When you attack with an AC and you have allied FTRs aboard, those allied FTRs are treated as loaded cargo. This is just like if you took a loaded TRN into an attack. Allied FTRs on an AC (like INF, ARM, or AA guns on a TRN) cannot be treated as fodder. If the AC goes down, the FTRs go with it. Also, if the AC retreats, the FTRs go with it.
The only exception to this AC/FTR rule is on defense. Then all units get to defend.
The goal I imagine is to get rid of some armor, but that doesn’t seem to work since they will get rid of infantry first
On Russia1, if you go after Ukraine with a strafe in mind, yes you are looking to take a tank or two. However, depending on the way the rolls worked out, this may not happen. There are a lot of things to consider when ‘rolling one more time’, like:
Many times I will roll into Ukraine with the intention of seeing what the dice do. If it looks like I can take it strong and any counterstrike would be in Russia’s favor, I will take. Many times I will just retreat back to Karelia or Caucasus (depending upon bid placement).
However, some times I have found that the dice rolls put me in a position where there is only 1 FTR left defending and I have 4+INF and 3 ARM. In this case, I normally just leave the FTR and do a strong retreat back into Karelia. Now Germany is too weak to take Karelia and many times is hard to even hold EEu (depending upon bid and a player’s risk tolerance).
To got back to whether or not it is worth strafing if you cannot get rid of any tanks, I would say yes. Many times I will strafe to just get rid of infantry. The goal is to make any atttack by my opponent expensive. Since I strafed all or the majority of his ‘fodder’, the first losses he incurs would be expensive.
The other goal in strafing is to kill more pieces than they kill of yours. This can be advantageous for more reasons than pure economics. I say this because sometimes you may have a superior force and can easily take out your opponent in a particular territory. However, if you do take it, you may be placing your units (many which may be hard to replace) in a kill zone which your opponent has the upper hand in the counter attack.
@El:
I would classify the rocket as an air unit.
the rules clearly define air units as fighters and bombers.
@El:
Okay, so if we limit our thinking to the F_alk and luckystrike’s narrow view…
I would hardly say stating that a rocket is not an air unit is a narrow view. What part of rules are gray, if the rules specifically define which units are considered air units? Your whole basis for concluding rockets violate neutrality is your interpretation that rockets are considered air units. Please show where the rules support your interpretation.
@El:
At the start of the game, before USSR spends IPCs, USSR player steals all of the US player’s IPCs. If we follow the rules, USSR player may now purchase 60 IPCs of units as the rules say"You CANNOT loan or give IPCs to any member of your alliance,"(P. 22, col. 1, para. 2.).
F_alk and I are not basing our interpretation on negative assurance alone. Besides, if I were the USA and the USSR player tried to ‘steal’ some of my IPCs, I would take my beer bottle in hand, smack it on top of his head, and take my IPCs back. That’s not prohibited in the rules either.
@El:
But you have entered the neutral country’s air space with a rocket. What would you classify a rocket as… a land, sea or air unit? Use the facts you have to make a decision.
I would classify the rocket as an air unit. In my 2nd ed. rulebook (pg. 17, col. 3, para. 5[or A]) it says, “…when you fly air units over a neutral territory, they do not stop there, but it is considered violating neutrality!” Nothing in the Rules Clarification(3rd ed.) applied.
I agree that you would be correct if a rocket were considered an air unit. However, as I stated above, the rules clearly define air units as fighters and bombers. Had rockets been listed under this classification of air units, then it would apply.
I also do not think that a rocket is considered an air unit soley because a fired rocket is not even a unit at all. Thus to answer your question of, “is it is a land, sea or air unit?”, I say neither.
The rules clearly say that only a unit violates nuetrality. I do not see where the grey is.
Per Rulebook under weapons development:
One free rocket attack per turn! Choose one of your antiaircraft guns (it must be 3 adjacent spaces or less away from the target) to launch rockets at an enemy industrial complex by rolling one die. The number tossed determines how many I.P.C.'s the player owning the industrial complex must surrender to the bank.
Notice that the rules do not say the spaces need to be a particular type (i.e. friendly, non-neutral, etc.). Thus it appears legal to fire over a neutral territory. Thus, we need to determine if firing a rocket can violate neutrality.
Per Rulebook under combat movement section; violating neutrality:
If the enemy occupies a neutral territory and you move into such a territory, conflict results…just as if you moved into any enemy-occupied territory or sea zone.
But if you are the FIRST player to move land units into or fly air units over a neutral territory, you automatically capture is with no battle. You have made a COMBAT MOVE, however, and you must suffer a penalty for such a violation of neutrality.
Firing a rocket is not considered moving a land unit (we are talking about firing, not moving the AA gun) nor is it considered an air unit. If you look under the combat section of the rules, there are two types of units listed under “Air Units”: fighters and bombers. Rockets from an AA gun are not listed in the section.
Thus, it appears that firing a rocket over a nuetral territory is legal and does not violate nuetrality.
@Inxduk:
why don’t we play the rules posted before this time, next time we can add new stuff ok?
I take this to mean you want to play with the W@W infantry rule that Dezrtfish suggested. If this is not so, let us know.
I will post your pick on the Game thread and make my selection.
Regarding dicey, Darth and I will receive the emails. I will post a link for the dicey roller and the dicey log on the game thread as well.
Inxduk - If you feel we are swaying too far from what you invisioned, then maybe we should reconsider that rule. As I said before, you started this thread and should have ultimate say in whether we play by a rule or not.
For me it does not matter as long as we are all playing by the same rules. I am pretty sure Dzrt and Darth feel the same.
We are all ready to play when you are. We have kinda nominated you to go first. Please post your capital selection over at the game thread. Also, let me know if you want to receive dicey emails or want to rely soley on the dicey log.
laststrike I’ll send you a PM with my email for rolls.
Got it. Inxduk or Dezrtfish, if either of you want to receive the other side of the emails, let me know.
3rd edition rules are fine.
I think the neutrals should be worth the same as the other territories. I agree that 2 infantry should be defending each initial territory that are considered neutral.
why does the rule book use the word either if they really meant both when they used or in the algebraic sense rather than the literal usage?
Because you do not have to do “both.” “Either” are acceptable moves. Logically, you can only do one of the actions at a time (hence the word “either”). Thus, you can load and move as many times or spaces as the rules allow. The only time the rules say that a transport’s turn is over is if it unloads or if it had moved in a previous phase (i.e it cannot move in combat and non-combat).
Also, you have not responded why this move would be a legal combat move, but not a non-combat move. I know some of the rules do not follow logic sense, but at least they are consistent throughout the rule book. It just does not make sense that this is legal for one phase and not the other.
I agree that just because the majority do something, it does not mean you should follow. However, in this situation, the amount of knowledge and thought put into the rule interpretation by these clubs are significant. Every rule seems to have their skeptics.
One thing I am surprised by is that it seems this is the first time this has been an issue on this website. I took a look at the games section of this website and found that if you are correct, every game played there is in violation of this rule, including your games. If this is the case, then why has no one else noticed this before? From what I can see F_alk suggested this interpretation and you and Xi just said you agree.
I agree with using the same territory value (with the exception of capitals).
I also do not think that 60 ipcs would be too excessive (at least for starting out).
Inxduk, in response to the thing about dicey, I was thinking along the lines of say we had four players. We would first determine who is player1, player2, player3, and player4. Whoever is determined to be player1 would be assigned Russia to track the rounds in dicey. Player2 would be assigned Germany, etc. In the case of four players, no one would be USA.
This way when any of the players go to the dicey log, they know that UK turn 3 for example would mean player3’s 3rd turn and could see all of the rolls associated with it.
I know that dicey only allows for two e-mail addresses so that is why I thought this would make the most sense. Everyone would post their turns on the forum and if anyone questioned the player’s dice rolls, they could double check the log.
As far as Mapview, I think I am just going to stick with using my AAWinMap. I think as long as each player posts their territory holdings at the end of each of their turns, it should work okay.
Also, does anyone have a preference on the rule edition - 2nd or 3rd edition? For me it does not really matter.
You are free to interpret this rule as you feel fit. However, it appears that all of the on-line clubs: IAAPA, AAMC, Spring, BOP and DAAK allow this move - which means it is legal. Check out my above link to the thread discussing it at AAMC. Even an AAMC JAG responded that this is a legal move. The JAG reponded that the word “or” does not mean one or the other but can mean both options are available.
I am okay with whatever you want to do.
3-5 territories sound like a good idea. This way we could have the intial part of the game go like this:
1. each player picks their countries in turn
2. each player places their units, maybe in groups so it is fair. I.e. each player places 20-24 ipc’s of units and then the next player goes until all the alloted ipc’s are used up.
3. each player performs their turn (skipping the purchase and place units phase on the first round).
The thing I would kinda like to avoid is the different prices per units initially. I think we should keep the price/unit the same throughout the entire game. This would also make it so that if a player has any ipc’s they did not use on their initial placement could still be used later.
Maybe we should try to nail down the rules now and then it will be easier to add a player and we can immediately start playing. We already have 3 and only need one more player.
Things we have so far or need clarified:
1. 4-6 players for a game
2. each player selects 1 capital and then 2-4 more territories (in turn)
3. each player gets 60 ipc’s to place
4. all land territories on the A&A map can be selected for initial control including neutrals
5. if a territory is not selected by a player for intial control, it will have as many nuetral infantry defending it as the territory is worth
6. Each territory (except capitals will be worth 2 ipc’s)??? - still need to decide
7. Each capital will be worth 10 ipc’s ??? - still need to decide
8. basic game rules will be the same as A&A using 2nd or 3rd edition rules - still needs to decide
9. ???
As discussed, this should be easy to do on the forum. Dicey should also work great. I was thinking that if we have 5 or less players, we can also utilize the Dicey log which may make it easier for everyone to track the rolls. Each player could be assigned a country for tracking purposes based on the player turn order. Anytime a player wanted to see past rolls, they would just have to look at the log. This would also help avoid any questions on who to send e-mails to when a player is rolling against neutral infantry.
Just some suggestions.
I do not think that Xi, BB, or F_alk are right about this. Even though the rulebook discusses this type of movement in the “combat movement” section, the move is still legal in non-combat. There are many things discussed in the “combat movement” section that really relate to other turn phases as well. Logically speaking, I am not sure how it makes sense that this move is legal in combat, but illegal in non-combat.
If you look at the “non-combat” section, only things that are different in the non-combat phase are written. In the “non-combat” section, the only thing written about transports in this sense is, “Empty transports or transports loaded with cargo can be moved to friendly coastal territories to either load or unload cargo there.”
Even though this sentence uses the word “either” does not mean you can only do one of the actions (load or unload). It means that both options are available in non-combat. You can either load, unload or both.
I have played in both AAMC and IAAPA and both clubs interpret the rules allowing loading and unloading during non-combat. I also think that the CD allows this move as well (not that I give any creditability to the CD). I searched the AAMC website and could not find any FAQ or rules interpretation thread on this specific question. From what I can gather, this interpretation is considered a known fact.
I think that this is a good question, and deserves some discussion. However, up to this point the answers given are incorrect.
Anyone interested what AAMC has to say about this, I created a discussion thread there because as I mentioned above, have never seen it brought up. The link is:
http://pub1.ezboard.com/ftheofficersclubrules.showMessage?topicID=670.topic
Inxduk,
Since this is your variant, maybe you should make a post in the game section outlining your rules that you want to use and how many players you are looking for. Then those that sign up first can play. It looks like you already have two interested parties.
I think you will get more exposure in the game section and we can then use that thread to play on.
I am willing to play with whatever rules you want - as long as everyone understands what they are.
LS
yeah, let’s do that, the trouble with making islands worth more is… well i don’t know.
Maybe the difference should not be as drastic. Maybe land should be 2 and island’s 3? The only reason I suggested this is to promote more naval activity and reason for players to go after each other’s islands. However, all items being the same is fine with me.
don’t know about the extra for holding areas since uk and neutrals is impossible, usa is hard, germany, possibly…
Exactly, that is why it would be considered a bonus. This would also encourage other players from just letting players dominate over one particular area. Anyone that could dominate an area (just like risk) get a bonus for doing so. I agree that the UK and neutrals would be tough to get. That is why the bonus would be so high. Maybe it would be a better idea to make the bonuses even higher?
But this idea can go by the wayside as well. Just more of a suggestion.
let’s do a game on the forums, we would need a game master i guess since the starting stuff is blind. 6 players, 8 players whatever works.
See my suggestion below for a GM. I think a 4 to 6 player max would be the preferable. Any more than 6 just gets too big. It looks like it is hard enough trying to get a tournament going with one on one games on this site. I am not sure if we could find 8 players. For our first game, we may have to shoot for 4 players.
I have an idea regarding starting capitals – starting capitals can only be selected from the existing neutral territories (i.e. Mongolia, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, etc.). Any nuetrals not selected for a capital would remain empty and be treated as they are now in the original A&A rules.
The turn order would be determined prior to the game start and players would pick their capitals in turn. This would avoid the need for an initial GM. Of course, if you prefer the surprise capital thing, then this suggestion is no good. After the capital are picked, each player would purchase units with their starting cash and place them on their capital. And then finally, each player would then start their respective turns (i.e. purchase, WD, combat move, combat, etc.).
instead of having neutral countries, after each capital is picked, the players go in their turn order to select the remaining country and place 1 infantry there. (of course all the stuff would have to be the same value in that case)
I guess we could do this, but I am not a big fan. This changes the dramatics of the game idea of starting out with a small empire and expanding strategically. The idea of starting out small is what caught my eye. The game may start out slower, but I think it would be more fun.
and, the people i played with want to play europe next time with neutral subs on the convoys. I want to try it on the pacific board too… actually this is probably the only way we will be playing on the board from now on
For the play by forum games, we should stick to A&A. It will keep the player base larger, especially for the first game or so. At least this would allow more interest.
Is anyone else interested in playing this variant?
This sounds very interesting. I like the idea of secretly picking capitals and starting out with a set amount of IPC’s. I also like the idea of all other territories starting out with as many defending infantry as the territory is worth.
I have a couple of suggestions, which you can take or leave.
First of all, I think if you want to keep more of the risk feel and keep strategy to more on the side of logistics, I would not have the territory values reflect the current A&A board (i.e. WEU = 6 and EEU = 3). I think the way each territory should similarly valued. However rather than have all of the territories be worth 2, I would suggest something slightly different. All land locked territories are worth 2 IPC’s and any island territories are worth 4 IPC’s. This makes it more of an incentive to go for more island territories (and hold them) and to promote naval warfare. If territories are valued this way (including neutrals), the total IPC’s available on the 69 territories (pending any capital differences) would be 172 IPC’s. Of that mix 52 territories are land-locked (104 IPC value) and 17 territories are islands (68 IPC value).
Second, I would also add an incentive for players to hold entire regions. The regions or country groupings would reflect the original holdings of the various countries. There would be six regions: Russia, Germany, UK, Japan, USA and Neutrals. This would be similar to risk except you only have to hold all of the territories at the end of your turn to collect the income. I am not so sure about how many IPC’s each region would be, but I would think something along the lines of: Russia/Germany = 5, USA/Japan = 8, UK = 12, Neutrals = 15.
Third, I would suggest that each player’s capital selected to start off with for the game be worth 8 IPC’s.
Let me know what you think. I think it is important to keep as much A&A feel to the game, specifically no changes to a unit’s attack/defense, movement, and costs to purchase.
I also would be interested in getting a play by forum game going if any others are interested. It should be easy to do as everything needed is already present.
All Gravy, I am sorry if you got the impression that I suggested for any player, other than the player suffering the casualties, remove pieces. Any reference made otherwise implied that the player had no choice but to remove a particular unit.
That aside, I disagree with your following statement:
@All:
The anal proposal of linear removal of units flies in the face of strategy. Resolving combat by column is not meant for sequence in the removal of units; it is meant to keep track of which units have taken part in battle. (with the noted exception of a submarine’s first strike)
Nowhere in the rule laststrike stated does it mention anything about the actual order of removal of units from the defender’s battleboard…
As I mentioned above, what I am writing about is not a proposal, but in fact the actual interpretation of the two main online A&A communities. All Gravy, I would suggest you refer to the links I posted above. Let me re-quote the above passage from the rules of combat with a little emphasis on the parts you insist do not exist.
3. Attacker fires. The attacker rolls 1 die for each attacking unit. Notice the battle board is divided into 4 columns. Resolve combat in Column 1 first, then Column 2 and so on. For example, if Column I had 4 infantry, you would roll 4 dice to fire. Infantry attack at a die roll of “1,” so each roll of “1” would be a hit. Please Note: if you had more units than dice, roll 12 dice first to determine any hits, then reroll as many dice as needed for the remaining units in the column. Each time a hit is scored, the defender must choose one of his or her units as a casualty and must move it below the casualty line in the same column on the battle board. These casualties are not out of the game yet. They will be able to counterattack because combat in Axis & Allies is considered simultaneous.
4. De fender fires. The defender rolls 1 die for each defending unit (casualties included) and resolves combat, as the attacker did above.
The rules clearly state that you must “resolve” combat in column 1 before you move onto column 2. How can you resolve the combat of column 1 without moving a piece below the casualty line (or removing it) when a hit is scored?
Is this interpretation an “anal interpretation?” I would have to say yes, if a person wants to play by the exact rules. Anything otherwise is a house rule. I am not trying to tell anyone here how to play. I am just trying to make sure members of this board truly understand what the rules say.
@All:
If you are going to quote the rulebook, read the whole rulebook.
I have. I think I have adequately shown that the interpretation of IAAPA, AAMC and myself is correct based on what is actually written and not imposed by others to what they think it should mean.
From the rulebook:
ONCE A TRANSPORT UNLOADS, HOWEVER, ITS MOVE IS OVER!
Thus, if the two territories are adjacent to the same SZ, it is legal to unload into two territories during non-combat.
Now one rule I am still not 100% sure is the ability to move through a territory that you just fought a battle in and won. The rule book says you can move into this territory, it doesn’t to my knowledge say you can move through it however. One can argue both sides, I think in the original paper map version of the game you couldn’t. Any thoughts on this?
From the non-combat movement section:
Land units can be moved into any friendly territories, occupied or unoccupied. They CANNOT be moved into enemy-occupied, enemy-controlled or neutral territories…
…Naval units can be moved into any friendly sea zone, occupied or unoccupied. They CANNOT be moved into enemy-occupied sea zones…
At the end of the combat phase, if a territory was successfully captured, it is by definition, no longer considered “enemy-occupied, enemy-controlled or neutral.” Thus, any successfully captured territory can now be reinforced or moved through as needed for both land and naval forces.
Tmz70 correctly states that no units can move (other than air) if they participated in combat. However any units which did not move, can move into or through any friendly territory. During the non-combat phase, friendly is defined as anything not “enemy-occupied, enemy-controlled or neutral.”
One example is Germany moving the Baltic transport to the NW Algeria sea zone during the non-combat phase after it cleared the UK sea zone of Allied boats. Another example is Germany moving a tank from Ukraine into Turkey after successfully taking Caucasus and de-neutralizing Turkey (with air) that turn.
This rule, like the other one above, does not come into play very much, as the opportunity does not always present itself. This is why some players have not seen it done.