so your practical solution would be to tell the defender that if he believes the attacker was intentionally abusing the rules then do not allow it, but otherwise you would urge the defender to allow the changed combat moves?
My practical solution is to use your judgment. If you can’t trust your opponent to not game the leeway, play by the letter of the rules and don’t give it in the first place.
alright, i just saw where you say that the “definition” of the word complete is Locked in. i just have to respectfully disagree with you there. If the rules are intended to be precise on the issue, they should be so.
I’m sorry, but you’re not making sense here. “Complete” means done. (Per Webster’s Dictionary, “having all necessary parts, elements, or steps”, “brought to an end”, and “fully carried out”.) It doesn’t mean “subject to change”. I don’t see how they could be any more precise.
It is misleading to have the statement in the rules that “the attacker may not change any combat movements or attacks after the defender has scrambled” if the combat move is “complete”, ie, locked in, when it is presented to the defender. this is contradictory, and i’m not trying to be difficult. it would be an entirely superfluous statement that could only mislead, right?
It can’t be superfluous and contradictory at the same time. I don’t see how an additional statement for emphasis that doesn’t contradict the original statement in any way can be misleading.
by extension, would you say that if i present a move to my opponent where there are no scramble or intercept choices that is is within the defender’s rights BY RULE to not allow ANY changes to the combat move even if dice have not been rolled?� by your definition of “complete” being “locked in” would that not be the inevitable conclusion?
That’s exactly correct. Once you have declared your combat movements to be complete and move on to the Conduct Combat phase, you can’t make any changes to your combat movements. If there is no verbal declaration of completion, implicit declaration occurs when the first combat is begun.
so it is the first die roll that locks in the move, not the posted combat moves. is that correct?
my point is, if i present my combat move to my opponent but have not yet rolled dice on any battles, is that combat move “complete” ie, locked in.
It is misleading to have the statement in the rules that “the attacker may not change any combat movements or attacks after the defender has scrambled” if the combat move is “complete”, ie, locked in, when it is presented to the defender. this is contradictory, and i’m not trying to be difficult. it would be an entirely superfluous statement that could only mislead, right?
It can’t be superfluous and contradictory at the same time. I don’t see how an additional statement for emphasis that doesn’t contradict the original statement in any way can be misleading.
I’m saying it is superfluous at best and contradictory at worst.
in other words, once again, if the rules intended to lock in combat moves prior to dice being rolled, they would explicitly state such. they do not because it is beyond ridiculous to lock in the combat moves if no dice have yet been rolled. even then, there would be rational for doing so - for example, in poker, the concept of a string bet. or of putting a bet out and then taking it back - hoping to get a reaction from your opponent. in practical terms, no one i have ever seen plays that way - the combat move is always subject to change until dice are rolled.
That is why the statement of “The attacker may not change any combat movements or attacks after the defender has scrambled” could be confusing. If the turn is already complete and unchangeable the moment the turn is presented to the defender, then whether the defender scrambles or not or even what the definition of the word “scrambled” is unnecessary and potentially misleading.
so it is the first die roll that locks in the move, not the posted combat moves. is that correct?
Posted? If you’re playing by e-mail or forum, it’s entirely up to that venue what constitutes a declaration of completeness. I can only speak to face-to-face games, as that’s the “native” environment of the rules.
my point is, if i present my combat move to my opponent but have not yet rolled dice on any battles, is that combat move “complete” ie, locked in.
If you say that it’s complete, it’s complete. If you roll a die, you implicitly say so by moving from the Combat Move phase into the Conduct Combat phase.
I’m saying it is superfluous at best and contradictory at worst.
I disagree. The statement is for emphasis.
Scrambling occurs at the end of the combat movement phase. As such, all of the attacker’s moves must be completed (as they would be normally at the end of the phase) before it can occur. The statement in question is emphasizing that fact. In contrast, intercepting occurs in the combat phase. As the combat movement phase is already over at that time, there is no need to make a similar statement there to emphasize that point.
in other words, once again, if the rules intended to lock in combat moves prior to dice being rolled, they would explicitly state such. they do not because it is beyond ridiculous to lock in the combat moves if no dice have yet been rolled. even then, there would be rational for doing so - for example, in poker, the concept of a string bet. or of putting a bet out and then taking it back - hoping to get a reaction from your opponent. in practical terms, no one i have ever seen plays that way - the combat move is always subject to change until dice are rolled.
There is no need to “lock in” combat moves prior to rolling dice if there are no scramble or interception opportunities. In such case, the first roll of the dice is a perfectly fine way to declare the completeness of your movements. However, in scrambling/interception situations there is a need to declare the completeness of movement, and the rules provide for that. If there is no declaration by the attacker that his/her movements are complete, how is the defender to know? By asking the defender to make a decision regarding scrambling/interception, the attacker implicitly declares that his/her moves are complete, as this completeness is required by the rules.
That is why the statement of “The attacker may not change any combat movements or attacks after the defender has scrambled” could be confusing. If the turn is already complete and unchangeable the moment the turn is presented to the defender, then whether the defender scrambles or not or even what the definition of the word “scrambled” is unnecessary and potentially misleading.
I have already addressed this point.
Thanks Krieg.
I know you probably only want to address the letter of the rule type questions, but if you would like to view a real game situation that has led to this dispute, please let me know i would appreciate your thoughts if you would be willing.
Send me a PM.
So, when you post your combat move and ask for a scrambling decision, you are implicitly declaring that your combat moves are complete and that you will not be changing them.
That’s pretty obvious.
If I understand this situation correctly, the player received a scrambling decision from the opponent, and then asked to change combat moves and made it clear he would re-ask for a scrambling decision. The opponent gave unconditional permission (like “sure, fine, go ahead”), so then the player made the changes and then the opponent protests……
If this is the case, the opponent is not acting with integrity.
Isn’t it the same as:
Player places his new units. Opponent hasn’t had a chance to do anything yet. Player asks for permission to change placement. Opponent grants it. Player changes his placement. Opponent refuses and denies.
Am I understanding the game situation correctly?
although my opponent appeared to be granting approval for me to redo the move, he now says he was only granting “conditional” approval - ie, he claims he wanted to see what i was going to change and then allow or disallow.
and now currently his stance is that he will allow no changes whatsoever because i “broke the rules”. it’s quite a morass.
Similar situation happened to me in a live game, where we were sure to take Berlin, and before we had declared that we were done, opponent shouted SCRAMBLE as we were invading an empty Berlin from SZ 113. Chances are we would have noticed his scramble opportunity and simply unloaded from 114. Huge debate ensued as it was basically a game-over situation for him.
I’m under the impression that China as a nation does not get convoy raided. Is this correct?
@seththenewb:
I’m under the impression that China as a nation does not get convoy raided. Is this correct?
Correct!
@rulebook:
China is not subject to convoy disruptions…
Thanks, I thought I remembered reading it but somehow missed it when I reread the rules.
@seththenewb:
Thanks, I thought I remembered reading it but somehow missed it when I reread the rules.
Thank you for bringing that to our attention. It looks like in TripleA China gets convoy raided.
I reported that in the Software section.
Good, Panther, thanks for reporting it. I added it to my (lengthy) list of rules Triple A does not properly observe. (attached)
I forgot about this buried rule (is only one line in the Pacific manual, in the Conduct convoy disruption section), and my accomplished opponent did not realize it either!
I lost 6 IPC’s in round 7, 4 IPC’s in round 8, and 1 IPC in round 9 :x
Won’t happen again!
no wonder I have been losing with the allies :-P
Good, Panther, thanks for reporting it. I added it to my (lengthy) list of rules Triple A does not properly observe. (attached)
…
Very interesting list, thank you. I was aware of some points listed there but by far not of all of them.
Thanks for letting me know - I’m just glad if it’s appreciated
Somebody in the league had asked for a list - it is nice to know what to be on the lookout for.
And no doubt there’s something more that’s not on the list…. yet :| :-)
Krieghund:
Is Japan allowed to build a major IC in a territory originally controlled by Japan but marked with a Chinese national symbol i.e. (Manchuria)
That is an easy no. Korea is the only spot japan can build a major.
