Seig trio default rules discussion

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
86 messages Options
12345
ice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Seig trio default rules discussion

ice
yeah they are misusing the rules

the battle is more then possible so i dont see a need for any specific rules

ice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Seig trio default rules discussion

Cernel
On a second thought, better wait on this one, since now I'm thinking they are mixing up the old and new WAW, since in the new one it really doesn't make sense to send from Rongelap, as the engine will then autolimit to 3 the other Fighters you can send, making you unable to send a 4th one from the Carriers.
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Seig trio default rules discussion

Cernel
This post was updated on .
So, I think the matter here was just that the old and the new WAW were mixed up, as, from the games I've seen in lobby, nobody sends the Fighter from Rongelap, but only the 4 Fighters from the Carriers.
However, this discussion made me more unconfortable with the much simplified explanation of the rules in the current WAW. So, unless there is opposition, in 2.1.1, I would change the following, this way, which makes them only a bit longer, but considerably clearer:

2.1.0 (current):

            <li>*Aircraft-Carrier Combat Move - During combat movement, the movement of any aircrafts requiring landing on carriers is legal only if a minimum number of carriers required for landing all aircrafts either:
                                <br>- Move to the landing zones during combat movement (even if they have no chance of winning the battle, if any).
                                <br>- Can move to the landing zones (during non combat movement) without moving into or through any sea zones that are hostile at the start of the turn.
                        </li>
            <li>*Aircraft-Carrier Non Combat Move - During non combat movement, if there are any aircrafts requiring landing on carriers, then moves must be made by carriers and aircrafts to maximize the number of aircrafts that can safely land. If aircrafts are killed in combat or other carriers are available due to retreating, the carriers used to validate combat moves that aren't needed to safely land aircrafts can move wherever.</li>


2.1.1 (new):

            <li>*Aircraft-Carrier Combat Move - During combat movement, the movement of any aircrafts requiring landing on carriers is legal only if a minimum number of carriers required for landing all aircrafts either:
                                <br>- Move to the landing zones during combat movement (even if they have no chance of winning the battle, if any).
                                <br>- Can move to the landing zones (during non combat movement) without moving into or through any sea zones that are hostile at the start of the turn.
            (the restrictions at this point apply exclusively during combat movement, and not for casualties' selection (unrestricted), retreat (unrestricted) or non combat movement (see below))
                        </li>
            <li>*Aircraft-Carrier Non Combat Move - During non combat movement, if there are any aircrafts requiring landing on carriers, then moves must be made by carriers and aircrafts under the only special limit to maximize the number of aircrafts that can safely land (also by moving into or through non-hostile (no enemy units but submerged submarines) sea zones that were hostile at the start of the turn, if needed or preferred), no matter what movements carriers were previously assumed to eventually make, upon validating combat movements (if aircrafts are killed in combat or other carriers are available due to retreating, the carriers used to validate combat moves that aren't needed to safely land aircrafts can move wherever).</li>
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Seig trio default rules discussion

Cernel
In reply to this post by ice
ice wrote
and i liked the short version :))

wel if u wanna add all the calrifications:

-revised rules state you canNOT move noncombat moves in combat movement, SiegTrio maps u CAN
-revised rules make the exeption for moving out of combat, SiegTrio maps u can also
-revised rules make the exeption for loading units on trannys who go into battle, SiegTrio maps u can also
-revised rules say you can only move during combat OR noncombat move, SiegTrio maps u can do BOTH
-Seig trio maps thus also allouws you to move out of combat, pick up units, move back into combat and attack or reinforce a territory, using all rules above. or making any variant to this example.


ice
My strong opposition to have such definitions, generally allowing to needlessly anticipating non combat movements during combat movement, in violation of true Revised rules, is augmented by the fact that I also see a problem, in the moment in which I am allowed to needlessly perform non combat movements during the combat move phase.
As the rule is that, during non combat move, I must move carriers so to allow all to land, or at least minimise the number of fighters lost due to the lack of landing spots, I might be induced to anticipate non combat movements during combat move just to preemptively evade the non combat no-kamikaze rule, by assuring that the carriers that would have been obliged to move to land the fighters have already moved somewhere else.

For example I have carrier01, carrier02 and fighter01.
Fighter01 goes making an attack that would allow it to land (if surviving) only in zone01.
During combat move, I send carrier01 in zone01 to do battle in it, thus making the fighter01 move totally legal (also in the case carrier01 is sure to die).
During the battle, zone01 is cleared of enemy units, and fighter01 survives, while carrier01 is lost.
At this point, I have carrier02, that didn't move during combat move, that is the only remaining carrier able to land fighter01.
Thus, carrier02 is obliged to move to the now not-hostile zone01, to pick up fighter01.
The problem arises that, if I'm allowed to anticipate non combat movements during combat move, then I could evade the correct rules by just moving somewhere carrier02, during combat movement (this would have no impact during combat move, as the rules make the fighter01 move legal even if, under LL, carrier01 would be sure to die), so then not to be able (beside using edit mode) to be obliged to use carrier02 to land fighter01, as I should.

So, I actually propose to go the exactly opposite way to what ice says, in order to be safe from the implication of this alleged abit of NWO etc. players to not abide to true Revised restrictions on the illegality of performing non combat movements during combat movement, and rather add the following note in notes, to avoid such a faulty implementation of the rules:

(in any case, as per normal rules, you are allowed to move a carrier during combat movement only if starting or ending movement in a hostile sea zone (to escape combat or to do combat or both); otherwise, you must wait non combat movement, to move the carrier at all)

If you, NWO etc. players, instead, wish to make yourselves able to evade the non combat no-kamikaze rule by anticipating non combat moves, so not to be obliged to use those carriers to pick up fighters thereafter, as per what at the aforementioned example, this really needs to be added in notes, as it would be a blatant violation of the normal rules.

@redrum So, my question is, can I go ahead adding the above clarification (here in bold) in notes?

This would, for this particular case, leave the only remaining item of being able to split the movement of a unit moving out of a hostile sea zone between combat movement and non combat movement, that I've already argumented, but no consent was apparently reached on the matter, deeming it an unworthwhile addition to the notes, so I'm not reopening this other matter, as I've nothing else to say but what I already said, plus the additional item that a carrier starting in a hostile sea zone might want to move out of only 1 movement, to a friendly sea zone, but retaining the remaining 1 movement, to do it during non combat move (eventually also reentering the then cleared starting sea zone), which would be against the standard rules, that forbid units that have actively moved during non combat move to perform any movement during the subsequent non combat movement phase (my not accepted suggestion, as said, was to instead allow it, adding a detailed special rule for this matter, in the WAW etc. notes; as said, I'm not reopening this other matter).
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Seig trio default rules discussion

redrum
Administrator
Fine with me.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Seig trio default rules discussion

Cernel
Oh, thanks for the fast response.

What I was proposing, generally, in past discussions (not reopening) was to keep the general Revised rules of forbidding performing non combat movement during combat movement, while adding in notes all of a series of specific exceptions where the blind application of that principle would ingenerate nonsensical situations (mostly, but not only, relatively to starting from a hostile sea zone). Anyway, this has been already discussed, and the consensus (especially since the only 1 NWO player that joined this discussion at all was @ice only...) seemed that would have made the WAW etc. notes way too big, to detail a whole bunch of rarely to be encountered cases, so not reopening the matter for all those other cases, I already put forward.

I will add this one only clarification, then, as it seems a potentially pretty major one.
History plays dice
12345