The UK carrier would not be involved in the battle in any way, regardless of what the US attacked with.
Landing-spot trickiness
-
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. :-(
-
Switch noted the rule above that once combat has been declared no reinforcements can enter the battle.
Therefore, if the fighter could land immediately, it would be inconsistent with the rule about reinforcements entering battle.
-
Switch noted the rule above that once combat has been declared no reinforcements can enter the battle.
Therefore, if the fighter could land immediately, it would be inconsistent with the rule about reinforcements entering battle.
It would also violate the rule that all combat is considered to take place simultaneously. But that’s what they’re saying over at harrisgamedesign.com
-
That makes NO sense at all, and violates several black-letter rules.
The only way that this thing makes sense is:
1. Each unit can only participate in 1 combat per round: So the FIG can absolutely NOT defend in both SZ35 and India
2. All combat is simultaneous: So the FIG landing after the battle would in reality be landing after the end of ALL battles
3. It is not the defender’s turn, so their involvement with the turn ends with COMBAT: Thus their units return to the board (and land as needed) at the end of COMBAT
4. Attacker aircraft land in NON-COMBAT movement: So the Attacker’s aircraft land AFTER the Defender lands.There is really only ONE way to read the rules and be consistent with ALL of the rules in this scenario.
And the sub-resurface thing does not apply. Re-surfacing of SUBs is NOT movement from one SSZ/territory to another; and also is a specific black-letter rule that occurs as the absolute last step of a given national move in order to re-set the board with all units “present” and ready for the next round immediately prior to the start of the NEXT player’s turn.
-
Over at AAMC, Blackwatch (a member of the LHTR committee) answers like this:
http://aamc.net/bunker/forumsql/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=217&PID=1062#1062
-
While Larry answers in this fashion:
http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/bb/viewtopic.php?p=13680#13680
-
So,
According to best interpretation and consideration of all relevant rules, and stated most simply, the stranded defending Fighter should carry out its emergency-landing IN BETWEEN the attacker’s Combat and NonCombat Move phases.
I am glad to have sparked this discussion - usually there is a clarified answer to be found to most questions, but it seems that in this case we have discovered a scenario which demands that a real clarification be made.
:-D
~Josh
-
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:
Suggested Topics
