"GQ 1: Japanese torpedoes." Topic

The rules for torpedo attacks in GQ1 state that "if the range is less than 2" or more than 36" (37" and 72" respectively in the case of the second game turn for Japanese torpedoes), the attack fails."

I read this as that Japanese ships cannot make torpedo attacks at ranges under 37". This seems counter intuitive. The Long Lance did not need 9,000 metres to arm, and it makes night actions such as Tassafaronga or Savo Island were fought at fairly close range. The above rule makes these actions much more difficult to refight.

Does anyone play the rules as written, or do they allow Japanese ships to launch torpedo attacks at shorter ranges?

The rules for torpedo attacks in GQ1 state that "if the range is less than 2" or more than 36" (37" and 72" respectively in the case of the second game turn for Japanese torpedoes), the attack fails."

I read this as that Japanese ships cannot make torpedo attacks at ranges under 37". This seems counter intuitive. The Long Lance did not need 9,000 metres to arm, and it makes night actions such as Tassafaronga or Savo Island were fought at fairly close range. The above rule makes these actions much more difficult to refight.

Does anyone play the rules as written, or do they allow Japanese ships to launch torpedo attacks at shorter ranges?

I've no idea how you are reading that into the rule
The rule says you can't fire torpedoes at under 2".
The extra bit about Japanese torps is because they run for a second turn.
So in the first turn after launching, jap torps can hit targets between 2" and 36" away; in the next turn, if they are still running, they can hit targets between 37" and 72" away. Seems clear enough.

I read the brackets as indicating that 37" was the minimum range. Otherwise, why include it? Simply stating the maximum range would have been enough.
I would agree with your interpretation, but I've played people in the past who insist on a long range interpretation of the rule.

Even if you interpret it as such … it would be particular to the 2nd turn only. Played those rules for year without ever encountering anyone using your interpretation. Clearly not the intent as updated with GQ3.

I am a long term player of GQ and my understanding is the same as Dexter Ward's.
Japanese torpedoes definitely did not have a 9000 m arming distance. That would indeed be ridiculous piece of weapons system design. This can be proven by looking at the ranges at which US ships were actually torpedoed as you say in your original post.

That is CLEARLY stating that the 37-72 is for the second turn only.

The only gotcha I would have is a ship at 36.5" is safe…

To Quote the rule from GQ 1: page 13

"4) The 21" torpedoes used by most wartime navies have a maximum practical range of 36" (9,000 scale yds.) and an endurance of one Game Turn. Japanese 24" torpedoes have a range of 72" (36" per Game Turn) and an endurance of two Game Turns. Torpedoes which miss their targets sink at the end of their endurance, eliminating any chance of later hits"

9) Japanese torpedoes

"b) The torpedoes have a normal range of 2" through 36" during the first Game Turn; their range during the second Game Turn is 37" through 72"."

36.5" is technically by a strict legalese interpretation safe from a 1 game turn(36") torpedo, and from a two game turn (72") torpedo. I however, would not allow such a safe space in a game I was running. The safe 1" space makes no sense. Your mileage may differ.

Thanks all for the clarifications. It confirms my thoughts and shows it's not just Phil Barker whose rule writing can be twisted. And I agree with Dances that a 1" safe space makes no sense. Will continue to play as normal.

Many thanks!

> 36.5" is technically by a strict legalese interpretation safe from a 1 game turn(36") torpedo, and from a two game turn (72") torpedo.

Things like that, and not CLEARLY defining how to handle fractions when rounding are the first things I look for when I "playtest" rules.

The real problem is if you have the misfortune to be playing with rules lawyers who want to look for interpretations like this!
I can just about accept it in fantasy rules but not when it goes against clear historical fact.

@Fantasque: Agee. And the rules could be (and were…) interepreted as saying that a Japanese torpedo attack at less than 37" range fails…

The way they are written suggests a direct substitution of those longer ranges noted in brackets for the shorter ranges. Thankfully most players are reasonable – it's the first time in over 30 years playing GQ that I've had an opponent take that line, and I shall likely not be playing them again.

They seem pretty straightforward to me, unlike many other rules, especially in context with real-world designs.

Rules lawyers trying to make stuff up that isn't there should be keelhauled.

> The real problem is if you have the misfortune to be playing with rules lawyers who want to look for interpretations like this!

So – do those torpedoes hit on Turn 1 or turn 2? Could be a major difference there. It is not rules lawyering to expect there are no holes in the rules.

It seems pretty clear to me that the author intended for those torpedoes to hit on turn 2, despite some poor wording in portions of "Torpedo Combat".

For example, IIRC, most GQ ranges are rounded up, as in "Gunnery Combat" 9-c: "Find the range . . . which is equal to or more than the actual distance to the target." So extending the concept to torpedoes, 36.5" rounds up to 37".

In another example, it says in "Torpedo Combat" 4: "Japanese 24" torpedoes have a range of 72" (36" per Game Turn) . . . ". This would seem to imply that they travel 36" in the first game turn, and then continue on to 72" in the second.

IMHO, anyone who claims that long lances in GQ are ineffective at 36.5" is playing wargames for the wrong reason. If winning is your thing, pick an activity where winning matters.

MH

That is one interpretation. The rules don't truly say…

In this case I would go with turn 2 as well and probably anyone would. Other cases I have seen I could not tell what the author intended.

The real problem is if you have the misfortune to be playing with rules lawyers who want to look for interpretations like this!

Hardbound rule books are great for 'correcting' this problem.

Apply to rules lawyer until they stop being lawyery.