Posts made by Cernel

Just to be sure, am I right to assume that, for example, a transport that didn’t move and it is not moving, but has 1 infantry already on board and load 1 aa gun from a territory and, then, offload the infantry into the same or another territory, keeping the aa gun on board, is making a bridging move, in both cases (despite the fact that, in both cases, no units are actually moving over the sea to another territory and, in only the same territory case, not even the transport is doing that)?

@Cernel said in Offloading In Both Combat And Non Combat Movement:

@simon33 said in Offloading In Both Combat And Non Combat Movement:

I find the rule allowing loading after participating in combat quite strange.

After having been in combat, the transport being immobilized, it would make more (or the only?) sense to me that the transport can pick and stay on one coast only, anyways, as that is really the only reason why I can think he can load but not offload (as it would have to load and offload to the same territory, that is pointless).

Actually, correcting myself, this is not true, as, for example, you could have 1 transport with 1 infantry already on board that takes part in a victorious sea battle, then, during Non Combat Move, load 1 armour from a territory (keeping it on board) and, then, offload the infantry into the same territory (this is against the rules).

In my opinion this move, while being forbidden by the rules, would make more sense, overall, than the actual possibility of the transport being empty and loading two units from two different territories, after combat, though, of course, I do understand that, rule-wise, bridging (here the name is not even correct, as we stay on the same coast, thus we make no “bridge”) to and from the same territory only is not considered any different than other bridging cases.

Anybody else thinks the same?

Most likely all this comes from the fact that the original author just didn’t even consider the possibility you might ever want to load and offload on a same territory (admittedly, of very scarce relevance).

@simon33 said in Offloading In Both Combat And Non Combat Movement:

I find the rule allowing loading after participating in combat quite strange.

Personally, the only thing that I cannot quite collocate is that (as clarified) you can do it from two territories. Since we cannot assume that the transport is splitting into two halves, in the same sea zone, especially in the case we are loading 2 land units that are not both infantries, that practically means the transport is loading from one coast, then moving to another coast to load. After having been in combat, the transport being immobilized, it would make more (or the only?) sense to me that the transport can pick and stay on one coast only, anyways, as that is really the only reason why I can think he can load but not offload (as it would have to load and offload to the same territory, that is pointless).

For similar reasons, if somebody would have asked me to write the rules, I would have said that allied transports can load from only 1 territory, otherwise, in my mind, we have a transport that is moving coast-to-coast during somebody else turn.

I’m not arguing against anyone, and I accept the clarification, as well as certainly agree that is what the rulebook is saying too (you can load from multiple in both cases). Just letting anyone know my perspective.

@simon33 said in Offloading In Both Combat And Non Combat Movement:

I find the rule allowing loading after participating in combat quite strange. So only if the transport didn’t offload, but also moved on combat movement, perhaps to evade combat, or maybe to participate in a battle which went better than expected. Then it can load units from that coast. Perhaps it wants to evacuate such troops?

I’m guessing the confusion this has created and low usefulness is the reason it was dropped in later rulebooks.

I don’t think the rule was actually dropped, but rather ruled out.

What I mean is, if @Krieghund can confirm what I’m saying here, by the way we are interpreting the rulebook, those “special” rules are not even necessary to have such a behaviour (thus purely redundant, but certainly good to have as clarifications), meaning that if we would take the rulebook and complete delete the following two entries (like making an “Errata”, saying that these two entries are to be ignored):

Page 21:

Transports that have been in combat may either load or offload (not both) during this phase, but not if they have retreated from combat this turn.

Page 31:

A transport that has been in combat may load or offload after combat, but never both.

Then, instead, just adding this rule, to the rulebook:

Transports that have retreated from combat may not load nor offload anymore, this turn.

We would still be able to perform all such actions, anyway, and nothing at all would change in our understanding of the game.

• For the offloading case, the reason why we would still be always able to offload already loaded units from a transport that was in a victorious sea battle is that nothing in the rules forbids those already loaded units from moving into an adjacent land territory, as the transport moving with them on board doesn’t count as a movement for them too (only having the restriction to the same territory we offloaded during Combat Move, if we offloaded anything (otherwise, we are free to choose the single territory we are moving to)).

• For the loading case, the reason why we would still be always able to load unmoved units in a land territory onto a transport that was in a victorious sea battle is that nothing in the rules forbids those units from moving onto a transport in an adjacent sea zone, but only as long as the transport didn’t offload anything yet, as we have generalized the bridging rules that always forbids loading after offloading.

• For the part telling us that we cannot both load and offload, specifically meaning we cannot both load then offload, we can infer that restriction from the fact that, doing so, would mean making a bridging action, and it seems that the rules are assuming that only transports that can still move can also do bridging, instead of moving, during Non Combat Move only, thus bridging cannot be performed if the transport is already unable to move (but this is not literally clear). Since the bridging rules are not explicitly actually saying that “bridging counts as moving for the transport”, then one might argue that the transport is not moving when bridging, thus bridging can be performed also by transports that are unable to move (for example, for having moved during Combat Move), in this case, then, reading the rules literally, we would end up with saying that “we should be allowed always to load, from any adjacent territories, and, then, offload, without moving (bridging), during Non Combat Move, after having offloaded, during Combat Move or Non Combat Move or both, as long as that transport hasn’t been in a sea battle and as long as it didn’t already load and offload without moving (bridging), but this bridging after offloading being allowed only as long as offloading again into the territory we already offloaded into, on the same turn”, that would, for example, mean that, during Non Combat Move only, we could do all this sequence of actions: load 2 unmoved infantries from any adjacent territories onto an empty transport, move the transport to a friendly sea zone, move the transport back to the previous sea zone, offload the 2 infantries anywhere, but on the same land territory, load 2 more infantries from any adjacent territories, offload these 2 infantries into the same land territory as the previously offloaded ones, basically being able to perform a double bridging move, shipping a total of 4 infantries per transport per turn, over a same sea zone, as long as there is a not hostile adjacent sea zone, to move into and out, on the first pseudo-bridging action.

• For the part telling us that we cannot both load and offload, specifically meaning we cannot both offload then load, this we already inferred, by generalizing the no loading after offloading restriction of bridging.

The only doubt on this matter may be cast by Page 21:

Transports can move to friendly coastal territories and load or offload cargo, unless they moved during the combat move phase.

As if you would interpret this as a restriction saying that “you cannot move nor load nor offload, if you moved during Combat Move”, then loading and offloading after combat would be illegal in all cases, but only if the transport started its turn in the embattled sea zone, and didn’t move. So, in this case, we would actually need those rules making an exception to this one, for sea units that did combat, though, then, we would be presented with the rather absurd case that a transport going into combat can load or offload, not both, during Non Combat Move, while a transport moving out of a hostile sea zone, ending Combat Move into a friendly one, doing nothing else, cannot do the same (while it also can load or offload, but not both, during Non Combat Move, instead, if @Krieghund can confirm).

However, we are already not interpreting it that way, because, if we were doing so, then we would also be unable to offload an already loaded unit from a transport that moved and offloaded another unit (either already on board too or loaded on the turn), during Combat Move, without making any sea battles, which we, instead, have determined we can do, despite the rulebook never actually specifically telling us so (differently from the offloading after combat case).

So what we believe, if @Krieghund can confirm, the rule above is saying is that “transports can non combat move, load and offload only if they didn’t combat move”, meaning that we cannot do all of that (and specifically moving) if we moved, but that it is not giving any restrictions about Non Combat loading or offloading, only, after Combat moving.

Yet another matter is that we might interpret, instead, those rules as being exceptions to the general rules. If we would read them as such, then, for example, the rule:

Transports that have been in combat may either load or offload (not both) during this phase, but not if they have retreated from combat this turn.

would allow us to send a transport into combat and, at the same time, offload units from it into combat, and, then, load the transport during Non Combat Move, no matter if we generalize the no-loading-after-offloading bridging rule, as long as we read the load-after-combat rule as an exception to such a generalized rule, anyways. However, this doesn’t actually matter, as long as we are also extending the single territory offload rule as barring from loading from another territory after having offloaded, as, in this case, we could load only from the territory we Combat offloaded into, that surely has no eligible units for loading. Other than that, it would be clearly absurd for a transport performing the same actions as another, but also taking part in combat, then, being able to perform a wider array of actions than the former could (this same principle is also the basis why we cannot accept that we can do less if we bridge than if we also move the transport, during Non Combat Move only).

I think, anyways, we can all easily agree that Revised OOB should absolutely never be used in any competitive situations, like any tournaments, where rules clarity is of the utmost importance, and that’s why Revised LHTR exists, isn’t it?

Hopefully @Krieghund can confirm all I said here makes sense, otherwise that means we are not yet on the same page.

@simon33 The rulebook affirms immediately, on absolutely general terms, that once you load you cannot move anymore. Then, before starting talking about bridging, it (unnecessarily) states again than offloading transports can never move again, on the same turn, and makes an example, where offloading is the last action (and in no examples ever happens that you have a transport moving after offloading). Then, when making the case for bridging, it (unnecessarily) again tells that you cannot move until the next round, once you offload (and, yeah, as here we are indeed applying the bridging rules more generally, that would be generalized too, despite no need).

To be clear, the reason why the bridging rule is being generalized is that, otherwise, for example, if you load and offload without moving, then you cannot load anymore, while, literally, if you load, move out and, then, into the same sea zone, again, then offload, you would be able to load again the transport you just offloaded, either from anywhere (literally) or from the territory you just offloaded into (if expanding the no multiple territories offload rules to loading after offloading), which would be practically absurd, as we cannot seriously imagine the original author intended that if you go out and into the same sea zone, then, you can do more, after offloading, than by just making a bridging move.

I hope now it is all clear. I believe this pretty much summarizes all that me and @Krieghund went through, on this matter.

@simon33 said in Offloading In Both Combat And Non Combat Movement:

@Cernel said in Offloading In Both Combat And Non Combat Movement:

“You can never load anything onto a transport after having offloaded anything from the same transport, on the same turn (no exceptions)”.

If it is consistent with other versions, you also can’t move. I think that is implied if you read the rulebook assuming that it is. Which isn’t the best.

I’m not sure what you mean. The fact that transports can never move after offloading is very clear and consistent (or even over-stated), in the rulebook.

That, and some other elements, actually makes me wonder if the original author at some point might have intended to say that loading (only) counts as moving for the transport too (I know that it does not).

@Krieghund said in Offloading In Both Combat And Non Combat Movement:

@Cernel said in Offloading In Both Combat And Non Combat Movement:

@Krieghund Ok, then. For my plan of creating a list of transport rules differences between 2nd/3rd, Revised OOB and Revised LHTR (not promising I will actually get around doing it, but I hope so), I was actually inclined splitting Revised OOB between “Revised OOB Literal” and “Revised OOB Intentional”, the first one based only on a literal reading of the rulebook and its official errata, no matter how absurd or contradictory, the second one expanding over it, to reconstruct the original intent of the author, beyond the arguable poor quality of the wording.

Now I understand that you will never subscribe to such a classification, so I get that I’ll have to keep a single column only for “Revised OOB” (substantially getting rid of what would have been the “Revised OOB Literal” column, and keeping only the “Revised OOB Intentional” one, but renamed as just “Revised OOB”).

OK. Good luck! If it helps, over 10 years ago I created such a document comparing and contrasting AA50, AAR OOB, and AAR LHTR. It may make a good starting point:

http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=1726

I know about that, and would certainly make use of that, if doing something like that, but limited to transports only and swapping Anniversary out in favour of II/III Classic.

After all these years, do you feel positive that you have documented all actual possible generic differences between Revise OOB and Revised LHTR, in that document, assuming exaustivity was an aim, or do you assign a chance there may be something you might have missed (if not excluded)?

Also, now that I think about that, could that be taken as hint, if not proof, that in Revised OOB you can never load after having offloaded, on the same turn, giving the fact that it is not a listed element and the fact that we are clear that is how it works in LHTR? Does that chart counts as an official clarification? If so, is it supposed to cover absolutely everything that is different, beside specific rules that are integrally new or removed, like National Advantages? If so, can absence of evidence be taken as evidence of absence?

Two more questions right away, regarding transports that surely cannot move and the matter of implied coast-to-coast movement:

1. Can a single transport that has been in combat load from multiple (two) territories, after combat?

2. Can you move units into a single allied transport from multiple (two) territories, on the same turn?

I know that, according to the rulebook, both answers are yes, but just wanted to make sure.

@Krieghund Ok, then. For my plan of creating a list of transport rules differences between 2nd/3rd, Revised OOB and Revised LHTR (not promising I will actually get around doing it, but I hope so), I was actually inclined splitting Revised OOB between “Revised OOB Literal” and “Revised OOB Intentional”, the first one based only on a literal reading of the rulebook and its official errata, no matter how absurd or contradictory, the second one expanding over it, to reconstruct the original intent of the author, beyond the arguable poor quality of the wording.

Now I understand that you will never subscribe to such a classification, so I get that I’ll have to keep a single column only for “Revised OOB” (substantially getting rid of what would have been the “Revised OOB Literal” column, and keeping only the “Revised OOB Intentional” one, but renamed as just “Revised OOB”).

Anyway, I think at least here we have fully clarified 1 rule for “Revised OOB”:

“You can never load anything onto a transport after having offloaded anything from the same transport, on the same turn (no exceptions)”.

Which is, then, not going to be part of any 2nd/3rd, Revised OOB and Revised LHTR rules differences, since this is true, with not a single exception, for every single Axis & Allies game that ever existed since the first edition, right?

Let me anyways clarify that, by “Revised OOB Literal”, I was not meaning at all that was the “true” Revised, or anything like that. That would have been merely a personal point of view, and you can have a literal interpretation (or a whole set of possible literal interpretations) that is filled with contradictions, conflicts and absurdities. I was substantially referring to a similar matter in the interpretation of the law, where you could read the law as what it is literally saying (no matter how absurd the consequences of that might be) or you could read it by trying to follow the actual intentions of the law, instead (the “golden rule”). When you said “You could interpret it that way, if you read the core transport rules in a vacuum, without taking other rules mentioned above into account”, then I can assure you were saying the same thing as what I was meaning by “literal”, if by “without taking other rules mentioned above into account” you meant “integrating the original rulebook with only the official errata and clarifications, and nothing else at all, and nothing more than by their strict literal meaning”.

@Krieghund said in Offloading In Both Combat And Non Combat Movement:

So where does all of this leave us?

If we extend the principle from the bridging rule that a transport can’t load again after offloading to the standard transport rules, which makes sense, it changes nothing that we’ve discussed above as it relates to combat movement and amphibious assaults. What it does apply to is movement done entirely in noncombat movement, in which situation it makes it illegal to load one unit, move it, offload it, and load another unit.

Sound good?

I actually didn’t originally intend this topic to be that far reaching, but now that @simon33 has opened this can of rules, I think I want to beat it down completely, so I’m far from finished, if there is still any interests in following me.

Anyways, I actually wish eventually to make a full set of transport rules differences between Classic, Revised OOB and Revised LHTR. So these matters had to be addressed, if that is ever going to happen, which is seriously challenging a thing to do, actually.

However, now I’m presented with a major element that is giving me problems. This element being the levels of interpretations we are making, and especially how many of these levels (thus how many different kind of Revised OOB practical rulesets) we have.

As long as we are following Revised OOB rules literally, I think we can all agree that we should be allowed always to load during Non Combat Move, from any adjacent territories, after having offloaded, during Combat Move or Non Combat Move or both, as long as we didn’t offload during Non Combat Move after having been in a (victorious) sea battle and as long as we didn’t load and offload without otherwise moving (bridging). Correct?

Then, you are (and here we go past a purely literal interpretation) saying that the rule that restricts a transport offloading only to one territory per turn can also be taken as barring loading from any other territories, after you offloaded, this based on the understanding that the intention of the original author was actually to say that, after offloading, the transport is stuck on that one “coast”, within that sea zone, for the rest of the turn.

Basically, you are saying that the original author simply forgot to add the restriction of loading only from the territory you offloaded to, after you offloaded (implying you have to stay on that coast, only, for the rest of the turn). I guess that is your guess. My guess (much less informed, as I’ve never even met Larry Harris), instead, is that the original author didn’t have in mind, thus didn’t forgot, that, but, rather, simply forgot to say that you can never load after having offloaded (this rule actually existing only for the bridging and for the offloading after victorious sea battle cases).

So, as I see it, here we have a split between two different rulesets, that I could call “Revised OOB Literal” and “Revised OOB Intentional”, the first one based on interpreting what Larry Harris said and the second one based on surmising what Larry Harris intended to say, instead.

Up until this point, I follow, if you can confirm I’m actually following. However what I’m really not understanding is how your assumption of expanding the single territory offloading turn-based restriction into restricting loading too can be any closer to a literal interpretation of the rulebook than my proposal of generally expanding the no-loading-after-offloading restriction at the bridging rules.

What I really don’t get is why expanding the single territory offload to loading too is a “fair assumption” while generalizing the no loading after offloading bridging only rule is merely a “maybe”.

In my mind, either we go for a literal interpretation of Revised OOB and, in this case, both these assumptions are unacceptable, as literally not part of the rulebook, its errata, nor its official clarifications (as far as I know), or we go for an intentional evaluation of Revised OOB and, in this case, I cannot see how these two assumption are one any less easily admissible than the other one.

So, if it is true that you actually feel it is “safer” or “fairer” to expand the single territory offload restriction rule, rather than generalizing the no loading after offloading bridging rule (are you?), and assuming that you agree, anyways, we are, in both cases, going out of a strictly literal reading of the Revised OOB ruleset, I would be interested to know how exactly do you believe one of these assumption is so much “safer” or “fairer” than the other one? Because, to me, it merely looks like we are moving into some personal interpretation of the actual intentions of the original author, substantially creating unofficial “errata” (with the meaning of changing the rulebook), in both cases alike, while only on a merely personal level one could subscribe to one or the other or both (though subscribing to both is practically equivalent to subscribing to the second one only, as generally barring loading after offloading covers all that is covered by the other case and more).

@Cernel Obviously, the case in which we are not using more total space than the maximum is irrelevant, as, in the example, I could just load the tank before offloading the infantry, then.

@Krieghund said in Offloading In Both Combat And Non Combat Movement:

@Cernel said in Offloading In Both Combat And Non Combat Movement:

Does “a transport that has been in combat” mean only a transport that took part in a sea battle (as I always assumed this was the only meaning), or is a transport that offloaded units into combat from a friendly sea zone also counted as “having been in combat” (I always assumed it wasn’t, and this part of the rulebook was only referring to transports actually moved to the battleboard, on that turn)?

That’s a fair point. However, a transport’s move is over once it’s been in combat and/or offloaded. Since the rules state that a transport cannot offload to more than one territory, it’s fair to assume that it also may not load from a different territory after offloading (which would requiring “moving” to a different coast within the same sea zone). That would mean that if it were to load again after offloading, it would need to load from that same territory, and since any units in the amphibiously assaulted territory have been in combat, they may not load.

Thinking over this matter on more general terms, I think this “solution” of taking the “one territory only” offload restriction, saying that is “fair to assume that it also may not load from a different territory after offloading”, is not actually ruling out doing the same entirely during Non Combat Move.

For example, according to the rulebook and half-expanding the “no multiple territories” offload rules, to affect both loading and offloading, yet affecting loading only after having happened due to offloading only, I believe this situation would be legal:

In Non Combat Move, I load 1 infantry and 1 second mobile land unit (could be a second infantry) into a transport (both the transports and the loaded units have not moved, nor bridged, nor taken part in any Combat, of course), move the transport into a friendly land zone, offload 1 or 2 of these land units into a friendly territory, then load 1 unmoved land unit from that territory (or 2, but it would not make sense loading 2, as it would imply exchanging at least 1 infantry for just another infantry).

To be more specific, during Non Combat Move, I could load 1 infantry and 1 aa gun into a transport, move that transport to another friendly sea zone, offload both land units into a territory and, then, load 1 unmoved tank from that same territory into my transport, keeping it on board. Or I could only load and offload 1 infantry, underusing the transport capacity, then loading the tank (this way I could also say the tank may not be even using the space used by the infantry).

I believe that, according to the rulebook, the move above would be legal, and also in accordance with whatever reasonable conceptual expansion of the “no multiple territories” offload rule. However, I’ve also no doubt that this is not the intent of the original author, if only because it would be absurd that bridging gives you any more restrictions than transporting on the move.

So, would the move I described be legal or not? Could I do it while playing Axis & Allies Revised? I believe it is legal if we read the rulebook literally, but I also believe it is clearly contrary to what I understand was the actual intent of the original author (so, in my opinion, it should be illegal, and, if the game would be actively supported, I believe the original author would publish an errata or clarification, ruling it out, if asked).

Or am I overlooking something, here?

Anyways, I believe that this ruleset, we have here, is badly in need of an official “Errata”, generally expanding the “no loading after offloading” rule, that currently strictly applies to bridging only. Not sure what should be the preferred way one (me?) would have to go to try to obtain such an official clarification (?), but am I correct to presume this would never happen, anyways, since, in my experience, nobody really cares about updating clarifications of games that are not selling anymore (very sorry if I’m wrong).

Also, regardless of the meaning of “being in combat” in the special rule (but I’m still curious about it, thanks):

A transport that has been in combat may load or offload after combat, but never both.

I want to point out that, logically, this cannot possibly be used as a way to say that this is saying you cannot offload during Combat Move and load during Non Combat Move, on the same turn, otherwise, then, it would also be saying that, under these conditions, you also cannot load during Combat Move and offload during Non Combat Move, that we have clarified is not the case, as I can do that if I have only 1 unit already on board. Other than that, the logical costruct of the phrase itself cannot be really read in any other ways but saying that the proibition of doing both is really only referring to those specific actions, made “after combat”, not to anything that may have been done before combat (as also since that transport, that has been in combat, may have already done both!).

Please let me know everything that I’m getting wrong or overlooking. Thanks.

@Panther I actually feel LHTR is the clearest of all rulebooks, also clearer than everything following, but just my opinion.

@Krieghund Thanks for the clarification on loaded units. That makes definitely sense, even though what made me think that it was possible to load some units in a transport and sending the transport into battle, keeping the units on board, was something else in the rulebook (I guess I’ll talk about it in another post, to keep this shorter).

On the other hand, I’m still confused on the

A transport that has been in combat may load or offload after combat, but never both.

part. Since you quoted this to answer an example in which the transport was offloading to combat with no mention of being itself involved in any sea battles, can you confirm that this excerpt from the rulebook is, instead, referring only to transports that have been in victorious sea battles (as I’ve always understood it), and not to transports that have performed amphibious assaults from friendly sea zones (I know it doesn’t actually matter, once we otherwise completely rule out loading after offloading on a same turn, but just want to be sure on the wording).

Also the concept that you cannot load after having offloaded looks to me like something that would have benefitted from an official errata, telling that offloading bars not only moving, but also loading. I actually never had any real doubt about the fact that you could never offload, then load, on a same turn, and it is interesting that you are inferring it from expanding the no multiple territory offload into, practically, saying that applies to loading too. I actually feel that is maybe a bit too much of free reading, and, personally (beside the rules and the examples in general quite consistently hinting to the fact that, when doing both, first you load then you offload, never the opposite way around), the way I infer it is, instead, by expanding the bridging rules, as it would make really no sense to say that you can load after offloading, if the transport moved, but you cannot do the same if it remained in the same sea zone (bridging) (as the bridging rules only are actually clear you cannot load after having offloaded).

But, can we all agree that the rulebook itself leaves a bit to be desired, as far as clarity goes? In my opinion, for example, LHTR is much clearer. Ayone else thinks the same?

@Krieghund said in Offloading In Both Combat And Non Combat Movement:

@simon33 said in Offloading In Both Combat And Non Combat Movement:

@Krieghund said in Offloading In Both Combat And Non Combat Movement:

@simon33 said in Offloading In Both Combat And Non Combat Movement:

So if an empty transport loads one inf and assaults a territory, it can’t load a second inf on ncm. Hmm.

I see nothing in the above conversation that suggests this.

So it can? I still don’t understand all the restrictions then.

On further reflection, it can’t. (Sorry, I was paying more attention to the fact that your question was outside the scope of the original question than I was to actually answering it!) From page 31:

A transport that has been in combat may load or offload after combat, but never both.

Does “a transport that has been in combat” mean only a transport that took part in a sea battle (as I always assumed this was the only meaning), or is a transport that offloaded units into combat from a friendly sea zone also counted as “having been in combat” (I always assumed it wasn’t, and this part of the rulebook was only referring to transports actually moved to the battleboard, on that turn)?

If it carries a unit loaded in a previous round, can that unit offload to a different territory?

No. Also from page 31:

A transport can never offload in two territories during a single turn, nor can it offload cargo onto another transport.

On the wording in the rulebook, I can’t see how it is illegal to load a transport, move into a hostile sea zone but not unload. But you are telling me that it is. Sorry, don’t mean to be difficult. Just trying to get this right in every scenario.

The rules that I quoted in my previous post indicate that movement done in the combat move phase must end in territories or sea zones that are either enemy-occupied or enemy-controlled (with one noted exception, which isn’t relevant here). In the case of transported units, this may be a two-step process, as there may be a sea battle before the units can be delivered to their destination, which in turn leads to an exception if the sea battle is unsuccessful. However, the amphibious assault must at least be attempted in order to satisfy the requirement that the movement of the transported units in combat movement end in such a space.

The reason that units loaded in a previous turn get around this requirement is that they were not loaded in the current combat move phase, so they are not required to end their move in a hostile space.

I, of course, take your word, but how can be inferred from the rulebook (or any clarifications) that ending your movement as cargo into a hostile sea zone (thus even being moved as cargo on the battleboard itself) does not possibly count for satisfying the requirement to “end their move in a hostile space”?

@Krieghund Ah ok. So, practically, in Revised OOB, as well as in every single one of all rulesets from Classic 1st Edition till 1942 Second Edition, there is absolutely no way a transport starting its own turn empty (or with only allied units in it) can both take part in a sea battle and offload into a friendly territory, on the same turn. Only for Revised OOB, and the original Europe and Pacific, but not Classic nor any games from Revised LHTR onwards, there is the special exception that a transport can be in a sea battle, then offload units (in a friendly territory) during Non Combat Move, but this rule applies only to already loaded units (at start turn) (thus only for transports that had any of those). Correct?

So, in practice, the special Revised OOB rule that transports that took part in victorious sea battles can load or offload, but not both, during Non Combat Move, applies only to transports sent into battle without loading nor offloading, for the first item (loading during Non Combat Move), and only to transports that had any units already on board at start turn, for the second item (offloading during Non Combat Move).

Did I get all right now?

@Krieghund I have some doubts and wish to have some further confirmations, in case. Are any of the following series of actions legal, in Revised OOB:

1. Starting the turn with an empty transport, loading 2 land units onto it, during Combat Move (except AA Guns, as they cannot move yet), sending the transport into a naval battle and offloading 1 unit into a sea borne assault, during Combat Move, winning the naval battle and the land battle where the unit was offloaded (this last thing may be granted, once the sea battle is won, in case the territory is empty or having capturable units only), then the transport can offload the other 1 land unit, but only into the same territory, during Non Combat Move, as the special rule that transports that took part in victorious sea battles can load or offload, but not both, during Non Combat Move, allows offloading from transports that already offloaded, during Combat Movement, just restricting them to the same territory where they already did it (practically I’m asking if here we can have a case of a same transport offloading both during Combat Move and Non Combat Move, when starting the turn empty).

2. Instead, with all the same actions except only no naval battle, this sequence of action would be illegal already before ending the Combat Move phase, as I cannot load a land unit during Combat Move without sending it into combat (either as cargo of a transport taking part in a battle or as attacker in a landing on a hostile territory or both).

3. Starting the turn with an empty transport, loading 2 land units onto it, during Combat Move (except AA Guns, as they cannot move yet), sending the transport into a naval battle and offloading 1 or 2 units into a sea borne assault, during Combat Move, winning the naval battle, then the transport cannot load during Non Combat Move (differently from point 1, in this case it is not offloading during Non Combat Move), as the special rule that transports that took part in victorious sea battles can load or offload, but not both, during Non Combat Move never allows loading onto transports that already offloaded, during Combat Movement, anyways.

This is what I understand from the rulebook, but I’m unsure.

@Panther Actually, that game he is referring to has only a resemblance to any Axis & Allies boardgames, and it is actually both strategic and tactic (though you can avoid the tactic part by autoresolving battles). Well, I call it tactic, but anyways it is “real time” battles resolution.

Just saying he wants to play something quite different from anything you can get with what you mentioned.

I’m assuming you never played that Axis & Allies videogame, here.

@djensen Low Luck doesn’t have to be based on autohits. For example, you can sum the total power of what you would be rolling together, divide it by 5, then rolling as many dice hitting at 5, then rolling for the remainder. That would decrease randomness a lot if, say, you would otherwise be rolling most dice at 3 or less.

For example if rolling 5@1, 2@2, 4@3, 2@4, one could:

Low Luck:
Get 4 autohits and roll 1 dice at 5.

Custom Luck at 5/6:
Roll 5 dice at 5 and 1 dice at 4.

I have some doubts about the way phases are called around. If you say “Purchase Units”, I think you should, then, say “Combat Move Units”, not just “Combat Move”, or, vice versa, say just “Purchase”, instead. The “New” in “Mobilize New Units” feels redundant, as it sounds like you can also mobilize units that are not new, instead, in some other phase. “Collect Income” feels a bit redundant too, as “Income” already implies it is what you are getting (and it is not income anymore once you have collected it, saving it or spending it). I tried searching “collect income” on Google and got a mere 408,000 results, of which some are cases like “In the Nordic countries it is common practise to collect income data from various administrative registers”. On the other hand, unsurprisingly, I get 3,530,000 results with “collect money”, 1,490,000 with “collect funds” and 1,240,000 with “collect resources”. Also, I never liked the term “Purchase”, as creating armies is really not all about purchasing, unless maybe you are dealing with a scenario in which virtually everything is mercenary.

Mind you, I don’t believe there can be perfect terms, in the moment a same action can refer to an infantry, a battleship or an industrial complex unit. Just wondering if there could have been better names for the phases, especially referring to the way TripleA normally calls them.

Also, English is not my first language; so I’m not so sure if my suggestions are good. About this, is the “Turn Complete” definition of TripleA correct, or should it be either “Turn Completed” or “Complete Turn”?

I’ll point out that phases can be called either referring to the game as a game (you are placing pieces of plastic on a board (virtually so, if third edition or TripleA)) or to the game as what it is tentatively representing (you are mobilizing armies around the world). The most obvious example of a change of perspective on this matter is going from the “Place New Units On Gameboard” of the second edition to the “Mobilize New Units” of the Revised and following; maybe a sign of the game taking itself more seriously.

How would you call the phases or what version do you think has the better naming?

@djensen Since this is going to be something that likely applies to all bunches of dice, maybe something like this:

Hit results at maximum value:
[dice@Max 6d6@1 3d6@2 2d6@3 3d6@4]

Hit results at minimum value:
[dice@Min 6d6@1 3d6@2 2d6@3 3d6@4]

The first one would mean “rolling so many six-sided dice at this maximum required result to hit”.