British Wartime Income and Enemy Submarines


  • From Page 1 of the National Reference Sheet for Great Britain, “There are no Enemy submarines on any British Commonwealth convoy line.”

    In my current game, there are submarines in a sea zone that has a convoy line, but the submarines did not engage in convoy raiding. I argue that the submarines are not on the convoy line. What do forum members say?


  • @hbg-gw-enthusiast I would say that is “on the line”. It is in a sea zone with the line running through it. I would consider that “on”

    Realistically, it will still cause diversion and force delays to the convoys. It isn’t like there is no impact, and this represents that.


  • @trig agreed!

  • Banned

    @hbg-gw-enthusiast
    V3 designer says it’s on the line. 😉


  • @delaja said in British Wartime Income and Enemy Submarines:

    @hbg-gw-enthusiast
    V3 designer says it’s on the line. 😉

    Ok! I bow to the collective wisdom of the forums! 8 )


  • Wait! The errata has been updated!

    Great Britain Reference Sheet:
    Page 1 - Wartime Bonus Income:
    Replace “There are no Enemy submarines on any British Commonwealth convoy line” with:
    “There are no raiding Enemy submarines on a British Commonwealth convoy line”

    It turns out my perspective was correct!


  • @hbg-gw-enthusiast then we have a certain answer that did require a change in the rule book 😛

  • Banned

    @theveteran
    🤣🙈 The HBG wording creates new problems. Does anyone see what the new problem is?

  • Banned

    @delaja
    If you see it, I suggest to avoid further problems by playing with ‘on the convoy line’ (in the same sea zone as the convoy line). If you don’t, I suggest to apply the errata rules until the next question comes up and you can start another discussion here or at the gaming table.


  • @delaja Are you mentioning that “raiding” is not well defined, especially as to when it stops?

  • Banned

    @trig
    “Raiding lasts only one round.” (of combat).
    It is well defined, but the HBG solution is inadequate.


  • @delaja even though raiding technically only happens during combat of the raiding parties turn it’s easily interpreted that what they mean here by adding the term “raiding” to this rule. There is not a problem. Although what it should say is an enemy sub that has raided the convoy line on its last turn

  • Banned

    This post is deleted!

  • @delaja because they made a quick and easy change to the wording - they dont spend a lot of time on this stuff obviously but the fact that they do it at all is nice. also: what about Lend lease interdiction? what is your question?

  • Banned

    This post is deleted!

  • @delaja You realize that this is only a wartime bonus income, not a VP, right? The UK has no convoy related VPs.

    Also, I would assume the bonus is calculated during the UK turn (like everything else), so if you sink the raiding subs, you still get the bonus.

  • Banned

    @trig

    It seems I am mixing up my own VP future ideas with the current rules. Multitask-fail 🙈 I apologize, consider ‘No enemy subs on your convoy line’ a sneak peek for the future house rules. And mental note not to answer rule questions after a birthday drink. 😂

    Seriously
    In V3 it is a bonus indeed. So the wording still needs to be changed by Mr Nice. A sub (raiding or attacking or moving) along a line would be a threat. If it did not raid that turn, does not mean that UK earns that bonus. Why would UK get the bonus if the sub might have just killed 1 destroyer and 4 transports with a bit of dice luck instead of raiding the same sea zone by DOW. Would UK earn that bonus even if the line was packed with 17 subs and no UK fleet to be found within 8 sea zones, because they sank it? The quick and easy fix gives me no satisfaction, but it is what it is. There is an errata for what it is worth. And I have given away an idea I am working on. 😄😄

    Power to the community! 💪


  • @delaja
    I’m sorry but this errata change is actually easily understood, and maybe the wording could have been fleshed out a bit more / better but the point comes across and I am not confused by the rule as it currently stands. You are a bit too harsh on this rule and the designers at this time.
    And you definitely it rly had it wrong that this is tied to any Victory points , it is indeed only a national objective for bonus income which trig already pointed out.
    If you can’t realize the difference between your house rules and the game and rules all of us play by then I don’t care about your comments on the rules we play by, sorry to say.

  • Banned

    @theveteran
    So removed my mistaken remarks. Still the adjusted rule is inconsistent. But like I said, we can agree to disagree. Interdiction is on the line. Raiding is on the line. Bonus is rading but not on the line. You have to start keeping track of which line was raided by who to account for the bonus. I have issues with the rules. You don’t and that is ok.


  • @delaja its easy; use a convoy marker when you use your sub to raid an enemy line and keep the marker there until your next turn if you do something different than convoy raid with that sub.


  • @delaja why does the rule for the national objective have to be the same as the rule for interdiction? Why does this supposed inconsistency matter to you?

  • Banned

    @theveteran
    It is one of the golden rules in designing, that rules are intuitively written. Generalization of concepts leads to faster game play and less discussion and looking up rules takes away from gaming time and enjoyment.

Suggested Topics

  • 4
  • 4
  • 10
  • 6
  • 4
  • 12
  • 2
  • 10
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

69
Online

16.4k
Users

38.2k
Topics

1.6m
Posts