Thanks for info. Will plan on coming next year.
Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2)
-
That’s what we all thought at first, but I’m finding in my games since that it’s hard to gauge. I got aggressive with subs, and find them getting plinked left and right at no cost. Now, I don’t know how much that’s messing with my opponents’ otherwise intended movements…. it would normally restrict options, which is hard to quantify the value of, but I’m just saying it’s maybe not as great as you would think. You’ll see.
And yes, the rule that you can NCM a sub into an enemy fleet complete with destroyers was a surprise to me and others as well.
BTW subs were already awesome and I buy a LOT of them, even without this latest unintended consequence. Just reducing the cost to 6 made them awesome, being 25% cheaper than any other warship, and they are now the infantry of the sea.
-
Ok, I found the discussion on pg 82-83. However, the discussion is inconclusive and it’s unclear to me what Krieg is suggesting we do, and whether that should have any bearing on how we play.
However, the Europe rulebook on pg 12 says the transport has the option of moving to another sea zone (leaving aside the differences b/w subs and surface warships). Given that the sub shouldn’t prevent loading, wouldn’t this allow the transport (plus units) to move away during the combat move?
Again, not trying to nitpick, I just want to clearly understand what the rules are.
I would think that if we are going to allow subs to be used in this way, it will be part of mainstream strategy before long. There’s probably an occasion in virtually every game where it’s worth sacrificing a sub to prevent the enemy from moving transports and men.
-
You can load the transports in that zone or another zone in the combat movement phase IF IT IS A COMBAT MOVE
What you can’t do is make a noncom movement with the transport(s) after engaging the subs/transports, AND you are prohibited from making noncombat moves in this manner in the combat movement phase. Attack the sub/transport and you give up all noncombat movement of boats that started in that sea zone. This is the effect of the wording of the rule in question.
And that’s what I was trying to say. Krieghund didn’t say the rulebook is wrong and therefore you shouldn’t follow it. He just offered that the rule doesn’t read the way it was intended.
Which means if players don’t agree (in league play), then you are playing by the written rulebook by default. And yes play will adapt, and perhaps bids need to adjust slightly (this favors the Allies, most would agree, because of Japan)
-
If the rulebook was clear, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
Are you saying that the language on pg 12 doesn’t apply to subs, so the exceptions detailed on pg 12 don’t apply because the unit in question a sub?
If that’s what this is all about, then (no offense) it seems like the wrong call, and likely to cause alot of strife and argument. It would be far more consistent to just apply the language on pg 12 to all boats. It seems far more likely that the clause in question (saying “not submarines or transports”) was written with the opposite meaning in mind–that submarines and transports should not be able to disrupt movement.
My personal opinion is that the game plays better if you just allow movements during the combat turn as TripleA allows it.
-
Anyway, thanks for clearing that up for me–I didn’t grasp what it was about until I read pg 12 a few times.
Obviously it’s not sportsmanlike for only a half-dozen of us to be aware of this (bug) and then surprise unsuspecting opponents as we go, claiming they should have been aware of the ‘rules’. While I try to use every possible advantage I can to win, I wouldn’t feel comfortable using this sort of tactic against an opponent that wasn’t aware of it and was taken by surprise. And that’s pretty much everyone used to TripleA or used to prior rulesets.
So either we’re all aware of it and we all agree to play this way, or we agree pre-game to treat subs like other surface vessels (I suppose in this case it would still be plausible to sneak subs under dds and prevent loading during CM–the antidote to that would be preloading transports if possible).
Maybe the acronym for a pre-game agreement could be NFBWS (no funny business with subs).
-
Anyway, thanks for clearing that up for me–I didn’t grasp what it was about until I read pg 12 a few times.
Obviously it’s not sportsmanlike for only a half-dozen of us to be aware of this (bug) and then surprise unsuspecting opponents as we go, claiming they should have been aware of the ‘rules’. While I try to use every possible advantage I can to win, I wouldn’t feel comfortable using this sort of tactic against an opponent that wasn’t aware of it and was taken by surprise. And that’s pretty much everyone used to TripleA or used to prior rulesets.
So either we’re all aware of it and we all agree to play this way, or we agree pre-game to treat subs like other surface vessels (I suppose in this case it would still be plausible to sneak subs under dds and prevent loading during CM–the antidote to that would be preloading transports if possible).
Maybe the acronym for a pre-game agreement could be NFBWS (no funny business with subs).
Zhuk I thought people were pretty aware of this rule in the league as it was a big topic of discussion in the league and the faq earlier this year. Not trying to be a poor sport at all and I told you you could change your turn all you wanted to adjust for the rule. Hope you aren’t thinking I was being a poor sport?
-
Anyway, thanks for clearing that up for me–I didn’t grasp what it was about until I read pg 12 a few times.
Obviously it’s not sportsmanlike for only a half-dozen of us to be aware of this (bug) and then surprise unsuspecting opponents as we go, claiming they should have been aware of the ‘rules’. While I try to use every possible advantage I can to win, I wouldn’t feel comfortable using this sort of tactic against an opponent that wasn’t aware of it and was taken by surprise. And that’s pretty much everyone used to TripleA or used to prior rulesets.
So either we’re all aware of it and we all agree to play this way, or we agree pre-game to treat subs like other surface vessels (I suppose in this case it would still be plausible to sneak subs under dds and prevent loading during CM–the antidote to that would be preloading transports if possible).
Maybe the acronym for a pre-game agreement could be NFBWS (no funny business with subs).
Zhuk I thought people were pretty aware of this rule in the league as it was a big topic of discussion in the league and the faq earlier this year. Not trying to be a poor sport at all and I told you you could change your turn all you wanted to adjust for the rule. Hope you aren’t thinking I was being a poor sport?
No not at all, you’re fine. I’m thinking now that perhaps I should revise the turn again since we didn’t make any kind of agreement prior to the game about how to deal with it. It’s a minor issue and our game is pretty much decided–I’m just concerned about future conflicts.
I wasn’t around earlier this year so yeah I think there should be a sticky making everyone aware about this since it’s likely to keep coming up.
-
Anyway, thanks for clearing that up for me–I didn’t grasp what it was about until I read pg 12 a few times.
Obviously it’s not sportsmanlike for only a half-dozen of us to be aware of this (bug) and then surprise unsuspecting opponents as we go, claiming they should have been aware of the ‘rules’. While I try to use every possible advantage I can to win, I wouldn’t feel comfortable using this sort of tactic against an opponent that wasn’t aware of it and was taken by surprise. And that’s pretty much everyone used to TripleA or used to prior rulesets.
So either we’re all aware of it and we all agree to play this way, or we agree pre-game to treat subs like other surface vessels (I suppose in this case it would still be plausible to sneak subs under dds and prevent loading during CM–the antidote to that would be preloading transports if possible).
Maybe the acronym for a pre-game agreement could be NFBWS (no funny business with subs).
Zhuk I thought people were pretty aware of this rule in the league as it was a big topic of discussion in the league and the faq earlier this year. Not trying to be a poor sport at all and I told you you could change your turn all you wanted to adjust for the rule. Hope you aren’t thinking I was being a poor sport?
No not at all, you’re fine. I’m thinking now that perhaps I should revise the turn again since we didn’t make any kind of agreement prior to the game about how to deal with it. It’s a minor issue and our game is pretty much decided–I’m just concerned about future conflicts.
I wasn’t around earlier this year so yeah I think there should be a sticky making everyone aware about this since it’s likely to keep coming up.
I agree. It’s not intuitive but it’s how krieg ruled it is to be played unless players agree differently prior to the game. Yes revise however you want now that you understand the rule.
-
Now I remember, this is where the loophole part is. I can find the rule in the rulebook and explain how the wording allowed for the loophole (that you can’t both kill a sub and move away in noncombat.) It’s in the exception to the rule part. I know where it’s at - I’ll locate it for you now.
Page 13-14 talks about the exceptions to the rule that only movement that results in combat can take place in the combat movement phase. First statement top of page 14 is the culprit.
“If you are sharing a sea zone with surface warships (not submarines/transports) belonging to a power with which you are at war, this situation requires you to do one of the following…”
Krieghund said in this thread that this was unintended - that it should not have specified SURFACE WARSHIPS and excluded subs/transports. However, that is not what the rulebook says, and it has not been officially amended, as I stated previously.
I play it by the rulebook so I don’t have to potentially play the game 2 different ways depending on who the opponent is. I think of it like the rule that you can’t kill transports and also bombard - you have to choose one or the other. By the rulebook, you explicitly cannot attack subs/transports in your zone and then do any noncom of ships out of that zone later.
Very interesting. And confusing, too. Because I just got back to the wording in the rulebook of Anniversary Edition.
@Rulebook:
Sea Units Starting in Hostile Sea Zones
At the beginning of the Combat Move phase, you may already have sea units in spaces containing enemy units that were
there at the start of your turn. For example, an enemy may have built new sea units in a sea zone where you have ships. When
your turn comes around again, you are sharing a sea zone with enemy forces.If you are sharing a sea zone with enemy surface warships (not submarines and/or transports), this situation requires you to
do one of the following:- Remain in the seazone and coduct combat.
- Leave the seazone, load units if desired and conduct combat elsewhere,
- Leave the seazone to load units and return to the same seazone to conduct combat, or
- Leave the seazone and conduct no combat.
Once these sea units have moved and/or participated in combat, they cannot move or participate in the Noncombat Move
phase of the turn. You cannot load units while in the original contested sea zone.So this has not been intended since Anniversary Edition? It’s not intended in 1942 and 1942 SE either?
I wonder that this issue did not come up before.Or is there something special that only applies to Global1940 rules and not to the older games, that I do not realize at the moment?
Thanks in advance for helping me out here. :-)
-
If I let the sub live, then presumably the sub can ncm from 26 to 10 on the next turn and disrupt the ncm of new transports built at sz 10!
Thank you Zhukov. This is a pertinent point that I had never considered.
Leaving a Sub alive could mess up the usual US, Hawaii to Oz movement, upon which I rely.
Bloody Subs: far too powerful in 1940(like Bombers). -
There seems to be some confusion here. The rule in question is not “Sea Units Starting in Hostile Sea Zones”. That rule is fine, and it’s not relevant to the question at hand. The situation that we’re dealing with is sea units starting in sea zones containing enemy subs (and/or transports), which are not hostile, that you want to attack. The relevant rule is higher up on page 13 (Europe 2nd edition):
You can move units through friendly (but not friendly neutral) spaces en route to hostile spaces during this phase. However, units can’t end their movement in friendly spaces during the Combat Move phase except in four instances.
-
Tanks and mechanized infantry that have blitzed through an unoccupied hostile space (see “Tanks, Mechanized Infantry, and Blitzing,†page 15).
-
Units moving from a hostile sea zone to escape combat as their combat move. A sea zone into which defending air units may be scrambled in reaction to an amphibious assault (see “Scramble,†page 16) may be treated in the same way as a hostile sea zone for this purpose.
-
Sea units that will be participating in an amphibious assault from a friendly sea zone, as well as sea and/or air units that may be needed to support it in the case that defending air units are scrambled (see “Scramble,†page 16).
-
Sea units moving into a sea zone containing only enemy submarines and/or transports in order to attack those units. (Remember that such a sea zone is not considered hostile.)
The part that concerns us is the second bullet point. It provides an exception for units moving from a hostile sea zone to avoid combat to allow them to move in combat movement even if they’re not going to participate in combat elsewhere. Since a sea zone containing only enemy subs and/or transports is not hostile, the exception doesn’t apply there. The simple fix to allow for this (as was intended) is to remove the word “hostile” from the first sentence so it reads, “Units moving from a sea zone to escape combat as their combat move.”
-
-
Yes, I was in error about which part of the rulebook caused the problem, but the entire content of my explanations other than that is still correct.
You say “the simple fix to allow for this is to remove the word “hostile”” and so on. I suppose this would be on agreement of both of the players, but until the rulebook is officially changed with official FAQ or errata, the rule book is still the rule book. So we are all playing this as written. We shouldn’t have to explain to every new player who comes along to the site, about this rule. Any player who is reading the rule book and playing the game according to it would be playing that you are not allowed to leave a non-hostile zone in the combat movement phase only to avoid the combat. We can’t play by intentions of the rulemaker - this isn’t the US constitution.
-
There seems to be some confusion here. The rule in question is not “Sea Units Starting in Hostile Sea Zones”. That rule is fine, and it’s not relevant to the question at hand. The situation that we’re dealing with is sea units starting in sea zones containing enemy subs (and/or transports), which are not hostile, that you want to attack. The relevant rule is higher up on page 13 (Europe 2nd edition):
You can move units through friendly (but not friendly neutral) spaces en route to hostile spaces during this phase. However, units can�t end their movement in friendly spaces during the Combat Move phase except in four instances.
-
Tanks and mechanized infantry that have blitzed through an unoccupied hostile space (see �Tanks, Mechanized Infantry, and Blitzing,� page 15).
-
Units moving from a hostile sea zone to escape combat as their combat move. A sea zone into which defending air units may be scrambled in reaction to an amphibious assault (see �Scramble,� page 16) may be treated in the same way as a hostile sea zone for this purpose.
-
Sea units that will be participating in an amphibious assault from a friendly sea zone, as well as sea and/or air units that may be needed to support it in the case that defending air units are scrambled (see �Scramble,� page 16).
-
Sea units moving into a sea zone containing only enemy submarines and/or transports in order to attack those units. (Remember that such a sea zone is not considered hostile.)
The part that concerns us is the second bullet point. It provides an exception for units moving from a hostile sea zone to avoid combat to allow them to move in combat movement even if they’re not going to participate in combat elsewhere. Since a sea zone containing only enemy subs and/or transports is not hostile, the exception doesn’t apply there. The simple fix to allow for this (as was intended) is to remove the word “hostile” from the first sentence so it reads, “Units moving from a sea zone to escape combat as their combat move.”
So you are saying a transport should be able to pick up units and move to another zone during combat phase, then drop those units off in the non-combat phase. Sounds good to me but has this been clarified in an official errata? I mention this case because it conflicts with another rule which is if a transport is loaded in combat phase it must also unload in combat phase right? The other boats that leave the zone so as to avoid combat, must the do so in combat phase or could some boats not be part of the sea battle and then move in noncom from the zone?
-
-
You say “the simple fix to allow for this is to remove the word “hostile”” and so on. I suppose this would be on agreement of both of the players, but until the rulebook is officially changed with official FAQ or errata, the rule book is still the rule book. So we are all playing this as written. We shouldn’t have to explain to every new player who comes along to the site, about this rule. Any player who is reading the rule book and playing the game according to it would be playing that you are not allowed to leave a non-hostile zone in the combat movement phase only to avoid the combat. We can’t play by intentions of the rulemaker - this isn’t the US constitution.
I completely agree, and I wasn’t suggesting otherwise. I was merely indicating exactly where the mistake in the rules is so that people may play by the designer’s intent if they wish to.
So you are saying a transport should be able to pick up units and move to another zone during combat phase, then drop those units off in the non-combat phase.
No, I’m not saying that at all. I’m saying that the intent was that moving away from a sea zone in which you’re attacking a sub or transport should be treated in the exact same way as moving away from a sea zone in which you’re attacking a warship. The word “hostile” in the rule excludes a sea zone containing a sub and/or a transport, and that was not the intent.
I mention this case because it conflicts with another rule which is if a transport is loaded in combat phase it must also unload in combat phase right?
No, it doesn’t conflict, as it’s exactly the same. This wording change has no impact on that rule.
The other boats that leave the zone so as to avoid combat, must the do so in combat phase or could some boats not be part of the sea battle and then move in noncom from the zone?
They must move in combat movement, following all applicable rules, and may not move in noncombat.
-
Thank you as always for the timely and well-written replies, Krieghund!!
-
There seems to be some confusion here. The rule in question is not “Sea Units Starting in Hostile Sea Zones”. That rule is fine, and it’s not relevant to the question at hand. The situation that we’re dealing with is sea units starting in sea zones containing enemy subs (and/or transports), which are not hostile, that you want to attack. The relevant rule is higher up on page 13 (Europe 2nd edition):
You can move units through friendly (but not friendly neutral) spaces en route to hostile spaces during this phase. However, units can’t end their movement in friendly spaces during the Combat Move phase except in four instances.
-
Tanks and mechanized infantry that have blitzed through an unoccupied hostile space (see �Tanks, Mechanized Infantry, and Blitzing, page 15).
-
Units moving from a hostile sea zone to escape combat as their combat move. …
…
The part that concerns us is the second bullet point. It provides an exception for units moving from a hostile sea zone to avoid combat to allow them to move in combat movement even if they’re not going to participate in combat elsewhere. Since a sea zone containing only enemy subs and/or transports is not hostile, the exception doesn’t apply there. The simple fix to allow for this (as was intended) is to remove the word “hostile” from the first sentence so it reads, “Units moving from a sea zone to escape combat as their combat move.”
Thank you, Krieghund and Gamerman, for the clarification. I understand the issue now.
But would this fix apply to Europe/Pacific/Global only - or to 1942 2nd Edition and older games, too - as the rules back to at least Anniversary Edition (I did not check older games/rulebooks than AA50) read the same?
-
-
It goes all the way back to AA50. It’s funny how a single word can have such impact and go undetected for so long.
-
Be glad you weren’t responsible for writing the U.S. Constitution or the Bible or something, Krieg :wink:
-
Be glad you weren’t responsible for writing the U.S. Constitution or the Bible or something, Krieg :wink:
:lol: :lol: :lol:
:-o
-
You’ll note from the credits that I had nothing to do with the Rulebook for AA50. I do bear some responsibility for continuing the error forward through copy-and-paste, though. However, in my defense, no one else noticed it in the past 6 years either. :-o
Suggested Topics
