Thanx Craig for ur brilliant summary on this topic :-)
Yet another reason for me to leave the revised 2nd ed rules and go with the LHTRs!! :-) (i feel less confused following them)
Thanx Craig for ur brilliant summary on this topic :-)
Yet another reason for me to leave the revised 2nd ed rules and go with the LHTRs!! :-) (i feel less confused following them)
Just checked the FAQ/errata section from the AH site, concerning the 2nd ed revised rules, and found this to be interesting…:
It suggests that even a friendly (ie not own) fighter present in the same terrirtory as the IC can move onto your newly built AC. The example was: 1 UK fighter and 1 US fighter are landed in the UK (where there is an IC). The UK deploys a newly built AC in an adjacent seazone. In the example both the UK and US fighters can be moved onto the AC.
Surprised about this given the ruling that a player can maneuvre their troops on their own turn only…
I think I might go with the LHTRs…much clearer, more consistent, much fairer, and make more sense (imho) :)
Don’t have time to pull out the quote, but the bottom of page 14 states the possible fighter moves. This of course is the LHTR interpreation.
http://www.geocities.com/headlesshorseman2/LHTRupdatedmay2006.pdf
Thanx Darth, the LHTR interpretation is clear there.
So in regards to 2.4, I presume then that u CAN move the 2 UK fighters to the new UK AC, provided you nominate that they’re not already landed on the US AC, but are still “in mid-air” in that sea zone, until the UK AC is deployed for them to land on.
I’ve been reading through the LHTRs (I’m more familiar with the OOB interpretation) and the apparent differences that I’ve been able to find are:
1. Unlike in LHTR, a new fighter may NOT be moved onto an EXISTING Aircraft Carrier (yours or friendly), only to a newly built one
2. Fighters are destroyed at end of non-combat phase if nowhere to land, and one can not make a kamikaze move. There must be a legitimate place to land or at least an intended AC movement to allow for fighter to safely land on, before any fighter initially takes off. So, strictly speaking (and unless any errata have been made to the wording), it appears that, given that mobilization of units is a separate phase and occurs AFTER noncombat phase, the intention/nomination to land on a newly built AC would be illegal and any fighter that happened to find itself in a seazone without an AC by the end of noncombat phase would be destroyed before the new AC was built
Barring any existing errata to either of the rules, I think I’m now satisfied with the answers to my questions. Thanx again Darth for your input :-)
Did you happen to have 2 battleships (Japan)?
In this case you could chose 1 bb to bom one place and the 2nd to bom another.
I’m not sure why TripleA would allow it.
But a singular BB can bombard only one territory, you can choose which one, but you shouldn’t be getting a singular shot in multiple battles.
Actually your right, I did have 2 Battleships, but now you got me thinking as to whether I allocated each Battleship to bombard separate territories. Given that this situation never crossed my mind uptil then, I may well have just clicked the default settings given to me without paying closer attention to how the Battleships were allocated…
But thanx either way for clearing this up for me :-) (I’ll pay closer attention on triple-A next time… I might even try re-simulating the situation and see how the program handles it :wink: )
Are you sure about this given that mobilization of new units occurs AFTER non-combat phase? Hence my different scenarios…. :wink:
The example I’m thinking of with 2.4 is: 2UK fighters already on a US AC, in same sea zone that a new UK AC is deployed. Can the UK fighters move over to the new UK AC?
Well, in this case if it is UK’s turn, in non-combat you can declare your ftrs take-off and then will land on your new UK AC.
If the ftrs participated in a combat, then in non combat you just declare you are waiting to land on the UK AC.
What you can’t do, is say your fighters land on the US AC, then switch them over after the fact. It might be fine line, so you need to be clear on your intentions during the Non-Com phase.
What I’m getting at Darth is that your fighters in mid-air would be dead/sunk at the end of non-combat phase and hence could not wait till the mobilization phase. Hence it would probably be illegal/not possible to nominate that your fighter is going to land on your newly built Ac, WHEN it’s built :) In which case, I’m still not sure about the answer to 2.4……
The reason for question 1, was that while playing on triple-A, I’m sure the program allowed the Battleship to bombard twice, but just once per combat (during the 1st round of each combat)…… (could be wrong though, as the resolution of dice went quickly, but on confirming via the “game history” it appeared that bombardment occurred twice)
2.4 - If your fts have already landing on the friendly AC - No
If you declare your ftrs are waitng for you AC - YesIt is a matter of how you declare your combat and non-com moves and placement.
For example if you have 2 UK ftrs on a US AC in sz 6. You buy a UK AC and place it there your ftrs can’t just reshuffle automatically. But if in your combined combat and non-com move you declare your ftrs are waiting for your AC then yes you can have them land on the UK AC.
Are you sure about this given that mobilization of new units occurs AFTER non-combat phase? Hence my different scenarios…. :wink:
The example I’m thinking of with 2.4 is: 2UK fighters already on a US AC, in same sea zone that a new UK AC is deployed. Can the UK fighters move over to the new UK AC?
Also, regarding 2.5, the example I’m thinking about is: 2US fighters on a US AC, in the same sea zone that a new UK AC is deployed. Can the US fighters huffle onto UK AC? (as I said don’t know why one would chose to do so but thought I’d ask)
Lets say you move a Battleship and 2 loaded transports to an empty sea zone, which is adjacent to more than one terrotory and want to conduct an amphibious assault where troops in one transport want to assault one territory, and troops from the second transport want to assault one of the other adjacent territories:
1. Can the Battleship participate in bombarding both territories? (ie is bombardment allowed once per COMBAT or once per ENTIRE TURN?)
2. Are there differences in rules between 2nd ed revised and Larry Harris Tourney Rules?
3. Lets say that Battleship already in seazone that you want to assault from, if it participates in bombardment, can it also move during the non-combat phase? (I suspect no cause it was part of combat, but an opponent I played against insisted it could arguing it was simply a property of battleships)
4. If answer to 4 is “no it cant make a non-combat move”, and you intend to move battleship during non-combat move, can you elect NOT to bombard (ie is bombardment optional or a compulsory action?)
Can someone help me by answering TRUE or FALSE to the following statements and if there is any difference between the 2nd ed revised rules and the Larry Harris Tournament Rules:
AC= air craft carrier; IC=industrial complex
1. Regarding the mobilization of new fighters:
1.1 They CAN be deployed to new ACs (yours) in an adjacent sea zone to your IC
1.2 They CAN be deployed to existing ACs (yours) in an adjacent sea zone to your IC
1.3 They CAN be deployed to existing ACs (friendly- not own) in an adjacent sea zone to your IC
2. Regarding the mobilization of new ACs:
2.1 Newly deployed fighters (yours) CAN be landed on them
2.2 Existing fighters (yours) CAN be landed on them from adjacent site containing your IC
2.3 Existing fighters (friendly- not own) CAN be landed from adjacent site containing your IC
2.4 Existing fighters (yours) on a friendly(ie not own) AC in same sea zone, CAN be reshuffled and CAN land on the new AC
2.5 Existing fighters (friendly- not own) on a friendly (ie not own) AC in same sea zone, CAN be reshuffled and land on the new AC (don’t know why one would chose to do this but rying to exhaust all possibilities :wink: )
3. Any other possible scenarios that CAN/ CAN NOT be done :wink:
Once a transport unloads a unit, movement for the unit and the transport is done.
No “transport chains” as you describe them.
BTW, welcome.
Stick around, there is a lot of useful information on the boards.
Thanx for your prompt response. :-)
This forum absolutely rocks :-)!!! Heaps of info, great discussions, and someone knowledgeable enough always seems to be around to respond to queries or thoughts…