It’s a similar situation to scrambling vs Allied units unloading from a different Ally’s tp without ship or air protection, so while Japan still has kamikaze tokens, Allies can’t unload marines in the combat phase from a friendly cruiser/bb other than their own into a kamikaze zone.
Thanks for the answer, but that doesn’t make sense. Shouldn’t Japan have to at least spend a kamikaze? Kamikaze rules require the combat movement of an enemy ship into the zone.
It appears the balanced mod rules for marines never anticipated this question. Is that the answer of the mod squad, or just what you think?
The reason you can’t unload from an ally’s transport without ship or air protection against a scramble is because there actually IS a scramble. The defender has to say “I’m scrambling a plane to stop your amphibious assault”
You’re telling me just having a kamikaze in the bank stops all Allied marines unloading from allied cruisers/battleships, without the Japanese player having to actually send a kamikaze? I don’t think so. If that’s the rule the balanced mod group came up with, it should be changed.
I understand what Adam is saying. If someone gets off an allied transport into a scramble, the scramble can’t hit the transport but the amphibious assault is stopped unless the scrambled fighter is downed.
The same logic should apply IMO.
However, the mod squad may take a different view, which is what Gamerman01 is saying.
I understand what Adam is saying. If someone gets off an allied transport into a scramble, the scramble can’t hit the transport but the amphibious assault is stopped unless the scrambled fighter is downed.
The same logic should apply IMO.
However, the mod squad may take a different view, which is what Gamerman01 is saying.
I edited my response probably while you were typing this.
It’s not the same as a scramble against a transport, because no kamikaze is even being spent. A plane is actually scrambled in the other situation.
That has been our rule for lobby games in any case. I’m not sure how it doesn’t make sense, since it’s nearly the same situation as an undefended friendly tp unloading in a scramble zone, which is illegal. I don’t understand what you mean by kamis requiring combat movement into the zone.
Simply put, you can’t allow a situation where a friendly unit can participate in combat (die) when it isn’t its turn.
No a plane is never scrambled, the move is illegal because a plane can be scrambled, that’s the difference. Or else Japan would spend 1 kami per turn per marine on a friendly bb/cruiser because of the possibility of unloading it in a kami zone?
No a plane is never scrambled, the move is illegal because a plane can be scrambled, that’s the difference. Or else Japan would spend 1 kami per turn per marine on a friendly bb/cruiser because of the possibility of unloading it in a kami zone?
That’s not quite correct BTW. IIRC Kreighund has clarified that the scramble blocks the assault, not that it is illegal. So if the territory with the airbase is also attacked the assault could at least tie up a defending plane or the defender could chose to allow it.
It is similar if the defender wins the sea combat in any way, normally by a scramble but could also be an allied mobilisation I guess.
“Simply put, you can’t allow a situation where a friendly unit can participate in combat (die) when it isn’t its turn.” -Adam
This is consistent with my understanding as well, and it has always been how the Mod Squad has played: one cannot amphib assault from an allied ship in a sz that may be contested by the defending player (either by way of kamikazi, scramble, or the presence of enemy naval units (e.g., if a transport loaded with an allied unit moves into a sz during peace, but there is an intervening DOW before the would-be amphib attack). The reason is simple: on a given player’s turn, only that player’s units may be involved in attacks and take casualties.
I would add that this rule applies a fortiori when, as in the case of marines, the would-be “transports” are combat units that can defend and fire back.
No a plane is never scrambled, the move is illegal because a plane can be scrambled, that’s the difference. Or else Japan would spend 1 kami per turn per marine on a friendly bb/cruiser because of the possibility of unloading it in a kami zone?
That’s not quite correct BTW. IIRC Kreighund has clarified that the scramble blocks the assault, not that it is illegal. So if the territory with the airbase is also attacked the assault could at least tie up a defending plane or the defender could chose to allow it.
Do you have a quote/link for that? Because my understanding that it was illegal came from what Krieghund said as well.
Thanks for the input, kid, that helps me understand what’s going on here.
Don’t forget, the rulebook wasn’t written for marines. You made a new unit with new capabilities, and you need an explicit rule for allied marines vs. kamikazes the same way the regular rulebook needed a rule for allied amphibious assaults against scrambling (Krieghund had to answer the question - he couldn’t just cite the rulebook because if I recall correctly the rulebook didn’t anticipate the possibility).
My recollection of Krieghund’s answer, then, is the same as Simon’s - you have to actually scramble a plane to stop an amphibious assault by an ally. Just having a functioning airbase and a plane doesn’t automatically prevent amphibious assaults from allies. Just having a kamikaze in the bank shouldn’t prevent all allied amphibious assaults from marines, I don’t believe.
And no, of course I don’t mean Japan would spend a kamikaze for each marine. It would be the same as stopping all bombardment with a single kamikaze or a single destroyer or a single scrambled plane. Japan would spend one kamikaze to stop all allied marines from unloading from a single kamikaze zone, or better yet, you make the rule that kamikazes can’t stop allied landings at all.
OK, the rule doesn’t talk about a combat move by a ship in a kamikaze zone, it says a Japanese ship is being attacked or there is an amphibious assault in the zone (the latter being the case here). However, if you re-read the kamikaze rules, a “kamikaze can target any specific enemy surface warship belonging to the attacking power”
This was not an issue with unloading from an allies’ transport because kamikazes can’t hit transports. Now it is an issue, but the rulebook was never written with marines in mind of course.
But a strong argument can be made (without the Mod squad telling everyone what their rule is) that kamikazes cannot be used to stop allied marines because kamikazes can’t attack ships of allies because it’s not their turn.
Maybe the same argument can be made about scrambling, but if Simon and I are right that the defending player does have to scramble a plane to stop it, then your rule that Japan is automatically immune to all allied marine attacks in all kamikaze zones at all times for free as long as she holds 1 token, should be changed.
Krieghund answered this some time ago probably in the FAQ thread - the easiest thing to do would be to ask him again. You might want to go ahead and tell him about your marine unit and how they work. Tell me if you want me to do it because I would.
I wish the mod squad would think about what kamikazes actually are. I highly doubt there is an instance of a kamikaze attacking a cruiser or a battleship that is trying to unload marines.
From what I’m reading now, they mostly attacked destroyers and carriers anyway
We do agree that an allied marine can make an amphibious assault off an allied cruiser/battleship if there is no scramble or kamikaze, right?
If I understood correctly, you propose that if 1 kami is used in a zone that all allied marines on cruisers/BBs can’t unload from that zone? Does the defender even roll for the kami since it can’t hit anything?
The problems with that are the fact that the use of edit mode is required to remove kamis (since you can’t assign them to friendlies, I think) and to reload the marines on the ships, and that now it’s actually better for marines to be on friendly BBs/cruisers instead of some of their own nation, which doesn’t make much sense.
You can go ahead and ask Krieghund about the rule. We just decided it was the same as the scrambling situation, but if it isn’t then the rule can be whatever is best and simple.
No a plane is never scrambled, the move is illegal because a plane can be scrambled, that’s the difference. Or else Japan would spend 1 kami per turn per marine on a friendly bb/cruiser because of the possibility of unloading it in a kami zone?
That’s not quite correct BTW. IIRC Kreighund has clarified that the scramble blocks the assault, not that it is illegal. So if the territory with the airbase is also attacked the assault could at least tie up a defending plane or the defender could chose to allow it.
Do you have a quote/link for that? Because my understanding that it was illegal came from what Krieghund said as well.
I might be thinking of this thread: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37437.msg1507310#msg1507310
Although it isn’t exactly definitive. I still think the rule is as I said though. There is no rule that forbids moving an undefended transport on combat move into a square with a potential scramble, although there is a rule against moving an undefended transport into a hostile sea zone (I think). A square with no ships is not hostile.
I’m open to being corrected though.
You can go ahead and ask Krieghund about the rule. We just decided it was the same as the scrambling situation, but if it isn’t then the rule can be whatever is best and simple.
Did Krieghund have any input into the marines? Why ask him if he didn’t?
Yes you are most likely right about the scramble rule. So time to decide what the rule is regarding marines unloading from friendly ships in kami zones.
If I understood correctly, you propose that if 1 kami is used in a zone that all allied marines on cruisers/BBs can’t unload from that zone? Does the defender even roll for the kami since it can’t hit anything?
No, it would just be used up. My favored proposal is actually that kamikazes can’t stop these landings at all - only a scrambled fighter/tac could.
The problems with that are the fact that the use of edit mode is required to remove kamis (since you can’t assign them to friendlies, I think) and to reload the marines on the ships, and that now it’s actually better for marines to be on friendly BBs/cruisers instead of some of their own nation, which doesn’t make much sense.
Alright, well what I really think is that kamikazes shouldn’t be able to be used against cruisers/battleships in amphibious assaults at all, solving this concern as well.
Yes you are most likely right about the scramble rule. So time to decide what the rule is regarding marines unloading from friendly ships in kami zones.
Great!!
I actually propose that kamikazes can only be used when there is a defending Japanese surface warship. I know this would be actually taking away an ability that they have in the official 2nd edition game, but it would be the cleanest solution to this little problem. Perhaps you could compensate Japan by adding more kamikaze tokens at game start, which would also tend to make the game more interesting I think. 8 or 9 instead of 6?
I also think it would be nice if the Allied player didn’t have to consider kamikazes when there isn’t a single Japanese surface warship in a zone.
So this would take away Japan’s ability to use a lone kamikaze to stop bombardment. A destroyer or better, or scrambled plane would be necessary just like it is for everyone else. I also think it is somewhat punitive that a single kamikaze can target a cruiser that has a marine on it and destroy them both, and there would be fewer opportunities for this if you require a defending Japanese surface ship. Kamikazes could still sink cruisers and battleships that have marines on them, but only if there is a destroyer or better defending.
Just a suggestion for the mod squad. I would love to see what you guys do with these suggestions, but if you all stick with your previous practice of just not allowing allies to amphibious assault in a kamikaze zone if Japan has kamikazes, I won’t make a stink. But whatever is decided, it would be great if it were added to your mod rules
Alright, well what I really think is that kamikazes shouldn’t be able to be used against cruisers/battleships in amphibious assaults at all, solving this concern as well.
Interesting. So the Kamikaze would only be triggered by the sea combat. Although I’m inclined to think that Kamikazes should be allowed for amphibious assaults under normal situations, mostly to assist scrambled fighters.
I actually propose that kamikazes can only be used when there is a defending Japanese surface warship.
I think this is a stretch too far. Kamikazes should be usable where there is a sea combat, even one induced by a scramble.
regarding adding more Kamikazes, my suggestion is rather than having a fixed number of Kamikazes per game, expend an IPC cost, say 5IPCs for a kamikaze.
I have been editing my post, so you might want to scan it again
Good ideas, Simon, if you require a scramble then that still prevents just a lone kamikaze from stopping unlimited bombardment, and prevents drilling every cruiser that comes in with a marine.
For example, it is extremely perilous for the USA to take an undefended Iwo Jima with a marine and a cruiser because of kamikazes.
Talk about not making sense, Adam,
You can take Iwo Jima with a transport and an infantry totally uncontested, but you can’t do the same with a cruiser/ battleship and a marine because of kamikazes. I would love to see this fixed.
