Bizarre naval move

[Zorachus99]

I have just dicovered that a face-up SCS can be in the 0 box at the end of the turn, and then during the return to base phase, you can: move the SCS to a port, embark a division, continue moving with the embarked division to another port, and then finally return to port in another port if the SCS had a 6 movement and range.

Has this been coded, or am I completely wrong with this interpretation?

[paulderynck]

This is a legal move in WIFFE. I don't know if it has been coded to work in MWIF. Maybe others who played CWIF could comment?

[Zorachus99]

I feel like

That is a horrible rule, and the FAQ posted says that a unit aborted from combat (therefore disrupted) can embark and transport a unit during the abort in the same fashion. Isn't the clarification a violation of another rule?

I would *not* like to inspect the naval abort digression Steve has to puzzle out due to this.

If you've already done this Steve, you're a hero.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

I feel like

That is a horrible rule, and the FAQ posted says that a unit aborted from combat (therefore disrupted) can embark and transport a unit during the abort in the same fashion. Isn't the clarification a violation of another rule?

I would *not* like to inspect the naval abort digression Steve has to puzzle out due to this.

If you've already done this Steve, you're a hero.

Maybe just as well if it is not coded for that instance, although the normal RTB and transport function isn't a big abuse and a lot of players use it. Based on discussions in the Rules Clarification group, a lot of people thought an aborting RTB with transport function was an ugly loophole and the designer seemed to agree but didn't think a clarification on that should be done as it would directly contradict RAW. Maybe if RAW gets re-issued (work that is rumored to be taking place) then the loophole will get patched.

Cheers.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

I feel like

That is a horrible rule, and the FAQ posted says that a unit aborted from combat (therefore disrupted) can embark and transport a unit during the abort in the same fashion. Isn't the clarification a violation of another rule?

I would *not* like to inspect the naval abort digression Steve has to puzzle out due to this.

If you've already done this Steve, you're a hero.

Maybe just as well if it is not coded for that instance, although the normal RTB and transport function isn't a big abuse and a lot of players use it. Based on discussions in the Rules Clarification group, a lot of people thought an aborting RTB with transport function was an ugly loophole and the designer seemed to agree but didn't think a clarification on that should be done as it would directly contradict RAW. Maybe if RAW gets re-issued (work that is rumored to be taking place) then the loophole will get patched.

Cheers.

Yes for normal return to base. No for when aborting. I do not know if the code from CWIF for this works. If it doesn;t, then I'll implement it.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

I have just dicovered that a face-up SCS can be in the 0 box at the end of the turn, and then during the return to base phase, you can: move the SCS to a port, embark a division, continue moving with the embarked division to another port, and then finally return to port in another port if the SCS had a 6 movement and range.

Has this been coded, or am I completely wrong with this interpretation?

It used to work in CWiF.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99
That is a horrible rule, and the FAQ posted says that a unit aborted from combat (therefore disrupted) can embark and transport a unit during the abort in the same fashion. Isn't the clarification a violation of another rule?

The ship is disrupted when it reach the port, that's why it is allowed. At the moment it passes through the first port and embark the unit, it is still organized and can still load units.

11.5.8
"A Your unit aborts. At the end of the combat round, return it to base according to the return to base rules (see 13.4).
Turn the aborted unit (and any cargo) face-down."

13.4
"Units may return to base during naval movement, after aborting from combat and during this step. You return units to base like a normal naval move except in reverse."

11.4.5
"A TRS can embark face-up units it starts the impulse stacked with, or it can embark them when it moves through the port they’re in."

[Froonp]

I think that the unit should be disrupted (i.e. turned face down) as the first step of the Abort combat result, not as the last.

Because a A result means that the units sufferend some combat damages that makes them needing to go back to port for repairs, so embarking units on the way seems not to be a valid option for these ships.

But as RAW is written now, this is allowed.

This may not be allowed sometime soon because the issue have been raised to Harry and he agreed that it was not good, so if MWiF disrupted aborted units from combat as the first step of the Abort process, I would agree.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

I think that the unit should be disrupted (i.e. turned face down) as the first step of the Abort combat result, not as the last.

Because a A result means that the units sufferend some combat damages that makes them needing to go back to port for repairs, so embarking units on the way seems not to be a valid option for these ships.

But as RAW is written now, this is allowed.

This may not be allowed sometime soon because the issue have been raised to Harry and he agreed that it was not good, so if MWiF disrupted aborted units from combat as the first step of the Abort process, I would agree.

Yes, disorganizing aborted naval units before they start their return to port would work, and is an easy way to explain this rule to players.

[Zorachus99]

I've never been to Wifcon but I found out about this rule last night after playing this game since 1988. Close to 20 different people, and 20 years and I learn a new (IMO indecent) trick that isn't optional.

Worse, I could return a division from the UK to Manila during end of turn by abusing the rule. To pile on the situation, during end of turn everyone is moved to a lower box or returned to base, making the interception of the around-the-world tour less possible.

The Wifzen doesn't appeal to me either because if you escort a convoy for 4 turns (8 months), ending up in the 0 box and then miraculously have fuel to return to a port embark and transport a unit to another port a few thousand miles away; well you probably know what I'm getting at.

An option is to play without SCS transport which would greatly reduce the ability to (use or abuse?) the rule, as the rule would only affect transports.

Thank you all for clarification.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

I've never been to Wifcon but I found out about this rule last night after playing this game since 1988. Close to 20 different people, and 20 years and I learn a new (IMO indecent) trick that isn't optional.

Worse, I could return a division from the UK to Manila during end of turn by abusing the rule. To pile on the situation, during end of turn everyone is moved to a lower box or returned to base, making the interception of the around-the-world tour less possible.

The Wifzen doesn't appeal to me either because if you escort a convoy for 4 turns (8 months), ending up in the 0 box and then miraculously have fuel to return to a port embark and transport a unit to another port a few thousand miles away; well you probably know what I'm getting at.

An option is to play without SCS transport which would greatly reduce the ability to (use or abuse?) the rule, as the rule would only affect transports.

Thank you all for clarification.

Perhaps the caveat should be that any unit so transported is disorganized and unavailable for additional transport?

[Zorachus99]

People should also be aware of this move - I wasn't - that you can move a TRS out to sea with cargo, have the units move off the transport, reorganize the transport at sea, the next turn you can return to base moving a unit from one port to another. This is very helpful to Germany who doesn't do naval actions often. In this way, with 1 naval move you can transport 2 corps units to Finland over 2 turns.

IMHO this ability should be clearly outlined in the rules, not the product of referencing several rules and interpreting them. All of this is based on the key phrase, "You return units to base like a normal naval move except in reverse." I don't find the language particularly clear.

On the otherhand I do not propose changing anything either, I'm sure Steve is well past code freeze for features or changes.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

People should also be aware of this move - I wasn't - that you can move a TRS out to sea with cargo, have the units move off the transport, reorganize the transport at sea, the next turn you can return to base moving a unit from one port to another. This is very helpful to Germany who doesn't do naval actions often. In this way, with 1 naval move you can transport 2 corps units to Finland over 2 turns.

IMHO this ability should be clearly outlined in the rules, not the product of referencing several rules and interpreting them. All of this is based on the key phrase, "You return units to base like a normal naval move except in reverse." I don't find the language particularly clear.

On the otherhand I do not propose changing anything either, I'm sure Steve is well past code freeze for features or changes.

You are not allowed to reorganize units at sea unless you play an offensive and that seems an expensive way for Germany to transport units to Finland.

From 11.18.4 Reorganising:
"You can never reorganise aircraft or naval units at sea - they must be in a hex (exception: Offensive chits in a naval action ~ see 16.2)."

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99
People should also be aware of this move - I wasn't - that you can move a TRS out to sea with cargo, have the units move off the transport, reorganize the transport at sea, the next turn you can return to base moving a unit from one port to another. This is very helpful to Germany who doesn't do naval actions often. In this way, with 1 naval move you can transport 2 corps units to Finland over 2 turns.

You are not allowed to reorganize units at sea unless you play an offensive and that seems an expensive way for Germany to transport units to Finland.

From 11.18.4 Reorganising:
"You can never reorganise aircraft or naval units at sea - they must be in a hex (exception: Offensive chits in a naval action ~ see 16.2)."

And you need to be organized to load units. Disorganized ships can't load units.

[Zorachus99]

Nice. Where was 11.18.4 when I needed it?

[Zorachus99]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99
People should also be aware of this move - I wasn't - that you can move a TRS out to sea with cargo, have the units move off the transport, reorganize the transport at sea, the next turn you can return to base moving a unit from one port to another. This is very helpful to Germany who doesn't do naval actions often. In this way, with 1 naval move you can transport 2 corps units to Finland over 2 turns.

You are not allowed to reorganize units at sea unless you play an offensive and that seems an expensive way for Germany to transport units to Finland.

From 11.18.4 Reorganising:
"You can never reorganise aircraft or naval units at sea - they must be in a hex (exception: Offensive chits in a naval action ~ see 16.2)."

And you need to be organized to load units. Disorganized ships can't load units.

From 11.18.4 Reorganising:
"You can never reorganise aircraft or naval units at sea - they must be in a hex (exception: Offensive chits in a naval action ~ see 16.2)."

I just read 16.2 and it doesn't seem to provide any reorganization bonus or change. What does the exception refer to?

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99
I just read 16.2 and it doesn't seem to provide any reorganization bonus or change. What does the exception refer to?

There are 2 versions of the naval OC, and MWiF will have the older one (that reorged ships at sea and in ports) as an available option.
If you read the latest version of RAW, it is no more described as it was replaced.
You can read it in the latest printed booklet that still have the older version.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99
I just read 16.2 and it doesn't seem to provide any reorganization bonus or change. What does the exception refer to?

There are 2 versions of the naval OC, and MWiF will have the older one (that reorged ships at sea and in ports) as an available option.
If you read the latest version of RAW, it is no more described as it was replaced.
You can read it in the latest printed booklet that still have the older version.

This is from RaW-7m. Is this the latest version of the rules?

16.2 Naval action
If you play an offensive chit at the start of a naval action, specify 1 of your face-up HQs that is in a port hex. Immediately turn face-up every naval unit controlled by your major power (CVPiF/SiF option 56: and carrier plane on a CV) in that port, in one sea area the port borders, and in every port adjacent to that sea area. If the port borders 2 or more areas, you choose which gets this benefit.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Orm
This is from RaW-7m. Is this the latest version of the rules?

16.2 Naval action
If you play an offensive chit at the start of a naval action, specify 1 of your face-up HQs that is in a port hex. Immediately turn face-up every naval unit controlled by your major power (CVPiF/SiF option 56: and carrier plane on a CV) in that port, in one sea area the port borders, and in every port adjacent to that sea area. If the port borders 2 or more areas, you choose which gets this benefit.

The latest RAW are :

RAW7 aug04, released in August 2004 at ADG's Website. It only exist in electronic version.
RAW7m released on 8th May 2003 at ADG's Website). It only exist in electronic version.
RAW7a released on 1st May 2003 as a printed and binded (previous versions were loose sheets of papers to be put into a binder).

The complete history of WiF FE rules versions (as well as any other game component, counters, maps...) can be found at : http://pagesperso-orange.fr/froon/WiF/wif.htm

I don't know from where you had RAW7m, but you should dump it and download the latest instead.
If you have the printed rulebook, this is RAW7a indeed, but there are only a couple of differences between RAW7a and RAW7m (I don't know why Harry came with the "m" subversion, but instead it should have been a "b" because RAW7m is just after RAW7a, and there never were b, c, d... versions.


Here is the latest rulebook's naval offensive chit rule :

This is from RAW7 aug04 (available as a free download at ADG's website) :
**************************************
16.2 Naval action
If you play an offensive chit at the start of a naval action, specify one of your face up HQs that is in a port hex. Any naval or aircraft units stacked in that hex that initiates a naval combat (see 11.5.2) may demand a re-roll of the search dice (see 11.5.5) by both sides, in any round of combat this impulse.
Re-rolling of naval search dice may be demanded any number of times this impulse provided that the total number demanded does not exceed the HQ's reorganisation value.

Example: Nimitz is in Pearl Harbor stacked with 3 SCS and a P-38G FTR. Jay plays a naval offensive chit on Nimitz at the start of his naval action. The Lighting flies into the 4 box of the Hawaiian Islands and the 3 SCSs into the 4 box of the Marshalls sea area, both of which contain Japanese and US units. During the naval combat step the US picks the Marshall Sea area and they both roll search die. The Japanese roll a 2 to a US roll of 10.
Jay demands a re-roll. This time he rolls a 5 while Kasigi rolls a 3. This commits the entire Japanese navy but only the US carrier fleet in the 4 box is included. Jay could take a risk and use up Nimitz's third and last re-roll on another roll, but decides to save this for later rounds (or even to help the Lightning in the Hawaiian Islands) on the (wise) assumption that the search re-roll might end up worse rather than better.
**************************************

Which was corrected in an errata published in the latest ADG Annual, the 2008 Annual, to become :
**************************************
Offensive Chit on a Naval Action (WiF 16.2)
If you use an offensive in a Naval impulse on an HQ in a port, any naval or aircraft units that start stacked in that port that initiate a naval combat may require one or both sides to roll extra dice in any round of naval combat this impulse.
After naval movement but before any combats, place numbered production markers in each sea zone containing one or more units that started stacked with the HQ. The total value of markers placed may not exceed the HQs reorganization value.
In each round of naval combat, immediately after any roll (search, air-to-air, anti-aircraft, or defense) by either side is made, the player conducting the naval offensive may reduce a marker’s value by 1 to demand a re-roll. Re-rolls may be re-rolled. Any markers left in the sea area after the end of
naval combat there are destroyed.

Example: Nimitz is in Pearl Harbor stacked with 3 SCS and a P-38G FTR. Jay plays a naval offensive on Nimitz at the start of his naval action. Jay flies the Lighting into the 4 box of the Hawaiian Islands, and moves the 3 SCSs into the 4 box of the Marshalls sea area. At the end of naval movement, Jay
places a ‘1’ marker in the Hawaiian Is. and a ‘2’ marker in the Marshalls. During naval combat Jay initiates a search in the Marshalls. Jay rolls a 4 and decides to keep it. Kasigi then rolls a 2. Jay demands a re-roll and Kasigi rolls a 9. Jay decides to save his additional marker for a subsequent search, but the remaining Japanese ships abort after the first round of combat. The remaining marker is destroyed.
**************************************

The difference is that the latest version allows you to re-roll other die rolls, not only search rolls.

I kind of prefered the older version that you quoted, the one that reorganized ships.

[Orm]

I do not know from where I got 7m. I got RAW7 aug04 but from somewhere I got the idea that it was replaced by another version.

And since 7m had the same rule (16.2) as RAC I reasoned that 7m might be the latest version. [:(]

Thank you Froonp for your awesome WiF knowledge. As always. [&o]