Explosion card drawn while overlapping

[Wats3945]

We had a situation tonight in the league that I play in that I want to get other people's opinion on how to handle it. We had four aircraft on the table three of which were overlapping (one aircraft overlapping another aircraft and the second aircraft overlapping a third one but not touching the first one) and the fourth taking a shot at one of the overlapping aircraft. When the damage was drawn for being shot at the explosion card was drawn. We play if aircraft is overlapping another aircraft both are considered out. Here is where the questions started. Since the third aircraft was not in actual contact with the first aircraft that drew the explosion card would it be out as well? If so would it count as a second kill for the pilot that shot the first aircraft? Would the first plane get a kill for the second ( allied with the shooter) for the second aircraft? I can make a strong case for and against all three planes going down and for awarding kills or not. How would your group play this situation?

[Flying Officer Kyte]

As the "Bang" card represents a cataclysmic failure rather than an actual explosion per say, I would not involve other aircraft in the damage unless they were in actual contact, and then draw a C card for all aircraft concerned in the collision.
Rob.

[flash]

We had a situation tonight in the league that I play in that I want to get other people's opinion on how to handle it. We had four aircraft on the table three of which were overlapping (one aircraft overlapping another aircraft and the second aircraft overlapping a third one but not touching the first one) and the fourth taking a shot at one of the overlapping aircraft. When the damage was drawn for being shot at the explosion card was drawn. We play if aircraft is overlapping another aircraft both are considered out. Here is where the questions started. Since the third aircraft was not in actual contact with the first aircraft that drew the explosion card would it be out as well? If so would it count as a second kill for the pilot that shot the first aircraft? Would the first plane get a kill for the second ( allied with the shooter) for the second aircraft? I can make a strong case for and against all three planes going down and for awarding kills or not. How would your group play this situation?

I don't play it this way as, like Rob, I view that card as critical failure of the aircraft rather than an explosion (I'm not sure they did explode, more fell apart !) but as you play it that 'if aircraft is overlapping another aircraft both are considered out' when the boom card is drawn then I would go with just the first two are affected by the card not the third and I would also count two kills for the pilot that fired the fatal shots. I can see no case for the first aircraft getting credit for downing the second just because he exploded on him - taking it that the explosion on his part was unintentional !!
:)

[Hunter]

I agree with both opinions here, we play if you'rev within half a ruler length when 'boomer' is drawn you then must draw a 'C' damage, a la FOK.

[Пилот]

I agree with Major Failure interpretation.

But, what if burning plane collides with other plane? Does non-burning plane starts to burn (and how long)?

[Flying Officer Kyte]

I agree with Major Failure interpretation.

But, what if burning plane collides with other plane? Does non-burning plane starts to burn (and how long)?

For my way of playing that would be an over complication too far, but I can see that this might happen in extreme circumstances.
I think this fixation with fire is born from the stories told about pilots who feared the outcome of a burning aircraft. The number who mention flying through burning wreckage, and yet do not catch fire, lead me to think that it was not a feature of which we should be unduly concerned.
Rob.

[Пилот]

Thanks, F.O.K!

[Flying Officer Kyte]

Thanks, F.O.K!

My pleasure.
Of course if the collision C card has special damage fire on it, you may take this as an extreme condition and choose to use it.
Rob.

[Пилот]

I already do :) I even use all special damage. Seems me right to get more than points sometimes.

[Flying Officer Kyte]

I already do :) I even use all special damage. Seems me right to get more than points sometimes.

I have always felt that this was something of an anomaly. Why a collision should not include engine damage, smoke, fire, or rudder damage is something only Andrea could explain. Maybe the thinking was that C cards were dangerous enough, but if so why not restrict damage to an A card with all the special danage attributes retained.
Rob.

[fast.git]

I already do :) I even use all special damage. Seems me right to get more than points sometimes.

I do the same. Collisions have the potential to be nasty.

[HTRAINo]

Yes, me too. It makes you want to avoid a collision more if you get punished for it. I have been accused of ramming before though ;)

[Пилот]

Mmmm, rammming... Excellent. :crossing-fingers -in-Mr.-Burns-way smiley:

(And yes, I know, it can spoil a game ;) )

[Bobit]

Bushido!
And adding damage to a collision doesn't make it more of a punishment...
When you're trying to kill the other plane :boxing:

[fast.git]

Bushido!
And adding damage to a collision doesn't make it more of a punishment...
When you're trying to kill the other plane :boxing:
Well... yeah. Of course you're trying to kill the other guy. Typically, killing myself in the process isn't a part of the plan. :eek: ;)

[Пилот]

Well... yeah. Of course you're trying to kill the other guy. Typically, killing myself in the process isn't a part of the plan. :eek: ;)

Well, you at least play draw during process :)

[rcboater]

At the risk of taking this thread a little further off topic, I don't like nor use the collision rules. I feel they are too harsh, especially in a game system where I can't avoid a collision by playing a 35.7 degree turn instead of a 45 degree turn to avoid the collision. Having read several first hand accounts recently, collisions just don't seem that common. In my games, any overlaps (post on base) are considered to be "near-misses".

Coming back on topic, I also agree that the explosion card is critical failure, not an actual fireball. I've renamed my explosion cards "Critical Hits", and send you to the Critical Hits deck for damage. In that deck, there is a 2 out of 32 chance you'll get a fireball. If you do, an overlapped plane draws two "A" cards, and special damage counts.

Finally, IRT your original question, I'd say that If "A" overlaps "B", and "B" overlaps "C", but "A" does not overlap "C", and "A" explodes, then "C" would not be affected.
Furthermore, if both "A" and "B" were enemy craft, the shooter would get credit for both (At least in WW1 he would) Witnesses would say "I saw Major Tom shooting at these two enemy planes flying close together-- one blew up and the other fell apart."


Just my opinion, it meets my personal needs for the balance between historical accuracy and playability, and YMMV.