Aircraft carrier rules in v3- a New Way of Thinking.

Disclaimer: According to one of the designers, GHG, the overarching philosophy of rule intrestetation is “If the rules don’t say you can, you can’t.” My personal philosophy is that the rules are the most important part of game play. When in doubt, go with the exact wording of the rules. I try to look at this without the old A&A rules stuck in my head, so that I can see the rules for what they say, not what I think they say. Therefore, I am attempting to find all these such rule changes, omissions, etc in the v3 rules. Once they are found, the designers may do what they want with that information. Some may be unintentional, other very much so. I will fully support any clarification, but until then, the RAW are the ultimate authority.

In the course of the current YouTube war, Operation Winter Solace, there have been many rule questions that have come up. One recent one is completely redefining the way we think of carriers.
In A&A, carriers may be used to “catch” returning airfact by building a new carrier. (here is a great video from Young Grasshopper explaining carriers in G40-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AgcrHfjqpI&t=2732s) In GW36v3, it seems that many carried over assumptions on how carriers work from G40. However, according to the rules, it seems that that is not the case.
First if one looks in Non Combat movement, section 10.3 clearly states:
“Aircraft returning from combat must use their remaining movement points to return to a friendly land zone or carrier.”
In combat move we get:
(8.3) “Aircraft must save enough movement points to return to a friendly land zone or carrier during the non combat movement phase.”
Both of these explicitly say that aircraft must land during noncombat. According to 7.1-
“They [Units] will not be placed till the Place units and collect income phase of the turn.”
In section 11 (Place units and collect income phase) there is absolutely nothing that references aircraft, even in subsection 11.1 (Place units) where it says:
“Units must be placed at a factory you have possessed since the start of the turn”
In the entirety of that section, there is no reference to aircraft. Even in the 4th paragraph, where it states the “Ships and submarines may be placed a Major or Minor shipyard…” there is no mention of aircraft.

With all this evidence in mind, we construct our theory. Planes, during the combat movement phase, must plan out their route such that they may return to land or a carrier in noncombat. Newly bought carriers are not placed till after noncombat, so they are not valid landing spots during non combat, thus meaning that they cannot be used to guarantee a landing zone. We then look at a placed carrier. Since a plane must land in noncombat movement, you cannot fly an existing plane to land on a carrier, as the rules do not say you can do this. You cannot place a plane on a carrier, as they rules say they must be placed at a factory, and they are not listed as an exception. Thus, we reach the disputed and seemingly heretical conclusion of:
“Newly bought carriers may not be used to guarantee landing spots or have planes placed on them after they are built.”
In effect, this means that any carriers you build will be sitting naked for at least one turn until the next non combat phase in which a plane may land on them.

This may seem crazy, but it is what the rules say. This is how I see things, if I am wrong, please point out where it says so in the rules.

So here I stand, and I can do no other,
-Trig

Note: All of this ignores optional rule 15.3 (advanced carrier rules) which says:
“When an aircraft carrier of any type is placed on the board, it must be either a) placed with at least one aircraft also purchased that turn, or b) at least one aircraft from an adjacent landzone must be immediately placed on it, otherwise it may not be placed”
If used this seems to override the standard rules to allow planes to be placed directly on carriers, or be moved onto them from an adjacent territory. However, one must also use the remaining provisions of the rule which go on to state that a carrier must alway have a plane on it otherwise it has to return home.

@munck Thank you for confirming my assumption. This is most definitely not Axis and Allies.
Just to confirm, you cannot place airplanes on a carrier immediately after it is built, correct? This is the part that seems to be causing to most contention.

@gen-manstein @aftertaste
Thank you all for you input! This confirms my understanding.

@captainnapalm
Not necessarily. Carriers are infamous for long shakedown cruises and crew training periods. For instance, the USS Ford has taken almost 3 years to get to operation status. (grated, there were other problems.)
Not allowing planes to be placed directly just encourages using your air bases, and really only hurts tactical bombers or plans to use MAP.
Also, if you don’t like it, just use 15.3. Yes, it gives less flexibility, but allows you to place directly on carriers.

@hbg-gw-enthusiast I would just add italicised texta clause saying something on the lines of “aircraft may not be placed on carriers during the place units phase” in that section, and a clause saying “newly built carriers may not be used to guarantee landing spots for fighters and tactical bombers.”
It is rather obvious is you look for it, but I think a FAQ or a additional clause is needed.