Group Details Private

Official Answers

This group of individuals provide answers to the game that should be considered the official out of the box rules answers.

  • RE: Offloading In Both Combat And Non Combat Movement

    @Cernel said in Offloading In Both Combat And Non Combat Movement:

    @Krieghund Ok, then. For my plan of creating a list of transport rules differences between 2nd/3rd, Revised OOB and Revised LHTR (not promising I will actually get around doing it, but I hope so), I was actually inclined splitting Revised OOB between “Revised OOB Literal” and “Revised OOB Intentional”, the first one based only on a literal reading of the rulebook and its official errata, no matter how absurd or contradictory, the second one expanding over it, to reconstruct the original intent of the author, beyond the arguable poor quality of the wording.

    Now I understand that you will never subscribe to such a classification, so I get that I’ll have to keep a single column only for “Revised OOB” (substantially getting rid of what would have been the “Revised OOB Literal” column, and keeping only the “Revised OOB Intentional” one, but renamed as just “Revised OOB”).

    OK. Good luck! If it helps, over 10 years ago I created such a document comparing and contrasting AA50, AAR OOB, and AAR LHTR. It may make a good starting point:

    http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=1726

    Anyway, I think at least here we have fully clarified 1 rule for “Revised OOB”:

    You can never load anything onto a transport after having offloaded anything from the same transport, on the same turn (no exceptions)”.

    Which is, then, not going to be part of any 2nd/3rd, Revised OOB and Revised LHTR rules differences, since this is true, with not a single exception, for every single Axis & Allies game that ever existed since the first edition, right?

    Yes, as far as the strategic-level games go.

    Let me anyways clarify that, by “Revised OOB Literal”, I was not meaning at all that was the “true” Revised, or anything like that. That would have been merely a personal point of view, and you can have a literal interpretation (or a whole set of possible literal interpretations) that is filled with contradictions, conflicts and absurdities. I was substantially referring to a similar matter in the interpretation of the law, where you could read the law as what it is literally saying (no matter how absurd the consequences of that might be) or you could read it by trying to follow the actual intentions of the law, instead (the “golden rule”). When you said “You could interpret it that way, if you read the core transport rules in a vacuum, without taking other rules mentioned above into account”, then I can assure you were saying the same thing as what I was meaning by “literal”, if by “without taking other rules mentioned above into account” you meant “integrating the original rulebook with only the official errata and clarifications, and nothing else at all, and nothing more than by their strict literal meaning”.

    I meant not taking the bridging and not offloading into more than one territory rules into account, which are what create the inconsistency.

    posted in Axis & Allies Revised Edition
  • RE: 1914 Gameplay Comparison

    OP has been banned for providing spam links.

    posted in Axis & Allies 1914
  • RE: "Operation Lifeboat" !!!!

    @SS-GEN Please add your timezone or UTC-time. Thank you 🙂

    posted in Events
  • RE: Offloading In Both Combat And Non Combat Movement

    @Cernel said in Offloading In Both Combat And Non Combat Movement:

    As long as we are following Revised OOB rules literally, I think we can all agree that we should be allowed always to load during Non Combat Move, from any adjacent territories, after having offloaded, during Combat Move or Non Combat Move or both, as long as we didn’t offload during Non Combat Move after having been in a (victorious) sea battle and as long as we didn’t load and offload without otherwise moving (bridging). Correct?

    You could interpret it that way, if you read the core transport rules in a vacuum, without taking other rules mentioned above into account. However, those other rules cast doubt on that interpretation, which is why we’re having this discussion.

    Then, you are (and here we go past a purely literal interpretation) saying that the rule that restricts a transport offloading only to one territory per turn can also be taken as barring loading from any other territories, after you offloaded, this based on the understanding that the intention of the original author was actually to say that, after offloading, the transport is stuck on that one “coast”, within that sea zone, for the rest of the turn.

    Basically, you are saying that the original author simply forgot to add the restriction of loading only from the territory you offloaded to, after you offloaded (implying you have to stay on that coast, only, for the rest of the turn). I guess that is your guess. My guess (much less informed, as I’ve never even met Larry Harris), instead, is that the original author didn’t have in mind, thus didn’t forgot, that, but, rather, simply forgot to say that you can never load after having offloaded (this rule actually existing only for the bridging and for the offloading after victorious sea battle cases).

    OK. That’s what I said in my last post. It’s cleaner and makes more sense.

    So, as I see it, here we have a split between two different rulesets, that I could call “Revised OOB Literal” and “Revised OOB Intentional”, the first one based on interpreting what Larry Harris said and the second one based on surmising what Larry Harris intended to say, instead.

    I disagree. The “literal” rules are confusing and even contradictory on this point, so they must be interpreted. The best way to do that is to resolve the confusion and contradiction based on what makes sense within the context of the rules. Of course, knowing what the authors’ intention actually was helps.

    Up until this point, I follow, if you can confirm I’m actually following. However what I’m really not understanding is how your assumption of expanding the single territory offloading turn-based restriction into restricting loading too can be any closer to a literal interpretation of the rulebook than my proposal of generally expanding the no-loading-after-offloading restriction at the bridging rules.

    It’s not, and I agreed with your proposal in my last post. At any rate, one arrives at the same conclusion either way.

    What I really don’t get is why expanding the single territory offload to loading too is a “fair assumption” while generalizing the no loading after offloading bridging only rule is merely a “maybe”.

    My “maybe” was simply a segue into a deeper discussion further down, during which I agreed.

    In my mind, either we go for a literal interpretation of Revised OOB and, in this case, both these assumptions are unacceptable, as literally not part of the rulebook, its errata, nor its official clarifications (as far as I know), or we go for an intentional evaluation of Revised OOB and, in this case, I cannot see how these two assumption are one any less easily admissible than the other one.

    So, if it is true that you actually feel it is “safer” or “fairer” to expand the single territory offload restriction rule, rather than generalizing the no loading after offloading bridging rule (are you?), and assuming that you agree, anyways, we are, in both cases, going out of a strictly literal reading of the Revised OOB ruleset, I would be interested to know how exactly do you believe one of these assumption is so much “safer” or “fairer” than the other one?

    Again, I can’t agree with a “literal” interpretation, for the reasons I outlined above, and both applications of related rules are equally viable (and necessary to resolve the conflict).

    Because, to me, it merely looks like we are moving into some personal interpretation of the actual intentions of the original author, substantially creating unofficial “errata” (with the meaning of changing the rulebook), in both cases alike, while only on a merely personal level one could subscribe to one or the other or both (though subscribing to both is practically equivalent to subscribing to the second one only, as generally barring loading after offloading covers all that is covered by the other case and more).

    We are moving into interpretation, as that is necessary to resolve the conflict in the rules, but I disagree that it is changing the rulebook, as I outlined above. It is merely making sense of contradictions within it.

    posted in Axis & Allies Revised Edition
  • RE: Looking for help finding Fleet Markers

    OP has been banned for providing spam links.

    posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
  • RE: Larry Harris gencon 3.0 axis start?

    OP has been banned for providing spam links.

    posted in Axis & Allies 1942 Online
  • RE: Quick game/rule question.

    @Wittmann @Private-Panic @DoManMacgee please don’t further answer as the accounts will be banned due to (later inserted) spam links.
    Thank you for the hint, @DoManMacgee !

    posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
  • RE: WAR ROOM Rulebook available for download

    A new version of the Rulebook (125) and FAQ are now available:

    https://www.nightingale-games.com/rules-faq-errata

    posted in War Room
  • RE: 1914 Gameplay Comparison

    @JuanMaddox I have moved this topic from the Zombies-Category to the correct one: 1914.
    Here you will find a lot of information.
    Also we have the Hourse Rule category, where you can find related House rules:
    https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/category/17/house-rules
    https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/tags/1914

    posted in Axis & Allies 1914