Kamikaze are a defensive weapon, which are resolved at the beginning of the combat phase, so the attacking air units have already launched from their carriers are not in danger (unless they are “guest” air units). As such, they will participate in combat even if their carrier is hit, and will have the remainder of their movement to land as normal afterwards.
Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2)
-
Any allied plane can be scrambled to defend any allied ships or neighboring territories being amphibiously assaulted from a sea zone that is adjacent to the air base.
A German fighter in South Italy can be scrambled to Zone 97 to defend against a UK assault on Albania.
-
Any allied plane can be scrambled to defend any allied ships or neighboring territories being amphibiously assaulted from a sea zone that is adjacent to the air base.
… as long as the owning power is at war.
-
This has probably been asked, but can someone answer this for me? i just posted a quote from my current game below for sake of time:
quote:
to be clear, all you have to do is hold 8 VC’s in europe or 6 VC’s in the pacific for a full turn AND hold one of the axis capitals at the end of that round.
so THEORETICALLY, you could take the 6th pacific VC at the beginning of Japan’s turn and EVEN IF at the beginning of that turn, the allies HELD Berlin, Rome, and Tokyo, as long as you held (the same?) 6 VC’s at the end of Japan’s next turn AND at least one of Berlin, Rome, or Tokyo, you would have the victory.
The only thing that is unclear to me is whether the VC’s held must be the SAME VC’s or if the only requirement is that it be any combination of the 6 or 8. In other words, would it be a victory if Japan held Tokyo, Manilla, Calcutta, Hong Kong, Hawaii, and Beijing at after J10, and then at the end of J11 Japan had lost Hawaii but had taken Sydney. Would this qualify? I don’t know, I will ask in the FAQ.
Cheers
-
Any combination, does not have to be the same.
But in your example when Japan lost Hawaii between J10 and J11, they lost the chance of victory by J11. If they took Sydney J11 for the 6th city, the clock starts again. They must maintain 6 cities for a round of play.
Here’s a wacky example to illustrate this clearly.
Say Japan has Tokyo, Manilla, Calcutta, Hong Kong, Hawaii, and Beijing at J10.
US/UK takes Calcutta back UK 10.
Axis only has 5 cities now, so victory clock stops.
Italy takes Calcutta back and also takes Sydney. Axis has 7 cities, and the clock starts again as of I10.
ANZ liberates Manilla. Axis are down to 6 cities, so clock is still going - Axis will win as long as they keep ANY 6 Pacific VC’s through I11 now.
Japan takes WUS on J11. Axis are at 7 cities.
USA liberates Hawaii. Axis are at 6 cities.
Game goes to I11 without VC changing hands.
Axis wins because they control at least 1 Axis capital in the world, and have maintained 6 or more VC’s in the Pacific constantly without interruption for an entire round of play, from I10 to I11. -
makes perfect sense - thanks Gamer!
-
Anzac have built minor in Malaya. I can upgrade to major because it’s a 3 and not a Chinese territory, correct?
-
Mallery: only UK (India) can do that, as the original controller of Malaya. Not Anzac.
-
@wittmann:
Mallery: only UK (India) can do that, as the original controller of Malaya. Not Anzac.
Damn, was looking to put my 60 bucks to good use….oh well, time to add a third complex!
-
can russia land planes in burma when russia is at war with japan but uk isnt. urgent! :-P
-
can russia land planes in burma when russia is at war with japan but uk isnt. urgent! :-P
YES they can
UK is at war (With Germany/Italy)
Once Russia is at war on the Pacific boards, she can land planes on Allied territory (on the Pacific boards only). UK and Russia are Allies because they are both at war with the Axis, in your situation. -
That is sweet-tasting news indeed.
-
I guess it is back to J2 DoW as people are learning quick.
-
@Cow:
I guess it is back to J2 DoW as people are learning quick.
Rommel kicked your heiney as I recall, so maybe it is YOU who should be doing some learning cow… lol.
-
This is a question for Krieghund only:
Page 16 of rulebook under “Scramble”
“The attacker may not change any combat movements or attacks AFTER THE DEFENDER HAS SCRAMBLED”.
Krieg, my question is this:
If the allied player sends a force to z112, asks for the german scramble choice, and the axis player responds “no scramble” and this is the only scramble or intercept choice of the round, would it be within the attacker’s right to alter his move however he wished (as long as dice have not been rolled) and of course if still attacking a zone with scramble option, must again ask for a scramble choice?
by extension, let’s address intercept. although the rules do not specifically state that there may be no change to any combat movements or attacks after the defender has sent up interceptors, i would think that if the defender elects to intercept, this would also lock in all combat moves similarly and for the same reason as the scramble does (if the defender so elected to enforce the rule)?
Thank you!
-
If the allied player sends a force to z112, asks for the german scramble choice, and the axis player responds “no scramble” and this is the only scramble or intercept choice of the round, would it be within the attacker’s right to alter his move however he wished (as long as dice have not been rolled) and of course if still attacking a zone with scramble option, must again ask for a scramble choice?
Technically, the attacker’s combat moves are done and may not be altered. However, it really depends on how strictly you want to enforce the rule. In a friendly game, I see no reason why the attacker should not be able to alter the moves before any dice are thrown, provided the defender is also allowed to change his/her reaction.
by extension, let’s address intercept. although the rules do not specifically state that there may be no change to any combat movements or attacks after the defender has sent up interceptors, i would think that if the defender elects to intercept, this would also lock in all combat moves similarly and for the same reason as the scramble does (if the defender so elected to enforce the rule)?
The rules do indeed say there may be no change to combat movements after the defender elects to intercept: “The number of defending fighters that will intercept is decided by the owning player(s) after the attacker’s Combat Move phase is completed and before the Conduct Combat phase begins.” It is the same situation as scrambling.
-
Krieg, then the rulebook language should be changed. i was under the impression that how things are stated in the rules are precisely intended. the rule says if the player scrambles not “if the player gives a scramble decision”.
-
The rules do indeed say there may be no change to combat movements after the defender elects to intercept: “The number of defending fighters that will intercept is decided by the owning player(s) after the attacker’s Combat Move phase is completed and before the Conduct Combat phase begins.” It is the same situation as scrambling.
I do agree this is in the rulebook. However, it does not specifically preclude a change to combat movements as it does in the scramble section. and again, if the defender elects to intercept is said, not once the defender gives an intercept answer.
precision in the rulebook is important, and i thought since it was precise in this case that it was intended to be so.
-
The rules do indeed say there may be no change to combat movements after the defender elects to intercept: “The number of defending fighters that will intercept is decided by the owning player(s) after the attacker�s Combat Move phase is completed and before the Conduct Combat phase begins.” It is the same situation as scrambling.
I do agree this is in the rulebook. However, it does not specifically preclude a change to combat movements as it does in the scramble section. and again, if the defender elects to intercept is said, not once the defender gives an intercept answer.
precision in the rulebook is important, and i thought since it was precise in this case that it was intended to be so.
my point is this krieg - if overwhelming force is sent into a zone and the defending player says no intercept, i cannot see good rationale for forcing that combat movement to stand if the attacker wants to take 29 planes into the zone to attack the potential 1 ftr scramble rather than 30. if the rule were written that the move is locked in the moment the defender gave a scramble decision, it would give the defender the RIGHT to enforce absolutely no changes.
one player has expressed concern that an attacker could game the system by progressively sending less and less into a zone to get information about when the scramble may actually occur. ok fine, but the rule would give protection to that player as it is currently written, since the scramble of a single plane LOCKS in the move technically.
-
The rules do indeed say there may be no change to combat movements after the defender elects to intercept: “The number of defending fighters that will intercept is decided by the owning player(s) after the attacker�s Combat Move phase is completed and before the Conduct Combat phase begins.” It is the same situation as scrambling.
I do agree this is in the rulebook. However, it does not specifically preclude a change to combat movements as it does in the scramble section. and again, if the defender elects to intercept is said, not once the defender gives an intercept answer.
precision in the rulebook is important, and i thought since it was precise in this case that it was intended to be so.
my point is this krieg - if overwhelming force is sent into a zone and the defending player says no intercept, i cannot see good rationale for forcing that combat movement to stand if the attacker wants to take 29 planes into the zone to attack the potential 1 ftr scramble rather than 30. if the rule were written that the move is locked in the moment the defender gave a scramble decision, it would give the defender the RIGHT to enforce absolutely no changes.
one player has expressed concern that an attacker could game the system by progressively sending less and less into a zone to get information about when the scramble may actually occur. ok fine, but the rule would give protection to that player as it is currently written, since the scramble of a single plane LOCKS in the move technically.
and such extreme action would likely come after repeated issues with another player in an unfriendly game. why give an unreasonable player the right in the rules to be a jerk and enforce and entire round of combat moves by simply saying “no scramble”. for this reason, i thought this language was precisely written and brilliant. at least if the player wants to be a jerk and lock in the move, it costs him a fighter if interpreted precisely as written.
-
I do agree this is in the rulebook. Â However, it does not specifically preclude a change to combat movements as it does in the scramble section. Â and again, if the defender elects to intercept is said, not once the defender gives an intercept answer.
precision in the rulebook is important, and i thought since it was precise in this case that it was intended to be so.
Regardless of how you want to split hairs with the language (and you’re splitting them pretty finely) regarding scrambling/intercepting versus deciding whether to scramble/intercept, the fact remains that both scrambling and intercepting are done after all of the attacker’s combat moves are completed. Therefore, per the rules, the attacker must declare his/her combat moves to be complete before the defender decides whether or not to scramble/intercept. The statement about changing moves in the scramble rules is for emphasis, rather than modification. With or without it, no decision is made before the attacker has finished moving.
my point is this krieg - if overwhelming force is sent into a zone and the defending player says no intercept, i cannot see good rationale for forcing that combat movement to stand if the attacker wants to take 29 planes into the zone to attack the potential 1 ftr scramble rather than 30. if the rule were written that the move is locked in the moment the defender gave a scramble decision, it would give the defender the RIGHT to enforce absolutely no changes.Â
The rule is written that the move is locked in when all the attacker’s moves are complete (that is the definition of “complete”), before the scramble/intercept decision.
one player has expressed concern that an attacker could game the system by progressively sending less and less into a zone to get information about when the scramble may actually occur. ok fine, but the rule would give protection to that player as it is currently written, since the scramble of a single plane LOCKS in the move technically.
The attacker’s declaration that his/her movement is complete locks it in, which is required before a decision is made regarding scrambling/interception. As I said, you might allow changes in a friendly game. The situation you describe is an abuse, and I would give no such leeway under those circumstances.
Suggested Topics
