Posts made by TimTheEnchanter

@LT04:

It wasn’t so much getting there that was an issue I gained ground but then he would replace his subs from stock so if I needed to get a second wave I had to have the navy escort the transports back.

Also if the FTR’s didn’t hit the sub he would have them submerge.

I’m not saying this is the best strategy it was just a simple and fairly inexpensive (as far a navy’s go) way to buy time before you have enemy troops setting up beach heads on your door step.

If subs submerge, you can still move your fleet through or into those zones as if there were no units, so if it’s just subs and you have enough of a fleet to withstand an attack from them, you can plow through at full speed as if they weren’t there by just sending one plane to each territory - they’ll either sink or submerge and you can move your fleet 2 spaces every time.  (However you may not want to leave those subs hanging around your supply lines to your main fleet, but that’s another story.)

@LT04:

As most players will do they leave at least one INF unit per teritory

Who are these “most players” of which you speak?  This isn’t Risk.  Why would you leave infs in each territory unless they’re marching their way to a front where they can do some good.

So you want a mighty luftwaffe?

Regarding the Ukraine fig:  If you assume the russian player won’t sacrifice his fighters (Russian figs 1 and 2 are far more valuable than german figs 6 and 7) it’s actually up to 30% that you hold Ukraine.  However it’s only 25% that you keep both planes, and depending on how you look at it that’s still 70-75% against, and you just made the target very juicy.  If it starts going bad, the russians can usually pull back and save their tanks, but if it starts out well, your planes are toast.

I’ve thought about it, but if you make your bid 3 inf in ukraine you’ve got far better odds of winning if russia attempts that battle/you are more likely to deter the attack and preserve fig #6. Then you can buy 2 figs on g1 and you’ve got the same 8 figs plus you saved 1 ipc to either give japan the 2trn/ic option or to allow germany to round out a 2 fig/7 inf purchase.  The disadvantage is you didn’t get to use Fig #7 on G1 or position it in range of most allied fleet for G2, but on the other hand your 3 infs are 2 turns closer to the front than if they were part of a larger G1 inf build.

Now if you’re a gambler and you WANT them to attempt that ukraine battle, hoping to win it right there, that’s another thing, but I don’t have such a lack of confidence that I see the need to put my hopes on a 25-30% outcome before the game has even started (Well, actually, against some players I probably should  :-P ).  And even then, it’s not like the 30% upside is game-changing in your favor the same way the 70% would be for the Russians.

I’ve wondered about figs in other locations, but haven’t put much thought into it or figured out one I like yet.  But I know I don’t like one in Ukraine.

@AxisOfEvil:

@Bunnies:

@AxisOfEvil:

Yeah sorry Bunny. I ran out of energy, (and time at work), to read the second post.

My text wall gom jabbar claims another victim!  :lol:

Is this similiar to Mr. T’s Jibber Jabbering?

Tanks are STRONG!!!

(and you can only get two of them from EI to asia each turn!)

@Cmdr:

LHTR, as was quoted, states that “Fighters from friendly powers can take off and land from your carriers, but only during that power’s turn.”

That contradicts the rules in the box and limits the fighters to only launching and recovering when the owner of the fighter decides to launch and recover them on that player’s turn, not on the owner of the carrier’s turn.

That’s the difference between LHTR’s phrasing and OOB’s phrasing.

The thing is, that exact quote is in both rulesets.  For OOB it’s on p.30, as part of Unit Profiles/Air units/Aircraft Carriers/Special Abilities/Carry Fighters.  I don’t see why you would think that doesn’t apply to OOB.

Edit: kreighund beat me too it.

@Cmdr:

dezrtfish:

Further, it appears that your page 30 quote says that if the carrier moves FIRST, then the fighters are cargo.  If you declare that you’re launching the allied fighters and then move your carrier, then the carrier is not moving first.

Since originally posting the question that got this started, I’ve done a bit more digging.  Focusing on the unit descriptions…

Both sets of rules (oob and lhtr 2.0) clearly state “Fighters from friendly powers can take off and land from your carriers, but only during that power’s turn.” [emphasis added] the only stated exception is when the carrier it was “based on” is sunk on defense.  Not “any carrier”, it’s the carrier the fig is BASED on.) Any concept of them “taking off” or launching as you call it, when it’s not their turn is therefore not part of the rules.  If attacked, they “are considered to be defending in the air and can be chosen as casualties” but to do so they clearly don’t take off and land because that happens ONLY DURING THAT POWER’S TURN with the one clearly stated exception for defense at sea.

So…The planes are “considered to” defend in the air through the magic of game rules but they never actually take off from or land on their boat because that only happens on that power’s turn. and they can otherwise only land on another one in the seazone if the carrier they were based on is sunk.

Both OOB rules and LHTR 2.0 use this terminology that planes take off and land from a carrier “only during that [the fig-owning] power’s turn” and that landing on another carrier can happen if the fig they are “based on” is sunk.  This seems to be a clear indication that, in both rulesets, the planes are associated with (“based” on) a particular ship, and that they can not be launched or land except during their turn with one specific, noted exception.

If you’re playing by OOB rules, you should also be familiar with the official Avalon Hill FAQ for Revised.  It attempts to clarify some of the more egregious errors and confusing rules in the out of the box rules, including that specific example:

@Official:

My sub attacks an enemy battleship. Can I sink it with my opening fire if I roll a 1 or 2, or does it still take two hits to sink a battleship?
It always takes two hits to sink a battleship. Two subs attacking a battleship could sink it in opening fire if both hit. If only one sub attacks, the battleship is guaranteed to get a return shot no matter what because a single sub can’t cause more than one hit per round. If the battleship was hit in the first round and its return shot missed, then the sub could sink it by hitting it again on the second round. The battleship would not get an attack on that second round because it sinks right after the sub’s attack.

@ncscswitch:

Is anyone other than Jen arguing for her position?  Or is it EVERYONE else (backed up by probably the single most knowledgeable person on game rules… Kreig)  in opposition to Jen’s fracked up reading of the rules?

Oh, there’s no one else.  I’m the one who started this and attempted to argue it fairly vehemently at the beginning, but I’m on board with you now.  I’m pretty sure there’s no one else who even gave it credence to begin with.

@Cmdr:

Dunno if you were always talking about LHTR 2.0 or not, nothing I saw referenced it until you made mention. Perhaps ti was clarified there, perhaps not.

It was in the first post in this thread.  But based on some of what I’ve seen I probably don’t want to overestimate anyone’s reading comprehension.

And may I ask, do you make it a point to turn every thread around here into some cockamamie argument that is based primarily on selective, probably out-of-context quotes, and male bovine feces, or just the ones Switch posts in?

Suffice it to say I want to apologize to everyone around here for having started this abomination of a thread.  I’m truly sorry.

…and why does every page on the forum suddenly seem to hang trying to connect to it??? :-(

@mrsoccerchessman:

Now for new ideas, we thought it would be awesome if Battleships had an AA gun.  We had some other cool ideas but I can’t remember them off the top of my head now.  Any input would be great.

I would guess Battleship AA guns would put the kibosh on a lot of US1 pearl counteroffenses.  Otherwise it’s a boon to the Allies as it would be even more risky to attack the allied shipping and germany couldn’t fly over the baltic for combat.

On the other hand, I rarely see battleships being bought in most games.  It would be interesting to see if that made it worth the 24ipcs to buy more.

“These dice go to eleven”

@mrsoccerchessman:

I just made R6 and I know I will be able to make a R7 and probably R8.  Shouldn’t Russian not last this long?  I also have had Russia collect at 31 IPC at once and usually averages 27.  UK has been sending troops over though UK is only collecting 17 IPC next turn but should be able to get more in a few turns… comments?

I won a game where Moscow was still standing strong in round 24.  It all depends on your approach.  If you are playing very aggressively (or carelessly) with russia, they won’t last very long, but even then, moscow should last 8 rounds most games if you make any attempt to hold it.  You have to make sure if you are aggressive, you are dishing out enough damage so that your allies can sack berlin around the same time moscow falls (or else they are mostly dedicated to backfilling moscow to protect it while the russians go to the front).  Otherwise japan (assuming they’re the ones who took moscow) will become a monster and run over the continent.

Well, krieghund’s explanation makes sense, although much like some of my earlier arguments, it falls into the “the rules said X so they must have meant not Y” category which is not entirely definitive because it assumes an exclusive relationship between x and y that may not exist.  (See my argument above about “friendly” planes in the same Sz landing on a carrier - it uses similar faulty logic.)

Like I said before, for practical purposes the issue is resolved to me.  However I will ask: is the ink dry on the rules for the anniversary edition?  They might want to put in something more explicit.  :-)

@U-505:

@Cmdr:

I’ve given my evidence, no one has specifically found a contradiction codified in the rules.

Ok, the question here is that, is swapping fighters between CV’s in the same sea zone considered a “move”?
If its a move then it’s obviously illegal.

But if it’s a non-move, then in what phase would you put it? You can’t put it in the combat movement or non-combat movement phases because it’s a “non-move” and those are movement phases. Only moves are allowed in those phases. And it clearly isn’t combat, a unit purchase, a new unit placement, or a collection of income.

Since, as a non-move, it doesn’t belong to any specific game phase and there is no precedent set for adding new phases to a game turn, then I would say it’s pretty much illegal whether it’s a move or not.

I believe that’s check and mate, Commander.

In the immortal words of Lee Corso: Not so fast, my friend!

There is defense during the enemy’s turn, during which it is clearly and incontrovertibly established in the rules that the planes leave the carriers.  This is not a new “Phase”.

It’s a case where the rules are not nearly so cut and dried as some of you seem to think they are.  If it comes up in a game, I will still play by the interpretation kreig has laid out, but I think that falls more into a case where the “spirit of the law” may be clear, but the “letter of the law” is vague.

Ok, thanks.  Like I said when I pm’ed you about this, I was pretty sure that was the common interpretation… i just couldn’t find anything in the rules that explicitly spelled it out, and as I was trying to pour over them, I kept finding little bits that seemed to support the contrary.  Oh well.

@ncscswitch:

Sorry, I am NEVER going to allow a nation that is NOT in its turn and is NOT being attacked to MOVE their FIGs.  The rules do not allow for it.  It ain’t your turn, you CANNOT move.  Those are the rules.

If you think I am in error, ask Kreig for his advice…

I won’t dispute that such units can not MOVE.  The question is how do you define the term MOVE.  I cited an example that seemed to indicate units staying in the same sea zone are not MOVING in game mechanics terminology, even when they are involved in combat.  I haven’t seen you bring up anything from the rules that indicates to the contrary.

@ncscswitch:

And if you are talking about a move where an ally is moving their AC into a Sea Zone, that does not work either, because any FIGs presently in that SZ belonging to another nation cannot MOVE to the new AC since it is not their turn; and MOVEMENT may only be done during that nation’s move (either combat and/or non-combat).

But the rules do not seem to treat units staying in the sea zone as “Movement”.  See my post above where the rules make a distinction between Moving or just staying in a contested sea zone for combat.

All indications are that a “Move” in game terms refers to traveling from one sea zone or territory to another.

@ncscswitch:

Again, in the case where the SZ is being attacked, NONE of the defending AC’s are MOVING.  Movement is reserved for the ATTACKER under game mechanics.

Sorry if I’m not clear.  I’m no longer referring to a case of defense in the sea zone - that was just speculation on my part.  This quote from the rules refers to the movement of the second friendly CV to enter the area.  When it arrives, this rule states it can take on friendly figs already in the sea zone, Seemingly allowing a shuffle to occur.

@ncscswitch:

What you quote states that the FIG is MOVING.

If the sea zone is attacked, the FIGs are NOT moving.  Movement in that case is reserved for the Attacker in either Combat or Non Combat MOVEMENT.

Since the FIGs cannot, by game mechanics, be MOVING when they are on the defense, they cannot MOVE to another AC.

This is the section on special movements for the Carrier. Nowhere in that statement does it say the figs are moving.

It says the CARRIER is moving and the figs are “friendly” (implying they could be from any of the Carrier-owner’s allied nations), and “in the sea zone where it [the CV] finishes its move”  This sure sounds like a shuffle to me.

Wait, I think I found it. In the section Phase III: Combat Move, under Special Combat Moves and the subheading Aircraft Carriers (LHTR 2.0, page 10)

“Whether it moves during the combat move or noncombat move phase, an aircraft carrier allows
friendly fighters to land on it in the sea zone where it finishes its move.” [emphasis added]

This statement makes no sense unless it’s referring to friendly fighters landing on the the carrier, during the turn in which the carrier moved. If it’s referring only to figs of the same power, I’d think it would say so, but it says friendly.  If it’s referring to the turn of the friendly power with the figs, it wouldn’t matter whether it moved in combat or non-combat and wouldn’t have anything to do with special moves of the Aircraft carrier.  It would just be sitting there.  The statement really only makes sense if it’s referring to friendly figs already in the sea zone on a different carrier.    It seems to me this states that the planes can shuffle.