Raised to answer the questions posed in the recent Barrage thread

QUESTION #1
When can an aircraft use it's AA capability defensively against an enemy aircraft?

1. Only against enemy aircraft that are attacking it (within range and arc) - so A/c do not provide a flying AA 'umbrella'
2. Against any enemy aircraft that end their movement in range and arc - so A/c do provide an AA 'umbrella'

The relevant section is Some have interpreted defensively to be 'in defense of', and hence that flying aircraft do project a small flying AA umbrella for the rest of the move (option b).

Personally I have always understood defensively and the subsequent comments on enemy interceptors to refer to the aircraft itself, so no AA umbrella (option a). I might add this seems to fit with the 'immediate disengagement' thoughts expressed by Neal, because the aircraft would not naturally remain in position on the battlefield.


QUESTION #2
Disengaging A/c are moved to a table edge where any final AA fire is resolved. So, what happens where an aircraft ends its disengagement move within the firing arc and range of an enemy aircraft?
Equally, does the order that aircraft disengage matter?

Answer:-
Since no attack is occuring at this point in the move, there is no 'defensive' air AA firing, (though a 'landed' air transport is a ground unit and so can fire).


Thoughts?

The last time this was cleared up it was stated that all aircraft leave at the same time (alternating formations removal is only to allow checking of ground AA) so there wouldn't be any AA by other aircraft only ground AA.
Any "landed" air transports could only fire if they were remaining on the ground and not disengaging that turn.

another bit of the rules after the section Ginger quoted (it's late and I can't be arsed to find it ) states that aircraft can only fire their AA weapons when

a) intercepting/CAPing another aircraft fm
b) being intercepted/ CAP'd by an aircraft fm.

That is, it must be either attacking a fm or being attacked by a fm to use it's AA weapons. A second aircraft fm flying through/ ending up in it's weapons arc that is not attacking the original aircraft fm does not count as either attacking or being attacked (as part of the original aircraft fm's activation), so therefore cannot be fired on by the original aircraft fm.

hmm the language is a bit woolly (as usual) but I think it's talking about ground flak and tacking on air flak in addition

Ground flak can fire at anything
Aircraft can only flak if they are on a ground attack mission and only at 'interceptors'

Aircraft don't have to 'stop' within range and arc of ground flak to be targets, passing through is sufficient. The rules don't specify this special case for air flak, so we can assume the default, the target unit must end it's move in range of the flak weapons.

Apart from these there don't seem to be any other restrictions

That's my raw reading

Personall however I'd prefer it if air flak can only be fired at aircraft that are directly attacking it (and not restricted to aircraft on ground attack either)

Well put Alansa

Guys, I think the situation for ground AA is clear; it can fire once per turn at each enemy air formation that passes through its arc of fire, either on the air formation's approach or disengagement moves. But air attacks are more debatable

Hena,
The section you quote allows AA weapons to make multiple attacks which is obviously true for ground units. But does that relate to air units? This bit from 4.2.4 - - seems to restrict air AA to 'interceptors' rather than all enemy aircraft. But does this make defensive fire 'self-defense'?

Mathewmuppet,
I think the bit you are refering to is at the start of 4.2.3 However, while this covers your option a), I am not sure whether it answers your option b). Seems to me that it refers to 4.2.4, leaving unanswered the question on whether defensive air fire is reserved for 'self-defense' or 'in-defense-of'.

Neal, this is the topic

My group has always played with the umbrella effect. However, I really don't feel a strong tie to it; it simply is the way we've played.

Without the umbrella simplifies things.

Question 1: It's B.

The quoted text in 4.2.4 applies to ALL flak attacks, not just aircraft AA. Distinctions between aircraft and ground flak are delineated later in the section. If you're going to use that justification for restricting flak attacks only to formations that are being targeted by the aircraft, then you have to apply that to ground formations as well. Obviously, that's not intended. All AA weapons retain the ability to make flak attacks unless explicitly noted otherwise (broken and marching, for instance).

For a bit more context...

I think "defensively" is in a descriptive clause and not intended to be actual rule material. I'd also argue that is probably meant in the sense of "in reaction to an attack" rather than "directly defending itself" and that its purpose is emphasizing the lack of choice and passive nature of the the flak attack, c.f. 4.2.3.

As long as I can remember, if you stop in the fire arc of an enemy aircraft's AA, it gets to attack. I can't recall it ever being questioned. In fact, during BL playtesting there were extensive discussions about the 45cm FA AA on the Helltalons being placed at the board edge in a way that the overlapping fields created a huge AA umbrella. That led to similar discussions of the Phoenix bombers using a tactic with a formation turned in at a target like this:
_._
/|\

So that on the opposite side of the target there was a large fan of AA from their overlapping FA AA arcs.

==

Question 2: No air-to-air AA attacks happen during disengaging. Aircraft disengage simultaneously so they can never end a move in enemy aircraft AA range and arc. The "board edge" sentence about shooting at disengaging aircraft is in the paragraph describing ground unit flak firing at "flyby" targets. That doesn't apply to air-to-air. Aircraft AA does not get to do that.

==


As far as I know, there is no such text.

You might be thinking of 4.2.3, when it makes a distinction between active, intercepting AA attacks by aircraft and reactive flak attacks taken by both aircraft and ground units, but it does state explicitly that aircraft get flak attacks:


Or you might be thinking of the explanatory note that aircraft on ground attack do get to attack interceptors before the interceptors attack:

But that's an explanatory note, a clarification, that it does apply, not an implicit restriction that it only applies in that case.

And of course, before I could get a response, more posts...


I understand that delineating choices or features can be argued to be a restriction. In legal documents the almost always include phrases that signal that the example or list is not intended to be a restriction. So, you might have something like "The term 'household goods' shall include, without limitation, the following items..." Or "for the purposes of example and without in any way limiting the generality of the above..."

And so it is with rules lawyers as well. That's exactly the point of starting with the word "note". It is a signal phrase that you are calling someone's attention to a particular situation or application, as in "please take note that the following is one of the ramifications...", not describing a summary of all situations or applications or limiting the general nature of whatever you are commenting on.

"You cannot hit Billy. If you hit him, he will hit back. Note this means if you punch him in the nose, he will hit you."

Do you think that last sentence restricts Billy's protection to only his nose and that Billy would not hit you if you punched him in the throat? Of course not. It is obviously an explanatory note for the purpose of clarification. It is not a restriction. Examples don't limit application only to the example situation.

You should change 'cannot' to 'should not'. As it stands, rule one being ironclad, restricts rule two from occuring, and hence the note is moot.

You could also add 'without reprisal' to the end of the first sentence. That would probably be the more elegant approach.



Morgan Vening

Neal, while I understand the point of view I don't think it is quite as simple as this. To some extent it depends on a persons perspective of the game turn; if all activations are considered to be concurrent, then all the aircraft are considered to be operating simultaneously and can interact, so it is reasonable to play with 'air AA umbrellas'. Conversely, if activations are considered to occur consecutively, then aircraft will be considered to be arriving and leaving at different points in time and will therefore not interact, thus no 'air AA umbrellas’.

These paradigms were really at the heart of the 'immediate disengagement' debate, and I thought that we reluctantly decided to leave things as they were, even though that jarred with the way the game played - suggesting that we viewed the game as a sequence of events rather than simultaneous.

To the wording debate, I have to disagree with your interpretations. Apart from the first paragraph, 4.2.4 refers entirely to Ground formations either implicitly or explicitly (aircraft cannot march or be broken while flying; they cannot attack later in the turn once they have activated; they don't suffer -1 for having moved etc). In fact, the only reference to aircraft AA is in the "note", which therefore takes on more sigificance IMHO than a mere amplification of the rules in the previous sentence. Hence the point of the topic.

Like Mosc says, playing without 'umbrellas' is much simpler and more intuitive, and seems to align with the intended game paradigm, though playing with 'umbrellas' is Ok too. ,

I any event, I think this should be added to the FAQ list.