Can you retreat, from NOWHERE?

Now you’re just looking for loopholes.

Yeah, you COULD find that situation, but who would ever do it (who in their right mind that is)? � There would never be a reasonable case for it.

I suppose if you’re crazy enough to commit that kind of income to a worthless navy, sure … but really?

** nvm this part … i’m thinking of something else Unless, if memory serves me correctly, the black sea is a no-build zone (just as the sahara desert is impassable, the black sea is not a valid zone).

@Rorschach:

Now you’re just looking for loopholes.

Well…Garg is good at that…

I remember once he found a reason to build a NAVAL BASE on the mailand (not adjacent to any seazone…)  :-o    :-D

@Gargantua:

THERE IS STILL AN EXAMPLE where you can choose to suicide your transports in an attack move.

1 cruiser defending homeland japan, is attacked by 1 destroyer and 1 transport attempting to unload on the mainland.

The cruiser pops the destroyer. I may now CHOOSE to continue my attack. I am not FORCED to end the attack.

There’s nothing in the rules to prevent that.  It’s only the initial attack without an attack value that’s prohibited.

@Gargantua:

Also Kreighund, I’m going to take you to task here. � NO WHERE IN THE RULES IS IT WRITTEN that you cannot attack with a unit that has an attack value of 0. Atleast that I can find?

It’s in the Official Rules Clarifications.

@Gargantua:

EVEN BETTER

I’ve got you beat Kreighund.

I build a transport into the black sea as Germany.

Russia builds a destroyer.

On Germanies next turn… THE TRANSPORT MUST ATTACK THE DESTROYER.

This is an obvious exception.  Being unable to move away trumps the rule that it cannot normally attack.

Transports are always taken as the last casualty, so the real issue here is can you attack with a carrier?  If I’m not mistaken you can, but you only ever would if you also had another unit with an attack value.  For instance you could attack with 1 sub and 1 carrier and suck up 2 hits with the carrier before you ever lose your sub.  That’s actually not a bad thing to do if the other side doesn’t have a destroyer and you can first strike with the sub.  Desperate maybe but effective.

Garg’s example of building a transport into a hostile z100 without cover isn’t impossible BTW.  Suppose you intend to defend the new transport with fighters that can scramble from an airbase in axis controlled Greece, but alas the fighters are lost in a battle before they can land there.  Ooops.  Now the Soviets build their destroyer in z100 and you have to attack it with your naked destroyer and it gets automatically killed.  That sounds like a move I would do LOL  :-P

@Gargantua:

get the Japanese Navy to sink my American Transport (with Russian infantry on it)

And if the Soviet infantry goes down with the American transport that “attacked” the Japs, does that mean that Japan and russia are at war even if they weren’t before the incident?  Very Tonkin gulf.

The Soviets would need to declare war on Japan before boarding a US transport in the Pacific.

But they could have loaded a US transport on the Europe map (if the USSR is at war Germany and/or Italy).

But then I have to ask, can the US move a transport containing Soviet troops from the Europe map to the Pacific map if the Soviets aren’t at war with Japan?

Theatre specific neutrality is weird.

@Axisplaya:

@Rorschach:

Now you’re just looking for loopholes.

Well…Garg is good at that…

I remember once he found a reason to build a NAVAL BASE on the mailand (not adjacent to any seazone…)   :-o     :-D

1. Can I see that?
2. How. The. Fuck?

@techroll42:

@Axisplaya:

@Rorschach:

Now you’re just looking for loopholes.

Well…Garg is good at that…

I remember once he found a reason to build a NAVAL BASE on the mailand (not adjacent to any seazone…)�  � :-o�  �  � :-D

1. Can I see that?
2. How. The. f**k?

LOL … he found a “REASON” to, but, as per Kreig “No.  See page 24 of the Rulebook.”

OK so if japan attacks India by sea and there is a naval battle, and there just happens to be a British transport present with a Soviet mech onboard, would Japan and Russia be at war after that naval battle?

@Vance:

OK so if japan attacks India by sea and there is a naval battle, and there just happens to be a British transport present with a Soviet mech onboard, would Japan and Russia be at war after that naval battle?

In order for Russia to load onto an Allied transport in that seazone, they’re required to be at war with Japan before loading onto it (otherwise they cannot use Allied transports, be in Allied territories).

They’re already at war.