AA Gun Question

The only way the FIGs can move 7 is for a nation that moved earlier in the round lands their FIGs on an allied carrier of a nation that moves later in the round.  That carrier can then move its 2 spaces (possibly 3 with a retreat as you mentioned) in that later nation’s turn.

However, jsut to clarify, the FIGs on that carrier will not be “landing” on the AC after the retreat.  They are CARGO during the later moving allies turn and do not engage in combat at all if the carrier moves into combat (they are treated like INF on a TRN… they cannot fight, and die if the AC dies.

OK, let’s look at the notion that the new rules about loading existing fighters on new ACs are simpler than the old rules.

Here is the old rule in its entirety from the A&A Operations Manual, PHASE 6:MOBILIZE NEW UNITS section:

Newly built carriers can enter play with fighters aboard, whether those fighters were built this turn or were already in the territory containing the industrial complex.

Here is what we have in LHTR Rules v 1.3

@”Step:

Your fighter may also end its noncombat move in a sea zone adjacent to an industrial complex you own if you have purchased an aircraft carrier that turn and will subsequently place that carrier in the sea zone where your fighter ends its turn.

and
@”Step:

Completing Air Units Move subsection:
Exception: Your fighter may also end its move in a sea zone adjacent to an industrial complex you own if you have purchased an aircraft carrier that turn and will subsequently place that carrier in the seazone where your fighter ends its turn.

and
@”PHASE:

Exception to normal fighter landing spaces rules: Your fighter may also end its move in a sea zone adjacent to an industrial complex you own if you have purchased an aircraft carrier that turn and will subsequently place that carrier in the seazone where your fighter ends its turn.

So the old manual has a single rule located in one place, while LHTR has an exception to a normal rule scattered in three places.  Also note the LHTR includes this line in the Fighters unit description, WITHOUT any mention of the exception.

If any fighter has no place to land by the end of the noncombat move phase, it is destroyed.

So not only is the exception scattered about the LHTR, it’s not even included everywhere it should be.  Lastly, if I was a new player and wanted to know how Fighters are placed on newly mobilized ACs, the first place I’d look is the Mobilize New Units section.  In the old rules, I’d find all the relevant rules regarding that right there.

But in LHTR, there is nothing about placing existing Fighters on board newly mobilized ACs in that section.  Only rules for placing newly purchased Fighters on board ACs are found there.  This could lead some players into making the false assumption that existing Fighters can’t be placed on new ACs.

(Side note – I do like the way LHTR now allows newly built fighters to be placed directly on existing ACs.  The OOB rules only allow new fighters to be placed on new ACs).

Anyway, I don’t see how anyone can credibly argue that an exception to normal rules scattered about the ruleset is simpler or less confusing than a rule clearly stated in one place, with that one place being the place one would be most likely to look for such a rule.

On the second point:

@ncscswitch:

Just one of those “tweeks” that makes it easier for folks to play the game but has no real impact on the actual game.

@mateooo:

actually, this rule of making Fighters have to “hover” over a sea zone before being placed on a newly built AC keeps people from manipulating the rules and getting fighters to move 5 zones in one turn.

I can not argue that there are circumstances in the OOB rules that can lead to a Fighter “moving” 5 spaces in a single turn.  But the LHTR rules introduce a new manipulation that players can do that, in my opinion, has a much greater impact on the game.  Namely, it allows Fighters to make attacks they otherwise could not in the same turn that the AC is purchased.

For instance, consider a situation where there is no Axis navy within two spaces of the Philippine’s (SZ49) and the closest Axis air units are Jap fighters in China and India.  The US player might send unprotected Transports to take the Philippines since he knows it is three spaces from China and India to SZ49 and so out of range of the fighters.  But if the Japanese player builds an AC in SZ60, those fighters can attack since SZ60 and SZ49 are adjacent and they can use their fourth and last movement point to land on the new AC.

I admit a situation like this is not likely to arise often, but neither is the “move of 5” situation.  And of the two, I’d say a gimmick move of buying an AC just to allow fighters to make what otherwise would be an illegal suicide attack is worse for the game than allowing fighters an occasional “extra” space of noncombat movement.

But it IS a simplification in terms of game mechanics.  And I recently LOST an argument where “game mechanics” won out over logic (see the topic Multinational Units on Attack).

Movement of each type occurs all at one time;  all combat movement occurs at once, all non-combat movement occurs after that, THEN the place units phase, then collecct income.  There is no non-combat movement of FIGs after unit placement, which the old rule REQUIRES.  That is the “simplification.”