Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
6 Posts

Where There Is Discord: War in the South Atlantic» Forums » Rules

Subject: Rules I'm not sure I have right rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Brian Workman
United States
Phoenix
Arizona
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
OK, so I’ve read the rule book about six times and played the game through a few times. What follows is a compilation of things I’m still a little fuzzy about, and some questions for things that I just can’t figure out. I apologize in advance for the length.

Things I struggled with but think I’ve figured out:

It took me a while to figure out how and when to use the failed attack table. I think I’ve got it. Do I have this right?
Use of failed results table-
British failed attack sub vs sub – YES (13.5.3)
Argentine failed attack sub vs sub – NO sub goes to RFW box (13.5.7)
British sub vs Argentine task force – YES (13.6.5)
Argentine task force vs sub – NO (13.7.4) TF goes off-board
Failed Argentine carrier attack on British task force – YES (13.9.4)
Failed Argentine fleet attack on British task force – YES (13.9.4)

Table results that say “TF placed off board, Sub in RFW” – Only the one involved in the attack, not all Argentine naval forces right?
“Argentine units to exclusion zone” – Only the one involved in the attack, not all Argentine naval forces right?

Is it true that attacking an Argentine sub outside the exclusion zone does not require a Rules of Engagement roll but does have political consequences?

Not clear:

Enhanced/degraded search – I’m really not sure what to apply this rule to. Do I apply the enhanced/degraded roll to:
Argentine TFs trying to locate British subs?
Argentine TFs trying to locate British TF?
Argentine subs trying to locate British subs?
British subs trying to locate Argentine TFs?
British subs trying to locate Argentine subs?

Event cards:
Are “Houston we have a problem” and the use of USSR satellite capability due to loss of international opinion cumulative (up to 4 max)? In other words if both are in effect and I roll a strike of 2 Mirages, is it +1 +1 = 4 jets?

The “French are our reliable allies” [sic] says you can bounce an attack no matter the configuration of your Harriers. Does that mean that you can bounce with only one Harrier on CAP in that zone or does it simply mean you still need two Harriers but they don’t need to be from the same flight?

Tactical questions:
Can CAP over San Marcos be withheld from engaging incoming strike aircraft to insure they will be around for ground support? (To prevent argentine land forces from gaining the Pucara ground support benefit)

In the San Carlos turn example isn’t the Nimrod roll a success? Then shouldn’t the remaining 2 skyhawks be bounced since you are defending with two Harriers from ‘A’ flight?

Counters:
What are the following counters used for: “fired”, “damage”
There are other counters I haven’t used that I suspect are for events that have not occurred (I have deliberately not looked at the intelligence briefing book for events that have not come up in my games so far). These are: Mainland bombed, full supply, and the flip side of the troop transports (Sirs Galahad, Tristam, Lancelot etc). Is this correct? (Without spoiling what those events are)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ian Wakeham
United Kingdom
Chester
Cheshire
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I’m currently trying to complete a semi-official Er rata and Clarifications document for WTID so I can answer most of these as they’ve been covered previously either here or at ConsimWorld.

Quote:
It took me a while to figure out how and when to use the failed attack table. I think I’ve got it. Do I have this right?
Use of failed results table-
British failed attack sub vs sub – YES (13.5.3)
Argentine failed attack sub vs sub – NO sub goes to RFW box (13.5.7)
British sub vs Argentine task force – YES (13.6.5)
Argentine task force vs sub – NO (13.7.4) TF goes off-board
Failed Argentine carrier attack on British task force – YES (13.9.4)
Failed Argentine fleet attack on British task force – YES (13.9.4)


Yes – Dan has replied previously as follows:

1) British Sub vs Arg sub - Yes (left hand side)
2) Arg sub vs Brit sub - No
3) British sub vs Arg surface vessels - Yes (left hand side)
4) Arg surface vessels vs Brit sub - No
5) Arg sub vs British task force - Yes (right hand side)
6) Arg surface vessels v Task Force - Yes (right hand side).

Quote:
Table results that say “TF placed off board, Sub in RFW” – Only the one involved in the attack, not all Argentine naval forces right?


Yes

Quote:
“Argentine units to exclusion zone” – Only the one involved in the attack, not all Argentine naval forces right?


Yes

Quote:
Is it true that attacking an Argentine sub outside the exclusion zone does not require a Rules of Engagement roll but does have political consequences?


Yes

Quote:
Enhanced/degraded search – I’m really not sure what to apply this rule to.


The enhancement or degrading of the Task Force detection rolls only relates to the Argentine Task Group search for British surface vessels (not British submarines).

Quote:
Are “Houston we have a problem” and the use of USSR satellite capability due to loss of international opinion cumulative (up to 4 max)? In other words if both are in effect and I roll a strike of 2 Mirages, is it +1 +1 = 4 jets?


Not definite but makes logical sense.

Quote:
The “French are our reliable allies” [sic] says you can bounce an attack no matter the configuration of your Harriers. Does that mean that you can bounce with only one Harrier on CAP in that zone or does it simply mean you still need two Harriers but they don’t need to be from the same flight?


The effect is that the player does not need two Harriers from the same flight; one Harrier or two Harriers from different flights can be used to bounce a plane.

Quote:
Can CAP over San Marcos be withheld from engaging incoming strike aircraft to insure they will be around for ground support? (To prevent argentine land forces from gaining the Pucara ground support benefit)


Yes - engagement by Harriers in any raid is optional.

Quote:
In the San Carlos turn example isn’t the Nimrod roll a success?


Treat the references to a roll of 1 for the Nimrod detection as a roll of 3, 4, 5 or 6.  The original rules had rolls of 5 or 6 for Nimrod detection; the example of play was not updated to reflect the change in the rules to rolls of 1 or 2 (p.12, 6.2.1).
 
Quote:
Then shouldn’t the remaining 2 skyhawks be bounced since you are defending with two Harriers from ‘A’ flight?


Bouncing prevents destroyed/aborted aircraft from returning fire against the Harriers so it doesn’t apply to the two surviving aircraft. But Skyhawks can’t target the Harriers anyway so it’s irrelevant here.

Quote:
What are the following counters used for: “fired”, “damage”

There are other counters I haven’t used that I suspect are for events that have not occurred (I have deliberately not looked at the intelligence briefing book for events that have not come up in my games so far). These are: Mainland bombed, full supply, and the flip side of the troop transports (Sirs Galahad, Tristam, Lancelot etc). Is this correct? (Without spoiling what those events are)


Fired -  used to indicate British vessels that have fired during surface to air combat.
Damaged - used to indicate British ships that have been hit but not destroyed by the Argentine Task Group.
Mainland Bombed - used to indicate that Event #20 has been carried out.
Full Supply - not required to play the game; it is from an earlier version of the rules.
Troop Ships – still not sure of how these should be played but four of the Troop Ship counters have Landing Ships on the reverse:

St Edmund - Sir Tristram
Norland - Sir Galahad
Nordic Ferry - Sir Lancelot
Baltic Ferry - Sir Percivale

These Landing Ships give the player the option of what you want in play. Dan leaves the counters on the Troop Ship side until the landings commence, then flips them to the Landing Craft side for the San Carlos placement. But this begs the question of what is targeted by the Argentines – the Troop Ship or the Landing Ship.
3 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian Workman
United States
Phoenix
Arizona
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Great! Thanks Ian, that really helps. I did try to find answers at the two forums but was unsuccessful. Just a couple of things about your responses:

Quote:
Bouncing prevents destroyed/aborted aircraft from returning fire against the Harriers so it doesn’t apply to the two surviving aircraft. But Skyhawks can’t target the Harriers anyway so it’s irrelevant here.


Now I'm confused about this. I thought if aircraft were bounced, they ended the raid and returned to base without engaging the surface targets. Not true?

Quote:
These Landing Ships give the player the option of what you want in play. Dan leaves the counters on the Troop Ship side until the landings commence, then flips them to the Landing Craft side for the San Carlos placement. But this begs the question of what is targeted by the Argentines – the Troop Ship or the Landing Ship.


So you are saying this is really just a flavor thing? Flip them over in San Carlos water and then flip them back when they go back to the task force? Interesting...It's all for fun until somebody gets sunk...then your narrative is confuscated.

Anyway...thanks again, I appreciate your time in responding, and I'm really enjoying this game!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matt R
United States
DFW
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Brian,
The bouncing by Harriers is really quite simple and is best thought of as the Harriers simply being able to achieve surprise on their targets. Normally air-to-air combat is handled simultaneously so if any Argentinian aircraft get shot down they still get to "roll" to see if they still got their shots off on the Harriers before they went down (or aborted or whatever).

When Harriers are allowed to "bounce" enemy aircraft, all it means is that the enemy aircraft are not given a chance to fire back, meaning the combat is NOT simultaneous.


So - simply follow this procedure:

A) If enemy aircraft are not capable of attacking Harriers, then proceed roll for Harriers to hit their targets - the enemy aircraft do not get to attack back (as they lack the capabilities). End this procedure after resolving the Harrier attacks. I can't remember if any other enemy aircraft lack air-to-air combat abilities, but I know that Canberras and Super Etendards can't fire upon Harriers.

B) If Harriers DO have "bouncing" capabilities currently then roll their attacks against the enemy aircraft - this sortie will NOT be simultaneous and the Harriers have basically taken the enemy aircraft by surprise. Any enemy aircraft hit are immediately removed from the sortie without getting any chance to fire back. Any surviving enemy aircraft now get to fire upon the Harriers.

C) If Harriers do NOT have "bouncing" capabilities currently then roll their attacks against the enemy aircraft - this sortie will be simultaneous. Any enemy aircraft hit are NOT removed from the sortie until they get their chance to fire back. ALL enemy aircraft in the sortie now get to fire upon the Harriers (including any aircraft that were "destroyed" by the Harriers in this step).

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian Workman
United States
Phoenix
Arizona
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yeah, I reread the rule after I posted, and it's quite clear.

Funny how a preconceived notion can blind you. I've got it now, thanks.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matt R
United States
DFW
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
KillerB wrote:
Yeah, I reread the rule after I posted, and it's quite clear.

Funny how a preconceived notion can blind you. I've got it now, thanks.


No worries. It took me a few reads to get it myself. Once I figured out that it really just means that the Harriers have "surprised" the enemy then it all made sense.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.