My reading of the rules (often flawed ) is that CAP is set up at the table edge where it will enter play; so the CAP formation is not actually on the table and hence it cannot be intercepted before it enters play.

Just out of idle interest, how would play be affected if CAP could be intercepted at the table edge?

I think this takes the air rules into territory they just can't cope with.

Lets face it they are pretty basic and any tampering would actually end up in a major rewrite.

Why wouldn't you just set up your own CAP to intercept the enemy CAP when it finished it's approach move? Creating a "furball" as it were.

I believe many play with CAPable CAP.

Yeah, it can get confusing...

EA's air rules have always been naff.

No, this is specifically not CAPing CAP, but rather intercepting the CAP formation where it is set up on the table edge before it is used which would remove that kind of complexity. So you would get

• Side A goes on CAP
• Side B wants to get bombers through, so first it activates fighters to Intercept. This is resolved as usual - Interceptors move to attack the A/c on CAP at the table edge. Either the target formation or another may CAP the interceptors, then the air combat is resolved as usual.
  (Note this may raise questions on ZoC etc, but it is not a major issue.)
• Side B now retains and Ground Assaults with the unopposed bombers

Meph, I am not sure about this being 'new territory', though I do understand your point. The end result would be two or three formations engaged in air combat in exactly the same manner as now.

However, this would allow a player to use interceptors to clear away CAP which seemed to be a reasonable facimile of escorts trying to protect the bombers. Any remaining CAP would take on the bombers as usual.

Gavin is asking whether the CAP aircraft that have been set up on the table edge are considered to be "on the table" and thus in play (and consequently a valid target for an Interception), or whether their presence on the board edge is merely an indicator of their angle of approach (And consequently they would not be a valid target for an Interception).

I'd go re-read the Interception rules themselves before I made any decisions.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Quoted For Truth.

Morgan Vening
- You know, I'm no art critic. But I know what I hate.

Functionally, this isn't much different than CAPing CAP formations. The order of attacks and resolution is the same, whether you carry it out over 2 activations (Intercept/Bomber run) or 1 (bomber run with CAPing CAP). The difference is that if the Interceptors failed miserably the bombers haven't already been committed so you could call them off or choose a different target.

As far as mechanics, I think this would be problematic. You'd have to either consider the planes off-board and make the attacks in the abstract, without the ability of the CAP formations to ever benefit from their own flak, or you'd have to consider them on-board and mess with all the placement and AA coverage issues. Either approach would have a lot of interactions that would have to be parsed out.

Agreed with Hena, it only shows from where they will enter; they're not on the board yet.

Hena and Zombo;
I agree that currently CAP is not on-table, so cannot be intercepted - I was asking a 'what-if' question'.

Neal,;
I was proposing that CAP would be considered to be 'on-table', so potentially protected by it's own ground AA (and even by another CAP formation). The same interactions would occur as currently, and we would still 'parse' the same steps during the air combat.

I don't see this as a simplification to the existing rules, more a change to the air tactics etc. One benefit would be that target and interceptors would likely face off against each other in the forward arcs, so better representing a 'dogfight' than the current mechanics. You have mentioned a drawback, that the bombers would not yet have been committed.

So, does this approach assist or detract from the current air rules?

Hena and Zombo;
I agree that currently CAP is not on-table, so cannot be intercepted - I was asking a 'what-if' question'.

Neal,;
I was proposing that CAP would be considered to be 'on-table', so potentially protected by it's own ground AA (and even by another CAP formation). The same interactions would occur as currently, and we would still 'parse' the same steps during the air combat.

I don't see this as a simplification to the existing rules, more a change to the air tactics etc. One benefit would be that target and interceptors would likely face off against each other in the forward arcs, so better representing a 'dogfight' than the current mechanics. You have mentioned a drawback, that the bombers would not yet have been committed.

So, does this approach assist or detract from the current air rules?

I am not!

I was teaching the game to a friend and this exact situation came up. I put a unit of Nightwings on CAP and the next activation was my friend trying to Intercept them. We came to the same conclusion, that they were "out of reach", and so he put his on CAP anyway.

The end result was (quite likely) the same. He brought on bombers, I jumped them with my CAP, he bounced my CAP with his CAP...and the scrum in the middle was quite fun.

I would venture that changing the way that CAP is currently would be a bad thing. Maybe the CAP is just "too far behind enemy lines" to commit to, but sometimes CAP is a way of getting your planes up "just in case" without having to actually engage them. It is possible for the circumstances to just be too poorly against you to actually want to commit your fighters, and thus not make them interceptable.

It is also a valid stall tactic, I think. If you just cant decide what to do, or have that extra formation, burn a "CAP" order and then make your opponent go. Now, if HE just puts a unit on CAP as well, well, you get what you deserve (what comes around, goes around!), but I think it works as-is.

Your name is Gavin too?

"Ginger", who I know in real life, is a Gavin.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Yes, the very Scottish name of Gavin Andrew McClain McClements Yea, 4 names. WTF!