Thanks for the response!
Applying Casualties Question
-
I completely understand the arguments you are making, and I agree with you.
-
@the-janus said in Applying Casualties Question:
I completely understand the arguments you are making, and I agree with you.
Sweet! Not sure what we accomplished however at least we agreed in the end. :grin:
-
@the-janus said in Applying Casualties Question:
@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”?
No. The distinction applies only to the defender, not the attacker.
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.)
The rules do say on page 18 that the defender resolves combat “as the attacker did”, but they go on to say that the attacker’s casualties are “immediately removed from the battle board” and that “They are immediate casualties because they have already fired.” This clearly indicates that they are treated differently from the defender’s casualties in this regard, but the process is the same in all other regards.
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.
Per page 19 of the Rulebook, the area behind the line on the attacker side of the battle board is there for placing transports in sea battles, as they participate in combat but have no attack value.
-
@krieghund said in Applying Casualties Question:
The rules do say on page 18 that the defender resolves combat “as the attacker did”, but they go on to say that the attacker’s casualties are “immediately removed from the battle board” and that “They are immediate casualties because they have already fired.” This clearly indicates that they are treated differently from the defender’s casualties in this regard, but the process is the same in all other regards.
Herein I think lies a chunk of the issue: the word “casualties” is being used to describe two mechanically different concepts.
- a Defender’s casualties which are expressly “behind the casualty line” and are allowed to fire back
- an Attacker’s casualties, which are neither moved behind a casualty line, nor are allowed to fire back (i.e. “immediate casualties”)
I also think the fact that the description of the counterattack being resolved “as the attacker did” then jumps to “units that are hit are immediately removed” allows for some vagueness/confusion as to the ways in which the counterattack is similar, and what the actual order of operations is, for doing everything that occurs during/between those two steps. (I suspect your contention would be they are only similar in the manner that combat is resolved by columns, but I don’t believe the text is specific enough to say that, definitively.)
So, we’re treating defender “losses” and attacker “casualties” as being the same (and defender casualties and attacker casualties as being different)? If so, then I would say that if we accept the contention that defending losses are determined after all attackers have fired (and keeping in mind that the counterattack is resolved “as the attacker did”) then it stands to reason that attacker’s “casualties” should be determined at the same point in the sequence as defender’s “losses” i.e. “immediately” after all defending dice have been rolled, as per the contention.
Now, I think we disagree on that fundamental contention, and that’s fine. I merely want to demonstrate how I can understand why the contention has been made in the past. I think your explanation of how the rules are meant to work is more straightforwardly supported by the text.
-
Moreover, how about if someone would argue that the casualties must be chosen immediately?
For example, Timmy is playing against @The_Good_Captain and is attacking with 20 infantry. He rolls the 12 dice, obtains X hits and demands @The_Good_Captain to select as casualties X units before knowing what the result of the remaining 8 infantry to roll may be. @The_Good_Captain tells Timmy that “casualties are applied after each column is rolled” and asks him to roll for the remaining 8 infantry before any casualties are selected (so that the process would be the same as rolling 20 dice at once). Who is right between Timmy and @The_Good_Captain and how can one convince the other one based on the rules-book?
-
Ask Joe. He has your answer.
Suggested Topics
