Seig trio default rules discussion

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
86 messages Options
12345
ice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Seig trio default rules discussion

ice
no, and this is a situation where following the engine makes the only sence

imo

ice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Seig trio default rules discussion

Cernel
Well, but I want to make you notice that if you say that the game follows v2 rules, and don't spell out exceptions, then you are supposed to follow v2 rules indeed, not the egine's behaviour.
Meaning that if your NWO opponent wants you to follow those rules, you must to.
I want also to point out, on this regard, that LHTR (as well as anything following v2) is more restrictive, because of the added limits that you can see in the previous Wirkey's quote.
While you are never allowed to non-combat unload a transport escaping combat (you have to send those units to fight, if you want to unload them, or you can't unload them), the only difference is that by standard Revised rules you are also allowed to load the units and keep them on board (because you generally can load units in a transport during combat move, if the transport is doing a Combat Move action), while in LHTR (as well as v3, v4, v5 and v6) you can't.
Krieghund explains it very clearly:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=11880.5
What I should have said was that you can't load them in sea zone 1.  You could move to sea zone 9, if it's friendly, and pick them up from there.  However, this does limit your options for movement to Algeria, the United Kingdom and Panama (and the Eastern US, though you don't need a transport to go there), and then only in combat movement.  If you're trying to stop a UK counter-attack against an invasion of the United Kingdom, you need to either sink the transport or block sea zone 9.
Under LHTR, your only options for these troops are amphibiously assaulting Panama, Eastern USA, United Kingdom or Algeria.  Under the box rules, you would also be allowed to leave the troops on board the transport at sea.


And, this raise yet another question: if you are enabling the LHTR option, are you supposed to abide more generally to the engine unsupported LHTR related restrictions or not?
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Seig trio default rules discussion

redrum
Administrator
So I agree that it would probably be good to specify anything where the engine and v2 rules conflict and which way its supposed to be played. I think the challenge on some of these is they are pretty rare and there doesn't seem to be a strong consensus on which is correct for WaW/NWO/TRS. If we have a consensus and can put them in straightforward wording then I'm all for adding them.
ice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Seig trio default rules discussion

ice
-Movement/loading and unloading of transports conflicting with revised rules:
Revised rules have redicules exeptions, we dont use them. The engine is always right in these cases

-LHTR: noone uses them, yust delete this format for all seig maps

ice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Seig trio default rules discussion

redrum
Administrator
@ice - Roger that. I'll add some clarifications around using engine enforcement in these couple of cases around transports rather than strict revised rules.
ice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Seig trio default rules discussion

ice
and i liked the short version :))

wel if u wanna add all the calrifications:

-revised rules state you canNOT move noncombat moves in combat movement, SiegTrio maps u CAN
-revised rules make the exeption for moving out of combat, SiegTrio maps u can also
-revised rules make the exeption for loading units on trannys who go into battle, SiegTrio maps u can also
-revised rules say you can only move during combat OR noncombat move, SiegTrio maps u can do BOTH
-Seig trio maps thus also allouws you to move out of combat, pick up units, move back into combat and attack or reinforce a territory, using all rules above. or making any variant to this example.


ice

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Seig trio default rules discussion

Cernel
In reply to this post by redrum
Redrum, I believe the engine should never be used as telling what the rules are; so, I advise you to formulate the exceptions in a different manner than saying "you can do what the engine allows you to do".

And I want to point out, again, that this would create an inconsistency with the AA gun behaviour.

Why should I be allowed to load 1 infantry and 1 artillery during combat move and unload only the infantry to take an enemy territory, yet I'm not allowed to load 1 infantry and 1 AAgun during combat move and unload only the infantry to take that same territory? Makes no sense.

If you allow making non combat moves during combat move, then I would guess you should allow it for AA guns to be moved during combat move, as well. I guess that would also make gameplay a bit easier, cause you don't necessarily need to remember to move them during non combat move.
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Seig trio default rules discussion

redrum
Administrator
@Cernel - Yeah you could argue to just allow AA guns to be moved during combat move though I'm not sure how easy that would be to change.

@all - Additional rule clarifications to add (summarizing ice/Cernel's points above):
- Non-Combat moves can be made during combat move phase (except AA guns can only move during non-combat move phase)
- Units with multiple moves can move during combat move and use any remaining moves during non-combat move

Any other thoughts on these or additional clarifications?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Seig trio default rules discussion

Cernel
In reply to this post by redrum
I beg to differ that those rules are rarely encountered; it is relevant not only for NWO, but also for many other maps.

For example, in a game of 270BC, a very veteran player loaded 3 legionaire on a trireme and unloaded only 1 to take Caralis, keeping the other 2 on board.
Noone (was a multy) had anything to say against this blatantly illegal move, and I said nothing either, not to have to explain all the stuff, for peace of mind.
In the subsequent game (1v1), that same player made again the exactly same thing, and I still let it go.
So, we are at 2 games out of 2 where this rule is being flagrantly violated by this player, who is a big veteran.
My personal perception is that the violation of these rules is all too common, most people just playing on what the engine allows you to do.

I believe, of all points I've made, the obviously illegal case of loading 2 units onto a transport during Combat Move and unloading only 1 of them to take a territory, keeping the other one on board, is the most common one.

This violation is frequently encountered in "World War II v3 1941", when Germans leave France undefended on round 1, where some people, on British 1, try to load the Armour in Eastern Canada onto the transport in 9 Sea Zone, then move to 7 Sea Zone and load 1 infantry from UnitedKingdom and unload that infantry to take an undefended France, leaving the Armour on board, which is definitively an illegal move.

This is a very simple basic rule that applies to all games, and it is simply related to the fact that you can't load an unit during Combat Move if you are not sending it in combat, and it is clarified here (this is not a LHTR special, just a clarification):

http://www.axisandallies.org/wp-content/uploads/AAR_LHTR_v2.0.pdf
Loading and Offloading:A transport can load cargo in friendly sea zones before, during, and
after it moves. A transport can pick up cargo, move 1 sea zone, pick up more cargo, move 1 more
sea zone, and offload the cargo at the end of its movement. It may also remain at sea with the
cargo still aboard (but only if the cargo remaining aboard was loaded in a previous turn or was
loaded this turn in the noncombat move phase). A transport can offload into a hostile territory
only during an amphibious assault (see below).


And I also found this forum Topic, in which a member well points out the matter:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=8724.15
A unit loaded in a CM must disembark that same CM.  If two units load in a CM, they must both disembard that same CM.
A unit loaded in a NCM can remain onboard even if the other unit unloads as part of CM on a later turn.


Meaning that, if at the start of the turn you have a transport with 1 Infantry and 1 Armour/AAGun already loaded, then you can unload only the Infantry in combat during combat move, and keeping the Armour/AAGun on board, but if you have those units in a nearby territory, instead of already on board, you can't load them both and unload only the Infantry in combat, keeping the other one on board (which you can do if they are already loaded at start turn).
There is absolutely no difference, in this case, if the other unit is an Armour, an AAGun or another Infantry: just units not going in combat can't load during combat move.
And the rules are ad unum omnes, really. The reason why the AAGun can never move during combat move is a part of the rule that units not doing combat can't move during combat move.
What I mean, is that if you allow all units but the AAGun only to move during combat move, you create the inexistent inconsistency that you can load 2 infantry and unload only 1 during combat move, while you can't load 1 aagun and 1 infantry and unload only the infantry during combat move, which are both illegal moves, all the same, by correct rules, the AAGun not being an exception to the general rule.
Thus, this way, you create a discrepancy in the ruleset.

What the engine is not doing is that it doesn't oblige you to send in combat all units that you loaded during Combat Move, while it prevents you to load the AAGun during Combat Move, since you can never send it in combat anyway.
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Seig trio default rules discussion

Cernel
What I meant is that the AAGun is subjected to the special rule that it can never be sent in combat, but the rule that units not sent in combat cannot move during combat move is general, instead, the AAGun being no exception.
So, you would create an exception that it didn't exist and that makes no sense (it makes no sense that 2 infantry can load onto a transport and only 1 go in combat, while it is not possible to load 1 infantry and 1 aagun and send only the infantry in combat; both are illegal and, if the first case is allowed, then I think the second case should be allowed as well).
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Seig trio default rules discussion

Cernel
Meaning that if all units are allowed to make non combat moves during Combat Move, then I think that the AAGun should be allowed to make non combat moves during Combat Move too.
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Seig trio default rules discussion

Cernel
In reply to this post by ice
On the other hand, now that I think about it, you can load 1 infantry onto a transport and send the transport in combat without unloading the infantry, but you cannot load 1 aagun in a transport and send it in combat, no matter if you want to keep the aagun as just cargo.
So, the general exception that "Antiaircraft guns can never move in Combat Move" is actually stronger than the general limit of not making Non Combat moves during Combat Move; so I guess it makes somewhat sense to keep it. Also, it is not needed to actually refer to the AAGuns at all, since they are already covered by the general rule and also the engine enforces it (so, I don't think you have to specify that they can't move during Combat Move).

On this regard, I would say there is not a real conflict between the TripleA engine and the ruleset as matter of most Non Combat Moves, because normally if you do Non Combat Moves during Combat Move you are just losing the possibility of doing it after having seen the dice, and gaining nothing. So, you can limit making exceptions for the exceptions, that is covering only the cases in which making Non Combat moves during Combat Move gives you an actual advantage. In this case, you can fully cover what we already said with only:

- It is allowed to load units onto a ship during Combat Move if at least one of the units in the ship (or the ship itself) is doing a combat movement, keeping the other ones as cargo, and eventually unloading them during Non Combat Move.
- Beside doing regular combat movements (comprising moving out and then into that same sea zone), ships starting in hostile sea zones can also simply move out of them to a friendly sea zone, during Combat Move, escaping combat; moreover, ships that escaped combat this way can still do Non Combat Move, comprising loading and unloading, with no added limits but accounting the movement already used during Combat Move.


The above cover fully all cases in which making Non Combat Moves during Combat Move, totally or partially, is gamechanging, but there is a third exception we haven't discussed, meaning:
Do NWO players make (illegal) Non Combat air movements (like moving aircrafts from a friendly territory to another friendly one, attacking nothing) during Combat Move, so to remove AA casualties for flyover before both Purchase and Combat or do they take care to make Non Combat flyovers during Non Combat Move only?

p.s.: I would also like to extend the first point to 270BC (like allowing loading multiple units on a bireme/trireme and unloading only part of them, keeping the other ones on board, because I just can't see why this should be forbidden).
History plays dice
ice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Seig trio default rules discussion

ice
pointless to make this topic as long as waw topic over nothing, these rules have written themselfs because of what the engine allouwed. all theses veterans arent gona change there moves nomatter what u write down

yust keep it simple

ice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Seig trio default rules discussion

Cernel
I don't think not bothering reading the Revised rules and just playing by what the engine allows you to do makes any sense, it is just lazy or dumb or both, especially when the notes tell you that you are supposed to play by Revised rules.
On the other hand, it is fine if it springs from a conscious decision to amend some of the elements of the Revised rules but, in this case, it should be fully detailed.
There are a few other Revised rules that are not supported by the engine, as well, as of now; for example, by Revised rules you can move on newly built carriers Fighters of yours and of your allies alike, while the engine only allows you to move your own ones.
Meaning that knowledgeable players should, for example, edit the Italians fighters they want to on the newly built Germans carriers, as long as these Italians fighters are in the territory it is producing the carrier or on a whatever carrier already in that Sea Zone.
If a player would do such an edit, perfectly legal under Revised rules, would you allow him to do it?
If you would rather not, I would say this should be explained in notes, as an exception to the correct Revised ruleset.
Moreover, Revised rules allow you to move both your own and your Allies fighters from an existent carrier in the sea zone in which you are placing the new carrier to your new carrier, and this is not supported as well; so players should make such moves by detailing them in the "Show Comment Log".

I guess very few of the NWO players are ever been boardgamers...

But I'm not a NWO players; so if NWO players are cool with all the confusion, or just don't perceive it because nobody of them read the rules, nevermind.

http://www.wizards.com/avalonhill/rules/axis2004.pdf
Newly built
carriers can enter play with
fighters aboard, whether those
fighters were built this turn or
were already in the territory
containing the industrial complex.


http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/pdf/A&A_Revised_5_FAQ.pdf
Q. A newly built fighter can be placed directly on a newly built aircraft carrier. Can a newly built
fighter be placed on an existing carrier, or can existing fighters be placed on a new carrier?
A. An existing fighter that is in the territory containing the industrial complex or that is in the sea zone
where the aircraft carrier is built can immediately be moved onto a newly built carrier. New fighters,
however, can’t be placed directly on existing carriers.
Q. What about my ally’s fighters? Can they be placed on newly built carriers if they meet the
position requirement?
A. Yes. For example, if the UK builds a carrier adjacent to England, US fighters in England can
immediately redeploy onto the carrier.
History plays dice
ice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Seig trio default rules discussion

ice
wel we have different aspects on how a gamenote should look like. your gamenotes are phonebook thick, and myne are as short as possible.

in all my nwo games, i dont even dare to make an assesment of homany games played, not once have these things been an issue, so yes people dont read the rulebook, and yes they wont read an overly complex long gamenote

IMO

ice
ice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Seig trio default rules discussion

ice
if everything can be put in a few lines then im fine with it, otherwise my advice is to put in a line looking something like:

-for every revised rule not supported by the engine and isnt clarified in the gamenotes we go with the engine

ice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Seig trio default rules discussion

Cernel
Not being able to move the air of your allies on your own newly built carriers is a pretty major deviation from true Revised rules, as it may be a very game-changing element in some cases.
There is also the "Risk" that at some point the TripleA engine will do a better job at supporting Revised rules (already almost supported), and this might suddenly change NWO, also as a matter of its balance, in a way noone can really anticipate.
For example, in a similar case, if I were playing WWIIv3, I would not let my opponent place newly built fighters on allied carriers, even tho the engine allows him to do so.
And, of course, there is also the Risk that the engine may have bugs (current or additional in the future).
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Seig trio default rules discussion

Cernel
Another example, it just came to my mind, is blitzing.

By correct Revised rules, you have to do all the move of a blitzing Armour during Combat Move.

Instead, the TripleA engine allows you to take an undefended territory on the first movement, during Combat Move, then wait and, during Non Combat Move, move that Armour into a friendly territory, comprising territories just conquered.

This is an illegal move, and it has some relevant gameplay impact, since you can use the blitzing Armour to reinforce that or that other one territory, depending on Combat results, and with particular reference to the presence of movement 3 blitzing units (mot.inf etc.).

Meaning that an Armour blitzing an enemy territory into a second friendly one has to decide where to go before seeing how combat goes!

Are NWO players supposed to be allowed to split an enemy-to-friendly blitz between Combat Move and Non Combat Move (which is an illegal move, since by correct rules, even if the second movement, after the proper blitz, is to a friendly territory, you have to do it during Combat Move or nevermore).

Since from the discussion it appears that NWO players are fine with splitting up movement, the answer seems that yes they can, I got it, but it should be pointed out, directly or indirectly.

But if you do it by just saying that you can always move part during Combat Move and part during Non Combat Move, that it is definitively not enough, because, by rules, such a movement would be legal under the special Blitzing rule only, not under the general rules, and such a rule exists only during the Combat Move phase, so you also need to specifically inform the players that Blitzing can be completed during Non Combat Move (which is twofold against Revised rules).

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=26072.0
Neither land nor sea units may move in noncombat movement if they either moved in combat movement or participated in combat.  However, air units may (and possibly must) move in both phases, as they must return to a safe landing space after combat, and this is done in the noncombat movement phase.
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Seig trio default rules discussion

crazy_german
Cernel, you are referencing rules for a board game. For board games, all rules must be player enforced, because, well nothing else can enforce them. I can also tell you that, at least for my game group, it isn't unheard of to say screw the official rules, lets play with what makes sense. Its pretty common to see units move in both combat and noncombat phases (and I don't reason it shouldn't be allowed)

TripleA has the option to default to engine behavior as a ruleset, which is an awesome feature to have. For stuff like when a blitzing tank can enter friendly territory, I honestly think most people don't give a damn so whatever the engine does is fine. The only need to clarify rules is when the engine does not behave correctly, which is mostly in regards to aircraft movement. The AI has also become pretty good, which is another reason to not have too many player enforced rules. When someone says "Revised" or "v3" ruleset, it is just a short hand for explaining certain rules like subs, naval bombardment and aircraft carriers.

I appreciate how thorough you are, but I think myself and others want to see these Seig map changes finalized, as nothing of much importance has come up recently and it has already consumed a lot of time.
Correctly crazy, disingenuously German
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Seig trio default rules discussion

Cernel
I strongly disagree with just following the engine instead of the rulebook (unless fully detailed as exception in Notes), as you should know the rules, then play, not play, then know the rules; that's messed up.
I'm frankly upset at how almost everyone doesn't bother to read the rulebooks; I can notice it in a lot of my games. I mean, Axis & Allies is a silly game with a very small simple ruleset; it is not Empires at Arms or some actually decently serious boardgame, for crying out loud; people could easily 100% know all the few rules.
This goes back to like the WaW changes, where we have mostly changed the graphic to show what the game does (I did it but disagreed and still disagree), instead of changing the game as doing what the graphic says, as I would have had.

The engine should not become the rulebook; that's so much wrong for so many reasons (bugs being one of them).
History plays dice
12345