@axis-dominion sounds good fire it up whenever you want
Real league game situation - dispute going to league admin
-
Actually, I think my point was spot on - yes, Me decided to NOT scramble. But - if other combat moves are changed before dice are rolled (which I think is fine, really), he should have the option to again decide if he wants to scramble. Other combats (new, changed or removed) MAY have an influence on if he wants to scramble - the opponent should be able to make that decision again…
MM
TOTALLY 100% agreed. And i did give him that option.
I’m just saying, you don’t understand what ME1945 was asserting. He was trying to say that I COULD NOT ALTER my move (even though he previously told me to go ahead) because he had given a decision NOT to scramble. :roll:
-
Ah - OK - in that case I would agree - UNLESS there was some agreement beforehand that once submitted, combat could not be changed at all (even before dice were rolled).
I could also see a situation where a player would (in the absence of any specific understanding) say that combat cannot be changed after submitted. That would be pretty hard-core, and not even in tournaments (FTF) have I seen this, but, I could see where someone would have a case to do that - even though I think it violates the spirit of the game.
MM
-
Mike, the rules SPECIFICALLY state the following:
“The attacker may not change any combat movements or attacks AFTER THE DEFENDER HAS SCRAMBLED”.
this is clearly to protect the defender from the situation where he has scrambled and caught the attacker off guard. at which point the attacker says, HEY i wanted to send more to the zone!
for this reason, if the defender DOES NOT SCRAMBLE, then there is no binding combat move post and just like any other combat move post, it can be changed at will as long as no dice were rolled.
-
Do you have the page number Bold? (not doubting you, was just curious where I’d missed it)
to my knowledge we do not consult the league moderator on issues that are clearly addressed in the rules. :roll:
-
Mike, the rules SPECIFICALLY state the following:
“The attacker may not change any combat movements or attacks AFTER THE DEFENDER HAS SCRAMBLED”.
this is clearly to protect the defender from the situation where he has scrambled and caught the attacker off guard.� at which point the attacker says, HEY i wanted to send more to the zone!
for this reason, if the defender DOES NOT SCRAMBLE, then there is no binding combat move post and just like any other combat move post, it can be changed at will as long as no dice were rolled.
Bold, I am very uncomfortable with the interpretation you are trying to put forth for the same reasons I was talking about on previous pages. Knowing how many planes your opponent is willing to scramble is incredibly valuable information that you didn’t have prior to your move. I view scrambling as something that happens automatically and the decision is 0-3, not yes or no. When you ask for a scramble and someone declines they have decided to scramble 0 planes and combat move is now locked in unless they are magnanimous enough to let you make alterations. In THIS case, I would let you, but I still believe that ME is well within his rights to deny.
-
you know what Zigg - let’s post this into the FAQ and request an official answer from Kreighund than. I believe that my interpretation of the rules is EXACTLY correct an that this is EXACTLY what is intended by the writers. If I am wrong, then I will happily eat those words.
I would agree with you on one thing - here i believe is your concern. attacker starts out sending overwhelming force, defender says no scramble. attacker then says, wait, i wanna send less. defender says ok i still don’t scramble. attacker continues until he realizes at exactly which point the defender will scramble. i do not think the rules specifically address this - and so it will be helpful to ask the question. To me, that is gameplay ethics that should be handled between two reasonable players. However, the defender if he thinks he is being taken advantage of, could always scramble a single plane and lock the moves in if he really felt it necessary.
Nevertheless, it is very clear that nothing of that nature was occurring here, so it is fairly useless to be discussing it as it relates to this specific case no?
-
I think Zigg is tuned in to what I was saying. To me, scrambling is just one part of resolving combat MOVES (before dice are rolled). Same could be said for Japan using the Kamikaze attacks - and for that matter if there was SBR involved, if I want to send interceptors.
If the attacker wants to make ANY changes to combat, I think that is fine as long as no dice have been rolled (unless, as I stated, for some reason the player is hard-core).
Once a change is requested and made, as the defender, I have the right to then reconsider ALL of my decisions on scrambling and/ or kamikaze and / or launching interceptors. The rule you are quoting is more akin to rolling dice and then deciding to change some other attack.
MM
-
I would agree with you on one thing - here i believe is your concern. attacker starts out sending overwhelming force, defender says no scramble. attacker then says, wait, i wanna send less. defender says ok i still don’t scramble. attacker continues until he realizes at exactly which point the defender will scramble. i do not think the rules specifically address this - and so it will be helpful to ask the question. To me, that is gameplay ethics that should be handled between two reasonable players. However, the defender if he thinks he is being taken advantage of, could always scramble a single plane and lock the moves in if he really felt it necessary.
That is exactly my concern. With your interpretation, that situation is legal and I have to sacrifice a plane to get some jackass to stop LEGALLY min-maxing me. Whether it pertains to your individual case or not, I do not like the precedence that is set. In my mind, getting an answer to scramble/kamikaze/intercept is the same as a die roll. If your opponent lets you change they are an awesome, forgiving person. However, they should be within their rights to deny said request.
-
FYI it’s been asked. Let’s see the response. If you are afraid of such a scenario occurring then you must get UP FRONT agreement with your opponent as to how it will be handled because the rules do not specifically address it.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=28562.new#new
-
I would agree with you on one thing - here i believe is your concern. attacker starts out sending overwhelming force, defender says no scramble. attacker then says, wait, i wanna send less. defender says ok i still don’t scramble. attacker continues until he realizes at exactly which point the defender will scramble. i do not think the rules specifically address this - and so it will be helpful to ask the question. To me, that is gameplay ethics that should be handled between two reasonable players. However, the defender if he thinks he is being taken advantage of, could always scramble a single plane and lock the moves in if he really felt it necessary.
That is exactly my concern. With your interpretation, that situation is legal and I have to sacrifice a plane to get some jackass to stop LEGALLY min-maxing me. Whether it pertains to your individual case or not, I do not like the precedence that is set. In my mind, getting an answer to scramble/kamikaze/intercept is the same as a die roll. If your opponent lets you change they are an awesome, forgiving person. However, they should be within their rights to deny said request.
and i disagree with you on this Zigg. it does not take an “AWESOME FORGIVING PERSON” to just look at a case like this and realize that overwhelming force is being sent in both cases (therefore no attempt to “game the system”) and therefore it is reasonable not to raise a gigantic stink.
-
I think Zigg is tuned in to what I was saying. To me, scrambling is just one part of resolving combat MOVES (before dice are rolled). Same could be said for Japan using the Kamikaze attacks - and for that matter if there was SBR involved, if I want to send interceptors.
If the attacker wants to make ANY changes to combat, I think that is fine as long as no dice have been rolled (unless, as I stated, for some reason the player is hard-core).
Once a change is requested and made, as the defender, I have the right to then reconsider ALL of my decisions on scrambling and/ or kamikaze and / or launching interceptors. The rule you are quoting is more akin to rolling dice and then deciding to change some other attack.
MM
you could say that a scramble choice is like a die roll - BUT it is a die roll that NO one has seen the results of unless at least one aircraft is scrambled.
-
I think Zigg is tuned in to what I was saying. To me, scrambling is just one part of resolving combat MOVES (before dice are rolled). Same could be said for Japan using the Kamikaze attacks - and for that matter if there was SBR involved, if I want to send interceptors.
If the attacker wants to make ANY changes to combat, I think that is fine as long as no dice have been rolled (unless, as I stated, for some reason the player is hard-core).
Once a change is requested and made, as the defender, I have the right to then reconsider ALL of my decisions on scrambling and/ or kamikaze and / or launching interceptors. The rule you are quoting is more akin to rolling dice and then deciding to change some other attack.
MM
you could say that a scramble choice is like a die roll - BUT it is a die roll that NO one has seen the results of unless at least one aircraft is scrambled.
what i am trying to say, Zigg, is that if i knew you had rolled your first attack dice of the turn but neither of us knew what the dice were yet, would it be reasonable for me to say that i would not allow you to change your combat moves?
-
FYI it’s been asked.� Let’s see the response.� If you are afraid of such a scenario occurring then you must get UP FRONT agreement with your opponent as to how it will be handled because the rules do not specifically address it.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=28562.new#new
Ha, very clever interpretation of the rule. I suppose if you agree that NOT SCRAMBLING does not lock the move, then the attacker could reduce his attacking force incrementally until he provokes a scramble. Not sure what advantage that would give to the attacker except that it would free up more of his forces for other attacks. But then the attacker may get too greedy, reduce down too far and then be in trouble when the defender does scramble.
I suppose Bold the issue you are creating with your interpretation is a sort of bidding scenario via scrambling, where you can test the defenders level of risk to your advantage.
However, it doesn’t sound like that’s what you were doing in your game.
As I’ve said, I would allow your changes just as a matter of professional play.
-
your point about gaming the system is valid - i’m just saying the rules do not address it. that is something that must be handled between players by setting a guide before hand (at the start of the game is of course best).
-
FYI it’s been asked.� Let’s see the response.� If you are afraid of such a scenario occurring then you must get UP FRONT agreement with your opponent as to how it will be handled because the rules do not specifically address it.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=28562.new#new
Ha, very clever interpretation of the rule. I suppose if you agree that NOT SCRAMBLING does not lock the move, then the attacker could reduce his attacking force incrementally until he provokes a scramble. Not sure what advantage that would give to the attacker except that it would free up more of his forces for other attacks. But then the attacker may get too greedy, reduce down too far and then be in trouble when the defender does scramble.
I suppose Bold the issue you are creating with your interpretation is a sort of bidding scenario via scrambling, where you can test the defenders level of risk to your advantage.
However, it doesn’t sound like that’s what you were doing in your game.
As I’ve said, I would allow your changes just as a matter of professional play.
it’s not a “clever interpretation” it’s the CORRECT interpretation. I would bet a lot of money on it. any takers?
-
I think Zigg is tuned in to what I was saying. To me, scrambling is just one part of resolving combat MOVES (before dice are rolled). Same could be said for Japan using the Kamikaze attacks - and for that matter if there was SBR involved, if I want to send interceptors.
If the attacker wants to make ANY changes to combat, I think that is fine as long as no dice have been rolled (unless, as I stated, for some reason the player is hard-core).
Once a change is requested and made, as the defender, I have the right to then reconsider ALL of my decisions on scrambling and/ or kamikaze and / or launching interceptors. The rule you are quoting is more akin to rolling dice and then deciding to change some other attack.
MM
you could say that a scramble choice is like a die roll - BUT it is a die roll that NO one has seen the results of unless at least one aircraft is scrambled.
what i am trying to say, Zigg, is that if i knew you had rolled your first attack dice of the turn but neither of us knew what the dice were yet, would it be reasonable for me to say that i would not allow you to change your combat moves?
If the result were truly unknown, yes it would be imminently reasonable. However, as soon as the defender tells you their decision you DO have the results for that dice roll. The decision is the roll itself as the outcome is unknown to the attacker. Anyways, just kinda arguing in circles at this point. I’ll butt out now, hope this comes to an equitable resolution :).
-
FYI it’s been asked.� Let’s see the response.� If you are afraid of such a scenario occurring then you must get UP FRONT agreement with your opponent as to how it will be handled because the rules do not specifically address it.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=28562.new#new
Ha, very clever interpretation of the rule. �I suppose if you agree that NOT SCRAMBLING does not lock the move, then the attacker could reduce his attacking force incrementally until he provokes a scramble. �Not sure what advantage that would give to the attacker except that it would free up more of his forces for other attacks. �But then the attacker may get too greedy, reduce down too far and then be in trouble when the defender does scramble. �
I suppose Bold the issue you are creating with your interpretation is a sort of bidding scenario via scrambling, where you can test the defenders level of risk to your advantage.
However, it doesn’t sound like that’s what you were doing in your game.
As I’ve said, I would allow your changes just as a matter of professional play.
there is a very good reason that not scrambling does not lock in the move - because the defender will be given the chance to scramble again. just as the attacker has a chance to see what the defender is thinking, the defender is also seeing what the attacker is thinking… geez, i just don’t get the issue. this thinking that someone would try to game the system is pretty silly in my opinion but i guess i may think differently if i ever thought it was happening. however, the rules do provide a way to stop it cold if the defender so desires. scramble 1 aircraft and you have the RIGHT to lockdown the move right there if you really want to piss the other guy off. :lol:
-
I think Zigg is tuned in to what I was saying. To me, scrambling is just one part of resolving combat MOVES (before dice are rolled). Same could be said for Japan using the Kamikaze attacks - and for that matter if there was SBR involved, if I want to send interceptors.
If the attacker wants to make ANY changes to combat, I think that is fine as long as no dice have been rolled (unless, as I stated, for some reason the player is hard-core).
Once a change is requested and made, as the defender, I have the right to then reconsider ALL of my decisions on scrambling and/ or kamikaze and / or launching interceptors. The rule you are quoting is more akin to rolling dice and then deciding to change some other attack.
MM
you could say that a scramble choice is like a die roll - BUT it is a die roll that NO one has seen the results of unless at least one aircraft is scrambled.
what i am trying to say, Zigg, is that if i knew you had rolled your first attack dice of the turn but neither of us knew what the dice were yet, would it be reasonable for me to say that i would not allow you to change your combat moves?
If the result were truly unknown, yes it would be imminently reasonable. However, as soon as the defender tells you their decision you DO have the results for that dice roll. The decision is the roll itself as the outcome is unknown to the attacker. Anyways, just kinda arguing in circles at this point. I’ll butt out now, hope this comes to an equitable resolution :).
i agree there is some a way to see this issue from both sides Zigg, i’m just saying that the RULEBOOK comes down on only one side and it is up to the players to manage the rest.
-
quit prattling and get to our game :-P
-
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=28562.810
Krieg’s ruled in your question.
Suggested Topics
