Fighters and subs

Also bear in mind that the fighter is not lost immediately when the carrier is sunk.  It continues to fight in the air until either it is taken as a casualty or the end of the battle.

Right.  That is legal for a FRIENDLY landing, but not an amphibious assault.

And it is true that aircraft operating alone get to fire on enemy SUBs ONCE before the SUB can submerge (in revised anyway).

Personally, I think that the SUB should be able to do its opening fire step as a “submerge” against an air only attack.  At a bare minimum, allow the SUB to roll its “to hot” die, and if they hit, they submerge before the aircraft could attack them.

Historically, SUBs were killed by DSTs, not aircraft.  Aircraft inflicted SUB casualties were pretty low for most of the war for all sides.

@Craig:

@Krieghund:

That’s interesting, Craig, but I don’t know that using the Gleemax on-line game’s behavior as an argument in a rules discussion is really valid at this time (even if it does support our position!).  There are a few things that it does that are not exactly “according to Hoyle” right now.  Hopefully, the bugs will be fixed soon.

You are right that there are still many bugs in the game, but I don’t think that this topic is one of them.

I agree that the on-line game is doing this particular thing correctly.  My point was that if you use the on-line game to support a rules argument, you set a precedent for others to do the same.  In future arguments, the on-line game may be incorrect in the way it handles the particular rule in question.

For example, the on-line game was allowing land units on transports to be taken as casualties in naval battles.  (This may be fixed by now, but I don’t know for sure.)  Do you really want someone arguing that this is legal because the on-line game allows it?

@Krieghund:

I thought I saw a thread somewhere (BGG?) where the designer of the computer game talked about working with Larry on this project, so I think that this was taken care from the right source. :wink: :-D

Actually, they said that they worked with Wizards of the Coast.  Larry wasn’t mentioned by name.  I’ve already pointed out a couple of problems in their “official” rules interpretations in that thread, one of which directly contradicts the FAQ.  If they’re all that “official”, why are they posted on BGG instead of the Avalon Hill site?

They’re all like that.  This is just a typo that was corrected in the FAQ.

Thanks guys, found it in the LHTR with your help!

Just remember you can’t load units into a transport if the seazone is hostile. So for example, the Germans can’t send their transport in the mediterranean to SZ13 to load the units in Algeria to take Madagascar. You have to load units in a seazone which is friendly/neutral at the beginning of the turn.

Nor does it count as a move to “take off” from a carrier to the occupied sea zone.  If the ftr is on a carrier, it can move 3 spaces maximum from the carrier, if it intends to land on the same carrier.  The carrier must then move 2 spaces toward the ftr in the non-combat move, while the ftr returns 1 space to land.  (It’s a lot easier to understand looking at the board.)

@ncscswitch:

To be honest though, I think it is such an exceedingly rare occurance that I don;t think it will be an issue in 999 games out of 1000.

Agreed

And I still like the “logic” of not being able to blast away Parisian INF from the Normandy Coast; or Chicago National Guard Units from the Virginia coast…

Yeah, that is kinda wonky.  But no more so than some of the other abstractions the game makes.