As I began this process of arbitration, I focused on the defense's case. Why deal with the defense? Because, the Soviet player isn't trying to get away with anything! The Axis player is trying to back out of an attack he gambled on and lost. On my table and on every table I have ever played, "A die roll is a die roll'. I have wargamed for over twenty years and not once come across a player stating that he wasn't willing to live with a roll. Go to Las Vegas and ask the croupier if you can take back a die roll. So my first ruling is to deny the defense's motion to abrogate the die roll.

The AA-fire issue is also easily resolved. The Axis player forgot to roll his AA fire. TOO BAD! Nothing in the rules requires the non-phasing player to allow AA fire after the combat roll. In fact, AA fire must be rolled prior to combat per Rule 22B. As the expert participant, the Axis player should know this.

Large tracts of the Axis player's brief are totally irrelevant and only serve to highlight the Axis player's growing desperation! For instance, who cares what preparations he had made for his summer campaign? The Axis should have been more concerned about the proper execution of this reckless attack if his stakes were so high. In many instances it seems that the Axis player is engaging in hocus-pocus so that he might generate enough smoke to conceal what is really at stake, and thereby deflect some of the result.

My next decision is to disregard all analysis occurring after the die roll. After the die is cast, only precedent can alter the outcome if a mistake is found. The Soviet case cites precedent for adjusting this combat to an AH, but precedent must be based on both players' willingness to fix mistakes. This is something players must agree upon among themselves. The fact that the two players have submitted this dispute for arbitration clearly indicates that the protocols and precedents established in the preceding 25 game turns are insufficient to resolve the Rostov issue.

Heart of the Matter

Now let's get to the heart of the matter. I must reprimand the careless style of play used by both players. The Axis player did not use combat chits with odds; each attack was declared from memory. He called out factors from each attacking hex and the Soviet player totaled them up.

The Axis player announced the modifiers and the roll was cast. For his part, the Soviet player didn't challenge the odds or mods at any time, nor contest in any way the original result. I have to wonder why a defending player would allow an attack on a city of paramount importance such as Rostov to be rolled without first double-checking the attack odds.

Gentlemen, the defending player ALWAYS has the right, and obligation, to check the odds BEFORE the die is rolled. When the attacker announces the attack, the defender either agrees or disagrees with the odds. When you look across the table at your opponent and state the odds and your opponent agrees, you've just made a contract. If the die is then rolled without further examination, the attack stands unless firm and clear precedent has been established to go back and fix mistakes.

Both players agreed the result was an AR based on the die roll and the agreed-upon odds and mods. THE AR STANDS! If this were a friendly game on our local table, the Axis player would be a gentleman and take the AH. If the Soviets are "taking a terrible pounding", then why is the Axis player unwilling to live with a single combat roll? After all, it is he who has the advantage in experience and position on the table gained through Soviet mistakes.

But dictating an AH in a case such as this would encourage an unscrupulous defending player to sit pat prior to a combat roll knowing the attacker had misread the attack.

To me this opens the game up to a sort of blindman's bluff with the defender waiting to point out combat odds miscalculations in his favor after the die is cast. This, my friends, is cheating! If the attacker looks at the CRT and announces an EX that is really a DE, isn't the defender obligated to point out his mistake? You bet.

If the attacker states he has a 3:1 attack and the defender knows it is a 2:1, does he pass this information on only after the roll is made hoping to nail his opponent to the wall with a bad result? This is entrapment! Only in very unfriendly games would something like this occur, and not for long if the opposing player ever found out about it.

Therefore, I can't release the defender from some level of obligation when it comes to combat odds and mods. The Axis player is right on one point, it takes two to play the game. The attack on Rostov is a key attack; both players must be held at fault here for allowing mistakes to occur. Since they seem to disagree on most everything else, I must form my verdict based on the one thing they do agree upon- that at the instant the die was rolled, the odds were believed to be 3:1 (-1).

It is important for players to work out problems like these prior to play--we hope this case will lead future players to agree in advance on some basic dispute protocols. Otherwise games such as this can come crashing to a halt after a year of play.

A footnote to this affair is in order. After the Axis commander carried out the AR, the Soviet player was able to gain some additional kills against the Axis. However, he miscalculated the remaining Axis potential, advanced recklessly, and as a result Rostov was attacked and captured on the very next turn, with no loss to the Axis! It would seem that the result was more than livable after all.

Rules Court The Verdict of the Rostov Attack: Part 2

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

Rules Court The Case of the Rostov Attack: Part 1

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