The attacker USUALLY fires first, but AA guns and defending subs are clear exceptions - attacker fires first is not a hard and fast rule. In the case that brought the matter to the forefront, if the attacker had full knowledge of the rule as proposed, he could have brought a destroyer along with the six transports taking a 50-50 chance that the destroyer would miss, forcing the sole defender (sub) to stay on the surface, and thereby allowing the retreat the attacker wanted to pull off (rescuing his 10 land units from Finland).trihero wrote: It's quite obvious that some units fire before others like AA guns and subs regardless of who initiated the attacking, but whenever there's "simultaneous" firing or a confusion in who is going first, the attacker takes precedent. He chooses what territories to attack, in what order to attack, and when to retreat as long as there's remaining units left. Just as that's the case, so it is the case that the attacker gets to choose to retreat first - the defender can't "trick" the attacker into forcing an assault by retreating first through submersion because it's the attacker's choice to retreat first.
There is no "tricky" about it - there is only knowledge of the rules to such a degree that you may fully utilize them to your own tactical advantage.
I would submit to you that the intention of the rules is not clear. Most time attackers do things ahead of defenders, but not always, so the whole issue is open for debate.trihero wrote:I think that is simply the best and easiest way to clarify it - using submarine's submersion as a retreat move, rather than a separate end-of-combat-round-but-before-retreat phase type thing that just creates confusion.
I suggest you change your proposal to fit what the intention of the rules is - that the attacker is in control of attacking and retreating in all cases but the land portion of amphibious assault. It just makes too much sense that submarine's submersion is a retreat move (it's worded to say a submarine can retreat, so you would think that this happens during the press attack or retreat phase). Retreat moves are just part of the retreat phase, and the attacker is allowed to retreat first in the same manner that he rolls first and chooses the order of the battles.The order proposed (attacker may submerge, defender may submerge, all other attackers, including any unsubmerged subs may retreat) is a clarification of an existing rule, not a change.
The whole purpose of drafting the LHTR rules was to get away from second guessing what the intent of the rules was (there were dozens of issues like this with contradictory rules open to argument as to"intent").trihero wrote:I definitely think this is the most confusing paragraph that brings up BlackWatch's issue, because it says that submarines submerge at the same time and somewhere vaguely in "this step" (Press Attack or Retreat). I think the sumbarine submersion step needs to be clarified exactly when it happens in the attack or retreat step. The way it's written, you can interpret the submarines to retreat before the attack retreats, but I don't think it was really intended to be that way.Submarines:
Submarines on both sides may retreat during
this step by submerging. Return the submarine
to the game board and tip it onto its side to
mark it as submerged. It remains submerged
until the end of the noncombat move phase.
(Submerged submarines do not stop enemy sea
units from moving through their sea zone.)
In many cases the authors could not even explain their own intent (Larry Harris and Mike Selinker both helped in drafting the LHTR rules). They were always clear what they wanted with a particular rule, but when directed to a conflicting rule they too had to work with us to bring them together so the whole mess made sense.
Again - look at overall consistency. You cannot launch an amphibious assault if there are subs on the surface, but if you drive them off (their only choice in AAR is down - in 2nd edition they could move to an open seazone) the amphib can proceed. You can noncom through a seazone with one transport over 20 submerged subs. The defending subs have been put out of play. You CAN retreat from a sub on the surface - it is still a threat. It does not make sense to be able to retreat from a submerged sub - sorry but that dog won't hunt.trihero wrote:Or perhaps the wording should be changed so that you can retreat even if there are submerged units in play; you could keep your proposed order of submerging then retreating, but the attacker could still retreat even if all units have been submerged. Like Larry said, that would be reason enough to retreat from the seazone if you saw submarines submerging in it. It just doesn't make too much sense that you're really supposed to be able to trick the attacker into attacking like that.
"It just doesn't make too much sense that you're really supposed to be able to trick the attacker into attacking like that"
Most players I know are trying to outwit their opponent at every step of the game. Pins and forks in chess are tactical "tricks" - would you outlaw them too?