The Americans have Sz91 and Gibraltar.
But you have Subs in Sz92 and a navy in Sz87.
You want your navy back inside the mediterranean, but it’s not possible because the canal is owned by the states!
WRONG!
The rule book clearly states that any power’s submarines can pass through Gibraltar. So, you send your navy and you sub to attack Sz91.
After one round, having survived quite handidly, you can then retreat to “Any Friendly Zone you attacked from”
You then proceed to retreat THROUGH the canal, and voila! You’re gold!
Yes this almost happend today.
While that would be nice. This seems to be a very illegal move.
I think the sz87 units are then not allowed to retreat to sz 92 since they are not subs. Canal rule overrules the retreat rule here, imho.
@13thguardsriflediv:
I think the sz87 units are then not allowed to retreat to sz 92 since they are not subs. Canal rule overrules the retreat rule here, imho.
I too will be very surprised if this is a legal move. Clever loophole reasoning, but most likely illegal.
Well we’ve seen before, where through retreats the fundamental rules of the game are overridden. Specifically the ability of a unit to move more or beyond it’s abilities.
Hence the ability of an infantry to move 2 spaces, as opposed to just 1, because they have strafed and retreated forward. Under no other condition, can an infantry move 2 spaces. The same applies to ships, tanks, etc. (Save for on a transport - but technically the transport does the moving.)
The rules are very specific, ALL units must retreat together. And must retreat to a friendly/neutral seazone - that you attacked from.
Since you are not allowed partial retreats, you must retreat as a block. It is valid to retreat to any seazone you attacked from, therefore you can go through the straight.
The other possibility, is what if by attacking Sz91 you become encircled with no other possibility of retreat save the straight. It would have to be allowed. This can be done by an old soviet trick called “pairing” where as you are not at war, have built a destroyer, or the germans let your battleship out, have gone and followed the german navy around (in the same zone), for the purpose of preventing retreat if they declare war on you.
That’s my food for thought anyways. And this rule does not apply to any other canal or straight location on the board, because subs cannot pass through them.
Do subs actually retreat or do they submerge?
Edit: if they submerge, then there can be no retreat through the canal, hence no loophole
You can choose at anytime to Attack, or Submerge, or Retreat.
It would not make sense in a mixed navy situation, to retreat your navy - but have to leave your subs because they can only submerge.
Regardless, even if they did submerge, or died, it doesn’t matter, because as the rules state clearly, you can retreat to ANY ZONE that is friendly/neutral, that you attacked from. Subs or not.
You can choose at anytime to Attack, or Submerge, or Retreat.
It would not make sense in a mixed navy situation, to retreat your navy - but have to leave your subs because they can only submerge.
Regardless, even if they did submerge, or died, it doesn’t matter, because as the rules state clearly, you can retreat to ANY ZONE that is friendly/neutral, that you attacked from. Subs or not.
There is precedent for alternate retreat rules based on unit - aircraft. And you cannot justify a land retreat to a space where the aircraft came from (as air units don’t retreat, they fly away in non com). So I don’t believe you can so easily justify retreating to a space the sub came from when it also has more exceptions and special rules than a typical unit.
I think it will be ruled that subs choose how to retreat: either submerge if possible OR move with the other surface naval units to a legal space they came from. Which wouldn’t be through gibralter as the surface ships can’t get through.
I commend your outside the box thinking, but I will be surprised if this isn’t Errataed away. They simply cannot move through the straight.
Regardless, as we’ve dwelved down the rabbit hole here, YOU kcdzim have discovered something.
Even if the ruling is against me, then the ruling must be, that subs retreat seperately. Thereby allowing them to retreat to any zone that the attack came from. Spreading out, Or submerging in place. But I also believe you cannot submerge if there is a destroyer. Interesting.
That said. All LAND and NAVAL units follow the same retreat rules, and all AIR units follow their own retreat rules. It’s specific to class type. This would then constitute an entirely new rule, which would be:
“You cannot retreat through the straight of Gibraltar, even if you attacked with subs from that zone, if your allegiance is not in control of Gibraltar.”
However, I’m confident this arguement holds merit, and that through technical play - it is completely and legitimately possible, as currently listed by the rules.
Lastly though, in my honest opinion, the rule should change so that subs can’t go through the straight either. Then you wouldn’t have this problem - as you don’t have it with the other canal’s and straights.
Surface ships may not move through the Strait of Gibraltar unless Gibraltar was controlled by a friendly power at the beginning of the turn. Retreating is a type of movement, therefore surface ships may not retreat through the Strait of Gibraltar unless Gibraltar was controlled by a friendly power at the beginning of the turn. Since all sea units must retreat together, if there are attacking surface ships remaining in the battle any subs forfeit the ability to retreat throught the strait.
If I attack a territory, via amphibious assault, with aircraft, 2 units from the transport, and a tank stack from a neighbouring territory.
How does the retreat work? is the entire retreat impossible because of the amphibious assault? No. Your aircraft can retreat. and your tank stack can retreat. Your air and your tanks are not locked in because of the micro amphibious assault, and that is the spirit of the game.
That used to be an old rule, that has changed over the years… a moving target. So that said, is there not a case that the subs can still retreat back through the straight, as they shouldn’t be locked into the rest of the navies movement. It’s simple, you just choose to retreat back to Sz92 first, your subs go, but like placement, you can’t get your ships through, so they must go somewhere else.
But then you have to make the rule that subs can retreat to a separate space all the time unless you want to make a special rule for the Gibraltar strait.
But then you have to make the rule that subs can retreat to a separate space all the time unless you want to make a special rule for the Gibraltar strait.
yes, that was his point. A broad rule (subs retreat to any legal space they came from) vs a special rule (subs cannot retreat past gibralter if they were in combat with other naval units AND they don’t control Gibralter).
I’m fine with Gibralter being a special case as it doesn’t favor anyone and makes the space tactically important, but either way, it’s a rule and a ruling that has to be made.
However, retreat rules, as worded, seem to be written so that the retreating power can’t reblock every territory they left empty during the attack. Considering subs can’t block movement, I could see it being an excellent house rule, if not official, if Subs could retreat to any space that the naval units attacked from, seperate from the navy. They can already submerge seperately.
Your analogy is flawed, Gargantua. In the case of an amphibious assault, the amphibious land units may not retreat at all, whereas in the Gibraltar case, the units’ retreat direction is simply restricted. Further, in the amphibious assault case, a partial retreat is explicitly allowed, but all retreating units must still retreat at the same time (and the land units to the same place). In contrast, in the Gibraltar case you’re talking about allowing sea units to retreat to different places, which is explicitly disallowed by the rules.
I’m fine with Gibralter being a special case as it doesn’t favor anyone and makes the space tactically important, but either way, it’s a rule and a ruling that has to be made.
Consider it made.
I love how it’s my interpetation of the rules that flawed, and not the lack of clarification in the rulebook :)
Ruling appreciated.
However, the interpetation of submarines NOT being able to retreat seperately is WHOLLY INCORRECT.
Observe please Exhibit A: Page 30 of the Pacific 1940 rulebook - and there will be a subsequent entry in the Europe 1940 rulebook
“A submarine has the option of submerging. It can do this anytime it would otherwise roll the die to fire.”
So long as there isn’t a destroyer, you can always choose to submerge your subs. And then if you retreated, your ships would end up in different zones, “which is explicitly disallowed by the rules.”
Through technical gameplay there are cases where this is desired Convoy raiding especially with the optional german sub rules.
Through technical gameplay there are cases where this is desired Convoy raiding especially with the optional german sub rules.
Interesting thought, Garg. Very limited practical application it seems, but interesting nonetheless.
I appreciate the thinking “out of the box”, Gargantua. An excellent question you posed about the strait of Gibraltar rules coupled with retreating rules.
I also appreciate Krieghund’s well-explained answer and ruling. Haha - and how ironic, that the ruling is the combined attack on Z91 would result in the subs being trapped outside the Med, rather than a way to get the fleet into the Med!
Ruling appreciated.
Thank you.
However, the interpetation of submarines NOT being able to retreat seperately is WHOLLY INCORRECT.
Observe please Exhibit A: Page 30 of the Pacific 1940 rulebook - and there will be a subsequent entry in the Europe 1940 rulebook
“A submarine has the option of submerging. It can do this anytime it would otherwise roll the die to fire.”
So long as there isn’t a destroyer, you can always choose to submerge your subs. And then if you retreated, your ships would end up in different zones, “which is explicitly
disallowed by the rules.”
Submerging is not the same as retreating, as the submerged sub remains in the contested sea zone. In this case, the units still do not retreat to different sea zones.
So submerging is not a retreat. Interstesting. After reviewing the rulebook, it’s considered during step 2 the suprise strike. Which technically means by definition that submerging is a form of attack (Either roll dice or submerge). Because it’s during step 6 that you decide to attack or retreat, and then as you repeat step 2, since you have already decided to attack - you can submerge.
What I like about how the rules are written to, is that EACH sub gets to decide whether it fights or submerges. It’s not decided on a grand scale. You can submerge one, and fight/retreat/ with the others. This has come into play during larger naval battles for me.
