@WILD:
Ok I see each sub could get multiple shots in each phase. Not sure why you emphasized each group though. It almost makes it sound like if you bring in a group of unescorted tpt’s (3) together, you might only get one shot at the group as a whole, instead of at each tpt in the group (which I think is the intent).
No, the intent is that each sub gets one shot at each transport group. There’s safety in numbers.
We can’t change the rulebook at this point. Any changes will need to be made to the FAQ.
Ok I was wrong again (I’m starting to get used to it).
So the sub rule doesn’t work like an AA gun would. You only get only one shot at the entire group of transports as a whole.
I have to ask if you have a single tpt coming in from one direction, and a group of transports (3) coming in from a different direction. Would that be considered two groups (2 shots), or would you consider all tpt’s involved as one group (allowing only 1 shot). Keeping in mind all transports involved were not escorted, and all movement was in the same movement phase.
But there’s lethality in numbers too. So each sub in the sz gets one shot at the transport group…. right?
I believe each sub (in said sz) would get its shot at each group of transports (one shot per group).
I’m not sure if you keep each so called group separate for shooting purposes (each sub could fire multiple shots at different groups in the same move phase) or if you consider all tpt’s as one group in that move phase for shooting rights (one shot).
I’m not going to say which way I’m leaning this time!!! :roll:
@WILD:
I believe each sub (in said sz) would get its shot at each group of transports (one shot per group).
I’m not sure if you keep each so called group separate for shooting purposes (each sub could fire multiple shots at different groups in the same move phase) or if you consider all tpt’s as one group in that move phase for shooting rights (one shot).
I’m not going to say which way I’m leaning this time!!! :roll:
If subs fire at each group, then I think each sub has one roll per group. So if you have enemy subs in a seazone it’s an amazingly bad idea to send one transport through - statistically, it’ll die a horrible horrible death as three subs fire on it. But if 5 transports get through then 2 are guaranteed to get through, and 1 to 2 are probably sinking. I’m somewhat surprised it isn’t more limited where one sub has one shot per phase, but this makes the sub very threatening, which is really as it should be.
I’m glad I came back to this…one shot per GROUP? Ok, wrap my head around another new concept. Does the submarine pick its target or does the defender (needs to be asked since I thought it was like an AA gun)? And just to clarify, the wording in the FAQ does NOT say to me a sub can fire once on a GROUP of transports, but that a GROUP of transports can be protected by one surface warship.
And I would think a group would be defined as a group of transports that crossed a common border. So, if 2 transports enter the sub’s zone from the north and 2 enter from the south, that is two groups of 2 each.
@Col.:
Does the submarine pick its target or does the defender (needs to be asked since I thought it was like an AA gun)?
The player moving the transports removes one transport for each hit scored. That’s in the book and the faq answer didn’t change it.
What’s the definition of a Group?
Lets say 6 Transports decide to move through a sub’s sea zone unaccompanied. They all start in SZ-A, move together into SZ-B which contains the sub, 3 of the transports now move to SZ-C and 3 move to SZ-D.
Moving out of a sub’s sea zone doesn’t trigger this special attack, only moving into or through.
Was this really one group that became two groups, or was it considered to be two groups from start to finish?
How about?
3 transports start in SZ-X, move to SZ-A which contains 3 more transports, they all move together into SZ-B which contains the sub, 3 of the transports now move to SZ-C and the other 3 stay in the sea zone with the sub.
A group is a set of transports whose movements start and end in the same sea zones. Here’s what we’re looking at now:
Q. Submarines can attack transports that move through their sea zone “unaccompanied by surface warships”. Under exactly what conditions do surface warships prevent sub attacks on moving transports?
A. In order to prevent sub attacks, a transport or group of transports must make its entire move accompanied by a specific surface warship or group of surface warships. Each transport or group of transports that is not escorted will be fire upon once by each sub in the sea zone.
A. Each transport or group of transports that is not escorted will be fire upon once by each sub in the sea zone.
And that should be “may”, right?
I don’t think your opponent will insist you make the attacks, if you really don’t want to.
A. Each transport or group of transports that is not escorted will be fire upon once by each sub in the sea zone.
And that should be “may”, right?
I don’t think your opponent will insist you make the attacks, if you really don’t want to.
(Wow I just spent way too long with 50x errors!!)
Anyway, I was thinking some UK player might to trigger a Japanese DOW.
…and just trying to proof the FAQ. Bad habit’s die hard.
(Wow I just spent way too long with 50x errors!!)
Anyway, I was thinking some UK player might to trigger a Japanese DOW.…and just trying to proof the FAQ. Bad habit’s die hard.
You can’t trigger war or make someone else trigger war. War is declared at the start of your movement phase. (officially unofficially right now)
If the UK and Japan aren’t at war, the UK is free to move unescorted transports through sea zones containing Japanese subs.
(Wow I just spent way too long with 50x errors!!)
Anyway, I was thinking some UK player might to trigger a Japanese DOW.…and just trying to proof the FAQ. Bad habit’s die hard.
You can’t trigger war or make someone else trigger war. War is declared at the start of your movement phase.
If the UK and Japan aren’t at war, the UK is free to move unescorted transports through sea zones containing Japanese subs.
Granted.
I was just trying to point things out tactfully.
