:: :: FAQ :: Search :: Memberlist :: Join! (free) :: Profile :: Log in to check your private messages :: Log in ::
Chitose Sea Planes (Attacks; ASW Threat w/ Loss of Chitose)
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Axis & Allies ForuMINI Forum Index -> WAS General Discussion -> WAS Rules Clarification
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Please Register and Login to this forum to stop seeing this advertising.

 


Likes received:




Post subject:   (Liked by:)  Like this post
Back to top
Solomiranthius

_
 
MyTheaterClub

Joined: 24 Apr 2011
Likes received: 766

Posts: 19325
FLAGS




Post subject:  Reply with quote   (Liked by:1)  Like this post
Vetnor wrote:
Solomiranthius wrote:
You know perfectly well I have "read the rules."


You may have read the rules but did you comprehend them?

Solomiranthius wrote:
I am arguing from the rules.


In fact you're arguing from your own interpretation of the rules not the RaW.


Rolling Eyes

Again, rude Vetnor. Not sure why you felt you had to become insulting. Maybe that is the kind of person you are. Too bad.

Regardless, there is no need to explain your argument. I get it perfectly. I just don't agree with it.

For Grgbobe's sake, the rule does not deal with the removal of the counter because a) the aircraft (which is the primary counter, the counter is just an alternative option) is removed during the air return phase, and b) it was an impossibility at the time the rules were written to have an aircraft that ASW'd during the air attack phase be destroyed before the submarine phase. It didn't become possible until Chitose. Any aircraft that ASW'd would always be present during the submarine phase. Consequently, when the rules were written there would be no need to account for impossibilities.

The bottom line is I do not honestly care one way or the other. I've always played Chitose the way you are all advocating. For me, it was an interesting analysis of a unique issue based upon the rules and clarifications thereof. I see my view as cleanly fitting the game; cleanly fitting the mechanism; and requiring no major assumptions about how to and when to refresh the ASW Threat.

Vetnor just decided to become (well, really, start as) condescending and insulting in his opposition to my point of view. I, unfortunately, chose to react in kind. He trolled me well. Perhaps he even got the reaction he was hoping so that he could complain about "attitude problems" without having to do any self-reflection.

I am sorry to all the other participants in this thread for having taken the bait and detoured from the issues in order to deal with a person.

I am not going to convince any of you. I get that. That's fine. So I will take my leave no matter what Vetnor comes back with. Smile

Cheers.
_________________


"You like ships. You don't seem to be lookin' at the destinations. What you care about is the ships, and mine's the nicest." ~ Firefly ~
PostSun May 15, 2016 7:19 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
war at sea 4

 FROM THE USN TO THE IJN SAY HELLO TO MY LITTLE FRIENDS


Joined: 30 Oct 2012
Likes received: 146

Posts: 2468
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
Well said Hans Solo; Sorry a nick name for you
 To me the Forum is about a lot of things and arguing is one, although when it gets under your skin you do have to scratch, the one good thing about that; good or bad you know your alive.
  Lord knows i've had a few itches, but as long as we are all
Forumini-ist [is that a word] we all have a common interest;
 It might come out a little strange at times;; How best to play and preserve the game.
 If i'm not mistaken didn't something like this arise from the SA the Team wanted to put on Juneau; but didn't.
 I guess the only true answer would be to ask RB what he was thinking.  LOL I guess only Weeds can do that.
PostTue May 17, 2016 9:27 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
ticat1

_
 
MySingleNationClub
MyTheaterClub

Joined: 15 Apr 2010
Likes received: 818

Posts: 10680
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:1)  Like this post
So weeds just posted an old post from Richard Baker that first mentioned the concept of asw harassment and very clearly stated his original intent regarding aircraft.

http://aaminis.myfastforum.org/about47691.html


"ASW Threat
The presence of ASW ships and planes interferes with a submarine’s ability to attack. A Submarine takes a –1 die penalty to torpedo attacks (to a minimum of 1 die) if any of the following is true:

* An enemy Aircraft made an ASW attack against the Submarine during the Air Attack phase (use a token to mark it if you need help remembering);
* An enemy Ship with an ASW value of 1 or better is local or adjacent to the Submarine during the Torpedo Attack phase.

Multiple ASW Threats don’t stack; even if you have several destroyers nearby, you only reduce the Submarine’s torpedo attack by 1 die. Apply this penalty before you apply any bonuses or other modifiers. For example, a U-boat firing at range 2 normally gets 2 torpedo dice; an ASW threat reduces it to 1 die, but its Wolfpack special ability would increase the torpedo attack back to 2 dice.

This is a simplified version of the Harassed Subs rule—there aren’t two levels of effect anymore."
_________________

Qui Tangit Frangitur

To you, from failing hands we throw the torch; be yours to hold it high
           -John McCrae
PostMon Jul 25, 2016 12:35 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
Solomiranthius

_
 
MyTheaterClub

Joined: 24 Apr 2011
Likes received: 766

Posts: 19325
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
We should be clear, however, that this was a post after the release of the game but before the updated ruleset that came out that we all use.

So, it really doesn't provide any additional information regarding the plane threat. And the "non-stacking" of threat is also a non-issue. Neither made it explicitly into the new rules (but could have).
_________________


"You like ships. You don't seem to be lookin' at the destinations. What you care about is the ships, and mine's the nicest." ~ Firefly ~
PostThu Jul 28, 2016 3:17 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
ticat1

_
 
MySingleNationClub
MyTheaterClub

Joined: 15 Apr 2010
Likes received: 818

Posts: 10680
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
Solomiranthius wrote:
We should be clear, however, that this was a post after the release of the game but before the updated ruleset that came out that we all use.

So, it really doesn't provide any additional information regarding the plane threat. And the "non-stacking" of threat is also a non-issue. Neither made it explicitly into the new rules (but could have).


Ha!  This is very much a lawyer vs historian mentality.   Very Happy

No, that post is not the written law of the 2010 rulebook, which i totally accept.

But I feel that it does shed light on the spirit of the law
_________________

Qui Tangit Frangitur

To you, from failing hands we throw the torch; be yours to hold it high
           -John McCrae
PostThu Jul 28, 2016 3:40 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
Solomiranthius

_
 
MyTheaterClub

Joined: 24 Apr 2011
Likes received: 766

Posts: 19325
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
But I will also concede that the phrasing does nothing to help my argument regarding the intent of the SA. Smile
_________________


"You like ships. You don't seem to be lookin' at the destinations. What you care about is the ships, and mine's the nicest." ~ Firefly ~
PostThu Jul 28, 2016 4:38 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
Vetnor

 Find a crew. Find a job. Keep on flying.

MySingleNationClub
MySpecialCauseClub

Joined: 05 Jun 2011
Likes received: 91

Posts: 2369
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
Any report, essay etc. should have three sections.
An introduction, a body and an conclusion/summary. A rule book is no different and if you go through the rule book you will see it follows this standard format.

In regards to the ASW Threat rule there is the following sections -

1) INTRODUCTION
This is a brief description of what the rule is about and tries to achieve. It is not the rule.

1) BODY
This is where the rule is explained and detailed. It is the most important part because it is how the rule and its mechanics work. It is the rule.

3) Conclusion/Summary
Here is where you explain any possible interactions and clarify any ambiguities and it may contain any tips or examples if needed.


_________________

Command your fleet to victory.
PostTue Aug 02, 2016 1:32 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
Solomiranthius

_
 
MyTheaterClub

Joined: 24 Apr 2011
Likes received: 766

Posts: 19325
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
While I don't necessarily agree that the rulebook is always laid out in the manner described above, the section on ASW Threat (as well as the other Advanced Rules) does seem to have that organization. Although, it is also worth noting that introductions may not serve as "the rule" but are certainly useful in determining how to apply the rule--especially where said rule is either ambiguous in general or in regards to a specific situation.

As another cog to toss into the gears, Shinnentai posted this in the Beaufort thread regarding whether an aborted strafing fighter can still get the Beaufort its +1 dice:

Quote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Pg 34 2010 rulebook) "Aborted aircraft have no further effect for the rest of the turn"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Destroyed > aborted -- but in either situation the plane is "gone."

In the present situation, the Chitose sea plane may be destroyed and, consequently, should have no further effect in the turn. This is consistent with the general ruling that SAs on destroyed ships have no further effect post-destruction. (Before we get into arguments about damage, keep in mind that damage is applied to ships before the damaging (attacking) ship is removed from play.)
_________________


"You like ships. You don't seem to be lookin' at the destinations. What you care about is the ships, and mine's the nicest." ~ Firefly ~
PostWed Aug 03, 2016 10:04 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
Vetnor

 Find a crew. Find a job. Keep on flying.

MySingleNationClub
MySpecialCauseClub

Joined: 05 Jun 2011
Likes received: 91

Posts: 2369
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
Solomiranthius wrote:

Quote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Pg 34 2010 rulebook) "Aborted aircraft have no further effect for the rest of the turn"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That sentence is referring to SA's like Draw the Cap etc. Chitose's seaplanes are treated as aircraft and represented on the map as aircraft, their attacks are not an affect they are attacks.

The ASW Threat rule clearly says its Aircraft Attacks that produce ASW Threat and its the attacks that are kept track of not the aircraft. Dice were rolled, the attack was made. What your saying is if the seaplanes managed to hit a crippled sub and then they themselves were destroyed you ignore the results of the attack and the sub's not sunk because the seaplanes have no further effect?

If you roll dice you have made an attack, that's not an effect, it's an attack. The plane can go away but dice have been rolled the attack has-been made.

It's simple and KISS.
_________________

Command your fleet to victory.
PostWed Aug 03, 2016 11:42 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
Solomiranthius

_
 
MyTheaterClub

Joined: 24 Apr 2011
Likes received: 766

Posts: 19325
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
Solomiranthius wrote:
(Before we get into arguments about damage, keep in mind that damage is applied to ships (edit "subs") before the damaging (attacking) ship (edit "plane") is removed from play.)

_________________


"You like ships. You don't seem to be lookin' at the destinations. What you care about is the ships, and mine's the nicest." ~ Firefly ~
PostThu Aug 04, 2016 12:42 am
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
Vetnor

 Find a crew. Find a job. Keep on flying.

MySingleNationClub
MySpecialCauseClub

Joined: 05 Jun 2011
Likes received: 91

Posts: 2369
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
Solomiranthius wrote:
Solomiranthius wrote:
(Before we get into arguments about damage, keep in mind that damage is applied to ships (edit "subs") before the damaging (attacking) ship (edit "plane") is removed from play.)


However lets play devils advocate here.

You see the results of the Chitose's seaplane attacks as an effect of the Chitose('s SA).

If a seaplane hits or misses a sub it triggers an effect. A hit triggers damage and ASW Threat, a miss triggers ASW Threat only. By your definition both trigger an effect and if the seaplane goes away so does the effect of the attack whether it hits or misses.

Same as Fly-off Strike, if the Fly-Off squadron damages a ship and then the Ise is sunk in the surface phase, by your difinition the damage is an effect of the Ise's SA and should go away.

But the damage doesn't go away because it was made by a real attack where dice were rolled. Attacks are not SA effects.

But lets ignore and forget all of that because your own quote undermines your argument.

If what you say is correct then the rules would say to use the seaplane token to keep track of ASW threat (if they go away then the threat goes away) that would be simple and KISS but it doesn't.

The rule is called Aircraft Attack and we keep track of Aircraft Attack in case the aircraft goes away, you have a record of the attack.

The Chitose SA says the Chitose comes with 2 seaplane squadrons that are treated as real aircraft, represent on the map as real units (i.e. tokens) that can make real attacks that can cause real damage. In fact they can be attacked by real units using real attacks (i.e. rolling real dice) what other SAs can be attacked like that?
You can't attack Fencers Fighter Cover like that and you can't attack Chikumas Scout Planes because they are SAs not real units.
_________________

Command your fleet to victory.
PostThu Aug 04, 2016 2:46 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
BoomerBill

_
 

Joined: 29 Oct 2012
Likes received: 106

Posts: 1474
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
I was a bit late coming to this particular thread. Great to see so much passion about what is, after all, just a game with toy ships.
I just wanted to warn future opponents that even if I am playing the Royal Navy, I will include Chitose in my fleet.
And I bought some extra Rufes to replace the Chitose counters.
_________________

Those who don't remember their history are bound to do something or other...
PostFri Aug 05, 2016 4:32 am
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
Vetnor

 Find a crew. Find a job. Keep on flying.

MySingleNationClub
MySpecialCauseClub

Joined: 05 Jun 2011
Likes received: 91

Posts: 2369
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:1)  Like this post
OK let's use the HMS Javelin as a different example.

Let's say the Javelin player is the First Player and he lays smoke and then the Javelin is destroyed in the Second Players Surface Step.

According to you the smoke the Javelin played would be an effect of the Javelins Lay Smoke Screen SA and since the Javelin has been removed then the smoke should also be removed immediately during or at the end of the Surface Attack Phase.

We don't remove it because the smoke has been placed and represented on the map by a token.

An effect of a SA is felt not represented on the map as something physical.
_________________

Command your fleet to victory.
PostTue Aug 16, 2016 4:16 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
Solomiranthius

_
 
MyTheaterClub

Joined: 24 Apr 2011
Likes received: 766

Posts: 19325
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
Vetnor wrote:
OK let's use the HMS Javelin as a different example.

Let's say the Javelin player is the First Player and he lays smoke and then the Javelin is destroyed in the Second Players Surface Step.

According to you the smoke the Javelin played would be an effect of the Javelins Lay Smoke Screen SA and since the Javelin has been removed then the smoke should also be removed immediately during or at the end of the Surface Attack Phase.

We don't remove it because the smoke has been placed and represented on the map by a token.

An effect of a SA is felt not represented on the map as something physical.


That would be the logical inference from the way the rules are written and WotC has generally clarified SAs--at least without any further comment by WotC on the topic. I don't necessarily agree with the way SAs have been clarified. For example, Scout Planes ending once Chikuma is sunk--the SA does not read this way. But there we go. To track, you would have to put something physical on the map to mark which ship is Scouted.

Mines was at least clarified to be permanent.

Lay Smoke Screen is represented by a token with a definitive ending point for when it is removed--end of the next turn. Lay Smoke Screen is also clarified on page 60 of the rulebook to last until the end of the next turn. Still, I could argue it either way. At least Lay Smoke Screen is more of a physical presence on the map that is separate from its unit than most SAs.

Take, for example Crippling Salvo--it operates somewhat like Lay Smoke Screen. You would need a marker to track it and it last through the end of the next turn. But, by the way the general clarifications read, if you sink the ship causing crippling salvo, the impacted ship will be free and clear next turn. (Same with Covering Fire.) An "attack" that causes no damage is far more like Crippling Salvo or Covering Fire than it is like Lay Smoke Screen.

In the end, it doesn't matter. We can each interpret the SAs how we best see fit given the limited guidance provided to us by WotC.

I don't disagree that the majority of players would choose to let the threat stand despite the loss of the attacking plane before the sub phase. I do think the opposite approach makes more sense with both a RAW perspective and a holistic view of the rules. It is how I will play in my offline games. It is something I will clear up in my online games.

I could rule that my way controls in the tournament I'm running, but I'm not going to either. Wink

Neither one of us is going to change our minds on this.


_________________


"You like ships. You don't seem to be lookin' at the destinations. What you care about is the ships, and mine's the nicest." ~ Firefly ~
PostTue Aug 16, 2016 7:55 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4



   Axis & Allies ForuMINI Forum Index » WAS General Discussion -> WAS Rules Clarification

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Editor's Choice
Forumini Generals
All AAM cards
All AAAF Cards
All War At Sea Cards
Forumini Admirals
A20 World Rankings
1. Jcmonson 1066
1. Bean965 1038
3. Vergilius 1024
WAS World Rankings
1. Admiral Wannabee 1240
2. mnnorthstars 1170
3. Azrael 1120
AAM World Rankings
1. Lil Snips 1096
2. Tripwire 1021
3. Kawolski 1010
Friends
Official WoTC site
Richard Baker's new Blog
Le Forum de A&ANM
Riverside Gaming
A&A Underground
Top posters
Brigman 42738
weedsrock2 36854
Flakstruk 35335
RAEVSKI 26750
firesdstny 26685
Asbestos 24554
SWO_Daddy 23223
Solomiranthius 19325
NeuralDream 18234
nrnstraswa 17161
herky80 16512
Lt_V 16301
jfkziegler 15353
Swished3 14762
carrion 14490
LcdrSwizzle 13698
packertim 13611
DaJudge 13360
mnnorthstars 12784
The_lucky_Y 12511
danaussie 12161
Shinnentai 11688
hokiepastor 10867


Forumini Newsletter
Issue #10 (Sep. 2013)
Issue #9 (Sep. 2012)
Issue #8 (Dec. 2011)
Issue #7 (Sep. 2011)
Issue #6 (Apr. 2011)
Issue #5 (Christmas 2010)
Issue #4 (Dec. 2010)
Issue #3 (Jul. 2010)
Issue #2 (Apr. 2010)
Issue #1 (Feb. 2010)


Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Theme by: :: Cosmic Distortion ::
Powered by phpBB © 2001 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum