If your opponent is buying DD’s with the USA it is unlikely you are playing 2nd edition. You should post on the correct forum to make sure you are receiving the best advice.
R1 Japan attack India sea
-
your not allowed to move the carrier and the fighters on the carrier in the same turn
-
So Yanni says: Yes, is allowed; that’s clear, but not motivatid
Geze says: Not in the same turne; that’s not quite clear. Do you indeed meane that or do you meane not in the same move?
Pure technically I say: no, not allowed.
Practically I Say: yes, allowed, this is a possible moveCan anyone else clear this out for me?
-
you are not allowed to move the carrier first then move the fighters on the carrier because that would extend the range of the fighter. eveything in your turn is supposedly happen at once so moving your carrier then your fighter would realy be doing both at once
-
The Fighters move 4, and they arrive in India on their 3rd move. The carrir moves 2, ending up in Indochina sea zone. The fighers should be able to land on that carrier if it is in Indochina.
-
that move is illegle
-
I think the move should be legal.
-
Yanny, it’s clear, both the fighters and the carrier do can move that far.
But the question is:
Are the figthers allowed to move during combat-move to India-sea, while the carrier can only move to Fr.Indo-sea during non-combat-move.
Since these moves cannot all been done during combat-move, there is no landing space at that time.Note: the computer-game is indeed buggy (is there really a new version coming up?), but it applies the rules (always) correctly, so these moves should not be allowed.
-
As long as the Fighters only move 4 total and the Carrier only moves 4 total it is legal. The game doesn’t let you do this because it is dumb. I always play with Kamikazee rules in the PC game because then it lets you do this. You just have to make sure you never attack on the 4th move…
-
it isnt legel! :evil: just look in the rule book! :evil:
-
The move is perfectly legal…
Isn’t there even an example of it in the rulebook? AFAIR when it comes to
Pearl Harbor… but i could be wrong (that this example exists). -
I’m a beginning A&A player (I’ve played the boardgame now 5 times).
I really expected a straight clear answare on this forum, since this is an ‘logical’ attack in first round. I presumed this topic was well been discused before.I’ve studied the rules again (dutch translation) and I come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as a controlled sea zone. Either it’s occupied ore not, instead of situations on land, where territories can be controlled. So, does this implies that this movement should be allowed.
And so the computer is indeed bugging on the rules (again I ask you: Is there a new version coming up?. Or is it that the AC cannot move in combat there since it is a no-combat move?Geze: you refer to the rule book (i.e. it is not allowed) please post here the rule.
Soon_U_ Die: same request to you; if the rules are that clear, please post the specific rule that makes this move legal.It just might clear this and end the discussion.
I still wonder:
Pure technically I say: no, not allowed.
Practically I Say: yes, allowed, this is a possible move. -
look in RULES CLARIFICATIONS and on page number three (including the cover) you should see the sub-heading ‘Carriers and Fighters’ then look under rule number 2
-
The subject you are talking about says this:
Kamikaze attacks are NOT Legal. The rule to remember is that you can always launch a plane if there is ANY legal possibility that it can return to a safe landing place by the end of its turn. Here’s an interesting landing plan gone awry: You plan to move a carrier in your non-combat move into landing range for one of your fighters. During battle, your fighter is destroyed. In this case you do NOT have to move the carrier to the intended rendezvous zone.That is the exact wording, and basically you just made youself look foolish because it proved you wrong. You can attack with a fighter as long as you can move a carrier during non-combat move to let it land.
-
it spasifaclt says that the fighter carrier move would illegly extend the range of the fighter
-
Geze, i think that you are wrong. In Martijn’s scenario we have the following combat movement.
Ftrs from both the philipines and car sz move to the Phi sz (1 move). They then move to FIC sz (2nd move). They attack the trn in India (3rd move).
Now let’s say that they both hit. They still have one movement point left, but they do not need to expend it until the non-combat movement.
Noncombat: Both the ftrs move to FIC sz (last move) as does the car sz carrier (2 moves). It is assumed that the fighters safely land on the carrier, no rules have been broken, no kamikaze’s have been killed, Geze is wrong, Yanny, Martijn, SUD, Guest are all correct. -
I did:
(2) If you have a fighter on one of your own carriers and it iss flying out to attack, you must launch it before your carrier moves - otherwise, if the carrier moved first with the fighter on board and then the fighter moved, the plane’s range would be extenede illegally; the same rule applies during the non-combat phase. A carrier cannot move after a plane has landed on it, for it would extend a plane’s range illegally.The thing is:
a) The planes do move first (during combat), the AC moves during non-combat.
b) The plane’s movement is not being extended beyond 4 spaces. It is precisely 3 spaces to attack the IND sz, and one to land on the AC in FIC. The carrier and plane move in concert. The AC does not move after the plane has landed.
I think that i am abandoning this post if you can do no more than scream obscenities, referencing materials i have made judicious use of over the years. Either:- You really hate being wrong,
- You have not read the materials and applied them appropriately, or
- There is some other addendum that the 5 of us have not seen that you have special access to.
-
I even wrote down the exact passage you used to try to say it is illegal and it gives an example much like what is being talked about saying that it IS legal… I don’t understand your logic, and you havn’t been able to back up your arguments with anything other than “I say so” so guess what? You are wrong.
-
SUD pretty much hits the nail on the head. I believe theres a specific example in the rulebook.
http://www.axisandallies.org/download.html
Look there for the Manuel.
-
Yanny, it would not be there as the rule is in the Rule Clarafications
-
What you are saying GeZe is that it is illegal for a carrier to move with the fighters on it and then launch the fighters. This I agree with. But in this case, the fighters are off the carrier before the carrier moves, because it isn’t moving. Then, after all is said and done, it moves into range for the fighters to land on it. Which is legal.
Suggested Topics
