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).
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.
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.
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.
-
@ubernaut Discussions around carrier/fighter movement and low luck have happened a lot of the years. The consensus for the most part is that we mostly ignore LL and keep to the standard rules as closely as possible.
Generally the bigger question than OOL that comes into discussion is if LL guarantees I'll win a sea battle so that I can then move a carrier through that sea zone to pick up carriers in NCM then can I consider that a valid landing spot? The answer to this is no as you must show valid landing zones at the end of CM.
World At War actually has some pretty good clarifications around fighter/carrier movement in the notes. Here is a snippet:
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. (in any case, as per normal rules, you are allowed to move a carrier during combat movement only if starting or ending movement in a hostile sea zone (to escape combat or to do combat or both); otherwise, you must wait non combat movement, to move the carrier at all)
(all the restrictions at this point apply only and exclusively to determine what movements are allowed during combat movement, and have no relevance anymore once the combat movement phase is over; not restricting casualties' selection, retreat choices or non combat movement (see below))
-
@redrum ok thanks seem like there should be some modification to that since minimum and zero are no longer the same thing. i think that's why the language is used that you can assume 0 hits.
In real life the fighters would always defend the carrier and in fact, the rules do state that when defending the carriers have the "fighter defense" special ability where they can choose fighters as casualties to protect carriers and a defender typically will since if they do choose the carrier as a loss then the attacker can just back out and those fighters will be considered a loss anyway forcing the decision for the most part to protect defending carriers where fighters have nowhere to land.
Anyway, i understand also that low luck inst really part of the official rules at least as far as i know but just thought i would try to get other thoughts on this.
-
@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).
This is a common source of confusion, and that is why I also documented it in the notes of World At War, despite the fact that it just works this way in all basic games, regular or low luck dice notwithstanding.
-
@Cernel thanks for your input
i get all of that and agree that really this is a ramification of a custom rule. Playing low luck does force a contradiction the official rules specific to that point. Which is why i say this sorta pushes it into the realm of the movement decision if there are guaranteed hits and you are predetermined as the attacker to take those casualties in order to circumvent the intent of the rule.i am granted assuming here that the intention of the no kamikaze rule is to prevent attacks where the victor would be sacrificing units after the combat, intentionally, in order to win the combat. i think that language would have to change or be removed in order to be consistent if low luck were actually part of the rules. i am now also curious about why you say the name is misleading.
-
@ubernaut said in Low Luck and Kamikaze Fighters:
@Cernel thanks for your input
i get all of that and agree that really this is a ramification of a custom rule. Playing low luck does force a contradiction the official rules specific to that point. Which is why i say this sorta pushes it into the realm of the movement decision if there are guaranteed hits and you are predetermined as the attacker to take those casualties in order to circumvent the intent of the rule.If you are referring to either the fact that Low Luck may make sure you will lose a carrier, you would need to land some planes on, or that Low Luck may make sure you will lose some fighters, you would otherwise have to assure they can land, these are the implications of a custom rule, so no official answer can be found. I guess it might be good if an "official" TripleA rule is defined, on this matter, in the TripleA rulebook, in the moment TripleA offers Low Luck. 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.
i am granted assuming here that the intention of the no kamikaze rule is to prevent attacks where the victor would be sacrificing units after the combat, intentionally, in order to win the combat. i think that language would have to change or be removed in order to be consistent if low luck were actually part of the rules. i am now also curious about why you say the name is misleading.
Of course, by regular rules you can always expect the defender to miss all its rolls (using regular dice, that it is the only kind of dice you are officially allowed to use), so the matter is very simple there: there can be no attacks in which you may be sure you are sacrificing anything at all.
No-kamikaze is really a bad name, since kamikazing was not about regularly attacking without a chance to land after the action, to expand your possible range or to avoid using carriers; it was about crashing your own plane on the enemy. Also, while sometimes you would make a run beyond comeback ranges (usually on far away enemy harbours), most kamikaze attacks were made inside regular ranges, and sometimes the kamikaze pilot would not activate the trigger, and fly back home, if no suitable targets would be found.
-
@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.
)
