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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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. Â It is actually more of an automatic reaction of the Fighters (they become cargo) if you move your Carrier without launching them first. Â 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. Â 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. Â 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 think the “cargo” thing should not really be regarded as an “option” for the player. Â It is actually more of an automatic reaction of the Fighters (they become cargo) if you move your Carrier without launching them first. Â 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. Â 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. Â 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.
Well I guess Fighters are just different then - I was going to say that Infantry can even retreat after having moved their full move, but I see the reasons below.
Seems like a silly rule though. Because when your AC is attacked and the attacker withdraws, your fighters are given a free movement point to try to land somewhere else when it is not even your turn. Call it the old “flying on fumes just over the wavetops” - in desperate situations you manage to push your ftrs one zone back to where they came from.
Also, note that tanks can sometimes get a total move of three by attacking and then retreating to a territory on the opposite side of the territory they attacked (provided that attacking units also came from that territory). If anything, that seems more problematic than fighters returning to a seazone they came from on the deck of an AC that can carry them whether they have fuel or not.
Sorry, I don’t quite get how that makes it different. All units can use their full movement to get to a battle, and then retreat.
Maybe it’s just not clicking for me.
It goes along with teh special mid-battle retreat that FIGs can do, and also the fact that they can NOT remain in a combat zone after a batle (except by landign on an AC after a naval battle).
You HAVE to be able to MOVE in NCM to land in every type of battle EXCEPT a Naval Battle, and then you can ONLY stay there if you WIN.
