Legal or Illegal move on Dice (Global 40)
-
Can Wonka (Allies) attack Transports (Sz6 Japan) with planes from Hawaii even though its dice and its not guaranteed planes will have anywhere to land? (He plans to land them on carriers from the US)
I suspect not, he insists yes, Dany also said it wasn't legal but doesn't play much Global so we're posting it here.
Thanks for any help cheers.
PS: Please include a bit of your reasoning with your answer.
-
@ondis I think that you haven't given enough information.
It is needed to know if you are using the (optional) rules for Research and Development and Americans got Long-Range Aircraft.
(I would assume that they did, otherwise the program would not allow you to make that move to 6 Sea Zone without editing it, assuming there are not aircraft carriers out of sight which can actually move to 6 Sea Zone by the end of the turn, but I'm not seeing the Long-Range Aircraft ability being displayed by the units' images.)
If you did not (so those fighters in 6 Sea Zone have 0 movement left), my next question would be how it is possible that the program even allowed you to make that move.
For your information, what comes closest to an official answer on this forum for the basic games is probably @Panther.
-
@ondis said in Legal or Illegla move on Dice (Global 40):
Can Wonka (Allies) attack Transports (Sz6 Japan) with planes from Carrier in the US
Also, what do you mean by "planes from Carrier in the US". That sounds like you are saying that the aeroplanes in 6 Sea Zone have come from 10 Sea Zone, but the only way (beside program's problems) I can make sense of what you display and write is that those fighters have actually come from one or more aircraft carriers in 26 Sea Zone.
-
@ondis Just post the game-save.
-
@cernel Yeah youre right, my bad they came from Hawaii!
I meant that he plans to land them on the carriers from the US. Edited now. Wonka.tsvg Check out the save if you want. -
@ondis said in Legal or Illegla move on Dice (Global 40):
@cernel Yeah youre right, my bad they came from Hawaii!
I meant that he plans to land them on the carriers from the US. Edited now. Wonka.tsvg Check out the save if you want.I checked the game-save.
@ondis The move is legal.
I'll also add that you (meaning Wonka) can freely retreat from 8 Sea Zone during Combat despite the fact that doing that will doom any surviving fighters in 6 Sea Zone to crash.
If the destroyer in 8 Sea Zone is eliminated while one or more fighters in 6 Sea Zone survive, you (Wonka) will have to move the fighters and at least one aircraft carrier to 8 Sea Zone.
If the destroyer in 8 Sea Zone survives, any surviving fighters in 6 Sea Zone crash and no aircraft carrier has to move anywhere.
If you want to have a higher degree of certainty, I assume that you can wait for @Panther to confirm what I've written at this post.
-
How has he/you demonstrated that any fighters will be able to land? Currently none can.
If my transports had been at Seazone 16 (Between Japan and my Stack at Sz 25) and he senT his fighters there WHILE sending his carriers into my Stack at Sz 25 then he is demonstrating that his fighters have at least a theoretical possibility to land even though the likely outcome is death for the carriers and thus suicide for the fighters. (Of course he could also send the carriers to Sz 15)
But in this case they can't land to begin. And thus IMO the move is illegal
-
The reasoning behind the answers is as follows:
During combat move phase the attacker has to prove that all planes can have valid landing spaces. To do so the attacker can assume that all attacking rolls are hits and all defending rolls are misses.
So the moves are valid in case the attacker can bring a carrier to SZ 8 to catch the surviving fighters from there and a carrier to SZ 7 to catch the surviving fighters from SZ 6. This is possible in your game.
Yes - he needs to eliminate the enemy destroyer in SZ 8 to do so - but he can assume that this attack will end successfully.
Of course the attacker must move the carriers accordingly - provided the enemy destroyer is eliminated and there are surviving planes.In a boardgame situation the players will discuss this accordingly during Combat Move Phase.
-
@panther said in Legal or Illegla move on Dice (Global 40):
The reasoning behind the answers is as follows:
During combat move phase the attacker has to prove that all planes can have valid landing spaces. To do so the attacker can assume that all attacking rolls are hits and all defending rolls are misses.
So the moves are valid in case the attacker can bring a carrier to SZ 8 to catch the surviving fighters from there and a carrier to SZ 7 to catch the surviving fighters from SZ 6. This is possible in your game.
Yes - he needs to eliminate the enemy destroyer in SZ 8 to do so - but he can assume that this attack will end successfully.
In a boardgame situation the players will discuss this accordingly during Combat Move Phase.
I concur except that there is no need to "bring a carrier to SZ 8 to catch the surviving fighters from there" because each of those fighters has two movements left and can land in Aleutian Islands with one movement.
-
@cernel said in Legal or Illegla move on Dice (Global 40):
I concur except that there is no need to "bring a carrier to SZ 8 to catch the surviving fighters from there" because each of those fighters has two movements left and can land in Aleutian Islands with one movement.
Correct, that's just an option not a need.
-
Doesn't make much sense to me. Imagine I have 50 battleships there instead of a DD. It means he can send 1 single fighter or sub there to "contest" it, and then act with impunity on my home tile?
Seems like ripe for abuse.
And what about LL when the chance would be 0% in the case of 50 battleships?
Imagine this straightforward Non-Airport dependent setup: [10 Transports][50 Battleships][Empty Tile][Enemy Carrier Group]
4 Tiles.
Normally you would have to send in at least 1 carrier to hit the 10 Transports. But with your rule interpretation all you need to do is send in 1 sub and then you can kill the 10 transports behind the 50 battleships for free with a second fighter.
This can be scaled up with the 10 transports protected by 5 carriers with 10 planes. Normally requiring at least 16 or so planes to destroy. In my scenario he would have to send in 8 carriers into the 50 BBs so they can land. In yours he again just sends 1 sub.
"Because that sub could kill the 50 BBs and then the carriers can come in at non combat?"
-
@ondis said in Legal or Illegal move on Dice (Global 40):
But with your rule interpretation ...
Please don't confuse "interpretation" with what is written clearly in the rulebooks:
I could have quoted instead ...:
"You cannot deliberately send air units into combat situations that place them out of range of a place to land afterward. In the Combat Move phase, prior to rolling any battles, you must be able to demonstrate some possible way (however remote the possibility is) for all your attacking air units to land safely that turn. This could include a combination of combat moves. It could also include noncombat moves by a carrier or the mobilization of a new carrier.
In order to demonstrate that an air unit might have a safe landing zone, you may assume that all of your attacking rolls will be hits, and all defending rolls will be misses. You may NOT, however, use a planned retreat of any carrier to demonstrate a possible safe landing zone for any fighter or tactical bomber. Once possible landing spaces for all attacking air units have been demonstrated, you have no obligation to guarantee those landing zones for air units in the course of battle. For example, aircraft carriers may freely retreat or be taken as casualties, even if doing so leaves air units with no place to land after combat (such air units will be destroyed at the end of the Noncombat Move phase). However, during noncombat movement and new unit mobilization, you must provide for safe landing of as many air units as possible after all combats are resolved.
If you declared that a carrier will move during the Noncombat Move phase to provide a safe landing zone for a fighter or a tactical bomber moved in the Combat Move phase, you must follow through and move the carrier to its planned location in the Noncombat Move phase unless the air unit has landed safely elsewhere or has been destroyed before then, or a combat required to clear an intervening sea zone failed to do so. Likewise, if you declared that a new carrier will be mobilized to provide a safe landing zone fora fighter or tactical bomber, it must be mobilized in that sea zone unless the air unit has landed safely elsewhere or has been destroyed."
(Rulebook Pacific 1940 2nd Ed., page 28)
... but I tried to keep it short in my above answer.
-
@Panther Thank you for explaining that in english, i didnt have the words to do so
-
IT seems someone asked the very same question here 14 years ago and got a similar answer: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/26038/fighter-carrier-combat-move-rules-question
So you're probably right:
Though we do have clarifications like this i the Global map: "....All planes must have the potential to be picked up..."
And even more stringently defined in WaW as per its own
clarifications: "*Aircraft-Carrier Combat Move - During combat movement, the movement of any aircrafts requiring landing on carriers is legal only if a minimum number of carriers required for landing all aircrafts either:
-
Move to the landing zones, during combat movement (even if they have no chance of winning the battle, if any).
-
Can move to the landing zones, during non combat movement, without moving into or through any sea zones that are hostile at the start of the turn. "
(
Meaning the carrier either must move into the combat zone where it is to pick up the fighters or move there without fighting. Moving to a totally new third tile that was inaccessible before fighting is absolutely considered illegal move in WaW. This is the clarification and understanding players have adopted of the rules. But perhaps it is a change from the official rules?
Personally I do not think the rules as you quote them envision this kind of scenario as it leads to absurd niche cases as explained above.) The WaW clarification makes sense.
But if nobody else has any comments by tomorrow or something we'll go by what you said I guess.
-
-
@ondis said in Legal or Illegal move on Dice (Global 40):
Doesn't make much sense to me. Imagine I have 50 battleships there instead of a DD. It means he can send 1 single fighter or sub there to "contest" it, and then act with impunity on my home tile?
I'm not sure what you mean by "act with impunity on my home tile", but yes: 1 fighter is enough to be able to win against 50 battleships, and you can even do that with the intention certainly to retreat the fighter if it survives the first round of combat (and it still counts as being able to win during the Combat Move phase).
And what about LL when the chance would be 0% in the case of 50 battleships?
Literally, that would mean that you cannot do it, but, since LL is not an official option, I would argue that anything should be viewed assuming that the game is not using any non-official options, meaning that you should apply the rules as if the game is being played with regular dice anyway (meaning that it would be legal (or not) regardless of LL).
Imagine this straightforward Non-Airport dependent setup: [10 Transports][50 Battleships][Empty Tile][Enemy Carrier Group]
4 Tiles.
Normally you would have to send in at least 1 carrier to hit the 10 Transports.
If you mean sending at least 1 aircraft carrier to attack the 50 battleships, no. You need to send at least 1 unit with an offensive value of 1 or more (so an aircraft carrier would be enough in Revised but not in Global 1940 2nd Edition where you cannot even send it alone) because having an offensive value of 0 means not having an attack value.
But with your rule interpretation all you need to do is send in 1 sub and then you can kill the 10 transports behind the 50 battleships for free with a second fighter.
Correct. And the submarine doesn't even need to die! Against 50 battleships only, you can submerge it before battle and still counts as being able to eliminate all 50 battleships (because that is accounted during the Combat Move phase, whereas you submerge it during the subsequent Combat phase).
This can be scaled up with the 10 transports protected by 5 carriers with 10 planes. Normally requiring at least 16 or so planes to destroy. In my scenario he would have to send in 8 carriers into the 50 BBs so they can land. In yours he again just sends 1 sub.
@Panther's case is correct and your case is wrong: in Global 1940 2nd Edition, the carriers cannot be sent alone into battle (because they are offenceless).
I'm guessing that you are confusing this matter with the rules for Sieg's World At War.
"Because that sub could kill the 50 BBs and then the carriers can come in at non combat?"
Yes (and you can still submerge the submarine before any dice are rolled so practically getting the ability to fly over those battleships without sacrificing any units beside whatever survives and crashes because it cannot land).
I hope that now everything is clear.
-
It's ridiculous and should be revised. Yes, like clarified in WAW.
This would be considered an exploit in every other game.
Nonsense. I would even with these interpretations contest that your submerge idea is completely illegal. (As there is none, not even "however slim" chance of success). No need to get ahead of yourself. But that's beyond the point.
-
@ondis said in Legal or Illegal move on Dice (Global 40):
And even more stringently defined in WaW as per its own
clarifications: "*Aircraft-Carrier Combat Move - During combat movement, the movement of any aircrafts requiring landing on carriers is legal only if a minimum number of carriers required for landing all aircrafts either:
-
Move to the landing zones, during combat movement (even if they have no chance of winning the battle, if any).
-
Can move to the landing zones, during non combat movement, without moving into or through any sea zones that are hostile at the start of the turn. "
(
Meaning the carrier either must move into the combat zone where it is to pick up the fighters or move there without fighting. Moving to a totally new third tile that was inaccessible before fighting is absolutely considered illegal move in WaW. This is the clarification and understanding players have adopted of the rules. But perhaps it is a change from the official rules?
It seems that your understanding of the World At War rules is correct, but these rules are a mix of clarifications and changes from the basic Revised rules, so they do not necessarily apply outside of the World At War map (although I believe that they fully apply to New World Order and The Rising Sun too).
-
-
@ondis said in Legal or Illegal move on Dice (Global 40):
Nonsense. I would even with these interpretations contest that your submerge idea is completely illegal. (As there is none, not even "however slim" chance of success).
Let's then wait for @Panther to give his opinion on that too I guess.
-
@cernel Total War too.
In every single scenario that has a clarification of the rule and I would say even Globals own short description of it, people have made this effort to clarify it in this way:
Don't you understand that the effect of your interpretation makes no sense gameplay wise?
-
@ondis said in Legal or Illegal move on Dice (Global 40):
@cernel Total War too.
In every single scenario that has a clarification of the rule and I would say even Globals own short description of it, people have made this effort to clarify it in this way:
That appears to be different from World At War as it does not allow you possibly to sacrifice aircraft carriers to validate such movements. Anyway, whatever applies to Total World War is irrelevant for the matter at hand, so we are going off topic.
