Brain-burner for ya.
UK has a small fleet in SZ35 (off India - note that India is the only territory that this seazone borders). The fleet includes an Aircraft Carrier with a Fighter on it.
Japan attacks the fleet with its own fleet, and also attacks UK-owned India with some land units from French-IndoChina. No amphibious assault involved.
Japan chooses to resolve the sea-combat first. It sinks all UK boats (including the UK Carrier), leaving only the UK Fighter alive, survives the final defensive fire with at least 1 boat intact, then retreats (or submerges, it doesn’t matter which). The UK Fighter uses its 1-space emergency-landing movement to land in India (the only option in range), which is still a friendly territory.
The land combat in India is now resolved. The Fighter that came from the Carrier is now in the unusual situation of participating in 2 combats in a single turn.
Thoughts? Is that possible? The scenario could also happen at sea, if the only emergency-landing-spot for a Fighter that has lost its Carrier is an adjacent sea-zone (with a friendly Carrier that has room for a Fighter to land) where Combat has been declared but not yet resolved.
It all hinges on one of two issues that I believe are unclarified:
1) When the emergency-landing must take place. If it must happen immediately after the combat during which the Carrier is destroyed, then the Fighter can legally fight twice. If it happens at the end of Japan’s Non-combat Movement, then the Fighter must wait to see whether India falls before discovering if it has a safe emergency-landing-spot or not.
2) Whether a “contested area” (a territory or seazone that has had enemy forces combat-moved into it, but the combat is not yet resolved) counts as a “friendly” space for Fighters to emergency-land in.
What do you think?
~Josh
Brain-burner for ya.
UK has a small fleet in SZ35 (off India - note that India is the only territory that this seazone borders). The fleet includes an Aircraft Carrier with a Fighter on it.
Japan attacks the fleet with its own fleet, and also attacks UK-owned India with some land units from French-IndoChina. No amphibious assault involved.
Japan chooses to resolve the sea-combat first. It sinks all UK boats (including the UK Carrier), leaving only the UK Fighter alive, survives the final defensive fire with at least 1 boat intact, then retreats (or submerges, it doesn’t matter which). The UK Fighter uses its 1-space emergency-landing movement to land in India (the only option in range), which is still a friendly territory.
The land combat in India is now resolved. The Fighter that came from the Carrier is now in the unusual situation of participating in 2 combats in a single turn.
The SZ35 UK ftr does not land until after all combat has been resolved. In this fashion, he will NOT be included in the India battle.
Axis Roll is correct. All Combat moves take place at first. Then, all Noncombat moves happen next.
In this case, the India battle happens after the Bay of Bengal fleet attack.
Then, in noncombat move, if the fighter can move one space, it may. If not, it is lost at sea.
Axis Roll is correct. All Combat moves take place at first. Then, all Noncombat moves happen next.
In this case, the India battle happens after the Bay of Bengal fleet attack.
Then, in noncombat move, if the fighter can move one space, it may. If not, it is lost at sea.
Wat he said. Post count +1
I get the logic, but what is your source to determine that this is correct? And even if we can safely say that it lands after all Combats are over, exactly when does it land? At the beginning of the enemy’s Noncombat Move? At the end of it? After all land & sea units have done their Noncombats but before his planes have landed?
Let’s say that instead of being limited to one potential emergency-landing-spot, my Fighter has several options. Now, the timing of my landing matters. If I land first, my opponent can adjust his movements to compensate. If my opponent does all of his NCMs and then I pick a landing spot, I get to take his positioning into account before I land. Either way, someone gets a slight advantage, and I am fairly certain that the timing has not been clarified anywhere in any ruleset.
~Josh
By gum, I think that’s actually quite true. I don’t think it HAS ever been clarified exactly when an enemy fighter lands.
This ought to go on the Larry Harris design forum. They’re thinking about releasing a Deluxe version with clarified rules & other stuff.
The fighter definitely lands at the end of combat and cannot fight twice. The following is a quote from page 8 of LHTR:
All combat takes place at the same time, but
each affected territory or sea zone is
resolved separately and completely before
beginning to resolve another combat. The
attacker decides the order. No new units may
enter as reinforcements once combat has begun.
Since all combat takes place at the same time, the fighter cannot fight in two battles.Â
I agree that LHTR does not appear to clarify the order in which attacker’s NCM and defender’s fighter landing occur. All it says is the following, on page 19:
A fighter based on a defending carrier that is
destroyed in combat must try to land. It must
move 1 space to a friendly territory or
aircraft carrier, or be destroyed.
SS
Logically, I would say after all combat has been resolved. Once combat has been resolved, only the Nation’s turn can do noncombat movement.
The movement of the defending fighter is a combat related movement, as it deperately seeks friendly airstrips.
In which case, the defending fighter has to find its landing spot first. I would agree with that.
SS
Logically, I would say after all combat has been resolved. Once combat has been resolved, only the Nation’s turn can do noncombat movement.
The movement of the defending fighter is a combat related movement, as it deperately seeks friendly airstrips.
On the other hand you can picture it like this:
Fighter takes off from carrier to protect the fleet, the attacker retreats with this fighter left as the only survivor. Not logical that it is searching an airstrip before the attackers have moved away. Only after the attacker has retreated fully and NCM’d his planes away would it be logical to land. At which point it realises the ac has been sunk and is “desperately seeking a landing spot”.
Fight off enemy, secure the area THEN worry about landing.
I would agree the defending fighter has to find the landing spot first.
All combat is considered to take place simultaneously, so the fighter would have to land during Non-combat movement. If India was captured the fighter crashes into the ocean, if India is still in UK hands the fighter can land there.
The CD rom played it this way:
It’s the attackers turn, so he conducts all non-combat.
The attacker gets to choose where to land the defending fighter.
This makes sense to me.
Interesting.
Interesting, yes.
Recommendable, in my humble opinion, no.
Giving the attacker movement-control over the defender’s unit is far more anomalous to the rules (and thematically, well, weird) than simply defining when the defender must land his errant Fighter. The most logical time seems to be between the attacker’s Combat and Noncombat Move phases, with the unit’s owner choosing between any legit locations.
~Josh
Interesting, yes.Â
Recommendable, in my humble opinion, no.
Giving the attacker movement-control over the defender’s unit is far more anomalous to the rules (and thematically, well, weird) than simply defining when the defender must land his errant Fighter. The most logical time seems to be between the attacker’s Combat and Noncombat Move phases, with the unit’s owner choosing between any legit locations.
~Josh
What’s more anomalous?
Defender being able to move as a result of combat?
a Player moving his pieces during another players turn?
This for sure is a unique situation that can not be compared to another any where else in the rules.
During a players turn, moves will be made to further that players position. Why would an attacker want/allow a defender to be able to move his piece into a more favorable position on his turn?
Withdrawing is an attackers privilege and I might be stretching this, but I can see landing the defending fighter elsewhere (other than the embattled seazone) as a type of retreating… so the attacker would be privileged to control such.
Notice I said the CD-Rom played it that way, so this does have a precedence I looked in the 2nd, 3rd and Revised Operations Manual and there is no reference to who makes this move.
We certainly can discuss this ad nanauseabut if someone else has not done so by this evening, I will post on the Larry Harris board this dilema in an effort to get an ‘official’ answer.
There are other similar situations in the game where during another player’s move, a player makes moves to further their position.
eg. in Classic you can withdraw defending subs to another territory
eg. in Revised you still have to decide to submerge/not submerge your sub
eg. defender choosing casualties to further their position
Some of these may be a stretch, but do satisfy the criteria you laid out.
There are other similar situations in the game where during another player’s move, a player makes moves to further their position.
eg. in Classic you can withdraw defending subs to another territory
that’s classic and we’re discussing revised. I got slapped a bit when it came to discussing ftrs and landing on carriers when I had my ‘classic’ hat on.
eg. in Revised you still have to decide to submerge/not submerge your sub
submerging is not MOVING out of the current territory/sea zone
eg. defender choosing casualties to further their position
Now that’s a real stretch IMHO.
what does that have to do with moving any units?
Perhaps moving them off the battle board….
that’s classic and we’re discussing revised. I got slapped a bit when it came to discussing ftrs and landing on carriers when I had my ‘classic’ hat on.
We have agreed that this scenario is not in the rulebook, and you already said you tried looking in the 2nd and 3rd edition rules, so I don’t think I’m out of line making mention of a situation in classic that has at least some correlation to this situation, when I clearly state that it is from classic.
submerging is not MOVING out of the current territory/sea zone
I didn’t say it was moving out of the sea zone, but it is an example of a defending player making strategic decisions (“moves” so to speak)during another players turn.
Now that’s a real stretch IMHO.
Sure it’s a stretch (as I also clearly mentioned in my post)…
Some of these may be a stretch, but do satisfy the criteria you laid out.
…but it is an example of making strategic decisions during someone else’s turn. And would be my argument against allowing an attacked to decide where to retreat the fighter to, as you are suggesting:
Withdrawing is an attackers privilege and I might be stretching this, but I can see landing the defending fighter elsewhere (other than the embattled seazone) as a type of retreating… so the attacker would be privileged to control such.
Sorry, not buying it.
I think the rules state it pretty clearly that it is a combat related move. Combat related moves, allow defender options regarding their defending units.
giving the option of where to land the defender’s units to the attacker is not consistent with any part of the rules.
