2015 League General Discussion Thread

[rgp44]

Rules question for Gamer or whoever else wants to handle it.  Situation is this: Japan and US both have huge fleets separated by a blocking space around Australia.  Japan has some mechanized ground units in Australia that can attack NSW by moving 2 spaces, the planes from the Japanese fleet can only attack NSW if they land in the sz protected by the US (no other possible landing space is available).  With the fleet blocked the Japanese have no chance of clearing that sz.  Is Japan allowed to send its planes against NSW while sending a single plane against the US fleet to technically give battle a create a claim of somehow being able to clear the zone for the Japan CVs to catch the planes in noncom (assume they clear the blocking space as well)?

[Adam514]

@rgp44:

Rules question for Gamer or whoever else wants to handle it.  Situation is this: Japan and US both have huge fleets separated by a blocking space around Australia.  Japan has some mechanized ground units in Australia that can attack NSW by moving 2 spaces, the planes from the Japanese fleet can only attack NSW if they land in the sz protected by the US (no other possible landing space is available).  With the fleet blocked the Japanese have no chance of clearing that sz.  Is Japan allowed to send its planes against NSW while sending a single plane against the US fleet to technically give battle a create a claim of somehow being able to clear the zone for the Japan CVs to catch the planes in noncom (assume they clear the blocking space as well)?

Yup Japan would be allowed to send a sub or a plane to the sea zone to create a potential landing spot. If you weren’t allowed, then blockers would sometimes also prevent air from reaching a target.

From the notes: “* (PE) All air moved must have a way of potentially being picked up or landing, and all air that survives combat MUST be picked up if possible.”

[rgp44]

yeah the problem is how you define possible, if you attack with one plane against 13 loaded carriers I don’t consider that possible

[Adam514]

@rgp44:

yeah the problem is how you define possible, if you attack with one plane against 13 loaded carriers I don’t consider that possible

Well it’s easier to say possible than establishing a limit to what is possible or impossible/highly unlikely. There is a chance that the lone plane can single-handedly clear the sea zone of hostile ships, and so that sea zone is a potential landing zone if carriers could reach it on the NC phase. Think of it this way: assuming all the attacks go perfectly, would the carriers be able to reach the sea zone? If the answer is yes, then that sea zone is a potential landing zone and combat moves can be made accordingly.

[rgp44]

I understand what your saying and the game I’m playing is a friendly league game and we are asking because the issue came up and it was interesting.  Wanted to know the official league rule for reference in the future.  In our game Axis dominion and I have agreed on an “above 0%” rule, meaning the odds of winning the combat must be at least 1% or you can’t make another attack that is dependent on winning that battle otherwise your essentially allowing suicide missions.

[Soulblighter]

@Adam514:

@rgp44:

yeah the problem is how you define possible, if you attack with one plane against 13 loaded carriers I don’t consider that possible

Well it’s easier to say possible than establishing a limit to what is possible or impossible/highly unlikely. There is a chance that the lone plane can single-handedly clear the sea zone of hostile ships, and so that sea zone is a potential landing zone if carriers could reach it on the NC phase. Think of it this way: assuming all the attacks go perfectly, would the carriers be able to reach the sea zone? If the answer is yes, then that sea zone is a potential landing zone and combat moves can be made accordingly.

That rule is hilarious. Yes a massive fleet is blocking me, but I can send planes anyways, because I send a lone submarine to try and kill the fleet. And the transports are gone…

[Adam514]

@Soulblighter:

@Adam514:

@rgp44:

yeah the problem is how you define possible, if you attack with one plane against 13 loaded carriers I don’t consider that possible

Well it’s easier to say possible than establishing a limit to what is possible or impossible/highly unlikely. There is a chance that the lone plane can single-handedly clear the sea zone of hostile ships, and so that sea zone is a potential landing zone if carriers could reach it on the NC phase. Think of it this way: assuming all the attacks go perfectly, would the carriers be able to reach the sea zone? If the answer is yes, then that sea zone is a potential landing zone and combat moves can be made accordingly.

That rule is hilarious. Yes a massive fleet is blocking me, but I can send planes anyways, because I send a lone submarine to try and kill the fleet. And the transports are gone…

If we were using logic you wouldn’t even need a valid landing spot to make an attack. But if you insist, how is it any more ridiculous than a destroyer blocking a massive fleet?

[Soulblighter]

@Adam514:

@Soulblighter:

@Adam514:

@rgp44:

yeah the problem is how you define possible, if you attack with one plane against 13 loaded carriers I don’t consider that possible

Well it’s easier to say possible than establishing a limit to what is possible or impossible/highly unlikely. There is a chance that the lone plane can single-handedly clear the sea zone of hostile ships, and so that sea zone is a potential landing zone if carriers could reach it on the NC phase. Think of it this way: assuming all the attacks go perfectly, would the carriers be able to reach the sea zone? If the answer is yes, then that sea zone is a potential landing zone and combat moves can be made accordingly.

That rule is hilarious. Yes a massive fleet is blocking me, but I can send planes anyways, because I send a lone submarine to try and kill the fleet. And the transports are gone…

If we were using logic you wouldn’t even need a valid landing spot to make an attack. But if you insist, how is it any more ridiculous than a destroyer blocking a massive fleet?

Or a single infantry preventing a large group of tanks from moving 2 spots forward instead of just 1 :P.

[rgp44]

Its not a point about realism or logic, its a rules question and a spirit of the rules question.  If there is a rule against suicide attacks, then such a scenario as I outlined, which uses a “show combat” that carries a victory probability equivalent to a monkey typing MacBeth randomly, shouldn’t be legal.  If that is the rule then i’ll be aware of it but I think it is stupid and against the spirit of the game.

[bmnielsen]

I guess you could argue that it’s against the spirit of the rules, but as Adam pointed out, it’s difficult to otherwise decide where the limit goes, i.e. how low a chance of victory is too low for the move to be legal.

[gamerman01]

It is according to the rulebook that you only need a single unit with attack value sent to make the attack legal.  This has been the rule for many years, going back to AA50 and probably before that.

In your situation, you can send one fighter to Z62 to die, and that makes the fighters to NSW legal, insofar as there are enough potential landing places on the carriers that could possibly pick them up in Z62.

So the answer to your question is a resounding YES, that is perfectly legal and good A&A play.

[gamerman01]

Here is the quote from Europe rulebook pages 29-30 under “air units” under unit profiles:

You cannot deliberately send air units into combat
situations that place them out of range of a place to land
afterward. In the Combat Move phase, prior to rolling any
battles, you must be able to demonstrate some possible
way (however remote the possibility is) for all your
attacking air units to land safely that turn.
30
This could include a combination of combat moves. It
could also include noncombat moves by a carrier or the
mobilization of a new carrier.
In order to demonstrate that an air unit might 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 or tactical bomber. Once possible landing
zones for all attacking air units have been demonstrated,
you have no obligation to guarantee those landing zones
for air units in the course of battle. For example, aircraft
carriers may freely retreat or be taken as casualties, even
if doing so leaves air units with no place to land after
combat (such air units will be destroyed at the end of the
Noncombat Move phase). However, during noncombat
movement and new unit mobilization, you must provide
for safe landing of as many air units as possible after all
combats are resolved.

[axis-dominion]

@bmnielsen:

I guess you could argue that it’s against the spirit of the rules, but as Adam pointed out, it’s difficult to otherwise decide where the limit goes, i.e. how low a chance of victory is too low for the move to be legal.

i think a very reasonable rule for a limit would simply be:

if the built-in battle calc run at a (default of) 2000 simulation count computes a 0% chance of winning, then it can be accepted that the battle (short of supernatural intervention) “cannot” be won. this of course would force the attacker to have to bring in more units to raise the odds to at least 1%, but at least then it makes it a bit less of a silly loophole.

this is what rgp44 and i agreed on in our game.

what do you guys think?

[gamerman01]

House rules are great, you just have to be prepared to play by the standard rules for when you are playing someone else  :-)

[axis-dominion]

@Gamerman01:

House rules are great, you just have to be prepared to play by the standard rules for when you are playing someone else  :-)

yes i agree. in this case it’s my japan that would’ve benefited greatly from this rule, but i felt it was silly and so proposed this house rule to him, and he agreed. we both know of course that others may not be so willing.

[gamerman01]

Well, I can understand coming to an agreement in a case where one player was unaware of the rule (not sure if that was the case in your game or not).

But when both players know this rule, the defender should be guarding against the possibility.  If you can pull it off against someone who knows the rule but missed the possibility, that’s a different matter, I’m sure you would agree, than pulling it on someone who thinks it’s illegal when he sees it performed.

[axis-dominion]

in our case, we were both aware of the rule, although we just needed confirmation of it. however, we both also felt it was more of a silly loophole than a good rule to follow, and hence our house rule that allowed him to safely keep his navy in 62 WITH all the planes on the carriers and not have to worry about NSW.

@Gamerman01:

Well, I can understand coming to an agreement in a case where one player was unaware of the rule (not sure if that was the case in your game or not).

But when both players know this rule, the defender should be guarding against the possibility.  If you can pull it off against someone who knows the rule but missed the possibility, that’s a different matter, I’m sure you would agree, than pulling it on someone who thinks it’s illegal when he sees it performed.

[axis-dominion]

for me, it seems perfectly reasonable that when the battle calc run at 2000 count says there’s a 0% chance of winning, then the battle cannot, for all practical purposes, be won

@axis-dominion:

in our case, we were both aware of the rule, although we just needed confirmation of it. however, we both also felt it was more of a silly loophole than a good rule to follow, and hence our house rule that allowed him to safely keep his navy in 62 WITH all the planes on the carriers and not have to worry about NSW.

@Gamerman01:

Well, I can understand coming to an agreement in a case where one player was unaware of the rule (not sure if that was the case in your game or not).

But when both players know this rule, the defender should be guarding against the possibility.  If you can pull it off against someone who knows the rule but missed the possibility, that’s a different matter, I’m sure you would agree, than pulling it on someone who thinks it’s illegal when he sees it performed.

[DizzKneeLand33]

With all due respect….

Sometimes I wonder what game it is that you guys are playing.  The “possible landing” is used in the 2nd edition rules (and probably first edition too, but I couldn’t find my copy) from the original Axis & Allies.  Nothing has changed, that has always been the rule, it’s just a bit more explained in some of the more recent versions.  This whole 1% is okay but 0% is not is a bit strange, just saying.  I mean, you are saying that (with rounding) 10/2000 makes it a legal battle, but 9/2000 makes it not.  Yet, the odds calculator will vary by more than that.

Any rule that uses an odds calculator as a criteria is flawed.  And, if you are using that, why not say that you have to have more than a 50% chance of winning the battle?  1% seems really arbitrary.

Again, Axis & Allies has always allowed an attack with planes as long as there is a “possible” landing zone, however remote the odds.

[rgp44]

We’ve established that the rules as written allow the attack, that’s one item down.  The point axis dominion and I are making is that it is a loophole or “exploit” and it ought to be adjusted.  To just say “that’s always been the rule” is not the point.  Every out-of-the-box rule was “always the rule” until they were changed or adjusted and countless numbers of them have since the beginning.  You should make an argument for why you think the rule is good.  The 0% rule may be arbitrary but that doesn’t make it a bad idea, since many of you have argued that logic is not allowed in determining the rules I would suggest that all the rules are therefore arbitrary.  I would prefer an arbitrary rule that is reasonable to a rule that is silly.