"Multinational Attack"

Here are the Tournment Rules for Revised Axis & Allies
Post Reply
DonMoody
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 3:04 pm

"Multinational Attack"

Post by DonMoody » Tue Dec 27, 2005 7:38 am

From the LHTR version 1.2:

Multinational Attack: A multinational force cannot attack the same space together. Each attacking power moves and fires its own units on its own turn. A fighter may launch from an aircraft carrier owned by a friendly power, but the carrier may not move until its controller’s turn. Similarly, a carrier can carry a friendly fighter as cargo, but the fighter cannot participate in an attack involving that carrier. A land unit can assault a coastal territory from a friendly transport, but it is offloaded on it owner’s turn.


Now for my question ...

In the situation where one player attacks a sea zone that has both another friendly power's units and an enemy power's units present*, may the attacking player take the other friendly power's units as casualties (even though those units do not make attack rolls during the combat)?


* This can happen a few ways; e.g. another friendly nation build units in a sea zone containing enemy units; during naval combat, friendly or enemy subs submerged in a sea zone while the other side also had units.


Example:
During Japan’s turn, Japan moves some naval units (that do not include any destroyers) into sea zone 35 where there are some British units, including two British submarines.
At the end of the battle, there are some Japanese naval units remaining in sea zone 35, two British submarines submerged in sea zone 35 and all the other British units which were in sea zone 35 eliminated.
On the United States’ turn, it moves a submarine and two fighter planes in sea zone 35 to attack the Japanese naval units.
The British submarines do not make attack rolls during the battle but may the US player take the British submarines as losses?
Does it make a difference whether or not the British agrees to allow the US player to take the British submarines as losses?

If all the US units are destroyed or retreat, then the battle is over and any Japanese units in sea zone 35 do not continue the battle with the [only now] British units present.



FWIW, my understanding was that Larry had clearly answered this question as such:
"Allied ships and planes could be selected as casualties if the owner agrees."

and I could find no change to that answer.

Basically, I am looking to see if Larry could perhaps confirm if the correct way to play when using LHTR is that an ally's units may be removed as a casualty when attacking into a sea zone containing both friendly and hostile units.

That is, I am looking for confirmation/clarification as to whether Larry's previous answer (of almost a year ago) is unchanged or did change.

Thanks,

DonMoody

DonMoody
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 3:04 pm

Multinational Attack - A&A:P Wording

Post by DonMoody » Tue Dec 27, 2005 7:45 am

FWIW, I always thought this wording from A&A:Pacific was the clearest (and most reasonable) with regards to multinational forces (from page 19 of the Axis & Allies:Pacific Gameplay Manual, first column, starting about the middle of the column):

"... It is possible for one player to attack a sea zone that has both Allied and enemy units present. In this situation, the Allied units may be taken as casualties but they do not participate in the combat.


Example: During Japan’s turn, it moves two subs into sea zone 30 and sinks three British transports that were there. On Great Britain’s turn, it buys a destroyer and a transport, which are placed into sea zone 30 at the end of its turn. On the United States’ turn, it moves a submarine and two fighter planes in sea zone 30 to attack the Japanese submarines. The aircraft may attack since there is an Allied destroyer present. The British destroyer and transport do not participate in the battle, but may be taken as casualties if necessary. The naval battle is then fought as normal. If all the US units are destroyed or retreat, then the battle is over. The Japanese submarines do not continue the battle with the British units present.


DonMoody

BlackWatch
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 11:51 am

Post by BlackWatch » Wed Jan 04, 2006 4:26 pm

I think the answer can be found within the originally quoted material:
Multinational Attack: A multinational force cannot attack the same space together. Each attacking power moves and fires its own units on its own turn. A fighter may launch from an aircraft carrier owned by a friendly power, but the carrier may not move until its controller’s turn. Similarly, a carrier can carry a friendly fighter as cargo, but the fighter cannot participate in an attack involving that carrier. A land unit can assault a coastal territory from a friendly transport, but it is offloaded on it owner’s turn.
"A multinational force cannot attack the same space together."

and

"...a carrier can carry a friendly fighter as cargo, but the fighter cannot participate in an attack involving that carrier. "

Also (with respect to guest fighters aboard an aircraft carrier and any units aboard transports):
Guest fighters belonging to a friendly power on board your carrier must remain on board as cargo if the carrier moves in combat. They cannot take part in combat and are destroyed if the carrier is destroyed.

...

The land units aboard the transports are considered cargo until they offload. Cargo cannot take part in combat and is destroyed if the transport is destroyed.
This makes it clear that guest fighters are lost when an attacking carrier is lost, and cannot be utilized in any fashion, even to absorb losses. Similarly any units abord transports are cargo and can't be taken as direct battle losses.

Next:
Step 5: Defending Units Fire
All the units on the defender’s side fire during this step. Roll one die for each defending unit (including casualties). Units with the same defense value are all rolled for at the same time. After the defender has rolled for all defending units, the attacker must choose one of his or her units for each hit scored and move it to the casualty zone (a battleship can absorb one extra damage hit before being moved to the casualty zone if it hasn't already done so in this combat).
Boldface added for emphasis. Note that no permission is granted to move an ally's unit to the casualty zone - it must be one of your own.

Onwards...
Multinational Forces
Units on the same side can share a territory or sea zone, constituting a multinational force. Such forces can defend together, but they cannot attack together.

Multinational Defense: When a space containing a multinational force is attacked, all its units defend together. The attacker fires first as usual. If a hit is scored, the defenders mutually determine the casualty; if they cannot agree, the attacker chooses. Each defender rolls separately for his or her units.
You don't get to attack with an ally's sub (even at a zero attack value) - it simply cannot participate. When defending, everyone gets to defend together, and any unit can be taken as a loss (except land units on transports, which are always treated as cargo, whether on attack or on defense).

BW
BlackWatch

DonMoody
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 3:04 pm

Post by DonMoody » Thu Jan 05, 2006 2:46 am

Thanks for replying but (sorry) even with all of your post, I am still uncertain what is what.

I will try to make this more succinct with an easy one word answer being all this is needed.


In a post on the "Larry Harris' Tournament Rules" forum (that is, this forum of the "Harris Game Design" forums), this situation was described:

UK1 builds 1 AC 2 subs in a [sea] zone with a German Destroy

Russian 2: attacks that German destoryer [sic] with 1 fighter.


Larry stated the following about that situation:

"Only the Russian player would be rolling as an attacker and he would only be rolling for HIS units. The UK units would not be rolling as attackers. Allied ships and planes could be selected as casualties if the owner agrees."


Could I please get a one word answer to ...

Was Larry
- Right
or
- Wrong
?


Thanks again.

DonMoody

User avatar
Krieghund
Posts: 2662
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:18 am
Location: Virginia, USA

Post by Krieghund » Thu Jan 05, 2006 10:13 am

Interesting footnote here: Mike Selinker stated once on the AH Forums that in Revised units of a friendly power that occupied an embattled sea zone would not participate in the attack in any way (other than as cargo on board any participating carriers and/or transports). This is quite different from Europe and Pacific, in which such units can be taken as casualties. Of course, this ruling only applies to the out-of-box rules, but it seems the same philosophy was applied in LHTR.
A&A Developer and Playtester

"War is much more fun when you're winning!" - General Martok

BlackWatch
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 11:51 am

Post by BlackWatch » Thu Jan 05, 2006 1:00 pm

DonMoody wrote:Thanks for replying but (sorry) even with all of your post, I am still uncertain what is what.

I will try to make this more succinct with an easy one word answer being all this is needed.


In a post on the "Larry Harris' Tournament Rules" forum (that is, this forum of the "Harris Game Design" forums), this situation was described:

UK1 builds 1 AC 2 subs in a [sea] zone with a German Destroy

Russian 2: attacks that German destoryer [sic] with 1 fighter.


Larry stated the following about that situation:

"Only the Russian player would be rolling as an attacker and he would only be rolling for HIS units. The UK units would not be rolling as attackers. Allied ships and planes could be selected as casualties if the owner agrees."


Could I please get a one word answer to ...

Was Larry
- Right
or
- Wrong
?


Thanks again.

DonMoody
In a word then - wrong.

AA Revised plays the same as 2nd edition Axis and Allies in this respect - only your own attacking units get placed on the battle board - cargo and other units belonging to allies stay on the main board. Otherwise you'd need an adjudication procedure spelled out to settle disputes between allies who disagree as to whether a sea unit will participate as fodder in a battle. No such adjudication procedure has been laid out, ergo, placing an allies ship on the battle board is not permitted.

There is also no column provided for non-firing allied units on the battle board. Since the full procedure for taking losses due to rolls involves units on the battle board, it can again be concluded that you can't take an ally's unit as your loss when attacking.

BW
BlackWatch

User avatar
Larry
Posts: 3082
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:44 am

Post by Larry » Sat Jan 07, 2006 12:47 pm

Interesting discussion… As usual.
When it comes to interpreting the rules and assuring a consistent and rock solid system I can more often than not bow to the insights of Blackwatch and the Gentlemen from Virginia Krieghund.

But in this case I think, I think, I think…. I disagree. I say “I think” because every time I take an opposing view from that of Blackwatch I get my ass handed to me.

But here I go again…
Blackwatch, your approach to this question seems to be based on the need to avoid adjudication to settle disputes between allies who disagree as to whether a sea unit will participate as fodder in a battle.. – you go on to say “No such adjudication procedure has been laid out, ergo, placing an allies ship on the battle board is not permitted”’

I think the rules do address this… If the allies can’t decide who takes the hits the opposing player decides the issue.

No?

DonMoody
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 3:04 pm

Thanks Larry!

Post by DonMoody » Sat Jan 07, 2006 4:37 pm

Larry,

Thank you very much for commenting.


"I think the rules do address this… If the allies can’t decide who takes the hits the opposing player decides the issue.

No?"


This is from [the Multinational Defense portion of] the LHTR:

"The attacker fires first as usual. If a hit is scored, the defenders mutually determine the casualty; if they cannot agree, the attacker chooses. Each defender rolls separately for his or her units."


A principle which can easily be applied to the reverse situation.


Also, FWIW, part of what I got from Blackwatch's comments is he is on the 'the rules must be specifically worded for all possibilities' side of the coin (the other side of which is universally apply these principles to the rules and not worry if not every specific statement *exactly* applies to every possible situation; e.g. principle: 'when there is a battle, all the units go on the battle board'; applied a rule which says: 'his or her units', the 'his or hers' is not exclusive).

If so, I suspect this might be because it is always better [for rules disputes resolution] if the rules can be taken literally with *no* need for *any* interpretation or applying of the game's general principles *ever* - even blatantly obvious interpretations or applications (because you can always find someone more obtuse than blatantly obvious).

Anyway, thanks again Larry,

DonMoody


P.S. if you look at the A&A:Pacific wording for its Multi-national forces rules, solely from a rules clarity PoV, it is superior to all of the other A&A versions.
Any questions which arised are covered in its text (other than the 'nit piccky' questions like 'it says his or her pieces, not his or her pieces and his or her allies pieces').

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest