Legal or Illegal move on Dice (Global 40)
-
Concerning the offcial board games nothing is more correct than the official rulebooks. I wonder why you still deny that.
Every TripleA game note contains more "interpretation" than the official rulebooks do. Of course every game author is free and welcome to change rules according to his needs and interpret them as he wants.
I case you play the official games I always recommend to understand the entire rulebooks/FAQ before you start a game with TripleA. -
Maybe these people are amending rules, maybe they are clarifying them.
It's completely illogical that a boardgame this old wouldn't have "fixed" this. It's a niche scenario, probably the firs time ever applicable for me in all my years playing but it must have happened to thousands of others in the past.
If players were able to see the absolute nonsense of this and change it in player-based-scenarios in TripleA, I wonder why the creators of Axis and Allies then haven't.
That's just assuming that there isn't some kind of similar clarification or tournament rule or something that has at least attempted to do this that we're both not aware of (note, this isn't a tournamnet, yes I now).
I mean I'm grateful for your assistance, but it baffles me how such an exploit can be considered legit.
-
It is not an exploit but a common and well known and deeply discussed rule that has been part of every A&A boardgame at least since 2008's Axis and Allies Anniversary Edition, maybe longer, I don't have the time to check older games right now.
Feel free to feel uncomfortable with it. I have been asked for the rules, I outlined them to you. This is how it is.
-
You can't validated them in WaW either. Either the move is possible without combat or the move is possible with combat. (Except some people play with the variation that what is 100% certain in LL is allowed in both directions).
Its never possible with Combat AND non-Combat (unless of course its a complementary move/option to something else)
Again its absurd that you can send in a sub or a DD or what ever into a stack of 50 BBs to validate a combat move that otherwise would have required you to actually move your carriers into that tile and sacrifice them to hit what ever is behind it.
I've looked into a bunch of videos dealing with this and none of them even foresee this kind of scenario. They all talk about that if a player sends their carriers into battle and they die, then those planes further away die too.
It's almost as if it's assumed people won't exploit it in the way you suggest. The only post even talking about this was a 14 year old post on the Axis and Allies forum. Which validated no doubt your and Panthers stance on the rules.
-
@panther I trust you, and you have outlined it and we'll go by that. But making a move such as that IMO exploits a game weakness and is unintended behavior. Even if you say it's been discussed and I do assume it has but I can't find any record of it except one 14 year old post.
-
@panther said in Legal or Illegal move on Dice (Global 40):
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.
I think that this part is badly worded.
My understanding of the rules is that, if I say that an aircraft carrier will move to a zone to allow a fighter to land, then I can still move the carrier to an other zone where the fighter can also land, but I think that this is not clarified that well by what you quoted.
In particular, the part
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
should have been better written as
you must follow through and move the carrier to its planned location or to any other location which also allows to land the air unit in the Noncombat Move phase unless the air unit has landed safely elsewhere
Am I right?
Similarly, regarding the part
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.
I wonder if I'm still allowed to mobilize the carrier in an other sea zone if the air unit can land there too? My understanding is that I can, but the rules which you have quoted appear to state that I cannot...
In my opinion, the rules here should have been written as
Likewise, if you declared that a new carrier will be mobilized in a sea zone to provide a safe landing zone for a fighter or tactical bomber, it must be mobilized in that sea zone or in any other sea zone which also provides a safe landing zone for the same (without denying the possibility also to place other similarly needed carriers due to placement limits) unless the air unit has landed safely elsewhere or has been destroyed.
Am I right here in my rewording of the rules, or are you actually bound to place that carrier exactly where you said you would (as the rules state "it must be mobilized in that sea zone") if the air unit cannot land on anything but that carrier even in the case in which you actually have two or more zones where you can place that carrier and still land that air unit on it?
-
@ondis said in Legal or Illegal move on Dice (Global 40):
@panther I trust you, and you have outlined it and we'll go by that. But making a move such as that IMO exploits a game weakness and is unintended behavior. Even if you say it's been discussed and I do assume it has but I can't find any record of it except one 14 year old post.
I think it's rather a question of rule awareness.
The purpose of this rule during combat move phase is that you cannot send more air units to battles than you have possible landing spaces. And during noncombat move phase the purpose is that you have to save as many surviving planes as possible what (might) require(s) to move the carriers accordingly.I remember Krieghund, me and others have answered related questions quite often and in different game categories on A&A .org for years if not decades.
You might want to use the forum search - but it's not easy to find the correct 'keywords'. Also we changed the forum software in 2018 what led to many broken links.
If you find some time you can check about 4000 postings in the FAQ-thread(s), I am sure the topic is covered there, too. -
...
My understanding of the rules is that...
...Rather a question for Krieghund, I think. But my understanding is the same as yours. However, the attacker of course can point out different valid landing spaces during combat move phase ("plane can land here or there", "carrier to land on can be mobilized here or there" ).
-
@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.
