Carrier escape from kamikazi

[COJOH]

In order to escape from a kamikazi attack on your carrier in a seazone were there isn’t any other safe landing zone for your fighters from your carrier (if kamikaze attack on the carrier succeeds), may you -during the combat phase!!!- let your carrier participate (without any combat value!) in an assault landing in the seazone next to the first on an enemy territory without hostile units, while your airplanes participate in a battle in the original seazone were your carrier was ?
So in that way if Japan wants to make a kamikazi strike in the first seazone, he has to do it on another warship and the fighters can land after battle safe on the carrier in the second seazone.

[Krieghund]

@cojoh OK, from what you said, it sounds like the carrier in question started the turn in a hostile sea zone, or at least one containing enemy subs and/or transports, since there will be a battle there. If so, it’s perfectly legal to move the carrier out of the sea zone in combat movement to any zone within range, whether or not any fighting will be going on there. in order to escape combat. See page 13 of the Rulebook.

[COJOH]

@krieghund
No, the aim was to do also an assault landing in the first sea zone, but indeed the carrier was already in place in this sea zone. In order to avoid battleship and cruiser bombardement, Japan could perform a kamikazi run against one of the ships. If Japan should kamikazi the carrier and succeeds (even with one hit), the fighters would be lost. So, in order to escape with the carrier during the combat move, I tried to move the carrier to an adjacent sea zone to “support” another assault landing on a territory without any japanese units. This would then be a move by the carrier without any combat goal but just to avoid the kamikaze attack. So, I was wondering if this is allowed. The fighters of the carrier supported the assault in the first sea zone.
Hopely this will clarify better the situation I was in…

[Krieghund]

@cojoh Sorry, it’s not legal. The carrier would need to provide some value in supporting the assault, but since there are no defending units, and thus no battle, no value would be added.

[COJOH]

@krieghund
That was my fear… Even when it is not explicit forbidden in the rulebook, it would be not a real combat move in order to do a real combat.
Tks

[surfer]

I’m just curious. I thought the Allies had a BB + CR +CV in the space from the statement
“In order to avoid battleship and cruiser bombardement, Japan could perform a kamikazi run”
The CV was just there to host the ftrs. It could leave (sufficient distance that the ftrs can land on it), and the remaining forces could amphib assault+defend against scramble. The kamikazi can attack a ship, but the CV is fine.

[Krieghund]

@surfer There is no scramble. There are only kamikazes, and since they don’t force a battle on their own, there is no combat to escape. Therefore, the carrier may not leave without participating in combat elsewhere.

[COJOH]

@surfer
That was my question : can the carrier leave during combat movement to avoid kamikaze attack. I follow Krieghund. You can only move during combat movement to perform a real attack. In my case there wasn’t really a combat goal by moving the CV.
It is only possible to move the CV during non combat movement but then it would already be to late to avoid kamikaze attack.

There wasn’t indeed no scramble.

[surfer]

@krieghund Now I’m confused. How is this different from the transport rule we discussed earlier
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/18412/global-2nd-edition-q-a-aag40-2/2864

Basically, I’m moving a CV during combat to escape a potential kamikazi. The remaining ships can fight, and the ftrs if they survive can go land on the CV.

Is the rule that only transports get to decide what phase of movement they are involved with since they cannot combat anyway? That is a subtlety that I did not appreciate.

[surfer]

BTW, how is the scramble any different than kamikazi? Neither are in play at the time of combat movement. There is no combat in either case–only the defender’s option to combat.
I would think if you could avoid combat from scramble, then you should be able to avoid combat from kamikazi.

[Krieghund]

@surfer said in Carrier escape from kamikazi:

@krieghund Now I’m confused. How is this different from the transport rule we discussed earlier
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/18412/global-2nd-edition-q-a-aag40-2/2864

It is different because in that case the transports were moving to escape a battle. In this case, there is no battle to escape.

@surfer said in Carrier escape from kamikazi:

BTW, how is the scramble any different than kamikazi? Neither are in play at the time of combat movement. There is no combat in either case–only the defender’s option to combat.
I would think if you could avoid combat from scramble, then you should be able to avoid combat from kamikazi.

A scramble forces a sea battle, while a kamikaze strike does not. A kamikaze strike is a single attack against a single unit, not a full-blown battle.

[surfer]

@Krieghund Ok. I get it. Thanks for the quick reply.

[AndrewAAGamer]

Wow. Great Questions and Replies! This is indeed a nuance I am not sure I appreciated. Thank you all!

[COJOH]

@andrewaagamer
indeed, very very interesting discussion. It only makes this powerfull game more attractive for me. I’m going to play now again Pacific 1940 and after that I’ll start to read the rules for the guadalcanal version… Curious about this specific rare game…