the LH Tournament rules a "variant".

squirecam

07-05-2004, 10:01 PM

Scott_WAR

07-05-2004, 10:46 PM

Actually Squire, I have done my homework. I have read the threads, and actually counted those that did not like the rules, those that liked all but one or 2 rules and those that liked them all together. The results were rather overwhelming. Most did not like them all together. Next in numbers were those that liked all but 1 or 2 rules (one of those rules was unanimously new carriers and fighters and was changed). Very few actually claimed to like all the rules in their entirety. I think the numbers were 12 that did not like them at all, 9 that did not like one or 2 rules and 5 that liked them all. The 5 that liked them all were pretty much the guys that created them. Further analysis of the threads showed that most of the discusion was by the guys that created LHTR, and 4 or 5 others. This can hardly be called the community.

The PBEM community is a different matter. I dont know if they were more involved there, but very few have had any input here, or at other very popular A&A forums, namely dons and thrashers. There are very few, if any posts that discuss the ruleset before the thread proclaiming it the new official rules set for tournaments and PBEM. And the majority of those that participated in those had objections to more than the one rule that was changed. Many have objections to tech not taking effect when it is suppposed to, about HB being made worthless as a tech, and a few other rule changes that are being called "clarifications".

Scott_WAR

07-05-2004, 11:11 PM

Keep posting, sooner or later I will blame you for something, or at least find something to disagree about :)

cousin_joe

07-06-2004, 12:23 AM

I have read the threads, and actually counted those that did not like the rules, those that liked all but one or 2 rules and those that liked them all together. The results were rather overwhelming. Most did not like them all together. Next in numbers were those that liked all but 1 or 2 rules (one of those rules was unanimously new carriers and fighters and was changed). Very few actually claimed to like all the rules in their entirety. I think the numbers were 12 that did not like them at all, 9 that did not like one or 2 rules and 5 that liked them all. "Scott, Scott, Scott... :rolleyes: Remember how we talked about this before and how your analysis was severely flawed. People who complain are more likely to post, and a lot of the responses you're counting are re: the LHTR 1.0 ruleset which did not allow existing FTRs to land on ACs (This was fixed in LHTR 1.1 and there was much less complaining).

The other thing I don't think you fully grasp, is that the LHTR was designed specifically for Competitive Play. For Competitive Play, you need 2 things:

1. A ruleset which is clear cut, with only a single interpretation for each rule
-LHTR has done a very good job of this. There is the one example you mention re: trnasports and substalling, and you say this is LHTR's attempt to change the rules, but really, this is a perfect example of how rules need to be clarified. Blackwatch's interpretation was just different than Mike's, but now that Mike has ruled, it appears that this is the interpretation that will be accepted. Look through the AH manual + FAQ and there still is a lot of inconsistency and ambiguity there.

2. Games that are decided more on strategy and skill, rather than dice and luck
-Removing G1 Sealion and the Overpowered US HB Strategy were mandatory for Competitive Play. Now, although they may have gone a bit overboard in weakening HB, the LHTR ruleset is much more strategy and skill based than the AH rules. The AH rules are fine for a beer and pretzel game with friends, but are totally unplayable from a Competitive Play point of view. If someone is lucky enough to succeed on a chancy G1 Sealion, or gets HB early and bombs Germany to smithereens, is that sufficient criteria to advance in a tournament setting. NO!! That is why AH rules as is cannot be used for Competitive Play.

Now, the one thing I agree with you on, is that AH needs to make further changes to their rules. The LHTR rules are an attempt to do that. If they go through, your 'golden rule' will be fulfilled and we can all play with out of the box rules. If they don't, then you have a simple choice, play games for fun, using the AH rules, or play in tournaments and clubs using the LHTR rules - as AH rules are just not suitable for Competitive Play.

07-06-2004, 12:50 AM

I was just over at Larry's site and it looks like he has approached AH to see if they will adopt LHTR. Still waiting on Larry to confirm this, as I may have misinterpreted his words, but if they do adopt it Scott won't have anything to whinge about anymore!

Not sure how he will occupy his time if that happens, heavenforbid he might actually have to try playing by the LHTR ruleset which he is so eager to criticise, without having ever tried it.

07-06-2004, 12:56 AM

For the record I had nothing to do with LHTR v1.0, but like many active users of these boards who were unhappy with that early version, we successfully lobbied the powers that be to improve upon the first edition which they did inside of a few weeks.

AH were so slow to even get a FAQ out, that I had to take it upon myself to write a FAQ (which AH then used as the basis for the official FAQ).

Here's the thing Scott, like them or dislike them, at least the LHTR crew actually listen and respond to community concerns and suggestions within a reasonable timeframe.

Scott_WAR

07-06-2004, 01:31 AM

I can appreciate that. They at least did something within a short amount of time. That in itself has been the point others have made. It was made too soon, without giving the original rules a chance. I wont disagree with that, but I will say that something had/has to be done about a few of the rules. Sealion must be dealt with. I think no tech for the 1rst full turn would be better than actually changing when tech takes effect. The "surprise" of an opponent getting LR, or some other tech than can really make a difference the turn it was discovered has always been part of the game.

I digress, as usual. Lets me finish it by saying that AH does need to do something. Whether it is a good going over of the rules and the clarifications needed made via the FAQ, or whether a 2nd Revised edition is released, or if, *shiver* LHTR is adopted as official. Something needs to be done in less than 2 years this time. If LHTR is made official I will shut up. I do however reserve the right to make one post complaining, groaning and all around pitching a fit about how I am not happy about it. Then I will drop it. ;)

07-06-2004, 02:19 AM

Look Scott, to be honest I still have 2 issues with LHTR v1.1

1) Delayed tech

2) HB far too weak (delayed tech + sbr limits + weakened dice)

Personally I'd prefer to see no tech on game turn 1 (then tech as per AHR from turn 2), SBR limits per turn (ie the current LHTR v1.1) and HB as per AHR.

As someone who has played a fair bit of AHR and LHTR PBEM, I can safely say that while not perfect (see above), LHTR v1.1 suits online and competative play more than AHR does.

Scott_WAR

07-06-2004, 02:58 AM

I was reading the LHTR rules more thouroughly tonight. I have to say, most of the changes I can agree with. The new carrier/fighter placement is acceptable. I dont see the reason for even messing with it, but the LHTR way actually gives the player a little more range with the fighter/s going on the new carrier so it doesnt take away anything. Subs and Jet power are actually better in LHTR, at least you may actually want to spend IPC to get them. The transport change(see the long debate about sub stalling) I can live with, I dont necessarily LIKE it, but it doesnt change all that much. The only things I really dislike, are the same as you. If the limit on SBR and rockets were like LHTR, the HB's like AH, and tech delayed one round instead of taking effect at the end of the turn , and all other changes in LHTR remained, I could actually change my mind.

Drax Kramer

07-06-2004, 03:21 AM

The problem is that some people decided they didn't like the rules within a month of the release of the game. They simply declared that rules do not satisfy their needs and went their way to create their own ruleset.

Was it an open design process with draft version available to anyone? No. The A&A community was simply informed that new set of rules has been designed and that it will be used for "competitive play" (I wonder what are other modes of play?)

There was a vocal discussion and some of the rules have been changed (again).

My first objection is the method the LHTR were created. I can understand the large corporation using closed design process. What I don't understand is a group of citizens doing it.

The second objection is how Official Rules haven't been given a chance. There were no major tournaments with lopsided results, no mass complaints by participants. Neither "vanilla" nor the game with NA's have been sufficiently played out. And we are not talking about chess here where no dice is used.

The company's response has been called "slow" for publishing the FAQ only three months after the release of the game. Gee! The game hasn't even arrived to my country until early June. Have you guys forgotten what the "FAQ" acronym stands for? It takes time for Questions to gather and for some of them to be "Frequent" in order to answer on them.

I am still puzzled with Larry's participation. He was a part of the design process, I'd say pretty important part. It is perfectly understandable that some of his ideas did not make into the manual.

Well, James Madison is recognised as a "Father of the Constitution" yet he was sometimes overruled by the others. Did he abandon the Constitution? Did he try to change it as soon as it was adopted? There is a method how the US Constitution is to be changed and there is a body that is tasked with interpreting it.

A&A Manual is not a legal document, but as far as playing of A&A is concerned it has the power of the Constitution. AH is the only body that can officially interpret the manual and questions about it should be sent to AH to answer.

Drax

TomJag3

07-06-2004, 10:37 AM

Personally, I don't see what the big fuss is about. I've played Revised using both sets of rules and it hasn't changed my strategies at all.

No matter which set of rules is used, the rules are the same for both players. There are a couple of changes I'd like seen made to the LHTR, but they're nothing dramatic. Like many top players, I don't do tech and there's so few carriers built during a game that the rules pertaining to fighters landing on them don't have much of an effect.

The LHTR do clarify a number of rules that are misstated in the AH version. I still hate reading the box rules and seeing all the references to British units and territories being tan, instead of light green. :) Everyone already knows the many incorrectly written rules in that set, so there's no reason to rehash it now.

Good luck and good gaming, all of you. I hope to see many of you at GenCon.

07-06-2004, 12:47 PM

No offense Drax, but I doubt we'd have an official FAQ yet had I not spent around 12 hours compiling and editing/condensing all of Mike's responses to questions on these boards.

Scott_WAR

07-06-2004, 02:39 PM

Tom, if you play a game and hardly ever a carrier get built, or nobody ever go for tech, then you need to play the revised game with some epeople that will take advantage of the new map and rules. Germany can benefit GREATLY from a G1 carrier purchase. Tech is not the luck game it used to be. It is now a real part of the games strategy.

07-06-2004, 02:52 PM

I agree, the G1 CV is actually fine and KJF is also good IMHO, leading to several CVs being added to the Pacific. Tech is quite broken in AHR, whereas it's quite bad in LHTR.

TomJag3

07-07-2004, 10:29 AM

I encourage my Axis opponents to buy their Baltic CV on turn 1. It's an inferior strategy to buying 12 infantry and an artillery on turn 1 for Germany. Germany needs to be a land power. The only purpose the CV serves is to keep the Allies out of the Baltic. So what, the Allies mass their fleets in the English Channel and Russia can put pressure on Japan. The German CV purchase has never impressed me and I've yet to read of a strategy using it that has ever impressed me.

squirecam

07-07-2004, 01:44 PM

Scott_WAR

07-07-2004, 03:16 PM

If Germany doesnt build a Carrier, the baltic navy gets destroyed. Uk canland trrops in Norway, or Karelia or Archangel turn 2, and by turn 3 or 4 can drop 4 infantry and 4 tanks every turn. The USA can set up to do the same. If you dont build a carreier by turn 3 or 4 UK and USA are all over Germany. If germany builds the carrier, the UK must build a better fleet, must protect the UK from being invaded,and the US has to consolidate with the UK fleet to be safe.

So Germany without the carrier -UK and USA has a strong foothold in europe by turn 4, Germany with the Carrier- Uk and USA take at least 3 turns before they can even start to drop any troops in Europe.

The difference is playing against people who know what they are doing with the carrier. A fairly new person my have problems making the carrier work for them, but I and many others here , can show you first hand, how that carrier can make life tough for UK. You have to know what to do with it. Sometimes, letting it sit in the Baltic, may be all you need to do, more often than not though, you need to move it to make it more of a threat.

AxisRoll

07-07-2004, 07:20 PM

Scott is right on the money. TomJag, you can still get 8 Inf rd1.

Then rd 2 you get a transport or 2 to put pressure on UK depending on what the allies have done.

07-07-2004, 07:29 PM

As a veteran of many PBEM games against players from these boards, I believe the carrier is a good buy if you are playing with a bid (min $6 for Axis gaining 1 inf in Libya).

Personally I feel a G1 CV requires a Trn build also. With the bid in Libya, you can use your Med fleet to hit the UK BB in Gib. With 3 trn, 4 ftr and 1 bmb in range of London for a G2 Sealion, you prevent any UK1 IC purchase, unless USA sacks its fleet in SZ8.

It is a tough call if playing with no bid, I'd probably stick with 13 inf save $1.

cousin_joe

07-07-2004, 07:29 PM

I pretty much always build a G1 CV in the Baltic and I haven't lost as Axis yet. I've played some pretty good players too., and all of these games were without a bid! :eek:

A G1 CV forces the Allies to spend more IPC's on Navy, interferes with their freedom of movement in the Atlantic, keeps them out of Kar/Nor for a longer time, and keeps them from threatening Ger/EEur. Without UK/US support, Germany can bully their way closer to Russia.

AxisRoll

07-07-2004, 07:52 PM

A/C is the piece of choice in Revised... :D

Drax Kramer

07-08-2004, 01:44 AM

Why should Allies build more ships with German carrier present than otherwise? What additional threat to combined Allied fleet offloading troops to Algeria, Norway or Western Europe this carrier brings?

Drax

smo63

07-08-2004, 04:48 AM

Tech is not the luck game it used to be. It is now a real part of the games strategy...

Techs are luck. What has changed? They have not changed a thing regarding the chance of getting techs. You still have to roll one dice at the cost of 5 IPC.s and roll the correct number. That is still a 16% chance in my book...what has changed?

Heck, ask some of the game creators, they wanted to get rid of techs in Revised but thought it too drastic of a move so they thought to just modify them instead, to appease the masses.

There is very little to no strategic planning for techs. Only those that don't really know how to win without them...

As for PBEM, I can not comment for I have not ventured down that path and not sure of the possible differences if any...?

As for the CV on G1, the jury is still out on that one...

Scott_WAR

07-08-2004, 06:33 AM

The fact that you get to choose what you are rolling for dramatically changes the tech aspect. Now instead of getting what you want 1/6th of the time you get it 100% of the time, when you make the roll. Its still the same statistacally to GET a breakthrough. But now you get whatever breakthrough you choose, not a random one. That makes a huge difference.

With that in mind, you can see where a strategy that utilizes one or more of the techs is now much more viable.

07-08-2004, 07:02 AM

Yes as a strategy, directed 2 dice HBs with IPC per bomber SBR caps are still superior than 3 dice HBs in MB AA because the likelihood you get those HBs up and running by USA 2 is 52% (assuming you buy 2 bmb and try 2 tech rolls per turn until you hit HB).

In MB AA you could only afford 1 tech roll plus 2 bmb and the chance of hitting HB by USA was:

(HB US1) + (any other tech US1) * (HB US2) + (no tech US1) * (HB US2)

1/36 + 1/6*5/6*1/6*1/5 + 30/36*1/36

= 36/1296 + 6/1296 + 30/1296

= 72/1296

:=: 5.6%

Obviously tactically 3 dice HB are superior, but you can base your strategy on getting HB in MB AA, wheras you can in AH AAR. :eek:

smo63

07-08-2004, 07:12 AM

axis_roll

07-08-2004, 09:51 AM

I guess I still see it as a crapshoot and a grasp for desperation to the over-all play of the game. Especially FTF play. But I guess that is a player’s prerogative, if they so choose, giving everyone their own flair for the game...

for 4 dice, you SHOULD get the tech you are rolling for.

You can gamble and try to get your tech for the cheap, like $5 or $10.

The more games I am playing, the more I see a stagnated Axis might want to try for some tech, like a very solid Germany unable to make any headway against a strong Allied schuck-schuck. They might be able to afford $10 for a turn or two and try for rockets.

BlackWatch222

07-08-2004, 10:44 AM

for 4 dice, you SHOULD get the tech you are rolling for...

For any one roll the odds of not getting a 6 is 5/6.

The probability for not getting a 6 in 4 rolls is 5/6 x 5/6 x 5/6 x 5/6 = 48.2%

So the probability of getting at least one "6" in 4 rolls is 51.8%, just slightly better than 50-50 odds.

I don't think you can say that you SHOULD get the tech in 4 rolls, when nearly half the time you won't...

Six rolls gives you a 2/3 chance (getting better). Eight gives you 77%; 10 gives you an 84% chance and so on...

Directed techs makes techs a better gamble in AH Revised than 2nd edition (and certainly makes it imperative there be no game busting techs in the mix), but it still does not mean that techs are a good thing to spend cash on...

BW

TomJag3

07-08-2004, 11:36 AM

Squirecam,

I've got Friday at GenCon open for pick-up games, if you're interested. Unfortunately, Saturday and Sunday are tied up with the Masters (hopefully the full time :-)). How do you want to play? Rules from the box or LHTR, and how many v.c.'s?

Yes, it's nice to have the CV in the Baltic to protect the transport(s) and shuttle a few troops north. It's also convenient not to have to worry about an invasion of Germany or Eastern Europe. However, as an Axis player, it's not the navy that will bring me victory. If Britain wants to bomb the Baltic Fleet out of existence, they will probably lose 2 fighters. It's really hard for Britain to replace those fighters, especially when they build a factory in India and have to build transports and ground units in England. I'd rather have an extra 4 inf and 1 art on the ground, and have the Brits with 2 fewer fighters.

Those who build their German carrier forget a central fact. The war is won on the ground, and Germany needs to dominate the land war. Putting 16 (or 24) points toward the fleet on the first turn of the game may allow you to get 2-4 untis to Karelia a turn earlier, however, you've got 5-8 fewer ground units on the board.

squirecam

07-08-2004, 11:42 AM

Squirecam,

I've got Friday at GenCon open for pick-up games, if you're interested. Unfortunately, Saturday and Sunday are tied up with the Masters (hopefully the full time :-)). How do you want to play? Rules from the box or LHTR, and how many v.c.'s?

Friday is a possibility. Thursday I plan on playing the D-Day tournament. I havent yet signed up for the A&A Pacific tournament (I own a copy but have never played it), so I could likely do a Friday game sometime. I will be in the Mega tournament Sat so that's out for me as well.

I usually prefer a "till one side conceeds" game, but a straight 9VC game works too.

I'd prefer LHTR, as I don't believe the AH HB tech is fair.

Your preferences?

Squirecam

Carico67

07-08-2004, 11:45 AM

I don't think you can say that you SHOULD get the tech in 4 rolls, when nearly half the time you won't...

You are wrong here, 4 rolls IS the perspective from which tech is looked at. In a game where odds/percentages weigh heavily and must be strategized in, better than 50% is where the line for expected success is drawn. If not, where, 66%, 80%? No, 4 dice is what players should expect to risk for a good shot at a tech (a gamble in and of itself). Will they get it in 1 roll; sometimes. Will it take 9; sometimes. In an inexact science you can play %'s and hope dice are in your favor, nothing more.

This was also a common mistake being thrown around several MB's for the longest time when this game came out, and everyone incorrectly referenced 30 IPC's for a tech the standard cost... so you are not alone in this thinking :D

TomJag3

07-08-2004, 12:02 PM

Squiercam,

Friday, LHTR sound good. 8, 9, or until one side concedes is fine with me. If we go with 8, it will be a good warmup for your Mega showing. If I'm lucky, I'll get to play Revised for fun all day Friday. I never get a chance to play around here, so it will be pleasant to be playing for fun.

BlackWatch222

07-08-2004, 12:30 PM

You are wrong here, 4 rolls IS the perspective from which tech is looked at. In a game where odds/percentages weigh heavily and must be strategized in, better than 50% is where the line for expected success is drawn. If not, where, 66%, 80%? No, 4 dice is what players should expect to risk for a good shot at a tech (a gamble in and of itself). Will they get it in 1 roll; sometimes. Will it take 9; sometimes. In an inexact science you can play %'s and hope dice are in your favor, nothing more.

This was also a common mistake being thrown around several MB's for the longest time when this game came out, and everyone incorrectly referenced 30 IPC's for a tech the standard cost... so you are not alone in this thinking :D

C67, I was objecting to the word SHOULD (especially all in caps) - a 50-50 obligation might be characterised as MAY, but SHOULD implies an obligation of the dice roller to cough up a tech for you: 50-50 is a far cry from any such obligation.

And I agree on the 30 IPC fallacy issue as well - amongst inexperienced players there may be a tendency to think that rolling 6 die SHOULD get you one tech every time - but it won't. You'll only get a tech two out of three times if you roll six dice. If you are relying on that tech to win or lose the game for you, you have already set yourself up to lose 1/3 of your games...

In a game where you can only get one tech, it becomes worthwhile to look at how many dice you should roll in any turn if you are trying to obtain a specific tech.

The first die you roll gives you a 16.7% chance at a tech. If you roll two, your chances go up to 30.6%, which is better, but only by an additional 13.9% - the second chance has a higher net cost than the first. The third die buys another 11.6%, and the fourth die buys only 9.6% - clearly a case of diminishing returns on your tech "investment".

Why is there an effective decline in value as you roll more dice in one turn in A&A Revised? Very simply - if you hit on the first die, you bought the last 3 for nothing. The only way to be sure to never waste a tech roll is to roll only one die in any one turn.

BW

Scott_WAR

07-08-2004, 03:31 PM

LOL, I guess its in how you look at it. Over 50% should hit more often than not. How much more often than not, depends on how much more than 50% it is. An optimist woud expect over 50% to be a success. Some, less optimistic people may want 75% odds,or better, before they consider something a safe bet.

smo63

07-09-2004, 10:25 AM

I kills me how a thread on fighters landing on carriers in the mobilization phase of a turn can turn into a thread on techs...

As far as GEN CON goes, guys, just like Origins, there will be an AA headquarters/table and I guarntee, hang around long enough and you can pick up AA games at anytime.

Also, as far as never playing in one AA version or the other at GCI, there are always many players coming to the tourneys that have never played or have just played once and still do fairly well, as long as, they have some basic knowledge of the game...

And, keep up the push for GEN CON. It is only six weeks away and I am already starting to get pumped...! Tomorrow night is a big D-Day night for us here in the Cin city...

GS:)

Carico67

07-09-2004, 11:06 AM

Let me know what you find there. Also, a few things to note on the D-Day MB's if you haven't checked them is:

When Targeting with Bombardment (or the tactic card to allow 2 bomber drops) you name a target, then roll that die... see if hit/miss... select the next target etc... no prenaming all the targets before rolling.

An area cannot be contested (even if under control) for the win at the end of the 10th turn....

Ftr strafes are target specific... the German player doesn't get to choose where hits go. Each individual piece must withstand ftr rolls at it.

Anyways, even more info over on that portion of the MB, but I found those areas cloudy after trying it out and checking rulebook. Mike S was very diligent and responded quickly as ussual answering the above...