Rule clarification regarding submarines

[AlphaKappa]

This is from page 32 of the rulebook:
“If a destroyer is in a battle, it cancels the following unit
characteristics of all enemy submarines in that battle:
Surprise Strike, Submersible, and Can’t Be Hit by Air
Units. Note that destroyers belonging to a power friendly
to the attacker that happen to be in the same sea zone
as the battle don’t actually participate in it, therefore
they don’t cancel any of these abilities of defending
submarines.”

How could this situation even occur?  I can’t picture it…

[Fortress]

There’s a million examples. Here’s one: English Channel. UK has a force there, including a destroyer. Germany non-com parks a sub there. US tries to amphibiously assault Holland. The US would need a destroyer in that sea zone to cancel out those abilities of the German sub. The UK units in that sea zone are not part of that battle.

Also, keep in mind that in G40, whole navies can be built into enemy-occupied seazones…

[AlphaKappa]

Ah, okay. I must have been tired! That makes perfect sense. Thanks.

[ghr2]

I’ve seen a situation where Germany has a sub in 106 at the end of uk’s turn, uk places a new dd there, and the french fighter from the uk tries to attack it.  But, of course it is not that easy.

[elevenjerk]

What if Germany has a sub  sz 110 and some more navy in sz 112.  Us has a full navy in sz 91.  Can the us send a destroyer to the sub and the rest of the navy (w/o a destroyer since I believe they can’t pass subs) to sz 112 to take out the German navy in the same combat move OR do I have to leave the sub alone and take all navy aside from destroyers to sz 112.  Please clarify if any of this is wrong, right, or kind of right.

[Degrasse]

The defending submarine doesn’t create a hostile sea zone, if I’m using the rulebook phrase correctly.  So the non destroyer war ships are free to move past the submarine to sea zone 112 in your example and then destroyers could follow to sea zone 110 to fight the submarine.  There are more subtleties to the situation as well, but someone better than me with the rules would need to discuss options to ignore defending forces of submarines only.

[Krieghund]

Degrasse is correct, except that the US destroyers may also pass through sea zone 110 (whether or not any units stop in sea zone 110 to attack the sub).  Destroyers force subs to stop moving, not the other way around.  Subs (and transports) by themselves never block the movement of any enemy sea units.

[elevenjerk]

Thanks.  Its amazing to me that everytime we play, which is quite a bit, we always seem to come across some new rule (different to how we had been playing anyway).  Thats what makes this game so great.

[Degrasse]

“Degrasse is correct”

There’s a sentence I’ll never hear from my wife.  :)

[gokuja]

We’ve been wondering if subs block destroyers movement the past game or two so thanks for the clarification.  And not to hijack the threat but also have a question regarding neutrals.  If germany activates a pro-axis neutral, then russia captures that territory, does russia still gets its +3 NO?  or is it only if germany doesn’t take it first?

[ch0senfktard]

It doesn’t matter whether the Pro-Axis neutral was activated or not. If Russia has conquered a territory that is Pro-Axis then it will collect the additional 3 IPCs. This only applies to Finland, Bulgaria, and Iraq.

If strict neutrals flipped towards Axis and Russia captured Turkey, Russia would not receive the bonus.

[Eqqman]

@ch0senfktard:

If strict neutrals flipped towards Axis and Russia captured Turkey, Russia would not receive the bonus.

Is that something that was clarified in a FAQ?  The rule says original German, Italian, or pro-Axis neutral.  Because of the or in there, I would argue that it doesn’t require the neutrals to have started out as pro-Axis, since strictly speaking it can be interpreted as starting an entirely new category of territories.

[ch0senfktard]

@Eqqman:

@ch0senfktard:

If strict neutrals flipped towards Axis and Russia captured Turkey, Russia would not receive the bonus.

Is that something that was clarified in a FAQ?  The rule says original German, Italian, or pro-Axis neutral.  Because of the or in there, I would argue that it doesn’t require the neutrals to have started out as pro-Axis, since strictly speaking it can be interpreted as starting an entirely new category of territories.

Note the word “original”. It is only talking about territories that start off German, Italian or Pro-Axis.

[Eqqman]

@ch0senfktard:

Note the word “original”. It is only talking about territories that start off German, Italian or Pro-Axis.

Yes, but my point would be that the or in there allows the discussion on neutrals to be an entirely new category in which the original qualifier does not apply.  I believe the rules of English grammar allow for that kind of interpretation and you would have to modify it to or original pro-Axis neutral to remove any dispute.

[ch0senfktard]

I understand what you mean. I’m sure the rule is meant for original Pro-Axis, but I can’t really support that.
We’ll just have to wait for someone else to clarify, I suppose.

[kcdzim]

@ch0senfktard:

I understand what you mean. I’m sure the rule is meant for original Pro-Axis, but I can’t really support that.
We’ll just have to wait for someone else to clarify, I suppose.

Chosen is right.

It means original German, original Italian, and original Pro-Axis and NOT neutrals that have been turned at some point during the game.

[Eqqman]

@kcdzim:

Chosen is right.

It means original German, original Italian, and original Pro-Axis and NOT neutrals that have been turned at some point during the game.

I’m sure that probably is the intended meaning of the rule, but the wording doesn’t ensure that it is the only possible interpretation.  Consider the phrase you may select red triangles, squares, or blue circles.  You are not likely to think that the circles are both red and blue, since those adjectives would likely be interpreted as mutually exclusive, but original and pro-Axis don’t fall into that category, so it is up to the reader to decide if they both apply or only one does.

Again, I’m not arguing against what the rule likely is, I’m just saying the wording allows for other readings which are equally valid under English grammar.

[gokuja]

Thanks for clearing that up, I figured that would be the answer and that is how we play, but I just wanted to be 100% sure.  And I agree the strict neutrals are probably not a part of the russian NO.  But can understand how the wording can confuse that.

[elevenjerk]

how bout this situation.

Japan has a navy in sz 6.  us has 2 subs in sz 16.  Japan attacks the subs with a destroyer and 4 fighters.  the rest of the navy including the transport goes on to hawaii with a transport w/ 1 inf to take hawaii.  Do the subs still get a shot at the transport or no since I am attacking them with a destroyer and planes?

Found the answer to my own question….any surface warship that accompanies a transport negates the shot from a sub at the transport.

[rmcbride]

@Fortress:

There’s a million examples. Here’s one: English Channel. UK has a force there, including a destroyer. Germany non-com parks a sub there. US tries to amphibiously assault Holland. The US would need a destroyer in that sea zone to cancel out those abilities of the German sub. The UK units in that sea zone are not part of that battle.

Also, keep in mind that in G40, whole navies can be built into enemy-occupied seazones…

"what do you mean by “G40”