@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.
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.
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.�
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.
so your practical solution would be to tell the defender that if he believes the attacker was intentionally abusing the rules then do not allow it, but otherwise you would urge the defender to allow the changed combat moves?
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.
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.�
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.
alright, i just saw where you say that the “definition” of the word complete is Locked in. i just have to respectfully disagree with you there. If the rules are intended to be precise on the issue, they should be so. It is misleading to have the statement in the rules that “the attacker may not change any combat movements or attacks after the defender has scrambled” if the combat move is “complete”, ie, locked in, when it is presented to the defender. this is contradictory, and i’m not trying to be difficult. it would be an entirely superfluous statement that could only mislead, right?
by extension, would you say that if i present a move to my opponent where there are no scramble or intercept choices that is is within the defender’s rights BY RULE to not allow ANY changes to the combat move even if dice have not been rolled? by your definition of “complete” being “locked in” would that not be the inevitable conclusion?
so your practical solution would be to tell the defender that if he believes the attacker was intentionally abusing the rules then do not allow it, but otherwise you would urge the defender to allow the changed combat moves?
My practical solution is to use your judgment. If you can’t trust your opponent to not game the leeway, play by the letter of the rules and don’t give it in the first place.
alright, i just saw where you say that the “definition” of the word complete is Locked in. i just have to respectfully disagree with you there. If the rules are intended to be precise on the issue, they should be so.
I’m sorry, but you’re not making sense here. “Complete” means done. (Per Webster’s Dictionary, “having all necessary parts, elements, or steps”, “brought to an end”, and “fully carried out”.) It doesn’t mean “subject to change”. I don’t see how they could be any more precise.
It is misleading to have the statement in the rules that “the attacker may not change any combat movements or attacks after the defender has scrambled” if the combat move is “complete”, ie, locked in, when it is presented to the defender. this is contradictory, and i’m not trying to be difficult. it would be an entirely superfluous statement that could only mislead, right?
It can’t be superfluous and contradictory at the same time. I don’t see how an additional statement for emphasis that doesn’t contradict the original statement in any way can be misleading.
by extension, would you say that if i present a move to my opponent where there are no scramble or intercept choices that is is within the defender’s rights BY RULE to not allow ANY changes to the combat move even if dice have not been rolled? by your definition of “complete” being “locked in” would that not be the inevitable conclusion?
That’s exactly correct. Once you have declared your combat movements to be complete and move on to the Conduct Combat phase, you can’t make any changes to your combat movements. If there is no verbal declaration of completion, implicit declaration occurs when the first combat is begun.
so your practical solution would be to tell the defender that if he believes the attacker was intentionally abusing the rules then do not allow it, but otherwise you would urge the defender to allow the changed combat moves?
My practical solution is to use your judgment. If you can’t trust your opponent to not game the leeway, play by the letter of the rules and don’t give it in the first place.
alright, i just saw where you say that the “definition” of the word complete is Locked in. i just have to respectfully disagree with you there. If the rules are intended to be precise on the issue, they should be so.
I’m sorry, but you’re not making sense here. “Complete” means done. (Per Webster’s Dictionary, “having all necessary parts, elements, or steps”, “brought to an end”, and “fully carried out”.) It doesn’t mean “subject to change”. I don’t see how they could be any more precise.
It is misleading to have the statement in the rules that “the attacker may not change any combat movements or attacks after the defender has scrambled” if the combat move is “complete”, ie, locked in, when it is presented to the defender. this is contradictory, and i’m not trying to be difficult. it would be an entirely superfluous statement that could only mislead, right?
It can’t be superfluous and contradictory at the same time. I don’t see how an additional statement for emphasis that doesn’t contradict the original statement in any way can be misleading.
by extension, would you say that if i present a move to my opponent where there are no scramble or intercept choices that is is within the defender’s rights BY RULE to not allow ANY changes to the combat move even if dice have not been rolled?� by your definition of “complete” being “locked in” would that not be the inevitable conclusion?
That’s exactly correct. Once you have declared your combat movements to be complete and move on to the Conduct Combat phase, you can’t make any changes to your combat movements. If there is no verbal declaration of completion, implicit declaration occurs when the first combat is begun.
so it is the first die roll that locks in the move, not the posted combat moves. is that correct?
my point is, if i present my combat move to my opponent but have not yet rolled dice on any battles, is that combat move “complete” ie, locked in.
It is misleading to have the statement in the rules that “the attacker may not change any combat movements or attacks after the defender has scrambled” if the combat move is “complete”, ie, locked in, when it is presented to the defender. this is contradictory, and i’m not trying to be difficult. it would be an entirely superfluous statement that could only mislead, right?
It can’t be superfluous and contradictory at the same time. I don’t see how an additional statement for emphasis that doesn’t contradict the original statement in any way can be misleading.
I’m saying it is superfluous at best and contradictory at worst.
