@Krieghund Thanks! (For completeness, I should have been more clear in that Germany controlled Persia at the beginning of its turn in this example. i.e. there was/is a legal landing zone for the fighter)
Order of defending fire
-
tmz70, that is the way I have always played, however, in this forum anyways, I am playing against this technique and I am seeing posted strategies relying on that technique. I cannot find anywhere that forbides it, only rules that somewhat imply you can’t by what I had quoted above.
Mort, althought I think your idea about defending subs firing after attacking subs but before other defenders is a good idea, the rules are the rules. It does state the defender starts with the '1’s then then '2’s and each set of rolls the attacker decides which are losses. I read the cited links and I have to say I stand corrected, dats da way da cookie crumbles.
BB
-
Now one rule I am still not 100% sure is the ability to move through a territory that you just fought a battle in and won. The rule book says you can move into this territory, it doesn’t to my knowledge say you can move through it however. One can argue both sides, I think in the original paper map version of the game you couldn’t. Any thoughts on this?
From the non-combat movement section:
Land units can be moved into any friendly territories, occupied or unoccupied. They CANNOT be moved into enemy-occupied, enemy-controlled or neutral territories…
…Naval units can be moved into any friendly sea zone, occupied or unoccupied. They CANNOT be moved into enemy-occupied sea zones…At the end of the combat phase, if a territory was successfully captured, it is by definition, no longer considered “enemy-occupied, enemy-controlled or neutral.” Thus, any successfully captured territory can now be reinforced or moved through as needed for both land and naval forces.
Tmz70 correctly states that no units can move (other than air) if they participated in combat. However any units which did not move, can move into or through any friendly territory. During the non-combat phase, friendly is defined as anything not “enemy-occupied, enemy-controlled or neutral.”
One example is Germany moving the Baltic transport to the NW Algeria sea zone during the non-combat phase after it cleared the UK sea zone of Allied boats. Another example is Germany moving a tank from Ukraine into Turkey after successfully taking Caucasus and de-neutralizing Turkey (with air) that turn.
This rule, like the other one above, does not come into play very much, as the opportunity does not always present itself. This is why some players have not seen it done.
-
The premise of ‘anal defense’ is incorrect, as stated from the bottom-right corner of page 4 in the rulebook, to the upper-left column on page 5:
A. Put all units on the battle board on top of their matching shapes. Attacking units on one side; defending units on the other side. The number above the unit identifies that unit’s maximum attack or defense capability…which means that if you toss that number or less on a die, you score a hit against your opponent. Scoring a hit means that your opponent loses a unit. The player suffering the hit chooses which unit he or she wishes to lose!
The anal proposal of linear removal of units flies in the face of strategy. Resolving combat by column is not meant for sequence in the removal of units; it is meant to keep track of which units have taken part in battle. (with the noted exception of a submarine’s first strike)
Nowhere in the rule laststrike stated does it mention anything about the actual order of removal of units from the defender’s battleboard. The part about the “attacker always chooses which units will be casualties” is a misleading and ambiguous statement that is countered by pages 4 and 5, and also the line in the proposed rule on page 18, stated by laststrike: “the defender must choose one of his or her units as a casualty and must move it below the casualty line”.
If you are going to quote the rulebook, read the whole rulebook.
-
All Gravy, I am sorry if you got the impression that I suggested for any player, other than the player suffering the casualties, remove pieces. Any reference made otherwise implied that the player had no choice but to remove a particular unit.
That aside, I disagree with your following statement:
@All:The anal proposal of linear removal of units flies in the face of strategy. Resolving combat by column is not meant for sequence in the removal of units; it is meant to keep track of which units have taken part in battle. (with the noted exception of a submarine’s first strike)
Nowhere in the rule laststrike stated does it mention anything about the actual order of removal of units from the defender’s battleboard…
As I mentioned above, what I am writing about is not a proposal, but in fact the actual interpretation of the two main online A&A communities. All Gravy, I would suggest you refer to the links I posted above. Let me re-quote the above passage from the rules of combat with a little emphasis on the parts you insist do not exist.
3. Attacker fires. The attacker rolls 1 die for each attacking unit. Notice the battle board is divided into 4 columns. Resolve combat in Column 1 first, then Column 2 and so on. For example, if Column I had 4 infantry, you would roll 4 dice to fire. Infantry attack at a die roll of “1,” so each roll of “1” would be a hit. Please Note: if you had more units than dice, roll 12 dice first to determine any hits, then reroll as many dice as needed for the remaining units in the column. Each time a hit is scored, the defender must choose one of his or her units as a casualty and must move it below the casualty line in the same column on the battle board. These casualties are not out of the game yet. They will be able to counterattack because combat in Axis & Allies is considered simultaneous.
4. De fender fires. The defender rolls 1 die for each defending unit (casualties included) and resolves combat, as the attacker did above.
The rules clearly state that you must “resolve” combat in column 1 before you move onto column 2. How can you resolve the combat of column 1 without moving a piece below the casualty line (or removing it) when a hit is scored?
Is this interpretation an “anal interpretation?” I would have to say yes, if a person wants to play by the exact rules. Anything otherwise is a house rule. I am not trying to tell anyone here how to play. I am just trying to make sure members of this board truly understand what the rules say.
@All:
If you are going to quote the rulebook, read the whole rulebook.
I have. I think I have adequately shown that the interpretation of IAAPA, AAMC and myself is correct based on what is actually written and not imposed by others to what they think it should mean.
-
First off… I apologize for being so hasty to reply with such a sharp retort. Your response was gracious and your stating of the facts was not incendiary or hyperbolic, in any fashion.
I do, however, have to re-state the ambiguity of the rulebook as it states the “resolution” of any battle.
I believe the only point of contention is the word “resolve”. Nowhere in the rules does it say the defender must remove, systematically units from the battleboard in any proscribed fashion, whatsoever. The word ‘resolve’ in and of itself is ambiguous at best, as it describes only a “separation or breakdown into constituent parts”, not an “end, decision or determination.” (substitute the word initiate for resolve to clarify my point)
I have seen the use of the International Rules, and cannot believe that any competitive body could subject themselves to such a starchy paradigm. As a matter of the English language, the previously stated rule only serves to mirror the sequence of rolls, in order to keep the continuity congruent.
In other words, let me ‘interpret the Bible’, here…lol.
3. Attacker fires. The attacker rolls 1 die for each attacking unit. Notice the battle board is divided into 4 columns. Resolve combat in column 1 first, then column 2 and so on.
“Resolving” combat is a poor choice of words, due to the fact that there is no resolution of combat, as it pertains to both sides in a natural interpretive sense, except on the side of the attacker. I believe that when the rule later goes on to state…
Each time a hit is scored, the defender must choose one of his or her units as a casualty and must move it below the casualty line in the same column of the battle board.
…that this statement only refers to the unit’s defensive capabilities, but can lead to confusion as to what the order of removal should, or could be. To clear this linguistical nightmare up, I’ll restate it: “Move your defeated units below the line, in the column area they came from.” Otherwise interpreted, it would mean that the removed units must mirror the attacker’s units’ capabilities, which is impossible 99% of the time. Any other interpretation of a linear removal of units is a convoluded misinterpretation.
Again, in the fourth part of the “Land Combat” section, (Defender Fires), it mirrors the same “resolve” statement described earlier. In fact, the word “resolve” is often used as an end, decision or determination, when in this case it is only a separation, or breakdown, into constituent parts.
This ‘breakdown’ is only meant as an order by which the initiation of die rolling by either side is commenced! A “resolution”, in this case does not mean an end, decision or determination! Substitute the word “initiate” for the word “resolve”, and you will see what I mean.
I, again, re-state the rule quoted from pages 4 and 5 of the manual. These statements of fact are not clouded by language, double-talk, confusing rhetoric, or any other form of misunderstanding:
Scoring a hit means your opponent loses a unit. THE PLAYER SUFFERING THE HIT CHOOSES WHICH UNIT HE OR SHE WISHES TO LOSE!
There are NO qualifiers in that statement. There is nothing demarcating ANY proscribed ritual, rule, linear fashion, or other order FOR REMOVAL OF UNITS. As a matter of fact, there is NOWHERE, ANYWHERE, that describes the removal of units, except for the rules on pages 4 and 5. The other rules, on page 18, are easily confused by language. There is nowhere clearer than 4-5, to describe REMOVAL OF UNITS!
laststrike, again I apologize for jumping down your throat in my earlier post. This has been a point of contention amongst my friends as well, and I have argued this point to where it is almost an area of expertise for me. I just about took your well-written post as more confusing garbage in ‘professor-speak’…lol. When something is well written, it becomes more believable.
This is a confusing area for this game, and I had to pull out a dictionary AND a thesaurus to convince some very well-read compatriots! But, every time we read it, we come back to pages 4 and 5.
Thank you for your time.
-Gravy-
-
laststrike, yes, you can move units into a territory, the rule specifically says so. It does NOT say you can move through it and gives not examples where this occurs. You can argue one side and say “Since it doesn’t say you can’t, you can” on the other side you can say “They give a specific ruling that you can move into a territory but don’t go on to say you can move through it. If they intended you to do so, they would say so”. I’m living with being able to move through it for now.
All gravy, the rule book clearly states that you resolve all combat for the '1’s, the defender takes the units off and puts them behind the casuality line, then the attacker rolls the '2’s and the defender moves the hits below the casuality line. The links clearly show this to be true as well. It was news to me but them’s the rules. On page 19, middle column, section 4). “Each time a hit is scored, the defender chooses one of his or her units as a casuality and moves it below the casuality line…”. I’m convinced, the links to 'official A&A" sites accept it, you should too. It sucks to be wrong but better corrected then adhering to false beliefts.
BB
BB -
Look up the word “resolve”. the IAAPA is wrong, as is the AAMC. I wrote a long retort, including definitions and clearly stated disparity of the rules. I was told that I had an “invalid session”. I do not have another half-hour to restate my viewpoints at this time, perhaps another.
-
**Resolve as defined in the Webster’s New World Dictionary:
- to break up into separate parts; analyze
- to change: used reflexively
- to reach as a decision; determine
- to solve (a problem)
- to decide by vote
I’m thinking 5) voting on the outcome is out, 4) since it is not a crossword puzzle that’s out 2) to change, yeah, I’d like to change some battles, toss a few more infantry in here and there, but I think we can all agree #2 is out. I’m thinking #3 is our baby, no doubt All gravy will eventually come to the conclusion you determine the outcome of rolling the #1s on the attack sheet is what is meant.
So, you resolve the 1s first and allocate hits, then you resolve the 2s and allocate hits etc.
All Gravy, you can conclude the entire world is wrong and only you are right, and you might even be correct. And, 1 Infantry could defeat 50 attacking armour with 50 bombers in support too. I won’t hold my breath on either. :-)
BB**
-
All Gravy, for what it’s worth I agree with you 100%. Rules for almost every game are amiguous and as a player you have to try and determine what you think they MEANT, not what they actually wrote. If the rest of the world is wrong I don’t mind being one of the few lonely right ones.
“The Path of the righteous man is beset on all sides, by the inequities of the selfish, and the tyranny of evil men.”
-
Exactly what part is ambiguous or open to intrepretation?
BB
-
…5) to decide by vote
I’m thinking 5) voting on the outcome is out…
:)… But even then, voting wouldn’t change much in letting the allies win most of the games ;). Still like that idea: Your inf is dead by 3:2 votes.
-
Yeah, ain’t democracy great! 8)
-
We oftne resolve this – as do “official” and unofficial computerized versions of the game – by using one of two minor modifications.
- The subs always fire first, and the sub hits therefore count first (on every round of combat during the turn).
– or –
- Sub hits always hit ships if there are ships to hit.
Personally, I just use the second, common sense rule. A sub isn’t going to shoot at a fighter that it can’t hit in the first place. No one I’ve played against has had a complaint about it. Some game engines I’ve used require this rule, including the Hasbro Interactive one. This rule works whether you resolve hits a column at a time or all at once, too.
Suggested Topics
