As long as both players are in agreement, it works.
If one player is expecting combat to be sequential and the other expects it to be parrallel - series, there is a problem.
I think rolling one battle at a time makes the most sense. It is a lot easier to follow what is going on.
@froodster:
I was looking through the LHTR rules for something else and came across this little gem - separate combats must be resolved sequentially. IE. you must completely finish one battle before moving on to the next.
Now, custom here seems to be (at least using the inhouse roller) to roll round 1 of all your battles at once, and then decide which ones to continue.
Either we have a house rule at A&A.org that this is allowed, or players could legitimately object in tournament play and potentially force a re-roll of a whole round of combat.
A house rule it be.
NAUGHTY BOYS! AND GIRLS!
Cheating earns you PUNNISHMENT! (agh, the pun pain!)
It is cheating, the RULES stipulate each battle must be resolved before you move to the next battle. It never really use to be an issue because almost all combat was handled through a 3rd party dice roller. Now that the in-house dice roller is becoming more widely used, it’s become an issue. When I use in-house dice, I always resolve combat before moving onto the next battle. I think that should be the standard policy. Just as it is standard policy that you post your Buys and Combat Moves before you move on to combat resolution. In a FTF game would you allow your opponent to roll round 1 combat for every battle before moving onto round 2 combat?
Even though it is against the rules, it does not really confer any advantage to roll combat this way.
Obviously, for certain battles, it is helpful to know how another one will turn out before you decide whether to push the current battle. However, one must also keep in mind that the attacker can choose the order in which to resolve their battles. When you have one battle that depends on another, clearly it is best to know completely how one turned out before even starting the other. So the attacker gets a bigger advantage from resolving their battles sequentially in an order of their own choosing, as the rules allow.
Now personally I like to roll one battle at a time anyway, it’s more excitement and easier to keep track of what’s happening. Anywho, is there a “House Rules Committee” that can pronounce on this? I think it was that if both players agree, you can do it either way.
Each method confers a slightly different advantage, though the actual LHTR/OM rule of comepleting each combat before going to the next actually confers MORE of an advantage than rolling the combat all in one mass (as you could if you made multiple combat entries using the in-site dicey).
I agree with Dan. There is no real advantage conveyed when rolling every combat at once (afterall, combat is simultaneous under the rules…)
I think it should be left up to the players in a given game if they want to to one combat at a time (such as occurs with DAAK, Frood, or can be done with the in-site), or if they want to allow all of the combat to be entered and the coding for various battles keyed in to a single post with the in-site dicey.
If players cannot agree, then the default position should be one battle at a time.
The other thing I noticed is that it states that Attacker/Defender is considered simultaneous.
Thus, order of loss would only apply for opening fire, then, after both attacking and defending dice have been rolled.
I know that it’s been a practice to roll attacker only first (units other than opening fire), then ask for ool, then roll defender. I will have to remember this.
I think the way you’ve been doing it is correct, rolling attacker’s dice, selecting defender casualties, then rolling defender’s dice.
The other thing I noticed is that it states that Attacker/Defender is considered simultaneous.
Thus, order of loss would only apply for opening fire, then, after both attacking and defending dice have been rolled.
I know that it’s been a practice to roll attacker only first (units other than opening fire), then ask for ool, then roll defender. I will have to remember this.
Actually the rules stipulate that after opening fire, the attacker rolls, defender declares their casualties, the defender roles, Attacker declares casualites, all declared casualties are removed then move on to the next round.
JSP is correct here, for both OM and LHTR
You guys are killin me, I suppose there is some small advantage but damn games already take forever in the forums.
The other thing I noticed is that it states that Attacker/Defender is considered simultaneous.
Thus, order of loss would only apply for opening fire, then, after both attacking and defending dice have been rolled.
I know that it’s been a practice to roll attacker only first (units other than opening fire), then ask for ool, then roll defender. I will have to remember this.
Actually the rules stipulate that after opening fire, the attacker rolls, defender declares their casualties, the defender roles, Attacker declares casualites, all declared casualties are removed then move on to the next round.
Hadn’t thought about this from the defenders perspective. If I want to insist on my right to declare casualties round-by-round, do I want to have seen the other battles fully concluded first?
The rules seem pretty straight forward.
All combat takes place at the same time, but each affected territory or sea zone is resolved separately and completely before beginning to resolve another combat. The attacker decides the order. No new units may enter as reinforcements once combat has begun.
While I haven’t been over to the Harris site to research this, I doubt that it is merely an “Ease of play” issue. That fact that it’s spelled out in the rules would seem to indicate that it was a deliberate choice as an intregal part of the game mechanics.
Prehaps one of the Harris guys will drop by and “wax elleoquent” on the background of this particular part of the rules.
Well, since it is a rule that dates back to Classic…
