I see your point, Jon, but I still feel as if there is a "hole" in the Rules. It's not a matter of realism vs. game rules.
Again, it seems there is no distinction between the words
to plan and
mandatory.
In this example, I would not
PLAN a card that would put me in more danger. I am
FORCED to play a
MANDATORY straight to complete the
Immelman Manouvre. I had another choice, I would not play it, i.e.
I would not PLAN it.
Basic Rules, on page 7, refer to illegal manouvres connected to "special manouvres" as the Immelman Turn.
Rules here state that "If an illegal maneuver is revealed because a player fails to follow these restrictions (Straight-Immelman-Straight), he must replace the illegal card with a straight card and take an A Damage Card, representing the stress on the structure of the airplane".
Playing a mandatory straight after the Immelman Card IS NOT an illegal manouvre.
Standard Rules for fire on board state, on page 12, that at the beginning of the turn (before the player reveal the first card), the player will pick an A Damage Card and will discard a flame marker. As long as the plane has flames on board, the player
can not plan any straight card.
Planning vs. Mandatory. This is the hole. And from this point of view, there is way too much doubling up of damage here.
If we don't fix this hole, we can keep on talking for fun.
Mau
Bookmarks