Hessian is correct.
See also the AC section in the unit roster (page 30 in my Pacific rules, but then your page 22 quote is on page 21 in my rules): “In fact, a carrier must move [in non combat] if it is able, or remain in place, in order to provide a landing space for an air unit that would not otherwise have one”.
Woops, if that’s correct, then my table might be accidentally playing by a houserule. It also sounds like kind of a bad rule.
We play that a plane must have a possible landing spot at the end of its combat phase. Say a battle goes horribly, and you decide not to move in the carrier, you can just let the plane crash and burn (or sink). The limitation is that you cannot plan for a carrier to be the valid landing position for two planes in two different positions. You must declare your intention to move the carrier as part of your combat movement. Whether or not you actually ever do is up to you.
I got this interpretation from a J1 summary, actually. There, you fight a naval battle off of the Philippines. On your non-com phase, you move your carrier from Caroline, through the SZ around the Philippines, and one further. If you were to lose the naval battle in the Philippines, this would be invalid movement, and therefore your plane must die. However, you could still move your carrier anywhere else that you wished, no?
I got a message back from Kreighund on it. The carrier must move to catch the plane.
It turns out in my game that my opponent could not move the carrier to catch the plane because his attack on my destroyer failed and he was blocked from reaching the landing space for the plane.
Hey tes - did I actually get a rule right?
@Private:
Hey tes - did I actually get a rule right?
Well fuck me, maybe you did. I owe you a beer.
But that doesn’t quite answer the question of what happens if a combat move fails, and your carrier cannot move to the point to catch the plane. Are you still allowed to move the carrier somewhere else on your noncom phase?
I’ll hold you to that beer! If this next one is right that’ll be two!
YES!
We’ll see if others agree….
@Private:
Hey tes - did I actually get a rule right?
Well ���� me, maybe you did. I owe you a beer.
But that doesn’t quite answer the question of what happens if a combat move fails, and your carrier cannot move to the point to catch the plane. Are you still allowed to move the carrier somewhere else on your noncom phase?
Of course the Carrier can go somewhere else, if the path is not clear to collect the plane.
@wittmann:
@Private:
Hey tes - did I actually get a rule right?
Well ���� me, maybe you did. I owe you a beer.
But that doesn’t quite answer the question of what happens if a combat move fails, and your carrier cannot move to the point to catch the plane. Are you still allowed to move the carrier somewhere else on your noncom phase?
Of course the Carrier can go somewhere else, if the path is not clear to collect the plane.
But in that situation, is the plane move legal? Because there in no guarantee that the carrier can pick it up if the path may or may not be cleared.
@Herr:
But in that situation, is the plane move legal? Because there in no guarantee that the carrier can pick it up if the path may or may not be cleared.
Yes, it just has to be possible for the carrier to have a way to catch the plane. There could be 100 battleships blocking the carrier’s path, but as long as you send 1 combat unit to the 100-BB SZ, the carrier has the potential to pick up any planes beyond that SZ, so those air movements are valid.
Thanks…. that’s a bit surprising, to me at least. In that case, is it even possible to extend the carrier’s range by having a retreat route that would bring it to the sea zone where it needs to be?
Example: the US has a fighter in Alaska, a sub in SZ 26, and a carrier in SZ 52. Japan has a transport in SZ 13 and a battleship in SZ 30. If the US sub and the carrier attack the battleship, they could retreat to SZ 26 after one round of fighting. So the US player could claim that the plane from Alaska could legitimately attack the transport because it could then land in SZ 26.
Is that also possible?
@Herr:
Thanks…. that’s a bit surprising, to me at least. In that case, is it even possible to extend the carrier’s range by having a retreat route that would bring it to the sea zone where it needs to be?
Example: the US has a fighter in Alaska, a sub in SZ 26, and a carrier in SZ 52. Japan has a transport in SZ 13 and a battleship in SZ 30. If the US sub and the carrier attack the battleship, they could retreat to SZ 26 after one round of fighting. So the US player could claim that the plane from Alaska could legitimately attack the transport because it could then land in SZ 26.
Is that also possible?
I think the answer is no, but I’ll let someone else say for sure.
I’m also pretty sure it’s a no.
The rules say you can plan to win a sea battle (no matter what the odds are), but there’s nothing about planning to lose a battle or retreat from a battle.
