Thank you [I’m trying very hard to hide my disappointment]!
Flying over a sea zone with a fighter to attack.
-
@Krieghund In an amphibious assault, which occurs first, resolution of Air Supremacy or artillery pre-emptive strike? Here is the situation for context:
A French fighter and French infantry are in Egypt. In Piedmont is a massive German army with plenty of artillery but only one fighter.
The French move a transport to SZ 17, pickup the infantry, and declare an amphibious attack on Piedmont with the fighter FLYING (not offloading) into the attack. The goal is simply to try to destroy the German fighter in Air Supremacy - the presence of the infantry is just to make it legal (despite the overwhelming odds of being destroyed by pre-emptive strikes from artillery).
Do I have that right and is this legal?
Thank you for your service ;)
-
@The_Good_Captain Such an attack is not legal. Per page 17 of the rulebook (Renegade version, in the FAQ for the original), when attacking by both sea and land (a flying fighter counts as by land), there must be at least one infantry unit in the land force.
If the land attacking force did also contain an infantry (making the attack legal), the artillery preemptive strike would occur before determining air supremacy, as the latter is part of the land combat sequence. Of course, if this were possible in your example, you wouldn’t need to do the amphibious assault at all.
-
T The_Good_Captain referenced this topic on
-
@Krieghund you are the man (or some kind of super AI). Much respect and many thanks.
-
The Man :)
-
Yep, Krieghund’s the best. :+1:
-
@The_Good_Captain Yep. I think we’re all in agreement about that. :)
Suggested Topics
