@PAGAN
I agree with you regarding trying to write a rule (n this case, when you can retreat) for every possible outcome, but this autokill on transports (on a unit that has no defensive capabilities other than being the last survivor), falls through the cracks.
Back the the OP question. If transports are the only remaining units from a sea battle, and the defender wants to retreat, why not? They are choosing to do so in lieu of being able to kill the transports. It should be an all or nothing proposition. For example, I have 3 ftrs left, 4 transports remain. I will go one more round of attacking, hoping to roll 3 hits, leaving 1 transport and then I can w/d. Baloney. You either stay and kill them all, or you can w/d and leave them all alive. This would be how I would allow a w/d of the attacking units.
And, as you point out Pagan, it’s our own personal invention. Try to make it a fair one when you create one.
@axis_roll said in AA50 : Retreat From Enemy Transport:
@Krieghund said in AA50 : Retreat From Enemy Transport:
Per the rules, only attacking units may retreat, and all of them may normally do so*. This means that all attacking units (being able to retreat) qualify, but defending units (being unable to retreat) may qualify only on the basis of being able to fire at a valid target. So, if all of the attacking units have been destroyed, or all of the defending units that can fire at a valid target have been destroyed, or both sets of units have been destroyed, the combat is over and the attacker no longer has the option of retreating.
An interesting view of this condition also indicates that submerged subs (if they were to be the only defending units) would not allow attacking air units (if just air remains in the attacking force) to retreat as well, since the subs are not in the list of “all defending units that can fire at a valid target have been destroyed”
Submerged subs are no longer part of the battle, so they are no longer part of the equation and have no impact on the situation.
@PAGAN said in AA50 : Retreat From Enemy Transport:
Immediate auto destruction … but every attacking unit has already fired … do they all get to keep firing ? when ? what phase of the combat cycle ?
Pre-supposing another combat cycle would indicate auto-destruction due to the TNs inability to Return-Fire
The rules may be written in some instances for an attempt at brevity
If the TNs inability to fire is pre-supposing that rather than waste time dice rolling, just auto hit the TNs … does that constitute another combat cycle ? or a special combat cycle phase ? in the same combat cycle or a new one ?
The answers to this seem to be our own personal ‘invention’
The answer is implied in the Defenseless Transport rules. It is simply a shortcut designed to avoid pointless dice rolling, which skips to its inevitable outcome over one or more continued rounds of combat.
@axis_roll >>
…
I think that you and I are very much eye-to-eye on this, and what we think ‘should’ be allowed
.
In my opinion -->
If the attacker didn’t kill the TNs with actual Hits, then he should be able to Retreat\Withdraw.
The Attacker should choose, not have his decisions taken from him … ESPECIALLY when there may be tactical choices for not finishing off those TNs
@Krieghund >>
…
Then you would assume that Retreat is possible by the Attacking Force since there are just more combat cycles involved in the sinking of defenseless TNs
@PAGAN Then this is more a discussion about what the rule should be than about what the rule is. :wink:
I can understand the logic leading to what you would like the rule to be, and in fact actually having the rule be that way was discussed during development. However, it was decided that the rule should be in line with the rule that you can’t retreat from nothing once you’ve won the battle. Since the transports are defenseless and would be automatically destroyed if the battle continued, retreating from only transports would be equivalent to retreating from nothing.
@Krieghund said in AA50 : Retreat From Enemy Transport:
@PAGAN Then this is more a discussion about what the rule should be than about what the rule is. :wink:
I can understand the logic leading to what you would like the rule to be, and in fact actually having the rule be that way was discussed during development. However, it was decided that the rule should be in line with the rule that you can’t retreat from nothing once you’ve won the battle. Since the transports are defenseless and would be automatically destroyed if the battle continued, retreating from only transports would be equivalent to retreating from nothing.
I see your point, but you aren’t really retreating from nothing, because SOMETHING from the attacking force has to remain when all that is left is transports to be destroyed. In other words, if a bomber were to attack a destroyer and 3 transports, and both the bomber and the destroyer were to hit, the only remaining units in this battle would be the transports. They are not automatically destroyed since there are no remaining attackers to kill them. This implies that there is something there to be destroyed (e.g. the transports), because if there was nothing left to be destroyed, why would you still need something attacking to survive to kill nothing!
I know, now were getting all existential!
It’s true that the transports aren’t technically “nothing”, but they are nothing in terms of combat units, as they cannot fight back.
Transports are still units.
There are often exceptions to normal rules, and are handled as much as possible in the rules when foreseen. One example of said exceptions are Industrial Complexes. These have no offensive, defensive or movement capabilities, yet they do have impact as a unit: You can not tank blitz thru a territory with an IC.
Seems to me like an unintended oversight in the rules about w/d from a sea force comprised of just transports.
@Krieghund >>
…
Your methodology PRESUPPOSES more combat cycles
Your statement that : transports are defenseless --> ergo --> don’t waste time rolling through more combat cycles
This ‘conclusion’ PRESUPPOSES that the only thing lost is a tedious time element
This conclusion is Incorrect
::
if you have 3 Attacking units … and there is a defending unit + 4 transports
–> attacker gets 2 hits : 1 hit is on the defending unit , the other hit is taken on the TN
–> application of hits is appropriate based on the combat cycle game mechanics
…
Continuing to a NEW Combat Cycle
…
if you have 3 Attacking units … and all that remains are 3 ‘defending’ transports
In making a LAZY supposition to the rules, by not consistently applying the basic game mechanics , you LESSEN the “strategy” of a strategic game
There is a reason why Non-combat movement , that does not affect any of the combat is NOT done at the same time as combat
:: That is to have Very Delineated Phases of Actions
…
@Panther >>
@taamvan >>
Let me be clear about another point: The Rule Book is Ambiguous about this. You cannot stand on firm ground, without imposing your presuppositions into what the rule means. No one should think that by quoting the rule book about this, that it is Clearly Delineated\Defined. The words, as written in the rulebook, cannot validate a person’s ‘personal’ interpretation
.
Lets say 20 transports remain on the defense and 1 attacking DD
At what point do you get to retreat? Now, while there are 20? According to you, yes.
But that wont do–we want to to kill most of those transports. So we roll and hit–now there are 19 remaining? Do we get to retreat now? According to you yes…but still…we arent done
We would need to roll about 35-50 times–until only 1 transport remains. Now, we want to retreat and “strafe” to a square we could not have reached. According to you–ok, could have retreated from any number of transports.
Problem with this approach is–none of this stuff happens. There is nothing in the rules to state that you have to roll to pick off each transport in turn and go round after round—all the transports simply die. ALL. Whether there are 20, or 1. And when they die–you as the attacker move any surviving units into that square.
The second problem with your approach is that you’re selecting which rules apply.
third problem is that youre trying to argue your novel point against
The guy who wrote, playtested and proofread the rules (Krieg)
The person selected by DJ to be the forum moderator for rules (Panther)
A national tournament winner with over 200 games (Me)
So we’re not right just because of who we are…but our opinions may be more convincing to you…
The rulebook may be unclear to you. We argued endlessly about whether Japan can move into SZ 26 during peace–it can…it takes an exceedingly strained reading of the rules to find otherwise, yet all the people on the other side of that argument insisted that the words “within 2 sea zones of the conus” are vague and ambigous, when they are not. They simply did not like the result (that japan can sit with the US at peace) because it did not fit with their vision of what the rules SHOULD BE.
@taamvan >>
…
taamvan : The rulebook may be unclear to you.
–> My logical argument holds that the rulebook is unclear to YOU as well
–> this part of the rulebook is unclear for ANYONE trying to lay claim as to what it is, based on The Words Used in the same rulebook
…
"Step 6. Press Attack or Retreat
Combat rounds (steps 2–5) continue unless one of the following two conditions occurs (in this order):
Condition A—Attacker and/or Defender Loses All Units
Once all units that can either fire at a valid target or retreat on one or both sides have been destroyed, the combat ends."
If the defender has only transports remaining, he has lost all units that may either fire or retreat (they can do neither). One side has met that condition, so the combat is over. As Condition A takes precedence over Condition B, attacker retreat is no longer an option. There is nothing unclear or ambiguous about this.
“Defenseless Transports: In a sea battle, if the defender has only transports remaining and the attacker still has units capable of attacking, the defending transports are all destroyed, along with their cargo.”
There is nothing unclear or ambiguous about this, either.
You can argue a logical disconnect between the automatic destruction of transports and the attacker’s choice to leave them be, but you can’t argue that the rules are unclear.
@PAGAN said in AA50 : Retreat From Enemy Transport:
@Panther >>
Let me be clear about another point: The Rule Book is Ambiguous about this. You cannot stand on firm ground, without imposing your presuppositions into what the rule means. No one should think that by quoting the rule book about this, that it is Clearly Delineated\Defined. The words, as written in the rulebook, cannot validate a person’s ‘personal’ interpretation.
Be assured that I am personally highly convinced that the ground I am standing on is rock solid.
In my previous statements I argued with nothing else than what @Krieghund again summarized here:
@Krieghund said in AA50 : Retreat From Enemy Transport:
"Step 6. Press Attack or Retreat
Combat rounds (steps 2–5) continue unless one of the following two conditions occurs (in this order):Condition A—Attacker and/or Defender Loses All Units
Once all units that can either fire at a valid target or retreat on one or both sides have been destroyed, the combat ends."If the defender has only transports remaining, he has lost all units that may either fire or retreat (they can do neither). One side has met that condition, so the combat is over. As Condition A takes precedence over Condition B, attacker retreat is no longer an option. There is nothing unclear or ambiguous about this.
“Defenseless Transports: In a sea battle, if the defender has only transports remaining and the attacker still has units capable of attacking, the defending transports are all destroyed, along with their cargo.”
There is nothing unclear or ambiguous about this, either.
You can argue a logical disconnect between the automatic destruction of transports and the attacker’s choice to leave them be, but you can’t argue that the rules are unclear.
You can of course create your own interpretations and play according to them. Happy house ruling then. But in case you want to play according to the rulebook, the rules in the given case are rock solid and chrystal clear.
@Panther >>
…
You guys should just write this: … So Sayeth The Shepard …
If you don’t see your logic error, then you don’t see it
… So Sayeth The Flock …
.
And since I am sitting here with a masters degree focused on symbolic logic and language studies … I find it rather funny
.
Thank you for answering my posts :: The End
@PAGAN said in AA50 : Retreat From Enemy Transport:
@Panther >>
…
You guys should just write this: … So Sayeth The Shepard …
If you don’t see your logic error, then you don’t see it
Let me be clear. What I have posted regarding this rule is not my interpretation, nor my opinion. It is the intent of the designer, of which I am definitely sure. This is neither a mistake nor an oversight.
As I have said, there is definitely room for argument over what the rule should be, including whether or not this rule is consistent with other rules. There may even be room for argument over whether or not the Rulebook clearly states the rule (though at this point I’m not convinced there is). However, there is none regarding what the rule is.
Heading back up to your logic up above–its not “units that can (in some situations) retreat”. It is units in this situation that can retreat (attacking tts yes defending ones no). That rule is written as it is to cover the situations where submerged subs, unhittable units (subs vs planes) or amphibious assaults where some units can retreat and others cant.
As a lawyer–I get what you’re trying to do and say that the rule doesn’t say what its supposed to say. As Krieg points out, that’s up for debate. Many lawsuits are about this kind of thing.
But that’s not because its dogma Canon law its because the other outcome is insensible, contradictory, gamey, requires a tortured reading of the language devised over multiple editions and revisons of the game to try and cover so many different situations.
there is no such thing as a perfect document try to write one
