13L G40 Boldfresh vs. Jeff28 (Allies +11)

[boldfresh]

If it is illegal to fly over a neutral without attacking it would you be ok with canceling that attack?  Normandy would stand as rolled.

[boldfresh]

I definitely would not have attacked with only the tank and 2 bombers. Kudos to you for catching that you needed to put more material in NW Persia.

[boldfresh]

ahh yes.  tripleA INCORRECTLY allowed me to fly over neutral turkey with the fighter.  you are NOT ALLOWED to fly over a true neutral unless you are ATTACKING it.

[boldfresh]

so, it seems you were actually correct in your understanding that i could not get to NW persia with the fighter…  and perhaps I will be the one to end up learning the lesson without getting scorched?  let me know what you think - i assure you i would not have attacked NW persia without the fighter.

[boldfresh]

if you agree to negating the illegal NW persia attack, i would make no other attacks with those planes.  they would only be allowed to noncombat.  alternatively, you could allow me to redo the italy move entirely (i would still give you the normandy hit of course) and allow me to prove to you that i would not attack NW persia with only the tank and 2 bombers.

[Jeff28]

I’ve asked the question in the Global faq.

Not sure how this resolves.

You could just surrender and we can go on to the rematch?

–Jeff

[boldfresh]

@Jeff28:

I’ve asked the question in the Global faq.

Not sure how this resolves.

You could just surrender and we can go on to the rematch?

–Jeff

heh, no thanks on the surrender - yet.  i also sent the question directly to krieg and gamerman (rules deputy) for clarification.  i will send you a copy of the question right now as well, perhaps it will be more explicit than what you posted in global faq, i will take a look.

thanks

[boldfresh]

i don’t know what the true rule is on flying over neutrals.  IF it turns out to be that you cannot do so without at least making an attack on them, if not actually only able to do it if the planes are attacking the neutral itself (similar to a sub having to stop when it encounters a destroyer say?) then the question will be how will we handle what is an illegal attack.

cheers

[Jeff28]

Gamerman replied in the FAQ that it was illegal move.

If it’s my choice, I’d just return your fig to Italy and let the rest of the result stand.

Or, we can have a moderator rule and that’d be fine too.

–Jeff

[boldfresh]

i see gamer just gave the ruling on the combat issue, meaning the attack i made was illegal.  so keep in mind, had i cleared persia, the attack, i believe would have been negated and italy’s turn redone.  at which point, i would have had the option to try the attack with a tank and 2 bombers max.

[boldfresh]

yeah, i say let’s be friendly and ask for a moderator ruling if you are strict on that feeling.  i assure you i would never have made the attack without the fighter, as i even stated right after the attack in so many words.

of course, moderators always prefer not to be asked to rule on issues like this, always best if it can be worked out amicably between the players.

in that regard, of course you would prefer to have the result stand as rolled, but can you please consider it from the other perspective, if you had made the illegal attack.

personally i think the most FAIR way to do it (fairly uncomplicated since the move was only 2 combat moves and the moves made since are totally unrelated) is to completely redo the italian move.  that is the true test of whether i would actually have made the attack with tank, 2 bom only since i would still have the option to take a 24% shot at clearing the territory.  i assure you i would not take that risk.

thank you for your consideration in advance.

cheers

[boldfresh]

@Boldfresh:

i see gamer just gave the ruling on the combat issue, meaning the attack i made was illegal.  so keep in mind, had i cleared persia, the attack, i believe would have been negated and italy’s turn redone.  at which point, i would have had the option to try the attack with a tank and 2 bombers max.

i guess the real question is, if i had cleared NW persia with the use of the fighter, would you still say the same - put the fighter back in southern italy and let the result stand as rolled?

[Jeff28]

Of course not, I’d say re-do the turn. But I’d never have known it was an illegal attack so that’s moot. As the defender who didn’t make the illegal move don’t I get the choice? I have no idea how it works.

My feeling about re-doing Italy is it’s like giving you two licks on the lollipop.

Lick one is the attack. Lick two is you discovering, “Oh, my attack didn’t work, but look - it was illegal! Let’s re-do the whole turn!”

Not trying to impune your honor or anything. I’m sure it was unintentional.

Just a weird situation, especially since I was already counting all the free infantry.

[boldfresh]

i understand the idea of two licks and if i were to go ahead and attack with the tank and 2 bombers it would be really dirty and i would be a liar.  since i know i would never have made the attack with only 3 units, i am essentially suggesting that we just cancel the attack entirely.  silly, but i guess i’m saying go ahead and give me another chance to do it and i will prove to you i will not!  :-)

so if you would be ok with simply canceling the attack and allowing no other combat moves (this does hurt me some because there were other combat moves i was considering using those aircraft), then we could get on with a game you seem destined to win easily  :|.

what did you mean by your last line that you were already counting all the free infantry?

[boldfresh]

i do think i would have realized the attack was not legal for the same reason - knowing that it was such a big deal if i had won, i would have had to investigate the nagging feeling that i had after the turn was over, namely - hold on, i guess tripleA makes mistakes, was that even possible to do per the RULES?

so let’s take away the concept that if the illegal attack was made and i had won that it is “moot” and consider two other options - 1) i would likely have told you it was illegal and we would have agreed to redo the turn, or 2) if you HAD realized it was illegal, you would have suggested we redo the move, and i would have agreed.

[boldfresh]

the really good news is, regardless of what happens, we will both learn some very valuable information in this game, namely the specific rules regarding flying over neutrals in both combat and noncombat.

[Jeff28]

what did you mean by your last line that you were already counting all the free infantry?

You attacked the true neutrals.

I would pick up Spain, Sweden, Turkey, Afganistan, right?

–Jeff

[boldfresh]

ah!  yes, but of course i only declared war on the neutrals in order to fly over turkey…  so regardless of what we agree, i would hope you would not also insist that i still declare war on the neutrals…  :-)

[boldfresh]

as much as i love tripleA, i cannot help but be a little angry at her right now!  i am thinking - what kind of mess have you allowed me to get into miss tripleA!?  then i think, well i guess the responsibility for knowing the rules falls on me ultimately, which is true.  and then i think, well, does anyone but a few elite individuals even really know the true rules regarding combat and noncombat flights over neutrals?  and the answer to that question pretty clearly seems to be “no”…  :roll:

so, in the spirit of good sportsmanship, i am hoping we can come to a mutually acceptable agreement, considering from each side thoughtfully, on how to handle this situation so that no matter who loses, the loser will not point back to this and say it was the deciding factor.

cheers

[Jeff28]

That’s why I’m a big fan of letting the turn stand, obv. it’s game over for you.

–Jeff