Remove autodestruct rule for transports

[shadowhawk]

This extra rule, that adds nothing, causes confusion with some players.

But it really doesnt add anything to the game any reasonable intelligent person would not think of themself.

What happens if you remove the rule, well since only the attacker can roll dice he will roll dice untill the transports are destroyed. Any sane person would see this as inevitable so they would just take away the transports and save time.
So there is no reason to even have this rule in the rulebook. People read half the rules sometimes, start thinking about scenarios that dont apply and then come up with questions.

Can solo transports retreat when they are attacking, yes.
Can i bombard if i only fight transports, NO,
but they are defenseless there was no sea battle, there was a sea battle you just optimised it.

[SuperbattleshipYamato]

@shadowhawk

It is useful. It clearly clarifies you can just skip the rolling dice.

Like surrender, I need it to be explicitly stated for me to determine that it’s legal.

[shadowhawk]

@SuperbattleshipYamato said in Remove autodestruct rule for transports:

@shadowhawk

It is useful. It clearly clarifies you can just skip the rolling dice.

Like surrender, I need it to be explicitly stated for me to determine that it’s legal.

Problem is since it states you can skip the dice people think there is no combat so that you can bombard.

Its obvious that if you throw infinite amount of dice you get an infinite amount of hits.
So if there is only 1 side rolling you can keep rolling dice or accept that you will eventually hit.

You can always just throw the dice, like you can always continue untill a victory condition is met. You dont have to surrender.

Would you also insist throwing dice in a land combat where 1 blocker inf is pitted against 30inf 20art 30 tanks or would you just go yea you score a hit lets get it over with?

[SuperbattleshipYamato]

@shadowhawk

I do insist on throwing dice if 20+ units are attacking a single infantry. Every single one. I roll them, but once I see one hit, I don’t actually look at them.

While it’s true that the rule you mentioned would cause players to suggest stupid loopholes, we already have answers for them and there aren’t that many loopholes. Getting rid of it now, when the questions and answers have already been talked about, would change nothing, since, again, we already know the status of the loopholes.

[shadowhawk]

@SuperbattleshipYamato said in Remove autodestruct rule for transports:

@shadowhawk

I do insist on throwing dice if 20+ units are attacking a single infantry. Every single one. I roll them, but once I see one hit, I don’t actually look at them.

While it’s true that the rule you mentioned would cause players to suggest stupid loopholes, we already have answers for them and there aren’t that many loopholes. Getting rid of it now, when the questions and answers have already been talked about, would change nothing, since, again, we already know the status of the loopholes.

There are no loopholes, new players still getting confused by a rule that doesnt add anything to the game. If they have to attack the transport they notice hey this is combat, so since there is combat there is no bombardment.
Or hey since i can retreat i can retreat.

Smart players will not bother rolling on transports that defend and do not have any defence. What would you do if you attack a sub + fighter + transports with only air? The combat will technically never end since you cannot hit the sub and the sub cannot kill you. Keep rolling untill all transports are killed or just stop and remove them from the board.

[MarshmallowofWar]

The rule is in place to save play time and prevent dumb arguments from people who are bad at math.

A rule that saves me from at least some dumb is a rule of which I approve. A rule that saves me time is a rule of which I approve.

A rule that does both is great.

Marsh

[shadowhawk]

@MarshmallowofWar said in Remove autodestruct rule for transports:

The rule is in place to save play time and prevent dumb arguments from people who are bad at math.

A rule that saves me from at least some dumb is a rule of which I approve. A rule that saves me time is a rule of which I approve.

A rule that does both is great.

Marsh

Does it save time if people start to argue that your attacking transports cannot retreat because they are defenseless and therefore auto destroyed? Or that they can do shore bombardment because they didnt have naval combat the transport wasnt a combat?

Looking that up takes longer then explaining someone that with infinite dice you will score infinite hits.

[MarshmallowofWar]

@shadowhawk Well, you could always just tell them that it’s in the rules.

Marsh

[shadowhawk]

@MarshmallowofWar said in Remove autodestruct rule for transports:

@shadowhawk Well, you could always just tell them that it’s in the rules.

Marsh

Which will result in argument and you having to look up the rules just to prove that it is indeed in the rules. Same happens now when they want to bombard and destroy the transport :(. Because transport is defenseless so i dont throw dice so there was no combat right.

I can explain a 6yo that if you have unlimited tries you can get any number on a dice at least once. And the game is 12+ :)

[AndrewAAGamer]

Ummm, there is a combat, that is what a “sea battle” is… combat. Just because they are defenseless does not mean there is no combat. They still have to be attacked.

Which, is why if you attack the transport you cannot bombard.

Also, as you could see above, by reading the rules, attacking transports are generally NOT considered defenseless as they usually can retreat.

If your argument, for not liking a rule, is people who do not read or understand the rules may argue with you then ANY rule would fall under that category.

[shadowhawk]

@AndrewAAGamer
I know the rules, its just that sometimes my opponents dont know them.
Or questions are asked about them on this forum.

And a lot of that is because the defenceless transports rule that really does make it more complex for some people.
Since the rule doesnt change the game at all and it does cause confusion with some players just remove it.

The rule isnt bad it just should not be writen down in the rulebook. Smart players dont need a rule like that to be writen down they just remove defenceless transports by themself without the rule.

Its also not consistent there is no defenceless AA gun rule. If a country with only AA guns get attacked you can also just remove them from the board without rolling unless you attack with only air ( if you attack with air and ground units you should not be playing the game )

[SuperbattleshipYamato]

@shadowhawk

The thing is, those scenarios are far more unlikely than having defenseless transports, so if you’re playing with new players you’ll have to explain the “infinite dice” rule far more frequently than those stupid fake loopholes, which means the same amount of time is lost. I personally have only experienced those two scenarios you described maybe 10 times (probably less) in the 50-100 games I’ve played in my life (of all variants!)

[SuperbattleshipYamato]

@AndrewAAGamer

Agreed.

[shadowhawk]

@SuperbattleshipYamato said in Remove autodestruct rule for transports:

@shadowhawk

The thing is, those scenarios are far more unlikely than having defenseless transports, so if you’re playing with new players you’ll have to explain the “infinite dice” rule far more frequently than those stupid fake loopholes, which means the same amount of time is lost. I personally have only experienced those two scenarios you described maybe 10 times (probably less) in the 50-100 games I’ve played in my life (of all variants!)

If you have to explain someone that if there is only 1 side throwing dice they will win then you should not play those persons to begin with.