Mandatory Losses Not Enforced

[paulderynck]

The unit menu allows you to use the engineer's abilities or not. If you use it, it always is top priority for first loss. That is stated on the 2D10 table.

[Joseignacio]

From the A-D-G site RAW 7.0 clarifications (Jul 2009)

Q11.16-29

I am playing with the 2d10 table and I have 3 white-print units committed to attacking a hex during winter. Can I choose which of my white-print units will be receiving the winter bonus and thus subject to first loss?

Yes, although if you decide any are to receive the winter bonus, you may as well say they all are since if any do, the first loss must come from one of the attacking units receiving a winterised bonus (owner's choice). Date 12/11/2008

11.16.6 (chart): 8.2 Weather Effects
(...)
+1 ~ for each winterized unit attacking in Snow or Blizzard.
8.2.7: If at least half of your attacking land units are MTN, ski troops (AsA option 65), Swedish, Finnish, Norwegian, or white print Soviet units, you may lessen the odds reduction in snow or blizzard by 2 (i.e. snow has no effect and blizzard becomes a -1 odds shift). If you use this power, your first loss must be from one of these units (exception: MiF option 7 ~ engineers, see
22.4.1).

Q11.16-31 11.16.6
22.4.1 Option 2
For ENG, is the +1 per combat factor attacking a city declinable? Is this first-kill qualifying bonus?

Yes. Date 29/11/2007

11.6.6 (chart):
􀖜 +1 ~ per ENG combat factor attacking a city.
􀖜 -1 ~ per ENG combat factor defending a city.
22.4.1: If an ENG provides any benefits in an attack, it always suffers the first loss (even before white print units attacking in winter)

Blitz loss can be taken by what? Can it be taken by MOT ENG, ARM ART, etc? Or just the named types (MOT, MECH, ARM, HQA)? Are DIV OK too?

MOT, MECH, ARM, HQ-A corps, armies or divisions. Date 29/11/2007

11.6.6 (chart): 3d) When using the Blitz table no matter who called the blitz, the attacker’s first loss must be a MOT, MECH, ARM or HQ-A if any of these attacked (even before the winterised unit lost, but after ENG loss)

[Centuur]

The order of loss taking is:

ENG (but only if you use it in combat, which means you have to right click on the ENG and to click on land attack - use engineers in combat)

Motorized unit, if the blitzkrieg table is used

Winterized unit, if the winterized bonus is used.

Any paradropped/invading unit if the hex is not taken.

So if you drop the USSR para on a city and attack it with an ENG, a black print USSR MECH, a white print and two black print USSR INF. Then you use both winterized and the ENG bonus, if the defender than chooses the Blitz table and you get to kill 3 units on your site, without taking the hex, you lose: the ENG, hte MECH, a white print INF and the para.

If you have to destroy two units, without taking the hex, you lose the ENG, the MECH and the Para...

That's the rules...

[Zorachus99]

Yep hours on the forum, and still unsure of how losses are done.

1) The rules mention the first loss, they certainly do not mention how the second, third, or other losses that must be taken. Are you sure you are interpreting the rules right Centuur?

2) If an engineer attacks a city, it factors in the +1 per combat factor automatically, and therefore I must lose the engineer first in any loss of any combat in a city?

3) If I use an HQ to negate the city bonus, is the engineer still forced to be the first loss, or only when attacking cities with factories?

4) If I attack a city with an engineer, but the defender calls blitz, is the first loss the engineer, or a Mot type unit?

[paulderynck]

1) Right - second loss can be anything.

2) You can decline to use the engineer for anything, so No. See FAQ quote in post #42.

3) You can decline to use the engineer for anything, so No. See FAQ quote in post #42.

4) Depends if you declined the engineer bonus. If you did, then No. If not, then Yes.

[Centuur]

I;m going to use the statement of another user in this forum...

"I thought I knew how to play this game"...

[Zorachus99]

So the pseudo-code would be:

if engineer uses engineer function, then engineer first, else
if winterized unit is using ability then winterized first, else
If blitz is chosen then mot type first, else
first loss is attackers choice

Thanks for everyone's help.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

So the pseudo-code would be:

if engineer uses engineer function, then engineer first, else
if winterized unit is using ability then winterized first, else
If blitz is chosen then mot type first, else
first loss is attackers choice

Thanks for everyone's help.

No.

It should be like this:

if engineer uses engineer function, then engineer first, else
if blitz is chosen then mot type first, else
if winterized unit is using ability then winterized first, else
first loss is attackers choice

[Courtenay]

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

So the pseudo-code would be:

if engineer uses engineer function, then engineer first, else
if winterized unit is using ability then winterized first, else
If blitz is chosen then mot type first, else
first loss is attackers choice

Thanks for everyone's help.

No. You have winterized and blitz reversed:

if engineer uses engineer function, then engineer first
if blitz and losses remain, than MOT, MECH, ARM or HQ-ARM next, if present
if winterized unit is using ability and losses remain, and a winterized unit has not already been destroyed, then winterized next
destroy any invading or parachute units if attacker did not take defender's hex
all remaining losses are attackers choice

Note that parachute and invasion losses can be more than the losses stated on the combat table. Indeed, given the right combat (a blitz combat with an ENG using its river crossing bonus combined with three parachute units attacking in snow weather with a winterized unit using its bonus and a combat result of three losses) it is possible for the attacker to lose six units in a single attack.

This is currently not implemented in MWiF, but it is RAW.

When using the Blitz table, no matter who chose it, the attacker’s first loss must be MOT, MECH, ARM, or HQ-A if any of those attacked (even before winterized unit loss, but after ENG loss).

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

So the pseudo-code would be:

if engineer uses engineer function, then engineer first, else
if winterized unit is using ability then winterized first, else
If blitz is chosen then mot type first, else
first loss is attackers choice

Thanks for everyone's help.

No. You have winterized and blitz reversed:

if engineer uses engineer function, then engineer first
if blitz and losses remain, than MOT, MECH, ARM or HQ-ARM next, if present
if winterized unit is using ability and losses remain, and a winterized unit has not already been destroyed, then winterized next
destroy any invading or parachute units if attacker did not take defender's hex
all remaining losses are attackers choice

Note that parachute and invasion losses can be more than the losses stated on the combat table. Indeed, given the right combat (a blitz combat with an ENG using its river crossing bonus combined with three parachute units attacking in snow weather with a winterized unit using its bonus and a combat result of three losses) it is possible for the attacker to lose six units in a single attack.

This is currently not implemented in MWiF, but it is RAW.

When using the Blitz table, no matter who chose it, the attacker’s first loss must be MOT, MECH, ARM, or HQ-A if any of those attacked (even before winterized unit loss, but after ENG loss).

No, this is not correct.

There can only be one first loss.

If a unit is paradropping into a hex and then there can not be any river crossing bonus. The para did not cross the river.

[Courtenay]

I can paradrop into a hex, and simultaneously attack into the hex from an adjacent hex across a river, using an ENG to negate the river.

You might be right about only one first loss, but that is not how I have read the rule. Of course, this would not be first time I have read the rules wrong. (See signature.)

[Orm]

I can paradrop into a hex, and simultaneously attack into the hex from an adjacent hex across a river, using an ENG to negate the river.

Indeed.

I expressed myself poorly. I just meant to say that if you paradrop into a hex and the other land units attack across a river hexside then there can be no extra loss for all units attacking across a hexside. The paratrooper didn't attack across the hexside.

[Courtenay]

ORIGINAL: Orm

I can paradrop into a hex, and simultaneously attack into the hex from an adjacent hex across a river, using an ENG to negate the river.

Indeed.

I expressed myself poorly. I just meant to say that if you paradrop into a hex and the other land units attack across a river hexside then there can be no extra loss for all units attacking across a hexside. The paratrooper didn't attack across the hexside.

I don't understand. My understanding of the rules in this case is that the first loss must be from the ENG. Then after that, all the paradrop units are destroyed. Do you agree, or are you saying something else happens?

To be specific, say an ENG and another unit attack across a river, with the ENG using its river crossing bonus, and a PAR drops onto the defending hex. The combat result is 0/1. The ENG and the PAR both die. Correct?

[76mm]

Yeah, I can see why this bug is such a low priority, since it is so simple for players to deal with themselves... [8|]

[Orm]

To be specific, say an ENG and another unit attack across a river, with the ENG using its river crossing bonus, and a PAR drops onto the defending hex. The combat result is 0/1. The ENG and the PAR both die. Correct?

Yes. That is correct (if the result is 1/0). And if three para units dropped into that hex the ENG and all three para would be lost.

[Zorachus99]

I'm so confused. Can we have some clarification here?

[rkr1958]

Good Lord, I'm really confused. Honestly, this doesn't seem like a low priority bug to me. If the program doesn't enforce the correct losses and doesn't tell me how to enforce them how am I suppose to know?

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

Good Lord, I'm really confused. Honestly, this doesn't seem like a low priority bug to me. If the program doesn't enforce the correct losses and doesn't tell me how to enforce them how am I suppose to know?

I think that the program tells you that a certain type of unit must be 'first loss' but it does not enforce it.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

I'm so confused. Can we have some clarification here?

First unit lost must follow this priority. Second unit lost is always attackers choice.

1) If ENG provides any benefits in an attack, then it always suffers the first loss.
2) If 2d10 is in play and blitz combat table is used, then the attacker’s first loss must be a MOT, MECH, ARM or HQ-A if any of these attacked, unless point 1 apply.
3) If winterized unit provide any benefit in an attack, then a winterized unit suffers the first loss, unless point 1 or 2 applies.
4) If neither of point 1, 2 or 3 applies then first loss is attackers choice.
*) If point 1, 2 or 3 apply then additional losses might be caused by overstacking if the attacked hex was not captured and units invaded or paradropped into that hex. Note that this can happen even when points 1 to 3 do not apply.

[paulderynck]

People are making it more difficult than it is. There are first loss criteria. They only specify the first loss that must be taken and a priority is given for cases when several apply. There is nothing specified for what is second, or third, or etc. The invading and paradropping units mentioned are muddying the waters here. Does anyone know of a wargame where invading or paradropping units do not die if they fail to take the hex they are attacking?

So - you have one, count 'em one, mandatory first loss, which the program tells you about but doesn't enforce currently. And you have the collateral damage to invading/paradropping units that fail to take the hex they attack. This can be one, two or three more units depending how many attacked. If the combat result on a lost battle like this calls for the loss of two or three units, then the invading/paradropping losses can be used to satisfy any losses beyond the mandatory loss (if there is one), since they are all dead meat anyway.