Carrier Movement Question

is the CV still required to move??

if the fighter is destroyed, the CV does not have to move

Hmmm…. my group had interpreted this rule differently.  Our interpretation is that not moving the carrier retroactively make’s the fighter’s involvement in the battle a kamikaze situation and hence against the rules.

The movement of the carrier is part of your non-combat turn phase. Meaning, it happens AFTER the combat of your fighter and whatever else you had in battle. Hence you can go and pick it up with the carrier or you can leave the carrier if your fighter falls in battle.

The rules are explicit on this point.  From page 26 of the Rulebook (italics are mine):

If you declared that a carrier will move during the Noncombat Move phase to provide a safe landing zone for a fighter moved in the Combat Move phase, you must follow through and move the carrier to its planned location in the Noncombat Move phase unless the fighter has landed safely elsewhere or has been destroyed before then.

You’re right it’s quite clear.  Good to get these things sorted out.  :)

Krieghund, what about using a carrier as possible landing location for more than 2 aircraft with the assumption that those extra figthers will be lost in battle. i.e sending in 4 fighters with only 1 moment point left each, only landing spot is moving 1 carrier to adjacent seazone, but you are expecting to loose at least 2 fighter in battle, is this legal?

No, it isn’t.  Each fighter must have a possible landing spot, in case they all survive.

Related to this (and admittedly a somewhat unlikely idea): suppose that during combat move, I move two fighters into combat from four zones away, and also move in an aircraft carrier from the opposite direction for them to land on - is that legal? And if it is, does that imply that I can not withdraw from such a combat because the aircraft carrier would be out of range for the fighters after withdrawing it?

Yes, the combat move is legal.  If the attacker retreats, the fighters will be lost, as they will have no movement left to find a landing space.

Thank you!

I’m not sure that the fighters would be lost during a retreat.  I do believe it is perfectly legal to fly fighters 4 spaces into combat, then have them retreat 1 space from where any of the units involved in came from.  This is assuming both the fighters and CV entered into the same SZ for combat but from different directions.

Actually, in Spring 42 from what I understand, fighters can retreat to ANY adjacent territory regardless if units came from there or not (anyone know what version of AA this started in?).  In theory, you could take the CV off as a hit, retreat the fighters to an adjacent sz and as long as another one of your CVs cold move into that zone during non-combat, the fighters land and all is well.

I believe it a bit unethical, but legally you could plan to have your planes fly 4 spaces into battle, place enough CVs for them to land in that SZ, do combat, lose those CVs but plan on having your fighters retreat to additional CVs in adjacent SZs that would in effect, have the fighters fly 5 spaces.

A fighter normally moves a maximum of 4 spaces between combat and noncombat movement, period.  Retreating does not add an extra movement for attacking fighters under any circumstances.  It doesn’t matter which version of A&A you’re playing.

I have never seen a rule that says you cannot retreat planes if they have already flown 4 spaces.  The rules do say you can retreat air-units 1 space.  I believe this had been covered under a different thread and it was agreed that the planes could retreat thus in effect getting 1 extra movement.  I wish the search facility worked here.

@MrMalachiCrunch:

I have never seen a rule that says you cannot retreat planes if they have already flown 4 spaces.

You can retreat them, as in disengage from combat.  However, they won’t go anywhere, as they have no movement left.

@MrMalachiCrunch:

The rules do say you can retreat air-units 1 space.

Where do they say that?

@MrMalachiCrunch:

I believe this had been covered under a different thread and it was agreed that the planes could retreat thus in effect getting 1 extra movement.

You’re probably thinking about the rule that allows a defending fighter to move one space to find a place to land if its carrier is sunk.

Ah yes, that was exactly the conversation I was thinking of.  You are quite right, I was thinking of a defending air unit.  In combat the air units would retreat during the non-combat movement phase and of course not have movements allowed and would crash.