XDAP03 Norse elite vs. TeamBoldDutch

[boldfresh]

@Ghostglider:

Sub was edited from z109 to z110. I hope it is ok…
When I moved France I forgot to declare war against all neutrals… Could you please do it yourself during Russia 6?
Best regards,
Ghostglider

that won’t happen for a few more rounds…  :wink:

[Ghostglider]

It was worth the shot  :-D

[boldfresh]

Something recently came to my attention on the boards, and it is very important that we establish this here in our game…  sea zone 115 should not contact Poland.  Please see the attached photo of the global board which clearly shows that the map we are operating with is incorrect as drawn.

Poland sea zone.pdf

[boldfresh]

This of course means that the tac could not reach z115 to attack the cruiser but since the dice have all spoken, we will leave it as rolled.  However, if this would happen to change your noncombat moves for G6 please speak now or forever hold your peace.  :-)

[boldfresh]

i can see it either way - perhaps it is better to just finish with the map we began with, rather than implement this change now.  since we have already began the game under the assumptions of this map that is probably best.  but the sea zone is clearly meant to be drawn in such a way as to give z115 more distance from german territories.

[Ghostglider]

I have just looked at battlemap, which is used at daak.de and there you are right.
Sorry about the mistake.

Please cancel the attack on z115 and add the CRU again. Please land the T.BMB in Poland. Then I can clear z115 next turn instead.

[Ghostglider]

I have attached the new map after G6. Please go ahead with your allied moves.

06 - Germany - Final.tsvg

[boldfresh]

Just waiting for Dutch to weigh in on z115
resolution, since the attach was both legal
for the strat bombers but illegal for the
tac bomber.  i heard from him last night
as he was flying across the country and
he said he would be able to look at the map
this morning and give me his thoughts.

also, we did NOT EXPECT a german purchase of 5
transports!!  so we need to confer a bit about
coordination before i move with russia.  :-)

thanks, hopefully we can keep this one moving
today!

[boldfresh]

i’m leaning toward recommending we keep the result as it was rolled since the 2 strat bombers could reach the cruiser, but i want dutch’s thoughts.

[Ghostglider]

The result can not be kept after an illegal battle…
Two options in my mind:
1. Battle is allowed to be cancelled - but units can not participate in other battles this turn.
2. Battle must be made with units that can reach = reroll 2 S.bmb vs. 1 cru

I think option 1 is most fair so therefore I made the adjustments to the map and attached the new map.

[boldfresh]

Yes the tac was illegally in the battle (although according to the map we were using it was not).  But we cannot know for sure (even you may not know) whether you would have attacked with 2 s.bom or not.  I do not think it is good practice that if a battle occurs where 1 unit was there illegally, the entire battle is canceled regardless of result of the battle.  I would lean more toward the belief that if a battle occurs with an illegal unit(s), the dice from that unit(s) are canceled and the battle stands as otherwise rolled.  In this case, it makes the difference between losing a tac or losing a s.bom.  Of course depending on the number of illegal units and the circumstances of the battle, good sportmanship and reason should prevail.

I guess my suggestion is that it is most fair to either:
1.  say the 2 s.bom attacked the cruiser and both sides hit or
2.  leave the battle as it was just enforcing the correct sea zones from now on

I am not hugely opposed to your suggestion that the battle is simply canceled but I am concerned about the precedence that may set.  I would prefer to encourage personal responsibility for knowing the rules of the game - hope that makes sense.

[dutchmand]

Sorry for the absence mates.

I am not going to make a big deal out of something caused my a map error. But, in any event the battle should not be re-rolled. The dice were already thrown for the same units that were in the battle. The fact that the cruiser hit can’t be undone because one of the units of the attacker couldn’t make it. Why would that cause the cruiser to have to re-roll?

However its resolved the cruiser already rolled. The strat bombers too for that matter.

I do believe the attack would have been made without the tac… you guys just strafed tunisia and greece, so you were clearly open to losing a bomber…

[Bjergmose]

If we look at the rules at daak.de they say it has to be rerolled or cancelled.

“6.3 Combat declaration errors
Battles that contain combat declaration errors are invalid and have to be repeated or cancelled. This will only be applied to battles that contain combat declaration errors. The results of battles that were correctly declared will stand.
Exception: If the results of some or all of the correct battles have any effect on the decision of the attacker to repeat incorrect battles, then the defender can ask for a reroll of these (correct) battles. If the players can’t agree, the minister of defense will decide.”

That seems like the best solution. We shouldn´t apply our own set of rules even if the cruiser did hit.
We can´t assume that the attack would´ve been made anyways. The only thing we can do is to cancel or reroll.
And ghostglider opted to cancel.

Now on with the show….I´ve got places to be, australians to kill  :|

[boldfresh]

I don’t really agree with the daak rules on this issue.  However, I am willing to accept them and continue.

To use an extreme example to illustrate a point, say I were to attack a large fleet with OVERWHELMING odds, but one of the fighters I took to the battle was not legal.  And let’s say, for sake of this illustration, that the fleet defended incredibly and wiped out my entire attacking force.  Using this daak rule, the defender would be treated terribly unfairly since he just got the 1 in 1000 result of an incredible defense, only to have it canceled because of the opponent’s error of bringing an illegal aircraft, when the opponent would have done the battle even without the additional fighter.  At the very least, I think the minister of defense should be allowed to rule on more than just the “exception” clause, because in an example such as this, that rule clearly gives a wrong ruling.

[Bjergmose]

I agree. But the rules should be made from any (normal) situation, not the 1 in a million  :-D

If the player making the wrong move, then is killed one-in-a-million-style, is the one demanding rerolls ´cos he took an xtra fighter then I would be suspicious too.  :-o

[boldfresh]

Ok, I think we are good to proceed, but unfortunately, I am probably too busy today to put my master plan together (the plan to CRUSH germany, that is).  In addition, that dutch guy is also on holiday and so our nefarious coordination efforts have not been able to occur.

May post today, but don’t plan on it.  Should be able to post on Monday if I hear from that dutch guy.

[boldfresh]

looks like i may have time to post!  let’s see.

[boldfresh]

Need to confirm a rules issue related to combat/noncombat/transporting before I proceed with russia.  I think tripleA is handling something incorrectly and want to clear it up before we proceed.  I have sent a message to the rules experts.

[Ghostglider]

You can go ahead with Anzac/france maybe?

[boldfresh]

Here is the official anzac/france map.

anzac bought inf, mech, aa