A questionable excerpt from the aircraft carriers rules

[Cernel]

If you declared that a carrier will move during the Noncombat Move phase to provide a safe landing zone for a fighter or a tactical bomber moved in the Combat Move phase, you must follow through and move the carrier to its planned location in the Noncombat Move phase unless the air unit has landed safely elsewhere or has been destroyed before then, or a combat required to clear an intervening sea zone failed to do so. Likewise, if you declared that a new carrier will be mobilized to provide a safe landing zone fora fighter or tactical bomber, it must be mobilized in that sea zone unless the air unit has landed safely elsewhere or has been destroyed. -Rulebook Pacific 1940 2nd Ed., page 28

I think that this part is badly worded.

My understanding of the rules is that, if I say that an aircraft carrier will move to a zone to allow a fighter to land, then I can still move the carrier to an other zone where the fighter can also land, but I think that this is not clarified that well by what I quoted.

In particular, the part

you must follow through and move the carrier to its planned location in the Noncombat Move phase unless the air unit has landed safely elsewhere

should have been better written as

you must follow through and move the carrier to its planned location or to any other location which also allows to land the air unit in the Noncombat Move phase unless the air unit has landed safely elsewhere

Am I right?

Similarly, regarding the part

Likewise, if you declared that a new carrier will be mobilized to provide a safe landing zone fora fighter or tactical bomber, it must be mobilized in that sea zone unless the air unit has landed safely elsewhere or has been destroyed.

I wonder if I’m still allowed to mobilize the carrier in an other sea zone if the air unit can land there too? My understanding is that I can, but the rules which I have quoted appear to state that I cannot…

In my opinion, the rules here should have been written as

Likewise, if you declared that a new carrier will be mobilized in a sea zone to provide a safe landing zone for a fighter or tactical bomber, it must be mobilized in that sea zone or in any other sea zone which also provides a safe landing zone for the same (without denying the possibility also to mobilize other similarly needed carriers due to placement limits and only as long as you are not making yourself unable to mobilize anything) unless the air unit has landed safely elsewhere or has been destroyed.

Am I right here in my rewording of the rules, or are you actually bound to place that carrier exactly where you said you would (as the rules state “it must be mobilized in that sea zone”) if the air unit cannot land on anything but that carrier even in the case in which you actually have two or more zones where you can place that carrier and still land that air unit on it?

[Azimuth]

@Cernel said in A questionable excerpt from the aircraft carriers rules:
I would be interested to know the answer to your question. And additionally, I have always been confused by this wording:

unless the air unit has landed safely elsewhere

As the rules state that Retreating air units remain in the contested space temporarily, I don’t understand how they could have landed already. Shouldn’t it be:

unless the air unit can safely land elsewhere

?

[Krieghund]

@Cernel The intent of the rules is simply that before combat you must demonstrate a way that all of your air units can be landed safely afterwards, and that after combat you must land as many of them as possible. It is not intended that movement declared for the former must be executed exactly as demonstrated in order to ensure the latter (unless, of course, that is the only choice), as situations can change during combat. I agree that this could be more clearly stated, but it is at least hinted at by the sentence, “Once possible landing zones for all attacking air units have been demonstrated, you have no obligation to guarantee those landing zones for air units in the course of battle.”

@Azimuth You’re probably technically correct, but even though noncombat movement is conceptually simultaneous, it must be physically done in a certain order. The wording simply implies that the alternate landing be resolved first, though it’s not really important that it occur in that order.

[Cernel]

@Krieghund said in A questionable excerpt from the aircraft carriers rules:

@Azimuth You’re probably technically correct, but even though noncombat movement is conceptually simultaneous, it must be physically done in a certain order. The wording simply implies that the alternate landing be resolved first, though it’s not really important that it occur in that order.

About the rules as written, are we seeing the game from the point of view of its abstract principles (where you would see all the units moving at the same time during the same phase) or from the point of view of how the game gets physically played in the real world (where you instead actually see some guy moving units or groups of them one after the other until stating to have moved them all thus ending the phase).

What @Azimuth points out is correct in the first case, otherwise the wording is correct on this instance.

I’m asking in general regarding the perspective by which the rule-book is to be visualized upon reading it.

Thank you.

(I noticed what @Azimuth pointed out too, but I was not bothered much by it because the simple fact that no air can land before the current Noncombat Move phase necessarily implies that we are talking of actions made during this phase.)

[Krieghund]

@Cernel In general, the former is true, but there are instances of the latter, depending on context.

[Azimuth]

@Cernel said in A questionable excerpt from the aircraft carriers rules:

Thanks for the clarification.

because the simple fact that no air can land before the current Noncombat Move phase

I remember looking long and hard for an exception to this statement in the anniversary rules, precisely because of this wording (that I interpreted as an evidence that there were cases when planes landed before NCM).

But fair enough.

[shadowhawk]

Well on the board you generaly move stuff 1 at the time.
So the wording is a bit weird but what they try to say is that you only have to move the carrier if not moving it would cause planes to have no landing zone.

So its not earlier as in an earliers phase but earlier as in earlier in the NCB phase.

The game is already weird in that imo all movement should be simultanious. You cant start moving later and still expect to arive at the same time.
If you first await a combat resolution and then move your going to be later then if you are moving immediately.