Queston about fighter "MAY land" rule and Carriers



  • Standard fighter attack range - no tech

    Let’s say:

    • Zone A  current AC location backed by a submarine
    • Zone B  there is an ennemy DD blocking the path
    • Zone C  Zone in which the fighter is planning to attack using all it’s 4 range.

    Assuming the standard rule that a fighter cannot attack a zone if it cannot land at the end of it’s move, the fighter cannot attack zone C unless the AC makes it there.

    The AC must go trough B in order to get to C. Here, it cannot do so in combat phase.

    Now let’s say the submarine attack the DD.

    Questions are:
    Can he now claim he ‘‘assumes’’ he MAY win in zone B and his CV MAY make it to zone C afterward in non-combat so he can launch his fighter attack in C? ( which can be very well a suicide run at that point… ). Or does the DD effectively block that move?

    From what I read, you are forced to go trough the declared AC move to retreive the fighter even if it will happen in non-combat move and even if no fighters survived. What happens to the AC if the sub died and DD survived, the AC should be still forced to go trough… Is it auto-sunk or this simply says what seems logical here: You need a clear path for the CV to the target zone to declare a non-combat move there?

    Can someone clarify for me please this ‘’ MAY land ‘’ rule when it come to carriers ?


  • Official Q&A

    The move is legal.  If the sub sinks the enemy destroyer and the fighter survives its combat, the carrier must move to pick up the fighter in noncombat movement.  If either the sub fails to sink the destroyer or the fighter fails to survive, the carrier may move anywhere it wants to.

    It’s also possible that another carrier may be in range to pick up the fighter.  If this carrier was pledged to pick up another fighter, but conditions during noncombat movement make it unnecessary or impossible, the second carrier may move to pick up the first fighter instead, leaving the first carrier free to move elsewhere.  The bottom line is that all possible surviving fighters must be picked up.



  • Geez…  😮

    So this means as long you suicide the cheapest of your unit against a blockade, you can assume you MAY win, even if there is 100 BB waiting for it???

    And then launch a Kamikaze fighter attack over that blockade at max range ( 4 ) as long you have one CVs that MAY get there for each pair of fighters ( even if it is actually utterly impossible for them or the sub to get trough the 100 bbs ) ?

    The icing here is you fully know no fighter will make it or you won’t be able to retreive them, so the ACs are actually free to withdraw…

    I am the only one finding that rule flawed?

    I guess this opens up for new strats and rule abuse in the pacific…


  • Official Q&A

    The inherent problem in making a rule about this situation is that there will always be some risk involved.  If you send 10 battleships to kill one destroyer and clear the way for a carrier, it’s possible that the destroyer will win, however unlikely.  We’ve all seen scenarios like this occur.

    Given that, where do you draw the line?  What percent chance of success should be required in order to allow such an attack?  10%?  20%?  Do you want to check a battle calculator every time you send fighters on a risky mission to see if it’s legal?  It was decided that any chance of success is good enough, just to keep it simple.

    Now, it’s possible that this can lead to some abuse, but how often are you going to be willing to just throw away fighters to kill things?  There are circumstances where it may be worthwhile, but a good player can guard against it, knowing that the possibility exists.  It’s just one of the quirks of the rules.



  • I understand you can’t really draw a line on that ‘‘MAY win’’ rule but in my opinion, the whole rule should go so there is no need to draw that line.

    Why not simply force the carriers to move to the location where they plan to retreive their engaged fighters ( thoses depending on them to land ) in the combat move sequence.

    That would be way simplier and would prevent ACs from ignoring ennemy screening forces and artificially extend the fighters range by a fictious 2 leading to possible kamikaze runs. More importantly, it would force carriers to commit before knowing the end battle result if they are to operate at maximum fighter range.

    Anyways, that was my 2 cents.
    Game is not likely to change at this point.



  • @Corbeau:

    I understand you can’t really draw a line on that ‘‘MAY win’’ rule but in my opinion, the whole rule should go so there is no need to draw that line.

    Why not simply force the carriers to move to the location where they plan to retreive their engaged fighters ( thoses depending on them to land ) in the combat move sequence.

    That would be way simplier and would prevent ACs from ignoring ennemy screening forces and artificially extend the fighters range by a fictious 2 leading to possible kamikaze runs. More importantly, it would force carriers to commit before knowing the end battle result if they are to operate at maximum fighter range.

    Anyways, that was my 2 cents.
    Game is not likely to change at this point.

    But then 1 DD can stop the fighter movement even if you have 100 BB’s attacking the DD



  • It’s already the case on land, 1 infantry can stop 100 tanks from doing a blitz


Log in to reply
 

20th Anniversary Give Away

In January 2000 this site came to life and now we're celebrating our 20th Anniversary with a prize giveaway of 30+ prizes. See this link for the list of prizes and winners.
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys
T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

  • 3
  • 7
  • 24
  • 1
  • 1
  • 5
  • 5
  • 1
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

44
Online

14.8k
Users

35.5k
Topics

1.4m
Posts