Offloading In Both Combat And Non Combat Movement

[Krieghund]

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?

[simon33]

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.

[Cernel]

@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).

[Krieghund]

@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.

[Cernel]

@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”.

[Krieghund]

@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.

[Cernel]

@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:

1. Can a single transport that has been in combat load from multiple (two) territories, after combat?

2. 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.

[simon33]

@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.

[Cernel]

@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).

[Krieghund]

@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:

1. Can a single transport that has been in combat load from multiple (two) territories, after combat?

2. 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.

[simon33]

@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.

[Krieghund]

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.

[simon33]

You are saying there that the bridging rules should be applied more generally.

[Cernel]

@simon33 The rulebook affirms immediately, on absolutely general terms, that once you load you cannot move anymore. Then, before starting talking about bridging, it (unnecessarily) states again than offloading transports can never move again, on the same turn, and makes an example, where offloading is the last action (and in no examples ever happens that you have a transport moving after offloading). Then, when making the case for bridging, it (unnecessarily) again tells that you cannot move until the next round, once you offload (and, yeah, as here we are indeed applying the bridging rules more generally, that would be generalized too, despite no need).

To be clear, the reason why the bridging rule is being generalized is that, otherwise, for example, if you load and offload without moving, then you cannot load anymore, while, literally, if you load, move out and, then, into the same sea zone, again, then offload, you would be able to load again the transport you just offloaded, either from anywhere (literally) or from the territory you just offloaded into (if expanding the no multiple territories offload rules to loading after offloading), which would be practically absurd, as we cannot seriously imagine the original author intended that if you go out and into the same sea zone, then, you can do more, after offloading, than by just making a bridging move.

I hope now it is all clear. I believe this pretty much summarizes all that me and @Krieghund went through, on this matter.

[simon33]

I find the rule allowing loading after participating in combat quite strange. So only if the transport didn’t offload, but also moved on combat movement, perhaps to evade combat, or maybe to participate in a battle which went better than expected. Then it can load units from that coast. Perhaps it wants to evacuate such troops?

I’m guessing the confusion this has created and low usefulness is the reason it was dropped in later rulebooks.

[simon33]

In answer to your question, I’m pretty sure I’m clear though.

[Cernel]

@simon33 said in Offloading In Both Combat And Non Combat Movement:

I find the rule allowing loading after participating in combat quite strange. So only if the transport didn’t offload, but also moved on combat movement, perhaps to evade combat, or maybe to participate in a battle which went better than expected. Then it can load units from that coast. Perhaps it wants to evacuate such troops?

I’m guessing the confusion this has created and low usefulness is the reason it was dropped in later rulebooks.

I don’t think the rule was actually dropped, but rather ruled out.

What I mean is, if @Krieghund can confirm what I’m saying here, by the way we are interpreting the rulebook, those “special” rules are not even necessary to have such a behaviour (thus purely redundant, but certainly good to have as clarifications), meaning that if we would take the rulebook and complete delete the following two entries (like making an “Errata”, saying that these two entries are to be ignored):

Page 21:

Transports that have been in combat may either load or offload (not both) during this phase, but not if they have retreated from combat this turn.

Page 31:

A transport that has been in combat may load or offload after combat, but never both.

Then, instead, just adding this rule, to the rulebook:

Transports that have retreated from combat may not load nor offload anymore, this turn.

We would still be able to perform all such actions, anyway, and nothing at all would change in our understanding of the game.

• For the offloading case, the reason why we would still be always able to offload already loaded units from a transport that was in a victorious sea battle is that nothing in the rules forbids those already loaded units from moving into an adjacent land territory, as the transport moving with them on board doesn’t count as a movement for them too (only having the restriction to the same territory we offloaded during Combat Move, if we offloaded anything (otherwise, we are free to choose the single territory we are moving to)).

• For the loading case, the reason why we would still be always able to load unmoved units in a land territory onto a transport that was in a victorious sea battle is that nothing in the rules forbids those units from moving onto a transport in an adjacent sea zone, but only as long as the transport didn’t offload anything yet, as we have generalized the bridging rules that always forbids loading after offloading.

• For the part telling us that we cannot both load and offload, specifically meaning we cannot both load then offload, we can infer that restriction from the fact that, doing so, would mean making a bridging action, and it seems that the rules are assuming that only transports that can still move can also do bridging, instead of moving, during Non Combat Move only, thus bridging cannot be performed if the transport is already unable to move (but this is not literally clear). Since the bridging rules are not explicitly actually saying that “bridging counts as moving for the transport”, then one might argue that the transport is not moving when bridging, thus bridging can be performed also by transports that are unable to move (for example, for having moved during Combat Move), in this case, then, reading the rules literally, we would end up with saying that “we should be allowed always to load, from any adjacent territories, and, then, offload, without moving (bridging), during Non Combat Move, after having offloaded, during Combat Move or Non Combat Move or both, as long as that transport hasn’t been in a sea battle and as long as it didn’t already load and offload without moving (bridging), but this bridging after offloading being allowed only as long as offloading again into the territory we already offloaded into, on the same turn”, that would, for example, mean that, during Non Combat Move only, we could do all this sequence of actions: load 2 unmoved infantries from any adjacent territories onto an empty transport, move the transport to a friendly sea zone, move the transport back to the previous sea zone, offload the 2 infantries anywhere, but on the same land territory, load 2 more infantries from any adjacent territories, offload these 2 infantries into the same land territory as the previously offloaded ones, basically being able to perform a double bridging move, shipping a total of 4 infantries per transport per turn, over a same sea zone, as long as there is a not hostile adjacent sea zone, to move into and out, on the first pseudo-bridging action.

• For the part telling us that we cannot both load and offload, specifically meaning we cannot both offload then load, this we already inferred, by generalizing the no loading after offloading restriction of bridging.

The only doubt on this matter may be cast by Page 21:

Transports can move to friendly coastal territories and load or offload cargo, unless they moved during the combat move phase.

As if you would interpret this as a restriction saying that “you cannot move nor load nor offload, if you moved during Combat Move”, then loading and offloading after combat would be illegal in all cases, but only if the transport started its turn in the embattled sea zone, and didn’t move. So, in this case, we would actually need those rules making an exception to this one, for sea units that did combat, though, then, we would be presented with the rather absurd case that a transport going into combat can load or offload, not both, during Non Combat Move, while a transport moving out of a hostile sea zone, ending Combat Move into a friendly one, doing nothing else, cannot do the same (while it also can load or offload, but not both, during Non Combat Move, instead, if @Krieghund can confirm).

However, we are already not interpreting it that way, because, if we were doing so, then we would also be unable to offload an already loaded unit from a transport that moved and offloaded another unit (either already on board too or loaded on the turn), during Combat Move, without making any sea battles, which we, instead, have determined we can do, despite the rulebook never actually specifically telling us so (differently from the offloading after combat case).

So what we believe, if @Krieghund can confirm, the rule above is saying is that “transports can non combat move, load and offload only if they didn’t combat move”, meaning that we cannot do all of that (and specifically moving) if we moved, but that it is not giving any restrictions about Non Combat loading or offloading, only, after Combat moving.

Yet another matter is that we might interpret, instead, those rules as being exceptions to the general rules. If we would read them as such, then, for example, the rule:

Transports that have been in combat may either load or offload (not both) during this phase, but not if they have retreated from combat this turn.

would allow us to send a transport into combat and, at the same time, offload units from it into combat, and, then, load the transport during Non Combat Move, no matter if we generalize the no-loading-after-offloading bridging rule, as long as we read the load-after-combat rule as an exception to such a generalized rule, anyways. However, this doesn’t actually matter, as long as we are also extending the single territory offload rule as barring from loading from another territory after having offloaded, as, in this case, we could load only from the territory we Combat offloaded into, that surely has no eligible units for loading. Other than that, it would be clearly absurd for a transport performing the same actions as another, but also taking part in combat, then, being able to perform a wider array of actions than the former could (this same principle is also the basis why we cannot accept that we can do less if we bridge than if we also move the transport, during Non Combat Move only).

I think, anyways, we can all easily agree that Revised OOB should absolutely never be used in any competitive situations, like any tournaments, where rules clarity is of the utmost importance, and that’s why Revised LHTR exists, isn’t it?

Hopefully @Krieghund can confirm all I said here makes sense, otherwise that means we are not yet on the same page.

[Krieghund]

I think we are on the same page.

[Cernel]

@simon33 said in Offloading In Both Combat And Non Combat Movement:

I find the rule allowing loading after participating in combat quite strange.

Personally, the only thing that I cannot quite collocate is that (as clarified) you can do it from two territories. Since we cannot assume that the transport is splitting into two halves, in the same sea zone, especially in the case we are loading 2 land units that are not both infantries, that practically means the transport is loading from one coast, then moving to another coast to load. After having been in combat, the transport being immobilized, it would make more (or the only?) sense to me that the transport can pick and stay on one coast only, anyways, as that is really the only reason why I can think he can load but not offload (as it would have to load and offload to the same territory, that is pointless).

For similar reasons, if somebody would have asked me to write the rules, I would have said that allied transports can load from only 1 territory, otherwise, in my mind, we have a transport that is moving coast-to-coast during somebody else turn.

I’m not arguing against anyone, and I accept the clarification, as well as certainly agree that is what the rulebook is saying too (you can load from multiple in both cases). Just letting anyone know my perspective.

[Cernel]

@Cernel said in Offloading In Both Combat And Non Combat Movement:

@simon33 said in Offloading In Both Combat And Non Combat Movement:

I find the rule allowing loading after participating in combat quite strange.

After having been in combat, the transport being immobilized, it would make more (or the only?) sense to me that the transport can pick and stay on one coast only, anyways, as that is really the only reason why I can think he can load but not offload (as it would have to load and offload to the same territory, that is pointless).

Actually, correcting myself, this is not true, as, for example, you could have 1 transport with 1 infantry already on board that takes part in a victorious sea battle, then, during Non Combat Move, load 1 armour from a territory (keeping it on board) and, then, offload the infantry into the same territory (this is against the rules).

In my opinion this move, while being forbidden by the rules, would make more sense, overall, than the actual possibility of the transport being empty and loading two units from two different territories, after combat, though, of course, I do understand that, rule-wise, bridging (here the name is not even correct, as we stay on the same coast, thus we make no “bridge”) to and from the same territory only is not considered any different than other bridging cases.

Anybody else thinks the same?

Most likely all this comes from the fact that the original author just didn’t even consider the possibility you might ever want to load and offload on a same territory (admittedly, of very scarce relevance).