@krieghund Thanks again!
Rules question about Fighters in Sea battles
-
I was playing my 1st ever game of A&A. I was playing as the Allies and during the game there was contention between me and the Axis player because of the confusion created by these rules.
#1- “You cannot deliberately send air units into combat situations that place them out of range of a place to land afterward. In the
Combat Move phase, prior to rolling any battles, you must be able to demonstrate some possible way (however remote the
possibility is) for all your attacking air units to land safely that turn.”#2- “In order to demonstrate that an air unit MAY have a safe landing zone, you may assume that all of your attacking rolls will
be hits, and all defending rolls will be misses.”#3- "Once possible landing spaces for all attacking air units have been demonstrated, you have no obligation to guarantee those landing zones for air units in the course of battle. For example, aircraft carriers may freely retreat or be taken as casualties, even if this leaves air units with no place to land after combat (such air units will be destroyed at the end of the Noncombat Move phase). "
1st question: Does the word may in excerpt #2 allow for fighters to be presumed as casualties?
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).
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.(sorry if this was long and confusing and thank you for taking the time to read this)
-
High Puffin Welcome to the site :)
Someone will probably give a more detailed answer, but ALL Ftrs in your example would need a place to land.
You can’t assume casualties, because you might catch Nippon at lunch time and they don’t get any hits :)
-
@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.
Suggested Topics
