Does a Kamikaze attack prevent subs from being ignored?
Circumstance:
The sea of Japan is only defended by a submarine. And Japan herself is also empty. The Americans move into the zone with a carrier and a loaded transport - choosing to (ignore) the sub, to take Japan.
Japan opts to launch a kamikaze attack on this SZ against the unescorted carrier.
Does that constitute starting a naval battle? Meaning the sub can no longer be ignored? and is now “defending”?
I know that scrambling a fighter would bring the sub to bare in the battle. (and in the real case I have a fighter on Japan as well, but would prefer to save it).
Well, you will probably want to wait for an official answer from Krieghund, but I think a Kamikaze attack WOULD constitute a naval battle. It works to prevent Cruisers and Battleships from doing shore bombardment and that usually occurs with a naval battle before the landing. So, it seems to me that if you used a Kamikaze, then your sub should be able to defend.
In that situation, the landing would have to be called off, wouldn’t it? Since the carrier and transport have no attack value, and the planes can’t hit the sub without a destroyer present, then the US ships would have to retreat. Or simply let the Japanese sub keep rolling until he gets three 1s.
A kamikaze strike does not constitute a battle, so the sub can still be ignored.
Although Krieg has answered…
I would suggest that Kamikaze elections are akin to SBR.
Combat in of themselves in the entire combat phase, but not subject to initiating a standard round of combat outside of their special ability.
Wait… but a Kamikaze stops bombards… how does that work?
Or does a kamikaze strike stop a bombard?
Wait… but a Kamikaze stops bombards… how does that work?
Or does a kamikaze strike stop a bombard?
Well, even though we resolve one combat setting at a time, the rules say that combat is considered to happen simultaneously. So, I guess you could say that while the troops are going ashore, the warships are too busy fighting off the Kamikaze planes to conduct shore bombardment.
My guess is that the “decision” to ignore submarines in the seazone, happens before the “decision” to launch a kamikaze strike.
Which means then that the “decision” to scramble, also happens before the “decision” to kamikaze.
So… you have to decide on your scramble before rolling kamikazes!
@Gargantua
Kamikaze strikes hit before any Combat and before any Amphibious Assault. As soon as US ships enter the sea zone, before anything happens Japan rolls his attacks. A Kamikaze prevents only offshore bombardment. It doesn’t start a sea combat. So after the rolls sub can still be ignored.
@mirkobruner No need to bump a 6 year old thread repeating the same answer as one from an official source.
@simon33 I thought the same thing, but unless I’m misinterpreting the answer, it does bring up an interesting and cogent point; You can declare and roll the kamis, and then, make any other pertinent decisions (scramble, submerge) after you see the results. Sometimes we slop the order of casualties in normal battle and the attacker and defender do all their rolls then decide casualties–I often refocus the group on determining defender casualties in each round, THEN seeing what the defender rolled. Its an important distinction easily glossed over. Isn’t this one?
@taamvan said in Does a Kamikaze attack prevent subs from being ignored?:
@simon33 I thought the same thing, but unless I’m misinterpreting the answer, it does bring up an interesting and cogent point; You can declare and roll the kamis, and then, make any other pertinent decisions (scramble, submerge) after you see the results. Sometimes we slop the order of casualties in normal battle and the attacker and defender do all their rolls then decide casualties–I often refocus the group on determining defender casualties in each round, THEN seeing what the defender rolled. Its an important distinction easily glossed over. Isn’t this one?
Scramble is at the end of combat move. Kami at the start of combat - so after.
@simon33 ty
