Anti-Aircraft guns: Liberated or Captured

  • Official Q&A

    This sort of debate occurs whenever this question comes up.  The answer is actually fairly simple, and is the same in OOB and LHTR, with one small exception.

    When a territory changes hands, the ownership of any IC and/or AA guns in that territory changes with it.  Whoever gains control of the territory gains control of the IC and/or AA guns IC.  It doesn’t matter who the original owner of the AA gun or IC was.

    The small difference between OOB and LHTR concerns situations where territories have been captured when they would have otherwise been liberated because a capital was under enemy control.  Say Russia and Karelia have been captured by Germany.  If the US captures Karelia, it gains control of the territory because the Soviet capital is enemy-held.  It also gains control of any IC and/or AA guns there, because control of these transfers with control of the territory.  If the US then liberates Russia, control of Karelia (along with any other territories held by allies) reverts to the USSR.  Control of any ICs in these territories also reverts to the USSR.  Under the OOB rules, the USSR would also gain control of any AA guns in these territories.  Under LHTR, the AA guns would remain under the control of the country that captured the territory (the US in Karelia’s case).

    I hope this helps!

  • Kreighund has it correct.

  • Howdy.

    Krieghund, as always, is quite good at laying out the detail.  I always appreciate the effort he puts into attempting to clear up questions.

    His interpretation of LHTR is correct; his interpretation of OOB rules is incorrect.

    I believe he is correct in what was INTENDED to be in the rules, but that ignores what the rules actually say.

    If that is not the case then it will be very easy to quote from the box rules the place that contradicts and clarifies the wording “original owner” found on page 25.

    Not only do the rules state “original owner”, but the FAQ states “original controler”.

    Let’s not confuse what the rule actually says with what we think it should say.

    The rule as written is actually quite simple and quite clear.


  • Using Congressional Record style phrasing…

    “I reserve the right to expand and clarify my remarks”

    Please officially record my post as “Kreig has it right for LHTR.  I have not played with OOB since my first game and cannot speak with accuracy on OOB rules.”

  • Official Q&A

    Mazer Rackham, I agree that the rules must speak for themselves, but in this case both the rule and the FAQ entry you reference are ambiguously worded.  They state that control of the AA gun goes to the “original owner”, but it is unclear whether this means the original owner of the AA gun itself or the original owner of the territory it is in.

    In cases like this, I seek designer clarifications in order to determine the intent of the rules.  As you surmised, my interpretation (actually Mike Selinker’s) was indeed the intent.  This is also the simplest interpretation, since it doesn’t require any record-keeping regarding prior ownership of the gun(s) in question, and it is in keeping with the precedent that control of grey pieces changes with control of the territories that they occupy.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Not to mention the ambiguity of what gun goes to what country!

    Say if Japan captures the gun in India, then walks it to Caucasus, loses it to Russia who brings it to Karelia, loses it to Germany who brings it to W. Europe and loses it to America.

    There’s only what, 10 AA Guns on the board at the start?  If they move around, and I move em around A LOT, it would be nigh impossible to remember what gun started where and who was the original owner.

  • In support of that…

    If AA guns belonged to a specific nation, and if they changed hands several times but went back to the original owner when your side controlled it, AA guns would be red, grey, brown, yellow and green instead of off-white 🙂

  • Ok, my last post on this  😄

    I’m not sure why it is so hard for people to see that:
    A) The text is clear
    B) The text is unambiguous

    I understand you believe this doesn’t represent:
    C) What the best rule is
    D) What the author actually intended

    I’m open to C, and I’d likely agree with D if I thought it was particularly relevant.  But I’m not sure why it is apparently so utterly, terribly difficult for people to agree with A and B.  The text says what the text says.  There is no mystery in the wording.  “Original owner” and “original controller” are surprisingly simple, comprehensible phrases.

    The question was about what the rules state, not about what the rules should have stated, and not what the author intended to state.  The text is the text, and the text is clear even if you think it is wrong.

    Ok.  Lots of other smart folks have opinions, so the floor is yours.  I’ve said my bit.


  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Not really.  As was said, original owner of WHAT?  The land?  The Gun?  The intent to buy the gun?  The original owner of the M&M that fell on the floor and rolled under the couch?

    This is why no one uses the box rules anymore.  They are ambiguous and very poorly worded.  LHTR fixed almost all of the errors.  It has some of it’s own, but they are more on par with the errors we found in classic, not on par with the errors found in the box rules of AAR.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    I am too.  But it’s nice to read some of the writer’s REASONS they made the changes.  Though, since Larry did sign off on them, I never questioned their validity - especially since AAMC, FoE, DAAK and have all adopted them as the primary rule set.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator



    I am too.  But it’s nice to read some of the writer’s REASONS they made the changes.  Though, since Larry did sign off on them, I never questioned their validity - especially since AAMC, FoE, DAAK and have all adopted them as the primary rule set.

    Larry did more that just sign off on the LHTR.  He has always been actively engaged in the discussions on all the topics.

    Changes have been made because he wanted them made, but he has also accepted the arguments of others as valid for other changes.  It has been a very fruitful exchange of thoughts and ideas.


    I didn’t mean to imply that he took a passive role in the creation of the rules. (ie just signing them.)  I mean that he agreed to the rules BY signing them.  I’m sure he argued his case, looked at the evidence, and made decisions as well.

Suggested Topics

I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys