@aardvarkpepper said in Odd fighter/carrier move question:
@Krieghund Thanks for the reply.
You’re welcome.
I I read correctly, you’d say the sole stipulation is preserve as many fighters as possible, and nothing else matters? I’d agree there’s a good case to be made for that, as remembering all those details is a complication.
Yup.
But for those that will ask - then what is the purpose of the rulebook including that text about following through on fighter/carrier matchups?
The purpose of including that paragraph is to indicate that planned carrier moves/mobilizations must be executed as necessary, however exceptions are allowed when it is not necessary or it is impossible. Neither of these give permission to abandon fighters. I agree that permission to alter declared moves due to circumstances is not explicitly given (frankly, we didn’t think about that possibility), but the explicit requirement to land as many fighters as possible implies that.
Could it be that the rule really is that original fighter/carrier matchings must take precedence over landing the maximum number of fighters, and it’s just been effectively commonly house ruled?
No.
Or maybe the text about original intent is a holdover of awkward text. Before Renegade’s reprint, after all, there was the issue of 1942 Second Edition fighter (only) vs AA gun and “automatic destroy”.
No.