Shuffling figs on friendly CVs in same sz?


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    Not trying too, but I disagree with their interpretation of the rules.  Fighters are in the sea zone, not on a specific ship.  I’ve given my evidence, no one has specifically found a contradiction codified in the rules.

    Transports are not Aircraft Carriers and do not function in combat as Aircraft Carriers and Fighters.  Thus, it’s a flawed analogy to use Infantry + Transports to simulate Fighters + Aircraft Carriers.  (Mainly that the infantry on transports cannot defend themselves, however the fighters on carriers - regardless of ownership of fighters and carriers - can defend themselves when attacked and can move from ship to ship or even to an adjacent land mass to find safe landing after combat.  If your transports die, the infantry on board cannot move to an adjacent land mass to avoid death.)


  • 2007 AAR League

    @Cmdr:

    I’ve given my evidence, no one has specifically found a contradiction codified in the rules.

    Ok, the question here is that, is swapping fighters between CV’s in the same sea zone considered a “move”?
    If its a move then it’s obviously illegal.

    But if it’s a non-move, then in what phase would you put it? You can’t put it in the combat movement or non-combat movement phases because it’s a “non-move” and those are movement phases. Only moves are allowed in those phases. And it clearly isn’t combat, a unit purchase, a new unit placement, or a collection of income.

    Since, as a non-move, it doesn’t belong to any specific game phase and there is no precedent set for adding new phases to a game turn, then I would say it’s pretty much illegal whether it’s a move or not.

    I believe that’s check and mate, Commander.



  • @U-505:

    @Cmdr:

    I’ve given my evidence, no one has specifically found a contradiction codified in the rules.

    Ok, the question here is that, is swapping fighters between CV’s in the same sea zone considered a “move”?
    If its a move then it’s obviously illegal.

    But if it’s a non-move, then in what phase would you put it? You can’t put it in the combat movement or non-combat movement phases because it’s a “non-move” and those are movement phases. Only moves are allowed in those phases. And it clearly isn’t combat, a unit purchase, a new unit placement, or a collection of income.

    Since, as a non-move, it doesn’t belong to any specific game phase and there is no precedent set for adding new phases to a game turn, then I would say it’s pretty much illegal whether it’s a move or not.

    I believe that’s check and mate, Commander.

    In the immortal words of Lee Corso: Not so fast, my friend!

    There is defense during the enemy’s turn, during which it is clearly and incontrovertibly established in the rules that the planes leave the carriers.  This is not a new “Phase”.

    It’s a case where the rules are not nearly so cut and dried as some of you seem to think they are.  If it comes up in a game, I will still play by the interpretation kreig has laid out, but I think that falls more into a case where the “spirit of the law” may be clear, but the “letter of the law” is vague.



  • OK, so far it appears that EVERYONE agrees that the FIGs cannot change AC’s during the movement part of your own turn.  The only remaining sticking point seems to be if the AC’s with allied FIGs are attacked.

    Can you re-locate land units if they are attacked?  No, you cannot.

    Can FIGs from an AC that is attacked choose to land somewhere else if their AC survives combat?  No they cannot.  The ONLY time that a defending FIG can move is if its AC is sunk.

    With that being said, the only time that a UK FIG that is based on a US AC could MOVE at all is if the US AC is SUNK.  In which case the normal, black and white, game rules come into play and the FIG may move UP TO 1 SPACE to find a legal LZ.  That would include the UK AC in the same SZ if it surved the attack AND if there was room on it for the UK FIGs to land.  Of course in this case you are not “shuffling” FIGs because there is NO USA AC to move the US FIGs to, because that AC HAD to be sunk in order for the UK FIGs to go looking for a new LZ.

    But if the AC is NOT sunk, then the rules are clear, DEFENDERS DO NOT MOVE!  Sunk AC’s under FIGs are an explicit exception in the rules, otherwise DEFENDERs DO NOT MOVE!


  • Official Answers

    All good points, 'Switch.

    @Cmdr:

    Transports are not Aircraft Carriers and do not function in combat as Aircraft Carriers and Fighters.  Thus, it’s a flawed analogy to use Infantry + Transports to simulate Fighters + Aircraft Carriers.

    I never said that land units on transports were an analogy for fighters on carriers.  I only said that the transport rules establish that movement within a sea zone is still movement.  Beyond that, there is nothing relevant to this question in the transport rules.

    Now, allow me to expand on 'Switch’s argument.  Here’s the relevant rule about fighters on sunk carriers that he just referenced:

    A fighter based on a defending carrier that is destroyed in combat must try to land.  It must land on a different friendly carrier in the same sea zone, move 1 space to a friendly territory or aircraft carrier, or be destroyed.

    The italics are mine.  The fact that this rule specifically mentions that landing on a friendly carrier in the same sea zone is allowed under these circumstances would indicate that doing so after an attack when the original carrier is still there is not allowed.  If it were allowed, there would be no issue of relocating the fighter if there were a friendly carrier in the sea zone.  In fact, you would not be allowed to relocate the fighter to another sea zone at all if there were a friendly carrier in the same zone, since there would be no need.  Allowing movement of the fighter to another sea zone when you could normally just land on a friendly carrier in the same zone is unjustified.  If landing on another carrier in the same zone is not “movement”, how can it be equated with landing in an adjacent space, as it is in this rule?

    If fighters could shuffle between carriers in the same sea zone at will when attacked, this rule would say something like this:

    A defending fighter in a sea zone in which all available friendly carriers are destroyed in combat must try to land.  It must move 1 space to a friendly territory or aircraft carrier, or be destroyed.

    Jen, I think this adequately proves that the exception that you’re attempting to use to justify your position actually disproves it.  Does this qualify as a contradiction to your argument in the rules?



  • Well, krieghund’s explanation makes sense, although much like some of my earlier arguments, it falls into the “the rules said X so they must have meant not Y” category which is not entirely definitive because it assumes an exclusive relationship between x and y that may not exist.  (See my argument above about “friendly” planes in the same Sz landing on a carrier - it uses similar faulty logic.)

    Like I said before, for practical purposes the issue is resolved to me.  However I will ask: is the ink dry on the rules for the anniversary edition?  They might want to put in something more explicit.  🙂


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    You have 2 US Carriers, 1 UK Carrier and 1 USSR Carrier.  You have 2 American fighters on the USSR Carrier, 2 Russian Fighters on an American Carrier, 1 UK/1 US on the other Carrier and 2 UK Fighters on the UK Carrier.

    Japan attacks.

    You shink 3 US Fighters, 1 US Carrier.

    Where do the planes land?

    (Easiest method is just put them on any old carrier in that sea zone, frak where they started.)


    Scenario 2:  You are attacked on land.  Do you care WHOSE airbase those fighters land at?  No.  You only care that they stay in that zone or are destroyed.  Carriers are floating air bases iwth defense and offense and move values.  There are plenty of instances where Fighters from one Carrier had to land on a different carrier because their home carrier was damaged or sunk.


    The rules specifically detail that ALL fighters are in the air when attack was initiated.  Now either your admirals have ESP or this is a general rule saying all fighters are air borne every round PERIOD.  If they are air borne, who cares what carrier they were on originally?  If they were not air borne, why did the Admiral even move into the zone where they are going to be attacked??  After all, they are bloody mind readers!



    Anyway, it’s pretty much assumed, I hope, that in CM you can move your carriers and fighters and land them on your own carrier, leaving the other fighters behind.  At least I dont see anyone arguing that you cannot.


  • Official Answers

    @Cmdr:

    You have 2 US Carriers, 1 UK Carrier and 1 USSR Carrier.  You have 2 American fighters on the USSR Carrier, 2 Russian Fighters on an American Carrier, 1 UK/1 US on the other Carrier and 2 UK Fighters on the UK Carrier.

    Japan attacks.

    You shink 3 US Fighters, 1 US Carrier.

    Where do the planes land?

    Since none of the UK units were hit, two of the UK fighters land on the UK carrier, where they started.  Among the others, you have several possibilities, since it’s your choice which carrier and fighters were hit.  I’m not going to go through all the possibilities of how to apportion the hits.  Let’s just say that the easiest way is to:

    1. Line up the original combinations,
    2. Remove the chosen casualties,
    3. Set aside any combinations involving no hits (like the UK fighters and carrier),
    4. Place the remaining fighters on the remaining carriers that have no choice since their original combinations still exist, then
    5. Mix and match the rest as you see fit.

    @Cmdr:

    (Easiest method is just put them on any old carrier in that sea zone, frak where they started.)

    It may be easy, but it’s illegal.

    @Cmdr:

    Scenario 2:  You are attacked on land.  Do you care WHOSE airbase those fighters land at?  No.  You only care that they stay in that zone or are destroyed.  Carriers are floating air bases iwth defense and offense and move values.  There are plenty of instances where Fighters from one Carrier had to land on a different carrier because their home carrier was damaged or sunk.

    The difference is that under the rules it doesn’t matter whose airbase is whose.  All fighters within a territory are treated the same.  Fighters on carriers of their own nation are treated differently from fighters on carriers of an allied nation under the rules.

    @Cmdr:

    The rules specifically detail that ALL fighters are in the air when attack was initiated.  Now either your admirals have ESP or this is a general rule saying all fighters are air borne every round PERIOD.  If they are air borne, who cares what carrier they were on originally?  If they were not air borne, why did the Admiral even move into the zone where they are going to be attacked??  After all, they are bloody mind readers!

    The rules also state that units may not move when it’s not their turn.  Moving from one carrier to another is moving, even when it’s in the same sea zone.  Again, the difference is that you’re changing the capabilities and restrictions of a fighter by changing the nation of the carrier on which it rests.  This is only allowed on your turn, except for the explicit exception in the rules for sunk carriers.

    Again, you’re trying to use real-world rationalizations in a discussion about game rules.  The game is an abstraction of the real world, so it’s logic is simplified.

    @Cmdr:

    Anyway, it’s pretty much assumed, I hope, that in CM you can move your carriers and fighters and land them on your own carrier, leaving the other fighters behind.

    No, you can’t.  On your turn the allied fighters on your carrier are cargo, so they must remain on the ship.  They are stuck on your carrier until their owner’s turn.  This means, of course, that your fighters can’t land there.  The only way to switch fighters between fully-loaded carriers is for one or more of those fighters to find another place to land on it’s own turn, leaving space on the carrier for another fighter to move there on its own turn.

    If you’re going to mix nations’ fighters and carriers, you’d better have a good reason.  In other words, be sure the benefit outweighs the cost.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    No, having the fighters on a carrier is having them on a carrier.  They are not MOVING anywhere.  Movement only occurs when you change territories/sea zones.

    If I “move” a battleship from the north side of a sea zone to the south side of a sea zone, is that suddenly illegal too because it is “moving”?  Hell no.  Let’s not start getting ridiculous here.  Fighters are in the SEA ZONE, not on a specific carrier.  They are not MOVING anywhere until they cross a black line.


  • Official Answers

    Fighters are on a specific carrier.  'Switch and I have cited and explained the relevant rules to prove this, as you requested.  Craig has confirmed our answers.  Everyone else is in agreement.

    I’m not sure what else I can do to convince you, so I’m going to stop trying.  This discussion has ceased to be productive, so we’ll just have to agree to disagree.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    Give me a page number that states, SPECIFICALLY that the fighters are on a specific carrier.

    Bear in mind, your citation MUST negate the FACT that all fighters are considered to be airborne during the Combat Phase of EVERY nation, per the rules.  And the citation MUST negate the possibility of those fighters landing where ever they chose in that same sea zone at the completion of combat.

    In other words, I’ll fall in line, IF and ONLY IF (IFF) you can find a quote in the rules that states that all fighters MUST land on the ORIGINAL CARRIERS they were located on at the completion of every defensive action.  Note, it must say it has to land on the ORIGINAL CARRIER, not attempt to land on A CARRIER.  Landing on A CARRIER means ANY CARRIER in that sea zone, and only leave the sea zone if no valid carriers are present to recover the fighters.

    Find that, and I’ll give you a GK and state I was wrong.  Otherwise, you are in error.



  • Page 11, under NCM, just before Phase 6 discussion:

    “An (singular definite article) aircraft carrier must end its (singular definite article possessive) move once a (singular definite article) fighter has landed on it (singular definite pronoun).”

    If fighters were not on specific aircraft carriers, the above would read:

    “Aircraft carriers must end their move once fighters have landed in their sea zone”

    Also, all references to fighters landing on carriers would be replaced with “fighters landing in sea zones containing an aircraft carrier”.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    Well, Switch, the FIRST problem I have is that page 11 (of 40) references PHASE 3: COMBAT MOVE, not non-combat moves.

    Page 13, however, does talk about Aircraft Carriers, in the combat move portion of the game.

    Aircraft carriers (note that it is PLURAL) can move during this phase, but first they must “launch” their fighters.

    Same page:

    The fighters can then make a combat move from the carrier’s SEA ZONE.

    Notice that it says the fighters move from the SEA ZONE, not from the carrier.  This is a very deliberate distinction.  That means your fighters are located in the sea zone, NOT the carrier, the carrier is present only to open the possibility for putting fighters in that sea zone at the end of your non-combat turn.

    This is illustrated on Page 18

    You must have a carrier move for a fighter that would end its combat move in a sea zone.  You cannot deliberately move a fighter into a sea zone that is out of the range of your aircraft carrier.

    It references the SEA ZONE.  It does not care WHOSE carrier it is, only that a carrier is present in the sea zone.

    Page 20 continues:

    A multi-national force cannot attack the same space together.  Each attacking power moves and fires its own units on its own turn.  A FIGHTER MAY LAUNCH FROM AN AIRCRAFT CARRIER OWNED BYT A FRIENDLY POWER, BUT THE CARRIER MAY NOT MOVE UNTIL ITS CONTROLLER’S TURN.

    The Fighters are not tied to the carriers, the fighters may move or the carriers can drag them along for the ride.  Or the carriers may leave the fighters behind and leave without them (provided the sea zone is still a valid landing zone for the fighters in question.)

    Page 21 (Non-Combat moves start here, not combat.)

    Air units can land in any friendly territories.  They cannot end their move in hostile territories or in any territories you captured this turn.  Fighters can land in any SEA ZONE that has a friendly carrier, even those that moved during this phase (but not in the middle of the carrier’s move.)

    Seems pretty clear, the fighters are in the sea zone, not the carrier deck.  The carriers just grant the fighters the ability to land in the sea zone, which allows them to defend the fleet on any counter attacks.

    Same page:

    Aircraft carriers can move to SEA ZONES that contain friendly fighters to allow landing.

    Again, they are emphasizing that the fighters are landing in the sea zone, not the specific carrier you happen to have there.



    Now I agree, the fighters not moving from ship to ship may be a darn fine HOUSE RULE for face to face games or games played on programs that do not auto-stack your units for you.  However, it is a house rule, not a codified rule.



  • LHTR 2.0 page 10

    Aircraft Carriers
    Aircraft carriers can move during this phase. Any fighters belonging to the aircraft carrier owner
    launch before the carrier moves and move independently of the carrier.

    Clearly the fighter must have been on the carrier before it could launch.

    Guest fighters belonging to a friendly power on board your carrier must remain on board as cargo
    if the carrier moves in combat. They cannot take part in combat and are destroyed if the carrier is
    destroyed.

    The fighters are definitly landed on board a specific carrier, cause they are destroyed if that specific carrier is lost in an offensive battle.

    Whether it moves during the combat move or noncombat move phase, an aircraft carrier allows
    friendly fighters to land on it in the sea zone where it finishes its move.

    3 references that figs do land on carriers, not in seazones with carriers. Especially the second example proofs that they are landed on a specific carrier.

    Some more references in the rules, that figs are landed on carriers, not seazones containing such:

    on page 17 under the headline

    Step 8: Concluding Combat

    Air units can never capture a territory. If your attack force has only air units remaining, you can’t
    occupy the territory you attacked, even if there are no enemy units remaining. Air units must
    return to a friendly territory (fighters may also land on a friendly carrier). They do so during the
    noncombat move phase. Until then they stay at the space where they fought.

    on page 21 under the headline
    Where Units Can Move

    Once any fighter lands on a carrier, movement for BOTH pieces ends.

    and on page 26 under the headline

    Fighters

    Special Abilities:
    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 in the noncombat
    move phase (even if withdrawing) or during any other noncombat move. (A fighter may not land
    on a carrier during the carrier’s movement). 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 if it is able) 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 land
    on a different friendly carrier in the same sea zone, move 1 space to a friendly territory or aircraft
    carrier, or be destroyed. This movement occurs after all of the attacker’s combats have been
    resolved and before the attacker’s noncombat movement phase begins.
    Your fighter based on your attacking carrier launches before combat (even if it is not participating
    in combat), and if it survives, can withdraw to a friendly territory or carrier within range. If any
    fighter is not in an eligible landing space by the end of the noncombat move phase, it is
    destroyed.

    I hope this is sufficient to proof that figs land on carriers and furthermore specific carriers as the second example states.


  • Official Answers

    LOL!  Jennifer, I think I see the source of at least part of the problem.  All of the references you’ve made are to the box rules.  What we’re discussing here (and have been since the beginning) is LHTR 2.0.

    Unfortunately, you’re still incorrect.  Since we’ve been on different “pages” up to now, I’ll respond to your points using the box rules.

    @Cmdr:

    Bear in mind, your citation MUST negate the FACT that all fighters are considered to be airborne during the Combat Phase of EVERY nation, per the rules.

    Exactly where is this rule?  I can’t locate it.

    @Cmdr:

    Page 13, however, does talk about Aircraft Carriers, in the combat move portion of the game.

    Aircraft carriers (note that it is PLURAL) can move during this phase, but first they must “launch” their fighters.

    This doesn’t prove anything.  Carriers can launch fighters of their own power on their own turn.  From page 30:

    Fighters from friendly powers can take off and land from your carriers, but only during that power’s turn.

    and

    Fighters belonging to friendly powers on attacking carriers are always treated as cargo, as it is not their turn.

    These rules clearly indicate that during any given power’s turn, “guest” fighters on its carriers are cargo, and may not leave the carrier.

    @Cmdr:

    Same page:

    The fighters can then make a combat move from the carrier’s SEA ZONE.

    Notice that it says the fighters move from the SEA ZONE, not from the carrier.  This is a very deliberate distinction.  That means your fighters are located in the sea zone, NOT the carrier, the carrier is present only to open the possibility for putting fighters in that sea zone at the end of your non-combat turn.

    Yes, it is a very deliberate distinction, just not for the same reason as your argument.  What this means is that for movement purposes the fighter doesn’t count the sea zone the carrier is in, because the fighter is also in that sea zone.  The section is, after all, talking about combat movement.

    @Cmdr:

    This is illustrated on Page 18

    You must have a carrier move for a fighter that would end its combat move in a sea zone.  You cannot deliberately move a fighter into a sea zone that is out of the range of your aircraft carrier.

    It references the SEA ZONE.  It does not care WHOSE carrier it is, only that a carrier is present in the sea zone.

    Of course it references the sea zone here.  The section is talking about moving a carrier to pick up a fighter that has moved into a sea zone without a carrier during combat movement.  The fighter moved to a sea zone with no carrier, now a carrier must move to the sea zone to allow the fighter to land.  As far as whose carrier it is, since only your units can attack on your turn, the fighter must belong to the acting power, and since only your units can move on your turn, the carrier must also belong to the acting power.  These rules are both quoted in your next point.  I don’t see how this proves your argument.

    @Cmdr:

    Page 20 continues:

    A multi-national force cannot attack the same space together.  Each attacking power moves and fires its own units on its own turn.  A FIGHTER MAY LAUNCH FROM AN AIRCRAFT CARRIER OWNED BYT A FRIENDLY POWER, BUT THE CARRIER MAY NOT MOVE UNTIL ITS CONTROLLER’S TURN.

    The Fighters are not tied to the carriers, the fighters may move or the carriers can drag them along for the ride.  Or the carriers may leave the fighters behind and leave without them (provided the sea zone is still a valid landing zone for the fighters in question.)

    This is an interesting point, but we need to refer back to page 30:

    Fighters from friendly powers can take off and land from your carriers, but only during that power’s turn.

    and

    Fighters belonging to friendly powers on attacking carriers are always treated as cargo, as it is not their turn.

    Your own fighters and/or carriers may move, but these rules indicate that a carrier may not move and leave a foreign fighter behind, since that would require launching it, which is not allowed.  If your carrier with a foreign fighter moves, that fighter remains on the carrier as cargo.

    @Cmdr:

    Page 21 (Non-Combat moves start here, not combat.)

    Air units can land in any friendly territories.  They cannot end their move in hostile territories or in any territories you captured this turn.  Fighters can land in any SEA ZONE that has a friendly carrier, even those that moved during this phase (but not in the middle of the carrier’s move.)

    Seems pretty clear, the fighters are in the sea zone, not the carrier deck.  The carriers just grant the fighters the ability to land in the sea zone, which allows them to defend the fleet on any counter attacks.

    The actual quote is “Fighters can land on any friendly carrier”.  I don’t see the sea zone reference in my rule book.

    @Cmdr:

    Same page:

    Aircraft carriers can move to SEA ZONES that contain friendly fighters to allow landing.

    Again, they are emphasizing that the fighters are landing in the sea zone, not the specific carrier you happen to have there.

    This is similar to your earlier point.  Of course the carrier must move to the sea zone.  This doesn’t mean that the fighter doesn’t land on the specific carrier.

    @Cmdr:

    Now I agree, the fighters not moving from ship to ship may be a darn fine HOUSE RULE for face to face games or games played on programs that do not auto-stack your units for you.  However, it is a house rule, not a codified rule.

    This is a fallacy a lot of on-line gamers fall into.  The computer game was made from the boardgame, not vice versa.  When the computer version doesn’t agree with the boardgame rules, there’s a word for it: BUG.  Either that, or it was impossible or impractical to make the computer-based version behave in the same way as the boardgame.  In the latter case, the computer gamer is using a house rule.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    Thanks for agreeing with me Krieg.  You refuted not a single point, you just reconfirmed them all.

    Dunno if you were always talking about LHTR 2.0 or not, nothing I saw referenced it until you made mention.  Perhaps ti was clarified there, perhaps not.

    Anyway, as we’ve discussed before (Last October if I remember correctly) LHTR 2.0 is a set of HOUSE RULES and obviously is not the default on these boards because no where does it say that members have to use LHTR (1.3 or 2.0) when playing.  I remember that discussion distinctly because Switch was saying that LHTR was NOT the default set of rules used here along with a member who was using the cop’s picture from Police Academy (you know, the evil geek one?) and I was attempting to argue that LHTR was because it was the rule set used in tournaments.

    Anyway, as I pointed out in like a dozen areas, the rules very clearly point to fighters being present in the sea zone, not necessarily on a specific aircraft carrier.  They do say they are landing on carriers, but no rule states that you MUST leave that SPECIFIC fighter on that SPECIFIC carrier either on combat or non-combat moves.

    The ONLY mention of them being cargo is mentioned for a NCM movement of friendly carriers holding your fighters.  Since in NCM all fighters are considered landed unless moving TOO land, it’s a moot issue.  Just like in CM all fighters are considered airborne and thus when they land, they can land on any carrier they damn well please as long as space is available.

    Fact is, no one really cares.  You move the british carrier and grab two fighters to go with it.  No one cares.  Grab two American carriers and drag four fighters with them, no one cares.  Same with transports, even though in that case, they really ARE cargo.  You get attacked and you have 2 units per transport with some empty transports suddenly.  You make your combat move, and you split the units up amongst the transports to attack multiple zones if you want too.  No one ever really cares, it’s just assumed that the owner of the equipment can divvy up the casualties and locations of cargo as needed.  It’s the way everyone has played the game since Classic, it’s also the way everyone will continue to play.  And no, it makes no difference how Switch argues here.    Give it a week, he’ll be back to shuffling equipment around to make his moves like everyone else.



  • I have to dispute one of these points,

    LHTR 2.0 IS the official rule set of these boards for both Tournaments and for the League.

    I am done here.



  • @ncscswitch:

    Is anyone other than Jen arguing for her position?  Or is it EVERYONE else (backed up by probably the single most knowledgeable person on game rules… Kreig)  in opposition to Jen’s fracked up reading of the rules?

    Oh, there’s no one else.  I’m the one who started this and attempted to argue it fairly vehemently at the beginning, but I’m on board with you now.  I’m pretty sure there’s no one else who even gave it credence to begin with.

    @Cmdr:

    Dunno if you were always talking about LHTR 2.0 or not, nothing I saw referenced it until you made mention. Perhaps ti was clarified there, perhaps not.

    It was in the first post in this thread.  But based on some of what I’ve seen I probably don’t want to overestimate anyone’s reading comprehension.

    And may I ask, do you make it a point to turn every thread around here into some cockamamie argument that is based primarily on selective, probably out-of-context quotes, and male bovine feces, or just the ones Switch posts in?

    Suffice it to say I want to apologize to everyone around here for having started this abomination of a thread.  I’m truly sorry.


  • 2019 Moderator

    I am going to lock this thread now. I have eddited and deleted and now given up.

    The question was asked, the question was answered to the satisfaction of the individual making the inquiry.

    Jen if you want to argue this start a new thread. (btw you’re wrong)

    Everyone else if you are satisfied then don’t respond to her thread.

    Please be nice, I have games to play… 🙂


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

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

42
Online

13.7k
Users

34.0k
Topics

1.3m
Posts