@taamvan OK, I’ve discussed this with Larry. I have apparently erred on the side of “realism”. While my answer made sense from that point of view, it over-complicates the rules in play. To keep the rule simple, moving units using an ally’s transport is in effect the same as moving them with your own, with the exceptions that a) they must be offloaded on a later turn than when they were loaded, and b) the transport moves on its owner’s turn, if at all. I will amend my answers above accordingly.
Krieghund
@Krieghund
Best posts made by Krieghund
-
RE: Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2)
-
RE: Bonus Movement is Unrealistic Nonsense
It always interests me from among the many, many things that are abstracted in the broad-brush approach of these games what certain players home in on as “unrealistic”. I guess it depends on either what each individual’s pet interest is or what game mechanism they dislike the most. In any case, the bonus movement from bases is simply a very broad abstraction of the logistical advantage they provide, and, like it or dislike it, they do add an element of strategy to the game.
-
RE: Playtesters Wanted for A&A: North Africa by Renegade Games
@imperious-leader Thanks, IL. I’m already on board!
-
RE: Submarine withdrawal question
@the_good_captain You may withdraw some or all of them. If a group withdraws together, they must all withdraw to the same sea zone.
-
RE: Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2)
@contango said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):
Question: During the same UK non-combat phase, can the UK land unit starting in United Kingdom load onto the US transport whilst the UK land unit starting on the US transport offloads into Normandy Bordeaux?
The rules say that allied units must remain on the transport for a round before offloading, even if the transport doesn’t have to move, strongly implying that the transport “moves within the sea zone” during the ally’s turn between the moving power’s turns. Applying that principle disallows a move such as this.
Yes, but loading must occur before offloading, as offloading disallows any further activity on/by the transport during the turn.Bonus Question 1: If the answer above is “yes”, would it still be “yes” if the UK land unit starting on the US transport offloads into United Kingdom?
While the above answer is “no”, it would be “yes” in this case. Since the two units loaded from and offloaded to the same territory, it would be OK. Of course, the only reason I can think of to do that is to trade an infantry for another unit type (or vice versa). Needless to say, the unit not on the transport must load before the unit already on the transport offloads, as offloading disallows any further activity on/by the transport during the turn.
Yes.Bonus Question 2: If the answer to the first question is “yes”, would it still be yes if neither of the UK land units were infantry? (is the spirit of the rules that loading always happens first and hence would not be allowable because two non-infantry units would be aboard the transport together, or could the offload be seen as happening first?)
This would not be allowed at all, as loading must occur before offloading.
-
RE: Larry Harris' website had been shut down - and is back again!
I have uploaded the FAQs for all of the OOP games (Classic, Europe, Pacific, Revised, D-Day, Battle of the Bulge, Guadalcanal, 1942 1st Edition) in their appropriate forums. Could someone please “sticky” them?
-
RE: Those blind U-Boat Commanders
@chaikov Yes, you’re interpreting the rules correctly.
However, WWII submarines didn’t “block” convoys. They attacked them, causing significant losses, but not stopping them altogether. Submarines were given the ability to pass through enemy units (countered by destroyers) in order to give them better survivability so they could live to attack on their own turn. This works both ways so that players can’t flood the board with cheap blockers and slow down game play.
I hope this helps.
-
RE: 2nd Edition Western Canada Misprint
@The-Lone-Wolf Western Canada should have a Canadian emblem. It’s in the FAQ, also available at Panther’s link above.
-
RE: Applying Casualties Question
@the_good_captain You have it right.
Unfortunately, it’s very common to run into people who have something wrong but insist they’re right. Misconceptions can be very deeply ingrained. When they concern game rules, I’ve often found they come from being taught the game by someone else who got it wrong without ever really reading the rules for oneself.
The first time I ever played Risk (in the 1970s), I was taught by an older boy at a community center. I enjoyed the game so much that I soon bought a copy for myself. After reading the rules, it was a very different (and better) game than I was taught.
-
RE: When USA not at War
There must be a certain amount of historical accuracy in order for the game to “feel like” the subject matter. Axis & Allies has always dealt with this accuracy at a macro level, striving for “feel” rather than simulation, and thus not dwelling on minutiae. It’s a fine line to walk, but some historical realities must be observed in order to maintain the ambiance. In this case, the restriction presents the feeling of threat without overly burdening the Japan player, as forcing avoidance of all USA territories would.
I won’t pretend that there aren’t game play reasons why this restriction is in place. If there weren’t, why burden the game with it? However, any such rule must be grounded in historical events and realities in order to not come off as “gamey” and ruin the feel of the experience.
All of that being said, the USA did rather famously (infamously?) allow the IJN to get within striking distance of Hawaii, as well as several other of its Pacific possessions, without raising much of a fuss until it was too late. I doubt the same would have been true if the mainland had been so threatened (my original post did make this distinction). In game terms, the “threat zone” of the mainland extends two sea zones out. Since the Hawaiian sea zone is outside of that radius, and since Hawaii could just as easily be attacked from Japanese-held territory (Marshall Islands), there was little point in game terms of excluding Japan from that sea zone.
Latest posts made by Krieghund
-
RE: Submerging before battle?
@Azimuth I never said the two didn’t overlap at points …
-
RE: Submerging before battle?
@shadowhawk said in Submerging before battle?:
I doubt that many of the rules where actually designed in a way to create these kinda loopholes. They are more build this way to make the game easier to play and more structured for beginners. The loopholes are just side effects that the designers either didnt think of or didnt think people would abuse as they are kinda illogical.
This is very true. There are a few “loopholes” that were created by attempting to keep the rules simple. However, there are also some complex interactions, such as those between submarines and other sea units, that are intended to make the strategy richer.
-
RE: Submerging before battle?
@Azimuth said in Submerging before battle?:
So to summarize (or rephrase) about your example:
- the initial plan is not blocked: it is still allowed to ignore the sub in SZ 42 during CM, and to load the Java unit and offload it to Philippines during NCM (sub don’t make a SZ hostile, so loading is allowed)
- but the japanese sub cannot be attacked (neither by warships in SZ 42, nor by neighboring fleets) without cancelling the transport’s ability to follow the plan (non-combat amphibious move)
Is that correct?
Yes.
And additionally, this all becomes irrelevant if the allies transport already carries units, right? (in that case, it can move during CM to avoid the battle with sub, and offload during NCM)
No, it cannot. If the transport moves in combat movement and/or participates in combat, it cannot offload in noncombat movement, even if the land units were already on board at the beginning of the turn.
Sorry to say that this all sounds like an exploit… None of the detailed steps are - per se - forbidden by the rules. But the total manoeuver is disrupted because of its chronology - most probably not something that was initially intended.
It’s not disrupted by chronology as much as it is by the choice between attacking the submarine or moving the units. The ability of submarines to disrupt such movement is fully intended.
-
RE: Legal Carrier/Fighter movement clarification
@Altoriax It’s not legal. For the purpose of determining whether or not an air unit can have a possible landing space, you can assume that you’ll roll all hits and the enemy will roll all misses, but you cannot assume that a carrier can be in two places at the same time. While the former is certainly possible, the latter is not.
-
RE: A questionable excerpt from the aircraft carriers rules
@Cernel In general, the former is true, but there are instances of the latter, depending on context.
-
RE: A questionable excerpt from the aircraft carriers rules
@Cernel The intent of the rules is simply that before combat you must demonstrate a way that all of your air units can be landed safely afterwards, and that after combat you must land as many of them as possible. It is not intended that movement declared for the former must be executed exactly as demonstrated in order to ensure the latter (unless, of course, that is the only choice), as situations can change during combat. I agree that this could be more clearly stated, but it is at least hinted at by the sentence, “Once possible landing zones for all attacking air units have been demonstrated, you have no obligation to guarantee those landing zones for air units in the course of battle.”
@Azimuth You’re probably technically correct, but even though noncombat movement is conceptually simultaneous, it must be physically done in a certain order. The wording simply implies that the alternate landing be resolved first, though it’s not really important that it occur in that order.
-
RE: Transporting from contested zones
@SuperbattleshipYamato Not in the same round. Units leaving a contested territory by transport have only two options for where to go in the same round. The first is to offload into a territory that at the beginning of your turn was either controlled by your power or contained units belonging to your power. The second is to remain at sea, in which case they would only be able to offload into Nigeria in a subsequent round.
-
RE: Odd fighter/carrier move question
@aardvarkpepper said in Odd fighter/carrier move question:
@Krieghund Thanks for the reply.
You’re welcome.
I I read correctly, you’d say the sole stipulation is preserve as many fighters as possible, and nothing else matters? I’d agree there’s a good case to be made for that, as remembering all those details is a complication.
Yup.
But for those that will ask - then what is the purpose of the rulebook including that text about following through on fighter/carrier matchups?
The purpose of including that paragraph is to indicate that planned carrier moves/mobilizations must be executed as necessary, however exceptions are allowed when it is not necessary or it is impossible. Neither of these give permission to abandon fighters. I agree that permission to alter declared moves due to circumstances is not explicitly given (frankly, we didn’t think about that possibility), but the explicit requirement to land as many fighters as possible implies that.
Could it be that the rule really is that original fighter/carrier matchings must take precedence over landing the maximum number of fighters, and it’s just been effectively commonly house ruled?
No.
Or maybe the text about original intent is a holdover of awkward text. Before Renegade’s reprint, after all, there was the issue of 1942 Second Edition fighter (only) vs AA gun and “automatic destroy”.
No.
-
RE: Odd fighter/carrier move question
@aardvarkpepper You must land as many air units as you can. In this case, you must move carrier 1 to pick up fighters B and C. Declared carrier noncombat movements in the Combat Move phase are simply to demonstrate the possibility of landing fighters. The results of combat can change the situation, resulting in modifications to those plans and necessitating or allowing changing them.