Low Luck and Kamikaze Fighters
-
@Cernel said in Low Luck and Kamikaze Fighters:
In such a case, I would sincerely hope such a rule would not be the one that is currently used in the Revised/Anniversary ToCs.
curious how you think the rule should be for tournaments/LL.
thanks for the kamikaze explanation. i think you are right about all that but they probably chose the name (it's not referred to in the main rules of the revised board set but rather the national advantage optional rules allowing for "kamikaze attacks") because it is a simple way to conceptualize the decision being made.
-
@ubernaut said in Low Luck and Kamikaze Fighters:
curious how you think the rule should be for tournaments/LL.
A move illegal using regular luck (dice) is illegal under low luck too. A move legal using regular luck (dice) is legal under low luck too.
Basically just always making moves like you are playing regular dice. What you do during conduct combat doesn't really matter, as, there, you have no restrictions anyways.
-
@Cernel isn't that how it is now?
-
@ubernaut Yeah, when one says kamikaze attack I would rather think that the plane is doing something different (and suicidal!) during conduct combat, likely increasing its damaging ability at the price of self destruction (higher attack power, or special targeting abilities, or such). It's really a much too colourful name for what is just the ability of exceeding your normal maximum radius, as kamikaze was historically mostly not about that.
-
@ubernaut said in Low Luck and Kamikaze Fighters:
@Cernel isn't that how it is now?
Sadly, no, even tho I don't play tournaments, so I guess makes no difference to me. On the other hand, tournament/ladder rules tend to overboard into friendly matches (example is the bid placement restrictions).
-
@Cernel hmm im even more confused now.
i thought you were saying you had some kind of issue with the current rules "used in the Revised/Anniversary ToCs" -
@Cernel that last response was actually to your previous comment but i am still a bit confused.
-
@ubernaut said in Low Luck and Kamikaze Fighters:
@Cernel hmm im even more confused now.
i thought you were saying you had some kind of issue with the current rules "used in the Revised/Anniversary ToCs"Yes, and, as I clarified, I would personally rather have the only rule, on this matter, being:
A move illegal using regular luck (dice) is illegal under low luck too. A move legal using regular luck (dice) is legal under low luck too.
And nothing else.
-
@Cernel and what is the current rule in that regard?
-
@ubernaut said in Low Luck and Kamikaze Fighters:
@Cernel and what is the current rule in that regard?
https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/542/triple-a-rules-for-revised-tournaments
https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/394/triplea-rules-for-anniversary-edition-tournamentsTo clarify what you can read there, it follows the principle I mentioned (making moves like it is regular dice) for fighters casualties, but not in any other cases. As @redrum mentioned, the matter, that has been discussed in the past, is mostly related to moving fighters on the assumption of, then, non-combat moving a carrier through an embattled sea zone to pick up those fighters.
-
@Cernel i must be having a hard time with those sections of the rules pages it seems to indicate you can move an AC through enemy controlled seas zones during noncombat based on the assumption you could win a battle in that blocking sea zone but failed to do so.
-
@ubernaut said in Low Luck and Kamikaze Fighters:
@Cernel i must be having a hard time with those sections of the rules pages it seems to indicate you can move an AC through enemy controlled seas zones during noncombat based on the assumption you could win a battle in that blocking sea zone but failed to do so.
So, to be very clear, in dice 1 destroyer can attack and completely destroy 100 battleships, clearing that sea zone. This, on the other hand, cannot happen in low luck. So, unless you specify a rule like the one I mentioned (making all moves like you are playing regular dice), I hope now you get what I'm saying.
-
@Cernel said in Low Luck and Kamikaze Fighters:
@ubernaut said in Low Luck and Kamikaze Fighters:
so i am wondering if playing low luck should have any effect on the no kamikaze fighters rule. Normally, you are allowed to assume (for the purposes of fighter movements) with an attacking fleet that you might not receive any return fire hits, therefore, providing a landing place for your fighter(s).
As low luck being purely a custom rule, there is obviously no official answer to any of this. If someone wants to play Low Luck, or apply whatever other kind of purely made-up rules, it is up to him alone also to clarify any implications. For games using Low Luck, it would be up to the mapmakers to clarify all such cases in game notes (I know that is not usually going to happen...). For tournaments and ladders applying Low Luck to not originally Low Luck games, it is up to the administrators to clarify all such cases (in the tournament/ladder rules).
But in low luck, you have likely have a guaranteed minimum number of hits rather than the conceivable 0 with dice. So the question is when determining loses are you allowed as an attacker to choose a casualty which then forces a kamikaze fighter loss.
Yes, you are allowed to, also with regular dice.
Perhaps this isn't even alow luck question but Low Luck certainly puts this into the grey area of whether or not we are talking about the rule for movement which is very clearly written and the rules for OOL which seem to be non-existent.
Indeed, this question is substantially unrelated to Low Luck.
here is the scenario (revised rules) i am talking about and why it could matter.
2 fighters and 1 carrier travel two spaces to attack 2 destroyers and a transport which no other place to land the fighters than on the attacking carrier.
in the first round, the attacker scores 2 hits (maximum) and the defend scores 1 hit (minimum). if the attacker is allowed to choose the carrier as a casualty then the battle is still even in round 2 and will come down to a coin toss in round 3. but if the attacker is prevented from doing this attack bc of the consequences of playing low guaranteeing a hit unless they choose to leave the carrier for the last casualty to prevent a forced kamikaze fighter then the attacker would be disadvantaged in round 2.
i was told @Panther might be interested in this so dropping that mention as well.
As I suppose @panther will confirm, this matter has nothing to do with the "no kamikaze" rule (very misleading name, btw). This rule (assuring your fighters might have any chances to land) applies only during the movement phases, and not at all during the conduct combat phase.
Meaning that if you have any numbers of fighters and carriers attacking in a battle, you are completely free to select carriers first as casualties, no matter if, this way, you might doom any fighters to crash thereafter. Same thing (no restrictions) for whatever else of relevance happening during conduct combat (namely, retreating carriers).
Indeed, I fully agree to this, @Cernel . Unless otherwise specified by game/tournament organizers "Low Luck" should never affect the game rules. "Low Luck" is nothing else than a somehow "artificial" result of rolling the dice during "Conduct Combat Phase".
-
@Panther except for that it does, when you have predictable battle results rather than an unpredictable one it definitely affects the decisions you can make. In this game, the strategy for LL is completely different from a dice game because of the predictability of certain (most) battles.
@Cernel i get what you are saying but im still at a loss for how the end result of a carrier being able to pass through an enemy controlled sea zone during noncombat simply because it could have won a battle in a previous phase of the turn, whether you are playing dice or not.
(edit: maybe completely different is a bit of an exaggeration.
)"You should never have told me horses sleep standing up, it gave me a mental block." - Mister Ed
-
@ubernaut said in Low Luck and Kamikaze Fighters:
@Panther except for that it does, when you have predictable battle results rather than an unpredictable one it definitely affects the decisions you can make. In this game, the strategy for LL is completely different from a dice game because of the predictability of certain (most) battles.
I agree that strategies are different, but the game rules are not (or at least should not be). The requirements have to be fulfilled during movement phase - regardless of any outcome of the battle. Even in full dice games for the purpose of proving legal movements you are allowed to assume that all your rolls might be hits and all your opponent's rolls might be fails, however unrealistic that might be.
However Low Luck is a house rule and of course you are free to create additional house rules in case you feel it is necessary.
Don't always trust TripleA when it comes to rules questions. Know the rules before you start … and better check what TripleA has done.
-
@ubernaut Honestly, I should not be talking in lieu of someone else; so, for the implications or interpretations of the rules I linked, better you get back to the current ToC administrators. I think I've been about as much detailed as I want to be, already.
-
@Cernel l thanks for your help in understanding what the rules are.
@Panther there seems to be a direct rule conflict caused by this situation (declaring a intent to pass through a contended sea zone in order to avoid violating the no kamikaze rule) but violating the rule regarding non combat moves in the process. unless im not understanding it. the only ship that should be allowed to traverse an enemy controlled sea zone is a sub and only in the event that a destroyer is not present (page 21 under phase 5 noncombat move, sea units).
regardless of dice or LL.
-
@ubernaut said in Low Luck and Kamikaze Fighters:
@Panther there seems to be a direct rule conflict caused by this situation (declaring a intent to pass through a contended sea zone in order to avoid violating the no kamikaze rule) but violating the rule regarding non combat moves in the process. unless im not understanding it. the only ship that should be allowed to traverse an enemy controlled sea zone is a sub and only in the event that a destroyer is not present (page 21 under phase 5 noncombat move, sea units).
regardless of dice or LL.
I am not sure which scenario you are referring to here, sorry (too hot today), so can you please outline it for me again?
-
@Panther yeah i guess this whole thing got a bit sidetracked and was really not about low luck really i think a low luck situation is just made me start to think about this and the conversation has led us to this question about the stated rules:
https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/542/triple-a-rules-for-revised-tournaments
under this section:
Additional Questions that occur frequently on ACs and fighters:
this chunk here:
"Question: "Do ACs have to move to pickup location during CM?"
Answer: No. Since you have the option to move the carrier there in non-combat, you do not have to move the AC solely in combat to a sea zone where the figs can land safely, but for clarification, it must be possible in either combat or NCM.Question: If above is false, then does the ACs have to move to pickup location during NCM, even if the fighters that were supposed to land have been killed?
Answer: No they do not if ALL the fighters were destroyed, but if one or more figs survived, then the appropriate number of ACs need to be moved there (e.g. one AC for 1-2 figs, 2 ACs for 3-4 figs, etc.)Question: If point 1. is false, then what is the rule on a double enemy block of ACC, e.g. the ACC begins the turn in sz A and wants to pickup fighters in sz C. However sz B has an enemy ships blocking the path to sz C, and there is also enemy ships in sz C (pickup location).?
Answer: good question! If sz B is blocking sz C, then there is only one possibility to go to sz C to land the figs, and that is the case where other naval or air units clear both sz B and sz C, so that the AC in question can then legitimately move to sz C in non-combat. This is consistent with the rule book, but for avoidance of doubt, that AC in question cannot be involved in combat, as it cannot move in both CM and NCM."seems to describe a situation where a carrier is forced to move through an enemy fleet during noncombat because the player's intent to win a battle and then move carriers during noncombat through the contested sea zone in order to provide a landing area for the fighters.
but again maybe i just am having trouble understanding what it says.
-
When it comes to the third scenario the attacking player during his combat move needs to prove the legality of his moves by outlining a way how the carrier will be enabled to pick up the planes in seazone "C".
Seazones "B" and "C" need to be cleared during combat, then. In case both battles succeed the carrier then can move to seazone "C" during Noncombat Move Phase to pick up the planes.
That fulfills the proof that the planes are not sent to a suicide run (before any dice are rolled).After that combat starts and the dice are rolled. In case the battle(s) fail(s), the carrier simply will not be able to legally move to seazone "C" during Noncombat Move Phase. (There is nothing forcing the carrier to violate the rules.)
So no rules conflict here.
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