Legal or Illegal move on Dice (Global 40)
-
@Panther Thank you for explaining that in english, i didnt have the words to do so
-
IT seems someone asked the very same question here 14 years ago and got a similar answer: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/26038/fighter-carrier-combat-move-rules-question
So you're probably right:
Though we do have clarifications like this i the Global map: "....All planes must have the potential to be picked up..."
And even more stringently defined in WaW as per its own
clarifications: "*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. "
(
Meaning the carrier either must move into the combat zone where it is to pick up the fighters or move there without fighting. Moving to a totally new third tile that was inaccessible before fighting is absolutely considered illegal move in WaW. This is the clarification and understanding players have adopted of the rules. But perhaps it is a change from the official rules?
Personally I do not think the rules as you quote them envision this kind of scenario as it leads to absurd niche cases as explained above.) The WaW clarification makes sense.
But if nobody else has any comments by tomorrow or something we'll go by what you said I guess.
-
-
@ondis said in Legal or Illegal move on Dice (Global 40):
Doesn't make much sense to me. Imagine I have 50 battleships there instead of a DD. It means he can send 1 single fighter or sub there to "contest" it, and then act with impunity on my home tile?
I'm not sure what you mean by "act with impunity on my home tile", but yes: 1 fighter is enough to be able to win against 50 battleships, and you can even do that with the intention certainly to retreat the fighter if it survives the first round of combat (and it still counts as being able to win during the Combat Move phase).
And what about LL when the chance would be 0% in the case of 50 battleships?
Literally, that would mean that you cannot do it, but, since LL is not an official option, I would argue that anything should be viewed assuming that the game is not using any non-official options, meaning that you should apply the rules as if the game is being played with regular dice anyway (meaning that it would be legal (or not) regardless of LL).
Imagine this straightforward Non-Airport dependent setup: [10 Transports][50 Battleships][Empty Tile][Enemy Carrier Group]
4 Tiles.
Normally you would have to send in at least 1 carrier to hit the 10 Transports.
If you mean sending at least 1 aircraft carrier to attack the 50 battleships, no. You need to send at least 1 unit with an offensive value of 1 or more (so an aircraft carrier would be enough in Revised but not in Global 1940 2nd Edition where you cannot even send it alone) because having an offensive value of 0 means not having an attack value.
But with your rule interpretation all you need to do is send in 1 sub and then you can kill the 10 transports behind the 50 battleships for free with a second fighter.
Correct. And the submarine doesn't even need to die! Against 50 battleships only, you can submerge it before battle and still counts as being able to eliminate all 50 battleships (because that is accounted during the Combat Move phase, whereas you submerge it during the subsequent Combat phase).
This can be scaled up with the 10 transports protected by 5 carriers with 10 planes. Normally requiring at least 16 or so planes to destroy. In my scenario he would have to send in 8 carriers into the 50 BBs so they can land. In yours he again just sends 1 sub.
@Panther's case is correct and your case is wrong: in Global 1940 2nd Edition, the carriers cannot be sent alone into battle (because they are offenceless).
I'm guessing that you are confusing this matter with the rules for Sieg's World At War.
"Because that sub could kill the 50 BBs and then the carriers can come in at non combat?"
Yes (and you can still submerge the submarine before any dice are rolled so practically getting the ability to fly over those battleships without sacrificing any units beside whatever survives and crashes because it cannot land).
I hope that now everything is clear.
-
It's ridiculous and should be revised. Yes, like clarified in WAW.
This would be considered an exploit in every other game.
Nonsense. I would even with these interpretations contest that your submerge idea is completely illegal. (As there is none, not even "however slim" chance of success). No need to get ahead of yourself. But that's beyond the point.
-
@ondis said in Legal or Illegal move on Dice (Global 40):
And even more stringently defined in WaW as per its own
clarifications: "*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. "
(
Meaning the carrier either must move into the combat zone where it is to pick up the fighters or move there without fighting. Moving to a totally new third tile that was inaccessible before fighting is absolutely considered illegal move in WaW. This is the clarification and understanding players have adopted of the rules. But perhaps it is a change from the official rules?
It seems that your understanding of the World At War rules is correct, but these rules are a mix of clarifications and changes from the basic Revised rules, so they do not necessarily apply outside of the World At War map (although I believe that they fully apply to New World Order and The Rising Sun too).
-
-
@ondis said in Legal or Illegal move on Dice (Global 40):
Nonsense. I would even with these interpretations contest that your submerge idea is completely illegal. (As there is none, not even "however slim" chance of success).
Let's then wait for @Panther to give his opinion on that too I guess.
-
@cernel Total War too.
In every single scenario that has a clarification of the rule and I would say even Globals own short description of it, people have made this effort to clarify it in this way:
Don't you understand that the effect of your interpretation makes no sense gameplay wise?
-
@ondis said in Legal or Illegal move on Dice (Global 40):
@cernel Total War too.
In every single scenario that has a clarification of the rule and I would say even Globals own short description of it, people have made this effort to clarify it in this way:
That appears to be different from World At War as it does not allow you possibly to sacrifice aircraft carriers to validate such movements. Anyway, whatever applies to Total World War is irrelevant for the matter at hand, so we are going off topic.
-
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
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