Regardless, as we’ve dwelved down the rabbit hole here, YOU kcdzim have discovered something.
Even if the ruling is against me, then the ruling must be, that subs retreat seperately. Thereby allowing them to retreat to any zone that the attack came from. Spreading out, Or submerging in place. But I also believe you cannot submerge if there is a destroyer. Interesting.
That said. All LAND and NAVAL units follow the same retreat rules, and all AIR units follow their own retreat rules. It’s specific to class type. This would then constitute an entirely new rule, which would be:
“You cannot retreat through the straight of Gibraltar, even if you attacked with subs from that zone, if your allegiance is not in control of Gibraltar.”
However, I’m confident this arguement holds merit, and that through technical play - it is completely and legitimately possible, as currently listed by the rules.
Lastly though, in my honest opinion, the rule should change so that subs can’t go through the straight either. Then you wouldn’t have this problem - as you don’t have it with the other canal’s and straights.
Surface ships may not move through the Strait of Gibraltar unless Gibraltar was controlled by a friendly power at the beginning of the turn. Retreating is a type of movement, therefore surface ships may not retreat through the Strait of Gibraltar unless Gibraltar was controlled by a friendly power at the beginning of the turn. Since all sea units must retreat together, if there are attacking surface ships remaining in the battle any subs forfeit the ability to retreat throught the strait.
If I attack a territory, via amphibious assault, with aircraft, 2 units from the transport, and a tank stack from a neighbouring territory.
How does the retreat work? is the entire retreat impossible because of the amphibious assault? No. Your aircraft can retreat. and your tank stack can retreat. Your air and your tanks are not locked in because of the micro amphibious assault, and that is the spirit of the game.
That used to be an old rule, that has changed over the years… a moving target. So that said, is there not a case that the subs can still retreat back through the straight, as they shouldn’t be locked into the rest of the navies movement. It’s simple, you just choose to retreat back to Sz92 first, your subs go, but like placement, you can’t get your ships through, so they must go somewhere else.
But then you have to make the rule that subs can retreat to a separate space all the time unless you want to make a special rule for the Gibraltar strait.
But then you have to make the rule that subs can retreat to a separate space all the time unless you want to make a special rule for the Gibraltar strait.
yes, that was his point. A broad rule (subs retreat to any legal space they came from) vs a special rule (subs cannot retreat past gibralter if they were in combat with other naval units AND they don’t control Gibralter).
I’m fine with Gibralter being a special case as it doesn’t favor anyone and makes the space tactically important, but either way, it’s a rule and a ruling that has to be made.
However, retreat rules, as worded, seem to be written so that the retreating power can’t reblock every territory they left empty during the attack. Considering subs can’t block movement, I could see it being an excellent house rule, if not official, if Subs could retreat to any space that the naval units attacked from, seperate from the navy. They can already submerge seperately.
Your analogy is flawed, Gargantua. In the case of an amphibious assault, the amphibious land units may not retreat at all, whereas in the Gibraltar case, the units’ retreat direction is simply restricted. Further, in the amphibious assault case, a partial retreat is explicitly allowed, but all retreating units must still retreat at the same time (and the land units to the same place). In contrast, in the Gibraltar case you’re talking about allowing sea units to retreat to different places, which is explicitly disallowed by the rules.
I’m fine with Gibralter being a special case as it doesn’t favor anyone and makes the space tactically important, but either way, it’s a rule and a ruling that has to be made.
Consider it made.
I love how it’s my interpetation of the rules that flawed, and not the lack of clarification in the rulebook :)
Ruling appreciated.
However, the interpetation of submarines NOT being able to retreat seperately is WHOLLY INCORRECT.
Observe please Exhibit A: Page 30 of the Pacific 1940 rulebook - and there will be a subsequent entry in the Europe 1940 rulebook
“A submarine has the option of submerging. It can do this anytime it would otherwise roll the die to fire.”
So long as there isn’t a destroyer, you can always choose to submerge your subs. And then if you retreated, your ships would end up in different zones, “which is explicitly disallowed by the rules.”
Through technical gameplay there are cases where this is desired Convoy raiding especially with the optional german sub rules.
Through technical gameplay there are cases where this is desired Convoy raiding especially with the optional german sub rules.
Interesting thought, Garg. Very limited practical application it seems, but interesting nonetheless.
I appreciate the thinking “out of the box”, Gargantua. An excellent question you posed about the strait of Gibraltar rules coupled with retreating rules.
I also appreciate Krieghund’s well-explained answer and ruling. Haha - and how ironic, that the ruling is the combined attack on Z91 would result in the subs being trapped outside the Med, rather than a way to get the fleet into the Med!
Ruling appreciated.
Thank you.
However, the interpetation of submarines NOT being able to retreat seperately is WHOLLY INCORRECT.
Observe please Exhibit A: Page 30 of the Pacific 1940 rulebook - and there will be a subsequent entry in the Europe 1940 rulebook
“A submarine has the option of submerging. It can do this anytime it would otherwise roll the die to fire.”
So long as there isn’t a destroyer, you can always choose to submerge your subs. And then if you retreated, your ships would end up in different zones, “which is explicitly
disallowed by the rules.”
Submerging is not the same as retreating, as the submerged sub remains in the contested sea zone. In this case, the units still do not retreat to different sea zones.
So submerging is not a retreat. Interstesting. After reviewing the rulebook, it’s considered during step 2 the suprise strike. Which technically means by definition that submerging is a form of attack (Either roll dice or submerge). Because it’s during step 6 that you decide to attack or retreat, and then as you repeat step 2, since you have already decided to attack - you can submerge.
What I like about how the rules are written to, is that EACH sub gets to decide whether it fights or submerges. It’s not decided on a grand scale. You can submerge one, and fight/retreat/ with the others. This has come into play during larger naval battles for me.
