thanks the FAQ is a big help
Multi-National forces on ATTACK
-
If someone here has acces to the A&A Pacific rules, would someone care to post the Pacific ‘clarification’ so that it can be reviewed in terms of how it does or does not agree with the Revised rules? That may be helpful in terms of having folks evaluate this in the context of the two rule-sets side by side (is it really something new, or just a more explicit statement of Revised that removes the ambiguity?)
-
I made a demand on Larry’s site that BlackWatch make an explicit clarification in LHTR. I think we will end up defaulting to what everyone except Larry thought at first - that allied units cannot participate in combat.
-
So we are going to probably end up with the ruling that I originally thought it should be?
Let me know when you get confirmation of the change for LHTR.
-
For those who do not have the link, here is the thread at Larry Harri’s site where this matter has been, and is now, being discussed.
http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=761&start=0
As y’all can see, Trihero is actively working this subject at the source. Hopefully he will have a more definitive answer for us soon.
Otherwise, we go with the poll results (whatever they end up being) for the upcoming tourney.
-
Tri, while you are working on this at Larry’s site, be sure to check out the notes I posted in the Revised Tourney thread that expand on Point #4 above.
That may have some bearing on how Blackwatch and Larry decide to go on this.
I WANT a decision, preferably from them, but I also want an INFORMED decision :-)
-
Well IL, I have been through that thread a half dozen times so far, and have found no such statement by Larry.
Can you please provide a link?
-
Im sorry sir i have read the info incorrectly. I will retract my post.
-
You know my thoughts.
If it is not stated in the rule book (printed manual for revised) or LHTR, the rule does not exist.
I would even accept an ambigious ruling, but there is no such thing in the books.
-
I voted:
“No. Allied units can never attack together, and combat losses and hits should only be from the actual combatants”Why?
- Multiple attacks are strongly forbidden (says so in the rulebook)
- Somewhere in the rulebook you can ‘decide who is taking casualties if two or more friendly armies are being attacked…’ but the UK (in this case) isn’t being ATTACKED in the first place! so, it may not ‘defend’ as well!
I mean (this is an assumption): IF you had to declare a status to the UK in the example: ‘attacker’ or ‘defender’. what should it be?
I should definitely declare the status of ‘attacker’ to the UK because of the fact that he is also an ally!… so then we are in contradiction with the ‘multiple attacks’ rule!!!
so, my assumption is wrong (that was my point after all :-D): HE CAN NOT BE INVOLVED AT ALL!!! - What would happen if the USA doesn’t make a hit and retreats if you believe UK is involved in combat as well? Could the G sub continue his fight? OK, he should be stupid to do so with one sub, but what if he had more subs? This is a very awkward situation you are creating here if you are a supporter of the ‘taking hits for UK’ strat… so: again: definitely NO
So, this is also important for ships that are built in enemy occupied territories…
Say, UK and USA occupy a sea zone with 2 ships each…
G builds 4 ships in that sea zone at the end of his turn.
If UK hasn’t moved his 2 ships in an other sea zone by the end of his combat move, then only his 2 ships attack the G fleet. The same goes for the USA fleet when attacking the G fleet in his own turn.
it would be a very weird thing to let the 4 allies ships attack in UK’s turn, especially if you know that multiple attacks are not done… -
i voted no as well, not only does it put the allied fleet in a quasi-multi-national attack status but the odds of it coming up, while rare (but we have seen it twice in one game with you switch) seem to be possible for the allies overwhelmingly more so than the axis. in a game where most people state the allies have a significant advantage why have a ruling that further favors the allies?
-
OK, to expand my previous thoughts (not that it will change anything at this point, the poll is well decided…)
UK and Germany are both occupying the SAME SPACE.
USA moves into that space and starts shooting.
Germany shoots back (i.e. they counter-attack)
USA is the aggressor, Germany returns fire… but the UK forces are still THERE.As such, they are subject to being hit.
They cannot attack (i.e. they cannot fire their guns) but they ARE subject to being hit by stray torpedoes.
And that is there Larry’s original thinking (and the rules for Pacific) went…
The UK is not attacking, but the Allies per written rule, choose who takes losses against enemy fire in multinational situations (in this case where the Germany sub is counter-attacking the aggressor USA forces).Now, on a few other points…
- Yes, the rules specifically state that allied forces may NOT attack together. And the UK is NOT firing, so that rule is met.
- The rules also specifically state that you can NOT single out one nation’s forces when attacking and there is more than one allied nation in the same space (and that IS what Germany is doing, they are attacking BACK at the Allies)
- Lastly, this reading DOES comply with the specific written rule where allied nations choose who takes enemy hits where both forces are present, and if the allies cannot decide, the enemy decides.
The real qustion is this…
The written rules DO allow for this siuation to occur, so it MUST be dealt with.
The written rules DO specify certain facts that would govern this situation (UK may not fire, allies choose their loses, and units of a single nation may NOT be targetted if more than one nation’s units are in a combat zone).As Larry stated elswhere, game mechanics should not be above game rules (meaning that the battle board rationale is not valid by his reasoning… for example the 2nd edition Battle Board does NOT contain a slot for attacker transports, but they sure as heck could be taken as losses by the rules!)
And if I could get my membership approved to that site, I would post the above verbatim and see who BlackWatch and Larry responded (the authors of LHTR…)
-
@ncscswitch:
OK, to expand my previous thoughts (not that it will change anything at this point, the poll is well decided…)
UK and Germany are both occupying the SAME SPACE.
USA moves into that space and starts shooting.
Germany shoots back (i.e. they counter-attack)
USA is the aggressor, Germany returns fire… but the UK forces are still THERE.Ok, there is the first fallacy. The supposed German “counter-attack” is not by game definition an attack, it is a defense. The forces on the attack are the nation whose turn it is. This is obvious. Any other country subject to the attack is the defender.Â
@ncscswitch:
As such, they are subject to being hit.
They cannot attack (i.e. they cannot fire their guns) but they ARE subject to being hit by stray torpedoes.
No, The other Allied ships are not present for the attack, and therefore not present in the entire combat scenario.
@ncscswitch:
And that is there Larry’s original thinking (and the rules for Pacific) went…
The UK is not attacking, but the Allies per written rule, choose who takes losses against enemy fire in multinational situations (in this case where the Germany sub is counter-attacking the aggressor USA forces).We are playing Revised and not Pacific. I believe this hammers the point home all the more. The fact that the rule was clearly posted in Pacific indicated the designers know completely the intentions of the ruling and purposely left this rule out of Revised and any version of LHTR to date. The printed rulebook cannot be updated easily, but Larry’s LHTR most certainly can and it has no mention of this ruling.
@ncscswitch:
Now, on a few other points…
- Yes, the rules specifically state that allied forces may NOT attack together. And the UK is NOT firing, so that rule is met.
In this case, the term “attack” refers to any participation in the combat. The UK is not part of the operation in any capacity, even to absorb hits.
@ncscswitch:
- The rules also specifically state that you can NOT single out one nation’s forces when attacking and there is more than one allied nation in the same space (and that IS what Germany is doing, they are attacking BACK at the Allies)
This is true, but once again, the German sub is “defending” not attacking.
@ncscswitch:
As Larry stated elswhere, game mechanics should not be above game rules (meaning that the battle board rationale is not valid by his reasoning… for example the 2nd edition Battle Board does NOT contain a slot for attacker transports, but they sure as heck could be taken as losses by the rules!)
There is a huge difference between not having an attack value and not participating in combat.
The idea of considering a submarine on defense to be considered an attack is breaking the game. In a Naval combat, I could consider an opposing fleet that consists of transports to not have ANY return fire because they are attacking back when my fighters engage them. "they do not get to roll dice because they are attacking back." “I suppose carriers then fire at a 1, because there are attacking back not defending.”
This entire thought process breaks the game.Â
It pains me to think this is not obvious.
-
Good counter-points Octopus. I agree completely.
-
When I read the reply posted by ncscswitsch, I noticed he gave a whole new meaning to the words ‘attacking’ and ‘defending’ units…
I remember my own debate about that:
@Axel:- Somewhere in the rulebook you can ‘decide who is taking casualties if two or more friendly armies are being attacked…’ but the UK (in this case) isn’t being ATTACKED in the first place! so, it may not ‘defend’ as well!
I mean (this is an assumption): IF you had to declare a status to the UK in the example: ‘attacker’ or ‘defender’. what should it be?
I should definitely declare the status of ‘attacker’ to the UK because of the fact that he is also an ally!… so then we are in contradiction with the ‘multiple attacks’ rule!!!
so, my assumption is wrong (that was my point after all :-D): HE CAN NOT BE INVOLVED AT ALL!!!
But like Sime posted: Octopus has made things christal clear on this matter.
:-) - Somewhere in the rulebook you can ‘decide who is taking casualties if two or more friendly armies are being attacked…’ but the UK (in this case) isn’t being ATTACKED in the first place! so, it may not ‘defend’ as well!
-
The other issue to keep in mind is the prescribed method of conducting combat when playing AAR using LHTR rules.
In order to conduct combat (i.e. resolve a battle using dice), you are required to place all the pieces that are involved in the battle on the separate battle board. Most players don’t do this in practice, unless there’s a really big battle going on. Nevertheless the rules must still be observed as if this were happening in all cases.
In order to put the pieces on the battle board, they go into the column that shows their respective outline, and which specifies a “hit value” for each such silhouette. So, for example, subs go into the column with a “2” hit value.
Most of the individuals active in the debate on Larry’s board will concede that if the US attacks an Axis fleet in a seazone that also has a UK sub present, the UK sub does not get to roll. Where the proponents of allowing the UK sub do not seem to grasp is that there is no place on the battle board for casual non-participants. The UK sub does not belong in the 2’s column, nor does it belong anywhere else on the battle board. Ergo, it’s not in the battle - period.
Axis and Allies Pacific (which has a one line reference allowing the use of ally’s ships as losses) probably needs a thorough rules review. As I see it, even if the AAP wording about allied ships were in LHTR, it would need a lot more clarification.
-
But BlackWatch…
That goes counter to Larry’s posts discussing this very topic… game mechanics should not override the rules.
The Battle Board is a playing aid
The reality is that all of the units are IN that sea zone, and in no version of A&A are you EVER allowed to target a single nation’s forces when there is more than one nation’s forces in that area. And Germany (using the previous example) IS targetting just the US ships and ignoring the UK ships that are in the same zone when he fires.
Extrapolating…
USA trannies an AA gun from the US to somewhere in central Europe (perhaps Eastern)
Germany flies over Eastern to get to Belorussia to attack.
The US is NOT a participant in the attack in any way, shape, or form.
Does the AA gun fire? It is not being attacked, and the battle is between the Russian forces in Belorussia and the German AF. By your reasoning, it would not, since the United States is not being attacked, and it is not their turn.But that is NOT how it works. Even though the US is not being attacked, their gun gets to fire… because it is THERE.
And that is the point of the UK ships in the above example… they ARE there.
By the rules, they can;t shoot (just like the German planes can;t fire into Eastern on their way to Belorussia), but they ARE there, to DO exist, and as such should be subject to being hit and, according to undispited black letter rules, the 2 players controlling the multination force CHOOSE their loses.
OK, that is the last I have to say on this subject. The rules for the Tourney are set.
We’ll let the Game Designers determine what clarifications to make to the rules (because one way or another, this potentially FREQUENT situation needs to be dealt with (it happened 2 times in the game I am currently playing)
-
@ncscswitch:
The reality is that all of the units are IN that sea zone, and in no version of A&A are you EVER allowed to target a single nation’s forces when there is more than one nation’s forces in that area. And Germany (using the previous example) IS targetting just the US ships and ignoring the UK ships that are in the same zone when he fires.
Once again, you have changed the rules to fit your argument. Let me 'splain. The submerging submarine that resurfaces is what causes this argument, so if any game in question does not have a submerging submarine rule, please to not draw parallels to it. The combat does not “ignore” ships that may be in the sea zone. The other Allied ships have already participated in their attack phase and can no longer participate with any attacking force until their next turn. Nothing is being ignored, if anything, your interpretation allows a single navy to participate in potentially 3 attacks a turn.
@ncscswitch:
Extrapolating…
USA trannies an AA gun from the US to somewhere in central Europe (perhaps Eastern)
Germany flies over Eastern to get to Belorussia to attack.
The US is NOT a participant in the attack in any way, shape, or form.
Does the AA gun fire? It is not being attacked, and the battle is between the Russian forces in Belorussia and the German AF. By your reasoning, it would not, since the United States is not being attacked, and it is not their turn.But that is NOT how it works. Even though the US is not being attacked, their gun gets to fire… because it is THERE.
No. If you haven’t noticed, the AA gun is a grey colored piece (much like the Industrial Complex). It also has special rules to follow these special pieces that are clearly outlined in the rules. From Printed Ruleset (and LHTR) “Whenever an air unit enters a territory containing an enemy anti-aircraft gun, the anti-aircraft gun fires during the opening fire step of combat.”
No parallel can be drawn between standard combat and AA guns for there is a special provision to account for this happening that seems to be crystal clear.
@ncscswitch:
And that is the point of the UK ships in the above example… they ARE there.
They are on the board, but they are not involved in combat.
@ncscswitch:
We’ll let the Game Designers determine what clarifications to make to the rules (because one way or another, this potentially FREQUENT situation needs to be dealt with (it happened 2 times in the game I am currently playing)
The Game Designers did clarify the situation for the rule does not exist (even in ambiguity) in the rule book.
It seems you have already drawn a conclusion and are now searching for facts to back up your statements. The game should not be played this way.
-
Well Octo, for the tournament, it will not be played that way :-)
Also, based on what I have been reading at the Harris Design site, there probably will be a version 1.3 of LHTR with a clarification on this situation in the near future (there is already a specific request for a draft of language to clarify based on what I originally thought, and what you are advocating now.)
I did finally get approved to join that discussion thread, and I did make one final consolidated post as a Devil’s Advocate… pulling together every conceivable support for Larry’s original view on the topic so that, when the revision are done, they are complete, comprehensive, and do not create any new ambiguiities in the rules.
-
And for those not following this, here is that post…
OK, I have been discussing this on another board for several days after running into the submerged German sub with UK ships present and a USA attack TWICE in my current game.
Originally, I thought as most folks here do… the UK ships (in the above example) are NOT a participant at all.
However, after reading Lary’s posts earlier in this thread, and after playing Devil’s Advocate on the discussion, there are a few things to consider before the final decision is made on a revision to the rules (a revision is needed, just a matter of which way it goes).
First off, there is the obvious point that all of the units are indeed in the same sea zone…
Second, there is the rule that specifically prohibits targetting a single nation’s forces when the forces of more than one nation occupy the same sea zone or territory.
Third there is the rule that specifically states that when forces of more than one nation are together in a territory and take losses, the allied forces decide what is lost, and if they can’t, then the enemy decides.
And lastly, it is my understanding (based on second hand data) that the A&A Pacific rules DO specify that in a case like the above example, the UK ships CAN be hit by Germany’s sub defensive fire.There is also ancillary evidence to suggest that allied (little a not big A) destroyers function at ALL times. For example the rules state that if a DST is “present”… not participating but “present”. And “present” means IN the sea zone.
The rules allow subs to submerge.
The rules allow joint occupancy of a sea zone
The rules allow another allied antion to attack that sea zone
The rules specify that a single nation may NOT be targetted if more than one nation’s forces are in a territory/sea zone
The rules specify that where forces of more than one nation are present, the allied player(s) choose the loses, and if they cannot decide the enemy chooses.And then there is a statement (somewhere previous in this thread) that game mechanics (i.e. the use of the Battle Board playing aid) should not override the rules (invalidating the argument that since there is not a space on the Battle Board for allied fodder that it is not allowed). And note that in 2nd Ed there is no slot for transports for attacking navy on the battle board, but there was never a question that the transports could be taken as loses…
And lastly, folks have said that the rules repeatedly state that multinational forces can not attack together. This is true… and the UK ships in the above example NEVER FIRE A SHOT. They are NOT attacking, they are not defending. But they ARE there, in the same sea zone, at the same time.
And the allied player(s) should choose their loses.
-
@ncscswitch:
Extrapolating…
USA trannies an AA gun from the US to somewhere in central Europe (perhaps Eastern)
Germany flies over Eastern to get to Belorussia to attack.
The US is NOT a participant in the attack in any way, shape, or form.
Does the AA gun fire? It is not being attacked, and the battle is between the Russian forces in Belorussia and the German AF. By your reasoning, it would not, since the United States is not being attacked, and it is not their turn.But that is NOT how it works. Even though the US is not being attacked, their gun gets to fire… because it is THERE.
And that is the point of the UK ships in the above example… they ARE there.
By the rules, they can;t shoot (just like the German planes can;t fire into Eastern on their way to Belorussia), but they ARE there, to DO exist, and as such should be subject to being hit and, according to undispited black letter rules, the 2 players controlling the multination force CHOOSE their loses.
ncscswitch…
this is not the way it works…
Somewhere in the rulebook, you can find that you can attack only one territory…
extrapolating this, YOU should assume that only ONE territory may defend (in this situation the fact that the attacked territory has combined enemy forces present is irrelevant)…
But it is known that AA guns are an exception to this narrow way of thinking.
So, more than one territory CAN defend, while only one is being attacked!!!
(And you know this, too)
They will probably have 2 shots (one before battle and one after battle - yes, even in NON-combat they will shoot if you pass the AA gun again).
So, I believe that comparing the sea zone example with the multi-advantages of AA-fire is not a good comparison at all!
You can have more than one territory defending (with the special ability of AA), but you can only have one territory to attack!What I try to explain: you try to compare apples with pears… but these situations are not to be compared 'cause they are TOTALLY different!
And in case you didn’t notice:
@ncscswitch:The US is NOT a participant in the attack in any way, shape, or form.
nope, he is DEFENDING
@ncscswitch:
But that is NOT how it works. Even though the US is not being attacked, their gun gets to fire… because it is THERE.
the USA isn’t being attacked in anyway. This is mere the special abbility of the AA! and not only because ‘it is there’
Again: trying to proove your point with an example of AA guns is not a good example at all 'cause it’s totally different and a narrow way of thinking!
ps: Keep up the good works, though! I like most of your posts on the forum!!!
Suggested Topics
