I have uploaded the FAQs for all of the OOP games (Classic, Europe, Pacific, Revised, D-Day, Battle of the Bulge, Guadalcanal, 1942 1st Edition) in their appropriate forums. Could someone please “sticky” them?

There must be a certain amount of historical accuracy in order for the game to “feel like” the subject matter. Axis & Allies has always dealt with this accuracy at a macro level, striving for “feel” rather than simulation, and thus not dwelling on minutiae. It’s a fine line to walk, but some historical realities must be observed in order to maintain the ambiance. In this case, the restriction presents the feeling of threat without overly burdening the Japan player, as forcing avoidance of all USA territories would.

I won’t pretend that there aren’t game play reasons why this restriction is in place. If there weren’t, why burden the game with it? However, any such rule must be grounded in historical events and realities in order to not come off as “gamey” and ruin the feel of the experience.

All of that being said, the USA did rather famously (infamously?) allow the IJN to get within striking distance of Hawaii, as well as several other of its Pacific possessions, without raising much of a fuss until it was too late. I doubt the same would have been true if the mainland had been so threatened (my original post did make this distinction). In game terms, the “threat zone” of the mainland extends two sea zones out. Since the Hawaiian sea zone is outside of that radius, and since Hawaii could just as easily be attacked from Japanese-held territory (Marshall Islands), there was little point in game terms of excluding Japan from that sea zone.

The site is down for maintenance. I have no word yet on how much longer this will take, but it will return.

I have created a new topic with a file containing the rules. Could someone please “sticky” it? Thanks.

It is legal to move a fighter to attack a sea zone as long as it’s possible (no matter how unlikely) that the fighter can be picked up by a carrier afterwards. (One carrier cannot be used to justify attacking two different sea zones, as it cannot be in two places at once.) If the fighter survives and a carrier can move to pick it up (either the original or another one), it must do so. The fighter may only be allowed to crash if the circumstances after all combat is complete make it impossible to pick it up. If more than one fighter has to be picked up, but there is only one carrier available, the owner may choose which fighter to pick up, if a choice is available, but one must be picked up.

@The-Lone-Wolf Western Canada should have a Canadian emblem. It’s in the FAQ, also available at Panther’s link above.

I agree that a strict reading of the exemption rule in and of itself would indicate that Dutch territories could be claimed by AAA, as this case is not mentioned explicitly. I wrestled with this for a while before making my ruling. However, I also believe there’s enough wiggle room there when combined with the rules on Dutch territories and friendly neutrals to interpret it the other way, for the reasons I’ve outlined. The fact that we’re even having this conversation supports the view that there are two ways to interpret it.

For what it’s worth, I am certain that Larry didn’t want AAA to claim Dutch territories, any more than he wanted them to convert friendly neutrals, for the reasons I stated. This in itself wouldn’t cause me to rule the way that I did, but in combination with the aforementioned “wiggle room”, I deemed it to be enough. If I had my way, there would be an FAQ update to reflect this, but getting one these days is like pulling teeth.

As an aside, this issue was originally addressed in the AAE40 1st Edition FAQ, at the same time that the 2nd Editions of both games were being developed. The AAA exception should have noted this case explicitly in AAP40, but it simply got dropped during the development of the 2nd Edition and it has remained lost until now.

Harris Game Design is back up!

@Cernel:

In Revised OOB, if a unit was already loaded before the turn, can you offload it during Non Combat Movement, if the transport offloaded something during Combat Movement, but only as long as you offload it into the same territory? And, one way or another, nothing changes whether the transport took part in a victorious sea battle too or not?

Correct.

@Cernel:

For example, you have 1 infantry already loaded on the transport. You load 1 second infantry on the transport, sending it into a sea borne assault, during Combat Movement. Then, if you conquer it, can you offload the already loaded infantry, to the same territory, during Non Combat Movement? And how about if the already loaded unit is an AA gun, rest being the same?

These are both legal.

@Cernel:

Also, I’m fairly sure that at least for any rulesets from Revised LHTR onwards a transport may never offload in both Combat and Non Combat Movement, which is the case for Classic too. So the matter here, then, would be whether Revised OOB is the only one exception to this general rule or not.

The original Europe (1999) and Pacific (2001) games also allow this, but no others do.

@Cernel:

Shorter version, I’m substantially asking if in Revised OOB you can ever offload in both Combat and Non Combat Movement and, if so, in what cases (full list)?

The only circumstances under which a transport may offload in both combat and noncombat movement are those that you have described above.

@Cernel said in Classic rules, and some disagreements.:

@djensen renamed this section as “Axis & Allies Classic” (it was called “Axis & Allies 2nd Edition”, or something like that, in the old forum, I recall), that I think it is going to be confusing (we have a good example right here). I suggested to name it “Axis & Allies (Classic) 1st/2nd/3rd Edition” or “Axis & Allies 1st/2nd/3rd Edition” (just adding “Classic” between parenthesis or in the description), but this has been already discussed here:
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/32567/chicago-nfl-team-bears
Calling it the current way would have been fine if the description would have been something like:
Includes MB Gamemaster Series 1st and 2nd editions, and the two Hasbro Interactive (CD-ROM) 3rd Edition.
or like it is called in the official Larry Harris forum:
Original Axis & Allies 1984-2004
(though this is rather vague, or surely not very clear)
but I see it currently is:
The original MB Gamemaster Series game from 1984-2004
that is substantially a wrong description, as long as @Krieghund or anybody can confirm the 3rd edition is Classic too, as I believe it is, and those are not part of the Gamemaster Series.

Yes, 3rd Edition is part of Classic. I’m not sure what your problem is with the nomenclature, though. While “Classic” may mean different things to different people, its proper usage is really in reference to the MB version and its computer offshoots.

@Krieghund can you please confirm this is what it is supposed to happen:

If you have 1 submarine and 1 fighter attacking 1 transport and 1 submarine, if the attacking submarine misses and both defending units hit:

• In 1st/2nd edition, you only lose the attacking submarine, as long as the attacking player doesn’t take a fighter as casualty when the transport hits (that would be absolutely idiotic).
• In 3rd edition, you lose both attacking units (you are not permitted to do the trick of assigning the transport’s hit to the submarine, thus being unable to assign the submarine’s hit to anything else).

Confirmed.

If the above is true, I’m curious what is the implied intended rule for assigning defensive submarines and others hits (say, if you would be playing by 3rd edition rules on a board). Should defending submarines hits be assigned before anything else or should you assign them at the same time, but taking care to lose the maximum number of units you can (I know in practice both would work the same)?

The latter.

@cernel That actually appears to be an order version of the document. I will update it. As for the headers, I don’t think they’re confusing to anyone familiar with the subject matter.

@cernel If he’s going to talk anywhere, it’ll be at the Nightingale Games Forums.

@cernel said in Is Larry Harris' website down again?:

@panther So this came to my mind because I wanted to ask if it is correct that in Revised OOB naval bombardment cannot target air units, whereas in Revised LHTR it can.

Yes, that’s correct.

I’m as sure as I can be that all I just said is correct, but I don’t see this distinction being made in the “Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition Rules Changes” paper posted by @Krieghund on the Harris’ forum, so I was wondering if this is something missing in the paper (and, if it is so, I would suggest @Krieghund to update the paper by adding this matter), but I cannot see any official place where I can reference to it any longer…

It’s on page 2, under “Amphibious Assaults”. This document can also be found on BGG.

I also wanted to point out that in the
https://www.axisandallies.org/wp-content/uploads/AAR_LHTR_v2.0.pdf
at page 12 it says “Each battleship fires once during this step against enemy land and air units in the territory being attacked.”, which is arguably vaguely confirmed at page 19, saying “Each battleship fires once during the opening fire step of the first round of combat against enemy units in the territory being attacked.”, yet at page 27 it says “Each battleship fires once during the opening fire step against enemy land units in the territory being attacked.”, which is reiterated at page 28, saying “Each destroyer fires once during the opening fire step (using its attack of 3) against enemy land units in the territory being attacked.”. So there is one instance in which it is said that the targets of naval bombardment are land and air units, another instance in which it is said that the targets are whatever units (which would be the same as saying land and air ones if the meaning is that every unit in the battle can be targeted) and two instances in which the targets are land-only units (thus excluding air units). I’m as sure as I can be that the occurrences at page 27 and 28 are incorrect, in that they are either missing to say “land and air units” instead of “land units” or just simply saying “units” instead of “land units”, but may a LHTR 2.1 (or whatever) rulebook be released fixing these oversights (and I guess it can realistically only be released on the Harris’ forum if anywhere)?

Yes, the references on pages 27 and 28 are errors. I’m not sure a new release is practical, as it’s been a great many years and I’m not sure anyone has the original document anymore.

@cernel said in Is Larry Harris' website down again?:

So, has the site been deliberately nuked?

Yes. It’s unfortunately not coming back.

If I want to read the latest errata and clarifications of Axis&Allies Revised (or such), where should I go if anywhere @Krieghund?

I believe the FAQs for the OOP games are all posted on this site under their respective games.

How about the “Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition Rules Changes” paper posted by you on the Harris’ forum? Have such things been reposted elsewhere?

That is posted in the Files section of that game’s entry on BGG.

@cernel That’s quite a loophole you’ve discovered. It’s things like this that made LHTR necessary. You are correct about point 1. Regarding point 2, I see nothing in the rules that would disallow attacking an unoccupied enemy-controlled territory with only air units.

@nolimit said in defending Sub question:

@commander-jeff 2, they retreat to One sz Area wherever any of the Transports came from- also the Units stay on the Transports!

To elaborate on this, the transports may retreat to a sea zone from which any of the original attacking sea units entered, so if the destroyer and/or sub actually entered from a different direction than the transports, that sea zone would also be valid for the retreat.

Also, if none of the sea zones from which any of the attacking units entered were friendly (they all started in enemy-occupied zones) or all of the attacking units were already in the contested sea zone to start with, no retreat would be possible and the transports would be automatically destroyed. Of course, in the latter case the attacking units could combat move out of the sea zone and then back in in order to establish a retreat route, assuming there were an adjacent friendly sea zone.

@alan-adair Perhaps this quote from page 8 of the Europe Rulebook will help:

When the rules refer to the “original controller” of a territory, they mean the power whose emblem is printed on the territory.

Also, I assume you’re playing 2nd edition? In the 1st edition, the restriction that a major IC can only be built on an originally controlled territory does not exist.

@the_good_captain said in Submarine and submerge question:

@Krieghund additional question. Does the presence of an enemy industrial complex in a territory qualify as “occupied” in the context of blitzing with an armor.

Yes.

@the_good_captain said in Submarine and submerge question:

Can you confirm that the case in Pacific is true for Europe as well? Thank you! (I will use this thread as a reference for the developers if needs be)

Yes. The “missing” Europe text corresponding to the text in Pacific is on page 26 of the Europe Rulebook.

@fasthard They will become pro-Allies. The Soviets will not gain immediate control of them, as they previously attacked Korea, but will be able to take control of them normally.