@Cernel said in Offloading In Both Combat And Non Combat Movement:
Does “a transport that has been in combat” mean only a transport that took part in a sea battle (as I always assumed this was the only meaning), or is a transport that offloaded units into combat from a friendly sea zone also counted as “having been in combat” (I always assumed it wasn’t, and this part of the rulebook was only referring to transports actually moved to the battleboard, on that turn)?
That’s a fair point. However, a transport’s move is over once it’s been in combat and/or offloaded. Since the rules state that a transport cannot offload to more than one territory, it’s fair to assume that it also may not load from a different territory after offloading (which would requiring “moving” to a different coast within the same sea zone). That would mean that if it were to load again after offloading, it would need to load from that same territory, and since any units in the amphibiously assaulted territory have been in combat, they may not load.
I, of course, take your word, but how can be inferred from the rulebook (or any clarifications) that ending your movement as cargo into a hostile sea zone (thus even being moved as cargo on the battleboard itself) does not possibly count for satisfying the requirement to “end their move in a hostile space”?
The loaded units ended their movement on the transport, in a friendly sea zone. The movement of the transport after they were loaded was not theirs, but the transport’s. In order to fulfill the requirement, they must offload into a hostile territory, thus ending their movement there.
@Krieghund Thanks for the clarification on loaded units. That makes definitely sense, even though what made me think that it was possible to load some units in a transport and sending the transport into battle, keeping the units on board, was something else in the rulebook (I guess I’ll talk about it in another post, to keep this shorter).
On the other hand, I’m still confused on the
A transport that has been in combat may load or offload after combat, but never both.
part. Since you quoted this to answer an example in which the transport was offloading to combat with no mention of being itself involved in any sea battles, can you confirm that this excerpt from the rulebook is, instead, referring only to transports that have been in victorious sea battles (as I’ve always understood it), and not to transports that have performed amphibious assaults from friendly sea zones (I know it doesn’t actually matter, once we otherwise completely rule out loading after offloading on a same turn, but just want to be sure on the wording).
Also the concept that you cannot load after having offloaded looks to me like something that would have benefitted from an official errata, telling that offloading bars not only moving, but also loading. I actually never had any real doubt about the fact that you could never offload, then load, on a same turn, and it is interesting that you are inferring it from expanding the no multiple territory offload into, practically, saying that applies to loading too. I actually feel that is maybe a bit too much of free reading, and, personally (beside the rules and the examples in general quite consistently hinting to the fact that, when doing both, first you load then you offload, never the opposite way around), the way I infer it is, instead, by expanding the bridging rules, as it would make really no sense to say that you can load after offloading, if the transport moved, but you cannot do the same if it remained in the same sea zone (bridging) (as the bridging rules only are actually clear you cannot load after having offloaded).
But, can we all agree that the rulebook itself leaves a bit to be desired, as far as clarity goes? In my opinion, for example, LHTR is much clearer. Ayone else thinks the same?
@Cernel said in Offloading In Both Combat And Non Combat Movement:
But, can we all agree that the rulebook itself leaves a bit to be desired, as far as clarity goes? In my opinion, for example, LHTR is much clearer. Ayone else thinks the same?
Dealing much with the rulebooks I definitely see an improvement of clarity over time. LHTR in my opinion sorts the rules clearer, indeed, and the rulebooks from Anniversary onwards are structured pretty well and are easier understandable. The written rules and rulesets have improved a lot, as I think.
@Panther I actually feel LHTR is the clearest of all rulebooks, also clearer than everything following, but just my opinion.
@Krieghund said in Offloading In Both Combat And Non Combat Movement:
@Cernel said in Offloading In Both Combat And Non Combat Movement:
Does “a transport that has been in combat” mean only a transport that took part in a sea battle (as I always assumed this was the only meaning), or is a transport that offloaded units into combat from a friendly sea zone also counted as “having been in combat” (I always assumed it wasn’t, and this part of the rulebook was only referring to transports actually moved to the battleboard, on that turn)?
That’s a fair point. However, a transport’s move is over once it’s been in combat and/or offloaded. Since the rules state that a transport cannot offload to more than one territory, it’s fair to assume that it also may not load from a different territory after offloading (which would requiring “moving” to a different coast within the same sea zone). That would mean that if it were to load again after offloading, it would need to load from that same territory, and since any units in the amphibiously assaulted territory have been in combat, they may not load.
Thinking over this matter on more general terms, I think this “solution” of taking the “one territory only” offload restriction, saying that is “fair to assume that it also may not load from a different territory after offloading”, is not actually ruling out doing the same entirely during Non Combat Move.
For example, according to the rulebook and half-expanding the “no multiple territories” offload rules, to affect both loading and offloading, yet affecting loading only after having happened due to offloading only, I believe this situation would be legal:
In Non Combat Move, I load 1 infantry and 1 second mobile land unit (could be a second infantry) into a transport (both the transports and the loaded units have not moved, nor bridged, nor taken part in any Combat, of course), move the transport into a friendly land zone, offload 1 or 2 of these land units into a friendly territory, then load 1 unmoved land unit from that territory (or 2, but it would not make sense loading 2, as it would imply exchanging at least 1 infantry for just another infantry).
To be more specific, during Non Combat Move, I could load 1 infantry and 1 aa gun into a transport, move that transport to another friendly sea zone, offload both land units into a territory and, then, load 1 unmoved tank from that same territory into my transport, keeping it on board. Or I could only load and offload 1 infantry, underusing the transport capacity, then loading the tank (this way I could also say the tank may not be even using the space used by the infantry).
I believe that, according to the rulebook, the move above would be legal, and also in accordance with whatever reasonable conceptual expansion of the “no multiple territories” offload rule. However, I’ve also no doubt that this is not the intent of the original author, if only because it would be absurd that bridging gives you any more restrictions than transporting on the move.
So, would the move I described be legal or not? Could I do it while playing Axis & Allies Revised? I believe it is legal if we read the rulebook literally, but I also believe it is clearly contrary to what I understand was the actual intent of the original author (so, in my opinion, it should be illegal, and, if the game would be actively supported, I believe the original author would publish an errata or clarification, ruling it out, if asked).
Or am I overlooking something, here?
Anyways, I believe that this ruleset, we have here, is badly in need of an official “Errata”, generally expanding the “no loading after offloading” rule, that currently strictly applies to bridging only. Not sure what should be the preferred way one (me?) would have to go to try to obtain such an official clarification (?), but am I correct to presume this would never happen, anyways, since, in my experience, nobody really cares about updating clarifications of games that are not selling anymore (very sorry if I’m wrong).
Also, regardless of the meaning of “being in combat” in the special rule (but I’m still curious about it, thanks):
A transport that has been in combat may load or offload after combat, but never both.
I want to point out that, logically, this cannot possibly be used as a way to say that this is saying you cannot offload during Combat Move and load during Non Combat Move, on the same turn, otherwise, then, it would also be saying that, under these conditions, you also cannot load during Combat Move and offload during Non Combat Move, that we have clarified is not the case, as I can do that if I have only 1 unit already on board. Other than that, the logical costruct of the phrase itself cannot be really read in any other ways but saying that the proibition of doing both is really only referring to those specific actions, made “after combat”, not to anything that may have been done before combat (as also since that transport, that has been in combat, may have already done both!).
Please let me know everything that I’m getting wrong or overlooking. Thanks.
@Cernel Obviously, the case in which we are not using more total space than the maximum is irrelevant, as, in the example, I could just load the tank before offloading the infantry, then.
@Cernel said in Offloading In Both Combat And Non Combat Movement:
On the other hand, I’m still confused on the
A transport that has been in combat may load or offload after combat, but never both.
part. Since you quoted this to answer an example in which the transport was offloading to combat with no mention of being itself involved in any sea battles, can you confirm that this excerpt from the rulebook is, instead, referring only to transports that have been in victorious sea battles (as I’ve always understood it), and not to transports that have performed amphibious assaults from friendly sea zones (I know it doesn’t actually matter, once we otherwise completely rule out loading after offloading on a same turn, but just want to be sure on the wording).
Your understanding is correct.
Also the concept that you cannot load after having offloaded looks to me like something that would have benefitted from an official errata, telling that offloading bars not only moving, but also loading.
I agree, but we are where we are.
I actually never had any real doubt about the fact that you could never offload, then load, on a same turn, and it is interesting that you are inferring it from expanding the no multiple territory offload into, practically, saying that applies to loading too. I actually feel that is maybe a bit too much of free reading, and, personally (beside the rules and the examples in general quite consistently hinting to the fact that, when doing both, first you load then you offload, never the opposite way around), the way I infer it is, instead, by expanding the bridging rules, as it would make really no sense to say that you can load after offloading, if the transport moved, but you cannot do the same if it remained in the same sea zone (bridging) (as the bridging rules only are actually clear you cannot load after having offloaded).
I also agree that the bridging rules are in conflict with the standard transport rules, and that’s part of the problem in interpreting the standard rules. In fact, the bridging rules specifically state that a transport can’t load after unloading - it’s the standard rules that imply (not state) that it can. Should they be consistent? Absolutely. But can we apply rules for a specific situation (bridging) more broadly? Maybe…
But, can we all agree that the rulebook itself leaves a bit to be desired, as far as clarity goes? In my opinion, for example, LHTR is much clearer. Ayone else thinks the same?
The rulebook is a mess. That’s part of the reason that LHTR was necessary.
@Cernel said in Offloading In Both Combat And Non Combat Movement:
@Panther I actually feel LHTR is the clearest of all rulebooks, also clearer than everything following, but just my opinion.
LHTR was written, pretty much from scratch, by a committee consisting of Larry, myself, and a group of several experienced A&A players. Rulebooks from AA42 on were almost all based on prior rulebooks heavily modified by Larry and me. I wanted to rewrite them from scratch also, but I was never allowed to. The only one I was allowed to write from scratch was AA14, being a whole new game.
@Cernel said in Offloading In Both Combat And Non Combat Movement:
Thinking over this matter on more general terms, I think this “solution” of taking the “one territory only” offload restriction, saying that is “fair to assume that it also may not load from a different territory after offloading”, is not actually ruling out doing the same entirely during Non Combat Move.
For example, according to the rulebook and half-expanding the “no multiple territories” offload rules, to affect both loading and offloading, yet affecting loading only after having happened due to offloading only, I believe this situation would be legal:
In Non Combat Move, I load 1 infantry and 1 second mobile land unit (could be a second infantry) into a transport (both the transports and the loaded units have not moved, nor bridged, nor taken part in any Combat, of course), move the transport into a friendly land zone, offload 1 or 2 of these land units into a friendly territory, then load 1 unmoved land unit from that territory (or 2, but it would not make sense loading 2, as it would imply exchanging at least 1 infantry for just another infantry).
To be more specific, during Non Combat Move, I could load 1 infantry and 1 aa gun into a transport, move that transport to another friendly sea zone, offload both land units into a territory and, then, load 1 unmoved tank from that same territory into my transport, keeping it on board. Or I could only load and offload 1 infantry, underusing the transport capacity, then loading the tank (this way I could also say the tank may not be even using the space used by the infantry).
I believe that, according to the rulebook, the move above would be legal, and also in accordance with whatever reasonable conceptual expansion of the “no multiple territories” offload rule. However, I’ve also no doubt that this is not the intent of the original author, if only because it would be absurd that bridging gives you any more restrictions than transporting on the move.
So, would the move I described be legal or not? Could I do it while playing Axis & Allies Revised? I believe it is legal if we read the rulebook literally, but I also believe it is clearly contrary to what I understand was the actual intent of the original author (so, in my opinion, it should be illegal, and, if the game would be actively supported, I believe the original author would publish an errata or clarification, ruling it out, if asked).
Or am I overlooking something, here?
That all sounds reasonable.
Anyways, I believe that this ruleset, we have here, is badly in need of an official “Errata”, generally expanding the “no loading after offloading” rule, that currently strictly applies to bridging only. Not sure what should be the preferred way one (me?) would have to go to try to obtain such an official clarification (?), but am I correct to presume this would never happen, anyways, since, in my experience, nobody really cares about updating clarifications of games that are not selling anymore (very sorry if I’m wrong).
You’re not wrong.
Also, regardless of the meaning of “being in combat” in the special rule (but I’m still curious about it, thanks):
A transport that has been in combat may load or offload after combat, but never both.
I want to point out that, logically, this cannot possibly be used as a way to say that this is saying you cannot offload during Combat Move and load during Non Combat Move, on the same turn, otherwise, then, it would also be saying that, under these conditions, you also cannot load during Combat Move and offload during Non Combat Move, that we have clarified is not the case, as I can do that if I have only 1 unit already on board. Other than that, the logical costruct of the phrase itself cannot be really read in any other ways but saying that the proibition of doing both is really only referring to those specific actions, made “after combat”, not to anything that may have been done before combat (as also since that transport, that has been in combat, may have already done both!).
Correct.
So where does all of this leave us?
If we extend the principle from the bridging rule that a transport can’t load again after offloading to the standard transport rules, which makes sense, it changes nothing that we’ve discussed above as it relates to combat movement and amphibious assaults. What it does apply to is movement done entirely in noncombat movement, in which situation it makes it illegal to load one unit, move it, offload it, and load another unit.
Sound good?
I can’t say I’m very happy with the rules+errata here either. I don’t at all understand why there is a rule allowing loading a transport after combat. And the ruling about not loading from a different territory adjacent to the same sea zone is not inferred in the rules IMO. Offloading makes some sense - you might have an AA Gun on the transport and want to offload it, for example. Also, you might have something on a transport which you want to put onto a friendly territory.
I would totally read the rules as intending to allow loading units on combat movement moving into sea combat, then offloading to a friendly territory. You might want to do this if the transport starts in a hostile sea zone, or perhaps you want to hedge your bets in a more dangerous way than usual with a loaded vs unloaded transport.
I can’t imagine that any reasonable person would think that you can load units after offloading into the space that the previous units occupied, TBH. What is left is if only a single unit is offloaded then perhaps the other space can be loaded into. I’m guessing that is not considered legal but I can’t really see why from the rulebook.
Anyway, I’m kind of clear (I think) on the way Krieghund reads them.
@Krieghund said in Offloading In Both Combat And Non Combat Movement:
So where does all of this leave us?
If we extend the principle from the bridging rule that a transport can’t load again after offloading to the standard transport rules, which makes sense, it changes nothing that we’ve discussed above as it relates to combat movement and amphibious assaults. What it does apply to is movement done entirely in noncombat movement, in which situation it makes it illegal to load one unit, move it, offload it, and load another unit.
Sound good?
I actually didn’t originally intend this topic to be that far reaching, but now that @simon33 has opened this can of rules, I think I want to beat it down completely, so I’m far from finished, if there is still any interests in following me.
Anyways, I actually wish eventually to make a full set of transport rules differences between Classic, Revised OOB and Revised LHTR. So these matters had to be addressed, if that is ever going to happen, which is seriously challenging a thing to do, actually.
However, now I’m presented with a major element that is giving me problems. This element being the levels of interpretations we are making, and especially how many of these levels (thus how many different kind of Revised OOB practical rulesets) we have.
As long as we are following Revised OOB rules literally, I think we can all agree that we should be allowed always to load during Non Combat Move, from any adjacent territories, after having offloaded, during Combat Move or Non Combat Move or both, as long as we didn’t offload during Non Combat Move after having been in a (victorious) sea battle and as long as we didn’t load and offload without otherwise moving (bridging). Correct?
Then, you are (and here we go past a purely literal interpretation) saying that the rule that restricts a transport offloading only to one territory per turn can also be taken as barring loading from any other territories, after you offloaded, this based on the understanding that the intention of the original author was actually to say that, after offloading, the transport is stuck on that one “coast”, within that sea zone, for the rest of the turn.
Basically, you are saying that the original author simply forgot to add the restriction of loading only from the territory you offloaded to, after you offloaded (implying you have to stay on that coast, only, for the rest of the turn). I guess that is your guess. My guess (much less informed, as I’ve never even met Larry Harris), instead, is that the original author didn’t have in mind, thus didn’t forgot, that, but, rather, simply forgot to say that you can never load after having offloaded (this rule actually existing only for the bridging and for the offloading after victorious sea battle cases).
So, as I see it, here we have a split between two different rulesets, that I could call “Revised OOB Literal” and “Revised OOB Intentional”, the first one based on interpreting what Larry Harris said and the second one based on surmising what Larry Harris intended to say, instead.
Up until this point, I follow, if you can confirm I’m actually following. However what I’m really not understanding is how your assumption of expanding the single territory offloading turn-based restriction into restricting loading too can be any closer to a literal interpretation of the rulebook than my proposal of generally expanding the no-loading-after-offloading restriction at the bridging rules.
What I really don’t get is why expanding the single territory offload to loading too is a “fair assumption” while generalizing the no loading after offloading bridging only rule is merely a “maybe”.
In my mind, either we go for a literal interpretation of Revised OOB and, in this case, both these assumptions are unacceptable, as literally not part of the rulebook, its errata, nor its official clarifications (as far as I know), or we go for an intentional evaluation of Revised OOB and, in this case, I cannot see how these two assumption are one any less easily admissible than the other one.
So, if it is true that you actually feel it is “safer” or “fairer” to expand the single territory offload restriction rule, rather than generalizing the no loading after offloading bridging rule (are you?), and assuming that you agree, anyways, we are, in both cases, going out of a strictly literal reading of the Revised OOB ruleset, I would be interested to know how exactly do you believe one of these assumption is so much “safer” or “fairer” than the other one? Because, to me, it merely looks like we are moving into some personal interpretation of the actual intentions of the original author, substantially creating unofficial “errata” (with the meaning of changing the rulebook), in both cases alike, while only on a merely personal level one could subscribe to one or the other or both (though subscribing to both is practically equivalent to subscribing to the second one only, as generally barring loading after offloading covers all that is covered by the other case and more).
@Cernel said in Offloading In Both Combat And Non Combat Movement:
As long as we are following Revised OOB rules literally, I think we can all agree that we should be allowed always to load during Non Combat Move, from any adjacent territories, after having offloaded, during Combat Move or Non Combat Move or both, as long as we didn’t offload during Non Combat Move after having been in a (victorious) sea battle and as long as we didn’t load and offload without otherwise moving (bridging). Correct?
You could interpret it that way, if you read the core transport rules in a vacuum, without taking other rules mentioned above into account. However, those other rules cast doubt on that interpretation, which is why we’re having this discussion.
Then, you are (and here we go past a purely literal interpretation) saying that the rule that restricts a transport offloading only to one territory per turn can also be taken as barring loading from any other territories, after you offloaded, this based on the understanding that the intention of the original author was actually to say that, after offloading, the transport is stuck on that one “coast”, within that sea zone, for the rest of the turn.
Basically, you are saying that the original author simply forgot to add the restriction of loading only from the territory you offloaded to, after you offloaded (implying you have to stay on that coast, only, for the rest of the turn). I guess that is your guess. My guess (much less informed, as I’ve never even met Larry Harris), instead, is that the original author didn’t have in mind, thus didn’t forgot, that, but, rather, simply forgot to say that you can never load after having offloaded (this rule actually existing only for the bridging and for the offloading after victorious sea battle cases).
OK. That’s what I said in my last post. It’s cleaner and makes more sense.
So, as I see it, here we have a split between two different rulesets, that I could call “Revised OOB Literal” and “Revised OOB Intentional”, the first one based on interpreting what Larry Harris said and the second one based on surmising what Larry Harris intended to say, instead.
I disagree. The “literal” rules are confusing and even contradictory on this point, so they must be interpreted. The best way to do that is to resolve the confusion and contradiction based on what makes sense within the context of the rules. Of course, knowing what the authors’ intention actually was helps.
Up until this point, I follow, if you can confirm I’m actually following. However what I’m really not understanding is how your assumption of expanding the single territory offloading turn-based restriction into restricting loading too can be any closer to a literal interpretation of the rulebook than my proposal of generally expanding the no-loading-after-offloading restriction at the bridging rules.
It’s not, and I agreed with your proposal in my last post. At any rate, one arrives at the same conclusion either way.
What I really don’t get is why expanding the single territory offload to loading too is a “fair assumption” while generalizing the no loading after offloading bridging only rule is merely a “maybe”.
My “maybe” was simply a segue into a deeper discussion further down, during which I agreed.
In my mind, either we go for a literal interpretation of Revised OOB and, in this case, both these assumptions are unacceptable, as literally not part of the rulebook, its errata, nor its official clarifications (as far as I know), or we go for an intentional evaluation of Revised OOB and, in this case, I cannot see how these two assumption are one any less easily admissible than the other one.
So, if it is true that you actually feel it is “safer” or “fairer” to expand the single territory offload restriction rule, rather than generalizing the no loading after offloading bridging rule (are you?), and assuming that you agree, anyways, we are, in both cases, going out of a strictly literal reading of the Revised OOB ruleset, I would be interested to know how exactly do you believe one of these assumption is so much “safer” or “fairer” than the other one?
Again, I can’t agree with a “literal” interpretation, for the reasons I outlined above, and both applications of related rules are equally viable (and necessary to resolve the conflict).
Because, to me, it merely looks like we are moving into some personal interpretation of the actual intentions of the original author, substantially creating unofficial “errata” (with the meaning of changing the rulebook), in both cases alike, while only on a merely personal level one could subscribe to one or the other or both (though subscribing to both is practically equivalent to subscribing to the second one only, as generally barring loading after offloading covers all that is covered by the other case and more).
We are moving into interpretation, as that is necessary to resolve the conflict in the rules, but I disagree that it is changing the rulebook, as I outlined above. It is merely making sense of contradictions within it.
@Krieghund Ok, then. For my plan of creating a list of transport rules differences between 2nd/3rd, Revised OOB and Revised LHTR (not promising I will actually get around doing it, but I hope so), I was actually inclined splitting Revised OOB between “Revised OOB Literal” and “Revised OOB Intentional”, the first one based only on a literal reading of the rulebook and its official errata, no matter how absurd or contradictory, the second one expanding over it, to reconstruct the original intent of the author, beyond the arguable poor quality of the wording.
Now I understand that you will never subscribe to such a classification, so I get that I’ll have to keep a single column only for “Revised OOB” (substantially getting rid of what would have been the “Revised OOB Literal” column, and keeping only the “Revised OOB Intentional” one, but renamed as just “Revised OOB”).
Anyway, I think at least here we have fully clarified 1 rule for “Revised OOB”:
“You can never load anything onto a transport after having offloaded anything from the same transport, on the same turn (no exceptions)”.
Which is, then, not going to be part of any 2nd/3rd, Revised OOB and Revised LHTR rules differences, since this is true, with not a single exception, for every single Axis & Allies game that ever existed since the first edition, right?
Let me anyways clarify that, by “Revised OOB Literal”, I was not meaning at all that was the “true” Revised, or anything like that. That would have been merely a personal point of view, and you can have a literal interpretation (or a whole set of possible literal interpretations) that is filled with contradictions, conflicts and absurdities. I was substantially referring to a similar matter in the interpretation of the law, where you could read the law as what it is literally saying (no matter how absurd the consequences of that might be) or you could read it by trying to follow the actual intentions of the law, instead (the “golden rule”). When you said “You could interpret it that way, if you read the core transport rules in a vacuum, without taking other rules mentioned above into account”, then I can assure you were saying the same thing as what I was meaning by “literal”, if by “without taking other rules mentioned above into account” you meant “integrating the original rulebook with only the official errata and clarifications, and nothing else at all, and nothing more than by their strict literal meaning”.
@Cernel said in Offloading In Both Combat And Non Combat Movement:
@Krieghund Ok, then. For my plan of creating a list of transport rules differences between 2nd/3rd, Revised OOB and Revised LHTR (not promising I will actually get around doing it, but I hope so), I was actually inclined splitting Revised OOB between “Revised OOB Literal” and “Revised OOB Intentional”, the first one based only on a literal reading of the rulebook and its official errata, no matter how absurd or contradictory, the second one expanding over it, to reconstruct the original intent of the author, beyond the arguable poor quality of the wording.
Now I understand that you will never subscribe to such a classification, so I get that I’ll have to keep a single column only for “Revised OOB” (substantially getting rid of what would have been the “Revised OOB Literal” column, and keeping only the “Revised OOB Intentional” one, but renamed as just “Revised OOB”).
OK. Good luck! If it helps, over 10 years ago I created such a document comparing and contrasting AA50, AAR OOB, and AAR LHTR. It may make a good starting point:
http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=1726
Anyway, I think at least here we have fully clarified 1 rule for “Revised OOB”:
“You can never load anything onto a transport after having offloaded anything from the same transport, on the same turn (no exceptions)”.
Which is, then, not going to be part of any 2nd/3rd, Revised OOB and Revised LHTR rules differences, since this is true, with not a single exception, for every single Axis & Allies game that ever existed since the first edition, right?
Yes, as far as the strategic-level games go.
Let me anyways clarify that, by “Revised OOB Literal”, I was not meaning at all that was the “true” Revised, or anything like that. That would have been merely a personal point of view, and you can have a literal interpretation (or a whole set of possible literal interpretations) that is filled with contradictions, conflicts and absurdities. I was substantially referring to a similar matter in the interpretation of the law, where you could read the law as what it is literally saying (no matter how absurd the consequences of that might be) or you could read it by trying to follow the actual intentions of the law, instead (the “golden rule”). When you said “You could interpret it that way, if you read the core transport rules in a vacuum, without taking other rules mentioned above into account”, then I can assure you were saying the same thing as what I was meaning by “literal”, if by “without taking other rules mentioned above into account” you meant “integrating the original rulebook with only the official errata and clarifications, and nothing else at all, and nothing more than by their strict literal meaning”.
I meant not taking the bridging and not offloading into more than one territory rules into account, which are what create the inconsistency.
@Krieghund said in Offloading In Both Combat And Non Combat Movement:
@Cernel said in Offloading In Both Combat And Non Combat Movement:
@Krieghund Ok, then. For my plan of creating a list of transport rules differences between 2nd/3rd, Revised OOB and Revised LHTR (not promising I will actually get around doing it, but I hope so), I was actually inclined splitting Revised OOB between “Revised OOB Literal” and “Revised OOB Intentional”, the first one based only on a literal reading of the rulebook and its official errata, no matter how absurd or contradictory, the second one expanding over it, to reconstruct the original intent of the author, beyond the arguable poor quality of the wording.
Now I understand that you will never subscribe to such a classification, so I get that I’ll have to keep a single column only for “Revised OOB” (substantially getting rid of what would have been the “Revised OOB Literal” column, and keeping only the “Revised OOB Intentional” one, but renamed as just “Revised OOB”).
OK. Good luck! If it helps, over 10 years ago I created such a document comparing and contrasting AA50, AAR OOB, and AAR LHTR. It may make a good starting point:
http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=1726
I know about that, and would certainly make use of that, if doing something like that, but limited to transports only and swapping Anniversary out in favour of II/III Classic.
After all these years, do you feel positive that you have documented all actual possible generic differences between Revise OOB and Revised LHTR, in that document, assuming exaustivity was an aim, or do you assign a chance there may be something you might have missed (if not excluded)?
Also, now that I think about that, could that be taken as hint, if not proof, that in Revised OOB you can never load after having offloaded, on the same turn, giving the fact that it is not a listed element and the fact that we are clear that is how it works in LHTR? Does that chart counts as an official clarification? If so, is it supposed to cover absolutely everything that is different, beside specific rules that are integrally new or removed, like National Advantages? If so, can absence of evidence be taken as evidence of absence?
Two more questions right away, regarding transports that surely cannot move and the matter of implied coast-to-coast movement:
Can a single transport that has been in combat load from multiple (two) territories, after combat?
Can you move units into a single allied transport from multiple (two) territories, on the same turn?
I know that, according to the rulebook, both answers are yes, but just wanted to make sure.
@Cernel said in Offloading In Both Combat And Non Combat Movement:
“You can never load anything onto a transport after having offloaded anything from the same transport, on the same turn (no exceptions)”.
If it is consistent with other versions, you also can’t move. I think that is implied if you read the rulebook assuming that it is. Which isn’t the best.
@simon33 said in Offloading In Both Combat And Non Combat Movement:
@Cernel said in Offloading In Both Combat And Non Combat Movement:
“You can never load anything onto a transport after having offloaded anything from the same transport, on the same turn (no exceptions)”.
If it is consistent with other versions, you also can’t move. I think that is implied if you read the rulebook assuming that it is. Which isn’t the best.
I’m not sure what you mean. The fact that transports can never move after offloading is very clear and consistent (or even over-stated), in the rulebook.
That, and some other elements, actually makes me wonder if the original author at some point might have intended to say that loading (only) counts as moving for the transport too (I know that it does not).
@Cernel said in Offloading In Both Combat And Non Combat Movement:
After all these years, do you feel positive that you have documented all actual possible generic differences between Revise OOB and Revised LHTR, in that document, assuming exaustivity was an aim, or do you assign a chance there may be something you might have missed (if not excluded)?
There’s always a chance that I missed something, but that document has been examined pretty exhaustively over the years.
Also, now that I think about that, could that be taken as hint, if not proof, that in Revised OOB you can never load after having offloaded, on the same turn, giving the fact that it is not a listed element and the fact that we are clear that is how it works in LHTR? Does that chart counts as an official clarification?
That’s a fair point. I guess you could call it official, since it was “blessed” by Larry.
If so, is it supposed to cover absolutely everything that is different, beside specific rules that are integrally new or removed, like National Advantages? If so, can absence of evidence be taken as evidence of absence?
In the introduction, the document states that it covers only differences in rules that exist in all of the games, and not rules that are either removed from or added to any of them. However, the rules in which we’re currently interested (transports and amphibious assaults) exist in all three games, so it is intended to be comprehensive in that area.
Two more questions right away, regarding transports that surely cannot move and the matter of implied coast-to-coast movement:
Can a single transport that has been in combat load from multiple (two) territories, after combat?
Can you move units into a single allied transport from multiple (two) territories, on the same turn?
I know that, according to the rulebook, both answers are yes, but just wanted to make sure.
Yes.
@Cernel said in Offloading In Both Combat And Non Combat Movement:
I’m not sure what you mean. The fact that transports can never move after offloading is very clear and consistent (or even over-stated), in the rulebook.
I’m not sure it’s stated explicitly in the Revised rulebook. Maybe I missed it.
Page 13:
However, as soon as a transport encounters hostile sea units or offloads, it must end its move.
Page 31:
A transport can pick up cargo, move 1 sea zone, pick up more cargo, move 1 more sea zone, and offload the cargo at the end of its movement.
Whenever a transport offloads, it cannot move again that turn (except when retreating).
[A transport] can offload only in one territory, and once it offloads it cannot move or load cargo until the next round.
You are saying there that the bridging rules should be applied more generally.
