Posts made by PAGAN

@Panther >>
…
You guys should just write this: … So Sayeth The Shepard …
If you don’t see your logic error, then you don’t see it
… So Sayeth The Flock …
.
And since I am sitting here with a masters degree focused on symbolic logic and language studies … I find it rather funny
.
Thank you for answering my posts :: The End

@taamvan >>
…
taamvan : The rulebook may be unclear to you.
–> My logical argument holds that the rulebook is unclear to YOU as well
–> this part of the rulebook is unclear for ANYONE trying to lay claim as to what it is, based on The Words Used in the same rulebook
…

@Krieghund >>
…
Your methodology PRESUPPOSES more combat cycles
Your statement that : transports are defenseless --> ergo --> don’t waste time rolling through more combat cycles
This ‘conclusion’ PRESUPPOSES that the only thing lost is a tedious time element
This conclusion is Incorrect
::
if you have 3 Attacking units … and there is a defending unit + 4 transports
–> attacker gets 2 hits : 1 hit is on the defending unit , the other hit is taken on the TN
–> application of hits is appropriate based on the combat cycle game mechanics
…
Continuing to a NEW Combat Cycle
…
if you have 3 Attacking units … and all that remains are 3 ‘defending’ transports

• Attacker wants to retreat but DECIDED to stay in combat thinking he wont likely get 3 hits, and is hoping for 2 hits
• Attacker gets only 1-2 hits --> Attacker now retreats to avoid a counter-attack in that seazone --> Combat Cycle ends
• Attacker gets 3 hits --> no more defending units --> Combat Cycle ends
  …

In making a LAZY supposition to the rules, by not consistently applying the basic game mechanics , you LESSEN the “strategy” of a strategic game
There is a reason why Non-combat movement , that does not affect any of the combat is NOT done at the same time as combat
:: That is to have Very Delineated Phases of Actions
…
@Panther >>
@taamvan >>

Let me be clear about another point: The Rule Book is Ambiguous about this. You cannot stand on firm ground, without imposing your presuppositions into what the rule means. No one should think that by quoting the rule book about this, that it is Clearly Delineated\Defined. The words, as written in the rulebook, cannot validate a person’s ‘personal’ interpretation
.

@Krieghund >>
…
Then you would assume that Retreat is possible by the Attacking Force since there are just more combat cycles involved in the sinking of defenseless TNs

@axis_roll >>
…
I think that you and I are very much eye-to-eye on this, and what we think ‘should’ be allowed
.
In my opinion -->
If the attacker didn’t kill the TNs with actual Hits, then he should be able to Retreat\Withdraw.
The Attacker should choose, not have his decisions taken from him … ESPECIALLY when there may be tactical choices for not finishing off those TNs

@taamvan >>
@Panther >>
@Krieghund >>
…
I do understand the general idea that seems likely to be the destruction of the TNs
HOWEVER … in attempting to read a Clear & Logical flow in the words used, I see only ‘ambiguity’
.
Many of you have the same understanding as I do of how it ‘probably’ should be, but your preconception is not upheld logically in the words of the rule book
.
Immediate auto destruction … but every attacking unit has already fired … do they all get to keep firing ? when ? what phase of the combat cycle ?
Pre-supposing another combat cycle would indicate auto-destruction due to the TNs inability to Return-Fire
The rules may be written in some instances for an attempt at brevity
If the TNs inability to fire is pre-supposing that rather than waste time dice rolling, just auto hit the TNs … does that constitute another combat cycle ? or a special combat cycle phase ? in the same combat cycle or a new one ?
The answers to this seem to be our own personal ‘invention’
.
If Combat movement requires combat action or removing yourself from a combat zone then that has specific purpose within that specific phase
If non-combat movement is attempted in the combat movement phase, then that isn’t allowed because combat movement must deal with combat in that specific phase
This type of ‘flow’ can be followed with the phases of the combat cycle … saying that something is auto-killed without identifying how they are attacked seems ‘out-of-order’

@Panther : Thank you for the Newer version of the Anniversary Rules
.
I would ask you to take another look at the Condition-A statement
I feel there is more clarity that is required
It seems that perhaps there was intention into how things are supposed to flow, as in how you describe it, but the actual words used can get in the way.
…
Condition-A : Once all units that can either fire at a valid target or retreat on one or both sides have been destroyed, the combat ends.
…
Breaking this strange sentence out as I understand it :
Units that can fire (attack > 0)
OR
Units that will Retreat (no other qualifier)
OR
One side is destroyed (no units ?) (no attack > 0 units ?)
OR
Both sides are destroyed (no units ?) (no attack > 0 units ?)
.
The sentence is un-clearly using the word “OR”
Are TNs units that can Retreat ?
.
If the Attacker-Force only has its own TNs remaining --> then in Step.6 of the combat cycle, can Attacker-Force of TNs Retreat ?
.
It seems to me that TNs fit BOTH the idea of being a unit that can retreat AND being a lone TN unit that is auto-destroyed

Thank you taamvan for your reply
You are referring to Step 6 in the Combat Cycle
.
AA50 Rule Book : pg.19 : Step 5 in the combat cycle in both Condition A & B … it appears that the Attacker can Withdraw\Retreat by selecting Condition-B.
.

1. Rules only state that “…unless one of the two following conditions occur…” [A or B]
2. There is nothing compulsory about which Condition-A\B you MUST take
3. It seems that the choice would then be upon the Attacker for Condition-B

In a naval attack … 2 FTRS + 1 SS + 1 CC … vs … 1 BB + 1 TN
.
the attacker gets 2 hits, and the Defender gets 1 hit
.
Can the attacker now RETREAT at the end of the combat cycle since there are still enemy vessels (TRANSPORTS) in that seazone ?
.
The rule book could be interpreted as either YES or NO
.
AA50 Rule book :
pg.31 : No Combat Value : “…Even though a transport can attack or defend, either alone or with other units, it has a combat value of 0 (zero)…”
pg.31 : Other Parag. : “…Any seazone that contains only enemy transports does not stop the movement of a sea unit…”
pg.31 : Next Line : “…Air or sea units (other than transports) ending their combat movement in a seazone containing only enemy transports automatically destroy those transports. This counts as a sea combat for those sea units…”
.
Why would someone want to retreat from free TN kills, you may ask ?

• The enemy could be in position to counter-attack, and a retreat movement puts your ships out of harm’s way
• The retreat movement could allow you to advance your fleet further (a 3rd move in a direction) due to one of your naval ships coming from afar

Dice rolling Attmept 3

:dice 4@1:

dice rolling attempt two …

:3@1:

:dice 10d6:

I am looking for contact with Cousin Joe and Axis Roll. I am looking for the XML used to create the AARe module for MapView. Laso I want to let you guys know that AARe has been getting played by a small group of players for quite a long time