Global war 1936 V3: defender fighter/tactical movement after destroyed carrier

[Trig]

@jan-aerts
According to the FAQ:

Q: I am the defending player in a naval battle, where my carriers were destroyed. I still have a few fighters/tacticals left. What happens to the aircraft?

A: If the Defender lost Carriers containing aircraft, these aircraft have a movement of 1 to find a suitable landing spot. If they are unable to do so, they are eliminated.

Also, on carrier MAP:

Q: aircraft on carriers can act as if on Maritime Air Patrol, but if you decide to do so, do you also have to un-MAP then (and thus wait a turn), in order to use them for other purposes?

A: No. That is why the rule says “may act as if…"

[Jan Aerts]

@trig Thanks for pointing that out. I must have overseen this (stupid me). I was really convinced it was not mentioned in the rulebook.

[Trig]

@jan-aerts I hadn’t seen it till just now. HBG has a habit of updating their FAQ whenever they see a new question come up, so it might be new.

[Noneshallpass]

I confirm that the FAQ was updated, as the carrier question was not there a few days ago.

My understanding before the FAQ updated was that since we did not have the equivalent to the A&A rule, the carrier-based planes did not have a 1 movement to land and were lost.

Regarding the switch to MAP, I don’t think that you are allowed to do this during the opponent’s turn with defending planes. MAP is a form of combat movement (rules 8.2 and 8.7).

[General 6 Stars]

I see 3 ways it should go.

1. Can land on a island only in same sea zone.
2. Can land on any island or territory touching that SZ.
3. Can land on a territory and/or island touching that SZ but only if it has an air strip or airbase,

[Trig]

@gen-manstein The answer is #2

[HBG GW Enthusiast]

@noneshallpass said in Global war 1936 V3: defender fighter/tactical movement after destroyed carrier:

Regarding the switch to MAP, I don’t think that you are allowed to do this during the opponent’s turn with defending planes. MAP is a form of combat movement (rules 8.2 and 8.7).

What about Page 35, Carrier-Based Aircraft: “For game purposes, aircraft on Carriers may always act as if on Maritime Air Patrol.”? The example given would seem to indicate you can have carrier-based aircraft be as if they are on MAP.

[Noneshallpass]

@hbg-gw-enthusiast

Interesting comment. I admit that I missed that one on page 35.

However, I still have a problem with planes pulling double duty, such as fighting in the naval battle and then declaring MAP when the carrier is sunk.

Plus, if the carrier is sunk, they are not « aircraft on Carriers » anymore. MAP aircraft still needs to have a legal landing within range (see Elimination also on page 35).

[HBG GW Enthusiast]

@noneshallpass said in Global war 1936 V3: defender fighter/tactical movement after destroyed carrier:

@hbg-gw-enthusiast

Interesting comment. I admit that I missed that one on page 35.

However, I still have a problem with planes pulling double duty, such as fighting in the naval battle and then declaring MAP when the carrier is sunk.

Plus, if the carrier is sunk, they are not « aircraft on Carriers » anymore. MAP aircraft still needs to have a legal landing within range (see Elimination also on page 35).

Yes! You and I are on the same page, my friend! If you look at my initial response (2nd post in this thread), you will see that’s what I was saying. “Your planes remain in that sea zone, flying MAP as long as they have a suitable landing spot. Long-range Aircraft only increases the MAP range of medium bombers so you need a landing spot that is 1 away. If you don’t have a space to land that is 1 away, then they are destroyed”. But this was before they updated the FAQ. Now, your planes don’t remain on MAP and must immediately fly 1 space to land if their carrier is destroyed. I think they made a good change to the rules with this FAQ update. The only improvement I would suggest to the FAQ is that it should state “… to find a suitable landing spot upon the conclusion of combat.”

[sjelso]

@hbg-gw-enthusiast So in the end, same as A&A?

[Trig]

@sjelso Yes