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.
Seems to me that the fighter would stay in the seazone until all of the Japanese combat moves are over (as would any potential Japanese aircraft). After all combat moves are complete, noncombat moves would cover the return trips of all aircraft. Aircraft return trips apparently occur at the very end of NC moves, according to the error correction page at wizards/avalon hill:
A fighter leaves an aircraft carrier and attacks a transport in an adjacent sea zone. After the battle, the fighter returns to the aircraft carrier. Can the aircraft carrier then move its two spaces with the fighter?
No. Fighters land at the very end of non-combat movement. To land on the carrier, the fighter must fly to the sea zone where the carrier will be at the end of non-combat movement.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/faqs/axisrevised
–on the triplea game I believe aircraft movement works like this too, even if you retreat, the aircraft stay in the zone until noncombat for attacker and defender. That game is not exactly an authority I know, but a correlation no less.
On the other hand, the rule book does say in the combat move phase section that in general units can only take part in combat once a turn, and gives the example of multiple AA guns enroute to strategic bombings, but does not say if that is the only time that could happen.
According to both the OM and LHTR, the FIG that survived the attack in SZ35 is returned to the game board in SZ35 at the end of that combat, then the other combats are resolved, THEN the UK FIG can try to land.
So, in the above scenario, the UK FIG splashes down either where it is in SZ35, or flies to one of the adjacent SZ’s and splashes there (unless an allied AC happens to be in one of those SZ’s).
@ncscswitch:
According to both the OM and LHTR, the FIG that survived the attack in SZ35 is returned to the game board in SZ35 at the end of that combat, then the other combats are resolved, THEN the UK FIG can try to land.
So, in the above scenario, the UK FIG splashes down either where it is in SZ35, or flies to one of the adjacent SZ’s and splashes there (unless an allied AC happens to be in one of those SZ’s).
Thank you.
None of what you typed is indispute.
The key questions are :
Does the defender gett o decide wher to land?
If so, who decides where to land first? Attacker or defender?
The defender gets to decide where to land…
after ALL combat is completed.
@ncscswitch:
The defender gets to decide where to land…
after ALL combat is completed.
What you’re saying is still mostly indisputable. :-P
The BIG question is who lands first? Attacker or defender? If we assume this is sz34 instead(red sea sz) this can potentially be quite important since UK has quite a few areas to choose from and Japan needs to land a bomber but doesn’t want to leave it next to the british fig in fear of retaliation.
Both views can be argued, and I suppose it can also be argued that they land simultanteously. That raises some practical difficulties, though, especially in regards to online play.
the question is… what part of the attacking nation’s turn is it?
I veiw it to be in combat. if that is so, then the nation who must decide where to land their fighter declares.
Then the rest of the turn is as normal as can be. IE, after combat (and all related combat moves/retreats/ etc, must move.
The defender is not the active player. As such, as soon as COMBAT is finished (the only part of the current turn in which the defender is involved), the defender would land that FIG (if possible).
THEN the attacker, who’s turn it is, would move on to the next phase of their turn… non-combat movement; during which the attacker would land THEIR aircraft.
@ncscswitch:
The defender is not the active player. As such, as soon as COMBAT is finished (the only part of the current turn in which the defender is involved), the defender would land that FIG (if possible).
THEN the attacker, who’s turn it is, would move on to the next phase of their turn… non-combat movement; during which the attacker would land THEIR aircraft.
I agree with this.
I agree that it sounds like the most logical argument.
~Josh
I agree with this too.
have this ever happen??
@saburo:
@ncscswitch:
The defender is not the active player. As such, as soon as COMBAT is finished (the only part of the current turn in which the defender is involved), the defender would land that FIG (if possible).
THEN the attacker, who’s turn it is, would move on to the next phase of their turn… non-combat movement; during which the attacker would land THEIR aircraft.
I agree with this.
I’ve changed my mind, we all agree the rules don’t specify when the fighter lands, however the rules do state that defending submerged subs resurface at the end of the attackers turn. This would seem to be the most logical time for the defending fighter to land. But really what difference does it make if the defending fighter lands at the end of ALL combat or during the attackers non-combat move, or the end of the attackers turn. I can’t think of any scenario where the attacker’s non-combat moves could alter a potential landing zone for the defending fighter.
attackers turn. I can’t think of any scenario where the attacker’s non-combat moves could alter a potential landing zone for the defending fighter.
Scroll up. sz34. Japan lands their bomber in fic(unprotected). With that in mind UK wants to land their fig in persia so they can hit it the following turn. Otherwise they would rather land it in egypt. I know I’m being difficult now, but that’s the point. :wink:
The other way around Japan would land their bomber on e.indies if uk lands in persia, otherwise in fic. (assume it originated from fic)
