2.4 - If your fts have already landing on the friendly AC - No
If you declare your ftrs are waitng for you AC - YesIt is a matter of how you declare your combat and non-com moves and placement.
For example if you have 2 UK ftrs on a US AC in sz 6. You buy a UK AC and place it there your ftrs can’t just reshuffle automatically. But if in your combined combat and non-com move you declare your ftrs are waiting for your AC then yes you can have them land on the UK AC.
Are you sure about this given that mobilization of new units occurs AFTER non-combat phase? Hence my different scenarios…. :wink:
The example I’m thinking of with 2.4 is: 2UK fighters already on a US AC, in same sea zone that a new UK AC is deployed. Can the UK fighters move over to the new UK AC?
Also, regarding 2.5, the example I’m thinking about is: 2US fighters on a US AC, in the same sea zone that a new UK AC is deployed. Can the US fighters huffle onto UK AC? (as I said don’t know why one would chose to do so but thought I’d ask)
Are you sure about this given that mobilization of new units occurs AFTER non-combat phase? Hence my different scenarios…. :wink:
The example I’m thinking of with 2.4 is: 2UK fighters already on a US AC, in same sea zone that a new UK AC is deployed. Can the UK fighters move over to the new UK AC?
Well, in this case if it is UK’s turn, in non-combat you can declare your ftrs take-off and then will land on your new UK AC.
If the ftrs participated in a combat, then in non combat you just declare you are waiting to land on the UK AC.
What you can’t do, is say your fighters land on the US AC, then switch them over after the fact. It might be fine line, so you need to be clear on your intentions during the Non-Com phase.
Also, regarding 2.5, the example I’m thinking about is: 2US fighters on a US AC, in the same sea zone that a new UK AC is deployed. Can the US fighters huffle onto UK AC? (as I said don’t know why one would chose to do so but thought I’d ask)
No. You’d have to wait until the US turn to move the US units.
Are you sure about this given that mobilization of new units occurs AFTER non-combat phase? Hence my different scenarios…. :wink:
The example I’m thinking of with 2.4 is: 2UK fighters already on a US AC, in same sea zone that a new UK AC is deployed. Can the UK fighters move over to the new UK AC?
Well, in this case if it is UK’s turn, in non-combat you can declare your ftrs take-off and then will land on your new UK AC.
If the ftrs participated in a combat, then in non combat you just declare you are waiting to land on the UK AC.
What you can’t do, is say your fighters land on the US AC, then switch them over after the fact. It might be fine line, so you need to be clear on your intentions during the Non-Com phase.
What I’m getting at Darth is that your fighters in mid-air would be dead/sunk at the end of non-combat phase and hence could not wait till the mobilization phase. Hence it would probably be illegal/not possible to nominate that your fighter is going to land on your newly built Ac, WHEN it’s built :) In which case, I’m still not sure about the answer to 2.4……
LHTR allows your ftrs to wait and not die/sink.
I do believe OOB is different, but I play using LHTR, so I’d need someone else to confirm the OOB interpretation.
Don’t have time to pull out the quote, but the bottom of page 14 states the possible fighter moves. This of course is the LHTR interpreation.
http://www.geocities.com/headlesshorseman2/LHTRupdatedmay2006.pdf
Don’t have time to pull out the quote, but the bottom of page 14 states the possible fighter moves. This of course is the LHTR interpreation.
http://www.geocities.com/headlesshorseman2/LHTRupdatedmay2006.pdf
Thanx Darth, the LHTR interpretation is clear there.
So in regards to 2.4, I presume then that u CAN move the 2 UK fighters to the new UK AC, provided you nominate that they’re not already landed on the US AC, but are still “in mid-air” in that sea zone, until the UK AC is deployed for them to land on.
I’ve been reading through the LHTRs (I’m more familiar with the OOB interpretation) and the apparent differences that I’ve been able to find are:
1. Unlike in LHTR, a new fighter may NOT be moved onto an EXISTING Aircraft Carrier (yours or friendly), only to a newly built one
2. Fighters are destroyed at end of non-combat phase if nowhere to land, and one can not make a kamikaze move. There must be a legitimate place to land or at least an intended AC movement to allow for fighter to safely land on, before any fighter initially takes off. So, strictly speaking (and unless any errata have been made to the wording), it appears that, given that mobilization of units is a separate phase and occurs AFTER noncombat phase, the intention/nomination to land on a newly built AC would be illegal and any fighter that happened to find itself in a seazone without an AC by the end of noncombat phase would be destroyed before the new AC was built
Barring any existing errata to either of the rules, I think I’m now satisfied with the answers to my questions. Thanx again Darth for your input :-)
Just checked the FAQ/errata section from the AH site, concerning the 2nd ed revised rules, and found this to be interesting…:
It suggests that even a friendly (ie not own) fighter present in the same terrirtory as the IC can move onto your newly built AC. The example was: 1 UK fighter and 1 US fighter are landed in the UK (where there is an IC). The UK deploys a newly built AC in an adjacent seazone. In the example both the UK and US fighters can be moved onto the AC.
Surprised about this given the ruling that a player can maneuvre their troops on their own turn only…
I think I might go with the LHTRs…much clearer, more consistent, much fairer, and make more sense (imho) :)
Thanx Craig for ur brilliant summary on this topic :-)
Yet another reason for me to leave the revised 2nd ed rules and go with the LHTRs!! :-) (i feel less confused following them)
I have another question concerning valid landing spaces for fighters on CVs.
Assume that there is a fully loaded CV in a SZ. In the adjacent zone, there is an enemy SS. The SZ two spaces away is empty, three spaces away, there is an enemy Transport.
Is it possible to attack the Transport with the fighters, declaring that the CV will move two spaces into the empty zone in non-combat even though there is a SS blocking it? I would say no, as is it not legally possible to get the CV there in noncombat.
Is it possible to attack the Trn with one of the fighters, and the SS with the other one, declaring the SZ two spaces away as a landing zone? I would say yes, as the SS is either submerged or destroyed in combat against the fighter, so the CV can in any case move legally to the assigned landing zone in noncombat.
What if it would be any other ship blocking the move? Is it allowed to declare a fighter attack on the Trn 3 spaces away? Theoretically the fighter attack on the blocking ship could succeed, opening the way for the CV in noncombat. Of course, if the attack on the blocking ship doesn’t succeed, the other Fgt would also be lost, as there is no landing zone available (CV cannot move to pick it up). But is it even allowed to do so in the first place?
I have another question concerning valid landing spaces for fighters on CVs.
Assume that there is a fully loaded CV in a SZ. In the adjacent zone, there is an enemy SS. The SZ two spaces away is empty, three spaces away, there is an enemy Transport.
Is it possible to attack the Transport with the fighters, declaring that the CV will move two spaces into the empty zone in non-combat even though there is a SS blocking it? I would say no, as is it not legally possible to get the CV there in noncombat.
Is it possible to attack the Trn with one of the fighters, and the SS with the other one, declaring the SZ two spaces away as a landing zone? I would say yes, as the SS is either submerged or destroyed in combat against the fighter, so the CV can in any case move legally to the assigned landing zone in noncombat.
What if it would be any other ship blocking the move? Is it allowed to declare a fighter attack on the Trn 3 spaces away? Theoretically the fighter attack on the blocking ship could succeed, opening the way for the CV in noncombat. Of course, if the attack on the blocking ship doesn’t succeed, the other Fgt would also be lost, as there is no landing zone available (CV cannot move to pick it up). But is it even allowed to do so in the first place?
It is my understanding that claiming your landing spot is a CV to be moved in non-combat, pending clearing of the path in combat is ok. Furthermore, I can’t find a reference to this in the LHTR, but I have seen it mentioned on these boards on more than one occasion that you can assume a “perfect” attack when declaring the move, even if it is unlikely to succeed. The way I’ve seen it described, even if 20 battleships block the way for your CV to get to the landing zone, so long as you send one sub to contest that sea zone, you can claim your CV will sail through on non-combat to provide the landing area. Essentially, you sacrifice an additional unit (in this case, a sub) and you get to kamikaze your planes. Obviously if you do win the battle, you have to move your cv where you said you would.
I can’t find a reference to this in the LHTR, but I have seen it mentioned on these boards on more than one occasion that you can assume a “perfect” attack when declaring the move, even if it is unlikely to succeed.
It’s on page 25 under “Air Units”.
Here’s a question. Do you have to move the CV? Or can you abandon your fighters to a watery death? It happens all the time in the movies.
Yes. If you can move them, you have to move them.
Can someone help me by answering TRUE or FALSE to the following statements and if there is any difference between the 2nd ed revised rules and the Larry Harris Tournament Rules:
AC= air craft carrier; IC=industrial complex
1. Regarding the mobilization of new fighters:
1.1 They CAN be deployed to new ACs (yours) in an adjacent sea zone to your IC
1.2 They CAN be deployed to existing ACs (yours) in an adjacent sea zone to your IC
1.3 They CAN be deployed to existing ACs (friendly- not own) in an adjacent sea zone to your IC
Under LHTR 2.0, 1.3 is False, you may not deploy new fighters to other countries carrier’s.
To sum up:
1. Regarding the mobilization of new fighters:
1.1 They CAN be deployed to new ACs (yours) in an adjacent sea zone to your IC
OOB - true
LHTR - true
1.2 They CAN be deployed to existing ACs (yours) in an adjacent sea zone to your IC
OOB - false
LHTR - true
1.3 They CAN be deployed to existing ACs (friendly- not own) in an adjacent sea zone to your IC
OOB - false
LHTR - false
2. Regarding the mobilization of new ACs:
2.1 Newly deployed fighters (yours) CAN be landed on them
OOB - true
LHTR - true
2.2 Existing fighters (yours) CAN be landed on them from adjacent site containing your IC
OOB - true
LHTR - false (Existing fighters may land on new carriers only if they were moved into the sea zone of mobilization during the turn.)
2.3 Existing fighters (friendly- not own) CAN be landed from adjacent site containing your IC
OOB - true
LHTR - false (See 2.2.)
2.4 Existing fighters (yours) on a friendly(ie not own) AC in same sea zone, CAN be reshuffled and CAN land on the new AC
OOB - false
LHTR - true (They can move out of and back into the sea zone, or just within it, in order to remain “hovering” until the new CV is placed per 2.2.)
2.5 Existing fighters (friendly- not own) on a friendly (ie not own) AC in same sea zone, CAN be reshuffled and land on the new AC (don’t know why one would chose to do this but rying to exhaust all possibilities :wink: )
OOB - false
LHTR - false (It’s not their turn, so they can’t move in order to take advantage of 2.2 above.)
I have to agree… those rules declarations are well written, complete, and TOTALLY ACCURATE!
@Craig:
Krieghund- Your sooooo smooth!!! :-D :-D
Get a room! :wink:
Seriously, though, Kreighund is gettin it on with those answers.
