Clarification - Aircraft on fire - change of rules regarding straight maneuvers?

[RFT]

In the downloadable rulebook, at the end of the section on special damage - Fire (page 13), it states


Until all the flame counters are removed, the airplane cannot plan any straight maneuver.


The BofB book has a different rule


Until all the flame counters are removed, the airplane cannot execute any straight maneuver. If it reveals one, it is eliminated.


and interestingly, this does not include the "maneuvers already selected are carried out" part that the rudder damage text has.

So- is it intentional then that if I have a straight planned already at the moment my plane catches fire, it's instant death when that maneuver is revealed?

[CappyTom]

Yes, this is most interesting. It does allow you to do a straight as part of an overdive. This is on page 17 of the new rule book with BoB. So I would say you get a pass if it is an already planned maneuver. But none after that. But this is just my opinion.
:sHawker:
Thomas

[gully_raker]

Yes, this is most interesting. It does allow you to do a straight as part of an overdive. This is on page 17 of the new rule book with BoB. So I would say you get a pass if it is an already planned maneuver. But none after that. But this is just my opinion.
:sHawker:
Thomas

:sAprvd: Yes I agree Tom. In WW1 you are always allowed to play pre planned cards without penalty.
The Straight restriction comes into force from the first card of the next Turn & yes you can attempt an Overdive too.

[Naharaht]

In an Overdive, you play a straight card but you are not executing a straight manoeuvre, since it is actually representing a second dive card. So you are not automatically eliminated by Fire Damage. This is backed up by the Fire Damage section on page 17 where it explains how an Overdive can be used to discard Flame Counters.

However, if you receive Fire Damage in the middle of an Immelmann Turn or a Split S, it looks like you are doomed because they must be concluded by a straight manoeuvre.

You could try querying this with Angiollio to confirm whether the intention was for it to apply to a card, which had been selected before the damage occurred.

[surfimp]

I noticed this difference, too, while reading through the BoB rulebook.

My takeaway is that it's a subtle attempt to discourage overuse of the Immelmann and Split-S, by making the chance of taking fire damage in the midst of one the effective equivalent of drawing a "kaboom" damage.

The reversal card - whether triggered via Immelmann or Split-S - is easily the most powerful maneuver in the game, especially in the WWII setting where most planes require at least 3 and typically 4 consecutive turning maneuvers in order to change facing 180*.

Excessive use of the reversal card - which is very tempting to do - can easily result in both players engaging in repeated "jousts" composed of successive head-on passes. All other tactical maneuvering goes out the window and it becomes a simple matter of luck as to who "wins," with the advantage going to the plane with higher hitpoints and/or damage output. This is especially the case in WWI, where it can be difficult to get out of gunrange from a well-timed reversal, making the temptation to counter with your own reversal - and at least ensure you answer shooting with shooting - that much greater.

Assuming this change to fire damage rules in the BoB starter isn't an oversight or error, it seems that the designers have recognized this and attempted to subtly increase the risk/reward for engaging in repeated head-on passes via multiple (perhaps chained) reversal movements.

[Naharaht]

Angiollio has written about this in entry #475. http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/showthread.php?25543-WGS-Battle-of-Britain-Update/page10

[RFT]

Thanks. quoting here for easy reference in case anyone else is looking in future.


This is a rule that the editors at Ares Games never liked, and it is occasion of a debate every time we do a new edition.

My rule was the one in the Rules & Accessories pack: you can not plan a straight.

The rule comes from the fact that if you have flames from your engine and you fly straight, they reach you. It happened.

I preferred to forbid to plan a straight, not to penalize somebody who already planned a straight as you say. But there are some issues. If you plan a straight and it is forbidden, what happens? It is illegal, and if you do not use the optional rules that with an illegal maneuvre you go out of control and are eliminated, then you must replace the illegal maneuvre with a straight and take an A damage token. For me it worked - keep the straight and take the damage. But some people found that it was counterintuitive to replace a straight with a straight.

For clarity and simplicity sake, the rule has been edited explicitely stating all effects and linking the effect to execution of a straight, that's easier to check than seeing if it was an illegal maneuvre when planned. So if you are going straight and the flames erupts, they reach the pilot and you are eliminated. A kind of an additional explosion. Realistic maybe, but unpleasant in game terms. So keep it as it is now written, ignore it or use the previous rule instead (an illegal maneuvre is a straight planned while on fire instead than revealed while on fire, and it means an A damage with normal rules and elimination with the optional one) as you prefer.

[Setarius]

In an Overdive, you play a straight card but you are not executing a straight manoeuvre, since it is actually representing a second dive card. So you are not automatically eliminated by Fire Damage. This is backed up by the Fire Damage section on page 17 where it explains how an Overdive can be used to discard Flame Counters.

However, if you receive Fire Damage in the middle of an Immelmann Turn or a Split S, it looks like you are doomed because they must be concluded by a straight manoeuvre.


My thought on this is that if you play an Immelman or a Split-S and you catch fire in the middle of it, thus mandating you can't play a straight while on fire, you have originally planned the final straight, so any straight after that the rule would be in effect.

My question would be on the discrepancy between the fire damage rule and the Ace pilot abilities in the BoB RAP.
PAGE 12 of BoB RAP Special damage--Smoke and PAGE 13 of BoB RAP Special damage--Fire both state that you take 6, SIX, of the appropriate tokens and remove one before each movement.
While PAGE 23 Technical Abilities in Ace skills--Fire Expert states when receiving Smoke or Fire damage, this airplane takes 2 tokens instead of 3.

Which of these is correct?

Before BoB you only took 3 tokens but in BoB you now take 6?

[Teaticket]

My thought on this is that if you play an Immelman or a Split-S and you catch fire in the middle of it, thus mandating you can't play a straight while on fire, you have originally planned the final straight, so any straight after that the rule would be in effect.

My question would be on the discrepancy between the fire damage rule and the Ace pilot abilities in the BoB RAP.
PAGE 12 of BoB RAP Special damage--Smoke and PAGE 13 of BoB RAP Special damage--Fire both state that you take 6, SIX, of the appropriate tokens and remove one before each movement.
While PAGE 23 Technical Abilities in Ace skills--Fire Expert states when receiving Smoke or Fire damage, this airplane takes 2 tokens instead of 3.

Which of these is correct?

Before BoB you only took 3 tokens but in BoB you now take 6?

In WGS fire and smoke has always been 6 tokens. The BoB rules are in error when talking about the fire expert ace skill. I think it should be 4 instead of 6, not 2 instead of 3.

I don't have my WGS BoB rules with me so I can't check the fire rule, if it has changed or not.

[Naharaht]

I queried the Fire Damage Ace Skill text with Ares back in April. Roberto Di Meglio said that Ares were preparing an errata document for BoB but he thought that taking 4 counters instead of 6 was correct.

[Setarius]

You're right it is 6 tokens for fire and smoke in WGS, I went back and checked my Dawn of War boxed set rules and saw where I had overlooked the number of counters.
I've played more WGF than WGS, so I got them a little mixed up.

[Stumptonian]

I really wonder about the fire "going out" after pulling six 'A' chits (3 in WGF)
:hmm:
What about changing to Smoke?
Pulling a second smoke restarts the flames.
If you leave the table you survive if smoking, but must resolve 6 chits if on fire.
I really don't think fire should simply stop.

[Ryan_LV]

So my son and I just played our first mission with the B17 model and the same question came up about straight maneuvers after a fire. I can see the logic with a single engine plane but for planes with 2 or 4 engines? And does an explosion take out the B17 as well, seems kinda OP when facing 109-K's and their D damage deck. Any help is greatly appreciated...it was a short mission for the Belle.

[Teaticket]

I know in the WWI version multi-enginge planes can plane straight maneuvers. I have played WW2 the same. I'll have to check the rules to make sure its the same for WW2.

[Teaticket]

Ok, confirmed. Page 32 of the WW2 rule book (both original WOG and BoB version) says a multi-engine planes can still plan straight maneuvers.

[Setarius]

So my son and I just played our first mission with the B17 model and the same question came up about straight maneuvers after a fire. I can see the logic with a single engine plane but for planes with 2 or 4 engines? And does an explosion take out the B17 as well, seems kinda OP when facing 109-K's and their D damage deck. Any help is greatly appreciated...it was a short mission for the Belle.

On the EXP Ryan, most of us have agreed that the EXP or BOOM card will do half damage to bombers and full damage on single engine planes. Half damage being considered as half of the damage you could take at the start of the game.
Or you could say that the 109 canon shell hit a bomb in the plane causing a chain reaction, thus destroying the plane.

I once used a ricochet to set off a bomb, in an Over the Trenches Scenario, to explain the BOOM card to the pilot who had been flying along and suddenly woke up in a hospital bed blind. I believe it is scenario #2 or #3 in the OTT section, if you want to read it.

[Ryan_LV]

Guys thanks for all the help, happy new years