Shuffling figs on friendly CVs in same sz?

@Cmdr:

For one, it’s MUCH easier to assume that a nation’s fighters are on their own carrier instead of just trying to remember who landed what on what carrier 15 rounds ago.

I’ll not agree or desagree with Jen or Switch. Simply i’ll say about that quote:

If playing face to face, just put the figs on the carrier they landed (limey figs on green carriers… puagh, but still…). AA battlemap or TripleA can be tricky, but you simply can post what figs are in what ACs.

Under Cargo rules:

• A nation, exemple UK,  CAN load it’s infantry on a USA transport on it’s turn.
• The USA transport CAN move on USA turn with UK infantry onboard but cannot disembark them
• UK on its turn CAN disembark the infantry either combat or non-combat wise.

Now, Allied fighters on a carrier are threated as CARGO.
This means:

• A nation, exemple UK,  CAN load it’s fighters on a USA carrier on it’s turn.
• The USA carrier CAN move on USA turn with UK fighters onboard but cannot disembark them.
• UK on its turn CAN disembark the fighters either combat or non-combat wise.
• IMPORTANT note, fighters as cargo CANNOT be use offensively or Defensively. If the USA carrier is part of an attack and sink, they’ll go down with it as any cargo goes down with a transport.

This is how I and friends interpret it.
So to answer:

• Shuffling of UK fighters is not possible on USA turn as per Cargo rules. (you can’t disembark them)
• It is possible however to extend the range of fighters by 2 zones in this scenario if the carrier moved that distance ( which makes sense, since they are transported )

Other interpretation is:

• IF allow other nation fighters to be use defensively, then they are treated as landed and CANNOT move with the carrier. Lost at sea if carrier leaves the zone and there is no nearby friendly zone.

But really, the tripleA rule is wrong for me, fighters should be treated as cargo and not allowed to even defend.

@Cmdr:

For one, it’s MUCH easier to assume that a nation’s fighters are on their own carrier instead of just trying to remember who landed what on what carrier 15 rounds ago.

Funcioneta has already addressed this, so I won’t.

@Cmdr:

Secondly, I think Tim is correct, fighters are assumed to have been launched each turn and land at the end of the turn to refuel.  They cannot move to a new territory, but the same sea zone is not a different territory.

Your fighters launch and recover on your turn, not on anyone else’s.  From LHTR, page 28:

Fighters from friendly powers can take off and land from your carriers, but only during that power’s turn.

and

Fighters belonging to friendly powers on attacking carriers are always treated as cargo, as it is not their turn.

The intent here is clearly that fighters may only move on their owner’s turn.  As with any other unit, they may defend when they’re attacked, in which case they may defend along with any other units present (also on page 28).  This is an exception to the above rules only in the sense that the fighters take off from and land on the carrier in order to fight.  Since it’s been established that a unit may only move on its owning player’s turn, it must return to the carrier from which it launched.  If the fighter is on the same carrier at the end of the combat that it was at the beginning, in game terms it has not “moved”.  To do anything else would constitute “movement”, even though it is only within the sea zone.  The only stated exception to this limitation in the rules is when the carrier the fighter was on no longer exists, in which case it may move as proscribed on page 26.

@Cmdr:

Third, as mentioned before, Carriers do not count as a territory, otherwise launching from a carrier would be the same as leaving an island chain, it is not.

Correct, however movement within a space is still movement.  This is amply demonstrated in the transport rules.

@Cmdr:

Fourth, just from a historical and logical precedent, we know that carrier air groups flew cover air patrol when not actively attacking the enemy, therefore it would be logical sense for them to land on their own carriers to refuel and change crews whenever possible.

Sorry, but this argument is simply irrelevant.  The rules of the game are what’s important here.

@Cmdr:

Lastly, when you attack a fleet with more than one carrier, you do not kill the fighters that were originally on that carrier when you sink a carrier, the defending fighters only die at the end of combat if there is no viable landing spot.  Therefore, we do have a game precedent set to support the idea that fighters can be on whatever carrier the owner choses whenever the owner choses them to be there, regardless of whose turn it is, provided there is room for the fighters on carriers present.

Not at all.  Since units may not move other than on their owner’s turn (with the above-noted exception), any fighters defending carriers must return to the same carriers when the attack is over, provided they still exist.  The fact that a defending fighter may move if its carrier is destroyed in no way implies that it may otherwise move whenever the owner wishes it to.  The exception applies only under the stated circumstance.

@Corbeau:

Now, Allied fighters on a carrier are threated as CARGO.

Only during the carrier owner’s turn.  When attacked, they may defend.  (Page 28)

@Corbeau:

• IMPORTANT note, fighters as cargo CANNOT be use offensively or Defensively. If the USA carrier is part of an attack and sink, they’ll go down with it as any cargo goes down with a transport.

They can be used defensively, and they defend normally (page 28).

By all of the rules, and by game mechanics, you cannot just start shuffling FIGs around on ACs.

Jen’s argument of “remembering” what landed on what 15 turns ago only applies to Battlemap, and then only if you are careless about grouping the FIGs next to the AC they are sitting on.  But it is meaningless with the actual game board (on which ALL of the rules are based) since the FIG pieces actually sit ON the AC they belong to.

The rules are explicit about FIGs being CARGO except during their won move.  And CARGO does not fly around (unless it is in the back of a truck and is not properly secured and that truck makes some sudden movements… but that is not part of the game…)

You’re still wrong.

If England and America have Carriers and Fighters in SZ 45 (Solomon’s Sea Zone) and Japan attacks and sinks all the British Carriers, do the American fighters die just because those were the original carriers they were on?  No.  They can land on the American carriers if there is room (if not, the Allies can chose to kill the British fighters and make room for the American ones after combat is concluded.)

Therefore, there is precedent that it matters not what ship the fighter was on originally, only that there is a valid landing zone for the fighter.

Edit:

Transports are, of course, a different story.  Infantry and Armor and Artillery do not defend on a transport, therefore they are cargo.  Fighters DO defend, therefore, are units, not cargo.  They can be hauled along with the ship in NCM as if they were cargo, but are not, in and of themselves, actual cargo.

@ncscswitch:

…you cannot just start shuffling FIGs around on ACs.

Indeed.

Jen’s turning the discussion into a classic Monty Python skit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM

Not trying too, but I disagree with their interpretation of the rules.  Fighters are in the sea zone, not on a specific ship.  I’ve given my evidence, no one has specifically found a contradiction codified in the rules.

Transports are not Aircraft Carriers and do not function in combat as Aircraft Carriers and Fighters.  Thus, it’s a flawed analogy to use Infantry + Transports to simulate Fighters + Aircraft Carriers.  (Mainly that the infantry on transports cannot defend themselves, however the fighters on carriers - regardless of ownership of fighters and carriers - can defend themselves when attacked and can move from ship to ship or even to an adjacent land mass to find safe landing after combat.  If your transports die, the infantry on board cannot move to an adjacent land mass to avoid death.)

@Cmdr:

I’ve given my evidence, no one has specifically found a contradiction codified in the rules.

Ok, the question here is that, is swapping fighters between CV’s in the same sea zone considered a “move”?
If its a move then it’s obviously illegal.

But if it’s a non-move, then in what phase would you put it? You can’t put it in the combat movement or non-combat movement phases because it’s a “non-move” and those are movement phases. Only moves are allowed in those phases. And it clearly isn’t combat, a unit purchase, a new unit placement, or a collection of income.

Since, as a non-move, it doesn’t belong to any specific game phase and there is no precedent set for adding new phases to a game turn, then I would say it’s pretty much illegal whether it’s a move or not.

I believe that’s check and mate, Commander.

OK, so far it appears that EVERYONE agrees that the FIGs cannot change AC’s during the movement part of your own turn.  The only remaining sticking point seems to be if the AC’s with allied FIGs are attacked.

Can you re-locate land units if they are attacked?  No, you cannot.

Can FIGs from an AC that is attacked choose to land somewhere else if their AC survives combat?  No they cannot.  The ONLY time that a defending FIG can move is if its AC is sunk.

With that being said, the only time that a UK FIG that is based on a US AC could MOVE at all is if the US AC is SUNK.  In which case the normal, black and white, game rules come into play and the FIG may move UP TO 1 SPACE to find a legal LZ.  That would include the UK AC in the same SZ if it surved the attack AND if there was room on it for the UK FIGs to land.  Of course in this case you are not “shuffling” FIGs because there is NO USA AC to move the US FIGs to, because that AC HAD to be sunk in order for the UK FIGs to go looking for a new LZ.

But if the AC is NOT sunk, then the rules are clear, DEFENDERS DO NOT MOVE!  Sunk AC’s under FIGs are an explicit exception in the rules, otherwise DEFENDERs DO NOT MOVE!

All good points, 'Switch.

@Cmdr:

Transports are not Aircraft Carriers and do not function in combat as Aircraft Carriers and Fighters.  Thus, it’s a flawed analogy to use Infantry + Transports to simulate Fighters + Aircraft Carriers.

I never said that land units on transports were an analogy for fighters on carriers.  I only said that the transport rules establish that movement within a sea zone is still movement.  Beyond that, there is nothing relevant to this question in the transport rules.

Now, allow me to expand on 'Switch’s argument.  Here’s the relevant rule about fighters on sunk carriers that he just referenced:

A fighter based on a defending carrier that is destroyed in combat must try to land.  It must land on a different friendly carrier in the same sea zone, move 1 space to a friendly territory or aircraft carrier, or be destroyed.

The italics are mine.  The fact that this rule specifically mentions that landing on a friendly carrier in the same sea zone is allowed under these circumstances would indicate that doing so after an attack when the original carrier is still there is not allowed.  If it were allowed, there would be no issue of relocating the fighter if there were a friendly carrier in the sea zone.  In fact, you would not be allowed to relocate the fighter to another sea zone at all if there were a friendly carrier in the same zone, since there would be no need.  Allowing movement of the fighter to another sea zone when you could normally just land on a friendly carrier in the same zone is unjustified.  If landing on another carrier in the same zone is not “movement”, how can it be equated with landing in an adjacent space, as it is in this rule?

If fighters could shuffle between carriers in the same sea zone at will when attacked, this rule would say something like this:

A defending fighter in a sea zone in which all available friendly carriers are destroyed in combat must try to land.  It must move 1 space to a friendly territory or aircraft carrier, or be destroyed.

Jen, I think this adequately proves that the exception that you’re attempting to use to justify your position actually disproves it.  Does this qualify as a contradiction to your argument in the rules?

You have 2 US Carriers, 1 UK Carrier and 1 USSR Carrier.  You have 2 American fighters on the USSR Carrier, 2 Russian Fighters on an American Carrier, 1 UK/1 US on the other Carrier and 2 UK Fighters on the UK Carrier.

Japan attacks.

You shink 3 US Fighters, 1 US Carrier.

Where do the planes land?

(Easiest method is just put them on any old carrier in that sea zone, frak where they started.)

Scenario 2:  You are attacked on land.  Do you care WHOSE airbase those fighters land at?  No.  You only care that they stay in that zone or are destroyed.  Carriers are floating air bases iwth defense and offense and move values.  There are plenty of instances where Fighters from one Carrier had to land on a different carrier because their home carrier was damaged or sunk.

The rules specifically detail that ALL fighters are in the air when attack was initiated.  Now either your admirals have ESP or this is a general rule saying all fighters are air borne every round PERIOD.  If they are air borne, who cares what carrier they were on originally?  If they were not air borne, why did the Admiral even move into the zone where they are going to be attacked??  After all, they are bloody mind readers!

Anyway, it’s pretty much assumed, I hope, that in CM you can move your carriers and fighters and land them on your own carrier, leaving the other fighters behind.  At least I dont see anyone arguing that you cannot.

@Cmdr:

You have 2 US Carriers, 1 UK Carrier and 1 USSR Carrier.  You have 2 American fighters on the USSR Carrier, 2 Russian Fighters on an American Carrier, 1 UK/1 US on the other Carrier and 2 UK Fighters on the UK Carrier.

Japan attacks.

You shink 3 US Fighters, 1 US Carrier.

Where do the planes land?

Since none of the UK units were hit, two of the UK fighters land on the UK carrier, where they started.  Among the others, you have several possibilities, since it’s your choice which carrier and fighters were hit.  I’m not going to go through all the possibilities of how to apportion the hits.  Let’s just say that the easiest way is to:

1. Line up the original combinations,
2. Remove the chosen casualties,
3. Set aside any combinations involving no hits (like the UK fighters and carrier),
4. Place the remaining fighters on the remaining carriers that have no choice since their original combinations still exist, then
5. Mix and match the rest as you see fit.

@Cmdr:

(Easiest method is just put them on any old carrier in that sea zone, frak where they started.)

It may be easy, but it’s illegal.

@Cmdr:

Scenario 2:  You are attacked on land.  Do you care WHOSE airbase those fighters land at?  No.  You only care that they stay in that zone or are destroyed.  Carriers are floating air bases iwth defense and offense and move values.  There are plenty of instances where Fighters from one Carrier had to land on a different carrier because their home carrier was damaged or sunk.

The difference is that under the rules it doesn’t matter whose airbase is whose.  All fighters within a territory are treated the same.  Fighters on carriers of their own nation are treated differently from fighters on carriers of an allied nation under the rules.

@Cmdr:

The rules specifically detail that ALL fighters are in the air when attack was initiated.  Now either your admirals have ESP or this is a general rule saying all fighters are air borne every round PERIOD.  If they are air borne, who cares what carrier they were on originally?  If they were not air borne, why did the Admiral even move into the zone where they are going to be attacked??  After all, they are bloody mind readers!

The rules also state that units may not move when it’s not their turn.  Moving from one carrier to another is moving, even when it’s in the same sea zone.  Again, the difference is that you’re changing the capabilities and restrictions of a fighter by changing the nation of the carrier on which it rests.  This is only allowed on your turn, except for the explicit exception in the rules for sunk carriers.

Again, you’re trying to use real-world rationalizations in a discussion about game rules.  The game is an abstraction of the real world, so it’s logic is simplified.

@Cmdr:

Anyway, it’s pretty much assumed, I hope, that in CM you can move your carriers and fighters and land them on your own carrier, leaving the other fighters behind.

No, you can’t.  On your turn the allied fighters on your carrier are cargo, so they must remain on the ship.  They are stuck on your carrier until their owner’s turn.  This means, of course, that your fighters can’t land there.  The only way to switch fighters between fully-loaded carriers is for one or more of those fighters to find another place to land on it’s own turn, leaving space on the carrier for another fighter to move there on its own turn.

If you’re going to mix nations’ fighters and carriers, you’d better have a good reason.  In other words, be sure the benefit outweighs the cost.

No, having the fighters on a carrier is having them on a carrier.  They are not MOVING anywhere.  Movement only occurs when you change territories/sea zones.

If I “move” a battleship from the north side of a sea zone to the south side of a sea zone, is that suddenly illegal too because it is “moving”?  Hell no.  Let’s not start getting ridiculous here.  Fighters are in the SEA ZONE, not on a specific carrier.  They are not MOVING anywhere until they cross a black line.

Fighters are on a specific carrier.  'Switch and I have cited and explained the relevant rules to prove this, as you requested.  Craig has confirmed our answers.  Everyone else is in agreement.

I’m not sure what else I can do to convince you, so I’m going to stop trying.  This discussion has ceased to be productive, so we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

Give me a page number that states, SPECIFICALLY that the fighters are on a specific carrier.

Bear in mind, your citation MUST negate the FACT that all fighters are considered to be airborne during the Combat Phase of EVERY nation, per the rules.  And the citation MUST negate the possibility of those fighters landing where ever they chose in that same sea zone at the completion of combat.

In other words, I’ll fall in line, IF and ONLY IF (IFF) you can find a quote in the rules that states that all fighters MUST land on the ORIGINAL CARRIERS they were located on at the completion of every defensive action.  Note, it must say it has to land on the ORIGINAL CARRIER, not attempt to land on A CARRIER.  Landing on A CARRIER means ANY CARRIER in that sea zone, and only leave the sea zone if no valid carriers are present to recover the fighters.

Find that, and I’ll give you a GK and state I was wrong.  Otherwise, you are in error.

Page 11, under NCM, just before Phase 6 discussion:

“An (singular definite article) aircraft carrier must end its (singular definite article possessive) move once a (singular definite article) fighter has landed on it (singular definite pronoun).”

If fighters were not on specific aircraft carriers, the above would read:

“Aircraft carriers must end their move once fighters have landed in their sea zone”

Also, all references to fighters landing on carriers would be replaced with “fighters landing in sea zones containing an aircraft carrier”.

Well, Switch, the FIRST problem I have is that page 11 (of 40) references PHASE 3: COMBAT MOVE, not non-combat moves.

Page 13, however, does talk about Aircraft Carriers, in the combat move portion of the game.

Aircraft carriers (note that it is PLURAL) can move during this phase, but first they must “launch” their fighters.

Same page:

The fighters can then make a combat move from the carrier’s SEA ZONE.

Notice that it says the fighters move from the SEA ZONE, not from the carrier.  This is a very deliberate distinction.  That means your fighters are located in the sea zone, NOT the carrier, the carrier is present only to open the possibility for putting fighters in that sea zone at the end of your non-combat turn.

This is illustrated on Page 18

You must have a carrier move for a fighter that would end its combat move in a sea zone.  You cannot deliberately move a fighter into a sea zone that is out of the range of your aircraft carrier.

It references the SEA ZONE.  It does not care WHOSE carrier it is, only that a carrier is present in the sea zone.

Page 20 continues:

A multi-national force cannot attack the same space together.  Each attacking power moves and fires its own units on its own turn.  A FIGHTER MAY LAUNCH FROM AN AIRCRAFT CARRIER OWNED BYT A FRIENDLY POWER, BUT THE CARRIER MAY NOT MOVE UNTIL ITS CONTROLLER’S TURN.

The Fighters are not tied to the carriers, the fighters may move or the carriers can drag them along for the ride.  Or the carriers may leave the fighters behind and leave without them (provided the sea zone is still a valid landing zone for the fighters in question.)

Page 21 (Non-Combat moves start here, not combat.)

Air units can land in any friendly territories.  They cannot end their move in hostile territories or in any territories you captured this turn.  Fighters can land in any SEA ZONE that has a friendly carrier, even those that moved during this phase (but not in the middle of the carrier’s move.)

Seems pretty clear, the fighters are in the sea zone, not the carrier deck.  The carriers just grant the fighters the ability to land in the sea zone, which allows them to defend the fleet on any counter attacks.

Same page:

Aircraft carriers can move to SEA ZONES that contain friendly fighters to allow landing.

Again, they are emphasizing that the fighters are landing in the sea zone, not the specific carrier you happen to have there.

Now I agree, the fighters not moving from ship to ship may be a darn fine HOUSE RULE for face to face games or games played on programs that do not auto-stack your units for you.  However, it is a house rule, not a codified rule.

LHTR 2.0 page 10

Aircraft Carriers
Aircraft carriers can move during this phase. Any fighters belonging to the aircraft carrier owner
launch before the carrier moves and move independently of the carrier.

Clearly the fighter must have been on the carrier before it could launch.

Guest fighters belonging to a friendly power on board your carrier must remain on board as cargo
if the carrier moves in combat. They cannot take part in combat and are destroyed if the carrier is
destroyed.

The fighters are definitly landed on board a specific carrier, cause they are destroyed if that specific carrier is lost in an offensive battle.

Whether it moves during the combat move or noncombat move phase, an aircraft carrier allows
friendly fighters to land on it in the sea zone where it finishes its move.

3 references that figs do land on carriers, not in seazones with carriers. Especially the second example proofs that they are landed on a specific carrier.

Some more references in the rules, that figs are landed on carriers, not seazones containing such:

on page 17 under the headline

Step 8: Concluding Combat

Air units can never capture a territory. If your attack force has only air units remaining, you can’t
occupy the territory you attacked, even if there are no enemy units remaining. Air units must
return to a friendly territory (fighters may also land on a friendly carrier). They do so during the
noncombat move phase. Until then they stay at the space where they fought.

on page 21 under the headline
Where Units Can Move

Once any fighter lands on a carrier, movement for BOTH pieces ends.

and on page 26 under the headline

Fighters

Special Abilities:
Land on Aircraft Carriers: Fighters may be carried by aircraft carriers. Up to two fighters may
be on a friendly aircraft carrier at a time. A fighter must be launched from the carrier’s initial
position to participate in combat this turn. However, it may land on a carrier in the noncombat
move phase (even if withdrawing) or during any other noncombat move. (A fighter may not land
on a carrier during the carrier’s movement). Your aircraft carrier can move to a sea zone where
one of your fighters has ended its move (and in fact, it must do so if it is able) but cannot move
any farther that turn.
A fighter based on a defending carrier that is destroyed in combat must try to land. It must land
on a different friendly carrier in the same sea zone, move 1 space to a friendly territory or aircraft
carrier, or be destroyed. This movement occurs after all of the attacker’s combats have been
resolved and before the attacker’s noncombat movement phase begins.
Your fighter based on your attacking carrier launches before combat (even if it is not participating
in combat), and if it survives, can withdraw to a friendly territory or carrier within range. If any
fighter is not in an eligible landing space by the end of the noncombat move phase, it is
destroyed.

I hope this is sufficient to proof that figs land on carriers and furthermore specific carriers as the second example states.