Transport Move, then mount and unmount
Is it possible for an American transport that was located in the Eastern Coastline by the industrial complex, and move two territories to the Atlantic Ocean. Then, picking up an American tank in Libya, and transporting it to the western coastiline of France. Basically, can you move your transport two spaces, pick up a unit, and then drop it off in the same sea zone, but in a different country?
Libya? I think you mean algeria? If during combat yes, during non-combat is the current debate.
your question, as clarified by G_t, is answer correctly by G_t.
I, however, would prefer to leave the arm in Africa to renew colonialism.
C_F last edited by
Why wouldn’t you be able to do this move during non-combat if you own WE?
for an answer to that question.
Smooth, F_alk. Real smooth.
I do not think that Xi, BB, or F_alk are right about this. Even though the rulebook discusses this type of movement in the “combat movement” section, the move is still legal in non-combat. There are many things discussed in the “combat movement” section that really relate to other turn phases as well. Logically speaking, I am not sure how it makes sense that this move is legal in combat, but illegal in non-combat.
If you look at the “non-combat” section, only things that are different in the non-combat phase are written. In the “non-combat” section, the only thing written about transports in this sense is, “Empty transports or transports loaded with cargo can be moved to friendly coastal territories to either load or unload cargo there.”
Even though this sentence uses the word “either” does not mean you can only do one of the actions (load or unload). It means that both options are available in non-combat. You can either load, unload or both.
I have played in both AAMC and IAAPA and both clubs interpret the rules allowing loading and unloading during non-combat. I also think that the CD allows this move as well (not that I give any creditability to the CD). I searched the AAMC website and could not find any FAQ or rules interpretation thread on this specific question. From what I can gather, this interpretation is considered a known fact.
I think that this is a good question, and deserves some discussion. However, up to this point the answers given are incorrect.
Anyone interested what AAMC has to say about this, I created a discussion thread there because as I mentioned above, have never seen it brought up. The link is:
C_F last edited by
Well laststrike I agree with you on this one, if not the sub and trannie hitting the trannie and fighter.
Sorry, maybe I did not clarify myself enough. I ment that America was using the tank on the transport to attack Western Europe, which had no units on it.
laststrike, I to did research on the topic, and there really is no conversation on it one way or the other. The rule book states either, the meaning of the word is clear. I’ll accept that nobody has brought it up in AAMC, but to say AAMC has ruled on this I don’t think is accurate. I do play that way as AAMC seems to, it doesn’t imply we are both right.
You are free to interpret this rule as you feel fit. However, it appears that all of the on-line clubs: IAAPA, AAMC, Spring, BOP and DAAK allow this move - which means it is legal. Check out my above link to the thread discussing it at AAMC. Even an AAMC JAG responded that this is a legal move. The JAG reponded that the word “or” does not mean one or the other but can mean both options are available.
I wonder just who is interpreting rules here? I’m not the one changing the meaning of ‘or’. Besides, the usage of either is also used.
If I were to say either you are right or wrong it is the same as saying you can either load or unload. So, you are right AND you are wrong because you want to load AND unload.
Indeed. Either I am right or you are wrong. smirk Couldn’t help it.
Hey, if a million lemmings want to march off a cliff then I am all for it, march on lemmings, I’m with you.
If the Jag is right that we treat ‘or’ not as a boolean but as a union then why does the rule book use the word either if they really meant both when they used or in the algebraic sense rather than the literal usage?
why does the rule book use the word either if they really meant both when they used or in the algebraic sense rather than the literal usage?
Because you do not have to do “both.” “Either” are acceptable moves. Logically, you can only do one of the actions at a time (hence the word “either”). Thus, you can load and move as many times or spaces as the rules allow. The only time the rules say that a transport’s turn is over is if it unloads or if it had moved in a previous phase (i.e it cannot move in combat and non-combat).
Also, you have not responded why this move would be a legal combat move, but not a non-combat move. I know some of the rules do not follow logic sense, but at least they are consistent throughout the rule book. It just does not make sense that this is legal for one phase and not the other.
I agree that just because the majority do something, it does not mean you should follow. However, in this situation, the amount of knowledge and thought put into the rule interpretation by these clubs are significant. Every rule seems to have their skeptics.
One thing I am surprised by is that it seems this is the first time this has been an issue on this website. I took a look at the games section of this website and found that if you are correct, every game played there is in violation of this rule, including your games. If this is the case, then why has no one else noticed this before? From what I can see F_alk suggested this interpretation and you and Xi just said you agree.
Well, not related, but on the avalonhill website under AA Europe:
Can two units in a single transport unload in two different territories during Non-combat Movement if both are adjacent to the same sea zone?
No. A transport can unload into only one territory.
Can a transport unload two infantry into two different territories?
Yes, but only during noncombat movement. Both territories need to be adjacent to the same sea zone.
Laststrike, the examples you give are of load, move/load, then unload. We are talking, move, move, load, unload, a subtle, perhaps irrelevant detail.
I’m curious, if you can move 2 then load/unload, why do they waste so much effort on the concept of ‘bridging’? If you can move 2 territories and load/unload as no big deal, then why is it a big deal if you don’t move at all and load/unload?
So, you have to discount the special reference to bridging, you have to treat the meaning of ‘or’ differently, you have to disregard the meaning of either and there are no examples to support moving 2 spaces and bridging during non-combat, and yet I am the one ‘interpreting’ the rules? Really?
I’ll admit that is the way I play. But I for one will never claim everything I do is right.
this is a conundrum
This is from the AAMC faq:
Q: Can I load units onto a transport in the combat movement phase even though these units will not be involved in combat?
A: Yes, you may load units onto a transport during the combat movement phase regardless if they are to be used in combat or not. These units can enter the transport, be used in an amphibious assault, remain on board, or leave during the non combat movement phase. If any of these units are to be used in combat, you must specifically declare which units will be used and where. Units going aboard a transport must do so prior to any naval battle taking place in the sea zone. (AAMC FAQ)
and see Axis & Allies Game Play Manual(Second Edition Rules, p. 21, col. 1, para. 1). Please, note that I checked the Rules Clarification pamphlet (equivalent to Third Edition Rules) and found no relavent ponts.
I read this as meaning only units that did not move during Combat Movement may move in Noncombat Movement.
Jeez! If this is the case, I’m starting over as a rookie and Germany will have breating room. I like it!
I’m still not sure on what to think about this situation. All the responses deal with non-combat, but not with combat. Can someone please clarify on moving two non-combat sea zone moves, mounting units, then unmounting in an amphibious assault…or basically move, move, mount and unmount in a combat situation
guleed00, that IS legal.
2nd edition Rulebook P16
How they move
“A transport can pick up cargo, move 1 or 2 sea zones, and unload the cargo all in the same move. THE CARGO CAN BE PICKED UP BEFORE, DURING OR AFTER THE TRANSPORT MOVES. For example, a transport could pick up 1 infantry, move 1 zone and pick up another infantry, move into another zone and unload both infantry all in the same move. …”
There is also a section right below it on bridging.
Another example, a Jap trn in the FIC sz, can move 2 sea zones, pick up 2 inf on Japan and then transport to Man for battle. Also if there is a battleship in the Japan sz or one that moves there it can fire its amphibious shot.
Hope this helps.
I agree, that is a legal move for combat. Here is an example of combat and non-combat that some won’t agree with, and I I’m not sure I do.
The British have move their fleet 2 spaces south of the waters around england to drop off units in French West Africa. The germans have a sub in the waters off Italy. The Germans put their sub between the British Fleet and England. The Brits of course want to move their fleet up 2 spaces and move the units off Britain to Finland. It is the Brits turn.
If the German SUB is not there then the brits move their transports up 2 spaces and load preparing to unload during non-combat.
However, the SUB is in the way, so do combat movement, put your airforce on the SUB and sink it.
Page 21: Empty transports or transports loaded with cargo can be moved to friendly coastal territories to either load or unload
Thus the Brits could only move their transports in to load.
This to me is the best reading of the rules. I don’t like it much but….
morten200 last edited by
Ok, I CAN see how the reading of the rules will make this the case. What I still don´t understand is WHY you can load infantry in the combat phase when they are not going to be in combat!!!
I may have missed something in the rules, but that just seems like cheating! Yeah! Dagnabbit!
Well, if you can load AND unload during non-combat then there is NO reason to load during the combat phase. However, if they force you to load during combat if you want to unload during non-combat because you can’t do both at this phase then it does alter the game. The German sub just screwed the brits out of an entire round of unloading.
This seems to make sense. If you start out during combat movement then perhaps the logic is that you have time to move 2, load and unload. Wheras if the transports sat around for awhile to determine the results of the battle then they might not have time to move 2, load and unload. They would have time to move and unload or move and load.
Moreover, if there was no movement then you can bridge during non-combat, ie, load and unload. This again makes sense. If there is no movement to be done, there is more time to load and unload, presumably you are just crossing a short distance. No wonder they make a big to-do about bridging. It is a big deal if you can’t move and load then unload!
alright, i understand now.
Here is an example of combat and non-combat that some won’t agree with, and I I’m not sure I do.
I agree with your interpretation of the rules here. This is the only way to load and unload in a single turn IMHO, although the twist with the sub makes me feel slightly uncomfortable, but then… you can move tanks through a freshly conquered area to reinforce some other area, so that is pretty much the same.**
So F_alk, you and I both agree on the rule intrepretation yet, nobody else in the world does. Now what?