Applying Casualties Question

[The_Good_Captain]

@Krieghund in MB 2nd Edition, casualties are applied after each column is rolled, right? (As opposed to throwing for all attacking units simultaneously.)

In other words, attacking infantries roll then casualties are applied.

Attacking armor/fighters rolls and then casualties are applied.

Attacking bombers roll and then casualties are applied.

Do I have that right for this edition?

The description of combat seems to say so and the naval battle example in the back seems to clearly support it.

*im not asking when/why this would matter in a given battle, just asking if I have the rule down right.

[AndrewAAGamer]

You are correct. In Classic casualties are taken as each partial attack roll is completed.

This is especially important if Russia attacks the German Baltic fleet on R1.

[The_Good_Captain]

@andrewaagamer I know. I felt/feel strongly that I have this down correctly. However, I have run into enough folks who contest or aren’t sure this is how to interpret this ruleset and so was hoping for the supreme authority to weigh in.

[AndrewAAGamer]

Okay I get that. I don’t see how people can contest this though. It is very clear.

From the Rulebook: “The attacker rolls 1 die for each attacking unit. Resolve combat in Column 1 first, then Column 2 and so on… 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.”

Bold added by me.

As soon as one Column is rolled the defender has to pick casualties and then the attacker moves on to the next Column. As I mentioned this is very important in the first battle when Russia attacks the German fleet in the Baltic. If the sub hits and the defender takes the transport than the German sub is dead and the planes are at no risk as the Russian sub will just withdrawal and let the planes finish off the lone sub.

[Krieghund]

@the_good_captain You have it right.

Unfortunately, it’s very common to run into people who have something wrong but insist they’re right. Misconceptions can be very deeply ingrained. When they concern game rules, I’ve often found they come from being taught the game by someone else who got it wrong without ever really reading the rules for oneself.

The first time I ever played Risk (in the 1970s), I was taught by an older boy at a community center. I enjoyed the game so much that I soon bought a copy for myself. After reading the rules, it was a very different (and better) game than I was taught.

[The_Good_Captain]

Thank you both very much. And I appreciate the story, Krieg…I had a similar experience with Monopoly.

[The_Good_Captain]

@Krieghund (and @AndrewAAGamer ) Follow up question: using the same ruleset (MB, 2nd Edition), let’s say my intent as the attacker is to deny defending enemy submarines places to withdraw. Can the attacker then move units that don’t result in combat to sea zones adjacent to the zone in which combat is taking place in order to deny defending submarines withdraw opportunities?

In short, must moves in the Combat Movement phase result in combat?

I don’t see anything in the rulebook that says this CAN’T be done but wanted to make sure.

[Krieghund]

@the_good_captain This is not legal. Page 12 of the Rulebook states that combat moves are for moving units “into land territories or sea zones occupied by enemy units to engage in combat”. There are stated exceptions to this for moving into unoccupied enemy-controlled territories and for transports and battleships conducting and supporting amphibious assaults from friendly sea zones (and also for leaving an enemy-occupied sea zone to escape combat in the optional rules on page 31), but no other exceptions are mentioned. Other than these exceptions, all combat movement must result in combat.

[The Janus]

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:

1. The final determination as to which units are to be lost, is only made AFTER all of the attacking dice have been rolled.
2. 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.

[The Janus]

@andrewaagamer said in Applying Casualties Question:

As I mentioned this is very important in the first battle when Russia attacks the German fleet in the Baltic. If the sub hits and the defender takes the transport than the German sub is dead and the planes are at no risk as the Russian sub will just withdrawal and let the planes finish off the lone sub.

Couple problems with your example here:

A submarine “first strike” is expressly resolved separate from other attacking units, and anything hit is lost – it does not get the option of being a “casualty” and firing back. (Page 19: “the defender’s chosen casualties are not placed behind the casualty line. Rather, they are immediately removed from play and placed back in their tray because they do not get a chance to counterattack an attacking submarine!”) THEN you start worrying about resolving other attacking units (Step 4.)
This is not a case of “this unit is lost because that’s how resolving combat by columns works” – that’s not what is taking place with submarine attacks. You’re conflating two different ideas together.

Second, the Russian sub can withdraw after a “round” of combat (defined as “attacker and defender fire” i.e. in Step 7.) So even if the defender chose to keep their sub and lost the transport, that sub still has one opportunity to hit the Russian sub, before it can withdraw. This is not a situation where the Russian sub is at “no risk.”

[Krieghund]

@the-janus First, let me say that if there are awards for rules lawyering, you should be nominated. :grin:

I’m not going to go through this point by point, as I don’t feel it’s necessary. Instead, I’ll reply in general terms.

First, while the terms “choose a casualty” and “lose a unit” are admittedly not consistently applied, there is a definite difference in their meaning as applied to the defender (they are functionally the same for the attacker) implicit in the rules: choosing a casualty is the act of choosing a unit to be lost and moving it behind the casualty line, while actually losing the unit occurs in step 6 of combat when the units behind the casualty line are cleared. This difference exists only so that chosen units (behind the casualty line) are allowed to return fire before being eliminated.

Second, the idea that units behind the casualty line may be switched out after all dice are rolled is refuted by the statement on page 19: “After the defender’s counterattack, the defender removes all of his or her casualties that were behind the casualty line of the battle board and places them back in the tray.” There is no mention of exchanging these units for others. The idea that something is allowed because the rules don’t expressly forbid it is flawed. The rules don’t expressly forbid a lot of things, but they’re obviously not allowed (rulebooks at least provide parameters for things that are allowed unless expressly forbidden). If something as big as switching casualties were allowed, the rules would say so.

In fact, if it were the intent that casualties be finalized after all of the attacker’s dice are rolled, it would be much simpler for the rules to instruct you to keep track of all hits and choose casualties after all dice are rolled. Why specify choosing them column by column only to change them later? It just doesn’t make sense.

Finally, allowing the defender to switch out casualties before removing them would give him/her a significant advantage over the attacker, who must remove their casualties as they are chosen. If the defender were afforded such an advantage, it seems the rules would at least mention this.

[The Janus]

So here’s a question.

If there is no distinction between a “hit” or “lost” unit and a “casualty”, then why are attacker’s “casualties” immediately removed in the counter-attack phase, and not in the “remove all casualties” phase? That seems unintuitive.

It may very well be that the defender DOES get a distinct advantage over the attacker (for some reason)
I do think there is a reason for rolling by columns (as I’ve outlined) I just think it’s possible that the mechanic is being misapplied here.

Edit: I would contend that "After the defender’s counterattack, the defender removes all of his or her casualties that were behind the casualty line of the battle board and places them back in the tray.” implies that there is a gray area. All this is saying is that once the defender rolls, their casualties are now lost, and cannot be changed. It does not say “all decisions about which units are behind the casualty line are final, and you must now roll dice.” If you allow that there is a distinction between designating a casualty and losing a unit, then it stands to reason that the final determination happens sometime after attacking rolls are final and before defending rolls have begun. This is the gray area in which I think it would be possible to change your casualty selection.

[AndrewAAGamer]

@the-janus said in Applying Casualties Question:

Second, the Russian sub can withdraw after a “round” of combat (defined as “attacker and defender fire” i.e. in Step 7.) So even if the defender chose to keep their sub and lost the transport, that sub still has one opportunity to hit the Russian sub, before it can withdraw. This is not a situation where the Russian sub is at “no risk.”

I never said the Russian sub was at no risk. I said that “the planes are at no risk” once the German Transport is dead and that is a correct statement.

[The Janus]

@krieghund said in Applying Casualties Question:

In fact, if it were the intent that casualties be finalized after all of the attacker’s dice are rolled, it would be much simpler for the rules to instruct you to keep track of all hits and choose casualties after all dice are rolled. Why specify choosing them column by column only to change them later? It just doesn’t make sense.

Again, what I said is that moving units behind the casualty line is a method to keep an accurate accounting of how many hits are scored – under the assumption that you’re rolling a maximum of 12 dice at a time.

If you don’t implement a system to manage this in a face-to-face environment, you’re going to end up with a situation where you’re miscounting or not correctly adding up all of the hits which are scored (I think of it like that “Did he fire 6 shots or only 5?” scene from Dirty Harry.)

It basically forces the players to agree that a number of units are being moved behind the casualty line, corresponding to the number of hits that were scored – before moving on and rolling more dice. It’s to reduce the possibility of errors or cheating.

[Krieghund]

@the-janus said in Applying Casualties Question:

If there is no distinction between a “hit” or “lost” unit and a “casualty”, then why are attacker’s “casualties” immediately removed in the counter-attack phase, and not in the “remove all casualties” phase? That seems unintuitive.

It’s simply because, unlike the defender’s casualties, the attacker’s have already fired, and don’t need to stick around any longer.

It may very well be that the defender DOES get a distinct advantage over the attacker (for some reason)
I do think there is a reason for rolling by columns (as I’ve outlined) I just think it’s possible that the mechanic is being misapplied here.

It is not. In fact, I have discussed this with Larry in the past, and he kind of laments the fact that this mechanic was lost in the transition to A&A Revised.

[The Janus]

@krieghund said in Applying Casualties Question:

It’s simply because, unlike the defender’s casualties, the attacker’s have already fired, and don’t need to stick around any longer.

Correct. So here is a further question: the rules on page 5 say “The defender now rolls for a counterattack, just as the attacker rolled.” (I believe roughly the same wording is used on page 18 or 19, as well.)

If we grant that there is a distinction in the text between a “casualty” and a unit that is “lost” (and that units are only ‘lost’ after all of the opposed dice have been rolled) would it not then follow that all defending dice must be rolled, before attacking units are designated as “lost”?

This would follow from the assertion that the defender rolls “just as the attacker” and also would not put the defender at a distinct advantage over the attacker when deciding casualties (as you suggest it would, if the defenders hits were inflicted by columns, but attackers weren’t.)

I also believe this would explain why there is a distinction between defender’s casualties vs. attacker’s (i.e. the word literally appearing on the battle board, on the defending side, but not the attacking side.) There is still a line for “hit” attackers to be moved behind, but they are not behind a “casualty line” because “behind the casualty line” implies the mechanic of being able to shoot back, after being hit (which attackers cannot.) This might also make it more clear why one side’s “casualties” are removed on the counterattack phase, and another’s are removed on the “remove all casualties” phase.

[AndrewAAGamer]

@the-janus said in Applying Casualties Question:

If we grant that there is a distinction in the text between a “casualty” and a unit that is “lost” (and that units are only ‘lost’ after all of the opposed dice have been rolled) would it not then follow that all defending dice must be rolled, before attacking units are designated as “lost”?

Dude,

In my opinion you are making a mountain out of a molehill. Both casualties and “lost” units are ultimately lost and will end up in the same dead pile. The only difference is casualties are not removed immediately as they have to fire back first before being removed. It is a tracking method only, not a difference in status. Also, not all opposed dice are rolled before a unit becomes lost. As each column of defending dice are rolled the attacker’s units are immediately lost and go to the dead pile because we don’t need to track if they have fired or not because we know they have already fired.

[The Janus]

@andrewaagamer said in Applying Casualties Question:

Also, not all opposed dice are rolled before a unit becomes lost.

Please read the example combats I cited from the rule book.

[The Janus]

In short, my point is that I can read the text of the book and draw different conclusions about what the implications of the text are.

I’m not even saying you’re wrong, I’m saying I can understand why there’s different interpretations of the text.

[AndrewAAGamer]

I don’t see any examples of the defender firing that you posted. Did I miss one? All I see are examples of the attacker firing.

From the rulebook…

First, not ALL the defenders’ dice have been rolled. Only one column at a time and casualties are removed immediately. They are “immediate casualties”.

Second, therefore, “lost” units and “casualties” are the exact same only non-immediate casualties get to fire back before being removed.