I’ve been mulling this question, and I feel like it’s finally time that I got around to laying out my thoughts, because I am of the dissenting opinion.
I think there are 3 key things which need to be discussed:
- what is actually happening when a defender is hit
- what is the reasoning for resolving combat one column at a time
- when is the decision made to lose a unit
I’ll go in reverse order, because I believe the 3rd point is the most pivotal. Now, this may seem like nitpicking, but in order to instill some sort of reasonable doubt I need to make this point clear: there is a distinction in the text between a) moving a unit behind the casualty line, and; b) losing a unit. My main contention is that the assertion that a determination about which units are lost is made after each column is rolled does not, in fact, conform to the text of the rules.
From page 5 of the 2nd Ed Rules:
“B. Attacker rolls first tossing one die for each unit in his or her column 1. The attacker does the same for the next three columns. With each hit, the defender moves one of his or her units behind the casualty line. Misses are ignored.”
Note that the verbiage here does not indicate that these units are “lost.” This is reinforced by the well-known rule later on: (page 18) "These casualties are not out of the game yet. They will be able to counterattack[…]”
Now the assumption most people make is that all this means is “yes, casualties get to fire back before they are lost.” I would contend that there is at least room for interpretation, to suggest that this also means a unit is not lost at the time it is selected as a casualty.
Getting back to page 5:
Attacker Fires
Germany rolls 1 die for the infantry and tosses a “4,” a miss.
Germany rolls 1 die for the tank and tosses a “2,” a hit. United Kingdom chooses to lose its infantry and moves it behind the casualty line.”
[…]
Attacker Fires
Germany rolls 1 die for the infantry and rolls a “1,” a hit.
United Kingdom must lose its last remaining piece. Its tank is moved behind the casualty line.
Note that in this example, the rules say “United Kingdom chooses to lose it’s infantry, and moves it behind the casualty line.” There are two very important takeaways in this sentence:
- The final determination as to which units are to be lost, is only made AFTER all of the attacking dice have been rolled.
- There is a clear delineation between the mechanics of losing a unit, and of moving it behind the casualty line – demonstrated by the fact that these two ideas are called out separately in the text.
The text of the second round of fire further reinforces this.
I should stop here to summarize my point: the only two instances when a unit is LOST are when a) after all attackers have fired, or; b) the attacker has scored enough hits that all defenders are behind the casualty line.
This assertion is further reinforced on page 25:
AREA 1 COMBAT SPHERE […]
Attacking fighter fires and rolls a “3,” a hit. Defending American chooses the carrier as the casualty and places it behind the Casualty line.
Attacking battleship fires and rolls a “2,” a hit. Defending American must lose its last unit, the fighter, and places it behind the casualty line.
Note that with the first hit, the carrier is not lost, it is only moved behind the casualty line; once a 2nd hit is scored, the defender must “lose its last unit” (in this instance) because all attacking dice have been rolled, and also because the attacker scored enough hits that all defenders are behind the casualty line.
AREA 2 COMBAT SPHERE [America defending Midway with a single infantry]
The American defender must lose the infantry and places it behind the Casualty line.
Again, because the attacker has scored enough hits that all defenders are behind the casualty line. and also because all attackers have fired, only then does the text say the “defender must lose” a specific unit (in this case, their only unit.)
And just to really hit this home:
AREA 3 COMBAT SPHERE […]
The second wave of firing begins. Japan fires for 1 infantry and rolls a “1,” a hit. Defending U.S.S.R. must lose its last unit, a tank, and move it below the Casualty line. Japan does not need to continue the attack, because all U.S.S.R. units have been eliminated.
So, the USSR “must lose” a specific unit, because the defender cannot absorb any more casualties – it only has one unit to lose.
What is the reasoning for resolving combat one column at a time?
My assertion is that this is simply done to set a baseline for how the dice are to be rolled, in order to prevent cheating – it is not a mechanic linked to when defending units are lost.
Here is the example I would provide, and I’ll start by citing page 18:
Resolve combat in Column 1 first, then column 2 and so on. For example, if Column 1 had 4 infantry, you would roll 4 dice to fire. […] 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.
(Worth noting again, there is no mention of these units being “lost” only that they are behind the casualty line)
The rules (in this exact passage about resolving combat by columns) are specifically referencing the fact that the original, physical boardgame came with only 12 dice (6 red, and 6 white) and this is critical.
So, imagine it’s 1989 and you’ve got your VHS tape of “Back to the Future” playing in the background, while you and your 8-year-old brother (“Timmy, the cheater”) are in the basement playing a game of A&A with the actual physical dice that came with the game.
Let’s say Timmy is attacking you with (for easy figuring) 12 infantry and 6 tanks.
Timmy (the cheater) picks up the 6 red dice and 6 white dice and rolls them all at once; the white dice come up with 5s and 6s, but the red dice all come up with 2s and 3s.
You triumphantly declare that Timmy has missed with all of his infantry, and now that column 1 is done, he should move onto column 3 (armor). But Timmy, the cheater has other ideas: he says “Nuh uh, cuz, the red dice were my tanks because tanks are my favourite and red is my favourite and so I got like 6 hits on you!”
What can you do?
Well, you can pull out the rule book and now explain to Timmy (the cheater) that actually the rules say you must roll the dice for column 1 before moving onto the other column – meaning what Timmy did is against the rules (also known as cheating) and he’s not allowed to do it that way. The rules governing rolling dice by columns exist to create a clear understanding of which dice correspond to what units, and act as a baseline expectation between the players – not to determine when defending units are lost. That is not the function of this mechanic within the rules, I would contend.
What is actually happening when a defender is hit?
Simple: you are using your defending units as a visual representation to keep a fair and accurate accounting of how many hits the attacker has scored, as these hits are scored. Again, you are not making a determination as to which units are “lost.”
Just to hammer home page 18 again: “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.” As you might suspect, this also is done to prevent people from cheating.
I’ll use another example (it’s a bit silly, but works best, for the sake of simplicity.)
Let’s say you’re attacking Timmy, the cheater with 6 aircraft carriers and 2 fighters; he is defending with 1 transport, 1 sub, and 1 carrier.
You roll your 6 dice for column 1, and get 2 hits! That was lucky. Timmy (the cheater) is pretty sure he wants to lose the transport, so he moves it behind the casualty line. Then he spends the next 10 minutes hmmming and hawwwing over which other unit to “”“lose”“”. So you get frustrated and think “whatever, I’ll just roll my fighters and I’ll probably kill his last unit anyway, so it won’t matter.” You roll the two dice and… both miss.
So Timmy, the cheater picks up the dice and starts rolling them one by one, and then only removes the transport after all of his counter-attacks have been fired. “What the hell, Timmy, I got two hits on you!” To which he replies “Uhhhh actually I only see one unit behind the casualty line…? So clearly, not.”
Alright, so what can you do?
Let’s rewind the tape to just after you’ve rolled your two hits. Timmy is still pondering, and taking way too long. So you say “Timmy, the units you move behind the casualty line aren’t necessarily lost, we just have to move them so that we keep track of how many hits I got; you can change it after I roll all my other dice, as long as you do it before rolling your counter-attack.”
Grudgingly, Timmy moves the transport and the sub behind the casualty line. Your two fighters miss, meaning Timmy can save one of his ships; the lightbulb goes on, and Timmy remembers that his defending sub can withdraw (after surviving this round of combat) so he says, “Is it ok if I switch these two?” Timmy puts one hand on the carrier, and one hand on the sub; the sub is slid forward, and the carrier is slid back, behind the casualty line. He has still made a proper accounting of the two hits that were scored, and is selecting which units to “lose” after all attacking dice have been fired (as proscribed by the text.)
(Side note: This also dovetails nicely into the fact that subs can only hit ships and not aircraft, but attacking submarines are resolved first; this helps to avoid the possibility of attacking submarine hits erroneously being applied to aircraft.)
Conclusion
Now, I will concede that none of the examples in the rulebook demonstrate the defender switching their casualties in this manner – but that is because the examples used don’t really allow for it, or it doesn’t make sense to do it in those situations. (The closest case is one where the defender is illustrated as having one infantry and one armor defending, but… who’s going to do the big-brain tactic of moving an infantry behind the casualty line, then changing their mind and losing the tank instead – perhaps if they have a complete misunderstanding of the IPM tactic?) ;)
I will however say, that the text does not expressly forbid what I’m describing. That, coupled with the text making a clear distinction between losing units vs. moving them behind the casualty line, should at least plant some reasonable doubt about the mechanics of resolving combat by columns, in the manner in which it has been put forth here.
