I appreciate GRD's offer to arbitrate the Scorched Earth combat resolution question. My presentation is rather long and detailed, but necessary to show that the attack in question is not an isolated incident, but part of a pattern during the game and even the same combat phase.

Aside from a minor rules interpretation, never has the Axis player offered to cut a beginning Soviet player any slack. The Axis player has ruthlessly exploited every Soviet error, from the initial set up to the loss of Moscow and its factory. I fail to see the point of engaging in any game or sport where one side is allowed to ignore its mistakes, but the other has to suffer the consequences of theirs. In this case I fully agree that the Rostov attack was hastily and sloppily done and should not have been made; in fact, I urged the Axis player several times not to make it. He did, however, of his own free will, choose to make the attack, and then opened up this appeal process after he did not get the results he was expecting. In light of all the facts presented herein, I feel that the German player must be made to abide by the consequences of his actions.

Here are the facts of the case

The Axis player announces the end of his Jul I 42 movement phase. Prior to combat the Soviet player undertakes a review of the Kalinin Front. The review involves quickly adding up the combat strengths of four Axis corps and four Soviet armies available for any combat, including defensive air support (DAS), and then matching up possible attacks. This procedure discloses potential attacks at the following odds before AA fire: 2.76:1 (-1) on infantry in a fort at the north end of the line; 1.94:1 (-1) on a tank army in the middle hex; and 2.75:1 (-1) on a mixed army to the south (just NW of Kalinin itself).

The Axis commits his air and begins the combat phase. He moves to the Kalinin Front and announces an attack on the infantry army with 75 combat factors (which would give exact odds of 3:1 attack). Because of the previous examination undertaken (rarely done in such detail), the Soviet questions the stated total. The Axis player rechecks and announces "75 attack factors" again. When the Soviet states his total shows only 69 factors available and starts to lean across the table for a closer check, the Axis recounts a third time and agrees with 69 factors attacking, giving odds of 2.76:1 (-1) before AA fire on the five column, and elects to continue the attack. The AA fire misses, leaving odds of 2.76:1 (-1). The dice rolls result in an AS.

After all planned attacks are completed, the Axis player spends a minute reviewing the map. He then announces that since he has killed a lot of Russians so far this turn without taking any casualties himself, he "can afford a few losses" and will make a few further, riskier attacks.

Returning to the Kalinin Front, he announces an attack on the mixed Soviet army adjacent to Kalinin at 2.75:1 (-1) before AA. The AA rolls on the seven column and returns enough Soviet planes to raise the odds to 3:1 (-1), and the die roll results in a DR.

Pleased with the result, the Axis player turns to Rostov, stating that he has the same forces ready to attack that he had last turn (when he decided not to attack a Soviet force with less DAS). The Soviet announces 27 factors on the ground and 24 DAS; the Axis announces 149.5 attack factors with 1fl engineers.

When the calculator shows this to yield odds of 2.93:1 (-1) before AA, risking a possible AH result, the Soviet player strongly urges the Axis not to make the attack. The Axis replies that AA and incremental odds ought to assure a 3:1, and might result in a 4:1 attack, and that he "feels lucky". The Soviet again points to the possible AH and asks the Axis player to consider the consequences of such a result, but the Axis player proceeds to roll the dice.

The incremental dice roll shows "26", raising the attack odds to 3:1. The combat die roll shows a "'1", resulting in an AR. The shocked Axis commander begins to retreat the four corps involved in the attack. One of the corps attacked from a surrounded position: 3 German infantry divisions are reduced to cadre, 2 artillery units are eliminated, and 1 c/m flak unit survives and retreats.

After seeing the tactical situation following the retreats (especially the RR artillery and Luftwaffe fighter bases left open to Soviet counterattacks), the Axis player announces that "the German just cannot take these losses" and that his "position in the south is ruined now, his whole plan of campaign depends on his taking Rostov," and asks that he be allowed to ignore the results of the attack and consider that it never happened.

The Soviet refuses to agree, pointing out that he had warned against making the attack. After several minutes discussing the point, the Soviet begins to total his losses for the turn in early preparation for his initial phase, while the Axis appears to be starting his exploitation phase.

Suddenly, the Axis player announces that he forgot to roll his AA, and should be allowed to make the rolls now. The Soviet objects that the attacks are over, that AA is not intrinsic to an attack (as are such things as proper odds or engineer calculations), and that the result stands.

After several more minutes discussing the merits of the respective positions, the Axis player announces that he's going to execute the AA fire anyway. The Soviet player agrees the rolls ought to be made "unofficially", saying that if the fire all misses it would make the whole AA issue a moot point and the Axis would then feel better knowing that it wouldn't have made a difference anyway.

The Axis player announces a 2-factor flak shot, and rolls snake- eyes for an abort, plus two return results (negating 8 DAS factors). These flak rolls would raise the odds to 4:1 and result in a combat result of AS. After renewed discussion about whether the flak rolls ought to be allowed, the Soviet suggests both sides sleep on the matter and discuss it later.

The next evening, the Soviet player reviews the Rostov attack and discovers that the Axis had only 6 flak factors involved in the attack (from 4 hexes), meaning that the flak shots should have been rolled on the 1 column instead of the announced 2 column. This would have resulted in only 3 aborted DAS factors, giving corrected odds of 3.11: 1. With the incremental dice roll being "26", this would yield 3:1 (-1) odds, and the AR result would stand.

The Soviet player called the Axis player to discuss the situation. The Axis player says that he has also reviewed the attack mentally and realized that during the turn he had sent some of his engineers back to build airbases for the transferring LW fighters, and as a result the attackers may not have had 1/7 engineers participating. An extensive check confirms there should have been no engineer mod.

The corrected AA and engineer factors now gave a 3:1 (-2) attack, with an AH resulting from the die roll of 1. The Axis states that "of course, he would never have made a 3:1 (-2) attack", so the attack should be considered never to have happened; it would never have been made if the correct odds/mods had been stated. Continuing this line of argument (among others) the next day, the Axis commander also cites the "legal" aspect of "precedent", stating that up to now in the game combat odds/mods had rarely been questioned, that he had stated the incorrect odds/mods in good faith, and that the Soviets had not questioned them before the die was rolled, so they should be allowed to stand as stated.

The Soviet player points out that it was the Axis player who opened up the review of the originally stated odds when he appealed the flak roll instead of letting the initial combat result stand. Now that the appeal has revealed errors detrimental to the Axis position, he wants to ignore the errors/corrections and go back to the original combat result!

Furthermore, in citing "precedent" about not correcting errors after a die roll, the Axis player is ignoring his very own actions the previous game turn. During that combat phase, he announced an attack as having a -1 modifier, resulting in a DR. When the Soviet player was totalling his losses during the Axis exploitation phase, he noticed this was an error and announced the defenders had 1/2 ATEC, not 1fl, which would yield an HX result rather than a DR.

Did the Axis player state the error would have to stand because the modifier had been announced in error, but in "good faith", or that the die roll was a "done deal", or that the combat phase was long over? No, he said, "Oh, you're right!", and immediately reached to eliminate 4 factors.

The Axis player also now states that he would "never have made a 3:1 (-2) attack", presumably because of the AH possibility. Yet this was the third attack this turn in which he risked an attack on the equivalent odds column of 2:1 (-1), which also has an AH possibility.

Regardless of whether the chances of an adverse result are 1 in 2, or 1 in 10, or 1 in 100, if a possibility exists at all a player should not make the attack if he cannot stand the possible consequences. When a player makes three risky attacks in the same turn, he has to be willing to accept the consequences if one of them fails (after all, if you're going to make a habit of standing under tall trees during thunderstorms ... ).

In this Rostov attack, the Axis player made the attack at 2.93:1 odds, counting on the AA and incremental dice roll to raise the odds. He knew there was a possibility, no matter how small, of "lightning striking" (i.e., the AA totally missing and the incremental dice roll being above 93). Since it was an AR result that originally brought on the Axis protests, and thus is considered almost as disastrous as the AH, that means the Axis player made the attack anyway knowing that there was a possibility of three "totally unacceptable" results from the combat: AH and AR at 2:1 (-1), and AR at 3:1 (-1).

Thus, to say at this point that the attack should be disallowed because "the Axis player wouldn't have made such a risky attack" is contradicted by the above facts which clearly show that the Axis player was perfectl~ willing to make risky attacks and abide by the results, as long as the results were favorable to him.

Sloppy play should not be an excuse for illegal attacks, which should be corrected when discovered. The corrected attack result of AH at Rostov must stand. 

Rules Court The Case of the Rostov Attack

General Background
The Case for the Prosecution: Soviet
The Case for the Defense: Axis

Rules Court The Verdict of the Rostov Attack: Part 2

General Background
The Verdict for the Prosecution: Soviet
The Verdict for the Defense: Axis