Mutual Elimination & Transports

Long time reader first time poster, I’m thinking about selling my copy. Its not sealed but never played (could never get friends to play with me). If anyone is looking for a copy feel free to send me a message.

You sir, encapsulate the spirit of the game!  I can’t say that I’d do the same… (I went so far as to slap some paint and decals on my minis), but at the end of the day - I’m with ya.  I did apply clear tape to my AAA50 box though - kinda laminated in a cheap way, but it travels with me on occasion (over the Atlantic in a suitcase).

You call others “die hard” players?  Perhaps, but in my book you’re the step up, the “hardcore” player!

Hey, maybe “Alive chinese fighter” for the highest rank. It’s the more rare thing you can have after J1  :mrgreen:

Well you could just use the 1942 setup for china only (not inculding parts that japan hasé great britian)  tryin to make everyone happy since there is many whiners!

Anyways, i feel that when im japan i just randomly choose anything!  lol but when i go through i continue on long live the zero - yak  (i love the yaks)

Just DL and decide

@AaronConnor
From the Anniversary rulebook, page 31:
“A transport can load and offload units without moving from the friendly sea zone it is in (this is known as “bridging”). Each such transport is still limited to its cargo capacity. It can offload in only one territory, and once it offloads, it cannot move, load, or offload again that turn”.

So it can bridge exactly one time per turn, either during Combat Move Phase (into a hostile territory) or during Noncombat Move Phase (into a friendly territory).

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