Do the defending forces have to fire in any certain order? I usually play that the defenders fire in ascending order - bombers and transports first, then infantry and tanks etc.
But this could give problems in a scenario like the following:
Attacker has: 1tr + 1sub + 3 ftr
Defender has: 2 tr + 1 sub + 1 bs(battleship)
Attacker makes two hits and the defender decides that tr + sub are hit. In this case I would like the defender to counterfire the hit sub first, because it just might happen that both tr hit (removing the attackers tr + sub) and if after that the sub scores a hit it won´t make a difference because it can´t hit planes.
The defender chooses his hits, and the smart defender shoots with his subs first so that they are not shooting at “nothing” (i.e. planes).
don’t you just roll everything then decide where the hits go?
if a sub hit, and a bb against a fighter and a sub. They would both die no matter what.
Yes, you roll all of the defending dice and count the hits. If the attacker happens to have fewer ships than you have sub hits then you, as the defender, lose out on those extra hits.
@cystic:
The defender chooses his hits, and the smart defender shoots with his subs first so that they are not shooting at “nothing” (i.e. planes).
Sorry, but this is incorrect. The rulebook clearly states:
1. Put all units on the battle board…
2. AA gun fires…
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. In this counterattack, any of the attacker’s units that are hit are immediately removed from the battle board and placed back in the tray. They are immediate casualties because they have already fired. Of course, the attacker always chooses which units will be casualties!
5. Remove all casualties…
This is why many players will attack the Baltic on Russia 1 with a transport and one or two fighters. There is absolutely no risk of loosing a fighter on any round of combat as long as the attacking transport is present. This is because even if the defender rolls two hits (both the transport and sub hit), the defender can only allocate one hit to the attacker (the defending transport has to fire first).
This is a fairly black and white rule. In all practicality, most people will roll all of the defending dice at one time. However, the attacker and defender must always be aware of these types of situations when rolling this way so they do not have to take more casualties than the rules require.
Laststrike, I am not sure I agree with you. So you are saying if both the sub and transport hits you will say, oh the transport hit my transport so the sub hit is wasted as it can’t hit the plane. I don’t buy that. Sure, if you attack a lone carrier with 2 fighters on it with say 3 subs and all 3 hit, obviously you can only apply 1 hit. But if I had 1 fighter in the attack as well and scored 4 hits, you honestly expect to say “Well, the fighter hits the carrier so your 3 sub hits are wasted” and have the attacker say “Oh well, so I scored 4 hits and you only take 1 off”. As the attacker I would not stand for that ‘rule interpretation’. Perhaps I am in the minority on this one but you and I both know what is fair. If you roll 2 hits you should do 2 hits if possible.
The real reason you go in with 1 transport is if you are attacking the lone german sub further south, if you don’t do a 1 sub on 1 sub then you really should attack the baltic fleet with that sub and 1 ftr and keep the transport to put in with the brits.
Laststrike, I am not sure I agree with you. So you are saying if both the sub and transport hits you will say, oh the transport hit my transport so the sub hit is wasted as it can’t hit the plane. I don’t buy that.
This is what the rules say. Please re-read the rule I quoted above. It says that you start with column 1, then roll column 2, etc. For the Baltic example, the transport is in column 1 and the sub is in column 2. Thus, if you are following the rules, first you roll the transport, if it hits, the attacker would remove a piece (most likely the attacking transport). Then the defending sub would roll.
Sure, if you attack a lone carrier with 2 fighters on it with say 3 subs and all 3 hit, obviously you can only apply 1 hit. But if I had 1 fighter in the attack as well and scored 4 hits, you honestly expect to say “Well, the fighter hits the carrier so your 3 sub hits are wasted” and have the attacker say “Oh well, so I scored 4 hits and you only take 1 off”. As the attacker I would not stand for that ‘rule interpretation’.
In you air craft carrier example, you applied the rule completely backwards. Just like in the Baltic example, subs are in category 2 and fighters are in category 3. Thus, you would roll the subs first and the fighter second. So in your example, the attacker would score two hits against the defender.
Perhaps I am in the minority on this one but you and I both know what is fair. If you roll 2 hits you should do 2 hits if possible.
What is fair, is that both players agree to play the game with the same rules. If they agree to play strictly by what is written in the rules, then the above rule applies.
The real reason you go in with 1 transport is if you are attacking the lone german sub further south, if you don’t do a 1 sub on 1 sub then you really should attack the baltic fleet with that sub and 1 ftr and keep the transport to put in with the brits.
This is a matter of opinion. I’ll play my strategy and you play your’s. :D
I see laststrikes point, because that is what the rules say, but three things come to mind.
1. Nobody plays that way
2. The PC game doesn’t work that way
3. I don’t think the guys who wrote the rules intended that to be the interpretation.
@C_F:
I see laststrikes point, because that is what the rules say, but three things come to mind.
- Nobody plays that way
I am not so sure about that. The two major on-line play by e-mail internet clubs (IAAPA and AAMC) both have these rules.
http://pub120.ezboard.com/fiaapaopenforumbbsqasregarding2ndediaapaexistingrules.showMessage?topicID=148.topic
http://pub1.ezboard.com/ftheofficersclubrules.showMessage?topicID=621.topic
Just because the people on this thread do not play by the exact rules does not mean that the other members of the A&A community do not. As I said before, as long as everyone plays by the same rule, you are okay.
@C_F:
2. The PC game doesn’t work that way
The CD game is not pure A&A. It has many, many bugs. This is one of them. Please do not use Hasbro’s attempt at making A&A an excuse for not following the rules. Of course if you want to play the game on the CD, you do not have a choice unless you edit after the battle.
@C_F:
3. I don’t think the guys who wrote the rules intended that to be the interpretation.
I think it reads pretty straight forward in the rules. You are of course allowed to think what you want. But you have to remember, that this game is not always based on what makes sense. There are many rules that do not follow logic or historical accuracy. This is one of them.
I had to dig up the rulebook for this one.
I could not find anything to refute Laststrike’s claim, and it is right there in the rulebook. Although it looks like he quoted from Land Combat when he should’ve quoted Naval combat.
The key phrase is:
"In this counterattack, any of the attacker’s units that are hit are immediately removed from the battle board and placed back in the tray. They are immediate casualties because they have already fired. Of course, the attacker always chooses which units will be casualties! "
So any defending tran that hits, the attacker then removes whatever he wants, then column 2 units fire, and so on. So, technically if there is nothing left for the sub to hit it NEVER fires, thus it can never score a “phantom” hit. However, it can retreat from the battle if it was not initially hit or can be used as fodder. But again it NEVER fires if there is nothing left hit, and you must follow the column order, 1, 2, 3, then 4.
A further example would be:
4 ftrs and 1 sub vs. 5 subs.
You may roll all five defending dice at once but as soon as you score 1 Hit the rest of your dice are meaningless, whether or not you score 2 or more hits.
I did not quote the naval combat section because it refers to the process used in the land combat section for combat resolution. As DarthMaximus implies, the rulebook states the following under naval combat.
The attacker rolls 1 die for each attacking unit. Just as in the Land Combat Sequence, resolve all conflict in Column 1, then Column 2 and so on.
I always look for rulebook fanatics like laststrike, to be on my side in A&A games for this reason. :)
Well, I suppose a rule is a rule, live and learn. I suppose like western Canada being connected to hudsons bay, both parties should, in a _friendly game that is, ensure both parties agree to play like this.
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?
BB_
Once you have conquered a territory you can not move through it any further. Not with the units you just used or any you have one territory away.
Thanks for all the input. I hadn´t thought that the question would cause so much controversy 8)
Rules are rules and all players should play by the same rules and have the questionable ones debated before game start.
However … I will contend that since all combat happens simultaneously, and the sub CAN´T hit a plane, then the tr MUST hit the planes and the sub hits the tr. The subs are exceptions to most of the battle rules anyway (they attack first i.e. before carriers, defending subs can withdraw, attacking subs can withdraw before other attacking units to any sea zone that isn´t occupied by the enemy), so why not make the defending subs fire first? What a brilliant rule! I shall make it law. :wink:
tmz70, that is the way I have always played, however, in this forum anyways, I am playing against this technique and I am seeing posted strategies relying on that technique. I cannot find anywhere that forbides it, only rules that somewhat imply you can’t by what I had quoted above.
Mort, althought I think your idea about defending subs firing after attacking subs but before other defenders is a good idea, the rules are the rules. It does state the defender starts with the '1’s then then '2’s and each set of rolls the attacker decides which are losses. I read the cited links and I have to say I stand corrected, dats da way da cookie crumbles.
BB
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.
The premise of ‘anal defense’ is incorrect, as stated from the bottom-right corner of page 4 in the rulebook, to the upper-left column on page 5:
A. Put all units on the battle board on top of their matching shapes. Attacking units on one side; defending units on the other side. The number above the unit identifies that unit’s maximum attack or defense capability…which means that if you toss that number or less on a die, you score a hit against your opponent. Scoring a hit means that your opponent loses a unit. The player suffering the hit chooses which unit he or she wishes to lose!
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. The part about the “attacker always chooses which units will be casualties” is a misleading and ambiguous statement that is countered by pages 4 and 5, and also the line in the proposed rule on page 18, stated by laststrike: “the defender must choose one of his or her units as a casualty and must move it below the casualty line”.
If you are going to quote the rulebook, read the whole rulebook.
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.
First off… I apologize for being so hasty to reply with such a sharp retort. Your response was gracious and your stating of the facts was not incendiary or hyperbolic, in any fashion.
I do, however, have to re-state the ambiguity of the rulebook as it states the “resolution” of any battle.
I believe the only point of contention is the word “resolve”. Nowhere in the rules does it say the defender must remove, systematically units from the battleboard in any proscribed fashion, whatsoever. The word ‘resolve’ in and of itself is ambiguous at best, as it describes only a “separation or breakdown into constituent parts”, not an “end, decision or determination.” (substitute the word initiate for resolve to clarify my point)
I have seen the use of the International Rules, and cannot believe that any competitive body could subject themselves to such a starchy paradigm. As a matter of the English language, the previously stated rule only serves to mirror the sequence of rolls, in order to keep the continuity congruent.
In other words, let me ‘interpret the Bible’, here…lol.
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.
“Resolving” combat is a poor choice of words, due to the fact that there is no resolution of combat, as it pertains to both sides in a natural interpretive sense, except on the side of the attacker. I believe that when the rule later goes on to state…
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 of the battle board.
…that this statement only refers to the unit’s defensive capabilities, but can lead to confusion as to what the order of removal should, or could be. To clear this linguistical nightmare up, I’ll restate it: “Move your defeated units below the line, in the column area they came from.” Otherwise interpreted, it would mean that the removed units must mirror the attacker’s units’ capabilities, which is impossible 99% of the time. Any other interpretation of a linear removal of units is a convoluded misinterpretation.
Again, in the fourth part of the “Land Combat” section, (Defender Fires), it mirrors the same “resolve” statement described earlier. In fact, the word “resolve” is often used as an end, decision or determination, when in this case it is only a separation, or breakdown, into constituent parts.
This ‘breakdown’ is only meant as an order by which the initiation of die rolling by either side is commenced! A “resolution”, in this case does not mean an end, decision or determination! Substitute the word “initiate” for the word “resolve”, and you will see what I mean.
I, again, re-state the rule quoted from pages 4 and 5 of the manual. These statements of fact are not clouded by language, double-talk, confusing rhetoric, or any other form of misunderstanding:
Scoring a hit means your opponent loses a unit. THE PLAYER SUFFERING THE HIT CHOOSES WHICH UNIT HE OR SHE WISHES TO LOSE!
There are NO qualifiers in that statement. There is nothing demarcating ANY proscribed ritual, rule, linear fashion, or other order FOR REMOVAL OF UNITS. As a matter of fact, there is NOWHERE, ANYWHERE, that describes the removal of units, except for the rules on pages 4 and 5. The other rules, on page 18, are easily confused by language. There is nowhere clearer than 4-5, to describe REMOVAL OF UNITS!
laststrike, again I apologize for jumping down your throat in my earlier post. This has been a point of contention amongst my friends as well, and I have argued this point to where it is almost an area of expertise for me. I just about took your well-written post as more confusing garbage in ‘professor-speak’…lol. When something is well written, it becomes more believable.
This is a confusing area for this game, and I had to pull out a dictionary AND a thesaurus to convince some very well-read compatriots! But, every time we read it, we come back to pages 4 and 5.
Thank you for your time.
-Gravy-
