Ares Games
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 53

Thread: Fire and Immelmann Turn

  1. #1

    Question Fire and Immelmann Turn

    This question is going to be very similar to this thread I found: http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/sho...jammer-rudders

    I was playing last night and came across a tricky scenario. We're just using Standard rules:

    I was playing out my turn of a turn, a straight and then an Immelmann.
    During one of the damage steps (I think it was after performing the straight manoeuvre) my kite caught fire.

    My problem is that I ended this turn with an Immelmann, meaning the first move on my next turn has to be a straight, however the rules state that when on fire I'm not allowed to plan straight manoeuvres.
    In order to fulfil the rules, do I just plan a non-straight manoeuvre, fall foul of the Illegal Manoeuvre rule and have to change it to a straight anyway?

    Thanks in advance

  2. #2

    Default

    Ciao Marekski,

    this seems harder than it actual is.

    The straight after the Immelman manouvre is mandatory while rules state that the player is not allowed to plan straight manouvres.

    Given that, in your example, the first move of the next turn after your machine caught fire will be the mandatory straight (you also pick up the A damage card and discard a flame marker) THEN, until your machine is on flame, you will not be allowed to play straights cards.

    Ciao and welcome aboard!

    Mau
    Last edited by Mau Fox; 11-20-2014 at 05:56. Reason: grammar check

  3. #3

    Default

    There is also a similar situation where, while on fire, the aircraft gets rudder damage in both directions....

  4. #4

    Default

    Fox, my ancestors used to say ubi maior, minor cessat ...

    That is the easiest way to face rules when these don't cover every angle of the game .

  5. #5

    Default

    I'm not sure which is major and which is minor in that situation.


    Not that it bothers me; the sort of people I play with would just come to an agreement about how to handle it.

    Personally, I think if you can't turn left, or right, and you're on fire, then flames will engulf the pilot and that's terribly sad, but...

    [And obviously that's not the same situation with the Immelman]

  6. #6

    Default

    Yes, that's my opinion too.
    Rudder jammed both ways, flames aboard ... The plane is doomed ...

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by QB Fox View Post
    There is also a similar situation where, while on fire, the aircraft gets rudder damage in both directions....
    You are still allowed to perform an overdive and hopefully 'blow out' some of the flame counters. By the following turn the rudder damage will have worn off.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Naharaht View Post
    You are still allowed to perform an overdive and hopefully 'blow out' some of the flame counters. By the following turn the rudder damage will have worn off.
    I presume 'overdive' is an Advanced rule?
    Haven't quite gotten that far yet

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Naharaht View Post
    You are still allowed to perform an overdive and hopefully 'blow out' some of the flame counters. By the following turn the rudder damage will have worn off.
    Assuming you're playing the optional overdive rule and you have the altitude to it.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marekski View Post
    I presume 'overdive' is an Advanced rule?
    Yep!

  11. #11

    LOOP
    Guest


    Default

    We play it a little bit kinder. If you get the fire-card turn1. The flames do not make damage until the start of turn 3. Making it possible to do an overdive in turn 2.
    To kind? Well maybe but that's how we play it. The fire still burns 3 turns (3,4 and 5) so you still gets the 3 damagecards if you can't blow out the fire.
    If you get double-sided ruderdamage and you can't do an overdive..... To bad

  12. #12

    Default

    The rules about an overdive and fire damage are in the Advanced Rules section on pages 15 & 16 of the rulebook from the WW1 rules and Accessories Pack.

  13. #13

    Default

    I see my friends have answered your question id detail
    Let me repeat what David wrote: performing an overdive is a very good solution, but you have to play with altitude (not everybode uses altitude) and have to be at least on altitude level 3 to be able to make that maneuver.
    <img src=http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=2554&dateline=1409073309 border=0 alt= />
    "We do not stop playing when we get old, but we get old when we stop playing."

  14. #14

    Default

    There are rules for what happens if you play an illegal maneuver. (It is intended to cover things like forgetting the mandatory straight after an Immelman, for example.) This should be applied here as, in this case, you are required to play an illegal maneuver.

    The illegal move rule is in the basic rules, page 7. Replace the illegal move with a straight and take an A damage card.

  15. #15

    Default

    Well,

    it is the illegal notion that has to be realized in the example proposed by Marek.

    Playing a straight card after an Immelman turn is mandatory, not illegal.
    The player can not chose another card otherwise he will incur in the penalty card (a straight) and he will be forced to pick an A Damage card.

    But, in Marek's question, the plane caught fire after the Immelman Turn card (his third card hence the end of the turn), right before the mandatory straight that he has to play mandatorily as the first card of the next turn.

    Well, it is not his fault, is it? He is required to play the straight card after the Immelman turn AND some other plane shot at him setting his machine on fire.

    If we assume that, being his aircraft on fire, playing the mandatory straight is an illegal manouvre we will force Marek, in the first move of the incoming turn, to pick TWO A Damage card:

    one for the illegal manouvre (he has been said he can not play a straight card when on flame)
    one for the fire on board (contextually discarding a flame marker) as per Rule Book.

    then play, as his first card, a straight card being that the result of the supposed illegal manouvre ...

    In my most humble opinion *that* would be illegal as the player would be forced to have a double penality.

    Mau

  16. #16

    Default

    I agree with you Mau. The key word here is mandatory. That overrides a planned move.
    I find for the Plaintive.
    En passant, With two rudder jams, is it acceptable to sideslip if your plane has the cards. This is not a straight.
    Conversely, If you are not allowed to do a straight because of the rules, does this override the jammed rudder card and make a turn mandatory?

    Rob.
    "Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Officer Kyte View Post
    With two rudder jams, is it acceptable to sideslip if your plane has the cards. This is not a straight.

    Rob.
    No - the sideslip card carries a left arrow (or right arrow) symbol - the rules state that the pilot may not choose cards carrying the left (or right) manoeuvre arrow symbol.

  18. #18

    Default

    Cheers Tim.
    Rob.
    "Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."

  19. #19

    Default

    Playing a non-straight after performing an Immelman is an illegal move. If you do this at any time, the 'illegal move' will apply and you will fly straight and take an A damage. (Conversely, playing a straight after an Immelman is mandatory, and if you don't do this you apply the 'illegal move' rule. The language is different, but either way the effect is the same.)

    Playing a straight while on fire is an illegal move. If you do this at any time... etc. etc. (Playing non-straights may also be considered to be mandatory.)

    In a situation where you are on fire after an Immelman, you are faced with the choice of which illegal move to perform. Either way, the 'illegal move' rule will apply.

    I don't think that it matters whether or not the illegal move is intentional. You are putting stress on the airframe that it cannot take. Yes, it may seem harsh to apply but this is the nature of special damage. It may be harsh to apply twin rudder jams to a player who is about to fly off the table. Sure, it's not his fault but the rules of the game need to apply. Special damage by its very nature forces us to do things which we ordinarily wouldn't do - sometimes to harmful effect.

  20. #20

    Default

    Personally, I'd view the straight at the end of an Immelman as not being a "pure" straight; it's part of a single acrobatic manouvre, with turn and altitude changes that is already occuring as the fire breaks out.

    And therefore is both mandatory and does not acrue additional damage.


    On the other hand, the coincidence of circumstances that gives a double rudder jam while on fire, and causes the user to have three manouvres that would be illegal, feels unlucky, relatively unlikely, but also a narrative that can be imagined, the pilot stamping desperately on pedals, fighting the stick, as flames ungulf the cockpit.

  21. #21

    Default

    Looks as if we aren't going to get a consensus here chaps.
    Could it be time to call in Andrea to arbitrate?
    Rob.
    "Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."

  22. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Officer Kyte View Post
    Conversely, If you are not allowed to do a straight because of the rules, does this override the jammed rudder card and make a turn mandatory?

    Rob.
    Ciao Rob,

    having the rudder jammed both ways and flames on board is such a rare event that means the pilot should not have took off *that* day ...

    I am with Fox on this case as I can figure the plane trapped into a falling spiral of death while the pilot into his cockpit is stamping on pedals while fighting the stick ... with flames all around him. Sadly most pilots and observer, in WWI, jumped off the plane.

    So, in the event of a jammed rudder either left and right AND flames on board, I would simply concede.

    Mau

  23. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Officer Kyte View Post
    Looks as if we aren't going to get a consensus here chaps.
    Could it be time to call in Andrea to arbitrate?
    Rob.
    This is always a good solution

    Mau

  24. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by steel_ratt View Post
    There are rules for what happens if you play an illegal maneuver. (It is intended to cover things like forgetting the mandatory straight after an Immelman, for example.) This should be applied here as, in this case, you are required to play an illegal maneuver.

    The illegal move rule is in the basic rules, page 7. Replace the illegal move with a straight and take an A damage card.
    I brought up this question a ~year ago. If on fire and the previous turn's last card was the Immelmann, you must play the straight after the Immalmann (unless you have an Ace skill that allows otherwise) and take an 'A' damage card.
    If you have rudder jams in both directions you will take an 'A' damage card during that turn for every straight card played. Remember, stalls are not straight, so you can avoid some more damage if you can play one or two. These are useful if not playing altitude and you cannot overdive to put out the fire.
    The best thing you can do is contact your deity of choice and pray for zeros!

  25. #25

    Default

    Andrea pretty much answered this in this thread: http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/sho...new-Ares-rules.

    "Hello!
    A single engine plane with fire can do sideslips. They are not straight - they have a little arrow to left or right on the card. Straights are the ones with a little arrow pointing up.
    I would have eliminated a plane going straight with flames, but Ares preferred to leave the usual penalty for illegal moves - replace with a straight (actually you already have one in this case) and get an A damage. Or eliminate the plane if the optional rule for illegal moves is in use.
    If you have the rudder jammed in both direction, plan stalls or dives or climbs as much as you can (they are not straights). And then illegal moves: plan straights, or left/right cards - no matter which you will plan, they will be replaced with straights and inflict an A card of damage (or eliminate you if the optional rule is in use)."

    So, it would appear you get A damage for the straight after the Immelmann as it is illegal to do so when on fire, if it is the first card of the next turn you will also already have received an A card in exchange for a fire token as well. C'est le Guerre.

    "He is wise who watches"

  26. #26

    Default

    Great thread here guys, I always get sticked by this kind of things. I think what Maurizio said in the post below is the most correct form of dealing with the problem - taking 2 A damage.
    I have a question too. It may be silly but all this conversation made my head spin a little bit ():
    If after the second movement my plane's rudder is damaged (no turns to the left - for example) and my next maneuver is a left turn, I have to execute the turn and get one A damage? Because It may sound wrong say its an illegal maneuver if when I planned it I didn't know I would be caught in fire.
    Thanks


    Nick

    Quote Originally Posted by Mau Fox View Post
    Well,

    it is the illegal notion that has to be realized in the example proposed by Marek.

    Playing a straight card after an Immelman turn is mandatory, not illegal.
    The player can not chose another card otherwise he will incur in the penalty card (a straight) and he will be forced to pick an A Damage card.

    But, in Marek's question, the plane caught fire after the Immelman Turn card (his third card hence the end of the turn), right before the mandatory straight that he has to play mandatorily as the first card of the next turn.

    Well, it is not his fault, is it? He is required to play the straight card after the Immelman turn AND some other plane shot at him setting his machine on fire.

    If we assume that, being his aircraft on fire, playing the mandatory straight is an illegal manouvre we will force Marek, in the first move of the incoming turn, to pick TWO A Damage card:

    one for the illegal manouvre (he has been said he can not play a straight card when on flame)
    one for the fire on board (contextually discarding a flame marker) as per Rule Book.

    then play, as his first card, a straight card being that the result of the supposed illegal manouvre ...

    In my most humble opinion *that* would be illegal as the player would be forced to have a double penality.

    Mau

  27. #27

    Default

    Rudder damage prevents you from planning a turn in the next planning phase. It does not prevent you from playing one that is already planned.

  28. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by QB Fox View Post
    Personally, I'd view the straight at the end of an Immelman as not being a "pure" straight; it's part of a single acrobatic manouvre, with turn and altitude changes that is already occuring as the fire breaks out.

    And therefore is both mandatory and does not acrue additional damage.
    I agree as I believe its part of the whole maneuver.

  29. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by steel_ratt View Post
    Rudder damage prevents you from planning a turn in the next planning phase. It does not prevent you from playing one that is already planned.
    This is most correct.

    As well as fire on board prevents you from planning a straight in the next planning phase, it should not prevent you from playing one that is mandatory.

    It is the two A damage cards that I feel unfair.

    More, in the casuistry exposed by Marek opening this thread, the result of all this fuss is a ... straight card.
    I can not play a straight card due to fire on board. If I do so I will receive a ... straight card as penalty AND an additional A card damange.

    Guys, I have been a Federal football referee (soccer for our friends on the other side of the pond) for 20 years ... If I had judged a foul this way I would not have made it home.

    Rules are sacred but not immutable. Casuistry is what kept Football alive since 150 years

    Mau

  30. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Chum View Post
    I agree as I believe its part of the whole maneuver.
    Ditto.

  31. #31

    Default

    The way we play it... you can always play a straight. In fact, if the pilot is injured, one of your 3 cards has to be a straight. Similarly if you're coming out of an Immelmann or Split-S.

    If you're on fire, you take an extra A class damage for each straight you play.

    Note though that stalls, dives, climbs, and reversals are not "straight"s. Straight means straight - cards 1,2 or 3 in each deck.

  32. #32

    Default

    The two A damage cards that you are getting are for two distinct events and actually happen at different times. The regular fire damage you get immediately after planning, before playing any moves. Then you play your mandatory straight from the Immelman and receive a damage card for playing a straight while on fire. There is no 'doubling up' of damage here.

    Let's look at the logic of it; realism vs game rules. The straight following an Immelman represents the requirement to go straight in order to regain airspeed after the reversal maneuver. If you don't do this, you stall and fall out of the sky. The non-straights required when you are on fire represent the pilot trying to prevent flames from the engine blowing directly back along the fuselage causing more damage. Now, let's put those together -- a pilot has just completed a reversal and his aircraft has caught fire. He must go straight to regain airspeed, but this allows the flames to lick back along the fuselage and the plane will take some additional damage. In game terms, he plays a straight and takes a damage card. This sounds completely reasonable and rational to me.

  33. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by steel_ratt View Post
    The two A damage cards that you are getting are for two distinct events and actually happen at different times. The regular fire damage you get immediately after planning, before playing any moves. Then you play your mandatory straight from the Immelman and receive a damage card for playing a straight while on fire. There is no 'doubling up' of damage here.
    Exactly right Jon

  34. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by steel_ratt View Post
    Then you play your mandatory straight from the Immelman and receive a damage card for playing a straight while on fire. There is no 'doubling up' of damage here.
    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

  35. #35

    Default

    Looks like there is only one way to settle this for sure. Anyone able to contact Andrea so that we can get a statement of clarification?

  36. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by flash View Post
    Andrea pretty much answered this in this thread: http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/sho...new-Ares-rules.

    "Hello!
    A single engine plane with fire can do sideslips. They are not straight - they have a little arrow to left or right on the card. Straights are the ones with a little arrow pointing up.
    I am vindicated.
    Rob.
    "Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."

  37. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by steel_ratt View Post
    Rudder damage prevents you from planning a turn in the next planning phase. It does not prevent you from playing one that is already planned.
    Thanks!

  38. #38

    Default

    I was wondering, how exactly does overdiving to "put out" flames work in the game? This would be good to know.

  39. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HotleadColdfeet View Post
    I was wondering, how exactly does overdiving to "put out" flames work in the game? This would be good to know.
    This is done when playing altitude. I guess you could do it without altitude ..? So, you plan a stall, a dive, then a straight. You lose one level of altitude for the dive and another after the straight. Then you draw one 'B' damage card. Ignore any special damage. If you draw any card other than a zero, that many fire markers are removed. If you draw a zero, no luck and you keep burning.

  40. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mau Fox View Post
    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
    Think of the Immelmann as a 3 card maneuver, not 3 seperate cards you have the choice to play independent of each other. I don't see any hole in the rules on this.
    Last edited by Teaticket; 11-23-2014 at 15:48.

  41. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Teaticket View Post
    This is done when playing altitude. I guess you could do it without altitude ..? So, you plan a stall, a dive, then a straight. You lose one level of altitude for the dive and another after the straight. Then you draw one 'B' damage card. Ignore any special damage. If you draw any card other than a zero, that many fire markers are removed. If you draw a zero, no luck and you keep burning.
    Thanks mate!

  42. #42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Officer Kyte View Post
    I am vindicated.
    Rob.
    Alas, I don't think so.

    "A single engine plane with fire can do sideslips. They are not straight - they have a little arrow to left or right on the card."
    This is true.

    However, a plane with double rudder damage can't do sideslips (with the rules as written):
    Cards with the (left rudder damage) symbol indicate that the rudder of the plane is jammed. This special damage is kept secret. The airplane cannot plan maneuvers to the left (those that have an arrow pointing left in the lower left corner of the card) at the beginning of the next turn. Any maneuvers already selected for the remainder of this turn are carried out as placed.
    Likewise right rudder.
    And as stated, sideslips have the a left/right arrow.

  43. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Teaticket View Post
    Think of the Immelmann as a 3 card maneuver, not 3 seperate cards you have the choice to play independent of each other. I don't see any hole in the rules on this.
    Ciao Peter,

    neither do I see a hole in the rules on this.

    Let's stay focused on the example proposed by Marek.

    Right because I do think of the Immelman sequence as a mandatorily three card maneuver, not 3 separate cards I have the choiche to play independent of each other, I see extremely unfair, in this example, being penalized (i.e. picking up two A Damage Cards) for being forced to play the mandatory straight card in order to finalize the Immelman Turn sequence.

    I had the choice to abort the Immelman without incurring in any penalty I would do that.
    But rules are clear, on page 7, I simply can not plan, either intentionally or by mistake, any other card but a straight.

    THEN, it happens that I have fire on board.
    Rules are clear on that: at the beginning of each turn before I will reveal any card
    1) I will pick up an A Damage Card and will discard a flame marker
    2) I will not plan any straight card as Rules simply state that I can not do that.
    Rules don't say I will be penalized for playing a straight. I simply am not allowed even to think on that.

    I can not plan any straight card when on fire. There is no difficulty at all to understand this statement, even for a beginner.

    I can not plan vs. I have to mandatorily play the straight card in order to finalize the Immelman Turn sequence. This is the hole.

    Guys, of course this is a borderline case but what if this happens in a Convention? In an International Event? Where people pay to attend?

    Rules say nothing to clarify the difference, monumental in Marek's example, between the words to plan and mandatorily.

    And I have to beg for your patience, guys, as English is not my mother language and THIS could be a huge obstacle to make you fully understand what I am trying to expose.

    Mau

  44. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by QB Fox View Post
    Alas, I don't think so.

    "A single engine plane with fire can do sideslips. They are not straight - they have a little arrow to left or right on the card."
    This is true.

    However, a plane with double rudder damage can't do sideslips (with the rules as written):
    Cards with the (left rudder damage) symbol indicate that the rudder of the plane is jammed. This special damage is kept secret. The airplane cannot plan maneuvers to the left (those that have an arrow pointing left in the lower left corner of the card) at the beginning of the next turn. Any maneuvers already selected for the remainder of this turn are carried out as placed.
    Likewise right rudder.
    And as stated, sideslips have the a left/right arrow.
    Airtight.

  45. #45

    Default

    The solution to the "problem" could be simpler than any one would expect.

    As well as, in case of Rudder Damage, Rules state that Rudder Damage prevents you from planning a turn in the next planning phase. It does not prevent you from playing one that is already planned.

    Fire Damage Rules should state that Fire Damage prevents you from planning a straight in the next planning phase. It does not prevent you from playing one that is already planned or mandatory.

    Mau

  46. #46

    Default

    Since that agrees with what I'd already like the answer to be, I'm going with that.

  47. #47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mau Fox View Post
    The solution to the "problem" could be simpler than any one would expect.
    As well as, in case of Rudder Damage, Rules state that Rudder Damage prevents you from planning a turn in the next planning phase. It does not prevent you from playing one that is already planned.
    Fire Damage Rules should state that Fire Damage prevents you from planning a straight in the next planning phase. It does not prevent you from playing one that is already planned or mandatory.Mau
    this was my argument on the other thread regards two rudder jam & fire question: "..what happens if airplane on fire gets both left and right rudder jams? It's not allowed to go straight, and it can't turn..."

    Quote Originally Posted by flash View Post
    .... If the rules say "only non-straight manoeuvres can be planned" then under these circumstances the straights are, quite clearly, unplanned manoeuvres and must, therefore, be allowable under the rules.
    That was when I asked Andrea the question - his response I posted above but I will quote again for completeness:

    Quote Originally Posted by Angiolillo View Post
    Hello!
    A single engine plane with fire can do sideslips. They are not straight - they have a little arrow to left or right on the card. Straights are the ones with a little arrow pointing up.
    I would have eliminated a plane going straight with flames, but Ares preferred to leave the usual penalty for illegal moves - replace with a straight (actually you already have one in this case) and get an A damage. Or eliminate the plane if the optional rule for illegal moves is in use.
    If you have the rudder jammed in both direction, plan stalls or dives or climbs as much as you can (they are not straights). And then illegal moves: plan straights, or left/right cards - no matter which you will plan, they will be replaced with straights and inflict an A card of damage (or eliminate you if the optional rule is in use).
    It is quite clear that his intent (and preference) was that if you did a straight (planned or mandatory) when on fire then your aircraft would be destroyed (as per an "illegal" move in original game) but Ares wished the straight/A card option which is what they went with in the rules; destruction being an optional rule.

    Historically in discussion with Andrea the immelmann turn is the Immelmann card itself not the three cards - Straight/Immelmann/Straight - it's just that in order to utilise it the cards before and after it must be a straights... unless your pilot has acrobatic ace skills !

    "He is wise who watches"

  48. #48

    Default

    Good enough for me Dave.
    Rob.
    "Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."

  49. #49

    Default

    Thank you very much guys for offering your time to answer the many questions raised by users.

    That's why I like this Forum and that's why I find it very helpful. Dialectic is what helps to keep things evolving.

    For everything else there are the Holy House Rules.

    Mau

  50. #50

    Default

    Yes! Whatever the results of our debates, we can't say that it is not entertaining.
    Rob.
    "Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Missions

  1. Immelmann, Climb, Stall, Rudder Damage, Overdivel and Fire!
    By Nicodemus in forum WGS: Rules Help
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-16-2013, 09:12
  2. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 02-25-2013, 13:51
  3. Immelmann Turn Question
    By Pope in forum WGF: Rules Help
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 03-15-2011, 17:58
  4. The REAL Immelmann turn
    By phililphall in forum WGF: General Discussions
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-10-2010, 10:23
  5. Immelmann Turn created by RFC?
    By Khargor in forum WGF: General Discussions
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 09-17-2010, 15:16

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •