if we are going with the rulebook on every differance every game will end up in a discussions over nothing. i agree with crazy that unless we can enforce every single rule from a rulebook we must adept to the engine when it makes sence.
the biggest difference to the rulebook and 90% of the problems you describe are related to being able to move noncombat moves in combat move, and the engine not remembering half a move. so unless we can change this. and the biggest questions is really: do we want to change this. i cant see this happen
No, what I was saying is that either you go with the rulebook or you fully detail all the cases your are not going with it, regardless of what the engine does or not does (which may as well differ from what the engine will or won't do in the future).
I don't like a lot of the sillynesses of the rulebook myself; but following silly rules is better than following a good engine.
In that case i suggest a 'tripplea' Rulebook, someone with ur detail cernel to write a rulebook that counts for all versions, and each game uses this rulebook with exeption 1-2-3. we could save this rulebook on the warclub website for everyone to read.
i gues you could copy a revised rulebook, and only adjust where nessesary, or dot*a revised does this*b aa50 does that
I yust dont wanna see phonebook sized gamenotes, because i know they will not be read by anyone. they will do the opposite, stop people from reading the importand notes that makes the map unique
No, I don't think that would be good. It is advisable that the general rulebook is 100% a clone thing, or that will just increase confusion.
It is important to keep the exception in the notes, since there are already some people around that want to use NWO rules in not Sieg's games, which is fine only if you agree upon it before starting the game.
On the other hand, it would be cool having a NWO only rulebook, but, since it would be a big undertaking, I'll let the NWO players (or anyone who likes the Sieg's maps) making it.
At the end, if the NWO players don't really care, my suggestion would be to not clarify such issues at all, letting the matter totally uncovered (like it has been till now, apparently). I think making the engine into a rulebook, telling in Notes to follow the engine, would be the worst.
Probably, then, you should detail all the disputable situations in the NWO ladder.
As a loosely related example, this is the Notes section in a v1 based mod of mine:
270BC 40% Rev wrote
<br>The game plays by v1 (Classic) rules except that:
<br>- Placement per turn is always limited to the value of the territory
<br>- City cannot be in value 0 territories
<br>- There is no cost for invading Neutrals
<br>- Neutrals may have units in them, always hostile to any players
<br>- Neutrals defend and their casualties are automatically selected starting from the weakest defense units
<br>- Neutrals are blitzable
<br>- It is allowed to split an unit's blitz movement between Combat Move and Non Combat Move, as long as the remainig part consists in entering friendly (possibly, newly conquered) territories only
<br>- 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 (if the ship unloaded during Combat Move, the other units can unload nowhere else but that same territory only, during the subsequent Non Combat Move)
<br>- The income captured from totally undefended capitals (either no hostile units or city only) can be spent on the same turn
The engine should not become the rulebook; that's so much wrong for so many reasons (bugs being one of them).
Talking about bugs, I just noticed that the engine is bugged and doesn't actually allow you to drop off in non combat if you dropped off in combat.
Side note, this is another example in which basic Revised and LHTR differ.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=11591.0 Under the box rules, if the AA gun was already loaded onto a transport at the beginning of the turn, the other units could load and then amphibious assault during combat movement, then the AA gun could unload during noncombat movement. If the AA gun was not already on a transport, it would need to load onto the transport, move and unload during noncombat movement.
Under LHTR, the entire contents of the transport with the AA gun on it would need to move and unload in noncombat movement, regardless of whether or not the AA gun was loaded at the beginning of the turn.
EDIT: Removed a link to the Europe FAQ, cause it is off topic anyhow.
As you can easily test out, both Revised and LHTR are not supported by the TripleA engine, or are supported wrongly, here.
Revised is actually bugged, since it doesn't allow you unloading the damn aaGun or whatever.
LHTR at least is not bugged, but just unsupported, since the engine is not forbidding you to unload any of the content of a transport with an aaGun in it, during Combat Move, but you can just take care to limit yourself not doing such a move, as long as you know the rules.
Basically, what the TripleA engine does here, namely allowing you to unload the not-aaGun during Combat Move but then forbidding you to unload the aaGun during Non Combat Move, is differently wrong both with basic Revised and with LHTR Revised.
Of course, the special LHTR exception that a loaded aaGun impedes everything else on the same transport to load during Combat Move (wtf?) is extremely ridiculous, and doesn't make any sense whatsoever, but, you know, it's LHTR... Anyways, the basic Revised rule that you can unload 1 infantry in Combat and, then, the aaGun in Non Combat, if already loaded at start turn, yet you can't load both the infantry and the aaGun during Combat Move, unload only the infantry in Combat and, then, unload the aaGun in Non Combat, is totally nonsensical too; so kind of whatever.
phone book rules are a one time read game should only note the changes
And indeed I was suggesting to only note the changes from the Revised rules, unless the NWO players actually want to follow the Revised rules that their game affirms they should follow, which seems not being the case.
Please note that the FAQ for Europe1940 linked above is guiding to a wrong game. Must be a historic version of a Europe game, but not the latest 1940 game.
In all versions of World_War_II, at least (I am no expert for earlier versions) starting from v3 until v6, including Europe/Pacific/Global 1940, your may either offload in combat move (amph. assault) or in noncombat move. Never in both phases.
But yes, I agree that answer is clearly wrong (should be rather an errata, then, but not really, because it is wrong), but since it is a FAQ hosted at the main official site, it becomes right even if it is wrong, but I agree that it is wrong, but whatever is officially wrong becomes right, by definition, because it is official, until it is recognised that it is wrong, as indeed it is.
My guess is that they copy-pasted the FAQ of the very old Europe game, and forgot to update them correctly.
So, what I'm saying, I don't really care about the official Europe messups; just forget about that link. Here I'm talking about Revised only, and in Revised they can indeed do that (while I agree that in current Europe they can't, even if the current official FAQ says that they can, but that is clearly an official error, I agree, but totally not the point here).
Whatever after Revised doesn't matter for NWO, so I should not have linked that; I just did it cause I couldn't find that same thing for Revised. But, yah, that must de a leftover from the very old Europe game (tho when something wrong is official it becomes right).
So, to avoid the discussion to derail even more, I'm going to edit out the link to the Europe FAQ, since it doesn't matter here (sadly, didn't manage to find something like that for Revised, that's the only reason I used that).
This is what you can do under Revised rules; I'm copy pasting this from the Europe FAQ, and it is actually wrong for Europe, but this is not the point; this is the best official explanation I found about how things worked in this case before LHTR, so here you go:
Can a transport carrying two units unload one for an amphibious attack and unload the other during Noncombat
Yes, but both units must unload into the same territory. There aren't too many reasons for doing this, but one would
be to move an AA gun into a territory that was just captured in an amphibious attack.
(not giving the link, because it's messed up, but this is exactly how it worked in Revised before LHTR)
Indeed, the document is wrong. I am in contact with one of the A&A game developpers - who himself is in contact with Avalon Hill. The issue is already addressed, but they have failed to offer the correct document until today.
Nevertheless, all FAQ/Errata/Clarifications should be represented in the very latest editions of the rulebooks.
Of course I did not want to derail the discussion - but prevent from possibly wrong information being discussed.
So, since someone may be asking himself why I was pushing for these exceptions being added to NWO, while I don't like and don't play NWO, the main reason for me is that I really dislike all these unsupported absurdities.
It is a good thing that the TripleA engine doesn't support and never supported them, and I believe adding exceptions to them in the NWO notes will be a good safeguard from some purist developer taking the bad initiative to enforce them in the engine just because these are the official rules.
@Cernel - Good catch. I think entering should be good enough. Having the engine 100% enforce carrier rules properly would be very difficult. The AI plays somewhat conservatively around carrier rules and I don't think I've ever seen it make an illegal move (and I don't believe it ever would).
I'm also going to add a separate brief section called some like "Additional Rules For Alternative Settings" where I'll add some of the clarifications for LHTR, etc. Keeping those separate from the core rules for the default settings I think helps it be easier to digest.
WW2v2 rules (aka revised) are used as the basis with the following rule changes and clarifications:
1. Low Luck (LL) - A move illegal using dice is illegal under LL too. A move legal using dice is legal under LL too.
2*. Neutrals - Neutral territories and units are hostile and can be attacked but you can't fly over neutral territories.
3. Strategic Bombing - The maximum total damage per turn per territory from strategic bombing raids is limited to the value of the territory.
4. Bunkers - For every territory owned at the start of the turn, a maximum of 1 bunker can be placed and bunkers do not use up factory slots. Territories may have unlimited total bunkers in them.
5*. Aircraft-Carrier Combat Move - During combat move, movement of any aircraft requiring landing on carriers is legal only if a minimum number of carriers required for landing all aircrafts either:
- Move to the landing zones during combat move (even if they have no chance of winning the battle).
- Are definitely able to move to the landing zones during non combat move (without entering any sea zones that are hostile at the start of the turn).
6*. Aircraft-Carrier Non Combat Move – During non combat move, if there are any aircraft requiring landing on carriers then moves must be made by carriers and aircraft to maximize the number of aircraft that can safely land. If any aircraft are killed in combat or other carriers are available due to retreating, the carriers used to validate combat moves that aren’t needed to safely land aircraft can move wherever.
7. Combat Move Before Purchase Phase – The following are the differences due to the altered phase order:
- Players know about any air losses occurring during combat movement due to AA fly-overs prior to the purchase phase.
- Conquering an enemy capital empty of combat units (combat units are all units but Factory and AAGun) allows spending all captured PUs right away in the same turns purchase phase (it is advised to leave at least one cheap unit behind if abandoning a capital).
* Indicates certain rules aren’t entirely enforced by TripleA engine so players must fully enforce them.
I believe the current formulation might be ambiguous in case of air vs subs.
Question may be: can aircrafts (eventually plus any other units) attacking subs only (Submarine or S.Sub) in battle validate aircraft movement?
Of course, the answer in no, but it is not very clear.
For example, if 1 Fighter attacks a sea zone with 1 Submarine only, the Submarine will have to submerge or be surely destroyed, eventually, if the Fighter keeps pressing the attack.
So, this is a battle that, as long as the Fighter never retreats, you are sure to eventually win (also with dice), the sea zone being surely not hostile in the following non combat move (sea zones with submerged enemy subs are not hostile).
On the other hand, the Fighter can decide to retreat at any moment; thus you are not sure to be able to move through that sea zone, during not combat move (you can make sure of it, but during combat move you can't be sure that you yourself will take care to assure it on the following combat phase, nor bind yourself to not retreat).
Thus the question is: would an aircraft move requiring landing on a carrier moving through the sea zone where the above fighter against submarine only battle is taking place be legal?
Somebody could argue that, as long as you take care to not retreat the aircraft, you are definitely able to move to the landing zones during non combat move (also with dice).
As said, I understand that such a move is illegal, because the Fighter can retreat before the Submarine is sunk or submerged; so, during combat move, you can’t be sure that the sea zone will be not hostile during non combat move, even though this depends exclusively on you.
(practically, it is 100% impossible to validate aircraft moves requiring a carrier to move through or into an enemy sea zone during non combat move)
In any case, I believe the explanation must me modified as to make such cases unmistakably covered.
As long as I'm correct that the above move is illegal, I suggest rewording this way:
*Aircraft-Carrier Combat Move
- During combat move, movement of any aircrafts requiring landing on carriers is legal only if a minimum number of carriers required for landing all aircrafts either:
- Move to the landing zones during combat move (even if they have no chance of winning the battle, if any).
- Can move to the landing zones (during non combat move) without moving into or through any sea zones that are hostile at the start of the turn.
That would get rid of the "definitively" part, that in turn is not self sufficient, as being dependent on the first rule, about the moves being dice-based, and I tend to think might be argued upon, and, instead, just base the rule on the fact that the sea zones must be not-hostile at start turn, which is more straightforward.
Also, I tend to think that "moving into or through" is better than "entering", to be dummy proof.
Plus, I've added the "if any" part, in the point beforehand, since you don't necessarily have to move to the landing zone during combat move because it is hostile, but also if the carrier started the turn inside a hostile sea zone.
p.s.: I'm also removing the Bunker rules, since they are already explained after the units’ tables, and that is better to stay there, since it is relative to a specific unit (also purchasable only from round 4).
These are the basic rules in the released World At War version 2.1.0 (in Notes):
WW2V2 rules (aka Revised) are used as the basis, with the following changes and clarifications:
1. Low Luck (LL) - A move illegal using regular luck (dice) is illegal under low luck too. A move legal using regular luck (dice) is legal under low luck too.
2. *Neutrals - Neutral territories and units are hostile and can be attacked, but you can't fly over neutral territories.
3. Bombing Raids - The maximum total damage per turn per territory from strategic bombing raids is limited to the value of the territory.
4. *Aircraft-Carrier Combat Move - During combat movement, the movement of any aircrafts requiring landing on carriers is legal only if a minimum number of carriers required for landing all aircrafts either:
- Move to the landing zones during combat movement (even if they have no chance of winning the battle, if any).
- Can move to the landing zones (during non combat movement) without moving into or through any sea zones that are hostile at the start of the turn.
5. *Aircraft-Carrier Non Combat Move - During non combat movement, if there are any aircrafts requiring landing on carriers, then moves must be made by carriers and aircrafts to maximize the number of aircrafts that can safely land. If aircrafts are killed in combat or other carriers are available due to retreating, the carriers used to validate combat moves that aren't needed to safely land aircrafts can move wherever.
6. Combat Movement Before Purchase Phase - The following are the differences due to the altered phase order:
- Players know about any air losses occurring during combat movement due to AA fly-overs prior to the purchase phase.
- Conquering an enemy capital empty of combat units (combat units are all units but Factory and AAGun) allows spending all captured PUs right away in the same turn's purchase phase (it is advised to leave at least one cheap combat unit behind if abandoning a capital).
* Indicates certain rules aren't entirely enforced by TripleA 18.104.22.168, so the players must fully enforce them.
On the matter of rules vs folks, I think we have a problem with WAW. Looks like most people now send the Fighter in Rongelap to 91 Sea Zone (4 moves now, 3 moves only in 1.x, instead), without sending 1 Carrier too, which is allowed under v2 (Revised) rules, but clearly forbidden in WAW (as well as NWO). Opinions?
Chat log from odesa private game (I think it is fine, since it was not a passworded game, and all the talking is about the game anyway) (the bold is mine):
odesa: tp boats can carry 1 inf too
odesa: differnt from nwo
krustyshort1: people often take the two spots on the philipines to create a passage
odesa: wasn't it hama (white japan) that took Hong Kong?
krustyshort1: most people take out Davao, Hong Kong and pearl harbour with yama
krustyshort1: not hong kong
krustyshort1: that is usually hisaichi
odesa: I seem to recall that being white
krustyshort1: davao and pearl harbour
krustyshort1: people tend to buy trannys so that yama can expand quickly
odesa: sz 91 safe to take right/
odesa: hit and run IIRC
Cernel: are you sure you want to send 1 battleship in 91?
krustyshort1: 5 subs, 5 planes and 1 bomber should do it
Cernel: yep, plus also the destroyer, if you want to be safe
krustyshort1: fighter from rongelap can make it, just make sure it comes in first and dies
krustyshort1: destroyer makes it a lock
Cernel: at krusty
Cernel: by rules
Cernel: if you send the fighter from rongelap, you have to send 1 carrier too
odesa: dd it is then :)
krustyshort1: i thought that was the rule, but everyone else seems to be playing that you only have to bring a carrier in if the plane survives Cernel: no, they are not correct
Cernel: those are the Revised rules
Cernel: but NWO and WAW and TRS have special rules that forbid such a move
krustyshort1: well i am easy on whatever way you want to play it odesa
Cernel: ask ice too, if you want to be sure
odesa: 1 sec
Cernel: so if someone sends the fighter in rongelap to 91 without sending 1 carrier, that is an illegal move
krustyshort1: i hear you, but that illegal move is allowed by almost everyone i have played on this map Cernel: well that is worrying
krustyshort1: but it is up to odesa
Cernel: it means that people are not following the rules
Cernel: I will raise this question in forum
Cernel: to have a confirmation that the fighter from rongelap cannot attack 91 Sea Zone without sending 1 carrier in the battle too
Cernel: and what to do if, as you say, currently most people decide to use regular Revised rules in WAW and do that?
ice, what is your opinion? How about adding an example to game Notes, and using exactly the fighter in Rongelap to sea zone 91 as example, telling that such a move is allowed only if at least 1 carrier is sent in the battle too? Please, answer soon, as this forum is going to be closed soon, and you will have to open a new topic in the new one, if you want to keep your "Seig trio default rules discussion" thread open.
Actually, LOL, that thing of sending the Rongelap Fighter in 91 Sea Zone, without sending 1 carrier, would be fine by WW2V2 rules only if you send no more than 3 Fighters in it from 88 Sea Zone, because, if you send all of them plus the one in Rongelap, you would have 5 Fighters attacking 91 Sea Zone, but only 2 Carriers available to land them.
So, what folks seem to be doing, namely sending 5 Fighters in 91 Sea Zone with no Carriers, is TWICE illegal, both by WW2V2 rules and by WAW special rules.
So, my suggestion is adding in notes the following examples, that should both help making the rules clearer, and giving a direct and unmistakable way for people having knowledge of the rules to make their opponents playing properly, as well (at this point, I'm guessing the only way to assure people won't send the Fighter in Rongelap to 91 Sea Zone without one carrier or with more than other 3 Fighters is to directly stating it):
Examples of WAW (not WW2V2) special rules:
a. On Yamamoto round 1, the Fighter from Rongelap can attack 91 Sea Zone only if at least also one Carrier is sent to do battle in 91 Sea Zone, on the same phase (in the battle thereafter, you can however take the Carrier as casualty, or even retreat, while the Fighter is still alive); moreover, if you send the Fighter from Rongelap, only 3 other Fighters can be sent in 91 Sea Zone, as any more would not be able to land, anyways (since whatever Fighters sent in 91 Sea Zone can only land on the Carriers from 88 Sea Zone, anyhow).
b. On Yamamoto round 1, any Fighters from 85 Sea Zone can attack Davao, but only if a number of Carriers able to land them all is sent to do battle in 107 Sea Zone, on the same phase (in the battle in that sea zone thereafter, you can however take the Carriers as casualties or even retreat, even if this means letting the Fighters with 1 movement left in Davao unable to land).
@ice: I realise that adding those examples would make the rules significantly longer, which you appear to be strongly against to. Are you strongly against such an addition, and maybe want to reformulate it someway?
@redrum: I would like to sort this one out in a few days at most, and before releasing the new one I still have to upload, and, possibly, before this forum gets closed, and we (either ice or you, I assume) have to migrate the discussion, restarting it in a new Topic. I will try to look around in lobby, to see if the WAW players really use to do the above nonsense, as reportedly said. Also, can you check that the above addition is grammatically correct and it reads fine? Please, answer soon, if you can.
@all: Do most WAW players seriously not get it, and now use to send the Fighter from Rongelap in 91 Sea Zone? Is this really common practice?? Do they also even send 5 or more Fighters in the battle, which is totally kamikaze???
p.s.: Of course, sending the Fighter from Minamitori would be the same thing as from Rongelap.
Uhm, actually the engine correctly forbids you to send more than 4 Fighters in 91 Sea Zone, so I'm not sure of what krusty was saying? Maybe that the people he plays send 1 Fighter from Rongelap and 3 Fighters from 88 Sea Zone? Still, this way, you need to send 1 Carrier too, but I don't get the point of this, as the 4th Fighter left in 88 Sea Zone, then, can't be sent in any other battles.
Guess I need to catch krusty to have more details on this thing. Maybe he confuses the new WAW with the old one. Duno.