Fighters landing on newbuild Carriers

[mysjkin]

First:
I’m not sure if I should post rules question here or under “House Rules”. Everyone post rules questions here so I do the same for now.

Lets say I as Germany build a carrier in Baltic Sea. Can a fighter that the same turn have done an attack and land in germany move to the newbuild carrier?

[frimmel]

Craig is indeed correct for Out of Box Rules. NEW FTRs can go on newcarriers and old FTRs can go on new carriers. New FTRs can not go on OLD carriers.

There is a whole board called Player Help. I think rules questions like this are meant to go there.

[Sub Dude]

@frimmel:

Craig is indeed correct for Out of Box Rules. NEW FTRs can go on newcarriers and old FTRs can go on new carriers. New FTRs can not go on OLD carriers.

There is a whole board called Player Help. I think rules questions like this are meant to go there.

It may be different in LHTR, but page 15 clearly states that newly minted fighters may be placed on existing carriers in sea zones adjacent to the producing IC.  It can not be an ally’s carrier, however; it must be yours.  This strikes me as something that wouldn’t have needed “correcting” from the OOB rules, but I’ve only deigned to read that junk once.

edit to fix error.

[frimmel]

I was talking strictly out of box.

The thing in LHTR is that the old FTRs must land in the SZ where the New AC will go during NCM. I think I’ve missed the part about New FTRs and Old ACs in LHTR.

Neither ruleset allows New FTRs to allied ACs.

[Jennifer]

LHTR did the move fighters to the sea zone the carrier would be in (new or old) to stop artificially extending fighter range, I believe.

[mysjkin]

So the fact that I moved the fighter this turn isn’t a problem, they still jump on the new build carrier?

[frimmel]

@mysjkin:

So the fact that I moved the fighter this turn isn’t a problem, they still jump on the new build carrier?

Yes they do provided they land in the territory with the IC building the AC.

[squirecam]

@Jennifer:

LHTR did the move fighters to the sea zone the carrier would be in (new or old) to stop artificially extending fighter range, I believe.

That was the result, but not the actual reason. You could read the thread in the AH forum for clues, but I’m to tired to rehash it now…

Squirecam

[Guest]

Using LHTR…

New AND old FIGs can land or new OR old AC’s

The change is that an existing FIG has to fly to the SZ where the AC will be placed instead of to the land territory with the IC building the AC.

[axis_roll]

@squirecam:

@Jennifer:

LHTR did the move fighters to the sea zone the carrier would be in (new or old) to stop artificially extending fighter range, I believe.

That was the result, but not the actual reason. You could read the thread in the AH forum for clues, but I’m to tired to rehash it now…

Squirecam

The main reason LHTR altered the OOB ftr~landing~on~new~carrier rules was to clarifiy movement rules.

OOB makes planes land at the IC of the new carrier being placed… THEN the planes move onto the carrier once it was placed.  That would be movement during mobolize units phase.  YUCK… so said the LHTR rules committee.

And…actually allowing fighters to hover above a SZ awaiting a new carrier to land upon (as per LHTR) EXTENDS their range.

[frimmel]

LHTR does not extend their range. A FTR starting in GER can not under LHTR fight in SZ 14 (SEU) and be placed on a new Baltic AC in SZ5 while in OOB rules it can. It is four moves out of Germany and back to Germany but five out of Germany back to the Baltic SZ.

[axis_roll]

@frimmel:

LHTR does not extend their range. A FTR starting in GER can not under LHTR fight in SZ 14 (SEU) and be placed on a new Baltic AC in SZ5 while in OOB rules it can. It is four moves out of Germany and back to Germany but five out of Germany back to the Baltic SZ.

BOTH rules sets give a plane an additional move

The key is WHEN does this happen.

It is more key (IMHO) to be able to leave a ftr hovering after they have done combat then to get an extra move getting re-deployed onto a newly built carrrier.

Perfect example:  US IC in Norway, USA has ftrs in Eastern USA.  German navy is sitting in SZ3… USA can use these two fighters in Eastern USA to attack the German navy IF they buy an a/c on their turn.  This can be huge (for both sides!)

[frimmel]

Well, in your scenario the FTR has still only gone four spaces. No extra. Different spaces than in OOB rules to be sure but still only four spaces.  :-)

[Guest]

LHTR does not add movement, OOB allowed for a 5th move.

LHTR simply makes more sense in terms of game mechanics in how it handles FIGs and ACs

[squirecam]

@axis_roll:

@squirecam:

@Jennifer:

LHTR did the move fighters to the sea zone the carrier would be in (new or old) to stop artificially extending fighter range, I believe.

That was the result, but not the actual reason. You could read the thread in the AH forum for clues, but I’m to tired to rehash it now…

Squirecam

The main reason LHTR altered the OOB ftr~landing~on~new~carrier rules was to clarifiy movement rules.

OOB makes planes land at the IC of the new carrier being placed… THEN the planes move onto the carrier once it was placed.  That would be movement during mobolize units phase.  YUCK… so said the LHTR rules committee.

And…actually allowing fighters to hover above a SZ awaiting a new carrier to land upon (as per LHTR) EXTENDS their range.

Please do not alter history. I was there, as were you.

There was not going to BE any fighter/carrier rule. The “LHTR committee” did not say “yuck”. The committee eliminated the rule. It was only after a howl of protest that “the committee” realized the new rule would not satisfy us.

However, instead of leaving the rule the way it was written by mike, the new “movement” excuse was given for a change…which really did not change anything.

The old rule really was not confusing, It did not “add movement”, in that any German fighter which could have landed at the IC just now “lands” in the sea zone.

95% of the job the rules committe did was excellent. This part was poorly planned, executed, and botched.

[axis_roll]

@frimmel:

Well, in your scenario the FTR has still only gone four spaces. No extra. Different spaces than in OOB rules to be sure but still only four spaces.  :-)

You could never “Hover” in an empty sea zone at the end of combat before … not EVEN IN OOB rules… you were required to have a landing zone: either move 1 to a piece of land or get on a carier (at a cost of no movement points).

yes, this DOES add +1 to the range of a fighter.  OOB never allowed the hover.

[Guest]

OK…  We need to put this to bed.

In OOB, the FIG had to make it to the IC.  It had its full 4 movement to reach that IC.  Then, when the AC was built, the FIG mvoed again from the IC territory to the adjacent SZ, thus the potential for 5 movement.

In LHTR, the FIG has its 4 movement, and has to end in the SZS where the AC is being built.  No further movement by the FIG is made, it just lands once the AC is dropped.

So OOB allows for a possible 5 movement, LHTR does not.

[axis_roll]

@squirecam:

@axis_roll:

@squirecam:

@Jennifer:

LHTR did the move fighters to the sea zone the carrier would be in (new or old) to stop artificially extending fighter range, I believe.

That was the result, but not the actual reason. You could read the thread in the AH forum for clues, but I’m to tired to rehash it now…

Squirecam

The main reason LHTR altered the OOB ftr~landing~on~new~carrier rules was to clarifiy movement rules.

OOB makes planes land at the IC of the new carrier being placed… THEN the planes move onto the carrier once it was placed.  That would be movement during mobolize units phase.  YUCK… so said the LHTR rules committee.

And…actually allowing fighters to hover above a SZ awaiting a new carrier to land upon (as per LHTR) EXTENDS their range.

Please do not alter history. I was there, as were you.

There was not going to BE any fighter/carrier rule. The “LHTR committee” did not say “yuck”. The committee eliminated the rule. It was only after a howl of protest that “the committee” realized the new rule would not satisfy us.

However, instead of leaving the rule the way it was written by mike, the new “movement” excuse was given for a change…which really did not change anything.

The old rule really was not confusing, It did not “add movement”, in that any German fighter which could have landed at the IC just now “lands” in the sea zone.

95% of the job the rules committe did was excellent. This part was poorly planned, executed, and botched.

I was not on the LTHR comittee.
I was told (or read somewhere) this rule was to clear up movement discrepancies.
That is why I posted such.  If my information about the rules committee’s reason were wrong, I apologize.

I want to further discuss the ‘adding an extra move’ that people are telling me is incorrect.

When a piece gets an additional move (during a different phase), yes, you are altering it’s range, there for, you are giving it an extra movement.

Here is a perfect example for OOB rules. I’ve already demonstrated how the placement of fighters in newly built carriers extends the range of fts in LHTR.

Germany has a ftr in Libya which does combat into sz 16 (2 moves).  Germany buys a carrier on it’s turn.  The ftr lands in Germany  (2 moves).  During mobilize units, this ftr can MOVE 1 more space onto the newly built carrier.  This ftr has now moved 5 spaces on it’s turn, has it not?  P

Please clarify how this does not demostrate an extra movement.

[axis_roll]

@ncscswitch:

OK…  We need to put this to bed.

In OOB, the FIG had to make it to the IC.  It had its full 4 movement to reach that IC.  Then, when the AC was built, the FIG mvoed again from the IC territory to the adjacent SZ, thus the potential for 5 movement.

In LHTR, the FIG has its 4 movement, and has to end in the SZS where the AC is being built.  No further movement by the FIG is made, it just lands once the AC is dropped.

So OOB allows for a possible 5 movement, LHTR does not.

LHTR allows a ftr to hang in the air (and not land during NCM)

OOB does not.

If you do not want to call the lifting of the rule requiring a plane to land in NCM “giving a plane an extra movement”, what should we call it then?

[Guest]

The FIG so “hovering” does not change territories or sea zones as it would under OOB.

Thus it only has 4 territories of movement, period.