Yes this is a valid move, since you may ignore a sub or a tranny when making your moves.
I believe Kreig has already answered a similar question in this thread, but I will admit I’m too lazy to find it ;)
Yes this is a valid move, since you may ignore a sub or a tranny when making your moves.
I believe Kreig has already answered a similar question in this thread, but I will admit I’m too lazy to find it ;)
That’s the 3rd affirmative reply you’ve received, Bardoly. If you aren’t satisfied until Krieg answers your question, than just say so. We understood your question. The answer is yes, it’s legal.
Attacking the sub doesn’t make the zone a “combat zone” that your transport can then not load units and pass through. Krieg already explained that combat doesn’t happen until the combat phase. This is the combat movement phase. Z49 is friendly and your transport can pick up units, and your destroyer can make a combat move on the sub at the same time. So game on, already! :-)
I believe Kreig has already answered a similar question in this thread, but I will admit I’m too lazy to find it ;)
I’m not too lazy to find it :-)
See replies #681, 682, and 683.
Just substitute your sub for my transport.
I’m pretty sure this has been answered, but I’d like to ask again just to be sure….
If a power buys an AC, is it possible to make an attack where this AC serves as the designated landing zone for those figs?
Example would be if there are Jap naval units in SZ53 (and Japs control Haw) and American fighters on Aussie. USA buys an AC for 56, and 2 American figs attack 53, meaning to land on the newly built AC.
Is this maneuver legal in the new rule-set?
I’m pretty sure this has been answered, but I’d like to ask again just to be sure….
If a power buys an AC, is it possible to make an attack where this AC serves as the designated landing zone for those figs?
Example would be if there are Jap naval units in SZ53 (and Japs control Haw) and American fighters on Aussie. USA buys an AC for 56, and 2 American figs attack 53, meaning to land on the newly built AC.
Is this maneuver legal in the new rule-set?
Yes! And if the fighters are destroyed, then you are free to place the CV at any IC your power has!
(This rule is an added reason for purchasing IC’s, like Germany, for France (creates possibility to fly fighters 3 spaces to invade London)
Looks like everything is under control here. :-)
Looks like everything is under control here. :-)
Aint it nice when you have the community trained, Krieg?
I’m pretty sure about this one, too, but I couldn’t seem to find the explicit rule in the rulebook.
If a power attacks a sea zone with a cv that is loaded with one or more fighters belonging to another, friendly power, what happens if the cv is destroyed in combat? My understanding is that the ftrs are treated as cargo and would go down with the ship (as with loaded transports). I also think that the loaded ftrs could NOT be chosen as casualties during the combat. Please correct me if I am wrong.
You’ve got it right.
I assume the CV is attacking with a loaded friendly fig aboard and not defending?
The statement looked like it could be read either way when I first read it.
I read it as the carrier being the attacker, but I see now how you could interpret it the other way.
Sorry if this has been asked before, but may England use USA trannies as a bridge? If the trannie does not move, can the British load and unload on the same turn?
Thanks, JC
It can be done, but not in one turn. The UK units must load on one turn then unload on the next. The transport must act on the US’s turn, even if it just moves within the sea zone.
It can be done, but not in one turn. The UK units must load on one turn then unload on the next. The transport must act on the US’s turn, even if it just moves within the sea zone.
Thanks! That is what I believed, but just to be sure…
It can be done, but not in one turn. The UK units must load on one turn then unload on the next. The transport must act on the US’s turn, even if it just moves within the sea zone.
Actually Kreig, the question should be can UK units be mobilized onto US trannies sitting in the Channel ? I would think they’d have to be mobilized in England and board the transports on a subsequnt turn although I’m not sure this would be the case with a UK ftr being mobilized on a US cv in the Channel.
@Battling:
It can be done, but not in one turn. The UK units must load on one turn then unload on the next. The transport must act on the US’s turn, even if it just moves within the sea zone.
Actually Kreig, the question should be can UK units be mobilized onto US trannies sitting in the Channel ? I would think they’d have to be mobilized in England and board the transports on a subsequnt turn although I’m not sure this would be the case with a UK ftr being mobilized on a US cv in the Channel.
I don’t think you can mobilize anything on ally’s ships
@Battling:
It can be done, but not in one turn. The UK units must load on one turn then unload on the next. The transport must act on the US’s turn, even if it just moves within the sea zone.
Actually Kreig, the question should be can UK units be mobilized onto US trannies sitting in the Channel ? I would think they’d have to be mobilized in England and board the transports on a subsequnt turn although I’m not sure this would be the case with a UK ftr being mobilized on a US cv in the Channel.
You can’t even mobilize ground units on YOUR OWN transports, let alone an ally’s. You also can’t mobilize your fighters on an allied carrier.
You can’t even mobilize ground units on YOUR OWN transports, let alone an ally’s. You also can’t mobilize your fighters on an allied carrier.
Good point gamerman…I didn’t even think of it. :mrgreen:
@Battling:
You can’t even mobilize ground units on YOUR OWN transports, let alone an ally’s. You also can’t mobilize your fighters on an allied carrier.
Good point gamerman…I didn’t even think of it. :mrgreen:
Ground units can’t jump off a boat to fight a sea battle, but i see no reason why planes couldn’t.
I can imagine american fighter pilots on a brittisch carrier saying “are we under attack? mehh, they’re not attacking ME so i ain’t taking orders”. makes no sense. (i mean in defending)
I read somewhere they are considered cargo. That would be so if they were loaded on the ship, not landing on them.
