Landing-spot trickiness

Is it still 100% clarified?  Black Watch’s answer seems to concur with your summary, but Larry Harris’ response seems to say that the fighter lands immediately following that particular combat resolution, and before subsequent combats are resolved.  If the defending player happens to choose a landing spot where combat is yet unresolved, they are rolling the dice and hoping that they successfully repel the attack (but the fighter doesn’t fight twice).  If not, the fighter is still lost.

So in this situation, it is the attackers advantage in determining the sequence of combat resolutions.  IE if the attack the territory first, and overtake the territory, they KNOW that that territory is not a valid landing spot.  Therefore, knowing they could retreat from a naval battle that will result in a fighter lost at sea, if that is the order in which the loss was stated.  If the naval battle was rolled first, you may not be sure that you overtake that territory.

It’s always good to ask for order of loss anytime a sub may submerge, bomber defending with other land units, or a carrier is defending.

If they roll all battles at once (like what happens on the site using the in-house dice) then the attacker would lose this advantage.

Since all combat occur simultaneously then it is pretty obvious that the Fig lands after the combat in India is done.

According to Larry Harris, the fighter lands after the combat sequence for that sea zone.  So before you roll any other combat, you resolve the landing spot for the fighter first.

If it lands in India, and India is taken over, then the fighter is lost.

If India survives, and is not taken over, the fighter lives.

But it can’t partake in the combat of India.

Larry has changed his mind, and I replied:

Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 12:06 am    Post subject:

–------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Larry wrote:
you know what… upon further deliberation, I have come to the following opinion:
Retreating aircraft can not retreat to a disputed territory or sea zone. I think that’s how future rules will deal with this situation.

As relates to the carrier sinking and the aircraft needing a place to land. If it can reach a place or another carrier in one move it can land. However if the sea zone or territory it wishes to land in is under attack(enemy units will be attacking or have attacked) the carrier planes cannot land there.

Are you sure you want this to be the rule?
If I am Japan attacking a UK fleet off SZ35 (India), and india is under UK control, then all I have to do is throw one attacking inf into India to make it an embattled zone and then take away UK’s potential safe landing zone for their ftr(s) if their carriers happen to be sunk under them in a naval battle.

Why the urgency for landing the ftrs suring the resolve combat sequence? Personally I think the landing of all planes from combat should occur during non-combat. Defender lands first, then attacker. Remember the KISS principal. Simple rules are better.

Sounds like they are moving toward what i psoted above…

It’s very similar to attacking subs.  They can retreat to a sea zone where attacking units came from, or they can retreat by submerging.

:-D
Why not just keep the carrier and lose the plane? You are assured another round of combat that way.
  I don’t thnik it’s a fair shake for the naval fighters to have only one space range to go to. Why not 2 spaces?
But to answer the Fine Question; All planes land in ther NCM phase…… doesn’t make any difference who lands first.
  Crazy Ivan
    :roll: