Fighters attacking question with nowhere to land.



  • A conundrum me and a friend have is whether fighters can delcare an attack but there is no real landing possible exept if other friendly fighters die in combat. Ie.  Fighters launch from a carrier in Japan’s seazone to attack the Midway seazone’s navy (this is possible as the fighters can return to the carrier).  If there are also fighters in Japan can they launch an attack in that seazone as well?  My friends arguement is that the fighters from the carrier will suffer losses and the fighters from Japan’s mainland can therefore use that carrier as a landing zone.  In theory this is correct but in practice you are supposed to have a valid landing zone for each fighter before it’s launched.  The ones from Japan would be considered a suicide run and therefore shouldn’t be able to be launched.

    Does this make sense?  What do you guys think?



  • The rules are very clear that you always must have a theoretical landing place for all fighters, i.e. if you take “0” losses during the battle, all your fighters must have a place to land. No Kamikaze are allowed.

    A fighter may be able to move 4 spaces to a sea battle, but only if a carrier could be there by the
    conclusion of the mobilize units phase.



  • hakan is 100% correct.

    @falconrider:

    My friends arguement is that the fighters from the carrier will suffer losses and the fighters from Japan’s mainland can therefore use that carrier as a landing zone.  In theory this is correct but in practice you are supposed to have a valid landing zone for each fighter before it’s launched.

    Actually your friends theory is not correct.  There is no guarantee that the fighters will suffer losses during the battle. Likely (depending on what units are being attacked), but not for certain.

    So just to echo hakan words again, the rules are crystal clear that this type of move is illegal.



  • Yes, the rules are quite clear, but I remember that I asked the same question when I played the game my first time:

    "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 may not 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 may NOT, however, use a planned retreat of any carrier to demonstrate a possible safe landing zone for any fighter.

    If you declared that a carrier will move during the noncombat move phase to provide a safe landing zone for a fighter 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 fighter has landed safely elsewhere or has been destroyed before then."



  • What if the carrier that the 2 fighters were going to land on is lost in combat?  Is that allowed (as that now makes those planes kamikazes)?  Or, are the two fighters then just lost as well?



  • @Cmdr:

    It’s not a suicide run because they had a valid landing zone, but there’s no rule that says you must physically land them somewhere if circumstances change and you cannot or you don’t want to move the carrier.

    Incorrect.

    The rules clearly state that you MUST move the carrier to pick the fighters, if able.

    Read page 27 of the rulebook.



  • I guess that clears it up then, no suicide runs even with the expectation of suffering losses of other fighers as it does say you can expect all misses meaning they are suicide planes.

    Thanks,
    Greg


  • Official Answers

    @shifty:

    What if the carrier that the 2 fighters were going to land on is lost in combat?  Is that allowed (as that now makes those planes kamikazes)?  Or, are the two fighters then just lost as well?

    Yes, that’s allowed, and the planes will be lost if they can’t find another place to land after the battle.



  • So, if the carrier was dependent on another battle to get to the pick-up zone, it would still be allowed?

    Let’s say the British put their newly purchased navy in z2 on B1 but left a destroyer in z6. Then this couldn’t block my carrier (from z5 purchased on G1) getting to z3 to pick up fighters attacking z2 on G2, assuming I attacked the blocking destroyer?
    Is this correct?



  • the rulebook states that a fighter must have a pre-declared landing, either a aircraft carrier or a controlled territory,
    there is the optional kamikaze attack rule from revised when playing japan,
    however if the fighters survive, and there is no aircraft carrier to land at, the fighter’s would be lost



  • i think that there is a situation that can occur when playing whereby the rules a player may not have a carrier to pick up a fighter,

    if aircraft carriers, and fighter’s attack the same s.z. is there a rule that states that fighter’s must be lost before aircraft carriers if there are no land territories to land at


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    @d142:

    i think that there is a situation that can occur when playing whereby the rules a player may not have a carrier to pick up a fighter,

    if aircraft carriers, and fighter’s attack the same s.z. is there a rule that states that fighter’s must be lost before aircraft carriers if there are no land territories to land at

    No.

    Casualties are your choice.  You can choose to lose all your carriers before your fighters and watch every fighter go splash at the end of the battle.

    As defender you have the same thing, you can chose your carriers, but you can watch your fighters go splash if the attacker then retreats.


  • Official Answers

    Jennifer is correct.

    @Elmo:

    So, if the carrier was dependent on another battle to get to the pick-up zone, it would still be allowed?

    Let’s say the British put their newly purchased navy in z2 on B1 but left a destroyer in z6. Then this couldn’t block my carrier (from z5 purchased on G1) getting to z3 to pick up fighters attacking z2 on G2, assuming I attacked the blocking destroyer?
    Is this correct?

    Yes.  You can declare the movement of the carrier through the cleared sea zone in noncombat movement in order to make the fighter attack legal.  If your fighters don’t survive the attack, you don’t have to move the carrier.  If you don’t sink the destroyer and can’t move the carrier, the fighters will be lost at the end of the turn.  If you sink the destroyer and at least one of your fighters survives, you must move the carrier to pick it up.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 3
  • 26
  • 3
  • 4
  • 8
  • 27
  • 14
  • 19
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

40
Online

13.6k
Users

34.0k
Topics

1.3m
Posts