2013 - AAG 40 League

[Karl7]

Ruling Request:

Mr.Yogen and I have come to an impasse.

I, the Japanese, attacked the Allied fleet off the Carolines and won in 3 rounds – a major victory.  I asked for OOL R1 of the battle, and at the end of R1 we both had lost all our submarines.  I attacked two more rounds and killed the Allied fleet.  I did not ask for OOLs R2 and R3 because I was going for broke and thus kept the strongest Allied units defending.

Mr.Yogen is requesting as a matter of absolute right an entre reroll of the battle for my failure to ask for OOLs R2 and R3.  I respond that OOLs were after R1 irrelevant, unless Mr.Yogen wanted to keep weaker defending units over stronger units, which would have only encouraged me to continue to the fight and would have resulted in fewer defending hits anyway.  As I say, OOLs would have made no difference after R1 but to increase my margine of victory.

So can MrYogen get a reroll for the entire battle for my failure to ask for OOL R2 and R3?

Anyhow – here is the battle as I pulled it off from the TrippleA history:

Combat
            Battle in 33 Sea Zone
                Japanese attack with 2 battleships, 2 bombers, 2 carriers, 1 cruiser, 5 destroyers, 4 fighters, 2 submarines and 4 tactical_bombers
                Americans defend with 2 battleships, 3 carriers, 3 cruisers, 3 destroyers, 5 fighters, 2 submarines, 1 tactical_bomber and 2 transports
                    Japanese roll dice for 2 submarines in 33 Sea Zone, round 1 :  1/2 hits
                Units damaged: 1 battleship owned by the Americans
                    Americans roll dice for 2 submarines in 33 Sea Zone, round 1 :  0/2 hits
                    Japanese roll dice for 2 battleships, 2 bombers, 2 carriers, 1 cruiser, 5 destroyers, 4 fighters and 4 tactical_bombers in 33 Sea Zone, round 1 :  11/18 hits
                Units damaged: 1 battleship owned by the Americans
                    Americans roll dice for 2 battleships, 3 carriers, 3 cruisers, 3 destroyers, 5 fighters, 1 tactical_bomber and 2 transports in 33 Sea Zone, round 1 :  7/17 hits
                Units damaged: 2 battleships owned by the Japanese
                    2 submarines owned by the Americans , 2 destroyers owned by the Americans , 3 carriers owned by the Americans , 3 destroyers owned by the Japanese and 2 submarines owned by the Japanese lost in 33 Sea Zone
                    Japanese roll dice for 2 battleships, 2 bombers, 2 carriers, 1 cruiser, 2 destroyers, 4 fighters and 4 tactical_bombers in 33 Sea Zone, round 2 :  9/15 hits
                    Americans roll dice for 2 battleships, 3 cruisers, 1 destroyer, 5 fighters, 1 tactical_bomber and 2 transports in 33 Sea Zone, round 2 :  7/12 hits
                    4 fighters owned by the Americans , 1 destroyer owned by the Americans , 2 tactical_bombers owned by the Japanese , 3 cruisers owned by the Americans , 1 carrier owned by the Japanese , 1 destroyer owned by the Japanese , 1 tactical_bomber owned by the Americans and 2 fighters owned by the Japanese lost in 33 Sea Zone
                    Japanese roll dice for 2 battleships, 2 bombers, 1 carrier, 1 cruiser, 1 destroyer, 2 fighters and 2 tactical_bombers in 33 Sea Zone, round 3 :  4/10 hits
                    Americans roll dice for 2 battleships, 1 fighter and 2 transports in 33 Sea Zone, round 3 :  1/3 hits
                    1 fighter owned by the Americans , 2 battleships owned by the Americans , 1 transport owned by the Americans and 1 destroyer owned by the Japanese lost in 33 Sea Zone
                    1 transport owned by the Americans lost in 33 Sea Zone
                Japanese win with 2 battleships, 2 bombers, 1 carrier, 1 cruiser, 2 fighters and 2 tactical_bombers remaining. Battle score for attacker is 125
                Casualties for Japanese: 1 carrier, 5 destroyers, 2 fighters, 2 submarines and 2 tactical_bombers
                Casualties for Americans: 2 battleships, 3 carriers, 3 cruisers, 3 destroyers, 5 fighters, 2 submarines, 1 tactical_bomber and 2 transports

[Karl7]

Correction:

Mr.Yogen is only requesting rerolls for R2 and R3.

[Karl7]

If Mr. Yogen is entitled to any rerolls, I assume it would be his defensive roll on R2 and then all of R3 if, IF, he gets more hits than he did R2.  If he gets less or the same R2, my roll R3 should stand.

Correct?

[mryogen]

I withdraw my claim.  The victory will be just that much sweeter despite not picking my OOL and the luck factor…

[Cow]

If someone kills my carriers off and keeps my cruisers without asking and continues the battle to the end and the end result is me losing anyway… I am OK with that.

[gamerman01]

I don’t know why you’d have a problem with a guy giving you indisputable maximum defense.  Since you have no units surviving and got maximum defense, I don’t think you have a complaint.

If I give a guy maximum defense and don’t ask for casualty choices, then I always give him the right to pick his survivors after the fact.  You had no survivors and you got maximum defense.  What’s the problem?

[Cow]

He withdrew his claim so there is no problem!

[Karl7]

Everything is cool.

[Jennifer]

Please check your OOLs with your opponents before rolling, if you think there is any question.  However, if you are okay with leaving the best possible defenders and then having your opponent change his casualties after the battle because you did not ask him, feel free to go that route.

For instance, had mryogen been left with a couple damaged battleships and a cruiser, I would have allowed him to replace the cruiser with an aircraft carrier as he was not asked before hand.  (This is not the situation, the defender lost everything, I believe, and Karl did have 73% odds of victory.)

[Jennifer]

You know, the more I read the China rules, the more I am inclined to say that China can bid any units it wants too, for next year as well.

For instance, I said this before, the fighter that China gets is really an American fighter that can never get replaced when destroyed.  However, it’s used by China as if it was a Chinese unit, and it is restricted to the same territories that China is.
Also, any Artillery that China is allowed to “buy” are also American Artillery units, but they are used by China and are restricted like Chinese units…

Every time I look at these rules, it implies to me that there should be no restriction on what units China may or may not get in the bidding process.  I know it’s unpopular, and I know that some even say it’s a tactical blunder to do so, but I’m just not seeing any reason NOT to let someone bid for tanks and more planes for China.  Especially if we institute a policy of 1 unit max per territory, or even 1 unit max per nation.

[gamerman01]

FWIW I agree, and keep in mind it’s not necessarily unpopular.  You’ve probably heard from all the dissenters.  Do you really know how many people are fine with it or like it?

Good point on the artillery.  I had forgotten before that even the artillery units are borrowed from the USA box, so the argument that there aren’t Chinese tanks or bombers in the box really holds no water whatsoever.

[lexgreat]

The rules allow for one and only one fighter, and for any number of artillery as long as a certain condition is met. Any decision is yours anyway, but on what rule or logic do you build a case for any unit other than inf and art? If the rules would say the fighter is replacable, Id see the case for a fig bid, but as it is I think only inf and art are what the rules allow. Again, any new rule for league play is up to league management, but I think it has a reason China is restricted the way it is.

[Cow]

The artillery is not borrowed from the USA box in global. Neither is the fighter.

The box came with 1 china fighter. It did not come with many artillery, but it had an infantry to cover each space at least.

[Cow]

You are thinking of AA50 where China did not get its own box.

I would have thrown a hissy fit if China didn’t get purple pieces for the price of the global board.

[Jennifer]

@Cow:

The artillery is not borrowed from the USA box in global. Neither is the fighter.

The rules are quite clear that all Artillery units for China and the Chinese fighter are American units.  That these American units are attached to the Chinese army and may be used as if they were owned by China.  The color of the unit does not have significant impact on how the rules are written.

If I may:  > These artillery units will be supplied by the United States player (because China does not have any of its own), but are considered to be Chinese units in all respects.   Page 10 of the Pacific rule book.

[Jennifer]

@alexgreat:

The rules allow for one and only one fighter, and for any number of artillery as long as a certain condition is met. Any decision is yours anyway, but on what rule or logic do you build a case for any unit other than inf and art? If the rules would say the fighter is replacable, Id see the case for a fig bid, but as it is I think only inf and art are what the rules allow. Again, any new rule for league play is up to league management, but I think it has a reason China is restricted the way it is.

The rules specifically say that the fighter cannot be rebuilt.  They do not say that China cannot get another if the United States bids another one for China.  In fact, the rules say nothing about bidding at all.

The rules do, specifically, state that no Chinese unit can leave Chinese soil (except Kwangtung/Burma) nor can it go in or over the ocean.  So that precludes bidding for any naval units.

Since even the artillery the Chinese get are, per the rules on page 10, American and not Chinese (color not withstanding,) and there is precedent for America putting non-infantry units into China before the game is begun, then I see no reason to disallow the players from using precedent and practice to put jeeps or tanks or any other non-base or non-naval unit in China for purposes of bidding.

Remember, the rules just specify these special units cannot be rebuilt after being destroyed.

[Cow]

I got a purple fighter. They represent private military contractors from America.

[Cow]

The artillery are not American. The Burma road is required to produce them. They get the supplies from India, which was a British occupied territory, how is that American? It is made in china.

[Jennifer]

@Cow:

The artillery are not American. The Burma road is required to produce them. They get the supplies from India, which was a British occupied territory, how is that American? It is made in china.

Read the rules again, Cow.  I even quoted them for you.  The Artillery are American as is the Fighter.

[Jennifer]

China can purchase and
mobilize artillery, but only if the road is open during China’s
Purchase and Repair Units phase. These artillery units will
be supplied by the United States player (because China does
not have any of its own), but are considered to be Chinese
units in all respects.

To clarify, the artillery units will be supplied by the United States because China does not have any of its own.  They may have pieces in the box, but those are not Chinese units, they are America units with paint on them to look Chinese.  They are not made in China, else they would not need the Burma road to be open and could produce them where they produce rifles for their infantry.

Since all non-infantry units in China are American, and there is precedent for America to give to China units it cannot otherwise attain, and because America is not limited as to what units it may produce, then the only restrictions on China are that the units cannot leave Chinese soil, Kwangtung or Burma.  Likewise, China is specifically barred from owning industrial complexes so those too are banned from bidding.  I’d say bases are banned as well, but honestly, if you are giving the allies enough IPC to use on bids that they can afford to put air and naval bases in China, then I think you deserve to both laugh at your opponent for doing so, and lose the game because you gave them WAY too much money.  But that’s just me.