Mike Sub-Stall Question

[DY]

Mike, I don't know if you've looked through the sub-stalling thread that popped up these past few days that you've been away. It has created a lot of hostility and we really need a ruling.

Question:

Can a transport that starts its turn in a hostile sea zone move out on combat movement (up to two spaces) into a friendly sea zone, then in non-combat movement load and unload units (obviously, since its movement is used up it would have to be a "bridging" situation)?

[pagan]

Seems that this is what needs to be decided if I am getting this idea correctly through my skimming of the posts:

A. since it's a combat move 'out of combat' is still classified as the transport having been in combat and therefore can only either Load or Unload.

B. a move 'out of combat' is not considered actual combat since its only movement, and therefore a transport can then Load And/Or Unload

[moc1976]

I know its not the exact same situation, but I remeber a thread about whether or not the British TRN could move from SZ 1 (with a German sub there) to SZ 9, pick up the B tank, and move to SZ 8 to try to liberate UK. This was assuming a G1 Sealion.

I could have sworn that Mike responded that this was legal.

If he ruled that was a legal move, I would think that the situation in this thread should also be legal.

[DY]

That was TOTALLY different. I aksed Mike that question and put it in the FAQ. Mike made special emphasis that your situation was legal precisely because everything took place during COMBAT movement.

[Scott_WAR]

Thanks for making this DY. I was thinking of making another one myself, since the first one has ran off to page 2. Also I figured it would be much easier to read one short post that is 3 or 4 replies long, rather than wading through that long post , that we all repeated the same 3 rules over and over at each other. :)

[smo63]

In your question: "Can a transport that starts its turn in a hostile sea zone move out on combat movement (up to two spaces) into a friendly sea zone, then in non-combat movement load and unload units (obviously, since its movement is used up it would have to be a "bridging" situation)?"

Yes you can. You can NOT load units onto a transport in a hostile territory. So you would have to clear the seazone or move...

As far as bridging goes, Bridging is only when you load and offload a tranport without moving sea zones.

GS:)

[SquishyBall]

Guys, you don't need Mike to answer this... It's already said, on the AH site... This is in Mike Selinker's articles on the game changes:


This led to an unsightly tactic called "sub-stalling." A sub would enter a sea zone with enemy ships and immediately submerge. No combat would occur but when the "attacked" player's next turn came around, he couldn't load or offload his transports because the zone was enemy-occupied. This reduced entire fleets' movements to one sea zone a turn and made the naval game a slog through quicksand.

As I think you can tell, I hated all of this. What especially irked me was that with all of these complex rules, submarines still couldn't do the one thing I wanted them to do: move without being seen. That, I reasoned, was what submarines were all about.


Sub-stalling is NOT part of the game.

[SquishyBall]

And then on Mike Selinker's article on transports...


A transport cannot load or offload in a sea zone containing any hostile units. The only exception to this is when the enemy forces are all submerged submarines. This typically matters only when a fleet comes into a sea zone to clear out a force of sea units before an amphibious assault or noncombat move offloading. If an enemy submarine survives the first volley and then submerges, the transports can offload because the sub "isn't really there." Submarines can no longer "sub-stall" (an irritating move-and-submerge tactic from Axis & Allies Pacific) without risking demolition, so transports have more mobility in the game.


He clearly reiterates that "Submarines can no longer 'sub-stall'... so transports have more mobility in the game"

Can we lay this issue to rest please? Sub-stalling is illegal. It's nothing more than an over-interepreted technicality in the manual which is clearly explained here.

[Mike Selinker]

Sorry I'm late to this discussion, DY. It was a busy week.

Can a transport that starts its turn in a hostile sea zone move out on combat movement (up to two spaces) into a friendly sea zone, then in non-combat movement load and unload units?

Sort of. The loading and unloading occurs during the combat move, even though it doesn't involve combat. The "combat" in question was the escape from combat at the start of the phase.

Mike

[DY]

Thanks Mike. Initially I was disagreeing with Squishy and Scott, but as the argument dragged on a was coming to see it from your angle. Good to have a definitive answer, from you to end the argument once and for all.

[cousin_joe]

I like this ruling, it makes sense :) Glad to see this discussion finally come to an end... I was starting to feel like I was in a courtroom full of lawyers... YUCK!!!

[Scott_WAR]

As long as I was right, LOL. :p This, in fact, gives the transport more freedom than I thought. Now, instead of having to move during combat and only being able to "bridge" during non combat, the tranny, in this certain situation, can just pick up and drop off wherever it pleases during the combat move, whether it involves combat or not. So basically, since it is forced to move during combat movement, then its movement and loading and unoading may all be done during combat move, even if it doesnt result in combat.

[BlackWatch222]

Sort of. The loading and unloading occurs during the combat move, even though it doesn't involve combat. The "combat" in question was the escape from combat at the start of the phase.
Mike

Mike, I'm glad to see you have given your view on this.

Unfortunately the rule book is still flawed. The way this rule is presented in the book, it is not made clear that it is an exception to the basic definition of a combat move. There are conflicting rules, and there's no no way to tell in the book which takes precedence.

While the transport in question may be making a combat move (by exiting a seazone where there is a sub), the land unit that loads from and moves to a friendly territory through friendly seazones is not making a combat move. it is making a noncombat move in the combat move phase.

Right now you have the authority of authorship to tell those who read these boards what you meant.

Those who only have the rule book have no way to tell which rule trumps the other.

The 8 page debate that went on before is just a preview of the problems that will continue to occur if AH does not rewrite the rule book to eliminate these undocumented conflicts and exceptions.

Best regards,
BW

[Lobo]

(1) Mike, I'm glad to see you have given your view on this.

(2) Unfortunately the rule book is still flawed. The way this rule is presented in the book, it is not made clear that it is an exception to the basic definition of a combat move. There are conflicting rules, and there's no no way to tell in the book which takes precedence.

(3) Right now you have the authority of authorship to tell those who read these boards what you meant. Those who only have the rule book have no way to tell which rule trumps the other.

(4) The 8 page debate that went on before is just a preview of the problems that will continue to occur if AH does not rewrite the rule book to eliminate these undocumented conflicts and exceptions.

RIGHT on all four (4) counts. I hope the FAQs will be routinely updated so we don't have to hunt down answers. I also hope that AH is planning on printing an updated/revised/clarified rulebook for inclusion in subsequent printings/editions of AAR.

[Scott_WAR]

We are all in agreement here. In fact I was wrong as well. Not one single person who debated the issue was completely correct. That shows the wording in the rules needs some serious work.

[DY]

Agreed Scott.

[Stephen]

I don't want to throw gas on the fire but does that mean that you could offload units into a friendly territory during combat as long as the transport began its turn in a SZ with a submarine?

[Lobo]

does that mean that you could offload units into a friendly territory during combat as long as the transport began its turn in a SZ with a submarine?

Yes. That's exactly what it means (the transport could also begin its turn in a SZ with an enemy transport,destroyer.,Battleship,Carrier). Of course the land units end their move in that friendly territory (just as if they moved during Non-combat) so the move is no different than if occurred during NCM.

[Scott_WAR]

Egads though, how to word this in the rules, without basically saying that the transport in question can violate several basic concepts of the game. We all understand the situation, and why the transport should be able to load and unload in non combat. Saying it can do it during combat, even if it is a noncombat move, is the best way, since it gives the transport all of its options, but it feels wrong.

So, I see two ways of changing that that might be better. One is rather drastic, and I know will never happen, but I am still going to list it.. becasue.........well because I like it. The 2nd is very simple, and I think is probably the best solution.

The drastic solution is to change the names of the 2 movement phases, from combat movement and non-combat movement to Mevement Phase A (or whatever) and Movement phase B. Any non combat movement can be made during either movement phase. Any combat movements must be made during Phase A. Any units that move in A cant move in B with the exception of planes landing from combat in phase A. Like I said, way to drastic to become official, but it would take care of many issues and would prevent most of the exceptions and special situations.

The 2nd, more simple method, would be to declare that the transport is moving ut of combt with the sub on combat movement, but not actually move it, maybe turn it on its side to denote it has to move during noncombat. Then when noncombat move comes, it moves out of the space and does its noncombat move as normal. Any thoughts on either?

[Stephen]

I can think of at least two other times when units can move to a friendly area/SZ during combat movement:

1) escaping a hostile SZ and moving to an empty SZ

2) blitzing into an empty territory with a tank and then moving into a friendly territory

Perhaps the idea of activity in a friendly area isn't as unusual after all, the move can be completed during combat movement since, despite the fact that a portion of the movement takes place in a friendly area, the move is performed during combat.

[Scott_WAR]

Right, thats the way the current ruling makes it. You do the noncombat movement during combat, because it has to be done then to avoid combat. Even though the fundamental rule of combat movement is ending the move actually in combat. Its a contradiction/exception. Its a result of using a basic set of rules that wasnt designed with the things we are now able to do, being done. When the game was created, and combat, noncombat was established as the phases, there was no submerging of subs. Now that there is, it creates situations that this set of old rules, cant handle well.

The tank in your example, is actually engaging in combat of a sort, by taking over the empty territory. It ends its move in a friendly territory though, because it is excercising its right to blitz and move 2 spaces.

[Stephen]

The tank in your example, is actually engaging in combat of a sort, by taking over the empty territory. It ends its move in a friendly territory though, because it is excercising its right to blitz and move 2 spaces.

Exactly. The combat movement ends in a friendly zone (normally reserved for non-combat movement), but because the move contains some elements of a combat movement, it is entirely legal.

[Scott_WAR]

Heres the thing. the tank is allowed to move back into a friendly territory during the combat move, because it actually does something that can only be done during coombat, taking over a territory. It is allowed to do that to prevent casuing a contradiciton or exception in the rules. If it did the combat part during combat, and then the non combat part during non combat, it would violate the no moving during combat, and non combat phases. So you can see they were trying to avoid situations where exceptions would be made to the core rules.

Unfortunately, adding submerging, wasnt forseen, and it has created the situation. By the rules, as Mike has explained, the exception is that the transport gets to load and unload into a friendly territory during the combat move. It doesnt participate in combat, or does anything related to combat. In fact it is being forced to move to avoid combat.

My idea is simple. By laying the tranny on its side and announcing it is not engaging the sub, would mean the pieces would still share the same space, but since the tranny has announced its intent to move out, it isnt involved in combat in that space (similiar to a sub submerging, call it disengaging). Then during non combat move it must move out as announced. Since it is non combat, and it hasnt moved or engaged in combat, it has met the conditions required to move and load and unload, as per page 21, which was a large part of the debate.

[SquishyBall]

We are all in agreement here. In fact I was wrong as well. Not one single person who debated the issue was completely correct. That shows the wording in the rules needs some serious work.

I'd like to think I was completely correct. :)

It turns out that transports can do their entire non-combat move, uninhibited by the sub that "stalled" (moved in and submerged) or the new units that were built in the transport's sea zone.

Even if that move involves moving out of combat, picking up a unit, moving again, picking up another unit, and then dropping off both.

The transport's move is completely uninhibited, which was my original claim, and how I interpreted the game manual. :cool:

Someone mentioned that rule being hard to write... but it's not. You just say that a unit that begins it's turn in a hostile zone (either due to a sub submerging or new units built) can move out as if the hostile units were not there, including any legal non-combat moves for it, or the units it's loading / unloading.

One tiny way in which a transport is still restricted, is that it now has to do it's whole n-c move in the c phase, which means if you had intended to ferry units to a territory you planned to capture now, you couldn't. But that's a very tiny restriction... you could just move them there as part of the invasion force.

Another restriction, if you'd planned to move a transport thru an occupied sz after the zone was cleared (moving from E.Med thru C.Med to W.Med, after a plane clears a sub in C.Med, for example) could not be done, cuz you have to complete the units move on the combat phase. That's okay tho. Can't make transports all-powerful, and they are in a hostile zone... they gotta move out or fight.

In any case, thank you for the words of wisdom, Mike, and great job on the revised game! The best strat game of all time got way better. 5 stars all around.
-Squish

[graaf6]

Scott and Sagalls,
ditto your comments ref Movement Phases A and B. We did the same thing with the original game back in college; albeit for different reasons.....primarily because we just couldn't seem to remember to move the British South African infantry north one space during the UK non-combat move (too much beer during our games i guess).

MOST IMPORATANLY we found that allowing some Non-Combat movement to occur during Movement Phase A actually sped up the game, because there were many times when a player could make a number of non-combat moves that he knew he would make anyway regardless of the outcome of any battles that were to be fought that turn. Movement phase B often became “just land your damn planes and get me a beer” phase :)

This concept was easily adaptable to the three ensuing games (Europe, Pacific, and Revised). Doing so eliminated any contradictions regarding the three situations described by yourself and Sagalls:

1 tank blitz thru enemy territory to end up in friendly territory
2 transports in a variety of situations including the ones described in this thread
3 naval vessels that start in a space with enemy naval vessels

You mentioned something to the effect that this “drastic concept” clears up all the rules caveats except aircraft of course. You can accomplish that merely by “considering” ALL aircraft “launched” (think of them as airborne in the space they’re in) at the start of movement phase A. Naturally, any airplanes that a player moved to a space with the enemy would proceed to the normal Combat Phase next. And “land” ALL airplanes at the END of movement phase B (after ALL ships have moved makes it even simpler). This eliminates those tricky carrier questions that are explained in such detail in the rules and on the boards.

Anyway, i don’t consider your “drastic change” that drastic and i can attest as to its playability.
And Mike, although i went off on a tangent.....i greatly appreciate you clearing up the specific transport question that started all this.
regards all,
Graaf6

[Krieghund]

Scott_WAR, there are two differences between what you are proposing and the official rules. The first is that if the sub(s) in question are attacked by other units, the transport on its side will actually occupy the same game space in which combat is occurring without being involved. This is a minor point.

The second difference is that if you wait to move the transport during non-combat movement, the condition of the board will have changed due to the results of combat. Moves may be available that were not available during the combat movement phase. This is a more major point, and could have important implications.

I am not sure that you aren't creating as big an "exception" as you are trying to avoid. Just playing devil's advocate here.

[Lobo]

I don't think it's necessary to rename the CM and NCM phases just for this special situation. I actually think that it's just as easy to play it as is (Mike's explanation) rather than renaming our traditional CM and NCM phases. It also is easier for newer players (and for me too).

[Mike Selinker]

I don't think it's necessary to rename the CM and NCM phases just for this special situation. I actually think that it's just as easy to play it as is (Mike's explanation) rather than renaming our traditional CM and NCM phases. It also is easier for newer players (and for me too).

Hawk-eyed readers of my columns may remember me saying that at one point in the design process, I tried to combine the combat move and noncombat move phases. It was a disaster. We had to keep them separate to allow things like reinforcing a territory after combat.

Then came a short debate on whether the terms "combat move" and "noncombat move" were still valid. For the most part they were, but there were certain situations like this that made people run aground on literal interpretations of these terms. We kept those terms because they basically define the activities in their phases. But if you hold the line on what you believe they should mean, you may have more trouble with the rules than I'd like.

Mike

[thrasher]

Hawk-eyed readers of my columns may remember me saying that at one point in the design process, I tried to combine the combat move and noncombat move phases.

Yep. I remember that one.
And I always wondered how that worked out when actually playing. Can you give an example please?

thrasher,
http://axisandallies.TK

[Scott_WAR]

Well if you leave it as 2 seperate move phases, with combat only allowed during the first one,but non combat being allowed during either, then reinforcing a territory just taken is still possible. In fact nothing major changes that I can think of aside from several rules contradictions and exceptions being unecessary. You see, if the transport in this example could have made a non combat move in the first phase without it being an exception.

[Mike Selinker]

I always wondered how that worked out when actually playing. Can you give an example please?

Sure, Thrash. I remember a particular session where we tried just having one phase. All things moved everywhere they wanted. And then all things that wanted to fight did. And then all things that didn't want to fight started to move...except we had no idea which ones they were. Which transports hadn't offloaded? Suddenly the sequence of events mattered. Was that sea zone cleared by the time this noncombative plane wanted to land? Did the tank blitz through a territory that was cleared earlier, or was it in the fight?

The rules simply did not hold up. If we'd started from scratch, we could have made it work. But we didn't want to do that. So there are two phases still, and all the attendant headaches that requires. But I still think it's a better game than it would be otherwise.

Mike

[Drax Kramer]

Sure, Thrash. I remember a particular session where we tried just having one phase. All things moved everywhere they wanted. And then all things that wanted to fight did. And then all things that didn't want to fight started to move

Why was there a perceived need for separate movement of units that did not fight?

I mean, the concept of unified movement phase is so ellegant.

1. You move everything you want to move.

2. You fight with all units that share the space with the enemy pieces.

...except we had no idea which ones they were. Which transports hadn't offloaded? Suddenly the sequence of events mattered. Was that sea zone cleared by the time this noncombative plane wanted to land? Did the tank blitz through a territory that was cleared earlier, or was it in the fight?

The rules simply did not hold up. If we'd started from scratch, we could have made it work. But we didn't want to do that.

That's the reason. It is always like that when you take a game and then try to make "advanced" or "revised" version. It is always difficult to get rid of something that stood there for decades.


Drax

[Mike Selinker]

That's the reason. It is always like that when you take a game and then try to make "advanced" or "revised" version. It is always difficult to get rid of something that stood there for decades.

There were things that stood for decades that we did get rid of, of course; separate land combat and sea combat sequences come to mind. But Drax is right. If you pull the string that unravels the separate movement phases, you end up with a totally new game. It might be great, but a lot of folks would say it wasn't Axis & Allies. And they'd be right.

Mike

[Clausewitz]

I now always play (given the choice) without a non-combat movement phase. It is indeed simpler, quicker and more elegant. The game is still Axis and Allies. But better.

Or am I missing something here? What is so great about this NCM phase?

Ref: Thread - Time to scrap the non combat movement phase.

[Mike Selinker]

I now always play (given the choice) without a non-combat movement phase. It is indeed simpler, quicker and more elegant. The game is still Axis and Allies. But better. Or am I missing something here? What is so great about this NCM phase?

You have a second step in which you can reinforce territories. Without it, the attacker has to have an action which involves not bringing certain units entering a space into battle.

With a noncombat move, you can send two destroyers into an enemy sea zone, then send a loaded transport into it in the noncombat move if you manage to clear it. Without a noncombat move, it happens like this: You bring your two destroyers and loaded transport into a sea zone with three enemy destroyers. You have no intention of offloading the transport this turn. Your enemy scores three hits on his first roll. So you have to lose all three ships. The only way to avoid this is to say, "The transport's not in combat," and not move it to the battleboard. But then where does it go if your destroyers lose?

When you delete the noncombat move, you lose the added tactical ability of seeing what happened in combat before you have to make decisions about later pieces. Sometimes winning a combat gives you the ability to send some of your other units somewhere else, because you've just eliminated a threat. But losing that combat may mean you have to put some more resources in the way of that threat. If you take out the noncombat move, you must make those decisions before you see what happens.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be a reasonable game without the noncombat move. I'm saying that Axis & Allies allows this kind of decision-making, and stripping the noncombat move would alter that decision-making in a negative way.

Mike

[series]

I see noncombat often on land too. If I'm attacking a border, I hold some guys back so if I fail the enemy can't march right in. Then, if I win the battle, I reinforce the area with the back up men.

[DY]

Agreed, sometimes I want to hold the Ukraine with 4 men so I attack with 4 dudes and some planes. If I take any losses then I just reinforce in NCM to reach my target. With a single phase I may have to commit 5 men straight up to factor in the chance that the defender might hit. This seems pretty bad to me.

[graaf6]

I'm not good at pasting previous postings as a reference so please bear with me......I agree that we shouldn't do away with the NCM phase (good examples are Mike's and DY's above), but i still like the idea of Scott and Sagall's about allowing some non-combat in the Combat Phase "as the DEFAULT ruling" as opposed to making the current exceptions for carriers, transports, etc.
Just flows easier that way i think and has really no impact that i can see except to clear up a lot of "exception" rulings. A player still has the option of a NCM to reinforce just captured territory or the "transport and 2 destroyer" move as quoted by Mike.

Itnerestingly, Mike referenced earlier something about experimenting with naval combat phases and land combat phases.....i tried that too....liked it....but it made for a looooong game. So i stick with the standard combat and noncombat mvmt phases with the addendum as stated by Scott_War earlier in this thread.

Hmmmm...... i also see this thread has deviated from the original posting ref substall so.........maybe someone will start a thread reference "modified movement phase" or something :)

regards,
graaf6

[Drax Kramer]

I see this issue as more of what we as players are accustomed to do than which system is better or whether A&A should have stopped been A&A without NCM.

I played Eagle Games' "American Civil War" and "Napoleon in Europe" where no such thing exists and I can't say that I miss NCM.

Eagle Games's "Attack" has two movement phases, but one is called "Movement" and pieces' movements are limited with their movement abilities (infantry and artillery can move one, armor two territories), while the other movement phase is called "Strategic Redeployment" and pieces have unlimited movement over the friendly territories.

Now, if only revised A&A replaced traditional non-combat movement with some sort of strategic redeployment where units would have unlimited movement but could not engaged in combat. Obviously the number of units moved in that way would have been tied with power's economic strength or something like that.


Drax