@ncscswitch:
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)
Let’s first discuss the issue of intent.
The authors of the game (Larry and Mike Selinker) had several objectives and intents in mind when they created Axis and Allies and developed a rule set to express those intents. Once they published the game, those intents were then cast in stone. Someone who has a copy of the game in the middle of the Sahara doesn’t have the luxury of being able to get on line and ask what Larry meant by something - he has to go with what is in print in front of him.
When AAR was initially published there were many ambiguities created by rule writing that tried to reflect the intent of the authors, most often because what they intended for one part of the game conflicted with an intent they had for another part of it. Larry and Mike both worked with a committee of players to re-write the rules so that they were internally consistent, while preserving as much of the intent of the authors as possible. We would often whittle an issue down to two or three possibilities then ask Larry or Mike for a final ruling, “Which way do you want this to work, A or B?” They would decide, and the wording could then be nailed to the door as gospel. BOTH Larry and Mike acknowledged that post publication interpretations of “intent” was not satisfactory - the intent had to be translated into hard and fast rule, and that ultimately the written rule is what needed to be observed, not intent.
Second. “Intent” is a moving target, based on a number of human factors. Written rules are fixed. That’s why they are written down, since the authors acknowledge the necessity for a common base of understanding for how to play the game.
So - can we please move any debate away from “intnent” and focus on what is actually written? The rules “rule” (that’s why they’re called rules).
Now let’s deal with one other issue.
“The Battle Board is a playing aid”
Sorry. That is not so. It is an integral part of the game, and pieces are required to be placed on it when conducting combat (please check your own rule book, and you will see this is so). Most players can ignore this requirement as a matter of convenience when playing, but that is what they are doing - ignoring a game rule to speed up play. The rules specifically require that all attacking and defending units must be placed on the battle board in their designated locations.
The battle board is set up with a casualty line on the defender side which is where pieces are placed by the defender after they are hit, but before they had a chance to have their last roll. I don’t have either battle board with me right now, but the second edition rule book at least specifically states that attacking transports get placed on the battle board “below the line” on the Attacker’s side of the board (see page 19 of the Basic Rules). This allows them to participate in the battle even though they don’t get to roll (remember that attacker’s losses are removed as soon as the defender has rolled all the dice for each of the defender’s columns).
This language has not been repeated in the LHTR rules set. It may well need to be added as a clarification on this point (unless the battle board itself designates a spot for attacking transports - I don’t have a copy with me at the moment).
Edit: Yoper has informed me that the Battle Board that comes with Axis and Allies Revised has a spot for attacking transports with a “0” hit value.
BW
