Legal or Illegal move on Dice (Global 40)
-
@ondis that move looks perfectly legal to me u would only need to move the carrier in the event that ur planes survive if they dont u would not be forced to. the rule is sepcific to combat phase noncombat moves do not have any such restrictions but it can be implied that u cannot intentionally suicide an airplane wen u have the option to provide a landing space.
-
@panther Yes, the spirit of the rules in general is to avoid Kamikazee aircraft. Which you create if you're to allow this kind of move that me and Cernel talked about where a bunch of planes obviously will become Kamikazees because the person does not bring the carriers into battle but waits for an obvious inevitable defeat of that single unit sent into a doom-stack to enable any amount of fighters to cross territory they otherwise woudn't be able to!
In that sense the rulebook trips itself. Or rather the spirit of one rule is violated by the literal implementation of an other.
Regardless, we are on board on what the rules are in a literal sense. The question is why they haven't been changed all these years when they can lead to absurd situations that we see experienced mapmakers in at least TripleA have taken into account when "clarifying" the rules for their maps.
If you and others have had these discussions so many times, how haven't you and in the end the developers of the board game come to the same conclusion? That is absurd.
-
@ondis said in Legal or Illegal move on Dice (Global 40):
@panther Yes, the spirit of the rules in general is to avoid Kamikazee aircraft. Which you create if you're to allow this kind of move that me and Cernel talked about where a bunch of planes obviously will become Kamikazees because the person does not bring the carriers into battle but waits for an obvious inevitable defeat of that single unit sent into a doom-stack to enable any amount of fighters to cross territory they otherwise woudn't be able to!
In that sense the rulebook trips itself. Or rather the spirit of one rule is violated by the literal implementation of an other.
Regardless, we are on board on what the rules are in a literal sense. The question is why they haven't been changed all these years when they can lead to absurd situations that we see experienced mapmakers in at least TripleA have taken into account when "clarifying" the rules for their maps.
If you and others have had these discussions so many times, how haven't you and in the end the developers of the board game come to the same conclusion? That is absurd.
Not absurd at all.
The exchange between the commanding officer and the aircrewmen is something like this.
Officer: "Ok guys! It's your great day! You must attack that stack of transports beyond that group of 50 battleships over there." Points at the map
Aircrewman: "Wait a minute! That is so far away that we cannot come back past the battleships. Isn't that a suicide mission? I was told we would never be sent into any suicide missions when I signed up..."
Officer: "OF COURSE we would NEVER send any of you into a suicide mission! We are not kamikazes after all!"
Aircrewmen: Nervous laughter
Officer: "So, about that... We are sending one submarine to attack those 50 battleships. That way, your carriers will be at reach if the submarine sinks all the battleships, so you actually have a 0.0000000000000000000001% chance of survival. You see? Not suicidal at all."
Aircrewmen: "What?"
Officer: "And, by the way, we already decided that submarine is going to submerge before battle anyway, so your chances of survival are actually 0%."
Aircrewmen: ...
This is the Russian version:
-
@cernel lmao
-
@cernel There's no joke there, except how broken it is. Why even have a rule about kamikaze aircraft if you then allow something like this. They probably never considered it when designing the game.
There's also a difference from storming a position where your likely to die and running off a cliff because you're going to land on an enemy as you fall to your death.
-
Still you are wrong. Read about what Kamikaze in Global 1940 is on page 16 of the Pacific 1940 2nd ed. rulebook.
You confuse that with what is called "suicide attacks" that are not allowed.
The rule we discuss here is to prevent planes from being sent out during combat move phase that - under no circumstances - will have a valid landing space.
Assume that the attacker could send out 20 planes during combat move phase.
But under the given rule you can only point out and provide 4 landing spaces - under what circumstances ever.So that limits you to send out only 4 planes.
The other 16 planes cannot participate in an attack - sending them out would be suicide attacks.
@ondis said in Legal or Illegal move on Dice (Global 40):
They probably never considered it when designing the game.
That's quite funny. I invite you to discuss your point of view with Krieghund (the author of many A&A rulebooks) over at A&A .org.
-
@panther Let's agree to disagree before it gets ugly.
You're free to tell me I'm wrong about the rules.
You're not free to tell me that I'm wrong about what to reasonably expect, especially when seasoned map-makers have noticed this as a flawed and addressed it in map after map after map tested and published here by the community.
I've also looked through a couple of newbie guides and videos on rule clarifications and none make any mention of the scenarios we're discussing. Meaning they are basically fringe cases that are barely considered. Whether or not "krieghund" has considered them when writing the initial rulebooks (if he did that) or whether he's just kept them as they are as per convention from people running into this problem is something I don't know. But I'm assuming the latter since again to me the situations they create, as per Cernels posts, are laughably absurd to the point where he's making a joke out of it.
What you could do if you insist on continuing is tell me why you think this is a reasonable stance on the rule. Because all you've done so far is to point to to pages without any independent thought, even though the discussion on the rules themselves long ended.
-
@ondis said in Legal or Illegal move on Dice (Global 40):
You're not free to tell me that I'm wrong about ...
And this I did not do. What followed my sentence "Still you are wrong" was rule based clarification of wordings, such as 'Kamikaze' and 'suicide attacks'. Also I pointed out the consequence of sending out planes with (whatever) landing space versus (forbidden) sending out planes without any possible landing space.
Nothing more, nothing less.
I am no way interested in discussing your idea that you discovered a long time overseen loophole. If you think that - fine.
No hard feelings from my side.
-
@panther Im evidently not the only one as the loophole has been fixed elsewhere.
-
@ondis
Fine.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login