@andrewaagamer Ah ok, thank you very much. I haven’t really played this game yet. I started a game with my nephew, but we underestimated the time for the set up and the fact that we often have to go read the rules for this or that. We didn’t play much at all. And now I’m translating the rulebook in french and I was wondering if I should add this point to the original to make it clearer to understand. Thx.
What if fighters that defend an SBR have their territory captured during combat?
-
There is no official rule for this situation. An argument could be made that they have one movement point to land, as fighters whose carriers are destroyed do. An equally valid argument could be made that they are destroyed, since there is no specific mention that these fighters also get a move to land.
Since the optional fighter escort and interceptor rules in AA50 indicate that they do get to move one space, it can probably be assumed that was the intent here as well. This may be a good FAQ candidate.
-
Boy , that was fast. Maybe you should change your moniker to Blitzkrieghund.
-
Okay, well how does it get proposed as a FAQ question, and to whom? Thanks!
~Josh
-
Consider it proposed.
-
There is no official rule for this situation. An argument could be made that they have one movement point to land, as fighters whose carriers are destroyed do. An equally valid argument could be made that they are destroyed, since there is no specific mention that these fighters also get a move to land.
Not that I would necessarily get a vote as to the FAQ per se, but I would vote for the fighters to get a move point, ie CV fighters as mentioned. I would argue that it would be more likely in the rules to make note of what is destroyed than not and without a direct statement as such, that remaining fighters are destroyed, they would be free to move to possible safety. As all combat is simultaneous, they would still be in the air during the battle.
Great question OutsideLime!
-
Thanks! I personally believe that they should get that extra movement point to find a landing-spot; the similar scenario of destroyed carriers sets a sort of precedent. Just wanted to see if there was an official ruling on it.
~Josh
-
Who bombs a territory that they intend to capture?
-
Boy , that was fast. Maybe you should change your moniker to Blitzkrieghund.
lol good one, Max!
-
I thought that a SBR was considered combat and thus, you cannot conduct two different attacks in one turn on the same territory. I guess I was wrong in assuming this.
-
I thought that a SBR was considered combat and thus, you cannot conduct two different attacks in one turn on the same territory. I guess I was wrong in assuming this.
Your assumption is correct, you can do both.
-
Man that kinda makes me mad because in last night’s Europe game I intentionally did not invade Leningrad so I could SBR it. Next time I know that I can SBR, then invade.
-
Who bombs a territory that they intend to capture?
In this game, SBR hits cost the owner of the factory IPCs that must be returned to the bank. So, it could be advantageous to perform an SBR as well as an invasion of the same territory, unless that territory is an enemy capital, in which case the SBR would simply be lowering your plunder if you take the territory.
In the later games, like AA50 and the 1940 games, where you put damage chips under the factory, it is not a good idea to SBR if you also intend to invade. If you capture the territory and the factory, then you have to spend the money to repair the SBR damage. I would guess the only possible benefit in that case is if the defender scrambles his fighters as interceptors in the SBR, they can’t defend in the invasion so it might be easier to conquer that territory. -
Who bombs a territory that they intend to capture?
Since the invention of bombs, I would say just about everyone.
~Josh
Suggested Topics
