"Multinational Attack"

Here are the Tournment Rules for Revised Axis & Allies
BadSpeller
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 9:17 am

Post by BadSpeller » Wed Mar 22, 2006 12:53 am

ncscswitch
I had the belief that the other nations ships could take hits too!

This came up during a game, I read LHTR to support my point.
I proved myself wrong(and didn't like it either). :(

By reading LHTR all the way through with the purpose of answering this question, you will find out what I posted earlier.

BadSpeller

User avatar
Craig A Yope
Posts: 820
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 12:23 am
Location: Saint Clair, MI

Post by Craig A Yope » Wed Mar 22, 2006 10:09 am

BlackWatch wrote:
Craig A Yope wrote:Guys,
I have helped BW with the editing work on all editions of the LHTR after the original was done. I understand his reluctance to keep going back and adding/subtracting to the rules unless there is a real big reason to do so.

But in this case I will have to go with the side that says put in a specific statement stating what the rule is (and fixing certain other spots like the ones that Badspeller has brought up). The simple fact that there is not a black-and-white ruling one way or the other will always lead to debate.

I am on the side of there being no use of or affect by the "allied" (ships allied to your side) ships in a battle.

The sea zones in Revised represent vast areas of ocean. As such, I think that the interaction in a battle should only be between the attacker (the active player) and the enemy.

Craig
Craig, do you have time to draft the necessary language and corrections? I have some RL issues going on now that have me preoccupied.

Thanks,
BW

Thanks to Badspeller for pointing out a specifically ambiguous piece of phrasing, and to all others who have participated in this discussion.

BW,
I always have time for this kind of stuff. Why do you think I am on these boards all the time? :wink: :oops:

It's a function of being a "kept man", though I do prefer the term "cabana boy"! :lol:

I will go back and review all the posts here and come up with the appropriate preliminary fixes.

I will post them up for discussion.

I am also going to Smorey's Axis & Allies Spring Gathering a week from Saturday (04/01/06) so I will bring it up for all to talk about.

Craig

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

Post by BlackWatch » Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:40 am

Thanks Craig,

One other item has popped up. In 2nd edition, attacking transports are placed on the battleboard below the word "Attacker" (see page 19 of the 2nd edition basic rules). There is no such specific direction given for attacking transports in LHTR rules (or the box rules). Can you check to see if there is a specific spot designated for transports on the actual game battle board? Otherwise we'll need to add language similar to that in 2nd edition to the LHTR set.

BW

P.S. This is an instance I think of me seeing "what I expect to see", rather than seeing what is actually written. More eyes are always better... :)
BlackWatch

User avatar
Craig A Yope
Posts: 820
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 12:23 am
Location: Saint Clair, MI

Post by Craig A Yope » Wed Mar 22, 2006 12:40 pm

BW-
On the attacker side of the battle board in A&A Revised there is a "0" column that has the silhouettes of the AA gun and the transport.

I too noticed that people had forgetten about the 2nd edition specifically stating that the attacking transport be placed on the battle board below the word "Attacker".

Craig

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

Post by BlackWatch » Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:10 pm

OK - thanks for checking on that Craig.

I'd say it adds yet a bit more weight to the notion that pieces that are supposed to be part of the attacking force have a specific place on the battle board. If they're not part of the attacking force, they don't have designated spot and they don't participate.

I don't suppose you've got a copy of the AA Pacific battleboard to see how it's laid out??

Thanks,
BW
BlackWatch

ncscswitch
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 11:16 am
Location: Raleigh, NC
Contact:

Post by ncscswitch » Wed Mar 22, 2006 8:02 pm

I appreciate folks working on this issue. I did want to give the best Devil's Advocate that I could on the issue, especially in light of Larry's earlier posts that heavilly emphasized the concept of the players choosing their losses in multi-national situations (which for some time had been the final word on this subject here)

I look forward to seeing the revised LHTR after folks have had a chance to draft the new verbage.

Also, I do offer my services at ANY time to proof-read any such issues to see if there are any glitches, etc. I used to tear apart legislation to see how it held up (many, many moons ago), so I figure a game rule has GOT be be easier to de-bug than a bill on radiological waste storage :-)

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

Post by BlackWatch » Thu Mar 23, 2006 10:40 am

ncscswitch wrote:I appreciate folks working on this issue. I did want to give the best Devil's Advocate that I could on the issue, especially in light of Larry's earlier posts that heavilly emphasized the concept of the players choosing their losses in multi-national situations (which for some time had been the final word on this subject here)

I look forward to seeing the revised LHTR after folks have had a chance to draft the new verbage.

Also, I do offer my services at ANY time to proof-read any such issues to see if there are any glitches, etc. I used to tear apart legislation to see how it held up (many, many moons ago), so I figure a game rule has GOT be be easier to de-bug than a bill on radiological waste storage :-)
Offer accepted.... :)

Krieghund has suggested the following specific fix (I added the final phrase to double nail the point home):

"Any pieces in the sea zone in which the battle occurs that belong to allies of the attacker may not participate in the battle in any way, including taking such ally's units as losses in the sea combat."

Presumably this would be added to the multinational attack paragraph.

Are there other places that need to be adjusted to ensure there is no confusion anywhere in the rules about this?

If we are fixing the rules again, then the following also needs addressed (by badspeller):

**************

Making a clear statement would fix the confusion of these two lines.

LHTR page 20 under DESTROYERS>Special Abilities>(the last line of the paragraph)
"Also, enemy submarines cannot submerge while your destroyer is present."

LHTR page 21 under SUBMARINES>next to last paragraph
"The presence of an enemy destroyer in combat prevents a submarine from submerging....."

These statements make it sound like the presence of same team's nation destroyer HAS an effect in the seazone.
IF IT HAS AN EFFECT, THEN IT CAN TAKE HITS. If not, then their should be no effect at all of ANY kind.
These lines show that ALL destroyers effect the seazone.

***********

One possible fix would be to add the words "on the battle board" in both phrases, eg. "Also, enemy submarines cannot submerge while your destroyer is present on the battle board."

BW
BlackWatch

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

Post by Krieghund » Thu Mar 23, 2006 2:50 pm

BlackWatch wrote:Krieghund has suggested the following specific fix (I added the final phrase to double nail the point home):

"Any pieces in the sea zone in which the battle occurs that belong to allies of the attacker may not participate in the battle in any way, including taking such ally's units as losses in the sea combat."

Presumably this would be added to the multinational attack paragraph.
If we want to be really clear, how about:

"Any pieces in the sea zone in which the battle occurs that belong to allies of the attacker may not participate in the battle in any way. Such pieces may not be taken as losses in the sea combat and have no effect on defending submarines."
A&A Developer and Playtester

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

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest