Poll: sneak attack

Before I vote (again), I must know why you are so determined to have your own way become the offical way?

OMG Spam-King enough with the polls already…… If you have a point that isn’t a Poll I would like to read it. If not…Stop spamming this forum with all your dumb-ass polls.

This poll is again SKEWED it doesn’t state that the rule CHANGES allowing subs to BLOCK unescorted transports completely from amphibously assaulting.

I like the fact than in alpha I can protect my coast with a couple of German subs,  thus forcing USA to buy more than transports for the alantic side.  The one shot suprize is crap if I have a sub in the water the enemy should not be able to waltz in with greater number of transports and still land with no other war ships.

@MEGAEINSTEIN:

Do NOT DARE TO REMOVE AGAIN THIS POLL!

JUST ACCEPT DEMOCRACY

Lmfao.  Even in a democracy a vote needs to be 100% clear and concise with NO chance for ambiguity.  Try again (or better yet, just stop)

@Gargantua:

This poll is again SKEWED it doesn’t state that the rule CHANGES allowing subs to BLOCK unescorted transports completely from amphibously assaulting.

What Gargantua said, to be honest.

Once again a poll open to abiguity and interpretation, without full and complete information

@Rorschach:

@Gargantua:

This poll is again SKEWED it doesn’t state that the rule CHANGES allowing subs to BLOCK unescorted transports completely from amphibously assaulting.

What Gargantua said, to be honest.

Once again a poll open to abiguity and interpretation, without full and complete information

Especially true, as his (mega"einstein") understanding of what “escort” constitutes isn’t even in line with the intent of the original rule as defined in the FAQ.  Admittedly it was never “official” errata as the rule was abandoned before FAQ/Errata has been released in any official capacity, but considering the definition of “escort” needed to be made to clarify the rule, his reading of it and weary campaign is all the more ambiguous and outmoded.

@MEGAEINSTEIN:

By the way can the moderator explain to me why my other poll was removed?

He moved a bunch of polls to “player help”.  He moved my poll as well.

@MEGAEINSTEIN:

Do NOT DARE TO REMOVE AGAIN THIS POLL! There were 77 voters with 80% voting to maintain the rule.

Now you can change your vote, now the question is clear as water.

JUST ACCEPT DEMOCRACY OR MAYBE SOMEONE SHOULD NOT ALLOW THIS SITE TO EXIST!!!

Ok, I’ll bite. I do prefer the prior rule, I really enjoyed the fact that subs and transports were worthless for blocking naval actions. I do not like that 1 sub can prevent 12 transports from conducting an amphibious assault…I don’t mind if a scramble does that, just a sub seems silly. Of course it is unlikely that that many transports will not have 1 ship with them. It is funny if I understand correctly that the escorting ship may be a sub also…sub on sub…only happened once during world war II if I recall. The sub that was bringing jet tech and Mercury to Japan as the Germans fell.

well i have to say only 14 people voted and its tied so how about you give up and use it your self for your own games so you and those 7 other people can play the way they want, thats the beuty of board games you buy the game and after that you use hoever you like.

Dude, you seem to be laboring under the impression that you somehow have a “right” to post polls here, or to have them stay up, along with the misconception that the design of this game is a democratic process.

Neither of these are true.  “Your will” is in no way relevant to what posts stay and what posts go.  “Your knowledge” is not a prerequiste for action on the part of the moderators of this site.  “Democracy” does not decide the official rules of this game.

If you are uncomfortable with these facts, I can understand and respect that.  However, I don’t think “SOMEONE NOT ALLOW(ing) THIS SITE TO EXIST” is the answer.  Perhaps you could pretend this site doesn’t exist?

@MEGAEINSTEIN:

It seems to me that there are a minority of players (like Rorschach, Gargantua and some others) that will never accept this poll because they think another way. But saying that the poll is not clear is not fair at all.

What is ridiculous is saying that a rule that is in the rulebook is a house rule.

The original poll that was clear enough and that was removed against my will and without my knowledge had 77 voters and more than 80% voted to maintain the rule.

If it’s removed from the rulebook by the game designer, then you have NO legitimate ground to stand on by insisting that rule book is still accurate.  Game design is not a democracy.  Eventually, the word of the designer/publisher is gospel.  Errata will happen and revisions will be made, whether for balance, or in this case, simplicity, in the goal of establishing the tightest, simplest ruleset.  The sneak attack rule was confusing because it introduced a convoluted “escort” mechanism that took several attempts to word in a way that met the intent of the game, only to be met with question upon question by those who weren’t following the discussion.

Also of note, A&A.org is unaffiliated with Larry Harris, so this demand for response from the game designer on THIS forum is ignorant at best.  If you’re so hellbent on getting the pot shot back, go campaign on the Larry Harris game design forum, where it might actually make a difference.  At this point I wonder if anyone in contact with LH gives any credence to your polls or opinion, so if you actually want an official response, this is probably not the forum.

@MEGAEINSTEIN:

1 - what i do not understand is why people who reply are in this poll and in the other poll that was removed against my will where almost all against maintaining sneak attack but the ones who voted in the last poll (77 voters) 80% voted to maintain sneak attack and in this poll 9 voted to maintain and 8 not to.

Can someone explain to me this big difference between voters opinions and replies opinions?

It could easily be confusion of terminology.  You’re still using the term “sneak attack” with reference to free shots against unescorted transports, at least in this sentence.

I personally think a lot of people like the mechanic, but, given the difficulty in defining precisely how it’s supposed to work, understand and accept its removal for the sake of simplicity.

2 - this is not a democratic game. Ok, but people who vote are players of the game that are suposed to have one opinion about it. If the vast majority of players (adding both polls) think sneak attack should not be removed, perhaps the players posting this replies (who knows if it is not the same player using different names) should think that what the majority of players think may be perhaps correct.

Keep in mind that any polls on this site will necessarily be responded to by players who have above-average investment in the game;  that is, they play enough or care enough about play to visit this site.  This is a very small percentage of the overall player base, one more willing to dig through FAQs, etc., to figure out exactly how to use a slightly wonky rule.  This is great, but the designers have to think in terms of the average user…which posters here really aren’t.  It’s great for a house rule–it adds a level of complexity for players that desire it.  It’s not great for general consumption.

I’m fine with removing the rule for unescorted transports. There was a lot of confusion as to what constituted unescorted.

At one point the rule was clarified as a transport has to make it’s whole move with a surface warship. Well, what if you have a transport in sz6 that picks up a cruiser as escort in sz19 and continues down to sz36. If there’s a sub in sz20 then it gets a pot shot since the transport wasn’t with the cruiser for it’s whole move.
You could just say the transport has to be accompanied by an escort for the sea zone before and after a sea zone occupied by an enemy sub, but again more possibility for confusion. The rules are designed to so that anyone can play a balanced board game, if sections are too complicated most people won’t get it.

Now as for house rules, add as much complexity as you want. I was a fan of the idea that subs get to take potshots at all passing ships. If there’s a destroyer present then the sub can’t submerge after their potshot and have to stay and fight.
I also like the idea of destroyers preventing subs from submerging on a one-to-one basis. That would make subs a lot more sneaky and better at surviving.

i´d like to keep that rule, because it simply makes sense.

@MEGAEINSTEIN:

**Submarines can fire a special “sneak attack” shot at unescorted transports as explained in the rulebook with the following clarification: a transport is considered escorted (and though there is no sneak attack) if:

-If it moves during combat move and if at any moment during the combat move there is a friendly surface warship in the sub sea zone.

-If it moves during noncombat move and if at any moment during the noncombat move there is a friendly surface warship in the sub sea zone.**

Yeah, that’s specifically the wording I don’t like.  That’s not an escort.

First example: there’s an allied sub in sz20.  A Japanese transport moves from SZ 6 to sz 36.  A Japanese cruiser starts in sz 20 and moves to sz 35.  Under your wording, that constitutes an escort.

Second example: there’s an allied sub in sz 25.  A Japanese transport moves from SZ 6 to SZ 26.  A Japanese destroyer moves from SZ 15 to sz 31 through SZ 25.  Under your wording, that constitutes an escort.

I vehemently oppose THAT wording, as strongly as you want the “sneak attack” back, for the following reasons:

A) We’re to assume that all movements are simultaneous.  In the first case, the cruiser moves away before the sub moves through the seazone.  In the second case, paths cross, each moving a different number of spaces.  So, abstractly, they’re not following the same paths, thus NOT an escort.

B) We’re also to assume seazones are very large.  This is partially reinforced by the ability to ignore units neutral to you in a seazone battle.  From that, and based on any semblance of reality implied by introducing the concept of an “escort”, in the first example the cruiser and the transport are separated at some point and a sub would have an opening.  They’re not moving together, so how can the cruiser be an escort?  In the second example, again, these are different paths entering the seazone from different borders.

How could either possibly be justified as an escort?

In my opinion, the errata was correct in establishing that the escort needed to move with the transport at every step of the transports move.  I would have preferred if the escort needed to end in the same seazone as the transport, but at least it implies an escort role – moving with the transport along the same set route.

Also, your wording allows allied ships in the subs seazone to take on the role of the escort.  Again, I don’t believe that satisfies the nature of an escort, or follows established game mechanics.  An escort, by definition, moves WITH the ship it is escorting.  The allied ships are decidedly never moving.  Yeah, sure, they’re patrolling.  But the game mechanics suggest that they’re not coordinated with you.  After all, they don’t participate in a battle in that seazone, if you choose to engage the sub.  If it was an allied destroyer, it would not cancel any sub special abilities on your turn.

I admit there is abstraction and the simultaneous movement isn’t a part of the game mechanics compared to a game like RoboRally, but come on, how can you possibly justify that either of those examples above could be considered an escort?  No no, a thousand times no.

I would however accept that an escort duty is filled if a ship moves across the same borders going INTO the enemy subs’ seazone and across the same border OUT of the enemy subs’ seazone  (or remained with it).  I would have been very satisfied with that wording.  I would have preferred it in fact, as it requires that the transport isn’t left alone in the seazone, which it can do under the errataed language.

Why do we have to be subjected to this lunacy again…

@acampo22:

Why do we have to be subjected to this lunacy again…

yeah, I know, I’m just encouraging him…

But when he proposes a rule change using bolded language we run the risk of seeing someone take it as the correct interpretation of OOB rules (it’s NOT) and it shows up in the bloody FAQ thread again and again, or in seperate threads.  So as long as he continues to misrepresent the rule, I’ll continue to correct it.  If he accepts the errata language, I won’t have any reason to post in the thread.