When two players undertake to play a game as long and complicated as Fire in the East/Scorched Earth, they should anticipate that sooner or later there are going to be mistakes made. Although many players start play with professed brotherly love and compassion, these emotions can be shouldered aside by competitive human nature.

Furthermore, the more time and energy invested in a game, the more difficult it becomes to remember that it is, after all, only a game. It's far too easy for the friendly game to become a contest for domination, with the urge to win overriding good intentions of fellowship.

Recognizing this, players would be well advised to take some time before starting play to discuss how various errors of protocol, omission, and judgement will be handled during the game. Such discussions almost always prove to be time well spent, and can often head off the kind of disagreement present in the case at hand.

Many of the issues surrounding this case fall under the heading of "table etiquette", and as such should be governed by reasonable protocols established before starting play. In this case, however, there were no such protocols in place, and very few clear precedents to rely upon. Thus, I ruled upon this case based on the rules as written, and those things that I could determine the two players had agreed upon during play.

The one true "rules question" before the court is whether or not one should be allowed to fire AA against enemy DAS units after the combat roll involving those air units has been made.

The answer to this question is "No". Rule 20F2d states that "Prior to the resolution of the attack, the attacking player may fire antiaircraft against the defensive support air units in the hex (per Rule 22B)." Rule 22B states that "AA fire is resolved against [DAS] units in a hex during the combat phase immediately before combat in the hex is resolved."

It is clear in each rule exactly when the timing of the attack must occur. This leaves on the table the argument that AA fire is an intrinsic part of an attack, and is not voluntary.

This also is not true. Firing AA is voluntary, not mandated. Consider this situation, from an actual game of Scorched Earth waged in the pages of ETO. The Axis team was attacking Kiev in July 1941 with ground odds of 4:1 (-3). In order to guarantee a 5:1 (-3) in the face of a 3-point Soviet AA shot, the Axis added a large stack of air units- enough to assure the 5:1 even in the face of hot Soviet dice rolling.

The Soviets were devilishly clever, however, and noted that the odds before AA fire were actually 6:1 (-3), and that the 6:1 column of the Scorched Earth Combat Results Table has a dreaded NE result at the bottom. Therefore, the Soviets declined to fire their AA at the Axis air units, deciding instead to try for the 33% chance of an NE at 6:1, as opposed to the 17% chance present at 5:1.

Ironically, the Axis rolled a "3", which became a "0', and resulted in an HX. Note that had the Soviets fired their AA, the likely odds of 5:1 would have given them their NE!

If rolling AA after a combat roll is not allowed when AA fire is voluntarily withheld, does that also apply when it is "mistakenly" withheld? Yes, it must be, or else in the case above the Soviets could just sit tight, not roll their AA, and then after seeing what the die roll was, claim to have "forgotten" and demand an ex post facto AA roll. Clearly, this can not be allowed.

Like advance after combat, firing AA is voluntary, and thus it is incumbent upon the attacker (or defender) to announce and execute his AA fire at the appropriate time.

As for the rest of my verdict, I defer to reader Ed Steeb, who states my position far more eloquently than I could hope to do myself:

"in a game such as Europa, in which numerous calculations are made, it is the responsibility of both players to attest to the correctness of determined and calculated values as they are used. Once there is agreement, only then should combat be resolved, and once resolved, it should stand as if etched in granite. So be it that there might have been poor communication or a poorly coordinated attack or defense such as forgetting to fire one's AA. My opinion is that the AR result be implemented.

We must remember that this is a game and we are playing it for whatever joy we derive from it. Being as it is, Europa is supposed to be representative of the historical situations of war. How fortunate we are that it is just that. Commanders who, because of their ineptitude, poorly coordinate a battle are relieved of command and administratively dealt with-sometimes by firing squad.

For better and for worse, we are but human; and yes, it is possible that two people can subscribe to the same misbegotten information, or even make the same error in calculation. But once the odds are agreed to and the die is rolled, that's it. History is history. Time moves in only one direction. Mistakes are mistakes and we all hope that we continue to live and learn."

Having entered into a verbal contract at the moment of the combat roll that the combat odds were 3:1 (-1), it is the view of this judge that neither party be allowed to alter that agreement based on ex post facto analysis, including the previously disallowed AA shot.

And thus I pronounce the result to be an AR. This court is now adjourned.

Rules Court The Verdict of the Rostov Attack: Part 2

General Background
Verdict 1: Roy Lane
Verdict 2: Rick Gayler

Rules Court The Case of the Rostov Attack: Part 1

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