Rules Question

[Jercules]

Can you conduct an attack that depends upon the outcome of another attack to be legal?

e.g.) A fighter goes to sink transports, but must be caught by a carrier that must break through a destroyer block to non-combat to the right position. If the battle with the destroyer is not won, the carrier can not be brought into the position and the fighter is thus on a suicide run.

Can anybody take a stab at this?

[WILD BILL]

Yes it is legal, you can clear a sz of enemy ships for the carrier to NCM in for a safe landing place. If the path isn’t cleared, then if there is no place to land you lose the plane.

[Benerfe]

The way you worded it…

Ok, A fighter wants to attack a transport. But must be caught = Landed on the carrier.

Is the carrier going to attack the seazone with the enemy destroy with another ship accompanying it?

If it is not won the fighter will die.

[Jercules]

My impression always was an attack has to be %100 certainly ‘legal’ before it is conducted. At the time the battle is declared, the fighter has nowhere to land, so it is not ‘legal’ (because there is no guarantee that the carrier can make it).

Just wondering, I’m sure you can all imagine why this is suddenly an issue for me :-)

[Jennifer]

If I read the situation right we have this:

A fighter is launched to go sink a transport.  The only legal landing zone would be if another battle is waged to clear a sea zone so that an aircraft carrier can move to retrieve the fighter.

This is legal, even if there is statistically no chance for the naval battle to be won and thus the carrier won’t be able to move to recover the fighter.

Why?

Because there is A chance the battle could be won, it might be 1 in 1,000,000 but it’s still a chance and therefore, the aircraft carrier DOES count as a legal landing zone for the fighter.  Yes, this means you could attack 14 battleships, 3 loaded Aircraft Carriers and 12 submarines with 1 submarine, declare your submarine is commanded by Superman himself and thus will not die, thus allowing free passage for your aircraft carrier and then declare that carrier as the place you will land the fighter - should the fighter survive it’s engagement and it is 100% legal to do so.  We all know that the fleet you are attacking with your submarine is going to hopelessly slaughter your submarine crew, but there’s that 1 in a bazillion chance your submarine could win and that’s all that matters to make the move legal.

That said, if you cannot move the carrier to recover the fighter, and there are no other legal places to land the plane, it is lost.

[Kjakan]

I have another question. If you want to amphibious assault a territory that is only protected by subs, you may choose to ignore the subs as long as you bring warships correct? But what if the defender scrambles? Will the subs then take part in the naval battle?

[knp7765]

@Kjakan:

I have another question. If you want to amphibious assault a territory that is only protected by subs, you may choose to ignore the subs as long as you bring warships correct? But what if the defender scrambles? Will the subs then take part in the naval battle?

I believe that is basically defender’s choice.  The defender could choose to not use the submarines.  However, the scrambled aircraft makes them available to join in the naval battle and not be ignored.

[Krieghund]

@Kjakan:

I have another question. If you want to amphibious assault a territory that is only protected by subs, you may choose to ignore the subs as long as you bring warships correct? But what if the defender scrambles? Will the subs then take part in the naval battle?

Yes.

[ronrye]

@Kjakan:

I have another question. If you want to amphibious assault a territory that is only protected by subs, you may choose to ignore the subs as long as you bring warships correct? But what if the defender scrambles? Will the subs then take part in the naval battle?

I think that unless you attack the subs, the defender may not scramble. According the alpha 3, "A quick reaction team of no more than 3 defending fighters and tactical bombers (strategic bombers can’t scramble) located on each island or coastal territory that has an operative air base can be scrambled to defend against attacks in the sea zones adjacent to those territories. " If the sea zone only has subs, you can ignore the subs and therefore are not attacking the sea zone…which means that the planes can’t be scrambled.
The rules are here http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=6149

[Thantonous]

You can also scramble to resist an amphibious invasion as well. If that brings in the subs I am not sure of.

[Thantonous]

This is how the Rule reads

" These air units can be scrambled to help friendly units in adjacent sea zones that have come under attack. They can also be scrambled to resist amphibious assaults from adjacent sea zones, whether or not the territory being assaulted is the territory containing the air base. They may defend against the enemy ships conducting the amphibious assault even if friendly ships are not present."

So I think that yes the planes can be scrambled and once you do that then the subs could participate and can not be ignored.

[knp7765]

Yes, that is correct.  Since the planes can be scrambled to resist an amphibious assault, that creates a naval battle in the adjacent sea zone which allows the submarines to participate.

Now I have a few questions along the same lines:

Can an unescorted transport pick up units from an island as part of it’s combat move and take them to another island or coastal territory if there are enemy subs in the first sea zone?

Can an unescorted transport pick up units from an island as part of it’s NON-combat move and take them on to another island or coastal territory if there are enemy subs in the first sea zone?

Can an unescorted transport drop off units on an island or coastal territory that is friendly if the sea zone contains enemy submarines?

[Thantonous]

Here is how the Sub rule reads for Alpha 3
“Submarines:
Submarines no longer fire a special “sneak attack” shot at unescorted transports that move through their sea zone (see page 30 of the Europe Rulebook). Instead, transports are not allowed to unload land units for an amphibious assault in a sea zone containing an enemy sub(s) belonging to a power with which they are at war unless at least one of his warships was also present in the sea zone at the end of the Combat Move phase.”
So IDK

[Jennifer]

@knp7765:

Yes, that is correct.  Since the planes can be scrambled to resist an amphibious assault, that creates a naval battle in the adjacent sea zone which allows the submarines to participate.
Concur

Now I have a few questions along the same lines:
I have a few answers, want to see if they match?

Can an unescorted transport pick up units from an island as part of it’s combat move and take them to another island or coastal territory if there are enemy subs in the first sea zone?
Yes.

Can an unescorted transport pick up units from an island as part of it’s NON-combat move and take them on to another island or coastal territory if there are enemy subs in the first sea zone?
Yes.

Can an unescorted transport drop off units on an island or coastal territory that is friendly if the sea zone contains enemy submarines?
Yes, if during Non-Combat Move Phase.

And remember, if you have a warship with you, submarines never stop Transports.

[Krieghund]

Jen’s right.

[knp7765]

Thanks Jen and Krieghund.  I thought so but since we were on the subject, I thought I would ask to make sure.

It’s funny, you don’t really think of these little things then suddenly they come up in a game and it’s like “I’m not sure about that”.  This just came up for me last night.  Japan had transports by Japanese controlled Philippines, men and artillery on Java and they wanted to get them to British occupied Sumatra.  There were 2 ANZAC subs in the sea zone around Java.  So my transports could have moved from the naval base at Manila, picked up the troops from Java and went on to Sumatra all the while ignoring the ANZAC subs.  There were no warships to escort the transports by the way.

Well, I ended up going another route with other troops and took Sumatra anyway.  I will have to remember this for the future.

By the way, this is off topic, but has anyone gotten a truly outstanding roll of the dice?  Last night, Germany was attacking Russia and in one battle, among other units, they had 5 infantry NOT supported by artillery (so they only attacked at a “1”).  Germany rolled 5 combat dice and believe it or not rolled 5 "1"s.  I was astounded.  I have seen 3 out of 5, or 4 out of 6 or 7 before, but NEVER 5 out of 5.  Needless to say that was a very good battle for Germany.

[suprise attack]

Sorry to cut in, but the good rolls happen alot on our tables.  I’ve seen 11 for 11 and even higher,  for 100% hit to roll ratio I think it is 13 for 13.  sometimes even 80% doesnt cut it.  I know how you feel about 3-4 months ago I was Russia and Germany came after me with 5 planes and my A.A. Gun shot them all down It was great. About 1 month ago I was Germany and I was rolling well 75-80% and my opponents were getting 100% hits on offence and defence I lost,  and it sucked I should have won with those rolls but they got luckier I checked,  no strange dice.

[Guest]

dice is probably the best feature of A&A
one doesn’t know for certain what they will get
Few military commanders have

[Jennifer]

If you dont like dice, you can always go Low Luck or No Luck.  However, I prefer ADS mainly because it means I get away scot free for years and years against AA Guns (i have the ultimate best record of surviving AA Guns and the absolute worst.  My worst record is 23 of 23 strategic bombers lost in a row (not all in one battle, I’da suicided if it was all in one battle!) and my current luck streak is still going with something like 50 misses in a row with AA Guns.)