@oklahomasailor52:
Could anyone state this Alpha +3 changed sub rule in a different way? I’m having a difficult time understanding exactly what it means:
Absolutely. I can make this crystal clear for you.
“Also note that transports are not allowed to unload land units for an amphibious assault in a sea zone containing an enemy sub(s) belonging to a power with which they are at war unless at least one of his warships was also present in the sea zone at the end of the Combat Move phase.”
Does this mean that I can only do an amphibious assault if one of the sub owner’s warships was in the sea zone at the end of Combat Movement, or if one of MY warships was present then? I’m just very confused! :?
Yes you are. “at least one of his warships was also present” is referring to the attacker. Not the defender. The rule merely means that you can’t ignore enemy subs (you are at war with) with your naked (totally unescorted) transports.
Moreover, why even change the rule?
Because subs should be able to prevent unescorted transports from landing and making amphibious assaults. Does it make sense if you have 10 subs and your enemy waltzes up with one loaded transport and no escort, and can just ignore all your subs? The game developers didn’t think so.
So in other words, to be able to unload from a sea zone containing enemy subs, you must have a warship escorting the transport(s). (Submarine, Destroyer, Cruiser, Carrier, or Battleship) You would move this escort during the combat movement phase.