Low Luck and Kamikaze Fighters


  • Moderators Admin

    @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.


  • Moderators

    @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.


  • Moderators Admin

    @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. 😛


  • Moderators Admin

    @ubernaut

    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.



  • @Panther ok i guess i misunderstood that language then. so the fighters, in that case, would simply be sacrificed since the carrier cannot travel to the predetermined sea zone?

    And just for the sake of complete clarity, i would like to restate my original question since we have kinda diverged from it and the whole low luck thing was a bit of an unintentional obfuscation. Please forgive me if people feel like they have already answered this but again just for the sake of complete clarity.

    Given the fact that there are no official written order of loss rules but that with regards the other two turn phases (not counting purchase and place phases since you cannot make such a decsion in those phases) where you can possibly make a decision which sacrifices your fighters by ending their move in sea zone without a carrier is not allowed. Should that underlying logic also apply to the combat phase in the absence of any other rule which contradicts it?


  • Moderators Admin

    @ubernaut said in Low Luck and Kamikaze Fighters:

    @Panther ok i guess i misunderstood that language then. so the fighters, in that case, would simply be sacrificed since the carrier cannot travel to the predetermined sea zone?

    Yes, indeed.

    And just for the sake of complete clarity, i would like to restate my original question since we have kinda diverged from it and the whole low luck thing was a bit of an unintentional obfuscation. Please forgive me if people feel like they have already answered this but again just for the sake of complete clarity.

    Given the fact that there are no official written order of loss rules but that with regards the other two turn phases (not counting purchase and place phases since you cannot make such a decsion in those phases) where you can possibly make a decision which sacrifices your fighters by ending their move in sea zone without a carrier is not allowed. Should that underlying logic also apply to the combat phase in the absence of any other rule which contradicts it?

    As the rulebook is pretty clear on of all this, I leave that open to those members more familiar with creating house rules / tournament rules ...



  • @Panther said in Low Luck and Kamikaze Fighters:

    As the rulebook is pretty clear on of all this, I leave that open to those members more familiar with creating house rules / tournament rules ...

    is it? that's why i'm asking. 🙂 it doesn't really say anything about OOL in the rules that ive seen but the intent of the game designers to prevent sacrificial decisions does seem clearly outlined in terms of other turn phases.


  • Moderators Admin

    @ubernaut
    I see your misunderstanding now: The rulebook in no way intends to prevent from sacrificial decisions when taking out units.

    The rulebook only says that you cannot send out fighters during combat move phase without offering them a (theoretical) landing place at that time - no more, no less.

    Taking out units during conduct combat phase is totally unrelated.



  • @Panther it also says that in regards to non combat move so 2 out of 3 possible phases it specifies and the third it does not.

    i would argue that the same interpretation should also apply to the last phase absent another contravening rule.

    Actual fighter pilots would always protect their landing carriers so this logic also makes sense when translated to reality.

    But i guess this is definitely an interpretation that i may be alone in. 🙂


  • Moderators Admin

    @ubernaut

    But noncombat move is only relevant for units that are still present after the battle.
    In case the carrier has survived the battle, it is of course obliged to pick up the plane(s).
    That is all the rules say here - not more, not less.

    But again the decision which units to take out is totally unrelated.
    There is no "movement-rule" affecting taking out units, neither in combat move nor in noncombat move phase.

    But i guess this is definitely an interpretation that i may be alone in.

    Maybe... 🙂
    Many of the sometimes confusingly worded Revised-rules have been reworked and improved starting from LHTR and through all later games until today. Many of them because of player's feedback.

    But what we are talking about here actually has never changed until today's editions.



  • @Panther my reading of the rule, we all seem to agree on is that you are not allowed to make movement decisions which result in planes not having a landing spot. All im saying is that my own interpretation of that would also include OOL decisions, even though it isn't actually specified one way or the other. i understand that's not actually stated anywhere and is not what people think is the case (at least most) but it is based on the intent of the rule which is stated.

    i suppose the fact that you are allowed to choose your own casualties at all isn't very realistic either but it's certainly a large part fo this game at least unless you choose random casualties. 😛


  • Moderators

    @ubernaut It is well known that in all basic games (as well as the NWO series) there are absolutely no "kamikaze" related limits at what you can do during the conduct combat phases. You can freely take carriers out or retreat them with no regard to what will happen to your fighters.

    This is why I said that, substantially, the item primarily discussed at the topic is unrelated to low luck and easy to clarify: no kamikaze limits during anything happening in conduct combat, while you are in the course of that phase.

    As said, the only indirect element is that, while you are in the combat movement phase, you may have to think in term of what might happen during conduct combat; and here indeed the rules may be reinterpreted based on low luck.


Log in to reply