Looks like I need to start channeling Michelle Yeoh more often. She’s great luck!
2011 League Discussion
-
When should new faq rules take place? I guess they should be applied to new starting games instead of retroactive to ongoing games?
What new FAQ rules have just come out?
And yes they should be applied to the new games starting now.
-
It was on the a&a official site. Pretty significant changes if you ask me, namely heavy bombers got tuned, and subs can defend against amphibious assaults.
-
subs can defend against amphibious assaults.
Could you point out what make you think so ?
I read the FAQ, but did not catch this information…
I just saw changes on heavy bombers and paratroopers…
@JWW:
What new FAQ rules have just come out?
It is here :
-
Unless I read it wrong, subs can no longer be ignored for amphibious assaults, if they choose not to submerge. It’s a good change, since it would be stupid to think a sub would sit idle as a lone transport decides to invade the coast.
-
For league games, If you’ve already been playing a game and both you and your opponent played under a certain pretense then complete the game as is.
But just be aware of the FAQ for new games.
I’m not going to go through games and retroactively rule anything. For example if a FAQ came out tomorrow and made blitzing illegal I don’t expect games that have had tons of blitzing to suddenly stop mid game, but in a new game if you blitz, your opponent will probably call you out then refer to the FAQ and the blitzing would be disallowed (whether you knew the rule or not when you started the game).
-
Unless I read it wrong, subs can no longer be ignored for amphibious assaults, if they choose not to submerge. It’s a good change, since it would be stupid to think a sub would sit idle as a lone transport decides to invade the coast.
I asked there to be sure :
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=16872.msg565356#msg565356
(I think that the sentence quoted there is the one what make you say that)
Yoshi
-
I have a thought, but I’d like to get a ruling on it. I know that for a regular (non-League) game, that this would be fine, but how about for League matches?
Easier techs - If both players agreed before playing the game, that if single dice were rolled for technology, and the tech die roll missed, but the Chart 1/Chart 2 die was a six, that the rolls would be counted as being reversed, so the 6 on Chart 1/Chart 2 would count as hitting a technology, and the first die rolled for tech would then count towards whichever chart had been specified as being the tech acquired. Another option would be if multiple dice were rolled for technology, and the added up total of the dice equaled to 6, then it would be counted as having rolled a 6, and therefore acquiring a tech. (Example: 3 tech dice were rolled: a 1, a 2, and a 3, since the total of the 3 dice adds up to 6, then it woulb be counted as having rolled a 6.
Designated techs - Again, if both players agreed before playing the game, that a power could acquire a specific tech for x number of researchers. (Probably this would be limited to Round 1 only.) Example: 2 players want to explore a German naval strategy, so they agree that Germany could spend 5 IPCs for 1 researcher, and could then automatically acquire Advanced Shipyards/Super Subs/etc… on Germany’s first turn. To balance this, then perhaps the Allies would also be allowed 1 5-IPC tech on Turn 1, maybe Mechanized Infantry for the US or something. Maybe players would like to explore a Japan and US first turn Long Range Aircraft for 5 IPCs scenario or many, many other such scenarios.
Once again, this would only be allowed if both players agreed to this before the game began.
So, could either or both of these ideas possibly be allowed for League games?
I’m not trying to change the League, but I’m just asking a question, so I don’t need criticism of this idea, just an answer. :wink:
-
Unless I read it wrong, subs can no longer be ignored for amphibious assaults, if they choose not to submerge. It’s a good change, since it would be stupid to think a sub would sit idle as a lone transport decides to invade the coast.
This is not the case as per krieghund
A sub by itself can never block an amphibious assault or bombardment, as the attacker may choose to ignore it. Only if the attacker chooses to engage the sub will it prevent bombardment (and possibly the landing, if it wins).
-
Bardoly I would be fine with that and expanding it to allow OOB techs and the official optional rules. I look at the League as a place to play competitively against competent opponents, if the games are not all the same with me that is fine. I would also argue since we allow bids the games are not the same across the board anyway.
-
Bardoly I would be fine with that and expanding it to allow OOB techs and the official optional rules. I look at the League as a place to play competitively against competent opponents, if the games are not all the same with me that is fine. I would also argue since we allow bids the games are not the same across the board anyway.
Thanks for the vote.
:-D
-
I have a thought, but I’d like to get a ruling on it. I know that for a regular (non-League) game, that this would be fine, but how about for League matches?
Easier techs - If both players agreed before playing the game, that if single dice were rolled for technology, and the tech die roll missed, but the Chart 1/Chart 2 die was a six, that the rolls would be counted as being reversed, so the 6 on Chart 1/Chart 2 would count as hitting a technology, and the first die rolled for tech would then count towards whichever chart had been specified as being the tech acquired. Another option would be if multiple dice were rolled for technology, and the added up total of the dice equaled to 6, then it would be counted as having rolled a 6, and therefore acquiring a tech. (Example: 3 tech dice were rolled: a 1, a 2, and a 3, since the total of the 3 dice adds up to 6, then it woulb be counted as having rolled a 6.
Designated techs - Again, if both players agreed before playing the game, that a power could acquire a specific tech for x number of researchers. (Probably this would be limited to Round 1 only.) Example: 2 players want to explore a German naval strategy, so they agree that Germany could spend 5 IPCs for 1 researcher, and could then automatically acquire Advanced Shipyards/Super Subs/etc… on Germany’s first turn. To balance this, then perhaps the Allies would also be allowed 1 5-IPC tech on Turn 1, maybe Mechanized Infantry for the US or something. Maybe players would like to explore a Japan and US first turn Long Range Aircraft for 5 IPCs scenario or many, many other such scenarios.
Once again, this would only be allowed if both players agreed to this before the game began.
So, could either or both of these ideas possibly be allowed for League games?
I’m not trying to change the League, but I’m just asking a question, so I don’t need criticism of this idea, just an answer. :wink:
I personally would prefer to play such rules in a house game, not in the league. But I personally can find no reason or cause to disqualify a league game based on these premises. Just as a44bigdog said, the league is a place to play competitively, and while we want uniformity to compare different players, some minor changes like the easier tech wouldn’t have an impact, as it is still die rolling for tech.
The starting tech could also be viewed in this way. It is simply two players interpreting the die rolls to be 6’s, and having them hit on the first round. Now, if you were to give out FREE tech, I might have more of a problem, as THAT would be changing setup and follow-through.
-
Hello everyone,
We want to thank Bardoly for his “easier tech” suggestion, as well as others who have commented and offered suggestions for making our league the best place to play this game we all love! Keep the good ideas coming, any and all suggestions, such as this one, will be considered for implementation before the start of next season, which really isn’t very far away!
So, for the remainder of the 2010 league season, we are going to continue playing by the existing rules.
Thanks
-
I’m going to be on vacation from July 14-23, with no internet access. I probably won’t be on-line much the next few days either, so play nice and JWW is in charge. :-D
Thanks,
DM -
People, I need some assistance with the outcome of a battle that my opponent is not accepting.
I am playing a game (not on these boards) that is using LL for dice. I attacked with 1 BB, 2 CAs, 1 AC vs 1 BB, 2 dest, 1 sub. In the game, how it played out, I killed my opponent’s entire fleet with the loss of only 1 CA.
However, the other guy is being a bad sport and wanting me to re-roll the ENTIRE battle just so he can get a more favourable outcome! :x :x He’s using general logic to show why it should have been mutual annihilation instead of me coming out on top, but it’s not my fault the dice went against him. :-D :-D :lol: :lol: He’s even asking for mutual annihilation. I would NOT accept that whatsoever.
So what do I do? This is a PBEM game, so if he gets angry enough, he’ll probably throw it in. Would work for me but I want to resolve this somehow.
-
@The:
People, I need some assistance with the outcome of a battle that my opponent is not accepting.
I am playing a game (not on these boards) that is using LL for dice. I attacked with 1 BB, 2 CAs, 1 AC vs 1 BB, 2 dest, 1 sub. In the game, how it played out, I killed my opponent’s entire fleet with the loss of only 1 CA.
However, the other guy is being a bad sport and wanting me to re-roll the ENTIRE battle just so he can get a more favourable outcome! :x :x He’s using general logic to show why it should have been mutual annihilation instead of me coming out on top, but it’s not my fault the dice went against him. :-D :-D :lol: :lol: He’s even asking for mutual annihilation. I would NOT accept that whatsoever.
So what do I do? This is a PBEM game, so if he gets angry enough, he’ll probably throw it in. Would work for me but I want to resolve this somehow.
I assume he whiffed on all his LL rolls while you made all yours. If the rolls were legit they stand. If he wants to throw in the towel tell him you’ll agree to a rematch using No Luck. :roll:
-
@The:
People, I need some assistance with the outcome of a battle that my opponent is not accepting.
I am playing a game (not on these boards) that is using LL for dice. I attacked with 1 BB, 2 CAs, 1 AC vs 1 BB, 2 dest, 1 sub. In the game, how it played out, I killed my opponent’s entire fleet with the loss of only 1 CA.
However, the other guy is being a bad sport and wanting me to re-roll the ENTIRE battle just so he can get a more favourable outcome! :x :x He’s using general logic to show why it should have been mutual annihilation instead of me coming out on top, but it’s not my fault the dice went against him. :-D :-D :lol: :lol: He’s even asking for mutual annihilation. I would NOT accept that whatsoever.
So what do I do? This is a PBEM game, so if he gets angry enough, he’ll probably throw it in. Would work for me but I want to resolve this somehow.
Without knowing what the dice rolls are, it is theoretically possible to get that outcome in a low luck game.
It’s the best possible outcome for you and the worst possible outcome for him, but it’s quite possible.
It’s not reasonable of him to ask for mutual annihilation. In reg luck that battle is 54% to win, 38.5% to lose.
-
He did get 2 hits, 1 to my BB and then another to my CA. But he didn’t get enough to wipe me out. He did pretty much miss and pretty much destroyed his sorry butt! :evil: :lol: :-D
I will have to wait and see what he says after my e-mail to him.
-
OK, so the guy is now just crying like a stuck pig. Here is his best quote so far:
“There is no need to re-roll the battle. We can reconstruct the battle using the dice rolls which were made. However, the result would not be as favorable to the Axis as before.” :? :? And why wouldn’t the battle still be favourable to the Axis? Makes no sense to me. Anyway, he has suggested one of the following as an option:
“As I see it there are two options: 1) the Br are wiped out and the Axis lose either the BB and 2 cruisers or the carrier and 2 cruisers. 2) If you think you can get good rolls again and the Br would not have gotten good rolls, you can redo the battle.”
I am thinking I might accept the first option, but boy, do I ever really want to b*tch-slap this guy into next week. So, what would be better to lose, the BB and 2 CAs or the AC and 2 CAs? Not that I really think I need to lose anything…
-
@The:
OK, so the guy is now just crying like a stuck pig. Here is his best quote so far:
“There is no need to re-roll the battle. We can reconstruct the battle using the dice rolls which were made. However, the result would not be as favorable to the Axis as before.”
If you’re playing LL and the dice are the same…what changes??? Drop this dwebe like a hot potato. I thought LL was supposed to eliminate whining about dice.
-
@Battling:
@The:
OK, so the guy is now just crying like a stuck pig. Here is his best quote so far:
“There is no need to re-roll the battle. We can reconstruct the battle using the dice rolls which were made. However, the result would not be as favorable to the Axis as before.”
If you’re playing LL and the dice are the same…what changes??? Drop this dwebe like a hot potato. I thought LL was supposed to eliminate whining about dice.
I think he is hoping he will somehow get one more hit and I will mysteriously/magically get one less hit, thereby dropping the battle into his favour. And he was hoping his sub (on defence don’t forget) would get a hit. But to me, a 1 in 6 chance is pretty low.
Suggested Topics
