Applying Casualties Question

@andrewaagamer said in Applying Casualties Question:

As I mentioned this is very important in the first battle when Russia attacks the German fleet in the Baltic. If the sub hits and the defender takes the transport than the German sub is dead and the planes are at no risk as the Russian sub will just withdrawal and let the planes finish off the lone sub.

Couple problems with your example here:

A submarine “first strike” is expressly resolved separate from other attacking units, and anything hit is lost – it does not get the option of being a “casualty” and firing back. (Page 19: “the defender’s chosen casualties are not placed behind the casualty line. Rather, they are immediately removed from play and placed back in their tray because they do not get a chance to counterattack an attacking submarine!”) THEN you start worrying about resolving other attacking units (Step 4.)
This is not a case of “this unit is lost because that’s how resolving combat by columns works” – that’s not what is taking place with submarine attacks. You’re conflating two different ideas together.

Second, the Russian sub can withdraw after a “round” of combat (defined as “attacker and defender fire” i.e. in Step 7.) So even if the defender chose to keep their sub and lost the transport, that sub still has one opportunity to hit the Russian sub, before it can withdraw. This is not a situation where the Russian sub is at “no risk.”

@the-janus First, let me say that if there are awards for rules lawyering, you should be nominated. :grin:

I’m not going to go through this point by point, as I don’t feel it’s necessary. Instead, I’ll reply in general terms.

First, while the terms “choose a casualty” and “lose a unit” are admittedly not consistently applied, there is a definite difference in their meaning as applied to the defender (they are functionally the same for the attacker) implicit in the rules: choosing a casualty is the act of choosing a unit to be lost and moving it behind the casualty line, while actually losing the unit occurs in step 6 of combat when the units behind the casualty line are cleared. This difference exists only so that chosen units (behind the casualty line) are allowed to return fire before being eliminated.

Second, the idea that units behind the casualty line may be switched out after all dice are rolled is refuted by the statement on page 19: “After the defender’s counterattack, the defender removes all of his or her casualties that were behind the casualty line of the battle board and places them back in the tray.” There is no mention of exchanging these units for others. The idea that something is allowed because the rules don’t expressly forbid it is flawed. The rules don’t expressly forbid a lot of things, but they’re obviously not allowed (rulebooks at least provide parameters for things that are allowed unless expressly forbidden). If something as big as switching casualties were allowed, the rules would say so.

In fact, if it were the intent that casualties be finalized after all of the attacker’s dice are rolled, it would be much simpler for the rules to instruct you to keep track of all hits and choose casualties after all dice are rolled. Why specify choosing them column by column only to change them later? It just doesn’t make sense.

Finally, allowing the defender to switch out casualties before removing them would give him/her a significant advantage over the attacker, who must remove their casualties as they are chosen. If the defender were afforded such an advantage, it seems the rules would at least mention this.

So here’s a question.

If there is no distinction between a “hit” or “lost” unit and a “casualty”, then why are attacker’s “casualties” immediately removed in the counter-attack phase, and not in the “remove all casualties” phase? That seems unintuitive.

It may very well be that the defender DOES get a distinct advantage over the attacker (for some reason)
I do think there is a reason for rolling by columns (as I’ve outlined) I just think it’s possible that the mechanic is being misapplied here.

Edit: I would contend that "After the defender’s counterattack, the defender removes all of his or her casualties that were behind the casualty line of the battle board and places them back in the tray.” implies that there is a gray area. All this is saying is that once the defender rolls, their casualties are now lost, and cannot be changed. It does not say “all decisions about which units are behind the casualty line are final, and you must now roll dice.” If you allow that there is a distinction between designating a casualty and losing a unit, then it stands to reason that the final determination happens sometime after attacking rolls are final and before defending rolls have begun. This is the gray area in which I think it would be possible to change your casualty selection.

@the-janus said in Applying Casualties Question:

Second, the Russian sub can withdraw after a “round” of combat (defined as “attacker and defender fire” i.e. in Step 7.) So even if the defender chose to keep their sub and lost the transport, that sub still has one opportunity to hit the Russian sub, before it can withdraw. This is not a situation where the Russian sub is at “no risk.”

I never said the Russian sub was at no risk. I said that “the planes are at no risk” once the German Transport is dead and that is a correct statement.

@krieghund said in Applying Casualties Question:

In fact, if it were the intent that casualties be finalized after all of the attacker’s dice are rolled, it would be much simpler for the rules to instruct you to keep track of all hits and choose casualties after all dice are rolled. Why specify choosing them column by column only to change them later? It just doesn’t make sense.

Again, what I said is that moving units behind the casualty line is a method to keep an accurate accounting of how many hits are scored – under the assumption that you’re rolling a maximum of 12 dice at a time.

If you don’t implement a system to manage this in a face-to-face environment, you’re going to end up with a situation where you’re miscounting or not correctly adding up all of the hits which are scored (I think of it like that “Did he fire 6 shots or only 5?” scene from Dirty Harry.)

It basically forces the players to agree that a number of units are being moved behind the casualty line, corresponding to the number of hits that were scored – before moving on and rolling more dice. It’s to reduce the possibility of errors or cheating.

@the-janus said in Applying Casualties Question:

If there is no distinction between a “hit” or “lost” unit and a “casualty”, then why are attacker’s “casualties” immediately removed in the counter-attack phase, and not in the “remove all casualties” phase? That seems unintuitive.

It’s simply because, unlike the defender’s casualties, the attacker’s have already fired, and don’t need to stick around any longer.

It may very well be that the defender DOES get a distinct advantage over the attacker (for some reason)
I do think there is a reason for rolling by columns (as I’ve outlined) I just think it’s possible that the mechanic is being misapplied here.

It is not. In fact, I have discussed this with Larry in the past, and he kind of laments the fact that this mechanic was lost in the transition to A&A Revised.

@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”?

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.)

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.

@the-janus said in Applying Casualties Question:

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”?

Dude,

In my opinion you are making a mountain out of a molehill. Both casualties and “lost” units are ultimately lost and will end up in the same dead pile. The only difference is casualties are not removed immediately as they have to fire back first before being removed. It is a tracking method only, not a difference in status. Also, not all opposed dice are rolled before a unit becomes lost. As each column of defending dice are rolled the attacker’s units are immediately lost and go to the dead pile because we don’t need to track if they have fired or not because we know they have already fired.

@andrewaagamer said in Applying Casualties Question:

Also, not all opposed dice are rolled before a unit becomes lost.

Please read the example combats I cited from the rule book.

In short, my point is that I can read the text of the book and draw different conclusions about what the implications of the text are.

I’m not even saying you’re wrong, I’m saying I can understand why there’s different interpretations of the text.

I don’t see any examples of the defender firing that you posted. Did I miss one? All I see are examples of the attacker firing.

From the rulebook…

First, not ALL the defenders’ dice have been rolled. Only one column at a time and casualties are removed immediately. They are “immediate casualties”.

Second, therefore, “lost” units and “casualties” are the exact same only non-immediate casualties get to fire back before being removed.

@andrewaagamer

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.