The UK carrier would not be involved in the battle in any way, regardless of what the US attacked with.
Landing-spot trickiness
-
Seems to me that the fighter would stay in the seazone until all of the Japanese combat moves are over (as would any potential Japanese aircraft). After all combat moves are complete, noncombat moves would cover the return trips of all aircraft. Aircraft return trips apparently occur at the very end of NC moves, according to the error correction page at wizards/avalon hill:
A fighter leaves an aircraft carrier and attacks a transport in an adjacent sea zone. After the battle, the fighter returns to the aircraft carrier. Can the aircraft carrier then move its two spaces with the fighter?
No. Fighters land at the very end of non-combat movement. To land on the carrier, the fighter must fly to the sea zone where the carrier will be at the end of non-combat movement.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/faqs/axisrevised–on the triplea game I believe aircraft movement works like this too, even if you retreat, the aircraft stay in the zone until noncombat for attacker and defender. That game is not exactly an authority I know, but a correlation no less.
On the other hand, the rule book does say in the combat move phase section that in general units can only take part in combat once a turn, and gives the example of multiple AA guns enroute to strategic bombings, but does not say if that is the only time that could happen.
-
According to both the OM and LHTR, the FIG that survived the attack in SZ35 is returned to the game board in SZ35 at the end of that combat, then the other combats are resolved, THEN the UK FIG can try to land.
So, in the above scenario, the UK FIG splashes down either where it is in SZ35, or flies to one of the adjacent SZ’s and splashes there (unless an allied AC happens to be in one of those SZ’s).
-
@ncscswitch:
According to both the OM and LHTR, the FIG that survived the attack in SZ35 is returned to the game board in SZ35 at the end of that combat, then the other combats are resolved, THEN the UK FIG can try to land.
So, in the above scenario, the UK FIG splashes down either where it is in SZ35, or flies to one of the adjacent SZ’s and splashes there (unless an allied AC happens to be in one of those SZ’s).
Thank you.
None of what you typed is indispute.
The key questions are :
Does the defender gett o decide wher to land?
If so, who decides where to land first? Attacker or defender?
-
The defender gets to decide where to land…
after ALL combat is completed. -
@ncscswitch:
The defender gets to decide where to land…
after ALL combat is completed.What you’re saying is still mostly indisputable. :-P
The BIG question is who lands first? Attacker or defender? If we assume this is sz34 instead(red sea sz) this can potentially be quite important since UK has quite a few areas to choose from and Japan needs to land a bomber but doesn’t want to leave it next to the british fig in fear of retaliation.
Both views can be argued, and I suppose it can also be argued that they land simultanteously. That raises some practical difficulties, though, especially in regards to online play.
-
the question is… what part of the attacking nation’s turn is it?
I veiw it to be in combat. if that is so, then the nation who must decide where to land their fighter declares.
Then the rest of the turn is as normal as can be. IE, after combat (and all related combat moves/retreats/ etc, must move.
-
The defender is not the active player. As such, as soon as COMBAT is finished (the only part of the current turn in which the defender is involved), the defender would land that FIG (if possible).
THEN the attacker, who’s turn it is, would move on to the next phase of their turn… non-combat movement; during which the attacker would land THEIR aircraft.
-
@ncscswitch:
The defender is not the active player. As such, as soon as COMBAT is finished (the only part of the current turn in which the defender is involved), the defender would land that FIG (if possible).
THEN the attacker, who’s turn it is, would move on to the next phase of their turn… non-combat movement; during which the attacker would land THEIR aircraft.
I agree with this.
-
I agree that it sounds like the most logical argument.
~Josh
-
I agree with this too.
-
have this ever happen??
-
@saburo:
@ncscswitch:
The defender is not the active player. As such, as soon as COMBAT is finished (the only part of the current turn in which the defender is involved), the defender would land that FIG (if possible).
THEN the attacker, who’s turn it is, would move on to the next phase of their turn… non-combat movement; during which the attacker would land THEIR aircraft.
I agree with this.
I’ve changed my mind, we all agree the rules don’t specify when the fighter lands, however the rules do state that defending submerged subs resurface at the end of the attackers turn. This would seem to be the most logical time for the defending fighter to land. But really what difference does it make if the defending fighter lands at the end of ALL combat or during the attackers non-combat move, or the end of the attackers turn. I can’t think of any scenario where the attacker’s non-combat moves could alter a potential landing zone for the defending fighter.
-
attackers turn. I can’t think of any scenario where the attacker’s non-combat moves could alter a potential landing zone for the defending fighter.
Scroll up. sz34. Japan lands their bomber in fic(unprotected). With that in mind UK wants to land their fig in persia so they can hit it the following turn. Otherwise they would rather land it in egypt. I know I’m being difficult now, but that’s the point. :wink:
The other way around Japan would land their bomber on e.indies if uk lands in persia, otherwise in fic. (assume it originated from fic)
-
I’ve changed my mind, we all agree the rules don’t specify when the fighter lands, however the rules do state that defending submerged subs resurface at the end of the attackers turn. This would seem to be the most logical time for the defending fighter to land.
My feeling is the subs don’t resurface until the end of non combat to allow the attacking player to move freely to/from that sea zone during non-combat movement. To leave this defending fighter hovering in the seazone makes it a hostile territory (same as if the sub wasn’t submerged), so I’d argue that you would need to move the defending fighter to a friendly landing spot BEFORE non combat moves begin.
-
My feeling is the subs don’t resurface until the end of non combat to allow the attacking player to move freely to/from that sea zone during non-combat movement. To leave this defending fighter hovering in the seazone makes it a hostile territory (same as if the sub wasn’t submerged), so I’d argue that you would need to move the defending fighter to a friendly landing spot BEFORE non combat moves begin.
Great thought, but you just gave me an argument of the exact opposite idea. :lol:
Again use my sz34 example only this time assume Japan has bombed a lone inf in persia so that they can blitz their india armor through persia and to german controlled cauc to reinforce it. This time uk can land their fig in persia before Japan NCMs making it a blitz blocker that can’t be taken out. Using this reasoning it’s more reason to go with jsp’s idea that the fig must land AFTER the attacker’s NCMs are completed.
-
Still this is quite unlikely to happen, but i would still say it´s better to move UK force before Japans NCM phase, so he can “see whats coming”
-
@Sankt:
attackers turn. I can’t think of any scenario where the attacker’s non-combat moves could alter a potential landing zone for the defending fighter.
Scroll up. sz34. Japan lands their bomber in fic(unprotected). With that in mind UK wants to land their fig in persia so they can hit it the following turn. Otherwise they would rather land it in egypt. I know I’m being difficult now, but that’s the point. :wink:
The other way around Japan would land their bomber on e.indies if uk lands in persia, otherwise in fic. (assume it originated from fic)
Under the scenario outlined, the only potential landing spot would be India. Â But I do see your point that the attacker’s non-combat move could influence the defender’s decision if more than 1 landing spot were available and vice-a-versa. Â I’ve submitted the question to Larry, let’s see what he has to say.
I’ve changed my mind, we all agree the rules don’t specify when the fighter lands, however the rules do state that defending submerged subs resurface at the end of the attackers turn. This would seem to be the most logical time for the defending fighter to land.
My feeling is the subs don’t resurface until the end of non combat to allow the attacking player to move freely to/from that sea zone during non-combat movement. To leave this defending fighter hovering in the seazone makes it a hostile territory (same as if the sub wasn’t submerged), so I’d argue that you would need to move the defending fighter to a friendly landing spot BEFORE non combat moves begin.
Your argument only reinforces my position. Â The japanese attack on sz35 failed to dislodge the defending forces and therefore should remain a hostile seazone, not available for movement during japan’s non-combat move.
-
Your argument only reinforces my position. The japanese attack on sz35 failed to dislodge the defending forces and therefore should remain a hostile seazone, not available for movement during japan’s non-combat move.
We agree to disagree then. My position is that if only air is left defending after a naval battle, that air has to find a landing spot immediately after combat, or die. The sea zone should be clear for non-combat movement. I wonder if Larry has any thoughts on this.
@Sankt:
Great thought, but you just gave me an argument of the exact opposite idea. :lol:
Again use my sz34 example only this time assume Japan has bombed a lone inf in persia so that they can blitz their india armor through persia and to german controlled cauc to reinforce it. This time uk can land their fig in persia before Japan NCMs making it a blitz blocker that can’t be taken out. Using this reasoning it’s more reason to go with jsp’s idea that the fig must land AFTER the attacker’s NCMs are completed.
This is a fallacious arguement. If Japan bombs the inf in India, the territory is cleared, but not taken. Thus the arm cannot blitz through it in non-combat (because it is still UK owned). If Japan takes India with ground troops, then the defending fighter from sz34 couldn’t land in India after combat was over anyway (because it is now hostile) so it wouldn’t be a valid landing option for them.
-
@Sankt:
Great thought, but you just gave me an argument of the exact opposite idea. :lol:
Again use my sz34 example only this time assume Japan has bombed a lone inf in persia so that they can blitz their india armor through persia and to german controlled cauc to reinforce it. This time uk can land their fig in persia before Japan NCMs making it a blitz blocker that can’t be taken out. Using this reasoning it’s more reason to go with jsp’s idea that the fig must land AFTER the attacker’s NCMs are completed.
This is a fallacious arguement. If Japan bombs the inf in India, the territory is cleared, but not taken. Thus the arm cannot blitz through it in non-combat (because it is still UK owned). If Japan takes India with ground troops, then the defending fighter from sz34 couldn’t land in India after combat was over anyway (because it is now hostile) so it wouldn’t be a valid landing option for them.
True. Obviously I was a little ahead of myself.
-
According to “Krieghund, Official Answer Guy” over at the Harris site, the fighter must land immediately following combat, before moving onto the next battle. I’d say that’s JUST WRONG…but who am I to disagree with the guy who speaks for the guy who wrote the rules. :-(
Suggested Topics
