1st Annual Cellar Gaming TripleA Octathalon – Brackets and Win Posts

[Balladeer]

Rule question for NWO: I want to attack a couple of sea units at 3 move distance with a fighter, the fighter can land at an AC that I am planning to build this turn, but haven’t bought yet as combat movement goes before purchase units. The map won’t let me move the fighter, as there are no currectly legal landing spots available.
So that makes me wonder, am I allowed to edit in the fighter to make sure it combats, or is the move illegal?

This is actually a practice game and not a tournament game, but the rule question stands, as it goes for WAW and TRS as well:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37180.new;topicseen#new

[redrum]

@Balladeer - I’m 90% sure that is illegal. From the NWO rules:

• It must be shown that all Fighters can land during Combat Move phase, and that any Carriers they will be landing on CAN move there DURING Combat Move phase, with legal movements.
• The Carriers that will be picking up the aircraft must be CAPABLE of moving to their Pickup Destination DURING Combat Movement phase, BUT they do not actually have to make the movement until the Non-Combat Movement phase.

So any purchased carriers can’t be consider for fighter range since they don’t get exist during combat move.

I’d defer to the NWO experts though.

[Narushima]

I’m no expert but I’d definitely be against that move. It just seems weird.

[DizzKneeLand33]

@Balladeer:

Rule question for NWO: I want to attack a couple of sea units at 3 move distance with a fighter, the fighter can land at an AC that I am planning to build this turn, but haven’t bought yet as combat movement goes before purchase units. The map won’t let me move the fighter, as there are no currectly legal landing spots available.
So that makes me wonder, am I allowed to edit in the fighter to make sure it combats, or is the move illegal?

The LHTR Carrier Production rules are a “variant” that we use in the tournaments, so (as you I believe correctly implied above) I think the reason that the move is not being allowed is because the engine does not yet see the possibility of a carrier being in SZ17.  I think in games like AAG40 it calculates the possibility of that carrier being there when deciding the legality of combat moves (but someone like redrum would be much more qualified to confirm that than I).  Because this is an A&A variant, I do believe that the fighters should be able to land.

Redrum, in practice do ladder NWO players play with LHTR Carrier rules or not?  I see what you are saying about the carrier not being able to move to the zone during combat, but it seems to me that the explanation is for existing carriers, not newly purchased ones.

[DizzKneeLand33]

@Narushima:

I’m no expert but I’d definitely be against that move. It just seems weird.

Well, so are you saying that the fighters that land on the newly purchased carrier are not able to do anything else during the turn except land on the carrier?  That doesn’t seem normal, either.  :wink:

[DizzKneeLand33]

Let me know your thoughts on this.  The LHTR rules are here:

http://cellargaming.com/gaming/Rules/A&A Revised Rules LHTR 2.0.pdf

At the bottom of page 20 it talks about Air Units and landing in an eligible space:

“Only Fighters may land in any sea zone adjacent to an industrial complex you own into which you will place an aircraft carrier you purchased this turn.  A landing spot must be available on the newly placed carrier.”

[redrum]

I asked a few NWO players from the lobby and here is the response:
“1) LHTR is unchecked, and in that case fighters can’t land on new carriers
2) LHTR is checked and in that case normally fighters should be able to land on new carriers, but combat move before purchase makes impossible to validate the move
so, I would say, if LHTR is unchecked, surely not possible, if LHTR checked, most probably not possible (and definitively not allowed by the engine)”

I think in general, most lobby NWO players don’t use LHTR rules. The NWO rules aren’t 100% clear but tend to lean towards not considering potentially bought ACs. It also tends to fit more closely with the other rules that tend to be conservative around AC landing areas such as:

• On Moving Through A Cleared Sea Zone: In Revised and LHTR rules, it is legal to make moves under the assumption that all your dice are hits and all enemy’s dice are misses, thereby allowing the assumption that the carrier could move through the zone in non-combat-move phase. However, in NWO this move is considered illegal, regardless of using Dice or LowLuck

I think in this case, the changed phase order eliminates the option of ‘will place an aircraft carrier you purchased this turn’ since you haven’t purchased yet.

FYI, seig map (NWO, WaW, TRS) rules are being discussed here and will be copied into all 3 maps: http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/Seig-trio-default-rules-discussion-td7590530.html

[DizzKneeLand33]

@redrum:

I asked a few NWO players from the lobby and here is the response:
“1) LHTR is unchecked, and in that case fighters can’t land on new carriers
2) LHTR is checked and in that case normally fighters should be able to land on new carriers, but combat move before purchase makes impossible to validate the move
so, I would say, if LHTR is unchecked, surely not possible, if LHTR checked, most probably not possible (and definitively not allowed by the engine)”

Of course, the only reason the purchase phase comes after the combat movement phase is a matter of convenience, iirc.  It shouldn’t affect whether a move is legal or not, right?

But, that being said, the LHTR rules still can be used, just not to validate a fighter’s move in combat.  Ice said this on the other thread:

"about manuevering planes so they can land on newly phurcased carriers: no another mumbojumbo rule that yust wont fit into the bigmaps we have. not to mention the rules already covers this:

The Carriers that will be picking up the aircraft must be CAPABLE of moving to their Pickup Destination DURING Combat Movement phase, BUT they do not actually have to make the movement until the Non-Combat Movement phase.

in other words when there is no carrier u surely cannot do it.

ice "

So, I will defer to ice’s interpretation and expertise on the NWO and related maps.  Since the purchase is not made until after the combat move (whereas in G40 it is, for example), the purchased carriers cannot be used to validate the legality of the combat move.  This is not to say that the fighters cannot land on the newly purchased carrier – in your example, Balladeer, if Iceland belonged to the Allies, then you could make the combat move since the fighters would have a place to land, and then during non-com still move the fighters to SZ17 to land on the newly purchased carrier (which you could not do without the LHTR box being checked, so it does still matter).

So let it be written, let it be done…  :-D

Is everyone good with that?  This will apply to WaW and TRS as well – I’m not sure why I’ve never had this come up in WaW, must just be a strange quirk…

[Balladeer]

@DizzKneeLand33:

@redrum:

I asked a few NWO players from the lobby and here is the response:
“1) LHTR is unchecked, and in that case fighters can’t land on new carriers
2) LHTR is checked and in that case normally fighters should be able to land on new carriers, but combat move before purchase makes impossible to validate the move
so, I would say, if LHTR is unchecked, surely not possible, if LHTR checked, most probably not possible (and definitively not allowed by the engine)”

Of course, the only reason the purchase phase comes after the combat movement phase is a matter of convenience, iirc.  It shouldn’t affect whether a move is legal or not, right?

But, that being said, the LHTR rules still can be used, just not to validate a fighter’s move in combat.  Ice said this on the other thread:

"about manuevering planes so they can land on newly phurcased carriers: no another mumbojumbo rule that yust wont fit into the bigmaps we have. not to mention the rules already covers this:

The Carriers that will be picking up the aircraft must be CAPABLE of moving to their Pickup Destination DURING Combat Movement phase, BUT they do not actually have to make the movement until the Non-Combat Movement phase.

in other words when there is no carrier u surely cannot do it.

ice "

So, I will defer to ice’s interpretation and expertise on the NWO and related maps.  Since the purchase is not made until after the combat move (whereas in G40 it is, for example), the purchased carriers cannot be used to validate the legality of the combat move.  This is not to say that the fighters cannot land on the newly purchased carrier – in your example, Balladeer, if Iceland belonged to the Allies, then you could make the combat move since the fighters would have a place to land, and then during non-com still move the fighters to SZ17 to land on the newly purchased carrier (which you could not do without the LHTR box being checked, so it does still matter).

So let it be written, let it be done…  :-D

Is everyone good with that?  This will apply to WaW and TRS as well – I’m not sure why I’ve never had this come up in WaW, must just be a strange quirk…

Allright, good discussion to have had and thanks for the clarification. I’m good with the ruling (would be good with any), but wanted to know before moving :)

Enjoy! :)

[Balladeer]

Great War Balladeer (Central) loses to DizzKneeLand33 (Allied)

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37053.60

[DizzKneeLand33]

Great War

redrum [Sides: (even is Allies, odd is Central Powers)] vs DizzKneeLand33Rolling 1d20:
(17)

[redrum]

270BC - redrum (Anti-Romans) defeats Entek (Romans)

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37063

[Balladeer]

Hmmm, found something strange in The Rising Sun (don’t know where to post it). In the game against Dawgoneit (http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37078.0)
I want to move a transport from Sz 49 to Sz 81 (American turn 5), but get the message ‘must own Ceram to go through Canal9’. That seems to be wrong, I own S.G. and Nayumo, those 2 island are connected and show blue dots, there is no line to Ceram at all. If I go by Sz 50 the machine does allow the move.

Any idea where to report this so it can be checked in the map settings?

[redrum]

Hey Balladeer,

I’m 95% sure that is a bug. It appears there is a canal between sz81/sz49 which requires control of Nayumo/S.G but in the XML it is defined mistakenly requiring control of Ceram/S.G:

<attatchment name=“canalAttatchment9” attatchto=“sz81” javaclass=“games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.CanalAttachment” type=“territory”></attatchment>
<attatchment name=“canalAttatchment9” attatchto=“sz49” javaclass=“games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.CanalAttachment” type=“territory”></attatchment>

This doesn’t make any sense. I would go ahead and use edit mode to properly make the move.

Dizz, can you confirm the ruling since you are tournament master :)

[Balladeer]

@redrum:

Hey Balladeer,

I’m 95% sure that is a bug. It appears there is a canal between sz81/sz49 which requires control of Nayumo/S.G but in the XML it is defined mistakenly requiring control of Ceram/S.G:

<attatchment name=“canalAttatchment9” attatchto=“sz81” javaclass=“games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.CanalAttachment” type=“territory”></attatchment>
<attatchment name=“canalAttatchment9” attatchto=“sz49” javaclass=“games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.CanalAttachment” type=“territory”></attatchment>

This doesn’t make any sense. I would go ahead and use edit mode to properly make the move.

Dizz, can you confirm the ruling since you are tournament master :)

No actual need for a ruling, as I can make the move (going 2 instead of 1 space, which doesn’t matter), but would be better if the map is corrected in the future :)

[redrum]

Good point. I also got confirmation from some of the TRS veterans that it is a bug. As long as Dizz confirms, then moving forward we will play it as the map displays it.

FYI. For those not aware I’m working on updating WaW/NWO/TRS and discussions are here:
http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/WORLD-AT-WAR-td5862407.html
http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/NEW-WORLD-ORDER-td2187321.html
http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/THE-RISING-SUN-td4694638.html

Mostly focusing on fixing bugs, updating/clarifying game notes, updating territory names, and graphical fixes/clarifications.

[DizzKneeLand33]

@redrum:

Hey Balladeer,

I’m 95% sure that is a bug. It appears there is a canal between sz81/sz49 which requires control of Nayumo/S.G but in the XML it is defined mistakenly requiring control of Ceram/S.G:

<attatchment name=“canalAttatchment9” attatchto=“sz81” javaclass=“games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.CanalAttachment” type=“territory”>      <option name=“canalName” value=“Canal9”>    Â</option></attatchment>
<attatchment name=“canalAttatchment9” attatchto=“sz49” javaclass=“games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.CanalAttachment” type=“territory”>      <option name=“canalName” value=“Canal9”>    Â</option></attatchment>

This doesn’t make any sense. I would go ahead and use edit mode to properly make the move.

Dizz, can you confirm the ruling since you are tournament master :)

Confirmed!  :-D

[redrum]

So interesting question. Since we are using the ‘Battleships repair at beginning of round’ setting for all the Seig maps (NWO, WaW, TRS), this is somewhat unclear on how it should work for neutrals. When using the default setting ‘Battleships repair at end of round’ all neutrals units repair in between each player’s turn. It appears when using the ‘beginning’ setting that they NEVER repair. This doesn’t seem right to me. Thoughts?

[DizzKneeLand33]

@redrum:

So interesting question. Since we are using the ‘Battleships repair at beginning of round’ setting for all the Seig maps (NWO, WaW, TRS), this is somewhat unclear on how it should work for neutrals. When using the default setting ‘Battleships repair at end of round’ all neutrals units repair in between each player’s turn. It appears when using the ‘beginning’ setting that they NEVER repair. This doesn’t seem right to me. Thoughts?

Since these bunkers aren’t critical to the game play (and this is only dealing with neutrals), they are left as damaged under the current options – no edits needed.

(For the sake of discussion, I would add that otherwise, even the timing of when to heal them would come into play if, for example, a teammate hit the same territory the same turn.  Would you propose that they heal after the USA turn, or after one turn of being damaged?  I’m not sure it’s worth a lot of time for your programming to make this change, unless it’s easily done, in which case it would make sense that they heal at some point.)

[redrum]

Alright. Guess we’ll play them as the engine enforces then. I personally think there are 3 options (in order of preference):

1. They heal at the start of the player’s turn who damaged them (this matches closest to how player owned 2 hit point units work)

2. They heal at the start of every player’s turn (would work same as neutral bunkers with heal at end of turn)

3. They don’t heal at all (as the engine works today)

Unfortunately, option #1 would take significant coding effort. Option #2 is easy but might not get consensus since some people probably prefer #3 over #2.

I think in general Seig maps (NWO, WaW, TRS) are mostly played with healing after turn (default) instead of before turn as the unit costs are more balanced for that as well.