Kamikaze Clarification

@simon33
I found it.
Thanks so much for the reference.

Thank you. I was tracking the TPT and sub rules in regards to Kamikaze.

Yes, he is!
Checked the rules again and, darn I missed that paragraph (I think I thought it was entirely dedicated to ‘bridging’).
But below bridging it says “(…) once it offloads, it can’t move, load, or offload again that turn”.

The current rule is (Pacific rules, page 16): If an Allied player attacks Japanese units in or declares an amphibious assault from one of these sea zones, the Japanese player can announce at the beginning of this phase that he or she intends to launch one or more kamikaze strikes in that sea zone.  They are resolved before any combat begins.

So the status of any land territories adjacent to the kamikaze sea zones has no relevance.

@Cmdr:

knp,

I dont believe America would have to TAKE Korea, in your scenario.  You are free to NCM warships into hostile zones without risk of Kamikazee attacks so long as there are no enemy warships present.

So if Japan had no units in SZ 6, but had 6 Kamikazees left, America could waltz in with 3 battleships during NCM and nothing could be done about it.

Yeah, you are right.  USA could lose the land battle for Korea and still move in the warships to SZ6 in the NCM with no kamikaze attacks.  I worded that a bit wrong, but the point I was making was that as long as there are no Japanese naval units in SZ6, then the USA could move warships into SZ6 in the NCM and Japan could not use it’s kamikaze.  The battle for Korea has no influence one way or the other in this example.

That does help a lot; thanks to all who responded to my questions!

@knp7765:

I have another transport question regarding the “defenseless transports” rule and transports in an attack status:
I know that if transports are defending, once any other warships are sunk and there are attackers left, ALL transports are immediately destroyed.
However, if transports are part of an attack, they are not considered defenseless because they can retreat. So if you have some transports with two warships, let’s say cruisers, and the defender gets 2 hits, then the two cruisers are sunk and the transports can then retreat. However, if the defender were to get 3 or more hits, then some of those transports would also be hit and sunk with the remaining transports being able to retreat.  Is this correct?

Specific example: Germany attacks Volgograd with 1 cruiser and 1 transport. Russia scrambles 2 fighters to SZ 115. Both fighters score hits. So in this case, both the German cruiser AND the German transport are sunk, right? It wouldn’t be sink the cruiser and the transport retreats. The 2nd Russian fighter hit would be applied to the transport since the 1st Russian fighter hit sank the cruiser.
That’s the way we played it and I’m pretty sure I’m right. Any defending hits in excess of attacking warships can be applied to attacking transports.

That’s my understanding as well.

SE Mexico is in a different NO, so you don’t need it in the first NO.