AA50 : Retreat From Enemy Transport

It’s true that the transports aren’t technically “nothing”, but they are nothing in terms of combat units, as they cannot fight back.

@Krieghund

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.

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.

"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.

@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