you can also move units into an enemy seazone that contains only enemy submerged sub(s).
Krieg, need clarification on movement of Fighters at sea
This horse has probably been beaten dead somewhere, but I need clarification still.
Simple situation: you have 5 territories in a line: A, B, C, D, F
You have 1 fighters in Territory A,
You have 1 Carrier and 1 Submarine in Territory C,
Enemy has 200 Battleships in territory D,
Enemy has a large group of transports undefended in territory F
There are 2 ways of playing A&A: regular Dice, and Low Luck,
It is understood that in AA50, Spring 1942, and all games released after these two, that IN DICE, you may move a fighter somewhere where it would normally not have a landing zone, provided that you could move a Carrier to it during non-combat move. You must show some way, “however remote”, that you could possibly let that carrier land.
Therefore, in AA50 and later games, you could attack the 200 battleships with your submarine, and that would allow you to attack the transports with your fighter. This is because the fighter “could possibly” be picked up by the carrier during non-combat move if the submarine wins. (if you don’t attack the battleships, then this move is illegal).
Question 1: What about “Revised”?
Question 2: What about under “LHTR rules”?
Last, and most importantly, what if you are not playing dice. What if you are playing Low Luck?
Question 3: If you are using Low Luck rules, what are the rules for this movement?
In low luck, you can correctly say that there is absolutely ZERO chance that the single submarine will kill 200 battleships (or even 2 cruisers), so does this mean the movement is illegal under low luck?
There are only 3 options here, for luck:
1) we assume that all battles are won with zero losses, even if that is impossible
2) we figure out what is impossible and what is possible during the game, this is a pain the ass and time consuming,
3) we assume that all battles are lost, and therefore that there is never a way to clear any sea zone, so all movement is illegal
I am very concerned to hear what the official rules are for this, as this issue is currently dividing our playing community into two bitterly opposed camps.
Actual quote from AA50’s rulebook, for reference.
“You cannot send air units on “suicide runs,” deliberately moving them into combat with no place to land afterward. If there
is any question about whether an attack is a “suicide run,” then in the Combat Move phase, you must declare, prior to rolling
any battles, some possible way (however remote the possibility is) for all your attacking air units to land safely that turn.
This could include a combination of combat moves. It could also include noncombat moves by a carrier. If it does include
noncombat moves by a carrier, then the carrier cannot move in the Combat Move phase.
In order to demonstrate that an air unit MAY have a safe landing zone, you may assume that all of your attacking rolls will
be hits, and all defending rolls will be misses. You cannot, however, use a planned retreat of any carrier to demonstrate a
possible safe landing zone for any fi ghter.
If you declared that a carrier will move during the Noncombat Move phase to provide a safe landing zone for a fi ghter moved
in the Combat Move phase, you must follow through and move the carrier to its planned location in the Noncombat Move
phase unless the fi ghter has landed safely elsewhere or has been destroyed before then.”
quote from revised rulebook:
Completing Air Units’ Move
An air unit may end its move
(“land”) only in a space that
was friendly at the start of your
turn. Air units cannot land in a
hostile territory or in a territory
you just captured. A fighter can
land on a friendly aircraft
carrier or in a friendly sea zone,
as long as a carrier moves there
in the noncombat move phase.
If a fighter has no carrier to land
on at the end of the noncombat
move phase, it is destroyed.
You must have a carrier move
to pick up a fighter that would
end its combat move in a sea
zone. You cannot deliberately
move a fighter into a sea zone
that is out of the range of your
aircraft carrier (a kamikaze
attack). You must declare now
that the carrier will move to
that zone during the carrier’s
noncombat move phase, and you
must follow through unless
the fighter or the carrier is
destroyed before then.
The rules on this point are the same in Revised and LHTR as they are in the newer games. The move is legal.
Low Luck is an interesting wrinkle, however, as it does affect the possibility of the success of an attack. But Low Luck is not an official rule. Since it is not an official rule (and so not an official way to play), it must be considered to be a house rule. As such, I can give no official ruling on how this rule is affected by playing with Low Luck. Those who decide to play with this house rule must also decide how it impacts other rules.
I can, however, give an opinion. It really depends on how much you want Low Luck to change the way the game is played. It already affects strategy to some extent, as players can be relatively sure of the outcome of battles in advance. The question is whether or not you want to outlaw a move that would be perfectly legal under the official rules due to rules changes that you’ve made yourself. I would think that you’d want the game to play as closely as possible to the official rules by keeping the ripples of the Low Luck change to combat only, but that’s just my opinion. It’s possible (probable?) that those who dislike uncertainty in combat also dislike this particular rule, so they would like to change it as well.
Sorry I can’t be of more help, but once you start adding house rules to a game, only you can decide where those changes end. There can be no “official” answer, as you’re no longer playing the official game. The closest thing would be the concensus of those playing by that particular set of rules.
Is there any chance you could update the FAQ for Revised with very clear text like you did above saying that for both Revised and LHTR, the movement is legal?
I doubt it, since the game is out of print.