Fighters and Aircraft Carriers: legal move?



  • Hi everybody.

    An AC enters in combat with 2 ftr on board.
    Another ftr comes from land and arrives here with its 4th movement, pretending to land on the carrier assuming that at least one fighter will be lost in the battle.
    Is it a legal move?

    Thank you very much
    Yucatan.


  • 2007 AAR League

    My understanding is no.
    Every Fighter must have a legitimate possibility of landing before the results of combat, even if this is an aircraft carrier that can move into range. This can get complex in situations where an AC must first fight its way through an enemy fleet in order to position itself for the FTR landing. Or if a enemy fleet has to be cleared before a new AC can be placed for the FTR to land on. But as I understand, the AC only has to have the “possibility” of being in position, and not actually there.

    And would you, as a fighter pilot, ever enter a battle knowing there was a possibility you would have no place to land? Unless, of course, you were a Japanese fighter pilot.
    Mateo… correct me if I am wrong.


  • 2007 AAR League

    I think the russians would do that too  😉


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    Yes, provided there is a legitamite landing zone for one of the carrier based fighters so that the 3rd fighter has a place to land on the carrier.

    Like if you moved the carrier and 2 fighters from SZ 55 to SZ 45 and a fighter from C. USA to SZ 45 then one of the 2 fighters from the carrier could land on Hawaii.
    (Move to SZ 52, SZ 45, SZ 52, Hawaii)



  • An AC enters in combat with 2 ftr on board.
    Another ftr comes from land and arrives here with its 4th movement, pretending to land on the carrier assuming that at least one fighter will be lost in the battle.
    Is it a legal move?

    No, it’s not legal.  You must be able to plan a landing-spot for every fighter during your Combat Movement phase, assuming that all fighters will survive their combats.

    However, in the scenario you provide, you may have a way to get that 3rd fighter to the fray.

    The fighters on board the AC actually did not arrive at the combat by “riding” the AC to it.  They took off from the AC at the start of Combat Movement and flew to the combat SZ using their own movement points.

    Therefore, those fighters still have movement points left with which to fly to a safe landing spot after the combat. (At least 2, perhaps more).  If there is such a safe landing spot available for at least one of them, then you can legally bring that 3rd fighter to the fight, and land it on the AC.

    ~Josh


  • Official Answers 2007 AAR League

    You can’t base you FTR landing spots on the assumption one of them will be killed. You must presume that all your aircraft will survive the battle.

    Like others have said if one of the FTRs that started on the AC have a place to land within their unused range the FTR that gets to that SZ on its fourth move point may be brought to the fray.

    And to reinforce- the FTRs use their own movement. They do not “ride” the AC.


  • 2007 AAR League

    Can ftrs ride on a carrier in NCM? Ie. suppose your AC is carrying two friendly fighters that can’t actually move during your turn, do they get left behind if your AC moves?

    I checked the FAQ, couldn’t find the answer there, downloading the rules PDF to check…


  • Official Answers 2007 AAR League

    @froodster:

    Can ftrs ride on a carrier in NCM? Ie. suppose your AC is carrying two friendly fighters that can’t actually move during your turn, do they get left behind if your AC moves?

    I checked the FAQ, couldn’t find the answer there, downloading the rules PDF to check…

    FTRs never “ride” the AC. They get to the correct SZ or land territory using only their own movement points.

    Above you would be moving the AC out from under the FTRs and if you weren’t moving another AC in it would be an illegal move.


  • 2007 AAR League

    @frimmel:

    And to reinforce- the FTRs use their own movement. They do not “ride” the AC.

    Just checked the rules - Ftrs can “ride” the AC provided they are not going to participate in combat or do any NCM of their own. Fighters must take off from the AC at the beginning of combat if they are going to go anywhere on their own, but they can also stay as cargo on the AC (and are destroyed if the AC is sunk in any navy battle it engages in.)


  • Official Answers 2007 AAR League

    UK FTRs say on a US AC are moved as cargo (if the AC move during the US turn) but otherwise I’m pretty sure they must use their own movement points. Drat now I need to look in the rulebook.


  • 2007 AAR League

    Rulebook says “usually” it is friendly ftrs that go as cargo but no reason the same player’s fighters couldn’t do it. Of course, I can’t really see any advantage to doing that either, because if they stay as cargo they can’t then move on their own.



  • Friendly fighters belonging to other nations on your AC always “ride” the AC when you move it on your turn, and are treated as cargo, destroyed if the AC is sunk.

    Your own fighters have the option of being treated like this as well.  As soon as the AC moves, any fighters on it become cargo and remain such for the remainder of your turn.  Technically your fighters are supposed to lift off the AC before it moves in order to have their own movement or combat-participation.  The format is in place to nullify improper fighter range-extension.  Making a habit of moving your fighters before touching your ACs makes the issue go away.

    Mind you, every player I know is completely cool with the convention that if an AC is pushed into a combat, the same-nation fighters on it are “in the air and fighting”.  Nobody is picky about actually picking up the fighters individually and flying them to the SZ, then sailing the AC in.  Actually, quite the opposite.    :lol:

    ~Josh



  • Thank you everybody.
    You are…

    irreplaceable!

    Yucatan



  • I think it has been covered…

    You MUST have POSSIBLE LZ’s for each figher assuming NO LOSSES at the start of combat.  If thsoe LZ’s are destroyed durign combat, then that is A-OK, your FIGs just die if they cannot land.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    Dan, I think you are asking:

    “If you have a British Aircraft Carrier with 1 Russian Fighter and 1 American Fighter on board can I move that carrier to a new sea zone without the fighters crashing into the old airzone?”

    Yes.  The fighters would move with the carrier.  However, they cannot engage in any combat with the Aircraft Carrier and I believe they go down with the ship as would foreign infantry on a transport if the ship is lost.


  • 2007 AAR League

    Well, that’s what I asked at first, but then the rulebook answered it.

    The question now is whether you can move your own fighters as cargo. It seems clear to me that you can, because some players will require you to launch them for combat BEFORE moving the AC to combat, but in any case I see no advantage to being able to carry your own fighters as cargo.

    However, if they are moved as cargo, they cannot take off from the AC after it is done moving, so that you cannot get extra movement that way.


  • 2007 AAR League

    Frood,

    A careful review of both OOB and LHTR rules finds that you could carry your own fighters as cargo on your own carrier but, as you correctly state, your fighters can NOT take off from the carrier once it moves.  This prevents using carrier movement to improve fighter range.

    I don’t see any reason why someone would voluntarily carry their own fighters as cargo given that they lose all combat capability while cargo and are lost with the carrier if it is sunk in combat.  Then again, I’m still trying to figure out why there is a general consensus that Germany should always get IPC on the bid too.


  • 2007 AAR League

    This is getting off topic (though I think the topic is done), but do you mean Germany getting IPCs as opposed to Japan, or as opposed to the Allies?

    I personally am not yet convinced (from my limited experience) that the Axis are at a disadvantage.


  • 2007 AAR League

    As opposed to the Allies.

    I don’t see the game as being unbalanced to the point where Germany (or Japan) would consistently need an initial IPC bonus in order to balance it.  Not being ready to play outside of a FTF environment, I see the skill levels  in my field of potential players as being more of an issue than the countries they are playing.  Certainly matching personality to country seems to be more of a concern.

    I’m more inclined to use NA to rearrange any balance issues than to put IPC on the table.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    I agree, Dan, I see no reason why a player would move his own fighters as cargo.  Especially since it’s the same as actually flying them those two spaces so there’s no difference at all to it.


  • 2007 AAR League

    I think it should be presumed then for the purposes of game play that you always launch your own fighters at the start of your turn from your AC. I hate the kind of player who says, “Whoa buddy, you never launched your fighters, they stay on the deck of your AC.” If I met a player like that online here I think I’d concede and walk away.


  • 2007 AAR League

    @froodster:

    I think it should be presumed then for the purposes of game play that you always launch your own fighters at the start of your turn from your AC. I hate the kind of player who says, “Whoa buddy, you never launched your fighters, they stay on the deck of your AC.” If I met a player like that online here I think I’d concede and walk away.

    I would not have a problem with a player who expects that fighters that moved with the AC have used the appropriate number of movement points.  If their first move(s) are not going to be with the AC move(s), they should be left behind when the AC is moved.  I’m not thrilled with the opponent who moves half his (her) pieces and then starts the “wait, I want this piece to move differently” with every piece, expecting me to remember where everything started at the beginning of the turn.  It is just like chess buddy, take your hand of the piece, it has moved.

    Now to say those Fighters are cargo and not flying would be a problem.  It is much more reasonable to say those fighters are airborne and moving with the carrier.



  • I think the “cargo” thing should not really be regarded as an “option” for the player.  It is actually more of an automatic reaction of the Fighters (they become cargo) if you move your Carrier without launching them first.  Cargo is a temporary “state” that the Fighters enter if you do so, and the state only exists as a preventative measure against players boosting the range of their Fighters.  There is no benefit in moving your Fighters as cargo, but if you are Noncaombat-Moving your Carrier and you want its load of Fighters to remain on it, then there is no harm in moving them as cargo.  It is the exact same thing as launching them and flying to the destination seazone, then landing on the Carrier again.

    So, in effect, the cargo state exists (in regards to your own Fighters on your own Carriers) for the purposes of a) not being used or b) being used only when using it has absolutely zero effect, compared to not using it.

    ~Josh


  • 2007 AAR League

    @OutsideLime:

    I think the “cargo” thing should not really be regarded as an “option” for the player.  It is actually more of an automatic reaction of the Fighters (they become cargo) if you move your Carrier without launching them first.  Cargo is a temporary “state” that the Fighters enter if you do so, and the state only exists as a preventative measure against players boosting the range of their Fighters.  There is no benefit in moving your Fighters as cargo, but if you are Noncaombat-Moving your Carrier and you want its load of Fighters to remain on it, then there is no harm in moving them as cargo.  It is the exact same thing as launching them and flying to the destination seazone, then landing on the Carrier again.

    So, in effect, the cargo state exists (in regards to your own Fighters on your own Carriers) for the purposes of a) not being used or b) being used only when using it has absolutely zero effect, compared to not using it.

    ~Josh

    I prefer to think of fighters in cargo to be something the controlling player has to explicitly state.  In all other cases, the fighters are assumed to be airborne.

    Whether the move is Combat Move or Non-Combat Move, if those fighters are moved with the AC when it moves, they have moved also and it counts toward their total of four spaces and is part of their flight path.  Anything else gets into the whole spaghetti bowl of pieces being moved 45 times as your ferret on crack of an opponent attempts to find coherent thought in the vast emptiness that passes as vacuum between his ears.



  • One doubt:
    in the first example what happens if the attacker decide to retreat after one round of fire?
    Where does The ftr that made 4 movements go?

    Yucatan.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 30
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1
  • 3
  • 6
  • 6
  • 5
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

45
Online

13.7k
Users

34.0k
Topics

1.3m
Posts