winterised losses correctly implemented?

[TeaLeaf]

Following attack just happened in my game:
A Soviet stack attacking a German stack during snow on the Blitz Table,
was forced to lose a 9-5 winterised ARM instead of a winterised 5-2 MIL.

I think this is incorrect because the rules say

If any attacking:
(a) HQ-A, ARM, MECH or winterised unit gets a die roll modifier, and/or
(b) ENG gains any engineering benefit (see 22.1);
the first loss (if any) must be a unit gaining the benefit. If more than one, an ENG must take the first loss.

And during this attack, no units gained a die roll modifier because of being HQA, ARM or MECH.
There were 5 winterised units (of which the 9-5ARM was one, yes) gaining a +1 each, so weren 't we supposed to be able to choose which 1 of the 5 winterised units to loose??? The rules dont say anything about loss-priorities within a winterised group.

If not, I 'll redo the attack because planning to loose a 5-2 MIL worst case scenario but instead being surprised by the game telling no, it has to be that 9-5ARM is unacceptable. [Rant] The allies are way too frustrated already by being the only side to time after time receiving the worst case scenario combat results on land, water and in the sky. And unjustified mind you because not launching bad-odds attacks over and over, no... +10 is good enough... sigh [/rant]

[TeaLeaf]

damn I see I was half asleep when posting this question in general forum.
Please move it to tech support if that's appropriate . Thanks!

[Joseignacio]

IMO you are right. No loss order within winterized units.

[michaelbaldur]

when using 2d10, then

1. it always engineer first.

2. then arm/mec/mot first (if blitz bonus)

3. after that its winter first (if winter bonus)

⇒ (d) When using the Blitz table, 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).

so from what I see the game does it right.

dont know what rules you are using.

so in your case, the first loss arm is because of the blitz table, not the winter effects

[Joseignacio]

From the 2d10 WIF table:

"7. If any attacking:
(a) HQ-A, ARM, MECH or winterised unit gets a die roll modifier, and/or
(b) ENG gains any engeneering benefit (see 22.1)
the first loss (if any) must be a unit gaining the benefit. If more than one, and ENG must take the first loss.

Now, which rules are you using?

Untitled2.png (267.76 KiB) Viewed 206 times

[Joseignacio]

He was not getting any die roll modifier from Armor (snow), but was getting from Winterized.

Untitled3.png (195.89 KiB) Viewed 205 times

[Orm]

Getting benefits from armour is not needed for it to be first loss. The only demand is that the attack used the blitz table. And since blitz was used then the first loss is AMR, or MOT, and so on.

So first loss order priority order are:
1) ENG if used
2) MOT, MECH, ARM, HQA if blitz table used
3) Winterized unit if any winterized bonus used.

[Centuur]

Getting benefits from armour is not needed for it to be first loss. The only demand is that the attack used the blitz table. And since blitz was used then the first loss is AMR, or MOT, and so on.

So first loss order priority order are:
1) ENG if used
2) MOT, MECH, ARM, HQA if blitz table used
3) Winterized unit if any winterized bonus used.

Correct. If the Blitzkrieg table is used (even when chosen by the defender), this is the order in which the first loss has to be taken.

[TeaLeaf]

Okay guys, I checked and checked and I see that the rules are implemented correctly if playing with 2003 rules...
At least since 2008 this has changed (I always check living online rules but in this case I also checked the rules in my old cardboard game).

So.. if playing with newer rules this combat would have allowed us to take a winterised unit instead of the ARM.
Interesting difference between old and new rules!
Hmmm, I think I 'll redo the combat and either assault or include an el-cheapo MOT-div. I know 1 is close by

[Orm]

Nowdays, when checking for rules regarding MWIF I always use RAC. This because there was a stop date for rule changes for MWIF. Almost no rule changes after that date has made it into MWIF.

Also, note that RAC has the 2d10 combat table included at the end (should be the version that MWIF uses).

[Joseignacio]

Getting benefits from armour is not needed for it to be first loss. The only demand is that the attack used the blitz table. And since blitz was used then the first loss is AMR, or MOT, and so on.

So first loss order priority order are:
1) ENG if used
2) MOT, MECH, ARM, HQA if blitz table used
3) Winterized unit if any winterized bonus used.

Correct. If the Blitzkrieg table is used (even when chosen by the defender), this is the order in which the first loss has to be taken.

I value your opinions but much more the rules. And it is clearly defined, as I posted earlier:

"7. If any attacking:
(a) HQ-A, ARM, MECH or winterised unit gets a die roll modifier, and/or
(b) ENG gains any engeneering benefit (see 22.1)
the first loss (if any) must be a unit gaining the benefit. If more than one, and ENG must take the first loss."

The Blitz table is NOT a die roll modifier. The winterizer die roll modifier, is.

[Orm]

I value your opinions but much more the rules. And it is clearly defined, as I posted earlier:

Then please use the rules version that MWIF is built upon.

Cut from RAC:
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).

[Joseignacio]

Ok, so it is a Deviation.
Thanks

[paulderynck]

Pretty sure that the dependence of Armor/Mech/Mot first loss on them getting a die roll benefit is something that was not there until the Collectors Edition (a.k.a RAW8) came along.

It is a change that partly resulted from defenders choosing the Blitz table for an attack (like on a city - defender chooses table) where the attacker employed a single big armored unit - in the hopes that attacker would roll a loss result. I'd even heard of Zhukov being lost this way!

So beware! this can happen in MWiF games.

[craigbear]

Just out of interest, I posted the whole initial post to Bing chatAI

Here is the result... and not saying anything about how definitive it is, but it could be a useful tool...

"Based on the information I have, I think you are correct that you should have been able to choose which winterised unit to lose in the attack. The rules say that the first loss must be a unit gaining a benefit, but they do not specify which unit within a group of units with the same benefit. Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that you can choose any winterised unit, as long as it is not an HQ-A, ARM, MECH or ENG that gained another benefit. However, this is only my interpretation and I may be missing some details or nuances of the rules. I suggest that you check the official rule book or contact the Australian Design Group for a definitive answer. They may have an FAQ or errata that addresses this issue. I hope this helps."

[craigbear]

I would suggest that if all relevant rules were posted to the ai, it could come up as a decent referee

[Orm]

Just out of interest, I posted the whole initial post to Bing chatAI

Here is the result... and not saying anything about how definitive it is, but it could be a useful tool...

It could indeed b e a useful tool. However, I suggest that you help the AI by specifying that the relevant rules are RAC. It is, after all, the rules that the game is coded after. I suggest that the other rules versions may confuse the AI.

Edit: And I was late again.

[TeaLeaf]

As far as I 'm concerned my case is adeqately refereed already.
I am fine contacting an AI but there's no need because I have no lingering questions or bad feelings .

Although I would rather like MWIF to implement the latest rules set instead of an old one, I 'm fine as long as I remember to watch out for differences in the rules.

Oh and while we're at it, I'd much rather like MWiF to be a reliable trustworthy convoy AI, following the latest rules set and offering all the optional rules that are in WiF than it offering an AI-opponent.
Since developing the latter costs a large amount of energy and time, I wonder why those aren't used to focus on the former .

For after all, it seems to me that MWIF isn't fulfilling a need for an opponent (AI or otherwise), but a means to play it online or solitaire w/o the need to set it up and have it displayed in our room for half a century before we finished a campaign .

[paulderynck]

As far as I 'm concerned my case is adeqately refereed already.
I am fine contacting an AI but there's no need because I have no lingering questions or bad feelings .

Although I would rather like MWIF to implement the latest rules set instead of an old one, I 'm fine as long as I remember to watch out for differences in the rules.

Oh and while we're at it, I'd much rather like MWiF to be a reliable trustworthy convoy AI, following the latest rules set and offering all the optional rules that are in WiF than it offering an AI-opponent.
Since developing the latter costs a large amount of energy and time, I wonder why those aren't used to focus on the former .

For after all, it seems to me that MWIF isn't fulfilling a need for an opponent (AI or otherwise), but a means to play it online or solitaire w/o the need to set it up and have it displayed in our room for half a century before we finished a campaign .

Well said!