Looking for a rules guru re: noncombat move precedence of landing maximum number of fighters, versus landing on declared carriers.
Referencing page 25 of the Axis and Allies 1942 Second Edition, Renegade ruleset (I think it’s the same for the original second edition rulebook too)
"However, during noncombat movement you must provide for safe landing of as many air units as remains possible after all combats are resolved.
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, or a combat required to clear an intervening sea zone failed to do so. Likewise, if you declared that a new carrier will be mobilized to provide a safe landing zone for a fighter, it must be mobilized in that sea zone unless the fighter has landed safely elsewhere or has been destroyed."
Scenario A:
During combat movement, a player declared intent to land fighter A on carrier 1, and fighter B and C on carrier 2.
Fighter A has 2 movement left, and is at index 0.
Carrier 1 has 2 movement left, and is at index 4.
Fighter B and C each have 2 movement left and are at index 8.
Carrier 2 was destroyed at index 8.
The rules state must provide safe landing for as many fighters as remains possible, so must move carrier 1 to pick up fighter B and C.
But the rules also state must follow through on pickups, so must move carrier 1 to pick up fighter A.
I read “as possible” to imply "as possible, considering following through on intentions declared during combat movement. But I think it could be read the other way too.
@aardvarkpepper You must land as many air units as you can. In this case, you must move carrier 1 to pick up fighters B and C. Declared carrier noncombat movements in the Combat Move phase are simply to demonstrate the possibility of landing fighters. The results of combat can change the situation, resulting in modifications to those plans and necessitating or allowing changing them.
I’d like to hear from @Panther on this one btw.
@Krieghund Thanks for the reply.
I I read correctly, you’d say the sole stipulation is preserve as many fighters as possible, and nothing else matters? I’d agree there’s a good case to be made for that, as remembering all those details is a complication.
But for those that will ask - then what is the purpose of the rulebook including that text about following through on fighter/carrier matchups?
Could it be that the rule really is that original fighter/carrier matchings must take precedence over landing the maximum number of fighters, and it’s just been effectively commonly house ruled?
Or maybe the text about original intent is a holdover of awkward text. Before Renegade’s reprint, after all, there was the issue of 1942 Second Edition fighter (only) vs AA gun and “automatic destroy”.
@aardvarkpepper said in Odd fighter/carrier move question:
@Krieghund Thanks for the reply.
You’re welcome.
I I read correctly, you’d say the sole stipulation is preserve as many fighters as possible, and nothing else matters? I’d agree there’s a good case to be made for that, as remembering all those details is a complication.
Yup.
But for those that will ask - then what is the purpose of the rulebook including that text about following through on fighter/carrier matchups?
The purpose of including that paragraph is to indicate that planned carrier moves/mobilizations must be executed as necessary, however exceptions are allowed when it is not necessary or it is impossible. Neither of these give permission to abandon fighters. I agree that permission to alter declared moves due to circumstances is not explicitly given (frankly, we didn’t think about that possibility), but the explicit requirement to land as many fighters as possible implies that.
Could it be that the rule really is that original fighter/carrier matchings must take precedence over landing the maximum number of fighters, and it’s just been effectively commonly house ruled?
No.
Or maybe the text about original intent is a holdover of awkward text. Before Renegade’s reprint, after all, there was the issue of 1942 Second Edition fighter (only) vs AA gun and “automatic destroy”.
No.
@aardvarkpepper said in Odd fighter/carrier move question:
Looking for a rules guru …
@aardvarkpepper said in Odd fighter/carrier move question:
I’d like to hear from @Panther on this one btw.
Thank you. However, there is no one being more ‘rules guru’ than @Krieghund on this forum, so I have nothing to add here.
