2017 League General Discussion Thread

majikforce

Sure thing, and I can explain it:

Don’t think of the kamikazes as a “battle”, but rather an “attack” or a special attack, at that. It is a unique rule.

The sub was ignored in the combat movement phase when there was an attacking destroyer to ignore it. Kamikazes happen at the beginning of the conduct combat phase, which is after the combat movement phase is entirely complete.

Not to beat a dead horse but I am having trouble grasping the logic here. Not saying you are wrong just need to wrap my head around it.

Rulebook says pg15 Combat move phase:
However, a transport is not allowed to offload land units for an amphibious assault in a sea zone containing 1 or more ignored enemy submarines unless at least 1 warship belonging to the attacking power is also present in the sea zone at the end of the Combat Move phase.

I now understand the idea that the condition was met in order for the transport to unload.

But then pg 17 Conduct combat phase for amphibious assaults says:
Step 1. Sea Combat If there are defending surface warships and/or scrambled air units, sea combat occurs. If there are only defending submarines and/or transports, the attacker can choose to ignore those units or conduct sea combat. If sea combat occurs, all attacking and defending sea and air units present must participate in the battle. (Even if the attacker chose to ignore defending subs and/or transports, they will still be involved in the battle if the defender scrambles air units and forces a sea battle.) Conduct the sea combat using the rules for General Combat (page 18), then go to step 3 (land combat). If no sea combat occurs, go to step 2 (bombardment).

This seems to me that since the Kamikazes occur at the begininnig of the conduct combat phase that the conditions have now been altered. Hence the attacker getting the choice to ignore for a second time. The idea that the “ignore” conditions change is further evidenced by the fact that a scrambling fighter can negate the attackers choice to ignore. Just a little confused. Please explain.

wheatbeer

@majikforce:

Hence the attacker getting the choice to ignore for a second time.

The attacker only decides one time whether or not to ignore subs.

Kamikaze does not force a second “choice to ignore” from the attacker.

Scramble does not force a second “choice to ignore” from the attacker, but Scramble does gives the defender the option for their subs to fight (regardless of the attacker’s “choice to ignore”).

gamerman01

Kamikazes aren’t even mentioned in the rules you cited, because the kamikazes are irrelevant to these rules (ignoring submarines/transports).

“Sea combat occurs if there are defending surface warships or scrambled airplanes” which is exactly what I’ve been trying to say (answer to JDOW’s question)

Kamikazes don’t create “sea combat”.
Maybe it would help you to think of kamikazes as being between the combat movement and conduct combat phases - because kamikaze attacks are, in effect, independent of either phase.

Anyway, Wheatbeer’s right that the attacker chooses to ignore subs in the combat movement phase, and that is a one time decision.

Only a scrambled plane will undo that ignoring, because scrambled airplanes cause sea combat and “all (attacking and) defending sea and air units present must participate in the battle”, the rule you quoted.

Again, kamikazes are different and unique. They are not a sea or air unit.

gamerman01

@wheatbeer:

but Scramble does gives the defender the option for their subs to fight (regardless of the attacker’s “choice to ignore”).

No, like the rule majikforce quoted says, all naval and sea units present MUST participate in the battle. The defender scrambling ALWAYS brings the subs into the battle, it is not the defender’s choice. If the attacker has destroyers, the defender’s subs can’t submerge. If the attacker doesn’t have destroyers, then those defending subs could immediately submerge, and that is where the defender WOULD have a choice.

variance

Do Kamikazes still stop shore bombards?

majikforce

@wheatbeer:

@majikforce:

Hence the attacker getting the choice to ignore for a second time.

The attacker only decides one time whether or not to ignore subs.
Doesn’t specify this in the rulebook. And per the rulebook wording the choice is offered in the combat move phase as well as the conduct combat phase

Kamikaze does not force a second “choice to ignore” from the attacker.
Why would the rules state that the attacker can choose to ignore again during the conduct combat unless the kamikazes possibly changed the battlefield conditions?

Scramble does not force a second “choice to ignore” from the attacker, but Scramble does gives the defender the option for their subs to fight (regardless of the attacker’s “choice to ignore”).

So if scrambling fighters can change the choice to ignore subs why don’t kamikazes?

Thanks for the thoughts wheatbeer! Turn is coming I promise :-D

gamerman01

@variance:

Do Kamikazes still stop shore bombards?

Yes, one kamikaze stops all bombardment

wheatbeer

@wheatbeer:

… but Scramble does gives the defender the option for their subs to fight (regardless of the attacker’s “choice to ignore”).

Gamerman’s right (naturally), I should have written “… but a Scramble requires any ignored subs in that SZ to take part in combat, regardless of the attacker’s choice (although the defender may choose to submerge if the attacker has no destroyer)”

@majikforce:

Thanks for the thoughts wheatbeer! Turn is coming I promise :-D

I’m in no rush to be defeated :wink: Just waiting to see if dice will bail me out :lol:

majikforce

So in the rulebook kamikazes are the first thing to happen in the order of play during the conduct combat phase so I would consider them part of that phase. I am just reading the rulebook as steps to you take in order to complete phases. Let me see if I have the order correct:

Conduct move phase:
-move units for combat situations
-declare any amphibious assualts declare any ignoring of subs/transports
-defender declares scrambles

Conduct combat:
-Kamikaze attacks
-bombing raids
-amphibious assaults
1. sea combat/ or ignore (per rulebook)
2. bombardment
3. land combat

Why does the rule book give the option to ignore a second time during the conduct combat phase if its a one time decision? Why can’t kamikaze attacks change the conditions of wether or not there could be a sea battle?

wheatbeer

@majikforce:

Why does the rule book give the option to ignore a second time during the conduct combat phase if its a one time decision?

When the rulebook says under Step 1. Sea Combat:
“If there are only defending submarines and/or transports, the attacker can choose to ignore those units or conduct sea combat”

I believe this is meant to refer backwards to the choice made during the Combat Movement phase and is not meant to indicate a new opportunity to choose. I see how the verb tense in the rules could lead to confusion though.

@majikforce:

Why can’t kamikaze attacks change the conditions of wether or not there could be a sea battle?

I don’t have a copy of the Pacific rules handy, but I believe that in the section where it defines the conditions that make sea combat happen (again, under Step 1. Sea Combat), it does not include kamikazes as a condition for sea combat (same as Global rules). You never put a kamikaze on the battle strip.

gamerman01

Good answer Wheatbeer, thank you
If this doesn’t satisfy you, you want to talk to Krieghund. We of course did not write the rules.

If I recall correctly, I was right there with you and Adam and probably almost everybody in thinking kamikazes created combat, until Krieghund told us otherwise.

majikforce

I guess it really hinges on the wording and if it does in fact backwards reference the initial choice, but I see no way to confirm that the way it is written. As for the kamikaze I realize they don’t cause a sea battle but they can defintiely influence the parameters to decide if a sea battle takes place. Example: BB and DD attack a sub. kamikaze kills the DD. Now the attacker can choose to ignore the sub or attack based on the step 1: sea combat parameters. Sub submerges. Kamikazes influenced the sea combat decisions. Why doesn’t it work for the DD and transport example? Attacker initially decides to ignore, kamikazes kill the DD and now its on to step 1: sea combat, choose to ignore or combat. Transports can’t initiate combat nor can they amphibious assault with a sub present without an escort.

@majikforce:

Thanks for the thoughts wheatbeer! Turn is coming I promise :-D

I’m in no rush to be defeated :wink: Just waiting to see if dice will bail me out :lol:

My dice have been terrible lately so you should feel quite confident. :wink:

simon33

Hmm, so there should be an errata item for the phrase “can choose” in Amphibious Assault combat. Should say “could have chosen”.

It is implied in a sense because if the attacker is not ignoring the subs, they would have to declare an attack in combat movement I guess.

I can see both sides of the argument on this one.

majikforce

@Gamerman01:

Good answer Wheatbeer, thank you
If this doesn’t satisfy you, you want to talk to Krieghund. We of course did not write the rules.

If I recall correctly, I was right there with you and Adam and probably almost everybody in thinking kamikazes created combat, until Krieghund told us otherwise.

Thanks for all the thoughts guys! Slow day at work and I’m thinking too hard about it I guess. The current ruling satisfies my desire to continue on in my game but my curiosity got the better of me and I started reading the rulebook and started down a rabbit hole. I should contact Krieg and maybe he can straighten me out. :-D

gamerman01

Yeah, he can straighten you out.
I’m going to look at what you’re talking about with step 1: combat

Okay, I see what you’re talking about.
It does look like the rules talk about deciding whether to ignore transports/submarines during the combat movement phase and again in the conduct combat phase.

So when kamikazes are involved, we’ll use this example:
USA attacking the Philippines amphibiously with a fleet that has a destroyer and a battleship, and the Japanese have a submarine in Zone 35.

Combat movement phase: The attacker says I’m ignoring the submarine and amphibiously assaulting the Philippines.

Scramble and kamikaze decisions are made by the defender. The defender says no scramble but attacks the destroyer with kamikazes. The destroyer is hit by kamikazes.

Because there was no scramble, the attacker may opt to attack or ignore the sub. If there was a scramble, the sub could not be ignored because it is not alone anymore.
Again, if we assume there was no scramble then the attacker could decide to ignore or attack the sub. If he attacks and loses, then he would be forced to retreat the loaded transport. (If there were multiple subs, it’s possible the transport would even be sunk by the defending subs). If the battleship wins, then the amphibious assault is conducted on the Philippines.

You’re right, there can be multiple times in a turn that the attacker makes a decision to ignore or engage transports/submarines, so could change his mind after getting kamikaze results.

But feel free to ask Krieghund

gamerman01

So effectively, the attacker wouldn’t need to declare whether he’s ignoring the sub in Z35 or not, because it doesn’t matter what he says - the defender has the choice to use kamikazes or scramble.

So really, the attacker in this case is making one decision, in the conduct combat phase after kamikaze/scramble.

But normally (no kamikaze situation), the attacker decides during the combat movement phase. If the defender scrambles, well then it doesn’t matter what the attacker said about ignoring or engaging.

simon33

I feel sure that the rules at least infer that ignoring a sub is decided before scramble decisions. If a sub is ignored and the defender scrambles, the sub fights unless it is later submerged by the side owning the sub.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, there should be a phase between Combat Movement and Conduct Combat for Scramble/Intercept/Kamikaze decisions.

I’m still unclear on whether Kamikazes can be rolled before scramble decisions though. I don’t think they can but I’m not sure why not?

Snigg

@simon33:

I’m still unclear on whether Kamikazes can be rolled before scramble decisions though. I don’t think they can but I’m not sure why not?

Scramble decisions are made at the end of combat movement phase, so must be made before any Kamikaze decisions, which are the first thing done in the conduct combat phase. Also note, Kamikazes are completed before any actual combat begins.

Quote: pg 16 Pacific
“If an Allied player attacks Japanese units in or declares an
amphibious assault from one of these sea zones, the Japanese
player can announce at the beginning of this phase that he or
she intends to launch one or more kamikaze strikes in that sea
zone. They are resolved before any combat begins.”

On the sub issue, the attacker would need to ignore the subs twice, but there only needs to be a surface warship present during the movement phase. That requirement is not part of the Amphibious Assault conduct combat rules.

quote: pg 17 Pacific
“Step 1. Sea Combat
If there are defending surface warships and/or scrambled
air units, sea combat occurs. If there are only defending
submarines and/or transports, the attacker can choose to ignore
those units or conduct sea combat.”

So, if there are no scrambled defending planes and no defending surface ships, the attacker has no obligation to start a sea combat. Two different times the attacker can ignore, once during movement phase and once during combat phase, with two different rules requirements to be able to do so. At least that’s how I parse it out.

gamerman01

Thanks Snigg!!

majikforce

Nice analysis Snigg! So just to clarify, since the initial requirement for the transport to unload was met during the combat move phase (escorting surface war ship) it is no longer a requirement for the tranpsort to unload during the conduct combat phase regardless of how scrambling/kamikaze will affect the battle. I can accept that. But it would be nice if the wording of the rules were actually a little clearer on that point since the way its written now is still open to interperation. Good discusion fellas on a pretty unique situation in the game. Thanks for all the thoughts and input. Case is closed for me. Now its time to pop some pain killers for my dislocated finger from B-ball last night and take a little nappy! :-D

2017 League General Discussion Thread

Featured Topics

T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

L25 G40 OOB cwglee51 (L+52) v BobbaRossa (X) Round 3

oysteilo and mikawagunichi vs crockett36 & Stucifer team Gamerman's setup

G40 OOB cwglee X vs Booper Allies +45

L25 BM4 Adam514 (Axis) vs simon33 (Allies+16)

L25 G40 OOB Tyzoq L +43 vs cwglee X

L24 bm4 axis-dom (axis) vs Farmboy (allies+14)

L25 G40 OOB cwglee51 (L+55) v Jacob16 (X)

L25 BM4 fasthard(X) vs Amon-Sul(L+24)

29

17.9k

40.6k

1.8m