Fighters and newly bought carriers question

@PrivateerPuffin said in Rules question about Fighters in Sea battles:

1st question: Does the word may in excerpt #2 allow for fighters to be presumed as casualties?

No, but it allows for carriers to be.

2nd question: Does excerpt #3 mean that there can never be more fighters in a battle than you have spots on carriers (if there are no other islands or territories to land in).

Yes.

An example if my question is nonsensical.
Japan took Midway, Alaska, and Western Canada last turn. On the US turn. 4 US fighters from two carriers in SZ 56 used 2 movement to attack a fleet in SZ 64. 1 fighter from Western US then uses 3 of its movement to also attack the fleet. The Japan player says that isn’t allowed because the 4 fighters will need the carriers to land. The US player disagrees and says that they could take a fighter as a casualty, allowing for there to be an open spot on the carrier which the fighter from Western US can land on.

The Japan player is correct.

During combat movement, you must be able to demonstrate possible safe landing zones for all attacking fighters. Once the combat starts, you may take carriers as casualties so that these safe landing zones are not maintained, usually in order to maximize the effectiveness of the attacking force. Once combat is over, all fighters that can still be landed must be (attacker’s choice of exactly which fighters, if there is a choice), and any that cannot are lost.

@Druss Okay. Shame for us!!! Hopefully there will not be a border in the Irish Sea any time soon!

@Panther tanks

It seems pretty clear that you can’t just move the fighter onto the sea zone, since the bid has nothing to do with changing the initial setup.  The fighter could fly out and land during the US turn, if the carrier survives.

If you permitted it in this case, why wouldn’t you allow the UK to bid a carrier (with the BB and tran off Scotland) then just randomly move any two fighters onto it at the beginning of the game and change the entire setup thereby?

Just because you are only moving the fighter one square (from EUS to SZ) it still alters the setup dramatically.

and as other people pointed out, even if you protect this critical DD+2TT with the bid, they can still attack the UK one just north of it leaving UK with nothing at sea.

Thanks guys.  That is kind of what I thought or remember from AA50.

Thanks for the responses and welcome, guys!  I love the game and am glad to be here.

I always play a new A&A game the same way. First time through I play the new game as the old rules with a new setup and a new unit or 2. Second time I read the rulebook first and play through checking the rulebook on every move as I go. Takes forever but I normally only do this for 4-5 rounds. Third game is playing the game start to finish trying to remember the rules without checking the rulebook but if I have to then oh well. All 3 of these games are a me vs. me games just to learn the rules.

This learning tactic is what made Battle of the Bulge and D-day such a pain in the ass to learn.

Yes, twice the IPC value is correct. The other sentence is trying to say although an IC can’t be destroyed, it can be rendered useless by taking as many hits or more as the IPC value or the territory.