DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Airbattle Games
HTML https://airbattle.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Wing Leader Rules Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 830--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tally order in combat
By: pilotofficerprune Date: January 9, 2019, 10:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
(1) So, the game is not broken as such, but it is clumsy and
would benefit from a streamlining.
(2) This streamlining only makes sense in turns in which no new
aircraft entered the combat. (A new entrant into the fight would
presumably have 'moved last' and helps determine the attacker.)
(3) We want to do this in as graceful a manner as possible, and
not in a way that creates new difficult-to-understand rules.
Hmmmm. A difficult ask.
#Post#: 832--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tally order in combat
By: Elias Nordling Date: January 9, 2019, 11:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
In our combat, we felt it made sense that the side with more
squadrons had the advantage and would be the attacker.
I think you could change 10.1.2 Mutual Attack to:
If both sides are fighters which have tallied each other, the
squadron
that entered the square last in the Movement Phase
[6.1, 6.1.1, 6.1.2] is the attacker and its opponent is the
defender.
If all aircraft began the movement phase in the square, the
squadron with the highest basic
speed value is the attacking side, unless the fight is a
dogfight [10.8] in which case the squadron with the highest
basic
turn value is the attacking side. If both sides have the same
basic speed or turn
value, roll randomly to determine the attacker.
It doesn't have the idea of the side with the most squadrons,
but it is easy to remember.
When typing the above, I also noticed the following in the
current rule:
If both sides are in a dogfight... What does that even mean? Can
you possible have a combat where only one side is in a
dogfight?!?
#Post#: 846--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tally order in combat
By: pilotofficerprune Date: January 12, 2019, 3:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So, here's a potential text rejig. I feel this is both more
complicated and less so. I hope it doesn't confuse anyone.
10.1.2 Mutual Attack
If both sides are fighters which have tallied each other, the
squadron scheduled to move last in the previous Movement Phase’s
move order [6.1, 6.1.1, 6.1.2] is the attacker and its opponent
is the defender.
If neither side moved in the previous Movement Phase, the
squadron with the highest basic speed value is the attacking
side. If both sides have the same basic speed value, roll
randomly to determine the attacker.
If both sides are in a dogfight [10.8], the squadron with the
highest basic turn value is the attacking side. If both sides
have the same basic turn value, roll randomly to determine the
attacker.
10.1.3 Chains of Tallies
It is possible for the squadrons in a square to be in a chain of
tallies [6.1.2], so that a squadron has tallied a second
squadron, which in turn has tallied a third, etc. The result
would be a single combat involving all the squadrons [10.2].
Determine attacker and defender as follows:
Bombers. If one of the squadrons in the chain is a bomber, the
side with the bomber is the defender and the opposing side the
attacker.
Fighters. If all the squadrons are fighters, determine the
attacker as for mutual attacks [10.1.2]. Use move order, speed
or turn, as appropriate, to determine the attacker.
The squadron used to determine the attacking side does not have
to be the primary combatant [10.2.1]. It just needs to
participate in the combat.
#Post#: 847--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tally order in combat
By: Elias Nordling Date: January 12, 2019, 7:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I liked my wording better ;-). There is a problem in that
circling is moving and there really is no such thing as "neither
side moved". And I still have no idea why the rule says "if both
sides are in a dogfight".
#Post#: 849--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tally order in combat
By: pilotofficerprune Date: January 12, 2019, 8:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
How about:
10.1.2 Mutual Attack
If both sides are fighters which have tallied each other, the
squadron scheduled to move last in the previous Movement Phase’s
move order [6.1, 6.1.1, 6.1.2] is the attacker and its opponent
is the defender.
If all squadrons began the previous Movement Phase in the same
square, the squadron with the highest basic speed value is the
attacking side. If both sides have the same basic speed value,
roll randomly to determine the attacker.
If in a dogfight [10.8], the squadron with the highest basic
turn value is the attacking side. If both sides have the same
basic turn value, roll randomly to determine the attacker.
#Post#: 850--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tally order in combat
By: Elias Nordling Date: January 12, 2019, 9:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Better, but if you write "entered the square last" instead of
the whole "scheduled to move", I think it both becomes clearer
and shorter, and the paragraph below doesn't become an exception
to the paragraph above that you could easily miss if you only
read the first para that seems to cover it all.
#Post#: 852--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tally order in combat
By: pilotofficerprune Date: January 12, 2019, 11:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The 'scheduled to move' wording was very deliberate and is
explained in the sidebar. Because one possible scenario is:
* A and B are mutually tallied
* B moves first because A has better initiative
* B moves into A's square preventing it from moving
A should still be the attacker, because they were scheduled to
move last, but cannot move because they are in the same square
as their target.
#Post#: 855--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tally order in combat
By: Elias Nordling Date: January 12, 2019, 2:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Ah yes, there is that situation. But the problem with the
wording as I see it is that like the current rule, it already
covers it all. What follows then is an exception, but if you are
just flipping through the rules tryng to find the answer to your
question, you might miss that.
#Post#: 856--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tally order in combat
By: pilotofficerprune Date: January 12, 2019, 3:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm not quite following you. What would be your preferred
wording?
#Post#: 858--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tally order in combat
By: Elias Nordling Date: January 13, 2019, 12:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure what my preferred wording is, but if you read the
first para of 10.1.2, it already answers who's the attacker for
all situations except dogfights. If you flip through the rules
to find the answer, you might just read that paragraph and think
"ok, that's it".
The second paragraph then sort of goes "However, there is an
exception when...". It might not be a big problem, but it
bothers me somewhat because you spend a lot of time int the
rules trying to find the one crucial paragraph. I thought I had
thought of a wording that avoided this. But as you pointed out
it created an anomaly.
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page