Carriers attacking transports to retreat, can they?

So I’m confused, forget about the extra movement point retreat thing for now. A carrier (with an attack value of 0) can kill a transport?  I thought the thinking behind a defenseless transport was that you don’t have to roll because at some point you would hit the transport and it can’t escape (def can’t retreat). With no attack value how can that be.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have a problem w/carrier takeing out a defenseless tpt, I just need clarification that it is allowed (or not).

@WILD:

So I’m confused, forget about the extra movement point retreat thing for now. A carrier (with an attack value of 0) can kill a transport?  I thought the thinking behind a defenseless transport was that you don’t have to roll because at some point you would hit the transport and it can’t escape (def can’t retreat). With no attack value how can that be.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have a problem w/carrier takeing out a defenseless tpt, I just need clarification that it is allowed (or not).

That’s another good question that’s come out of this thread.

What’s the problem? :?

They have to share the same sea zone, if they can’t attack each other.

The carriers can’t retreat, cause there is no sea battle.

@Krieghund:

@Wilson2:

Can two carriers attack a transport and then retreat after one round of not combat to get one of them to move 3 (or 4 with NB)?

This one is tricky.  Based on the rules as written, my initial response is no.  However, I’m conferring with Larry on the subject to get a final answer.

@Wilson2:

Can you choose to roll dice with your ships against transports instead of removing them instantly to do the same thing with ships with attack values?

No.

Krieghund, I take issue with this.

Aircraft carriers have an attack value of zero.

They have the right to attack naval units!

Yes, their attack value is the poorest roll possible, but do not limit someone’s strategy when that strategy is in line with the rules.

Please don’t remove that right because it does not seem right in a rarely obscure chance of the ‘AC Transport Bypass Loophole’.

Carriers can not attack.

How should the destroy the transports?

My previous example in this thread may have been a bit obscure but I will hold to the fact that I felt that since both the carrier and transports attack value is 0, then there is no real sea battle between the two.  Therefore, they would just share the sea zone and there would be no cause for a retreat since there was no battle.

@Zenosco:

My previous example in this thread may have been a bit obscure but I will hold to the fact that I felt that since both the carrier and transports attack value is 0, then there is no real sea battle between the two.  Therefore, they would just share the sea zone and there would be no cause for a retreat since there was no battle.

Sounds valid…actually, wait…it sounds more like a non-combat move to me.  To be honest this situation is very unlikely to occur in the game.  Carriers are rarely unescorted.

@Wilson2:

No, I have asked that question before. The carrier cannot kill the transport. Because of this, I wondered if you could use the transport to speed move your ships.

A carrier can attack a convoy zone by itself and cost the enemy 1 ipc if they don’t kill it right. So whats wrong with it taking out a transport. I can see good arguments on both sides. It has no attack value, but it is still a war ship (and common sense would tell you it would be able to).

Ok, so Krieghund has ruled on this already in another post? As I said before I can live with it either way.

@WILD:

@Wilson2:

No, I have asked that question before. The carrier cannot kill the transport. Because of this, I wondered if you could use the transport to speed move your ships.

A carrier can attack a convoy zone by itself and cost the enemy 1 ipc if they don’t kill it right. So whats wrong with it taking out a transport. I can see good arguments on both sides. It has no attack value, but it is still a war ship (and common sense would tell you it would be able to).

Ok, so Krieghund has ruled on this already in another post? As I said before I can live with it either way.

Perhaps it’s an issue of realism. In ASL the german tanks have a nifty close defence defence weapon against infantry. The rules don’t allow it to be used offensively because, as powerful as it is, no tank commander would ever intentionally drive into a group of armed enemy infantry and try a shot with this thing.  Similarly, no naval commander would ever send unescorted fleet carriers with no planes to harass transport ship even though the carrier would be more powerful.  The damage they may take is not worth the risk. Carriers take years to build, so they stay at the back.

It does make sense though that a Carrier would disrupt shipping though.  While a carrier would not risk damage by closing in an transports alone, the reverse is even more true. No freighter captain is not going to try to race by a carrier even if he knew it was devoid of planes.  They still have big defensive guns.

@Wilson2:

That carriers cannot kill transports is in the AAP40 FAQ. However, it also says that Carriers can attack “Q. Aircraft carriers have an attack vaIue of zero. Does this mean that they can’t attack other units and can only be used defensively in battles?
A. No. They can participate in an attack and take hits just like any other warship. They just don’t get an attack roll.”
So I would take this to mean that they may attack transports and nothing happens. Then they may or even may have to retreat.

Rules lawyer strategy. Interesting, if not frustrating, lol.  I still call shenannigans on this sleaze tactic!!  Don’t make me get the broom!!!  Is that South Park reference to old?  :evil:

Also the word “participate” is subject to interpretation.  I would seem to imply something else needs to be there as well.

@moralecheck:

Perhaps it’s an issue of realism. In ASL the german tanks have a nifty close defence defence weapon against infantry. The rules don’t allow it to be used offensively because, as powerful as it is, no tank commander would ever intentionally drive into a group of armed enemy infantry and try a shot with this thing.  Similarly, no naval commander would ever send unescorted fleet carriers with no planes to harass transport ship even though the carrier would be more powerful.  The damage they may take is not worth the risk. Carriers take years to build, so they stay at the back.

It does make sense though that a Carrier would disrupt shipping though.  While a carrier would not risk damage by closing in an transports alone, the reverse is even more true. No freighter captain is not going to try to race by a carrier even if he knew it was devoid of planes.  They still have big defensive guns.

Excellent point, Moralecheck.  Convoys aren’t attacked, they’re disrupted.  Convoy disruption is not the same as attacking military transports.  Even if the (unescorted) convoy merchant ships can’t be attacked by a lone carrier, they’re certainly going to stear clear of it, disrupting the flow of supplies.

@moralecheck:

Also the word “participate” is subject to interpretation.  I would seem to imply something else needs to be there as well.

Again, excellent point.  This is something that we’re taking our time with before issuing an official answer, as we want to make sure all of the angles are covered.  An FAQ amendment will probably result.

@Wilson2:

@moralecheck:

@Wilson2:

That carriers cannot kill transports is in the AAP40 FAQ. However, it also says that Carriers can attack “Q. Aircraft carriers have an attack vaIue of zero. Does this mean that they can’t attack other units and can only be used defensively in battles?
A. No. They can participate in an attack and take hits just like any other warship. They just don’t get an attack roll.”
So I would take this to mean that they may attack transports and nothing happens. Then they may or even may have to retreat.

Rules lawyer strategy. Interesting, if not frustrating, lol.  I still call shenannigans on this sleaze tactic!!  Don’t make me get the broom!!!  Is that South Park reference to old?  :evil:

Also the word “participate” is subject to interpretation.  I would seem to imply something else needs to be there as well.

Note the words “just like any other warship.” Any other warship can attack all by themselves and can attack transports all by themselves. Sure the carriers can’t kill the transports but they should be able to attack them.

Respectfully disagree.  There is no attack.  It is simply an attempt to bend the rules in your favour.  This is like guys in online Halo who claim that getting inside a tree trunk and shooting with impunity is a fair tactic because the programmers missed the bug.   I’m sure this hole in the rules was not meant to give carriers warp drive.

Then your ‘warp drive’ thinking would have to apply to all retreating units, land and sea. When units retreat from a tt, inf move 2 spaces, and armor may end up moving 3. This is not about your house rules but the real rules.

@BadSpeller:

Then your ‘warp drive’ thinking would have to apply to all retreating units, land and sea. When units retreat from a tt, inf move 2 spaces, and armor may end up moving 3. This is not about your house rules but the real rules.

Nope.  There is a big difference between retreating from where you came (essential cancelling your move) and using a retreat at sea to get an extra point in whatever direction you want.  I thought that was obvious, but I guess this thread shows otherwise. shrugs

And that wasn’t a real house rule either, just a joke.  I rarely use house house rules in any game (but will on occasion, I admit).  Nothing is more annoying than learning the rules to a game and sitting down to play the first time with some new players who then tell you they have rewritten half the game.  Of course, that would still annoy me less than someone who was arguing it was ok to retreat forward after “non-combat combat move”.  :lol: