Sub Suprise Attack vs Battleship rules clarification…

In fact for the moment we still love the AA42 2d Edition for many reasons like the interception rules that is officially this way :

Both the attacking bombers and fighter escorts, if any, fire with an attack value of 1.
For each “1” rolled, a defending interceptor is immediately removed as a casualty. The surviving defending interceptors then fire with a defense value of 2.
For each result of “2” or less, the attacker chooses a casualty and removes it.
After the air battle is complete, or if there were no defending fighter interceptors, surviving fighter escorts are considered to be
retreated. They don’t participate in the actual bombing raid, are not subject to antiaircraft fire, and will remain in the territory
until the Noncombat Move phase. Any surviving attacking bombers carry out the bombing raid as described above.

Plus we ask the defending factory to pay directly in IPCs the bombing (max twice the value of the territory) like in the old versions!

Fast & Fun!

OK that helps!

@Lozmoid:

Even if those extra Fighters survive the battle and then have to crash into the sea?

Interesting stuff!  :-)

The thing is, you don’t know if those fighters will have to crash into the sea. They may end up on non-combat move without a valid landing spot but when you perform your combat moves there’s always a statistical change that the carrier will kill the 100 battleships (even though it should be about the same as you de-materializing while reading this message and materializing on the next room) thus the combat move satisfies the rule of a valid landing spot (regardless of how improbable it might be).

Combat moving 2 extra fighters to a battle goes against that same rule because there’s simply no possibility for those fighters to land during non-combat as they are moved (unless a carrier magically pops up out of nowhere into the middle of the battle board - odds for that happening should be the same as you teleporting yourself to another room) .

@calvinhobbesliker:

@Rorschach:

@calvinhobbesliker:

@Rorschach:

@3rdReich1221:

yes it works but i have a question. can u blitz through a territory with a tank after it has been unloaded? also can u amphibious assualt the spot, destroy all the units(by amphibious assault) and then unload and blitz through?

No on both counts.  Once a unit has unloaded it can no longer move to another space (unless to retreat to a territory where units came from in the same attack), and all combat moves are considered to take place simultaneously so you cannot blitz through a territory that you have to fight for.

Actually, if even 1 land units comes via transport, you can’t retreat

Just re-reading the rules and looking for clarification via FAQ’s and Errata this seems a sticky situation.

It seems (From what I can find) that if you have a combined Land/Amphibious assault, you are to keep the land and amphibious units separated as the LAND units can retreat.  I can’t seem to find any clarification to state otherwise (although I could have sworn i recently read you could retreat all units as long as some were from the land but for the life of me can’t remember where).

The rules state “Keep the attacking overland land units and seaborne land units separated on the battle board.  Attacking seaborne units cannot retreat.  Attacking overland units and aircraft can retreat.  All attacking overland land units must retreat together as a group.  They can only retreat to where at least one of them originated.”

ALTHOUGH … this isn’t what the original question was anyway (but probably good to clarify nonetheless).

You’re right; I mistakenly thought it was the same as 42 and P40(just to make sure, in 42 and P40, can attacking land units from an adj. territory retreat from an amphib assult?

I just read my rulebooks for both, and I was wrong: land-originating land units can retreat

Alright, thanks for the answer +karma :wink:

@AxisOfEvil:

@Romulus:

Krieghund already explained that it is a problem of wording, the word selected “attack” should have been “surprise strike” or “surprise firing”, if I am not making a mistake.

I am not english born but I am considering that “surprise attack” has been not used to indicate the “attack” but the roll of the dice trying to hit the enemy. I do not see the need for a specification for the sub being in defense being able to perform a surprise strike. It is a sub ability to stay hidden and strike by surprise. It do not depend by the role in the battle, the sub is  aiming to hit the enemy in both case, attack and defense, acting in the same way: lurking below the surface, hidden and dangerous.

given this logic, which I am not disputing, why then do subs defend at 1 and attack at 2?  :)

same reason why fighters attack at 3 and defend at 4  :wink:

Subs submerge before any dice are rolled, attacker first then defender.  At the time the USA player rolled his hits, the decision should have already been made and acted upon.

US player is more potent in 42 than revised. no issue. IN 41 its much worse provided japan cleans the board well enough.