Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2)

Still not sure whether it is a loophole of the rules or official ruler deliberately make the rule so. If this serves for the balance of the game, that’s fine. If not, I would like to hear the reason behind this rule.

Krieghund used to frequent this thread but he hasn’t posted for awhile.  If you really want to know, you’ll need him.

In the meantime, I’ll take a stab.
I’m sure it has nothing to do with “game balance”.  It’s not like it benefits one side more than the other.

It’s derived from the relatively new “ignore submarines and transports” rules.
Sure, they could have worded the exception to say “to avoid combat”, but they didn’t.  My guess is, it is an unintended “loophole”, as I think also is the cheesy ANZAC declare war on Japan after UK moves a destroyer smack into Japan’s main transport fleet.  IMO this is a much bigger scofflaw than your little sub thing.  :-)

I’ll tell you a rule that bugs me more - it’s that you can’t destroy transports and also bombard from the same zone.  If you have a single non-bombarding attacking unit, it should be able to sink the transports - you shouldn’t have to choose (whether to bombard, or to sink transports).

Seems you are extra focused on this one rule because it worked against you once in a game  :roll:

My point is, as I said before, there are actually many of these quirky rules that could really bug a player.  The rule book is set at this point AFAIK.  Since 2nd edition, it’s been pretty much time to accept the rules as they are and learn to play with them.  It is fruitless to seek reasoning or campaign for change.  That ship sailed, when Larry was actually getting (way too much) feedback from all the players between OOB and 2nd edition.

If you really have a beef (again, I think you are just frustrated because you couldn’t sink a sub and it convoyed you for maximum damage once), then you should message Larry directly, on his website.  Maybe you will have an effect on a future game.  I highly doubt it.

There are many, many subtle little rules like this one that can catch a player off guard.  Be glad it wasn’t one that made you lose the game.  That can happen.

Also, now that you know the rule, it shouldn’t catch you again, and you can exploit it yourself.  That’s always been a part of playing A&A, from the beginning.

Happy gaming, Magic

@MagicQ:

Still not sure whether it is a loophole of the rules or official ruler deliberately make the rule so. If this serves for the balance of the game, that’s fine. If not, I would like to hear the reason behind this rule.

It’s a loophole.  It’s kind of funny that we’re still finding them after all this time, with all of the people that have been playing these games.

@Gamerman01:

I’ll tell you a rule that bugs me more - it’s that you can’t destroy transports and also bombard from the same zone.  If you have a single non-bombarding attacking unit, it should be able to sink the transports - you shouldn’t have to choose (whether to bombard, or to sink transports).

Let me explain this rule.

Destroying defenseless transports is no different than any other combat, other than the fact that it’s optional.  The thing that a lot of people fail to grasp is that the defenseless transport rule does nothing in effect but keep you from a having to roll several rounds of dice to kill something that can’t shoot back; it doesn’t make transports some kind of “sub-unit” that can be swatted like a fly.

Choosing to destroying a single transport prevents bombardment for the same reason that a single destroyer does.  Units can only fight one battle each round, and all units in the same space (with an exception for units belonging to powers not at war) must participate in combats fought in that space.  To paraphrase the great philosopher Horton the Elephant, a combat’s a combat, no matter how small.

@Krieghund:

To paraphrase the great philosopher Horton the Elephant, a combat’s a combat, no matter how small.

I love it.  :lol:

Same as I think. Shore bombardment then no sea battle, sea battle then no bombardment. Perfectly fine. Shouldn’t bother you that much, dear Gamerman.

I am glad not only because I will get few ipc back in my game but most importantly whole league will play in a right way from now on.

@MagicQ:

Same as I think. Shore bombardment then no sea battle, sea battle then no bombardment. Perfectly fine. Shouldn’t bother you that much, dear Gamerman.

I am glad not only because I will get few ipc back in my game but most importantly whole league will play in a right way from now on.

??
Just because Krieghund said it was a loophole does not mean you have changed the rule.  How are you getting IPC’s back?
All league games are played by what is printed in the rulebook, loopholes and all.

@Gamerman01:

@MagicQ:

Same as I think. Shore bombardment then no sea battle, sea battle then no bombardment. Perfectly fine. Shouldn’t bother you that much, dear Gamerman.

I am glad not only because I will get few ipc back in my game but most importantly whole league will play in a right way from now on.

??
Just because Krieghund said it was a loophole does not mean you have changed the rule.  How are you getting IPC’s back?
All league games are played by what is printed in the rulebook, loopholes and all.

Keep this loophole and exploit ignorant axis player? Not a good idea.

Loopholes are only closed by new laws/rules and we have none.  The rules are what they are - they are the same for everyone.

@Krieghund:

@MagicQ:

Still not sure whether it is a loophole of the rules or official ruler deliberately make the rule so. If this serves for the balance of the game, that’s fine. If not, I would like to hear the reason behind this rule.

It’s a loophole.  It’s kind of funny that we’re still finding them after all this time, with all of the people that have been playing these games.

Please provide us with an amended rule in this case.  It is clear that your intention is to allow sea units’ movement to avoid combat during combat move phase. But still need you to confirm.

@Gamerman01:

Krieghund used to frequent this thread but he hasn’t posted for awhile.  If you really want to know, you’ll need him.

In the meantime, I’ll take a stab.
I’m sure it has nothing to do with “game balance”.  It’s not like it benefits one side more than the other.

It’s derived from the relatively new “ignore submarines and transports” rules.
Sure, they could have worded the exception to say “to avoid combat”, but they didn’t.  My guess is, it is an unintended “loophole”, as I think also is the cheesy ANZAC declare war on Japan after UK moves a destroyer smack into Japan’s main transport fleet.  IMO this is a much bigger scofflaw than your little sub thing.  :-)

I’ll tell you a rule that bugs me more - it’s that you can’t destroy transports and also bombard from the same zone.  If you have a single non-bombarding attacking unit, it should be able to sink the transports - you shouldn’t have to choose (whether to bombard, or to sink transports).

Seems you are extra focused on this one rule because it worked against you once in a game  :roll:

My point is, as I said before, there are actually many of these quirky rules that could really bug a player.  The rule book is set at this point AFAIK.  Since 2nd edition, it’s been pretty much time to accept the rules as they are and learn to play with them.  It is fruitless to seek reasoning or campaign for change.  That ship sailed, when Larry was actually getting (way too much) feedback from all the players between OOB and 2nd edition.

If you really have a beef (again, I think you are just frustrated because you couldn’t sink a sub and it convoyed you for maximum damage once), then you should message Larry directly, on his website.  Maybe you will have an effect on a future game.  I highly doubt it.

There are many, many subtle little rules like this one that can catch a player off guard.  Be glad it wasn’t one that made you lose the game.  That can happen.

Also, now that you know the rule, it shouldn’t catch you again, and you can exploit it yourself.  That’s always been a part of playing A&A, from the beginning.

Happy gaming, Magic

Hi Gamerman01

Thanks for your time. I think you are good and experienced enough to realize the balance problem it will cause.

It allows allies to constantly convoy Axis (eg. sz6) with subs knowing that Japanese have to move fleets from there next round and the allies sub can survive. Japan can convoy allies? True. But not as profitable as allies. And usually Japanese sub can’t survive as  allies coalition force (eg. ANZ) can finish it off.  To let enemy’s force survive in your heart area will damage you more than a few convoy IPC lose.

This loophole weakens Japan thus helps allies a little bit overall. Sounds like a good idea to balance the game. I should have been happy to accept.  Unfortunately, it is against A&A game’s mechanic or spirit. This game is balanced in a mutually acceptable way but not by anything like this. At least I haven’t noticed any.

@MagicQ:

Please provide us with an amended rule in this case.  It is clear that your intention is to allow sea units’ movement to avoid combat during combat move phase. But still need you to confirm.

That’s not likely to happen any time soon.  For now all I can do is recommend that you play it that way, but it’s up to the ruling authorities of each organization whether to follow that recommendation.

In league play, you can do about whatever you want if both players consent.  Magic, if you can get your opponent to agree, then you can play that you can attack these subs and also move units away during the combat movement phase to avoid combat.

However, the default in league play is to follow the rulebook and official FAQ/errata verbatim.  This protects new players from improper surprises, and protects everyone from misunderstandings.  So unless you and your opponent agree, in league play, you cannot legally move ships away from subs in the combat movement phase because the sea zone is not hostile, as the rulebook prescribes.

I need a little clarification on the +10 NO if the the allies DOW an unprovoked war on Japan.

Will Japan give that bonus up if they take FIC or if they simply hit it with air? UK’s parked a fighter there and I’m wondering if it’s safe to just kill it with air or if I’ll lose it regardless of whether that terr stays blue or not. Thanks

The NO requires that Japan has not ATTACKED FIC

So you will lose the NO even if you attack with air only

I thought as much, but I wanted to be sure before I made any attacks. Thanks Gamerman!

the US is launching an amphib attack on Phil. Japan has one sub in sea zone 35 and the US has moved a dd and sub to 35. Kamis have sunk the dd and the Japanese subs submerges. Will the US still be able to unload the transport and  do the amphib on Phil?

Yes.  The US won the sea battle when the Japanese sub submerged.  In order to prevent the landing, the Japanese sub would need to both sink the US sub and survive, forcing the US transports to retreat.

I have a question about a situation I have never seen before. If a Russian unit is transported on a British transport, can it off load into Northern Italy without Italy being able to scramble from Southern Italy?

If not, do the other British naval units participate in the “amphibious” assault by an ally from their transport?

Allied parties may not make any joint attacks. This includes amphibious landings. You could have 50 British bbs and Italy could scramble a lone fighter and prevent the assault. Unless of course at least 1 Russian unit (ftr, tac, etc) was in that same sea zone. In which case a battle would occur solely between the Russian unit(s) and any Italian/German scramblers.

Nothing happens to the British transport regardless of any sea battle that may or may not occur based on scrambling. And a scramble or lost battle would just keep the Russians on the transport. They don’t die, they’ll just stew on the transport complaining about a lack of a real drink like vodka and wondering what the big deal about tea was.

Right.  I would just point out that the Italians have to actually scramble to stop it (commit at least 1 plane).  But axisandalliesplayer is right - once the Italians scramble, it stops the Russians from unloading and no dice are rolled - no combat occurs - the Russians stay on the transport.