Kamikaze Technicality - Revised LL Game
-
Round 3 - Japan's turn
There is UK carrier, 2 fighters, and a tranny in SZ34 (Suez). There is a UK sub in SZ35 (India).
Japan has a BB and carrier in SZ36 (French IC). Japan has 4 fighters and a bomber that it would like to use to hit SZ34, but 2 of the fighters must have a landing place in SZ34 in order to avoid a kamikaze hit.
The plan is to use the Japan BB to kill the UK sub in SZ35, attack SZ34 with the 4 fighters and bomber, and then move the Japan AC to SZ34 in non-combat.
Is this move legal or is considered a kamikaze?
If the Japan BB does not kill the sub in combat (assuming the sub stays in battle, gets hits, beats the BB, and doesn't submerge), then the Japan AC cannot move through SZ35 in non-combat, and the fighters in SZ34 would not have anywhere to land. That's an unlikely, but possible, scenario.
My understanding was that fighters could attack in combat move in Revised as long as there was a possibility - even if very small - that they could find a landing spot in non-combat.
In this case, there is a secondary battle dependency with the sub blocker, so I'm not sure what the ruling would be.
-
-
@jbwood53
@Cernel is correct. In the boardgame you would have to declare your intention to move your Carrier there during NCM when moving the fighters in CM. For pointing out that the fighters may have a valid landing space you are allowed to assume that all your shots are hits and all your opponent's shots are misses. -
Cernel - Thx for the feedback. Let's follow that logic for a minute. Instead of a BB vs a sub (in the situation above), what if it was one attacking sub vs a BB+tranny? It's a near impossibility for a win.
Is there a percentage win (in LL) that changes your opinion? Let's say there's a 0.5%/25%/49% chance of winning, would your ruling still stand?
-
-
@Panther @Cernel Got it. Good feedback. We're allowed to assume we make all hits and opponents miss all theirs. This works for dice, but LL may be slightly different since it's not part of the official rulebook.
Could I request clarity in the above situation for a LL game prior to TOC15?
Thanks again for the quick responses.
-
@jbwood53 said in Kamikaze Technicality - Revised LL Game:
Cernel - Thx for the feedback. Let's follow that logic for a minute. Instead of a BB vs a sub (in the situation above), what if it was one attacking sub vs a BB+tranny? It's a near impossibility for a win.
Is there a percentage win (in LL) that changes your opinion? Let's say there's a 0.5%/25%/49% chance of winning, would your ruling still stand?
That is surely possible, as whatever chance above pure 0% is legal (the defenders "only" roll at 5).
If you would have asked if against 2 battleships, then, literally, the move would be illegal in LL, as you have 0% to win, no matter what, but if you assume that LL applies only to the combat resolution, not to the rules themselves, then you should go with the principle that whatever move allowed under regular dice rules is legal under low luck dice rules too.
If it is a tournament, this should be up to the tournament organizers to clarify (I strongly believe unofficial options should not change moves' legality, unless specifically intended to).
-
@jbwood53 said in Kamikaze Technicality - Revised LL Game:
Could I request clarity in the above situation for a LL game prior to TOC15?
I suggest opening a thread about it in that forum subsection.
-
@jbwood53 The response in LL or Dice is yes that is legal since it has a chance of living
