Aircraft carrier and 2 fighters?

@krieghund yes, that is what I meant

Ah right of course, I really should not post so close to waking up!  So it was as I suspected, a defending plane may use a SINGLE movement to find a place to land, so no land in an adjcent SZ would be legal.  Thanks.

@Craig:

@Krieghund:

That’s interesting, Craig, but I don’t know that using the Gleemax on-line game’s behavior as an argument in a rules discussion is really valid at this time (even if it does support our position!).  There are a few things that it does that are not exactly “according to Hoyle” right now.  Hopefully, the bugs will be fixed soon.

You are right that there are still many bugs in the game, but I don’t think that this topic is one of them.

I agree that the on-line game is doing this particular thing correctly.  My point was that if you use the on-line game to support a rules argument, you set a precedent for others to do the same.  In future arguments, the on-line game may be incorrect in the way it handles the particular rule in question.

For example, the on-line game was allowing land units on transports to be taken as casualties in naval battles.  (This may be fixed by now, but I don’t know for sure.)  Do you really want someone arguing that this is legal because the on-line game allows it?

@Krieghund:

I thought I saw a thread somewhere (BGG?) where the designer of the computer game talked about working with Larry on this project, so I think that this was taken care from the right source. :wink: :-D

Actually, they said that they worked with Wizards of the Coast.  Larry wasn’t mentioned by name.  I’ve already pointed out a couple of problems in their “official” rules interpretations in that thread, one of which directly contradicts the FAQ.  If they’re all that “official”, why are they posted on BGG instead of the Avalon Hill site?

Thanks guys, found it in the LHTR with your help!

@TATCCITW:

Yeah but what if they attacked? What if there were subs present and they submerged.
And the other possibility I was thinking of, let say that Ger has a fleet next to Uk in SZ7. Uk has two fighters four spaces away from SZ7. Can those fighters attack when a CV has been purchased knowing they’d land there if they survived?

The fighters could legally attack, since the placement of the carrier would allow them a landing spot.  However, since they used all of their movement to get to the battle, they would have none left to retreat, so it would be a fight to the death.  The fighters would either clear the sea zone (including possible submerging by subs) or be destroyed.  If the fighters survive, the carrier must be placed in the sea zone.  If they don’t the carrier could still be placed in the sea zone, or it could be placed in another sea zone if there is another one available.

Edit:  Just to be clear, this answer applies only to LHTR, as using all of a fighter’s movement for combat movement would be legal under the box rules only if an existing carrier moved into the sea zone during either Combat or Noncombat Movement.

ugh……tolerance camp.

some people are just intolerant of others wishing to not tolerate something they perceive as wrong or bad.

PC is mind slavery.  “NO! you cant think or say that!”  “Punish them!”

even though i agree nazi’s were just a sect of germans.  not all of them.

They are nerfed in LHTR, but they still do better than regular bombers.  I’d still make sure I was extra aware of how many bombers my opponent had if they had this Technology:

Average IPC damage with regular bombers: 3.5IPC
Average IPC damage with heavy bombers: 5.5IPC

Chance of hitting with regular bombers on attack: 66.7%
Chance of hitting with heavy bombers on attack: 88.9%

ydavid is correct