1st Annual Cellar Gaming TripleA Octathalon – Brackets and Win Posts

TAW- redrum (Romans) defeats Mike48484 (Anti-Romans)

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37079

Overall, I have some concerns around balance and tournament ready this map is. I think the Roman alliance is considerably stronger to the point of probably at least a 10-20 PU bid for Anti-Romans. I also don’t particularly like the ‘barbarians’ as they add too much randomness as if they tend to focus on one alliance more than the other then it can be very unbalanced. Just some thoughts.

Great War, Narushima (central powers) loses vs redrum (allies)

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37117

TAW- Balladeer (Anti-Romans) defeats Bacala (Romans)

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37060.0

FYI –

Havent heard from DAYMAR and Santaclause - and have sent them multiple messages to get these games started

Rule question for NWO: I want to attack a couple of sea units at 3 move distance with a fighter, the fighter can land at an AC that I am planning to build this turn, but haven’t bought yet as combat movement goes before purchase units. The map won’t let me move the fighter, as there are no currectly legal landing spots available.
So that makes me wonder, am I allowed to edit in the fighter to make sure it combats, or is the move illegal?

This is actually a practice game and not a tournament game, but the rule question stands, as it goes for WAW and TRS as well:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37180.new;topicseen#new

@Balladeer - I’m 90% sure that is illegal. From the NWO rules:

• It must be shown that all Fighters can land during Combat Move phase, and that any Carriers they will be landing on CAN move there DURING Combat Move phase, with legal movements.
• The Carriers that will be picking up the aircraft must be CAPABLE of moving to their Pickup Destination DURING Combat Movement phase, BUT they do not actually have to make the movement until the Non-Combat Movement phase.

So any purchased carriers can’t be consider for fighter range since they don’t get exist during combat move.

I’d defer to the NWO experts though.

I’m no expert but I’d definitely be against that move. It just seems weird.

I asked a few NWO players from the lobby and here is the response:
“1) LHTR is unchecked, and in that case fighters can’t land on new carriers
2) LHTR is checked and in that case normally fighters should be able to land on new carriers, but combat move before purchase makes impossible to validate the move
so, I would say, if LHTR is unchecked, surely not possible, if LHTR checked, most probably not possible (and definitively not allowed by the engine)”

I think in general, most lobby NWO players don’t use LHTR rules. The NWO rules aren’t 100% clear but tend to lean towards not considering potentially bought ACs. It also tends to fit more closely with the other rules that tend to be conservative around AC landing areas such as:

• On Moving Through A Cleared Sea Zone: In Revised and LHTR rules, it is legal to make moves under the assumption that all your dice are hits and all enemy’s dice are misses, thereby allowing the assumption that the carrier could move through the zone in non-combat-move phase. However, in NWO this move is considered illegal, regardless of using Dice or LowLuck

I think in this case, the changed phase order eliminates the option of ‘will place an aircraft carrier you purchased this turn’ since you haven’t purchased yet.

FYI, seig map (NWO, WaW, TRS) rules are being discussed here and will be copied into all 3 maps: http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/Seig-trio-default-rules-discussion-td7590530.html

@DizzKneeLand33:

@redrum:

I asked a few NWO players from the lobby and here is the response:
“1) LHTR is unchecked, and in that case fighters can’t land on new carriers
2) LHTR is checked and in that case normally fighters should be able to land on new carriers, but combat move before purchase makes impossible to validate the move
so, I would say, if LHTR is unchecked, surely not possible, if LHTR checked, most probably not possible (and definitively not allowed by the engine)”

Of course, the only reason the purchase phase comes after the combat movement phase is a matter of convenience, iirc.  It shouldn’t affect whether a move is legal or not, right?

But, that being said, the LHTR rules still can be used, just not to validate a fighter’s move in combat.  Ice said this on the other thread:

"about manuevering planes so they can land on newly phurcased carriers: no another mumbojumbo rule that yust wont fit into the bigmaps we have. not to mention the rules already covers this:

The Carriers that will be picking up the aircraft must be CAPABLE of moving to their Pickup Destination DURING Combat Movement phase, BUT they do not actually have to make the movement until the Non-Combat Movement phase.

in other words when there is no carrier u surely cannot do it.

ice "

So, I will defer to ice’s interpretation and expertise on the NWO and related maps.  Since the purchase is not made until after the combat move (whereas in G40 it is, for example), the purchased carriers cannot be used to validate the legality of the combat move.  This is not to say that the fighters cannot land on the newly purchased carrier – in your example, Balladeer, if Iceland belonged to the Allies, then you could make the combat move since the fighters would have a place to land, and then during non-com still move the fighters to SZ17 to land on the newly purchased carrier (which you could not do without the LHTR box being checked, so it does still matter).

So let it be written, let it be done…  :-D

Is everyone good with that?  This will apply to WaW and TRS as well – I’m not sure why I’ve never had this come up in WaW, must just be a strange quirk…

Allright, good discussion to have had and thanks for the clarification. I’m good with the ruling (would be good with any), but wanted to know before moving :)

Enjoy! :)

Great War Balladeer (Central) loses to DizzKneeLand33 (Allied)

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37053.60

270BC - redrum (Anti-Romans) defeats Entek (Romans)

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37063

Hmmm, found something strange in The Rising Sun (don’t know where to post it). In the game against Dawgoneit (http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37078.0)
I want to move a transport from Sz 49 to Sz 81 (American turn 5), but get the message ‘must own Ceram to go through Canal9’. That seems to be wrong, I own S.G. and Nayumo, those 2 island are connected and show blue dots, there is no line to Ceram at all. If I go by Sz 50 the machine does allow the move.

Any idea where to report this so it can be checked in the map settings?

Hey Balladeer,

I’m 95% sure that is a bug. It appears there is a canal between sz81/sz49 which requires control of Nayumo/S.G but in the XML it is defined mistakenly requiring control of Ceram/S.G:

<attatchment name=“canalAttatchment9” attatchto=“sz81” javaclass=“games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.CanalAttachment” type=“territory”></attatchment>
<attatchment name=“canalAttatchment9” attatchto=“sz49” javaclass=“games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.CanalAttachment” type=“territory”></attatchment>

This doesn’t make any sense. I would go ahead and use edit mode to properly make the move.

Dizz, can you confirm the ruling since you are tournament master :)