Greg Smorey, rules question

[GSH34]

Greg, we are having a rather contenious rules debate over at TripleA and need some clarification. Here is the set up. A fighter flies four movements to enter a naval combat. A carrier is present for the fighter to land on allowing it to use all four movements. If the attacker retreats from the naval battle, does the fighter get one "free" retreat movement space? Also, if it does get one "free" retreat movement space, can the fighter land anywhere adjacent to the SZ in question or must it retreat with the fleet?

Lots of people have been hanging their hats on different wordings. I've always said that fighters do get that "free" retreat movement space even if they used all four movements to enter combat and here's why.

The FAQ's here at AH states:

Can only part of an attacking force retreat, leaving other units behind to keep fighting?
No, with one exception -- any number of planes can retreat from amphibious assaults during any Press Attack or Retreat step. Otherwise, this is never allowed.

Also, Mike Selinker answered this question in another thread here at AH:
http://boards.avalonhill.com/showthread.php?t=1561

by Baron
Suppose that I have a Japanese fleet composed of several subs and an empty aircraft carrier in the hawaii sea zone. I move to attack an American fleet sitting off the Western US. For additional support, I fly two fighters from Japan into the attack. This is at the limit of their range, but that's OK, as I'm going to land them on the carrier in the sea zone. Now, the attack doesn't go well in the first round, so I decide I want to bail. Can I lose my subs and retreat the carrier and planes back to hawaii? In other words, does that retreat move count as a move for the fighters (in which case, that would be five moves for them, and they couldn't do it), or do they get that for free? I pretty sure the answer is no, because there are other consequences to that ability (I can see attacks on fleets for one round in order to move the aircraft an effective five spaces).

In a similar question, with the same initial setup, can I attack the western US fleet with just the planes and the subs, intending to move the carrier in to land the planes on after the battle is won (I believe this counts as a "risky attack"). Then if the battle is lost, I can send the carrier off in other directions, and not worry about the planes, which are now dead, right.

Scott

Mike's answer was this:

by Mike Selinker
All units can retreat one space, regardless of how they got to combat. However, normal-range fighters can only move 4 spaces into combat if they plan to land on a carrier that is in the combat or will be moving into that zone in the noncombat move. In this case, if the carrier is no longer an option, they still may move one space on a retreat.

I hope that answers the question.

Mike

However, others are arguing that fighters which use four movements to enter combat can't retreat. There arguement rests on this.

Page 27: a fighter based on an attacking carrier can launch before combat, and if it survives, can retreat to a friendly teriritory or carrier within range. If the fighter has no place to land by the end of the noncombat movmeent, it is destroyed.

On page 16 "Air units can retreat to any friendly territory within movement range"

Also, this point of view argues that planes land during noncombat. Since it states in the rules fighters can land anywhere they have movement range, they can't land since their movement is used up during combat.

This debate is happening at TripleA War Club site, http://tripleawarclub.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=171&st=0

I would appreciate if you could take the time to log in as a member to put you two cents in on this subject so we can have the correct rules written into the TripleA game.

Thanks for your time Greg.
GSH34

[CrazyStraw]

Gentlemen,

I do not see anything in the rules that would indicate that a fighter gets one extra movement point so it can land on a retreating carrier. By a straight reading of the rules, I'd say the fighter dies unless someone has a compelling counter example from the rules.

Here are the relevant passages as I read them:
From page 16:
Air Units: Air units can retreat to any friendly territory within movement range.
From page 27:
Land on Aircraft Carriers: Fighters may be carried by aircraft carriers. Up to two fighters may be on a friendly aircraft carrier at a time. A fighter must be launched from the carrier’s initial position to participate in combat this turn. However, it may land on a carrier after combat (even if retreating) or a noncombat move. (A fighter may not land on a carrier during the carrier’s move, however.) Your aircraft carrier can move to a sea zone where one of your fighters has ended its move (and in fact, it must do so) but cannot move any farther that turn.
A fighter based on a defending carrier that is destroyed in combat must try to land. It must move 1 space to a friendly territory or aircraft carrier, or be destroyed. However, a fighter based on an attacking carrier can launch before combat, and if it survives, can retreat to a friendly territory or carrier within range. If the fighter has no place to land by the end of noncombat movement, it is destroyed.

[GSH34]

Uhm, what about Mike Selinker clarifying that fighters which used four movements to enter a naval combat DO get one free retreat movement?

What about the AH FAQ page that states the only time a partial retreat is allowed is aircraft from an amphibious assult?

Using your reasoning, no units should be able to retreat that used all of their movement spaces to enter combat. Infantry and artillery could never retreat. Tanks and all naval units could only retreat if they used one movement to enter the combat.

I'm not trying to put you down CrazyStraw. It's just that the rule book does not say "fighters that used four movements to enter combat can not retreat". Every other unit (barring bombers an subs) are allowed to use their entire movement range to enter combat and they all get a free movement when retreating. Opposing your point of view, I believe, is the AH FAQ page (partial retreats not allowed except fighters from amphibious assult) and Mike Selinker saying verbatim, "All units can retreat one space, regardless of how they got to combat. However, normal-range fighters can only move 4 spaces into combat if they plan to land on a carrier that is in the combat or will be moving into that zone in the noncombat move. In this case, if the carrier is no longer an option, they still may move one space on a retreat."

I don't know what else to point to than the above. This is why I'm asking Greg. Hell, if Mike Selinker or Larry bumps into this thread, I'd like to hear from them too. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am.

GSH34

[pagan]

Retreat is not a movement cost.

You cannot move a FTR 4 spaces into naval combat without an AC moving into the same seazone. You cannot just say that you plan on retreating your FTR to the adjacent seazone where your AC will be.

A FTR cannot fly out in suicide if there is no place/way for it to land by the end of non-combat movement

Only thing that can retreat from an Amphib-Assault is the Aircraft. They are basically removed from the combat board and dealt with in non-combat.

I do believe that the 'free' movement is being confused with the suggestions of what happens to a FTR if its AC is killed....where basically it lands immediately (1 move) or it dies in the ocean.

Its not as complicated as some people try to make it seem
.

[CrazyStraw]

Hey GSH.

Couple more thoughts for you. what about Mike Selinker clarifying that fighters which used four movements to enter a naval combat DO get one free retreat movement?If the rule can be determined from the original rule book, why get a clarification at all? I think the rule can be determined without any extra point of refernece.
What about the AH FAQ page that states the only time a partial retreat is allowed is aircraft from an amphibious assult?Interesting. Go ahead and post the link here so we all see it. But that doesn't mean they didn't post something that conflicts with their own rules :eek:

Using your reasoning, no units should be able to retreat that used all of their movement spaces to enter combat. Infantry and artillery could never retreat. Tanks and all naval units could only retreat if they used one movement to enter the combat.No, using my reasoning, I look at the rules that treat aircraft differently and then I use those rules.

I'm not trying to put you down CrazyStraw. I wouldn't say you are ;)

Axis is a complex game, no doubt about it. That means disagreements about what the rules say are going to crop up from time to time. But I actually think the rulebook is clear enough. Once you add in the FAQ and letters from the game designers, things get murkier. But I'm a constructionist, not a revisionist. :cool: I'd say use the rule from the book since it can be interpreted without much ambiguity.

Peace

[Frog]

I do believe that the 'free' movement is being confused with the suggestions of what happens to a FTR if its AC is killed....where basically it lands immediately (1 move) or it dies in the ocean.


.


I have to agree. a retreat is not a free movement. It is a retreat.

Logic dictates if any other unit, land, sea or air, is allowed to move their max movement into battle, and retreat, then so should aircraft in a retreat. Now I agree amphibious landings are different story.

If a plane uses it's maximum moves and then is attacked on another countries turn and is forced to land 1 movement, hasn't it moved 5 spaces in that turn?? Is that a "free movement? No. retreats are different from movement ranges.

I'm sure someone disagrees.

[Yoper]

Here is a link to a discussion that I took part in with Panther (Rules guru at the German pbem club daak.de) and with Blackwatch (Rules JAG for AAMC).

http://dicey.net/revised/viewtopic.php?t=27&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Just after that I went to Greg's A&A Spring Gathering and we had a spirited talk about this same topic.

The main difference is the fact that land and sea units can stay in the territory or sea zone that the battle is taking place in. Air units cannot land in a territory just taken. They must have movement points to get to a friendly landing space.

Battles in a sea zone are different in that the fighter can use up all its movement to get to the battle if there is going to be a carrier in the zone at the end of the noncombat phase.

If the carrier the fighter was to land upon retreats from combat or because of a failed combat in the embattled sea zone the carrier can't move in during noncombat, then the fighter, which has no more movement, is destroyed at the end of the noncombat phase.

Craig

[CrazyStraw]

I'd sum up my opinion thusly:

1) Air units retreat differently than other units (pg. 16)
2) Air units can retreat as far as their movement allows (pg. 16)
3) If the fighter has no safe landing space it is destroyed (pg. 18)

Parallels to other types of retreats aren't necessarily accurate because of #1.

Frog brings up an interesting point about flying one space from a dead defending carrier. Personally, I think that was a change in the rules that made the game needlessly complex. I understand the 'real world logic' of it, but I think it violates 'game logic'. It adds complexity without adding game value.

For rule debates like this, I only like changing things that:
1) Dramatically favor one side
2) Add too much of an element of luck

The carrier/fighter rule effects both sides about equally and there's no element of luck involved. So why complicate the rules with extra exceptions? Fighters retreat separately. If they can't land, they die.

Smorley, do you have an opinion on this?

[GSH34]

Yoper, thank you for your link. It pointed me to another thread, http://boards.avalonhill.com/showthread.php?p=23841#post23841, where Mike Selinker elaborated on why fighters DO get a retreat movement just like all other units in this thread Mike states:

Yes, they would. Everything gets a free space when retreating. (You can't take this into account, though, when plotting your aerial attacks. So you can't fly a fighter four spaces into battle under the presumption that you will retreat into a fifth space which is your only legitimate landing area.)

From Mike again:

As far as I know, Chris, this is not a point of disagreement between the rule sets. The fighter could have only moved four spaces if an aircraft carrier was in or declared to move to the combat zone sometime before the end of the noncombat phase. It's not an illegal move, because it can ONLY occur when there's a carrier that gets destroyed. No matter what, the fighter gets a space to move.

Mike talks more:

I think I see where the objection is. Here's a step-by-step logic:
1. Every other unit gets a free space of movement during a retreat. Doesn't matter if it's an artillery that moved 1 or a tank that blitzed 2.
2. Air units have the power to land anywhere in a retreat, not just where some of their units came from.
3. If an air unit wants to move its full move into combat, it can do so only under the presumption that it is following the rules (normally, if a carrier will be in that space, or if it's a Japanese kamikaze).
4. At the end of that move it needs to go somewhere. A kamikaze would never make it to this step. Since all other planes are not kamikazes, they must believe they will have a place to land.
5. If this place doesn't materialize, are they doomed? The game rules say "within movement range," so maybe so. But are they somehow less capable than any land or sea unit, which can retreat to a space it (or its friends) came from? If you allow a fighter that, does fuel only work one way, or can it land anywhere? This is the point of complication for some people.

I would say that by this logic, a fighter that loses its ride would be able to retreat with the sea group for sure; like everything else, it must at least have the ability to move one extra space to a place where attacking units came from. So since it can do that, I believe it consistent with the fighter's description that it can go any one space, and that's how I got to that rule when writing the game. But I agree that this position is not clearly spelled out in the rulebook, and might even be contradicated by it, so it deserves to be in an FAQ.

Mike

Mike specifically contends with the "within movement range" that everyone is hanging their hats on. So, to me, this an open and shut case that fighters get to retreat like every other unit. Anything other than this is a "house" rule.

GSH34

[axis_roll]

If movement does equals range then no piece that has moved it's range could ever retreat.

Retreats are special cases, outside the normal range rules.

Why should ftrs be penalized for retreating from a battle at sea? Are you saying because they were 'cheating' by being allowed to enter that battle (since they moved 4 spaces anyways)?

I've been playing this game for 20+ years. This same issue has existed for EVERY edition of Axis&Allies. Personally, we treat this case as the ftrs could retreat. I am not saying that we are right, I'm just saying we've always played that way.

[Yoper]

GSH34- Mike does say all that, but he didn't put it in the rules. I have stated before that I do not care much for what Mr. Selinker did to the game and as such I do not put much stock in what he says. That's just my opinion. Enough said.


If you read the other thread at the dicey.net site, you can see the thought process behind why I think that it should be no extra movement for fighters. I understand and I used to agree with the ability of fighters to retreat, but difference is that fighters are actually being given an exception, a bonus, to go to a sea battle that is four spaces away.

They are not allowed to go four spaces to participate in a land battle. You can't send them under the presumption that they will be able to retreat from combat and get a fifth space of movement.

It doesn't matter whether a battle is won by the attacker or retreated from by the attacker, his fighters move to a friendly landing spot in the noncombat phase.

If the attacker decides to use up all of the fighters movement in combat movement to get to a sea battle, then the fighter has no movement left for use in noncombat movement.

The key difference is that land and sea units retreat during the conduct combat phase, while no matter what the outcome of the battle is (win or retreat), a fighter leaves the territory/sea zone during noncombat movement phase.

The way you could really say all this is that planes never retreat from a battle. They participate in the battle as long as the attacker chooses to continue and then they fly home in the noncombat movement phase. Land and sea units are removed from the target territory/sea zone but planes are returned to that spot on the board. They do not vacate that spot until the noncombat movement phase.

I hope this helps. It may not change your mind, but I hope it is food for thought.

Craig

[GSH34]

Craig,

I would like start by saying thanks for discussing this.

I understand where you are coming from with retreats happening during combat and a fighter's landing movements happening during noncombat. A lot of this has to do with who's word a person puts more weighting on. As one of the developers of the game, I choose to put more weight on the way Mike interprets the rules vs. you or any number of JAG's from other online clubs.

I believe retreats are a special case. The rule book doesn't say point blank, "Fighters are an exception to retreating. They can't retreat if they used all four movements to enter a naval combat". Because of this, I think the rule book is a bit ambigious. Mike has clarified the rules (which took me awhile to find with some assistance from others, like yourself). Due to the ambiguity, it comes down to a 'my view' vs 'their view' of the rules. Because Mike was one of the developers, I choose to listen to interpretation of the rules.

But, I am still waiting to here from Mr. Steeler's Fan himself to find out what I can expect come tournament time.

GSH34

[CrazyStraw]

...I hear from older folks ;)

Ok, I'm going to grind hard on this point but it's not meant to be personal. I think the discussion has been pretty good on this topic and I'm hoping we can get some consensus.

Here we go:
As far as I know, Chris, this is not a point of disagreement between the rule sets. The fighter could have only moved four spaces if an aircraft carrier was in or declared to move to the combat zone sometime before the end of the noncombat phase. It's not an illegal move, because it can ONLY occur when there's a carrier that gets destroyed. No matter what, the fighter gets a space to move. This actually contradicts itself. He says 'it can ONLY occur when there's a carrier that gets destroyed'. Nope. What about a fighter that goes to a battle with attacking boats, the carrier is planning to move there ON NONCOMBAT, so it does not get destroyed and it does not retreat. The first part of his quote implies this. Then, suppose further that the attacking boats are all destroyed. No boats retreat. Does the fighter get to retreat to any space that one of the boats came through? Only through spaces it moved through? Any space it wants?

The rule can be found right there in the box rules; it's just an application of the text, not an interpretation. The fighter dies. Anything else is conjecture after the fact. If there's an official FAQ that changes this, fine, but it still changes what is in the rules.

And to keep banging the gong:
There is no logical inference in the rules that every piece gets one retreat space because on page 16 there is:
- A paragraph on land and sea unit retreats
- A paragraph on air unit retreats
- A section on amphibious retreats

In all three cases aircraft are clearly treated differently.

I would say that making up a rule about all units getting one space to retreat is a house rule because it is simply not in the rules. The one-move-from-a-destroyed-defending-carrier is an explicit instruction; the one-space-air-retreat is not.

Where's Jackie Chiles when you need him...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_Chiles

[jedik77]

After reading this interesting discussion, I would just like to ask this:

1. So, it is NOT legal to send a fighter in a naval battle 4 spaces away unless there is a carrier that would pick him up in non-combat movement? (Carrier must be 1 or 2 spaces away from the battle sea-zone?)

2. Is it legal to move a fighter 4 spaces into a battle that will be lost in 99% (for example, against 2 or 3 battleships)? Can I still assume that my carrier 1 or 2 spaces away COULD move to that sea zone if a fighter pulls out a miraculous victory?

Well, this opens up more questions... But I won't ask them now... :)

I would really appreciate some help here... Thanks!

[Yoper]

After reading this interesting discussion, I would just like to ask this:

1. So, it is NOT legal to send a fighter in a naval battle 4 spaces away unless there is a carrier that would pick him up in non-combat movement? (Carrier must be 1 or 2 spaces away from the battle sea-zone?)

You could also be sending a carrier into the actual battle.

2. Is it legal to move a fighter 4 spaces into a battle that will be lost in 99% (for example, against 2 or 3 battleships)? Can I still assume that my carrier 1 or 2 spaces away COULD move to that sea zone if a fighter pulls out a miraculous victory?

Yes, you can, as long as you have that carrier that you can move to that spot, if the fighter survives the battle.

Craig

[Yoper]

GSH34- As I said, Greg and I discussed this and he was in agreement at that time.

Yes, Mike was the head of the development team. He also did a poor-poor job on many of the parts of the revision, to include the writing of the rule book. If you want to take his word on this over mine- fine. That's your choice.

Head Developer does not equal good developer.

Especially for a game that is outside his normal scope of experience.

Craig

[Krieghund]

It doesn't matter whether a battle is won by the attacker or retreated from by the attacker, his fighters move to a friendly landing spot in the noncombat phase.

If the attacker decides to use up all of the fighters movement in combat movement to get to a sea battle, then the fighter has no movement left for use in noncombat movement.

The key difference is that land and sea units retreat during the conduct combat phase, while no matter what the outcome of the battle is (win or retreat), a fighter leaves the territory/sea zone during noncombat movement phase.

The way you could really say all this is that planes never retreat from a battle. They participate in the battle as long as the attacker chooses to continue and then they fly home in the noncombat movement phase. Land and sea units are removed from the target territory/sea zone but planes are returned to that spot on the board. They do not vacate that spot until the noncombat movement phase.

Craig, combat air units complete their movement in the Non-Combat Movement phase in LHTR only. In the box rules, air units involved in combat complete their movement at the end of the Combat phase, and only units not involved in combat move during the Non-Combat Movement phase.

For this reason, I am inclined to say that the fighters should be allowed to retreat along with the carriers in the box rules, but not in the LHTR rules.

[zooooma]

Just to add my vote, the points made by crazy straw are irrefutable. The rules and FAQ are clear and unambiguous.

I respect Mike, and think he did a good job on A&A. But, if the rules and FAQ do not match his intent, the rules and FAQ reign supreme. Rules and FAQ are official, threads and conversations are not. So whatever Larry, Mike, the CEO of Hasbro, or the Dalai Lama happen to say, if they don't put it in the FAQ, it is their house rule only.

Remember substalling in A&A:E/P? apparantly, Larry and Rob did not intend for the rules to work like that. But they didn't tell the playtesters or the rules writters, so substalling is legal in A&A:E and A&A:P.

House rules are fine, but OOTB rules use the rulebookand the FAQ.

-Luke

[jedik77]

Yoper, about my question no. 2:

So, I can do that no matter how strong enemy fleet is? It doesn't matter that it's almost 100% a "kamikaze attack"?

[zooooma]

Yoper, about my question no. 2:

So, I can do that no matter how strong enemy fleet is? It doesn't matter that it's almost 100% a "kamikaze attack"?

Yes, but if you win, you must move the carrier to that space.

[Yoper]

Yoper, about my question no. 2:

So, I can do that no matter how strong enemy fleet is? It doesn't matter that it's almost 100% a "kamikaze attack"?

Almost is the key word.

100%- No.
99.99999999999999999999999999999999%- Yes.

Craig

[Yoper]

Disclaimer- I am an advocate for the LHTR. I do not like everything about them, but it is a much clearer set of rules. I spent many hours helping to edit the last revision (v1.2) that is available at this link:

http://www.daak.de/indexe.php?sprache=e

All my answers are based off of this rule set as it applies to A&A Revised.

Are the LHTR perfect? No.

Are they better that the OM? I think so.

Are there still going to be instances where none of the rule sets have a clear answer? Yes. That's why we are here talking about it and trying to come to a consensus.

Guys,
This kind of discussion moves us towards a better game for all of us.

The main problem we have is the fact that there is no one that all seem to agree is final arbitrator.

Mike and Larry are out of the loop now and no one at WotC/AH/Hasbro seems to be tasked with maintaining any kind of support to A&A in a rules clarification capacity. (Unlike the great support that M'44 gets from DoW.)

That leaves us with people like Carico, Blackwatch, Panther, etc. from the pbem clubs, Greg Smorey who is the GM of the Origins and Gen Con Indy A&A tourneys, and mega-posters like Krieghund who have a track record of good rules posts.

In the absense of any "official" ruling from the powers-that-be, all we've got is each other. :eek:

Let's continue to work together to figure out the best answer.

Craig

[jedik77]

Thanks everyone!

Well, I think my "strong-US-pacific-fleet" friend will soon discover how crazy are my japanese pilots!... :)

[GSH34]

The main problem we have is the fact that there is no one that all seem to agree is final arbitrator.

Mike and Larry are out of the loop now and no one at WotC/AH/Hasbro seems to be tasked with maintaining any kind of support to A&A in a rules clarification capacity. (Unlike the great support that M'44 gets from DoW.)



Let's continue to work together to figure out the best answer.

Craig

Amen brother! What's ticking me off so much isn't that other's are disagreeing with me. What's really getting me is that AH, et. all, release a game with a substandard rules set, know about it based on all the complaints that are posted here (at least I hope they are aware of our complaints), and choose to do nothing to rectify the situation.

THAT'S what's getting to me.

So, in the spirit of continuing this debate ( ;) ), the FAQ section here at AH states that partial retreats are not allowed.
Can only part of an attacking force retreat, leaving other units behind to keep fighting? No, with one exception -- any number of planes can retreat from amphibious assaults during any Press Attack or Retreat step. Otherwise, this is never allowed.

By allowing fighters to remain, but allowing naval units to retreat, you are breaking that rule. How do you counter? :D

GSH34

[GSH34]

Craig,

You say you helped with LHTR 1.2. If you help with the next version of LHTR, why don't you go ahead and throw in the special disclaimer that says something to the effect, "Fighters which used four movement spaces to enter combat are unable to retreat". Now THAT would be something that completely clears up any ambiguity.

Also, I don't want to read the entire LHTR 1.2 document looking for the two or three sentences changed from earlier LHTR (1.1.2 I think). Could you please comment on the changes.

Thanks,
GSH34

[CrazyStraw]

Hey guys.

Yeah, more support from the company would be good. But I have to say that for the most part they've done a good job with this version of AA. Consider that in the old game we had bids in the 20's to balance the game. We've been banging at this game for a while and we haven't seen anyone consistently bid in the double digits that I'm aware of. That's no small feat in a 3-on-2 game as complex as this. Both AAEurope and AAPacific are substantially flawed. This one does pretty darn well.

So I tip my hat to Mike Selinker, Larry Harris, and others who had a hand in the design even if the final form doesn't satisfy everyone.

But to the question GSH asked last, he asked about partial retreats. Aircraft are always separate and they have to be. How's this for an example:
To Belarus:
2ftr (from Moscow)
2tnk (also from Moscow)

The tanks blitz through W. Russia capturing it from Germany on the way. Russia owns no land adjacent to Belarus until they blitzed through W. Russia. If the tanks retreat, they must retreat to ground that was just captured, that being W. Russia. Should the planes go there? I think everyone would agree that such a move would be illegal. Planes are different from everything else.

I think that has to be the guiding thought for planes when you think about them in combat. You can't draw conclusions from rules that apply to ground or naval units because they are simply different.

Peace

[smo63]

But, I am still waiting to here from Mr. Steeler's Fan himself to find out what I can expect come tournament time.

Ok, time for me to chime in...sorry for the delay in responding to this one. First off, I have had a heck of a week and just could not get on AHC...

Second, I wanted to go back and check my past posts and make sure that I was being consistant with what has been determined in the past. As I said, I was having a bad week and AA rules were not foremost on my mind...SO:

If the navy retreats and the plane has moved 4, it dies. When creating LHTR, we tried to make sure, 4 moves = 4 moves in AAR. I believe Carico67 will back me on this one as well...

Again, sorry for the dealy :(

GS:)

[Yoper]

Craig,

You say you helped with LHTR 1.2. If you help with the next version of LHTR, why don't you go ahead and throw in the special disclaimer that says something to the effect, "Fighters which used four movement spaces to enter combat are unable to retreat". Now THAT would be something that completely clears up any ambiguity.

Also, I don't want to read the entire LHTR 1.2 document looking for the two or three sentences changed from earlier LHTR (1.1.2 I think). Could you please comment on the changes.

Thanks,
GSH34

I was not doing any major rules changing, I was just helping to catch typos and language ambiguity. Things like paragraph lay out and mostly trying to reconcile the original LHTR pdf and the version posted at the dicey.net website.

My interest was based on the fact that I run the A&A Revised tourney at the World Boardgaming Championships and was trying to get a consistent and clean version available for the player. I hounded Blackwatch and Panther about problems in the versions that were out there until it got to the point that they said I should help them fix the problems. That's what I get for opening my big mouth!

So there are no real major rules changes, just a version that is laid out better, clarified better in a few places, and doesn't have any typos.

I think you should go over once to just see if seems clearer. If it seems to be a bit cleaner. I would appreciate any feedback as to any problems.

Craig

[Yoper]

So, in the spirit of continuing this debate ( ), the FAQ section here at AH states that partial retreats are not allowed.

Quote:
"Can only part of an attacking force retreat, leaving other units behind to keep fighting? No, with one exception -- any number of planes can retreat from amphibious assaults during any Press Attack or Retreat step. Otherwise, this is never allowed."

By allowing fighters to remain, but allowing naval units to retreat, you are breaking that rule. How do you counter? :D

GSH34

As I said earlier, the planes participate in the battle as long as the attacker continues the whole battle. The attacker retreats the naval units and the battle stops. The fighters are still in the sea zone, but they are not fighting anymore.

Their "retreat" is to disengage from the fighting, not to move out of the zone. Just as in any battle that a fighter is in and the rest of the units retreat from. The planes just disengage from the fighting and wait until the noncombat movement phase to fly on to a friendly landing spot.

Craig

[AllWeNeedIsLove.]

all new gamers reading this thread please note that almost all posters(except gsh) are refering to lhtr(a ruleset made by club leaders and co designer of the game).

the correct rule is fighters get to retreat from sea battles just like every other unit in the game. this is a little ambiguos in the rule book and there can be valid points on either side. so co-designer mike selinker, who was commisioned to post on these boards shortly after the game was released, answered this question clearly(many times if i remember correctly).

if gamers want to debate the merit of which rule set is better that is fine, but all gamers should know that out of the box rules are fighters get to retreat and in lhtr they do not.

happy gaming to all(i know i love playing this game i hope many more do to)

[GSH34]

Thank you AWNIL. I will go along with the ruling for LHTR that fighters can not retreat if they use four movement spaces to enter naval combat. However, the correct ruling for the box rules is to allow a fighter to retreat.

GSH34

[AllWeNeedIsLove.]

all new gamers reading this thread please note that almost all posters(except gsh) are refering to lhtr(a ruleset made by club leaders and co designer of the game).

the correct rule is fighters get to retreat from sea battles just like every other unit in the game. this is a little ambiguos in the rule book and there can be valid points on either side. so co-designer mike selinker, who was commisioned to post on these boards shortly after the game was released, answered this question clearly(many times if i remember correctly).

if gamers want to debate the merit of which rule set is better that is fine, but all gamers should know that out of the box rules are fighters get to retreat and in lhtr they do not.

happy gaming to all(i know i love playing this game i hope many more do to)

[CrazyStraw]

Hi AWNIL.

A few clarifications in regard to your post.

1. I'm not refering to LHTR. I'm referring to box rules.

2. You say the rules are ambiguous on retreats. I disagree. The rules can be clearly interpreted that the fighters don't get an extra space.

3. If you read the FAQ, you will find the statement: Technically, when do planes "land?" Is it at the end of combat, the end of the combat step, or during non-combat movement?
Regardless of whether they do combat movement or non-combat movement, planes don't technically land until the very end of the non-combat movement phase, after all other units have finished their movement.http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/faqs/axisrevised

So, with the very clear explanation that planes involved in combat still land at the end of non-combat, planes that don't have carriers move under them run out of gas and they die.

4. The rules and the FAQ can be clearly interpreted. The only things that are murky are nebulous references to threads that have no official weight.

5. There are a lot of rules in the book and in the FAQ. If you think a critical one is being missed, by all means quote it. Perhaps I've overlooked something. But I think the rules can be very directly interpreted.

Res ipsa loquitur, dude, res ipsa loquitur.

[Yoper]

GSH34- Hey, you can go with anything you like. Just remember the premise of your original post was what is the ruling in reference to Origins and Gen Con Indy. That is LHTR and Greg confirmed it.

Love- Yes, Mike answered it clearly, in the context of "his" rules.

Craig

[GSH34]

Well...., the intention of my question was about the box rules. I got pegged to help with the TripleA ladder somehow and have thrown myself into the role. At the time of it's creation, I was out voted and the box rule set was decided to be used instead of LHTR. For a box rules clarification, I was probably going to the wrong person in Greg for a rules clarification. However, I definately now know how it stands in LHTR. That is a good thing.

As for the box rules, I contend that Mike Selinker was tasked with overseeing the games release and clarifying the rules. While many don't agree with him, as a co-developer, I will take his word as the final ruling (barring something from Larry) on box rules questions if I can find a thread of his addressing my concern. Even if one of his thread posts didn't make it into the FAQ page specifically.

Thanks for the vigorous debate everyone. :)

(talking to self.....'I wonder what maelstrom I can set off next regarding rules...... :p ')

GSH34

[AllWeNeedIsLove.]

thanks gsh for all your work on aaa dont think it goes unapreciated.

it is a shame that aaa does not use lhtr. however i do not like how lhtr handles this particular fighter retreat. i wish they left well enough alone. i guess you cant always get what you want.

Q. how many rediculous phrases did i use.

A. 3

[GSH34]

thanks gsh for all your work on aaa dont think it goes unapreciated.

it is a shame that aaa does not use lhtr. however i do not like how lhtr handles this particular fighter retreat. i wish they left well enough alone. i guess you cant always get what you want.

Q. how many rediculous phrases did i use.

A. 3

It's one thing to talk yourself in the flesh and blood, but to start doing it in posts? I worry for your health Love :) .

(thanks for the compliment)
GSH34

[smo63]

Hi AWNIL.

A few clarifications in regard to your post.

1. I'm not refering to LHTR. I'm referring to box rules.

2. You say the rules are ambiguous on retreats. I disagree. The rules can be clearly interpreted that the fighters don't get an extra space.

3. If you read the FAQ, you will find the statement: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/faqs/axisrevised

So, with the very clear explanation that planes involved in combat still land at the end of non-combat, planes that don't have carriers move under them run out of gas and they die.

4. The rules and the FAQ can be clearly interpreted. The only things that are murky are nebulous references to threads that have no official weight.

5. There are a lot of rules in the book and in the FAQ. If you think a critical one is being missed, by all means quote it. Perhaps I've overlooked something. But I think the rules can be very directly interpreted.

Res ipsa loquitur, dude, res ipsa loquitur.

AWNIL,

I believe one must understand the nature of the question and the intent for which it is being asked.

If one wants to play a fun game of AA with friends, you guys choose under what ruling you will make and interpret the way you like.

But when it comes to serious tourney play, the ruling is as is. Crazystraw states it well in the quoted thread. It can be interpreted as vague, hence the reason we clarified it. Once a fighter moves its four moves, if there is NO WHERE TO LAND...bye, bye, fighter...

Actually very simple. It is just that some people like to find loop holes and abuse the system? I am not saying you are doing this but when it comes to uniform rules that hopefully make sense and that everyone can agree on, that is the gist of LHTR...or at least most players!

Peace,
GS:)

[Yoper]

I stand corrected. You did say it was a rules debate at AAA. The part I got mixed up is that the fact that you were asking Greg. Origins and Gen Con Indy use LHTR, that's where I got mixed up.

Sorry.

Craig

[axis_roll]

3. If you read the FAQ, you will find the statement: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/faqs/axisrevised

So, with the very clear explanation that planes involved in combat still land at the end of non-combat, planes that don't have carriers move under them run out of gas and they die.

Hmm.. to me this seems to CONFUSE this issue even more.

How do you classify the "retreat move"?

Is it a combat move? probably not.
It is a non-combat move? I would think so, since it's a move done after combat is completed. However, non-combat moves (except for planes) are supposed to be for all units that were not involved in combat movement.

You could almost call retreats their own movement step, between combat moves and non-combat moves.

if you go with my line of thinking, retreats are before non-combat so then your statement:
"with the very clear explanation that planes involved in combat still land at the end of non-combat,would mean the planes retreat with the attacking group, and THEN try to land. If there was an available carrier, then the planes could land.

I am not trying to stir the pot, but Crazystraw seems to think it so cut and dry, but I see it differently.

IF it were so cut and dry, LHTR would not have had to make a ruling on this... right?

[Krieghund]

You win, CrazyStraw!

After further consideration, I am now convinced that the fighters cannot retreat in the box rules. My initial assumption was that the fact that retreat movement happens during Combat Movement, combined with the rule on page 16 that states "Air units can retreat to any friendly territory within movement range" seemed to indicate that the fighters could land on the carriers in the battle during the retreat. But the rule that planes land after Non-Combat Movement disallows this, since the planes would still be in the air during the retreat, so they would have to move on their own. Since they have no movement range remaining, they cannot retreat one space.

[axis_roll]

You win, CrazyStraw!

After further consideration, I am now convinced that the fighters cannot retreat in the box rules. My initial assumption was that the fact that retreat movement happens during Combat Movement, combined with the rule on page 16 that states "Air units can retreat to any friendly territory within movement range" seemed to indicate that the fighters could land on the carriers in the battle during the retreat. But the rule that planes land after Non-Combat Movement disallows this, since the planes would still be in the air during the retreat, so they would have to move on their own. Since they have no movement range remaining, they cannot retreat one space.

so you are seperating units as they retreat:
EVERY other unit (but planes) retreats from a battle... then planes retreat?

I know in second and third edition (CD rom), ALL units retreat together
Attacker Withdraws – The Retreat Option – Special Privilege of Attacker:
The attacker can retreat by moving ALL attacking units BACK to ONE adjacent
friendly territory from which any of the attacking units came. The attacker
CANNOT retreat to a space beyond the embattled territory if no accompanying
attackers moved into combat from such a space. For example, on the first turn,
U.S.S.R units from the Yakut and Soviet Far East territories that attacked Japanheld
Manchuria could not retreat to China – they would all withdraw to either
Yakut or Soviet Far East.
Retreating is an attacker’s privilege only. All attacker’s units must withdraw
together and to the same territory!
Revised OM says the following:

Attacker Retreats
The attacker (never the defender) can retreat during this step. Move all
attacking land and sea units in that combat to a single adjacent friendly
space from which at least one of the attacking units moved. All such
units must retreat together to the same territory, regardless of where they
came from.
since this indeed is a change in revised over the past rules, I am inclined to believe CrazyStraws arguements.

[Krieghund]

so you are seperating units as they retreat:
EVERY other unit (but planes) retreats from a battle... then planes retreat?
They all retreat at the same time, but as the rules you quoted state, the planes may retreat to a different area (within their remaining movement) than the rest of the units do.

[Emynst]

Yeah,

When you withdraw planes from a combat you don't designate a territory to move them to like land units. They just stop attacking and then you move them during the non-combat phase. I agree with G. Smorey's decision

[zooooma]

When you withdraw planes from a combat you don't designate a territory to move them to like land units. They just stop attacking and then you move them during the non-combat phase.

This seems to be a common misconception, and I can't find anything on the rules of FAQ to support it. Attacking air units do not move on noncombat - they move either durring the "step 7: press attcak or reatreat" or "step 8: capure territory" Check the rules!

From the FAQ, the planes do not technically land until the end of non-combat movement. This is a technicallity allowing ACs to move into sea zones so that fighters already there can now "land".



I know in second and third edition (CD rom), ALL units retreat together


I never played the CD, but in 2nd edition the planes reatreated separtately. This was explicit in the rules clarification document (marked "classified") which came with later realease of the game:

Partial retreats are not allowed for air units. If other units in their attacking force retreat, they must also retreat. They do not, however, have to retreat back to one adjacent friendly territory, nor do they retreat at the same time as the other units! Retreating air units retreat only as many spaces as left in their flight range movement. Their retreat is considered the landing phase of their movement and must only be done in the noncombat move phase of their turn. Also, retreating air units can never land in a territory that has just been captured -- this includes “blitzed” territories.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/article/ah20030627a

[smo63]

From the FAQ, the planes do not technically land until the end of non-combat movement. This is a technicallity allowing ACs to move into sea zones so that fighters already there can now "land".

Zooooma, yeah, but that is not what is happening. An CV is moving out of a sea zone in which a fighter needs to land. Once the retreat has occured, the planes are dead. The rules specifically state that if a fighter does not have a place to land, it is destroyed. This also applies to the understanding that a fighter may NOT kamakazee in this situation.

GS:)

[Yoper]

2. You say the rules are ambiguous on retreats. I disagree. The rules can be clearly interpreted that the fighters don't get an extra space.

3. If you read the FAQ, you will find the statement: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/faqs/axisrevised

So, with the very clear explanation that planes involved in combat still land at the end of non-combat, planes that don't have carriers move under them run out of gas and they die.

4. The rules and the FAQ can be clearly interpreted. The only things that are murky are nebulous references to threads that have no official weight.

5. There are a lot of rules in the book and in the FAQ. If you think a critical one is being missed, by all means quote it. Perhaps I've overlooked something. But I think the rules can be very directly interpreted.

Res ipsa loquitur, dude, res ipsa loquitur.

Crazy-
I think that having looked back at the OM, there is some ambiguity.

While you are right about the FAQ statement quoted above, there are other places in the OM that seem to make retreating a nebulous sub-step of combat that doesn't adhere to these restrictions.

Pg. 16, 2nd Column, Step 7: Press Attack or Retreat, Attacker Retreats, 2nd paragraph:

Air Units: Air units can retreat to any friendly territory within movement range. A fighter can retreat to a friendly aircraft carrier or to a friendly sea zone, as long as a carrier moves there in the noncombat move phase (you must declare the intent to move an aircraft carrier at this time). Retreating air units are subject to fire from enemy antiaircraft guns in any territories they move over.

This paragraph is in the Phase 4: Conduct Combat section of the OM. It is talking about movement of air units in such a way as to imply that they move at this time. That would then make it seem that this is an exception to when air units normally land.

From the FAQ, pg 6:

Technically, when do planes "land?" Is it at the end of combat, the end of the combat step, or during non-combat movement?

Regardless of whether they do combat movement or non-combat movement, planes don't technically land until the very end of the non-combat movement phase, after all other units have finished their movement.


The FAQ doesn't specifically address what retreat movement is classified as. If it is either combat movement or noncombat movement, then the air units would land at the end of noncombat movement. But since it isn't classified as either then it is something else.

Another spot that lends to this ambiguity is the fourth sentence in the first paragraph of the Special Abilities section under Fighters in Appendix 1: Unit Profiles, pg. 27.

However, it [fighter] may land on a carrier after combat (even if retreating) or a noncombat move.

Now, is this to be interpreted to mean that a fighter may retreat and if it has moved four spaces that it receives an extra movement space.

Or is it to be interpreted as to be missing an implied statement to the fact that it may do any of these things as long as it has the movement available.

Either way, this statement also does not place when retreats happen. It is after combat, but is it before noncombat or is it a part of noncombat?

To all-
There needs to be an official placing of when the retreat of air units happens in the out-of-the-box (OM) rules.

Or a change to the aforementioned FAQ statement to clarify when the retreat of air units happens. Either it is a separate movement and as such it happens at a separate time, or it special action that happens during combat for the land and sea units but that the air units wait until noncombat to move.

The first choice seems to be what was intended (though not well stated) by Mike Selinker.

The second choice is what is the LHTR uses.

In the end, I don't see there ever being an official resolution to this because they are not making the effort to support this game. Anyone who is playing with the out-of-the-box (OM) rules will have to come to their own conclusion as to how to deal with this problem.

Just like those who use the LHTR have.

Craig A. Yope
2005 World Boardgaming Championships A&A Event GM

[zooooma]

Hi.

I understand that, and aggree that no movement poits means no fighter retreats.

I posted what I did because I've seen afew posts on this thread indicating a belief that the fighter do not designate their retreat spot until noncombat, and this is incorrect. Fighters finish their movement at the end of the battle in question, and I thought that was worth clearing up.

[zooooma]

Yoper, I think you are confusing an air unit landing (end of noncombat) with an air unit completing its movement (Combat step 7 or 8, or noncombat).

If you're not convinced, check the then vs now document which came with the game, or the preveiw article on the air units:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/article/ah20040206a

[smo63]

Hi.

I understand that, and aggree that no movement poits means no fighter retreats.

I posted what I did because I've seen afew posts on this thread indicating a belief that the fighter do not designate their retreat spot until noncombat, and this is incorrect. Fighters finish their movement at the end of the battle in question, and I thought that was worth clearing up.

Understood...thanks.

GS:)

[Yoper]

No, I am not.

[CrazyStraw]

Couple things:

1. Is it mere coincidence that Yoper's last post put him at 666? :eek:

2. I REALLY liked that Yoper actually quoted the rules. I find that helps a lot in a rules discussion.

3. Interesting discussion on the term 'land' in regard to fighters at the end of non combat. I don't think that changes much, but I'm rolling it around in my cavernous head a bit.

4. I'm still adamant that the fighters simply do not retreat like other units. Take the instance with a tank blitzing to a battle with a fighter. The fighter does NOT land where the tank retreats; it lands entirely separately. In the naval battle in question, that means it lands with a splash ;)

[zooooma]

This paragraph is in the Phase 4: Conduct Combat section of the OM. It is talking about movement of air units in such a way as to imply that they move at this time. That would then make it seem that this is an exception to when air units normally land.


You seem to be hung up on archaic second edition Milton Bradely rules, wherin attacking air units completed their movement during noncombat. That rule does not show up in any form in the revised opperations manual.




To all-
There needs to be an official placing of when the retreat of air units happens in the out-of-the-box (OM) rules...


...In the end, I don't see there ever being an official resolution to this...

Please reread the two page document which came with your game. It clearly describes the change, incase you miss it it the OM. Is this official enough for you? It came in the box with the game!

[Yoper]

Yoper, I think you are confusing an air unit landing (end of noncombat) with an air unit completing its movement (Combat step 7 or 8, or noncombat).

If you're not convinced, check the then vs now document which came with the game, or the preveiw article on the air units:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/article/ah20040206a

Are you trying to say that the air units still retreat at a special time during combat but they do not land until the end of noncombat?

Even if this is the case, it still comes back to the argument of whether or not a plane gets an extra movement space to retreat with.

If you are going to give it a fifth movement space to retreat with, then it doesn't matter when it moves.

Combat, noncombat, special retreat phase with bells and whistle! None of it matters if you are going to allow it the "fifth".

The point is that there is no cut-and-dry clarification as there is in the LHTR. Just like there are other areas that are unclear in the OM and the LHTR clears them up. You may not like a rule in the LHTR but at least it is clear.

Craig

[Yoper]

You seem to be hung up on archaic second edition Milton Bradely rules, wherin attacking air units completed their movement during noncombat. That rule does not show up in any form in the revised opperations manual.

But it does in the LHTR. That is where I am getting hung up. This having to go back and read through the OM is what is the problem.

Having moved on to the clarity that is the LHTR and having gotten away from mish-mash morass that is the OM, I am having a hard time discussing the topic.

I brain-dumped all those problems that come with the OM and I am now having flashbacks concerning all the troubles it can give a person.

That right there should be enough to prove my point! :eek:

Please reread the two page document which came with your game. It clearly describes the change, incase you miss it it the OM. Is this official enough for you? It came in the box with the game!

Yes, it is!!!!!

Officially a piece of crap!!!!

"You want a guarantee? I can give you a guarantee! I can crap in a box and slap a guarantee on it if that's what you what?" Or something to that effect. :rolleyes:

I know I am in trouble when I am quoting lines from a movie like Tommy Boy! ;)

Craig

[zooooma]

Please reread the two page document which came with your game. It clearly describes the change, incase you miss it it the OM. Is this official enough for you? It came in the box with the game!

Sorry about that, you had replied to my post before I finished editing it, and I didn't notice.

Are you trying to say that the air units still retreat at a special time during combat but they do not land until the end of noncombat?

Yes.


Even if this is the case, it still comes back to the argument of whether or not a plane gets an extra movement space to retreat with...

...The point is that there is no cut-and-dry clarification as there is in the LHTR. Just like there are other areas that are unclear in the OM and the LHTR clears them up. You may not like a rule in the LHTR but at least it is clear.

Craig

I thought this was established as unabiguous in the OM.



Another spot that lends to this ambiguity is the fourth sentence in the first paragraph of the Special Abilities section under Fighters in Appendix 1: Unit Profiles, pg. 27.

However, it [fighter] may land on a carrier after combat (even if retreating) or a noncombat move.

Now, is this to be interpreted to mean that a fighter may retreat and if it has moved four spaces that it receives an extra movement space.

Or is it to be interpreted as to be missing an implied statement to the fact that it may do any of these things as long as it has the movement available.

I don't see anything here to indicate that the fighter can move beyond its range. If this is abiguous, I suppose the fighter could land on any carrier anywhere on the gameboard. It doesn't say it needs the movement available.

The sentence you quote isn't about how far fighters can move, it's about fighters landing on carriers, I don't see how it makes sense to think it is meant as an excpetion to normal range.

I do understand how the various rules can get muddled. I have trouble just keeping track of A&A:MB, A&A:Europe, A&A:Pacific, and A&A:AH. I don't even touch house rules or other variants, and I still get confused.



If you are going to give it a fifth movement space to retreat with, then it doesn't matter when it moves.

Combat, noncombat, special retreat phase with bells and whistle! None of it matters if you are going to allow it the "fifth".

It's off topic a little (though the error shows up here in more than one post), but I'm surprised you do not take more interest. Having to finish your air units' movement on step 7 or 8 of combat movement makes a tactical difference, affecting the order inwhich you will want to resolve combat. If you run tournaments, this matters.

[zooooma]

3. Interesting discussion on the term 'land' in regard to fighters at the end of non combat. I don't think that changes much, but I'm rolling it around in my cavernous head a bit.


The terms 'land' and 'lands' are used carelessly in the OM. This is the main reason for the entry in the FAQ, me thinks.

[Emynst]

But it does in the LHTR. That is where I am getting hung up. This having to go back and read through the OM is what is the problem.


Agreed, I should say that any argument or rules clarifications I make on this board is based on LHTR only. I like to play in convention tournaments and LHTR is the standard, so that is what I use. I think I threw the original game rules in the trash

I need a line under my name to the left that says "LHTR Only" :)

[GSH34]

First, I would like to apoligize for getting so many people worked up. My intention was not to have everyone at each other's throats (so to speak) over this situation which we seldom come across. Since the box rule set was chosen for the TripleA ladder, I was merely attempting to get a clarification on the rule. A member thought he had found a bug in the program and only wished for it to be corrected.

Secondly, I would like to apologize for the sloppy posting on my behalf. I never should have dragged Greg into this. I knew it was a box rules question and that he deals with LHTR tournaments. However, in my mind, I viewed him as an easily reachable person with a lot of experience vetting out rule ambiguity. At the time, it just didn't click in my mind that he was the wrong person for an OM ruling. It is my fault that so much time and engery was spent on debating LHTR rules which I did not intend.

Thirdly, I apoligize for not backing up my claims of a fighter retreating with more from the rule book. When I found posts from Mike Selinker stating that fighters which used four movements to enter battle could retreat, I blindly took his word to be final since he was one of the developers. I should have done more busy work to find the actual wording in the OM that backed up my belief. It's just that I was (and kind of still am) shocked that so many are dismissing Mike's posts so cavalierly.

I'm also taken aback by how much activity has happend since I last logged in. There is a lot of new information for me to process here.

Zooma, you have done much of the work that I should have. I thank you.
Currently, I'm going to go through what I now think.

First off, that two page insert with the game entitled "Revised Orders: Axis and Allies" states:
Now air units complete their entire move either before the end of the conduct combat phase or during noncombat move phase. Counters are provided to track air unit movement.


Based on this piece of information which I did not know about, fighters used in combat clearly do all movement during "Phase 4: Conduct Combat".That much is now perfectly clear. So, when retreating from a combat battle with air units, you must move them to the territory or sea zone they will land in immediately. Fighters do not stay in the zone in which the combat happened. They must retreat along with all other units. Technically they won't land until the end of non-combat movement, but as someone else pointed out, I too believe this is to allow a carrier to move under the fighter if needed.

In conjuction with that statement, Phase 4: Conduct Combat, Step 7: Press Attack or Retreat; it states

Air Units: Air units can retreat to any friendly territory within movement range. A fighter can retreat to a friendly aircraft carrier or to a friendly sea zone, as long as a carrier moves there in the noncombat move phase (you must declare the intent to move an aircraft carrier at this time). Retreating air units are subject to fire from enemy antiaircraft guns in any territory they move over.

Now, the above paragraph clearly states that fighters can retreat to any territory within movement range. I believe that this was added so that a fighter which used one or two movements to enter combat could use the remainder of its movement points to land. I do not believe the sentence was added to deny fighters the capability of retreating from a naval combat battle when they used all four movement points to enter combat. I back that statement up in two ways. First, the FAQ section here at AH clearly states:
Can only part of an attacking force retreat, leaving other units behind to keep fighting?
No, with one exception -- any number of planes can retreat from amphibious assaults during any Press Attack or Retreat step. Otherwise, this is never allowed.

When an attacker retreats, they must retreat all forces. The FAQ explicitly states the ONE exception to this is an amphibious attack. If fighters that used four movement points to enter naval combat were not allowed to retreat, wouldn't that be exception #2 to this FAQ?

Secondly, Mike Selinker has comment on this exact issue already. While many don't like the role Mike played, I would think that his posts carry at least a tiny amount of credability to the claim that the fighters could retreat.


As for when a retreat happens, the OM clearly has retreat under Phase 4: Conduct Combat, Step 7: Attack or Retreat.

Well guys, I was really beginning to waiver in my point of view. However, I'm now even more inclined to believe that a fighter is allowed to retreat. If a fighter is used during combat, all of it's movement happens during the combat movement phase. It just doesn't "land" until the end of noncombat movement so a carrier has a chance to get underneath it if so needed. I believe retreating "within movement range" was inserted to allow a fighter to use any movement points it has beyond one, not to deny it the ability to retreat when it used four movements to enter combat. No where in the rules does it explicitly state fighters can't retreat when four movements are used to enter combat. I back all of this up with a FAQ statement from AH, the two page insert in the box, and posts from Mike (for what ever that is worth to you).

I would like to reiterate at this point that I hope to have offended no one. So, what does everyone else think now that some new information has been found?

GSH34

[Krieghund]

This really boils down to 4 relevant rules:

Land and sea units are allowed to retreat together to a space that at least one unit came from.
Air units are allowed to retreat separately to any friendly space within their remaining movement.
Air units do not land until the end of the Non-Combat Movement phase, and must land at the end of a carrier's movement.
Partial retreats are not allowed, except in amphibious assaults.

Air units and land/sea units have separate and distinct movement rules, so the rules of one cannot be applied to the other. The explicitly stated "bonus" retreat movement of land/sea units is not similarly explicitly indicated for air units. Strict application of these rules would indicate that fighters that have travelled their maximum movement into battle may not retreat, since they have no movement left and any carriers they may have landed on which retreat are now out of range. Since partial retreats are not allowed, the other units in the battle may not retreat and leave those fighters behind. The only logical conclusion that satisfies all of these rules is that a battle involving such fighters may not be retreated from until those fighters are destroyed.

While postings by the designers are helpful in interpreting unclear rules, in no case should these postings and/or conversations be considered "official" when they contradict the Operations Manual, errata or FAQ. In this particular case, I believe the designer's intent to allow such a retreat simply did not make it into the final draft of the rules, and it was never incorporated into the FAQ. Therefore we have no choice but to interpret those sources as they are, and they simply do not support the idea that such fighters may retreat.

[GSH34]

The only logical conclusion that satisfies all of these rules is that a battle involving such fighters may not be retreated from until those fighters are destroyed.



The ambiguity arises from the fact that no where in the OM, FAQ, or any other "official" source does it explicitly state that fighters do or don't get a retreat movement like naval and ground units. That's where I think Mike's clarification comes in. However, like you say Kreighund, it's not in the FAQ. So, there is a strong chance this may actually be the correct ruling. Retreats from this type of battle aren't even allowed until the fighters are lost.


GSH34

[zooooma]

It is explicit in the OM. On page 16. It's been quoted on this thread at least once. "...within movement range..." is explicit by my standards. This is not even remotely ambiguous. The "problem" lies in the consequence that sometimes an attack force cannot retreat until the particular fighter dies, and that that consequence leaves a bad taste in some of our mouths. It seems like a possible oversight, especially considering Mike's posts.

Indeed, The designers/rules writers may not have envisioned this scenario, and It is likely they would have fixed the FAQ or OM if the fault had been noticed. But they haven't. Mike, or someone else from AH still might effect that change in the FAQ. Then again, maybe the other developers don't feel the same way as Mike. We don't really know.

Incidentally I respect Mike and the work he did, and I aggree that his posts should hold some weight. But that weight should extend only to resolving genuine ambiguities and contradictions - not to actually causing ambiguities and contradictions. You just can't expect all players to dig through these threads for erratas. There are too many threads, and the official rules must be accessable to anyone. The FAQ page is easily accessable, and that is the only place where official erratas belong.

[zooooma]

afterthought - if the battle is going badly enough to warrent retreat, The attacker has probably taken hits, and can lose a fighter or two.

"Dang, I want to retreat, but they only hit me with subs"!

It could happen!

[GSH34]

Part of my problem has been that I saw Mike's posts when they came out so I've been playing with that rule (even incorrectly in LHTR) ever since. I just didn't think Mike would be wrong. I guess I need to change that rule in the ole' mental rolo-dex.

GSH34

[Yoper]

It's off topic a little (though the error shows up here in more than one post), but I'm surprised you do not take more interest. Having to finish your air units' movement on step 7 or 8 of combat movement makes a tactical difference, affecting the order inwhich you will want to resolve combat. If you run tournaments, this matters.

I do care. That's is why I am participating in this debate. I am trying to show how screwed up the OM is.

Simply put, the LHTR are better. Clear, concise, straight-forward. It owes its existence to the fact that the OM is so abiguous. The pbem clubs couldn't use the OM for their games because of all the problems it would have created.

The same is true for tournament play. A good rule set is essential to making the quick clarifications necessary during timed play.

Tournament time is for playing not sitting there having a debate like this. Imagine the headache Greg would have had (Above and beyond the ones he already has!) if he used the OM and had to deal with this question during the Mega tourney at Gen Con Indy.

While Mike Selinker might mean well, he did more harm than good. The proof is in the pudding. The OM is less than adequate. The production decisions are a study in style over substance. In the end we are left with a muddled mess.

Just move on and go with the LHTR. Life will be much easier!

Craig

[zooooma]

I maintain that the OM is not ambiguous. Not if you follow the FAQ and try not to read anything into the rules which is not actually there. Show me a genuine ambiguity please.

I do not care to argue the merrits of one rule set over another. I have my opinion, you have yours. This thread was started by a question regarding OOTB rules. There are some of us who play OOTB and want a place for related discussions. LHTR threads belong in the house rules section.

http://boards.avalonhill.com/forumdisplay.php?f=29

From the sticky at the top of the A&A forum:


Varient Games (Please post in house rules section of A&A to discuss)

LHTR - Larry Harris Tournament Rules - Larry Harris created the orginal A&A and he has created his own tournament format.

A&ARE - Axis and Allies Revised Enhanced - A homebrew but highly successful and enjoyable way to play Axis and Allies

Does the Gen Con A&A tourney really use LHTR? I thought Gen Con was owned by Wizards of the Coast (acquired along with TSR), and assumed they would use WotC official rules. Are the Gen Con tourneys actually run by AH?

I think A&A needs the DCI to step in and properly sanction a rules set (I susspect they'd provide an additional FAQ, as they did with Risk 2210). I don't know why this hasn't happened yet. :(

[Emynst]

Does the Gen Con A&A tourney really use LHTR? I thought Gen Con was owned by Wizards of the Coast (acquired along with TSR), and assumed they would use WotC official rules. Are the Gen Con tourneys actually run by AH?

The GenCon tourney uses only LHTR.

WOTC/AH have representatives present at the tournaments. At GenCon last month, Mike Selinker was there and Linda Cox-WOTC. And of course, Larry Harris was there. The prize packages are provided by WOTC.

That's why some players, especially longtime tournament players only use LHTR. It's the ruleset used at the WOTC sponsored tournaments! I guess it would be good if WOTC/AH made LHTR official somewhere.

[Yoper]

1) The OM is ambiguous. You would not have this discussion if it wasn't. Even if it isn't to you, it seems to be to many others.

Compose a sample paragraph or section that succinctly explains what seems to be clear to you. Put it in the form that would be able to be inserted into the OM and explain where you would put it and why.

2) The question was about the OM, but was address to Greg Smorey, the GM of the Origins and Gen Con Indy tournaments which use the LHTR.

Origins is run by GAMA.

http://www.originsgames.com/

Gen Con Indy is run by Gen Con LLC.

http://www.gencon.com/

Gen Con was purchased by that group from the prior ownership. It was moved to Indy a couple of years ago from Milwaukee. They have also started up Gen Con SoCal and one in the UK.

Greg has been running these tourneys for years. He works with WotC for prizes and other support but he is in charge, not them. Check out his site for more info.

http://www.geocities.com/headlesshorseman2/smoreyswamp.html

3) As for a debating of rules set, whatever. You have your myopia, and I have mine. May we each enjoy our own!

4) I have no problem with have the LHTR discussed in the House Rules section. What I have a problem with is there should be a separate A&A House rules section in the A&A Games area, not buried in the garbage bin at the bottom of the page.


Don't worry zooooma, my beef isn't with you. The "powers-that-be" are the problem here and this discussion is just a symptom of the bigger disease. My negative attitude is a reaction to their poor handling of the whole revision process.

Craig

[AllWeNeedIsLove.]

wow i am glad i brought this topic up on triplea. at first i felt bad causing so much confusion but now am glad at all the lively discussion that was created.

[AllWeNeedIsLove.]

this is just one of the reasons why lhtr needed to be created(im glad it was created).

i really wish avalon hill would have created a more clarified rule book.

they were smart enough to have mike selinker answer questions for some time after the games release. however, it is a shame that they did not take that opportunity to have all the discussion and answers made into a corrected rule book or a better official faq that would have cleared up all rule ambiguities.

then no one would of had to create lhtr rules to clear up rule misunderstandings.

[AllWeNeedIsLove.]

i am still under the opinion that in non lhtr play fighters do retreat in step 7.

this was the intention of the rule(but very poorly done in the rule book).

it is very analogous to every unit getting to decide if they retreat. THIS IS NOT A MOVEMENT POINT. so all rules stating within movement range does not contradict this rule. otherwise all infantry would never be alowed to retreat.

[zooooma]

How was this poorly done? This (step seven) is the only section of the rule book that say to do this. When else would they retreat?!? Not in noncombat.

PHASE 5 NONCOMBAT MOVEMENT clearly says "...you can move any of your units that did not move in the combat movement phase or participate in combat during your turn".

Note that this is different than the wording in the MB edition, which made an exception for air units. Anyone who had never played A&A:MB would not have this confusion, they would retreat as described when the OM tells them to.

Incase any vet players missed this subtlety, they spelled it out for us in the if/then document, AND in the preveiw article. That's why that 2 page documemt came in the game. Why anyone still thinks that fighters can move in comabt movement and noncombat movement by OM rules (or thinks it's not clear) is beyond me.

This is an unfair complaint about the OM. Be nice.

[squirecam]

Tournament time is for playing not sitting there having a debate like this. Imagine the headache Greg would have had (Above and beyond the ones he already has!) if he used the OM and had to deal with this question during the Mega tourney at Gen Con Indy.
Craig

Greg had a few rules questions. Had a major headache even with LHTR. Its better, but not perfect either.

Squirecam

[Moderator Sinister]

I think I better chime in here.

There is LHTR and the out of box rules. Greg uses LHTR. Does this mean they are officially endorsed? No. AH never officially endorsed LHTR. HOWEVER, this is the Official tournament rules because GREG is in charge of the tournament, he may use what ruleset he like. AH and WotC do not impose any rule sanctions nor are they likely to do so. They provide prize support and a free hand in the rules operation of the tournament.


This leaves us with:

1. One set of tournament rules sanctioned by Greg Smorey who is placed in charge of the tournament, prize support given by WotC. His rules are the rules of the major tournaments. He Knows what he's doing and I have the upmost faith that he uses the rules he feels are best for the tournament. Avalon Hill does not tell him what rules to use. Thus these wonderful tournaments are supported but not officially sanctioned by AH. By sanction in this case I mean there is NO rules committee sponsored by the company that make Greg use any particular set of rules.

2. Mike Selinker developed A&A Revised. However he is done working for AH. The rules are essentially in a "Locked State" Mike can give us his interpretation (which I would always use playing out of the box rules btw) but the rules are not something currently updatable and please ask yourself this question: Would you want just anybody at AH giving a reply to complex rule questions? I would hope it's someone VERY familar with the game.

I'm very sorry if this is frustrating to alot of people. My personal opinion is that I'm glad for LHTR because larry can update them at any point at any time and they aren't stuck in this "locked status"

With that said let's not forget that revised, anyway you look at it, is a good game. We are better off having it produced than not produce at all. Let's also give mike the chance to interpret the rules as the designer of the game. Even if you have issues with mike's rules he does deserve the right to interpret his game, meaning the out of box rules.

And the biggest point I'm trying to make is don't expect AH to get involved in the rules discussion. These grey area exist and will most likely continue to do so.

[Krieghund]

i am still under the opinion that in non lhtr play fighters do retreat in step 7.

this was the intention of the rule(but very poorly done in the rule book).

it is very analogous to every unit getting to decide if they retreat. THIS IS NOT A MOVEMENT POINT. so all rules stating within movement range does not contradict this rule. otherwise all infantry would never be alowed to retreat.

Apples and oranges. The rules specifically state that land and sea units may retreat to a space from which they came, while air units may retreat to a space within their remaining movement. This is not actually a "free" movement for land and sea units, but a retraction of the movement that got them there in the first place. The price that air units pay for having the flexibility to retreat anywhere they want is that they do not get to "retract" a prior movement. These are very simple rules, designed to circumvent what could be some very complex situations resulting from retreats.

One could argue that if 2 land forces attacked from 2 separate territories and they both retreat to the same territory (as they are required to do), one of these forces gets a "free" move. This is true, but it is a simplifcation within the rules to avoid an anomaly. Air units require no such simplification, because air units may retreat independently within their individual movement ranges. Air units are completely different from any other class of units, and therefore have unique movement rules. One simply cannot apply concepts from land or sea movement to them.

[Krieghund]

Mike Selinker developed A&A Revised. However he is done working for AH. The rules are essentially in a "Locked State" Mike can give us his interpretation (which I would always use playing out of the box rules btw) but the rules are not something currently updatable and please ask yourself this question: Would you want just anybody at AH giving a reply to complex rule questions? I would hope it's someone VERY familar with the game.

I'm very sorry if this is frustrating to alot of people. My personal opinion is that I'm glad for LHTR because larry can update them at any point at any time and they aren't stuck in this "locked status"

With that said let's not forget that revised, anyway you look at it, is a good game. We are better off having it produced than not produce at all. Let's also give mike the chance to interpret the rules as the designer of the game. Even if you have issues with mike's rules he does deserve the right to interpret his game, meaning the out of box rules.

And the biggest point I'm trying to make is don't expect AH to get involved in the rules discussion. These grey area exist and will most likely continue to do so.

I'm sorry, Sinister, but I really have to disagree. What if Microsoft made an announcement that said, "We're sorry to announce that all the programmers that worked on Windows have left the company, so we are no longer able to support it. You can still buy and use the product, but we will no longer fix problems, provide upgrades or answer questions concerning it." How many people do you think would continue to use Windows? How many do you think would buy it in the future?

I know this is an extreme analogy, but it still applies. Avalon Hill owns Axis and Allies, not Mike Selinker or Larry Harris. It is Avalon Hill's responsibility to support it. The average gamer cannot be expected to go through mountains of old mesage board posts looking for opinions from designers about ambiguities or contradictions in the rules on a product that is still in print, especially when some of those opinions actually contradict what made it into the final draft of the rulebook. One could even argue that since Mike no longer works for the company any opinions he offered after he left are "unofficial" and don't matter.

Avalon Hill should assign someone to understand the game and make official rulings on ambiguities and holes in the rules and update the FAQ. Mike actually deserves a lot of credit for sticking around as long as he did to support the game, and Avalon Hill really dropped the ball when they didn't take advantage of this and include some of those responses in the FAQ.

A game as complex and dynamic as Axis and Allies can't simply be left to "fend for itself" on the shelf, especially when its customers are as vast and dedicated as the A&A customer base.

[zooooma]

With that said let's not forget that revised, anyway you look at it, is a good game. We are better off having it produced than not produce at all.

I'd like to add, we are all A&A fans here (big fans, I think). I susspect that we'd all aggree that Axis and Allies is a delightfull game with intense strategy, and that this is true wether you play OOTB, A&A:Re, LHTR, Gamemaster, NOVA, 3rd edition (CD-ROM), house rules, pirate expansions, or whatever. This is a dang good game, and tweaking the rules doesn't change that. We are not all aggreed as to what is and isn't balanced, so let's not argue that (at this thread). We all chose a version that we feel is balanced, and we are all playing a fine strategy game - the best in it's class.


And the biggest point I'm trying to make is don't expect AH to get involved in the rules discussion. These grey area exist and will most likely continue to do so.

That's a shame. No plans for DCI support. :( A&A is WotC's best board game, and it's not getting any attention from the organised play league. The minis are DCI supposted already.

DCI or no, Kreig is right. It does not seem to much to ask for an occassional FAQ updated when a contentious issue comes up. The decisions could be fairly arbitrary, as long as the rullings do not contradict other points in the FAQ.

I guess the channels to accomplish this simply are not in place at this time. Maybe this will change someday...

happy gaming, everyone.

-Luke

[Moderator Sinister]

whoa,

I never said it was my personal preference for AH to not continue making rule revisions.

What I am saying that all their games works similarly. A game is produced followed by an FAQ that may or may not be updated once or twice. But two years past its release what other game in the AH lineup is getting FAQ updates? I can't think of any.

And the other thing to consider is the mike and larry aren't around anymore. Whom would you propose update the FAQ? Whom do you propose create sanction tournment rules? You have to admit LHTR is a popular and accepted set of rules, what would happen if tomorrow at AH, someone in some cubicle, gets a memo saying he or she is now in charge of rules and he knows little about the game. Without mike or larry invovled that prospect scares me. I'm for rule updates and support provided there is someone who knows the rules really really really well. If not, it may be a blessing. Can u imagine the diaster if a new FAQ were created by someone with only a basic understanding of rules? It requires someone with an advanced understanding of the rules near a design level.

[Moderator Sinister]

That's a shame. No plans for DCI support. :( A&A is WotC's best board game, and it's not getting any attention from the organised play league. The minis are DCI supposted already.



-Luke

forgive my ignorance but are their any boardgames that are under DCI? It was my understanding that was a card game (and possible miniatures) designation.

[Krieghund]

What I am saying that all their games works similarly. A game is produced followed by an FAQ that may or may not be updated once or twice. But two years past its release what other game in the AH lineup is getting FAQ updates? I can't think of any.
Two years? How about 2 weeks? A lot of the problems have been around since the very beginning. Mike provided answers, yet they were not included in the FAQ or errata.

And the other thing to consider is the mike and larry aren't around anymore. Whom would you propose update the FAQ? Whom do you propose create sanction tournment rules? You have to admit LHTR is a popular and accepted set of rules, what would happen if tomorrow at AH, someone in some cubicle, gets a memo saying he or she is now in charge of rules and he knows little about the game. Without mike or larry invovled that prospect scares me. I'm for rule updates and support provided there is someone who knows the rules really really really well. If not, it may be a blessing. Can u imagine the diaster if a new FAQ were created by someone with only a basic understanding of rules? It requires someone with an advanced understanding of the rules near a design level.
Per my above answer, had some the problems been handled in a timely manner, this problem would not be as large as it is. There is nothing stopping someone at AH from gathering a list of concerns from time to time and sliding Mike and/or Larry a little green to address them - it's called consulting.

I'm not trying to be argumentative here, it's just that this "it's not my problem" attitude is a real cop-out.

[Sinister]

Kreig,

I can't argue with your comments. In some cases the FAQ are only updated once. I'm on your side. It would be great if the game were completely and fully supported.

I'm just saying any support v. no support is not necessarily better especially if the any support is not going to be complete and accurate. I speak this as the consumer and player.

[Krieghund]

I'm just saying any support v. no support is not necessarily better especially if the any support is not going to be complete and accurate. I speak this as the consumer and player.

This I can agree with.

[zooooma]

The Risk 2210 FAQ was updated in may of 2003.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/faqs/risk2210

Mike Selinker is the first of five names under revision developement. I'm sure there is sombody working for Wizards who is a hardcore A&A fan and could make occassional rulings without making a mess of things. Maybe I'm wrong, I don't really know who works for you guys.

I also understand that this (A&A rules support) is nobodies job right now, and that it can't simply be tacked on to somebodies duties. who would have the authority to do that? Probably noone. I am not blaming anyone for this, but it seems sunfortunate.

Who knows, maybe an expansion set will come out someday and there will be developers paid to focus on A&A rules again for a while. There's always the 30th aniverssary special edition! 2014? :D

Who would I propose to create sactioning? The DCI are excellent at this sort of thing, and there are many sets from which they could chose. I understand that this is probably not cost effective. Consider me lamenting, not complaining.

That said, I am overall an abundantly satasfied customer - your biggest fan. I am hdelighted with the games, the release frequency, the fact that thier are online printable FAQ at all, and the other temendous online support which makes Avalonhill.com such a fine resourse for someone like me. No DCI A&A is my only point of dissastisfaction. It is a very minor issue, and I do not begrudge it. Thanks for all the hard work.

[zooooma]

forgive my ignorance but are their any boardgames that are under DCI? It was my understanding that was a card game (and possible miniatures) designation.

Yes, Risk 2210. The floor rules are available at the DCI tournament centre:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dci/doccenter/home

I guess this was experimental and didn't take off. I wish they'd tried it with A&A instead, though. A man can dream.

[GSH34]

Mod Sinister,

Thanks for you input. I've kind of been with you regarding Mike's rulings on the box rules the whole time. Who better to give a ruling than a person that helped make the game?

Mike clearly states in this thead, http://boards.avalonhill.com/showthread.php?t=1561

by Mike Selinker
All units can retreat one space, regardless of how they got to combat. However, normal-range fighters can only move 4 spaces into combat if they plan to land on a carrier that is in the combat or will be moving into that zone in the noncombat move. In this case, if the carrier is no longer an option, they still may move one space on a retreat.

I hope that answers the question.

Mike

He also answers this question in this thread, http://boards.avalonhill.com/showth...23841#post23841

I think I see where the objection is. Here's a step-by-step logic:
1. Every other unit gets a free space of movement during a retreat. Doesn't matter if it's an artillery that moved 1 or a tank that blitzed 2.
2. Air units have the power to land anywhere in a retreat, not just where some of their units came from.
3. If an air unit wants to move its full move into combat, it can do so only under the presumption that it is following the rules (normally, if a carrier will be in that space, or if it's a Japanese kamikaze).
4. At the end of that move it needs to go somewhere. A kamikaze would never make it to this step. Since all other planes are not kamikazes, they must believe they will have a place to land.
5. If this place doesn't materialize, are they doomed? The game rules say "within movement range," so maybe so. But are they somehow less capable than any land or sea unit, which can retreat to a space it (or its friends) came from? If you allow a fighter that, does fuel only work one way, or can it land anywhere? This is the point of complication for some people.

I would say that by this logic, a fighter that loses its ride would be able to retreat with the sea group for sure; like everything else, it must at least have the ability to move one extra space to a place where attacking units came from. So since it can do that, I believe it consistent with the fighter's description that it can go any one space, and that's how I got to that rule when writing the game. But I agree that this position is not clearly spelled out in the rulebook, and might even be contradicated by it, so it deserves to be in an FAQ.

Mike

I know I'm brining up old stuff I already posted. However, Mike clearly states that this ruling deserves to be in the FAQ. For what ever reason it did not make it in it. As you contend Kreighund: The average gamer cannot be expected to go through mountains of old mesage board posts looking for opinions from designers about ambiguities or contradictions in the rules on a product that is still in print, especially when some of those opinions actually contradict what made it into the final draft of the rulebook.

For box rulings, why don't you Mod Sinister (or one of the other Mods) make a sticky where you can reference posts from Mike such as the above as they are found regarding rules. It wouldn't be 'officially' in the FAQ, but it would provide a place where it could be just as easily accessed by gamers.

I'm sure that AH has sold thousands and thousands of copies A&A Revised. Out of all the board games released, my opinion is that this one has one of the most dedicated fan bases. Despite this, there is no doubt that there are probably many more recreational gamers that play it with the box rules. For this reason I don't see why a ruling from Mike while he was employed at AH is not an acceptable intrerpretation of the rules? If we can't accept a ruling from a game developer, do we need to have the Red Sea part and find the final rules version at the end (box rules only)?

I'm with everyone on the fact that for a game with as large a following as this, AH/WoTC/Hasbro is genuinely delinquent as a company to produce a game like this and then abandon it like an orphan for next A&A game in the works.

GSH34

[Moderator Sinister]

It would be wonderful to have a person whose job it is to resolve all rule questions to all the AH games.

I would use mikes rulings everytime playing out of the box rules.

[GSH34]

It would be wonderful to have a person whose job it is to resolve all rule questions to all the AH games.

I would use mikes rulings everytime playing out of the box rules.

Any chance of a Mod making a sticky where you could update it as rules questions come up that aren't covered in the FAQ? I know Mike made a ton of clarifications already. All it would take is finding them as the rule questions resurface and then posting in the sticky. I doubt this is the last time this question will be asked. New players are finding the game all of the time.

GSH34

[Moderator Sinister]

Any chance of a Mod making a sticky where you could update it as rules questions come up that aren't covered in the FAQ? I know Mike made a ton of clarifications already. All it would take is finding them as the rule questions resurface and then posting in the sticky. I doubt this is the last time this question will be asked. New players are finding the game all of the time.

GSH34


Making a sticky is easy enough it's the constant updating that's the problem. Mods are a little too busy to be looking for and copying rules into a sticky thread.

If a community member wanted to take it upon themselves to offer an unofficial but complete and updated FAQ I would post that.

[GSH34]

I didn't mean that you guys (the Mod Squad) would have to do all the work. Just that once the specific thread/post with an answer is found, we could inform you and then have you post it. Us, the community could do the dirty work of finding the correct answer.

GSH34

[Doctor Strategy]

An enemy sub attacks my aircraft carrier with one of my ally's planes on it. The carrier sinks. What happens to the plane?
The plane must land in a safe place after the combat phase ends. In effect, the plane has a movement range of 1 to reach a friendly land space, island, or aircraft carrier during the attacker's turn.

This is in the FAQ. It allows a fighter to land on an ally's aircraft carrier during a non combat move on another player's turn. This is a little generous. If a sub hit an AC in the opening fire step the plane should be lost. I guess the plane is considered defending in the air, yet it still gets an additional 1 movement. What if the plane had moved four spaces to get to the carrier during their original turn? Should it still get the extra movement point. Absurd isn't it?

You could either make a special exception for fighters that states that when a carrier becomes unavailable for landing on due to retreating or being destroyed; the fighters involved get one movement to find a friendly AC or territory to land on.

This is a lot easier to remember than two fighters got to a combat by using four movement. Two fighters got to the combat by using two movement. Two fighters got destroyed in the first round of combat. You decide to retreat. You have two fighters remaining that have two movement to retreat with. Why? You get to choose the units lost but I don't think they meant it to be this way. :D

Or:

A ruling could just state that during a naval retreat fighters immediately land on the carrier instead of landing at the end of non-combat movement. This is realistic when you consider that one fighter is actually represented a squadron of planes. They would see the carrier leaving and go with it or see the retreat signal or possibly be radioed.

On the other hand, strict interpretation of the rules gives a lot of worth to the tech long range aircraft. :)

[Mike Selinker]

Now this is a thread! I'm impressed.

Anyway, several people have asked me to come back to this issue, so I'm doing it. But first, let's put that in context: I don't work for AH any more. It's up to them whether they consider my statements about rules to be worthy of inclusion in the FAQ. Most of the issues that got brought up to me were put into the FAQ, but apparently not this one. So, my suggestion to Steve is that he end nine pages of argument by opening up the FAQ and putting something in. It's just a suggestion, and you're free to lobby him for or against it.

So let's hit the issue for the OM only:
Q: If a fighter moves four spaces into combat, and a carrier has been designated as going to the sea zone to pick it up but is destroyed along the way, can the fighter retreat one space even though it has no movement points left?
A: Yes, and it is irrelevant whether it has moved those four spaces for purposes of whether it can retreat. Any aircraft can retreat from any combat by moving one space to a friendly landing point, just like all other units can move one space if they are allowed to retreat. (The only units not allowed to retreat are land units locked in an amphibious assault.) This single move is allowed regardless of whether the units have used their full move or not, and whether or not the units has ever been in or over the space it is retreating to.

That's my opinion, and I believe I've been consistent in that opinion. The LHTR, which has all sorts of good reasons for existing, might disagree. I'm not venturing an opinion for what's good in that set. But for the main game, this is what the FAQ should say, in my opinion.

Your mileage may vary.

Mike

[AllWeNeedIsLove.]

Thanks for posting Mike,

it is good to see you still supporting the gamers, long after you have been paid and employed by AH.

All your post after the game release were, and are, very valuable

[Comassion]

I have a related question concerning the movement of carriers and fighters, and rather than start a new thread, I hope this will merit a fairly simple answer.

Let's say I have a carrier with 2 fighters on it in the middle of the Pacific. I move it and other units to attack a Japanese fleet in a sea zone exactly 4 spaces away from Alaska. The 2 fighters on the carrier cannot get to a landing point other than the carrier from the naval battle. My question is, could I send a fighter from Alaska to participate in the battle with the expectation of taking one of the other fighters as a casualty, thereby giving it a place to land? From previous posts, I'd assume yes, because my fighter has a greater than 0% chance to have a landing spot after the combat is resolved. But maybe it's illegal, because it would be impossible to land all three fighters if they survived.

So, any thoughts from those more experienced than I?

[Krieghund]

Let's say I have a carrier with 2 fighters on it in the middle of the Pacific. I move it and other units to attack a Japanese fleet in a sea zone exactly 4 spaces away from Alaska. The 2 fighters on the carrier cannot get to a landing point other than the carrier from the naval battle. My question is, could I send a fighter from Alaska to participate in the battle with the expectation of taking one of the other fighters as a casualty, thereby giving it a place to land? From previous posts, I'd assume yes, because my fighter has a greater than 0% chance to have a landing spot after the combat is resolved. But maybe it's illegal, because it would be impossible to land all three fighters if they survived.
This move would be illegal, simply because if all 3 fighters survived one would be left without a place to land. This makes it a "suicide mission". The assumption you have to make to prove that a move is "risky" rather than a "suicide mission" is that everything in the battle goes your way, regardless of the odds.

So a sub attacking 3 battleships to pave the way for a carrier to pick up the fighter in Non-Combat Movement would make it a "risky" move, since it is possible (however unlikely) that the sub could defeat the battleships if everything goes your way. Your assumption that one of your fighters would die falls into the opposite category: you're counting on casualties to make it work.

Hope this helps.

[BlackWatch222]

I can't seem to get "quotes" to work - my apologies if this post is not as clear as it might be.

First looking ONLY at the answer to this question, which appears to be a generic answer for all air unit retreats, not just the specific question asked

“it is irrelevant whether it has moved those four spaces for purposes of whether it can retreat. Any aircraft can retreat from any combat by moving one space to a friendly landing point, just like all other units can move one space if they are allowed to retreat. (The only units not allowed to retreat are land units locked in an amphibious assault.) This single move is allowed regardless of whether the units have used their full move or not, and whether or not the units has ever been in or over the space it is retreating to.”

I would take this to mean that a ftr could travel 4 spaces to a land combat and either be taken as a loss, or retreat to an adjacent friendly space.

A group of ftrs could travel 4 spaces over water, conduct a sea combat and either be taken as losses or retreat to an adjacent friendly land space.

Ditto for a group of bombers – travel six spaces, then ether be lost or retreat to an adjacent friendly land space.

It also raises the questions:

Can I fly two spaces, retreat one space, then use 2 remaining spaces in my flight allowance?

If I travel 1 space, can I ONLY retreat 1 space? (That’s all that land units are allowed – if a tank travels one space, it only retreats one space, it doesn’t get the rest of its movement points).

Etc., etc.

So now let’s look at the actual question asked:

“… So let's hit the issue for the OM only:
Q: If a fighter moves four spaces into combat, and a carrier has been designated as going to the sea zone to pick it up but is destroyed along the way, can the fighter retreat one space even though it has no movement points left?
A: Yes, and it is irrelevant whether it has moved those four spaces for purposes of whether it can retreat. Any aircraft can retreat from any combat by moving one space to a friendly landing point, just like all other units can move one space if they are allowed to retreat. (The only units not allowed to retreat are land units locked in an amphibious assault.) This single move is allowed regardless of whether the units have used their full move or not, and whether or not the units has ever been in or over the space it is retreating to.

That's my opinion, and I believe I've been consistent in that opinion. The LHTR, which has all sorts of good reasons for existing, might disagree. I'm not venturing an opinion for what's good in that set. But for the main game, this is what the FAQ should say, in my opinion.

Your mileage may vary.

Mike”

This FAQ, like so many of the box rules, will only add to the confusion.

First – let’s look at the imprecise actual language:

“…a carrier has been designated as going to the sea zone to pick it up but is destroyed along the way”

A carrier has 2 movement points. “Along the way” means any of the three zones in its total possible movement (start, intermediate, or end). If a carrier is destroyed at the start point (substall or fleet stall casualty) or in an intermediate space – it could NEVER get to the intended zone since it must stop for that turn when it engages in battle – it can’t ever get to the intended landing site.

That leaves the final space, in which case the language should be:

“a carrier has been designated as going to the sea zone to participate in the battle and to pick up the fighter at the end of the battle, but is taken as a loss BEFORE the fighter.”

This FAQ falls short of answering questions regarding similar related battles.

Let’s start by defining a map and opening battle positions. To keep it simple, the map will be a straight line, with 3 sea zones and 4 land territories.

S1 – S2 – S3 – L1 – L2 – L3 – L4

The US player has a carrier in S1, and 2 ftrs in L4. The Allies own L1. There is an enemy fleet in S3.

The FAQ would permit the following battle:

CV (S1), 2 ftr (L4) v fleet (S3)

The attacker misses and the defender scores one hit. Rather than go on, the attacker elects to lose the carrier and land the two ftrs in L1.

What happens if neither side gets a hit, but the attacker wants to retreat. Can he move the carrier to S2 and land the ftrs on it (or in L1)? I don’t think so – the carrier is supposed to be “lost along the way”. If he retreats the carrier, the ftrs would splash.

Let’s look at another possible scenario. This time all the units are as above, except there is an enemy boat in S2.

The US declares air units from elsewhere v fleet C2.

2 ftr L4 v fleet S3 (carrier in S1 will move to S3 to pick up ftrs).

Is this a legal declaration?? Who knows?

Can the ftrs retreat to L1 if the US loses the battle in S2, maintaining the block against the carrier in S1? Who knows?

LHTR addresses ALL of these, because it took the time and effort to assess all the possible permutations and combinations that several long term competent players could conceive.

All the battles listed above would be legal. In all cases, if the carrier was not in Sz 3 at the end of the festivities, the ftrs would splash. Much easier to follow, and much less opportunity for 10 page, 100+ entry arguments.

[Mike Selinker]

I'm amused that BlackWatch apologizes for his lack of clarity then takes mine to task. :)

Anyway, he's right about the confusing setup to that answer. Try it is as this:
Q: A fighter has moved four spaces into combat in a sea zone, and a friendly carrier has entered the sea zone to pick it up. The carrier is destroyed in the combat. Can the fighter retreat one space even though it has no movement points left?
A: Yes, and it is irrelevant whether it has moved those four spaces for purposes of whether it can retreat. Any aircraft can retreat from any combat by moving one space to a friendly landing point, just like all other units can move one space if they are allowed to retreat. (The only units not allowed to retreat are land units locked in an amphibious assault.) This single move is allowed regardless of whether the units have used their full move or not, and whether or not the units has ever been in or over the space it is retreating to. In the retreat step, only one space of movement is allowed, regardless of how far the fighter has moved.

Q: OK, same question, except the carrier isn't destroyed but instead chooses to retreat to a friendly sea zone. Is the fighter required to land on the carrier?
A: No. The fighter is allowed, as are all other units, to retreat to any friendly sea zone or territory it could normally end its move in. So the fighter could go to a land territory or another friendly sea zone, the latter only assuming the player now declares that a carrier is moving there in the noncombat move.

Q: OK, same question, but the carrier never gets to the combat because a sea combat between the carrier and the fighter's target sea zone doesn't clear the path for the carrier to get there. What happens then?
A: The declaration of the carrier's pick up was valid (it could have gotten there), so the fighter has the retreat option it had before: retreat one space to any friendly zone. The attacker must resolve this set of combats in an order that allows for the carrier to get to its pick-up zone if things work out. So the intervening zone's combat would have to occur first.

Mike

[Krieghund]

In the retreat step, only one space of movement is allowed, regardless of how far the fighter has moved.
This can't be right, Mike. According to the OM, "Air units can retreat to any friendly territory within movement range." This would seem to indicate that they can use any or all remaining movement during the retreat phase, or is this another one for the FAQ?

[Yoper]

The OM fog is creeping in again! :confused:

Run towards the light! :D

Clarity can be yours if you just come over to the "dark side"! :cool:

Once you've had Larry, you'll never go back! :)

[GSH34]

Oh, come on guys. Mike can't be single handedly responsible for curing all of the rule loop holes in the OM. I would put any one of you LHTR guys to task to rework one of the most popular strategic board game of all times with this level of complexity and have a perfectly complete rule set at launch. Only now (18 plus months after release), has it come to light that retreat rules aren't perfectly clear. It is not Mike's fault that WotC did not 1.) have on going support of the game and 2.) continue to pay him to do #1.

GSH34

[Yoper]

Just as he is not totally to blame for all the rule loop holes in the OM?

Head developer means he is the main guy when it comes to being responsible for all things- the good and the bad.

I will state this for the last time- The problems that have come about concerning the revision of A&A seem to be all connected to decisions made by those who produced the game. From the number of playing pieces for each country to thin cardstock, from no parts containers to a ruleset that, for the most part, is not as well done as the 2nd edition or the LHTR. All this points to bad choices.

Until someone comes forward with a list of all the people who were making the decisions and which ones they made, all I have to go on is who was in charge.

I believe that many of the things that I find wrong with the revision can be attributed to Mike Selinker.

That is my opinion and I will stick to it until someone can give my evidence to the contrary.

Craig

[TrimChris]

I blame Karl Rove.

[BlackWatch222]

Mike Selinker wrote:

“I'm amused that BlackWatch apologizes for his lack of clarity then takes mine to task. :)

Anyway, he's right about the confusing setup to that answer. Try it is as this:
Q: A fighter has moved four spaces into combat in a sea zone, and a friendly carrier has entered the sea zone to pick it up. The carrier is destroyed in the combat. Can the fighter retreat one space even though it has no movement points left?
A: Yes, and it is irrelevant whether it has moved those four spaces for purposes of whether it can retreat. Any aircraft can retreat from any combat by moving one space to a friendly landing point, just like all other units can move one space if they are allowed to retreat. (The only units not allowed to retreat are land units locked in an amphibious assault.) This single move is allowed regardless of whether the units have used their full move or not, and whether or not the units has ever been in or over the space it is retreating to. In the retreat step, only one space of movement is allowed, regardless of how far the fighter has moved.

Q: OK, same question, except the carrier isn't destroyed but instead chooses to retreat to a friendly sea zone. Is the fighter required to land on the carrier?
A: No. The fighter is allowed, as are all other units, to retreat to any friendly sea zone or territory it could normally end its move in. So the fighter could go to a land territory or another friendly sea zone, the latter only assuming the player now declares that a carrier is moving there in the noncombat move.

Q: OK, same question, but the carrier never gets to the combat because a sea combat between the carrier and the fighter's target sea zone doesn't clear the path for the carrier to get there. What happens then?
A: The declaration of the carrier's pick up was valid (it could have gotten there), so the fighter has the retreat option it had before: retreat one space to any friendly zone. The attacker must resolve this set of combats in an order that allows for the carrier to get to its pick-up zone if things work out. So the intervening zone's combat would have to occur first.

Mike”

Thanks for the response Mike.

Krieghund has hit on one problem with the clarifications you have given.

"In the retreat step, only one space of movement is allowed, regardless of how far the fighter has moved"

does seem to conflict with

"Air units can retreat to any friendly territory within
movement range."

And it still begs the question, "If an air unit can get a 5th movement point at the end, why can't it have it in the middle??" i.e. move 2 spaces, then retreat 3?

Part 3 of your response also is problematic.

"The declaration of the carrier's pick up was valid (it could have gotten there), so the fighter has the retreat option it had before: retreat one space to any friendly zone. The attacker must resolve this set of combats in an order that allows for the carrier to get to its pick-up zone if things work out. So the intervening zone's combat would have to occur first."

seems to conflict with:

"You resolve combat by rolling dice
(also known as firing) according
to a standard sequence. All combat
takes place at the same time, but
each affected territory or sea zone
is resolved separately. The attacker
decides the order.* No new units
may enter as reinforcements once
combat has begun."

*The rules do specify the order of resolving combat in certain specific instances, namely air units passing over "intermediate" aa guns must first deal with those guns before the "main event", and the sea portion of a combined sea battle/amphib battle must be conducted first. Nothing restricts the order of any other sets of battles - it's attacker's choice.

[BlackWatch222]

GSH34 wrote:

"Oh, come on guys. Mike can't be single handedly responsible for curing all of the rule loop holes in the OM. I would put any one of you LHTR guys to task to rework one of the most popular strategic board game of all times with this level of complexity and have a perfectly complete rule set at launch. Only now (18 plus months after release), has it come to light that retreat rules aren't perfectly clear. It is not Mike's fault that WotC did not 1.) have on going support of the game and 2.) continue to pay him to do #1.

GSH34"

Well, I'll respond to it two ways:

1) Thanks for the compliment about the LHTR rule set. It has taken 18 months for the first major flaw in playability of that rule set to pop up. You will note too that it is being addressed and repaired as we speak. A correction is in the final stages of publication.

2) The LHTR was written within 3-4 months of the release of AAR in response to the dozens of flaws and incosistencies in the OOTB rule set. AH has written an on line FAQ sheet that covers some of the issues, but as far as I know, that FAQ sheet is not included in the box, nor have they reissued the game with a corrected rule set.

Any new product can have bugs. The test of a company's interest in its product and in its customers who use that product is how well they respond in correcting those bugs. When a subset of customers does their work for them and they still won't fix the flaws they then get an approval rating from this customer at least of: D-

BW

[Mike Selinker]

Krieghund has hit on one problem with the clarifications you have given. "In the retreat step, only one space of movement is allowed, regardless of how far the fighter has moved" does seem to conflict with "Air units can retreat to any friendly territory within
movement range."

Krieghund is absolutely right. The aircraft is allowed a minimum retreat, but since the rules clearly state that "land and sea units" must move one space, the aircraft are clearly allowed to retreat up to their remaining move. Minimum of one, but clearly up to their remaining move.

And it still begs the question, "If an air unit can get a 5th movement point at the end, why can't it have it in the middle??" i.e. move 2 spaces, then retreat 3?

Because the game is abstract. The game allows an infantry unit to retreat to New York from a point where it would sieze Los Angeles if it stayed. I'll say it again: Units have the ability to retreat regardless of where they moved from, or how far they moved. This is because the game values a meaningful retreat rule. Every other unit has the ability to exceed its move with this retreat rule. Whether you agree with my interpretation or not, I still have trouble understanding why you believe it's somehow outside the realm of the game's realism.

As for the other part, you clearly understand why it's important to resolve the AA gunfire or the ambphibious assault. I would argue that it's similarly importantly if you've designated a carrier to move through a sea zone in which a fight will occur in order to get to the other side. But that's just my opinion, and shouldn't be part of my answer if it causes problems.

Mike

P.S. Guys, leave Yoper alone. I see no reason why Yoper can't blame me for everything he dislikes about the game, given my position at the time. It's my two-year anniversary since I left Wizards, and I can take it. (Besides, he says he's stated it for the last time, and who wouldn't want him to hold to that?:))

[Yoper]

Mike,
I think I can handle anything thrown my way, so I don't need your help.

I won't bring it up here anymore because it isn't going to solve anything.

Just as I stated.

Craig

[Yoper]

Oh, Mike,
I also find your plea to the "Guys" to leave me alone quite interesting.

From what I can see, no one has come to your rescue or disputed my interpretation of the situation.

It seems that the silence, in this instance, is quite telling!

Your in disagreement,
Craig A. Yope

[BlackWatch222]

Mike,

You are still dodging the other questions regarding a 5th/7th movement point.

Can I send a bomber 6 spaces to attack an enemy force, with a planned retreat to an adjacent friendly 7th space?

An armor unit CAN do just that - move the full extent of its movement allowance, with a planned retreat to a friendly space adjacent to the space under attack.

Can I use the 5th/7th movement point in the MIDDLE of a total move, i.e. move a ftr 2 spaces, attack, then retreat 3? Armor or sea units are prohibited from doing this.

Alternatively can an air unit ONLY retreat one space? That's all any other unit can retreat.

I am not concerned about realism - this game is but a vague approximation to the conditions in a "real" war game.

I am concerned about having a rule set that is internally consistent. The "exception" you are trying to promulgate (allowing a ftr in a sea battle that has travelled 4 spaces, but failed to secure a planned landing site either by bad judgement or bad rolls to now "miraculously" acquire a 5th movement point) is just too far away from any semblance of internal rules consistency as applied to the remainder of the rules applying to air units. The ftr had its opportunity to retreat (by landing on a carrier that never showed up) and lost it.

Sorry - we fixed this in LHTR, and I've not seen any reason presented why it would be changed.

[Moderator Sinister]

This thread is in danger of being removed.

The personal side comments need to stop from EVERYONE.

At this point we aren't even on topic. Which was LHTR questions for Greg Smorey. Let's return this thread back to greg so people can get beneficial LHTR information.

If you want to keep discussing the benefits and drawbacks of rulesets I have no problem you doing so as long as we put it with a proper title and WE ALL stick to the issues of the game and not personal side comments.

GAME ON!
Mod Sin

[AllWeNeedIsLove.]

From what I can see, no one has come to your rescue or disputed my interpretation of the situation.

It seems that the silence, in this instance, is quite telling!

actually people usually only opine when they disagree. you dont get people all shouting in approval. that only happens when someone disagrees. silence is much more likely to be agreement than disagreement.

[AllWeNeedIsLove.]

I am concerned about having a rule set that is internally consistent.
all units get to retreat. air units also get to retreat. sounds internally consistent to me.

[AllWeNeedIsLove.]

This thread is in danger of being removed.

The personal side comments need to stop from EVERYONE.

At this point we aren't even on topic. Which was LHTR questions for Greg Smorey. Let's return this thread back to greg so people can get beneficial LHTR information.

If you want to keep discussing the benefits and drawbacks of rulesets I have no problem you doing so as long as we put it with a proper title and WE ALL stick to the issues of the game and not personal side comments.

GAME ON!
Mod Sin
thanks for the reminder sin. but dont take this thread down as it is one of the more popular threads. if you feel it is getting out of control just stop additional posts from being added.

[GSH34]

Mod Sinister,

I'm actually the one who started this. It was really a question about fighters retreating in the box rules, not LHTR. When I originally typed it though, it never even crossed my mind that Greg Smorey only deals with LHTR. So, it is my fault about that.


In all honesty, I think you already know the answer to the question you are posing Blackwatch. You are asking why can't a fighter move 4 spaces and use a planned retreat to get a 5th or why can't a bomber move 6 and use a planned retreat to get a 7th? You already know what the correct answer is because you can never use a planned retreat when calculating fighter and bomber movement.

Page 26 of the OM...
Your air units cannot land in territories you just captured.

What if you fly your air units their full movement into the land battles you propose and you wipe out the defender and they get no hits in return? Your planes would not be able to retreat since no enemy units remain and they couldn't land there since the territory was just captured. They have no movement points remaining, so this would be a kamikaze attack, which is illegal.

The only time a fighter can use it's full 4 point movement to enter a battle is if it is a naval battle and the attacker has some chance of moving a carrier to the sea zone either during combat or noncombat movement. That is it. Under no other circumstance can a fighter or a bomber use it's full movement in combat movement because of what I mentioned in the previous paragraph. If they wipe out the defender and get stuck in the territory/sea zone, it's a kamikaze attack because they would not be able to land.

So, Mike has clarified that in this one, and only one, instance where a fighter has used 4 movement points to enter combat, it can still retreat one space if the attacker retreats.

If I understand you correctly Blackwatch, based on what Mike has said about this instance, you are wondering if this one retreat movement is added to a fighter’s movement for all other retreats also? Example: A fighter moves two spaces to enter combat and you retreat. You are extrapolating Mikes response to mean that the fighter could then move one retreat movement and its two remaining movement spaces for a total of five? I do not believe that is what Mike is advocating. However, I will let him answer that question specifically. I have been wrong in the past when trying to divine his and Larry’s “intent” when it comes to the rules.

Honestly guys, I think there is enough room for both rule sets to exist peacefully (note to self….I hope I don’t strung up for trying to walk a narrow line between these two rule sets). While many of us are die hard A&A forum/PBEM club members/tournament participants, there is probably a larger crowd that plays the game much more casually. For them, clarifying the existing box rules is enough. For the rest of us that require exact precision, I am darn glad that LHTR is amendable and has excellent people overseeing it.

GSH34

[Mike Selinker]

Greg has everything right, as usual.

If I understand you correctly Blackwatch, based on what Mike has said about this instance, you are wondering if this one retreat movement is added to a fighter’s movement for all other retreats also? Example: A fighter moves two spaces to enter combat and you retreat. You are extrapolating Mikes response to mean that the fighter could then move one retreat movement and its two remaining movement spaces for a total of five? I do not believe that is what Mike is advocating.

And he is especially right about that. In the one specified case when a fighter could move 5 spaces, it can. Otherwise it can't. As far as I know, there's no circumstance when a bomber can move 7 spaces. But if there was a Doolittle's raid-style rule allowing bombers to land on carriers, that one bit of extra move would be permitted for them too.

Bryce, I would prefer you didn't close or take down this thread. As to Yoper's comment, I'm never interested in being rescued. I mean it when I say he's right to blame me (and, if he likes, Larry) for anything he doesn't like about the game. These would be adequate reasons for him or anyone else to choose the LHTR ruleset. It seems like a fine set of rules, at least at the last point I looked at it and helped them clarify some stuff. I've never understood the animosity between some advocates of one rule set and some advocates of the other. Play by the rules you want.

Anything else on this topic need to be discussed, or has everybody said everything they want to say?

Mike

[GSH34]

Uhmmm, Mike,

GSH34 = Dave Weber
I'm just another ardent player. I don't mind being compared to Greg Smorey. I take that as a complement. However, Greg may have a different opinion on this....especially since the Bengals pasted my Bears and didn't help his Steelers.

GSH34

[GSH34]

Since so much of this thread has evolved into a box rule set vs. LHTR comparison, I would like to expand this thread for a moment on how the rules are handled in general from a business perspective.

This may be a taboo question to ask you Mike (I posed this question and Larry and he declined to answer), but why the heck did WotC/AH not officially amend the rules from the beginning? I just don't understand why they don't have a formal process for updating the rules of a game as popular as this. I don't think having an updateable rule book file on the web would be that much work. Would it? You must have at least asked WotC about updating the box rules after the initial release?

Any insight you could give on this subject would be greatly appreciate. I understand little a game goes through from idea to publishing, but I definately don't understand WotC abandoning it shortly after release.

GSH34

[Mike Selinker]

Uhmmm, Mike,

GSH34 = Dave Weber
I'm just another ardent player. I don't mind being compared to Greg Smorey. I take that as a complement. However, Greg may have a different opinion on this....especially since the Bengals pasted my Bears and didn't help his Steelers.

GSH34

Whoops. I'm an idiot. I saw the GS and jumped to a conclusion I shouldn't have. Many, many apologies.

Dave, you're like wicked smart too. Okay, you're no Greg Smorey, but who is? :)

Mike

P.S. A handy NFL guide: This year's Bengals = last year's Steelers. This year's Bears = last year's Bears. Hope that helps.

[GSH34]

P.S. A handy NFL guide: This year's Bengals = last year's Steelers. This year's Bears = last year's Bears. Hope that helps.

Now that was uncalled for. This is supposed to be civil (note to self...last Christmas' fruit cake becomes Mike's present this year :) )

GSH34

[Mike Selinker]

This may be a taboo question to ask you Mike (I posed this question and Larry and he declined to answer), but why the heck did WotC/AH not officially amend the rules from the beginning? I just don't understand why they don't have a formal process for updating the rules of a game as popular as this. I don't think having an updateable rule book file on the web would be that much work. Would it? You must have at least asked WotC about updating the box rules after the initial release?

It's not a taboo question, but I can't speak for WotC's decisions after I departed. They certainly listened to me quite a bit on the subject after I left. But their decisions were their own, and they don't need me questioning them.

I can tell you what I would have done, though: Almost nothing for about a year. You need to gather data from disparate sources, and it's a time-consuming process. It's now, what, 18 months after release? That doesn't seem too long between release and revision. Especially not since the last gap was 18 years.

Just my opinion, though.

Mike

[Mike Selinker]

Now that was uncalled for. This is supposed to be civil (note to self...last Christmas' fruit cake becomes Mike's present this year :) )

Mmmm, fruitcake....

[GSH34]

Mmmm, fruitcake....

A man that works in the gaming industry and likes fruitcake. Coincidence? I think not! (lol to self) :)

GSH34

[CrazyStraw]

Dave, you're like wicked smart too. Okay, you're no Greg Smorey, but who is?You have just stumbled upon the mystery of the century, wherein it is rumored that not even Greg Smorey is Greg Smorey.

It's called the Smorley Paradox.

http://boards.avalonhill.com/showpost.php?p=61732&postcount=15

[Cowboy]

My thought on on retreat is it is non combat move, Therefore the ftrs are presumed to land on carriers and be cargo in non combat phase.

[Krieghund]

My thought on on retreat is it is non combat move, Therefore the ftrs are presumed to land on carriers and be cargo in non combat phase.

Retreat is not a Non-Combat Move - it happens during the Combat phase. Fighters do not land until the end of the Non-Combat Movement phase, and carriers cannot move after fighters have landed on them, so retreating fighters cannot land on retreating carriers until after all movement is complete.

[Krieghund]

OK, so it sounds to me like the "designer's intent" was that attacking fighters be allowed to retreat "a number of spaces up to their remaining movement allowance, with a minimum of one space". This is fine. It gives an "extra" movement only to fighters that have moved their full 4 spaces into combat. In accordance with existing rules, these fighters must have a planned landing spot (which by definition can only be a carrier) that does not rely on retreating from a battle.

I agree that this provides these fighters an extra move that can be exploited, but this is really no different than the loophole that land and sea units enjoy when they attack from 2 sides and may all retreat to 1 side.

Now if only the FAQ would reflect this and make it "official", everyone could move on.

[BlackWatch222]

Krieghund wrote:

"OK, so it sounds to me like the "designer's intent" was that attacking fighters be allowed to retreat "a number of spaces up to their remaining movement allowance, with a minimum of one space". This is fine. It gives an "extra" movement only to fighters that have moved their full 4 spaces into combat. In accordance with existing rules, these fighters must have a planned landing spot (which by definition can only be a carrier) that does not rely on retreating from a battle.

I agree that this provides these fighters an extra move that can be exploited, but this is really no different than the loophole that land and sea units enjoy when they attack from 2 sides and may all retreat to 1 side.

Now if only the FAQ would reflect this and make it "official", everyone could move on."

The designer had his opportunity to make his intent clear when he wrote the rules for the game in the first place. I would argue in fact, that he did make his intent clear, but is changing his mind after the fact.

From the box rules:

Step 7 of Conduct Combat - Press attack or retreat.

Move all attacking land and sea units in that combat to a single adjacent friendly space from which at least one of the attacking units moved. All such units must retreat together to the same territory, regardless of where they came from. (Note: no reference to air units moving back one space here)

Air Units: Air units can retreat to any friendly territory within movement range.

and from Unit Profiles:

Fighters: Move = 4.

Land and sea units are given specific permission to extend their movement by one space. Air units are specifically and explicitly limited to "within movement range."

I checked through AH's FAQ's and no extension of a ftr's movement capability is mentioned.

So - box rules or LHTR rules - it makes no difference. If a ftr moves 4 spaces to a battle in a sea zone in anticipation of being picked up there by a carrier, and the carrier doesn't make it - too bad, so sad, the ftr splashes.

If you want to play by Mike Selinker's house rules - feel free to do so. Until and unless AH actually prints a correction, either in the box games or on the FAQ pages please do not claim that a 5th movement point is permitted by the rules for any ftr - it just ain't so.

BTW - if this discussion does inspire a change in the FAQ's, it may be advisable to amend one other one while you're at it.

There is an potential conflict between FAQ's:

"If I have multiple air units in an amphibious assault, can I retreat each of them individually during separate rounds of combat?
No. They must all retreat at the same time."

is listed two steps above (and in a section different from the second which looks at retreats specifically):

"Can only part of an attacking force retreat, leaving other units behind to keep fighting?
No, with one exception -- any number of planes can retreat from amphibious assaults during any Press Attack or Retreat step. Otherwise, this is never allowed."

If someone reads ONLY this second FAQ (and it is the ONLY one in the Retreats FAQ), they may read it that you could retreat one plane (of a group) after each round if you so choose.

It would be better worded as follows (and would retain consistency with the first FAQ above):

Can only part of an attacking force retreat, leaving other units behind to keep fighting?
No, with one exception -- all attacking planes can retreat at once from amphibious assaults during any Press Attack or Retreat step, not just the final round. Otherwise, this is never allowed.

[BlackWatch222]

GSH34. I did know the answers to all the questions I had posed earlier. I should perhaps have indicated that the whole series were rhetorical questions only - trying to point out the basic inconsistency of treatment proposed by Mike.

I keep a set of LHTR printed rules in the box with the rest of the pieces. Some day, 25-35 years from now, when the grandkids are wading through their demented gran'pere's stuff and come across this game, I hope they can enjoy it straight out of the box. I don't think Mike will be around to keep sorting out disputes. AH may not be around then either, so their FAQ page will be gone.

Think about it...

BW

[Krieghund]

Land and sea units are given specific permission to extend their movement by one space. Air units are specifically and explicitly limited to "within movement range."

I checked through AH's FAQ's and no extension of a ftr's movement capability is mentioned.

So - box rules or LHTR rules - it makes no difference. If a ftr moves 4 spaces to a battle in a sea zone in anticipation of being picked up there by a carrier, and the carrier doesn't make it - too bad, so sad, the ftr splashes.

If you want to play by Mike Selinker's house rules - feel free to do so. Until and unless AH actually prints a correction, either in the box games or on the FAQ pages please do not claim that a 5th movement point is permitted by the rules for any ftr - it just ain't so.

BlackWatch, I agree with you 100%. (I believe I stated these same arguments several pages back...) The rules, as written, do not allow the extra retreat movement. However, I can understand how the intent may have been otherwise, and I don't see it as a detrimental change. I would not be unhappy if it were officially endorsed, but until such time as it is the fighters do indeed "splash". (BTW, this is actually the specifically stated rule in Pacific.)

[GSH34]

GSH34. I did know the answers to all the questions I had posed earlier. I should perhaps have indicated that the whole series were rhetorical questions only - trying to point out the basic inconsistency of treatment proposed by Mike.

I keep a set of LHTR printed rules in the box with the rest of the pieces. Some day, 25-35 years from now, when the grandkids are wading through their demented gran'pere's stuff and come across this game, I hope they can enjoy it straight out of the box. I don't think Mike will be around to keep sorting out disputes. AH may not be around then either, so their FAQ page will be gone.

Think about it...

BW

Hey Blackwatch,

I was quite sure you already knew the answers to the questions you were posing. You (and Krieghund, and Yoper, and virtually every other true LHTR leader) are much more of a rules guru than I am. It just seemed like you were intentionally trying to trip Mike up and make him look bad since you already knew the answers. That was something I personally didn't like. I try to do my best to keep my emotions in check when directing criticism at Mike or Larry for the deficiencies of the box rules and other issues with Revised (unit storage?). Sometimes I can control them better than others. After reading posting from Larry, Mike and some PM's, I have the strong impression that once Revised was released, WotC had little concern for correcting anything in the game. It was outside of both of their control after that. Both tried to have rules updated, but were for most parts stonewalled.

Everyone has their own opinions. Your's appears to be more negative of Mike than mine and that's ok. I know Mike had at least some initial role in LHTR development, so you very likely have much more information to base your opinion on. At this point though, Revised is outside of the control of either Mike or Larry. It's WotC fault for lack of support, not theirs.

I would like to close by saying that I honestly do appreciate the work everyone involved in LHTR does. Personally, I play with LHTR for FTF games and have since it's inception. I owe a lot of gratitude to you, Blackwatch, and everyone else involved in the on going development of LHTR. You guys have done and excellent job with it. Thank you.

GSH34