Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
35 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Rise and Decline of the Third Reich» Forums » Rules

Subject: Rule 19.5 rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Patrick Bauer
United States
Reading
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Waste Water too
badge
Mid-Atlantic Air Museum
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I am always a little unsure on this one, do I have this correct?:

I have a pass on one front and an offensive on the adjoining front. I may not move units on the pass front next to enemy units even if I intend to attack across the front but I may attack across the front if a unit started the turn there. The first sentence of the rule could be read as two conditions or just one.

19.5 A ground or air unit which changes front during movement or which attacks an enemy unit across a front boundary is not bound by these restrictions if it enters or attacks a non-Pass Option front. The front entered/ attacked governs. Similarly, a naval unit may (during the Combat phase) move through a Pass Option front to bombard or invade another front, or to land a Sea Transport mission in a debarkation port on another front; (However, the Sea Transport mission could not land a unit in a Pass Option front port, even if the unit proceeded to move farther by land and enter or attack a hex of another front. The port of debarkation is the hex that “receives the action” of this naval mission.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Doug Poskitt
Portugal
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The first sentence of 19.5 allows a unit to move under the conditions of an attrition or offensive option if it will move across or attack across a front boundary into a front governed by attrition or offensive options, even if it starts in a front subject to a Pass option. If it starts in a Pass option front, it may move through hexes adjacent to an enemy unit on its way to cross/attack across a front boundary goverened by a non-pass option selection.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oh my God They Banned Kenny
Canada
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Quote:
19.5 A ground or air unit which changes front during movement or which attacks an enemy unit across a front boundary is not bound by these restrictions if it enters or attacks a non-Pass Option front. The front entered/ attacked governs....


I concur, the restrictions on the Pass front can be ignored, if a unit is moving into or performing a mission / attack into a non-Pass front. However, that does potentially create a 'compelled' action situation, as if one moves a unit through a Pass front, ignoring the restrictions, up to, but not across the border it must then make some form of attack in order to make its move legal.
2 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Carter
United States
Woodbury
Minnesota
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree with Doug and Kenny. This one seems fairly straightforward (for a change).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Konstantinos K
United States
Florida
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Does the 19.5 pass movement exception cover the following?
1) armor units that will move in a pass option front in order to attack a vacant enemy-controlled hex on a non pass option front?
2) armor units that will move in a pass option front in order to exploit but not attack in a non-pass option adjacent front?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oh my God They Banned Kenny
Canada
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
kostaskav wrote:
Does the 19.5 pass movement exception cover the following?
1) armor units that will move in a pass option front in order to attack a vacant enemy-controlled hex on a non pass option front?
2) armor units that will move in a pass option front in order to exploit but not attack in a non-pass option adjacent front?


I believe exploitation movement is explicitly covered, as would be attacking an enemy unit during exploitation combat. I suppose if you wanted to rules lawyer it, if you attack a vacant enemy controlled hex across a front boundary in order to create a breakthrough, the exception in 19.5 might not explicitly cover it. However, I do believe it is the intention that any such action, taking place on a front where an offensive option is chosen, would be covered by the exception when passing through a pass front in order to participate in the offensive action. Similarly, fleets based in the Med when a pass option is in effect in the Med would be allowed to participate in an seaborne invasion against Marseilles (assuming a western front offensive option). Even if they are only carrying ground units, and not providing shore bombardment, I believe they would be covered by the exception.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Konstantinos K
United States
Florida
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks Kenny, but you only covered question 1. And I actually agree on the verdict for attacks on vacant hexes. However question 2 remains, since I was talking about movement of other armors in regular movement phase (not exploitation) in order to become adjacent to the armor in Q1 that may attack across front boundaries. Are they also covered by the 19.5 exception to the rules of pass option movement?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oh my God They Banned Kenny
Canada
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
kostaskav wrote:
Thanks Kenny, but you only covered question 1. And I actually agree on the verdict for attacks on vacant hexes. However question 2 remains, since I was talking about movement of other armors in regular movement phase (not exploitation) in order to become adjacent to the armor in Q1 that may attack across front boundaries. Are they also covered by the 19.5 exception to the rules of pass option movement?


If they're exploiting then they'll be moving onto the offensive option front (i.e. I do not believe it matter whether that occurs, during 'regular ' movement or exploitation) so yes I believe they are explicitly covered by the exception. Was there another point I've missed?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Konstantinos K
United States
Florida
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks,
There is a sequence of play conundrum however...
If we accept this interpretation, then there is a situation in which the armors can move in a pass option front over non-friendly hexes adjacent to the armor that will attack, (without changing front), but then, for some reason they cannot exploit, either 1)because the attack was unsuccessful, or 2) because (in case there was a vacant hex attack intended) the other attack to eliminate a neighbor to allow exploitation per 14.4 (see thread on this) fails.
What do we do then? Take the movement phase movement of armors back after the combat has occurred? Or accept the movement as legal because the intention was there?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oh my God They Banned Kenny
Canada
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
I believe the move would stand as long as there was demonstrably an attack which could have made it legal. I suppose there is a question if the attack never had any chance of succeeding. There are analogous situations with respect to interception of naval missions, which are deemed to have occurred for purposes of fulfilling a DoW requirement, even if they were intercepted and never actually took place.

The rule of thumb is that player action would be compelled. E.g. if you move on the pass front, taking advantage of the exception, then you could not opt to not attack the unit you moved adjacent to even though movement has already taken place and the action which would make the move legal is to take place during the following phase (combat in this example). I believe a 'rollback' would be called for if the player did not make the attack. However, I do not believe an occurrence beyond the player's control (e.g. a 'bad' die roll) should result in a rollback.

Certainly much of this is not explicit, but requires a 'logical consequences' type of argument. Let's again consider the seaborne invasion of Marseilles during a Med front pass option. The fleets are deemed to be allowed to move within enemy interception range based on the exception (west front offensive mission). If those fleets are intercepted in the Med and turned back, they never actually performed the mission on the offensive front. But their move up to the point of interception is not thereby undone.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Konstantinos K
United States
Florida
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I happen to agree with your interpretation but I think my opponent does not, and honestly it is not easy to make a compelling argument for the "armors intending to exploit" situation, which is very open to alternative interpretations. Can you or anyone else find a clarification or a published DQB or example of play that could help us? Or perhaps point to a particular section of rules that I may have accidentally missed? The closest I can think of is the situation of intended naval attack on an offensive option against a minor justifying a DoW, (which gets intercepted, without a Dow being revoked), but I am short of other situations that could help justify the action based on "intent". Any ideas?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Patrick Bauer
United States
Reading
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Waste Water too
badge
Mid-Atlantic Air Museum
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If I understand you, the question you are asking is if an armored unit in a pass front that would otherwise not be able to move may move such that while unable to leave the pass front but still position itself to become an exploiting unit may do so.

The RAW 19.5:
The unit did not change fronts during "movement" (SOP step D7) nor did it attack across the front boundary. Your opponent does have a claim because exploitation movement takes place during the Combat phase. It hasn't actually met the exception requirements listed in 19.5.

Take a different view for that unit: say the initial attack that would allow the unit to exploit fails. Then the unit would have moved in such a fashion that would violate the Pass option. Perhaps this new location for the intended exploiting armor provides the owner with a more advantageous ZoC. That doesn't seem fair.

I would defer to the RAW and not allow this unless the unit can actually position itself in the Offensive front prior to the initial combat.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oh my God They Banned Kenny
Canada
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
SewerStarFish wrote:
....The unit did not change fronts during "movement" (SOP step D7)....


The RaW merely states "movement", it does not limit that to the regular Movement Phase (D7). There is also an exploitation movement phase (8m) which is not excluded from qualifying under 19.5. For that matter 8k also states that exploiting unit "move" to breakthrough hexes.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Patrick Bauer
United States
Reading
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Waste Water too
badge
Mid-Atlantic Air Museum
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
True but no where else in the rules is the SoP so directly referenced. The rule also does not specifically say "exploitation movement" only "movement". Again, exploitation movement isn't guaranteed. How would one handle the situation where the opening attack failed? Leave the offending unit in place? Require it to return to its turn start position?

As written I would think that "movement" means 7d and not 8m. While 3R rules are full of more holes than a sponge; any other interpretation would have begged for an example or clarification.

I think I'd object to the play during a game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Patrick Bauer
United States
Reading
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Waste Water too
badge
Mid-Atlantic Air Museum
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This is not to say I do not understand choosing to read the intent of the rule: allowing offensive minded units on the pass front to act on the offensive front's actions.

I'm just saying that this particular point is more than gray.

imo
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oh my God They Banned Kenny
Canada
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
SewerStarFish wrote:
True but no where else in the rules is the SoP so directly referenced.


Sorry, but I don't see the general term "movement" as being a direct reference to a specific phase in the SoP.

SewerStarFish wrote:
The rule also does not specifically say "exploitation movement" only "movement".


True, but using the general term "movement" IMHO implicitly includes anything that qualifies as movement. That would include movement during the exploitation phase as well.


SewerStarFish wrote:
Again, exploitation movement isn't guaranteed. How would one handle the situation where the opening attack failed? Leave the offending unit in place? Require it to return to its turn start position?


If the game were otherwise devoid of such situations I might assign more weight to that concern. However, there are plenty of other situations in the game where something doesn't go as planned (e.g. due to naval interception) and where it is the intention, or attempt, to do something that counts, not necessarily its successful completion. Rule 19.5 even explicitly states "Similarly, a naval unit may (during the Combat phase) move through a Pass Option front,...". That not only states that the exception for naval ops is 'similar' to that for ground units, but also makes it clear that it is not only "movement" during phase 7 that is granted an exception.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Patrick Bauer
United States
Reading
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Waste Water too
badge
Mid-Atlantic Air Museum
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
But in those other Fail situations the rules make clear (or at least the DQBs do) that the requirement is met. Without any other reference and with no DQB addressing the issue, one is left with the rule as written in the vernacular that they were written.

Modern rules would have clearly defined which movement phase(s). But I can't see 3R as it was written meaning anything other than regular movement without actually mentioning it.

The edges are always fuzzy in this game. And I can see a cogent argument between intent and wording.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Konstantinos K
United States
Florida
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I see some problems/complications actually with both Kenny's and Pat's interpretation:
1) If Kenny is right there should be a rule that if attack or exploitation fails to occur involuntarily, then the units go back where they were and the hex control reverts to the original owner imho. And this is not a choice for the attacker. If they moved per 19.5 they have to attack at any odds so that there will be exploitation, period. Otherwise the spirit of the rule is violated and is prone to "gaming" for obtaining a favorable ZOC position or occupying an airbase on a pass option front.
2) If Pat is right, there is a big question where exactly the line is drawn? For example consider (instead of the exploiting armor situation) an armor unit moving to the border front per 19.5 intending to attack a vacant enemy-controlled hex per 14.4. Legal or illegal? Let's say it is legal (as I think it is), but then the attacker chooses not to attack because an enemy unit next to it was not cleared, and thus there can be no exploitation from that hex. Do we move that armor back, or do we force it to attack the vacant hex anyway because it moved per 19.5? I think we force it to attack, but then if we do this, why not allowing Kenny's exploitation situation as well? Quite a conundrum indeed...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Patrick Bauer
United States
Reading
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Waste Water too
badge
Mid-Atlantic Air Museum
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Well from perspective my interpretation is pretty easy. The line is drawn where the big red front boundaries are and the player has no option; if he moves it, it either has to cross that line or he must attack across that line.

Anything else is handled like any other illegal move. Which is to say, whatever house rule the group plays with because there is no real rule for dealing with it.

Have fun and good luck with whatever interpretation you decide to follow. Remember, it's only a game...a very serious and important game.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oh my God They Banned Kenny
Canada
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
I think there's a natural tendency to see our own interpretation as being most 'simple' and 'straightforward'. Once we've managed to wrap our (own) head around it, why not - it's 'clear' (to ourselves at least).

I think a lynchpin of Patrick's interpretation is reading the term 'movement' as applying strictly to the phase 7 movement phase. However, for my part, I see no basis for making that assumption. The term "movement" is certainly not used that way consistently throughout the rules.

I do believe (no surprise) that my interpretation is straightforward. I think by simply stating the general principle, everything that is included under the 19.5 exception is 'clear'. Any unit which is participating in an offensive action taking place on an offensive front can ignore the limitations on a pass front in order to participate in the offensive action. That includes air units (not explicitly mentioned in 19.5, would Patrick allow air units to fly from a pass front base to counterair? or during exploitation?) flying to provide air support, counterair or intercept. It includes naval units performing transport, seaborne invasion or shore bombardment. I have no problem with the possibility that armour using the exception in order to exploit might be denied the opportunity due to a random combat result. As far as I'm concerned that is analogous to naval units which are intercepted (19.5 even uses the term "similarly"). For the most part, I do not see failed attempts at an attack / exploitation resulting in a 'rollback' of a move (no more so than a naval interception would).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Konstantinos K
United States
Florida
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
You guys both have good points, but I am not fully convinced by either side. Even though I am leaning towards Kenny's side on the particular issue of exploiting armors because of the spirit of the general intent of the pass movement option rule and the specific language in the rulebook, I think that Kenny's argument about the air and naval mission parallel does not hold and is actually more of a justification for Patrick's interpretation. After all, air staging during movement phase within a pass option front is not under 19.5 exception, even if the air is used on an offensive mission on another front later. Same with fleets, which cannot change base within a pass option front under 19.5 exception, even if they can be used later for an offensive mission through a front boundary. Someone would claim that armors that are moving within a front to be placed adjacent to an attacking unit for exploitation purposes fits within the same category...This issue indeed is quite complicated, and perhaps my opponent is right! We will need to wait for our very experienced GM to resolve this, I think...we can always agree either way, but sometimes you need to know what is right, and keep consistency. This game is a constant learning experience...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oh my God They Banned Kenny
Canada
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
I think part of the struggle you're having is that Patrick is at the more restrictive end of the spectrum in interpreting 19.5 while I'm at the opposite end. You perhaps feel more comfortable in between. Be that as it may, regarding your comments on 'staging' air:

Quote:
19.5 A ground or air unit which changes front during movement or which attacks an enemy unit across a front boundary is not bound by these restrictions if it enters or attacks a non-Pass Option front....


Quote:
28.2 MOVEMENT:
28.21 An air unit may stage (change bases) up to eight hexes during its Movement phase....


Staging is movement for air units. Thus I disagree with your assumption that air units cannot stage on a pass front using the 19.5 exception. The only requirement is that they either stage (i.e. move) onto that other front OR that they attack a unit on that other front. Either qualifies them for the exception.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Konstantinos K
United States
Florida
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I was talking about air units staging fully within the pass option front, with the intention to attack across border during the combat phase. Would that staging fall under 19.5 exception? I do not think so! And if yes, what about naval movement (in movement phase, not in combat phase)?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
fangotango
Canada
Halifax
Nova Scotia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Note that 19.2 only prevents ground units from moving adjacent to enemy units.

The only restriction on air units (19.3) on a passing front is that they can only move over controlled hexes.

Also, air units are specifically included in the 19.5 exception, even if their new base is on the passing front, as long as they make an offensive mission during the turn.

Quote:
19.5 A ground or air unit which changes front during movement or which attacks an enemy unit across a front boundary is not bound by these restrictions if it enters or attacks a non-Pass Option front.


I am in deadkenny's camp on this one. The use of the word "enter" in 19.5 makes me believe that all possible methods of moving into the offensive front are meant to be included, whether during the movement, combat, or exploitation phase.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Patrick Bauer
United States
Reading
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Waste Water too
badge
Mid-Atlantic Air Museum
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
deadkenny wrote:
I have no problem with the possibility that armour using the exception in order to exploit might be denied the opportunity due to a random combat result. As far as I'm concerned that is analogous to naval units which are intercepted (19.5 even uses the term "similarly"). For the most part, I do not see failed attempts at an attack / exploitation resulting in a 'rollback' of a move (no more so than a naval interception would).


Like I said earlier, I see the point and I am usually in the interpretive camp.

To perhaps be more clear on my premise: I simply think that "exploitation movement" is "combat" because it's in the "Combat Phase" and thus doesn't fulfill the exception requirements to moving in a Pass front where the unit would not otherwise be able.

But if one plays with allowing armor to move and not leave the front only in hopes of being an exploiter then I disagree with kostavkav's earlier premise question of not making the attack because of some other result. At the very least if a side moves its armor such then the initial breakthrough attack must be mandatory and the exploiting armor must exploit if the breakthrough occurs and move/attack per the hex situation of the surrounding hexes.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.