12L, AA50-41, Ol' Blood&Guts (Axis) vs. Boldfresh (Allies+7), no tech, + NOs

[boldfresh]

Yes u really must make more evening moves…  :evil:

[boldfresh]

To be specific, if the map is different from typing on a move where no dice were rolled, we just ask what was intended.  cool?

[Guest]

Hup twlo 2inf

NCM
cv sz37 => sz35
2ftr Ind => sz35
ftr Ind => FIC
ftr Hup => sz61
ftr Man => sz61
dd cv sz62 => sz61
2ftr Man => sz62

Mobilize
2inf 2art in Jap
dd cv in sz62

Collect: 56

OBG_vs_Bold_02cJ.AAM

[Guest]

@Boldfresh:

I know that may seem to contradict what I said about typing of combat moves but for me that only applies after a dice has been rolled.

@Boldfresh:

i always prefer to stick to combat moves exactly as typed and i thought you were the same?

@Boldfresh:

cuts out all ambiguity.  had kar gone horribly, you would not want those tanks in bst.  so for the sake of cutting out all possible issues, i go with combat moves as typed, including walkins, sbrs, and autokills of transports

I have to say with go with as they are typed and posted. As you stated previously, it includes walk-ins as well and takes out any possible issues.

[Guest]

And it does have a significant effect on the game since the stack of 5 Russian armor are exposed. So it opens the issue of using the Brits to protect them.

[boldfresh]

I disagree.  the map showed an infantry in euk obviously to block.  that infantry can get there in noncombat from Russia so either way it is there.  if you want to enforce that the infantry from euk went to Ukraine that fine but then I noncombat the infantry to euk.

[boldfresh]

here’s the map i want to proceed with (inf from rus noncombats to euk).  i will wait to hear from you in case you disagree - in which case, we can get a ruling from the moderators.  it would be one thing if the infantry were unable to get there from russia in noncombat.  but still, the simple fact that there was a discrepancy between the map and the typing, in my opinion you should have stopped and asked if i intended to not have the inf from euk go to cau in combat or if i wanted to send an inf from rus to euk in noncombat.  i guess i’m ok with you enforcing strict combat move typing (even though dice weren’t thrown) but you cannot in my opinion not allow me to noncombat the inf to euk as the map showed it there (obviously to block).  by walkins needing to be posted in the combat move, it avoids the outcome of the dice to be known before choosing to do a walkin (ie, all my dice went great so i will now say i intended to do a walkin, etc).

it’s really not worth fighting over imho - hopefully you agree and we can keep moving.

thanks

OBG_vs_Bold_02cJ.AAM

[boldfresh]

let me explain my policy on the strick enforcement of combat move typing just so it can be completely clear tha I am not being a hypocrite here.

for me, it’s all about eliminating the possiblity that one can see the results of rolls and THEN add or remove combat moves.  in the case i was referring to, where on your G1 you asked to send 2 more arm to bst, you had already seen results of several rolls before doing so.  i’m not saying you would cheat in any way, but a person could roll some rolls and keept a couple of tanks free in order to noncom then to reinforce certain positions, etc, so after seeing some rolls to say, wait i had two more tanks going to X territory should be off limits.  same thing with walkins and autokills of transports because if some battles went well, then sending a plane to kill a tranny or sending a tank through a couple of territories might be more attractive.

now, if a person had only posted their combat moves but had not rolled dice, to me it is perfectly fine if they add or remove combat moves, as long as no dice have been thrown.  in this case, i posted combat and noncombat/placement in a single post.  the map contradicted the typing.  in that case, i believe it should be addressed by asking the person what they intended to do.  i do not think i should have to move the infantry from euk into ukr on combat since the map shows otherwise clearly.  in addition, it is different to say i want to send more or less to a territory in combat move when it is just a walkin vs. saying oops, i meant to send this inf on a walkin to X territory, especially when no dice have been thrown.

regardless, i am willing to go ahead and put the additional infantry in ukr, but then i will noncom an inf from rus to euk to block, as i obviously intended.  i would PREFER to leave the map exactly as i posted since no dice were thrown and there were no missed walkins, it was just an issue of how many infantry went to ukr.

let me know what you want to do.  i don’t want to get crossways here, this seems very straightforward to me.  but if you want to involve a moderator that is fine with me.

thanks,

[Guest]

Leaving Euk open is a strategical error and I should not have to allow you to change your move because you meant something else. If it is posted, it is official. Like you stated, it takes out any ambiguity and removes all issues. You cannot say the map is what you meant when things like removing the Japanese flag from Kia on the US map occur. I will ask a moderator to look at it.

[Guest]

I have reported our game to the moderators and asked for a review and ruling.

[boldfresh]

uh, euk was NOT left open OBG.  there was an infantry on the map in euk CLEARLY.  when there is a discrepancy between the map and the typing, you bring it up to the opponent.  since i would have been able to noncom an infantry to euk, it is NOT AN ISSUE if you wanted to ENFORCE the strict typing of combat movements - and i WELCOME the moderator ruling.  this one is as plain and simple as possible, and i have little to no doubt how the moderators will rule.

[boldfresh]

i have to be honest, this seems like either a dirty move by you, or you are just pissed that i didn’t allow you to take your tanks into bst, which you requested AFTER dice had been thrown.  and IN ADDITION, you came out smelling like a rose on the battle ANYWAY.  :lol:

but if you want to waste our time AND moderator time on something as obvious as this be my guest.

[Guest]

@Boldfresh:

i have to be honest, this seems like either a dirty move by you, or you are just pissed that i didn’t allow you to take your tanks into bst, which you requested AFTER dice had been thrown.  and IN ADDITION, you came out smelling like a rose on the battle ANYWAY.   :lol:

but if you want to waste our time AND moderator time on something as obvious as this be my guest.

I should have learned my lesson last year. How about we just wait for the moderator ruling and keep comments to our selves?

[boldfresh]

if the map did not have an infantry in euk or any other material discrepancy, you would have had the full right to continue with japan and yes that would have been tough luck on my part (whether it was a strategic error or just a coincidence).  but the map could not have more clearly shown an infantry in euk. Â

since i was doing combat and noncombat moves together, when i decided not to send the infantry from euk to bul in combat, i just moved it on the map and forgot to erase it from the combat typing.  since there was already an infantry in euk, i did not NEED to noncombat an infantry from russia to euk.  if you could make the argument that there was no other russian infantry that could have noncombat moved to euk you would have something to go on, but otherwise, this just looks like a reach and an attempt to unjustly profit from a simple typing error. Â

bottom line, when the map and typing do not match up, you bring it up to your opponent before continuing.  anything else can be seen as underhanded.  
  Â

[boldfresh]

now you are just being petty.  yes we can wait for the ruling.  either way you lose this game so i don’t really care - was just trying to avoid a needless delay.

[Guest]

@Boldfresh:

now you are just being petty.  yes we can wait for the ruling.  either way you lose this game so i don’t really care - was just trying to avoid a needless delay.

I guess not  :|

The map did not show an infantry from Russia as a noncom. It showed a failure to move it in an attack that was posted. IF Russia had been short one infantry this would be a different story. They were not.

[boldfresh]

by the way, since the misunderstanding we had last year i thought we made peace and have some really good games, of which i think this has been another one.  as i said, i really don’t think this is worth fighting over or even holding up the game for, but yes, we can wait for the ruling. Â

i just hope you are not doing this because of the thing of tanks going to bst - that was a completely different scenario than this.

here’s hoping we can put this behind us quickly and continue as we have been.

thanks,

[boldfresh]

i think you are not quite understanding my point.  the posted map showed 6 inf in ukr and 1 inf in euk, right?

what i’m saying is, i did not need to type a noncom move of inf to euk because i left an inf there on the map (i moved him back there from ukr but forgot to delete the typing in the combat move lines).  do you see what i mean?

[Guest]

@Boldfresh:

here’s hoping we can put this behind us quickly and continue as we have been.

I agree

[boldfresh]

it’s just a discepancy between the typing and the map.  when that happens, you bring it up, which you did, but you did not ask me to confirm, you continued with the japan turn.  if you thought i had actually made a strategic error and had said to me that the map was in discrepancy with the typing, please confirm that this is what you want and posted the map.  if i confirm yes, then you are free to continue.  but at that point, i would have said, no i intended to take one less inf to ukr in combat.  then you could have said, no all combat moves must stand as typed, thus there must be 7 inf in ukr, i would have responded ok, then i will noncombat an infantry from russia to euk and posted the map.

i don’t think we need to get upset over this.  whenever possible i try to reason things like this out rather than delay a game and take up moderator time - it’s always best if it can be worked out between the players directly.  if you still disagree, we can either continue a civil discussion in the hopes of continuing this fast and furious game, or we can wait for a formal ruling.

thanks,