wait a second, so fighters and bombers can attack, then move in non-combat in the same turn?
well they have to land, so that is a non-combat move.
They can only move the remainder of their movement points during this non-combat landing portion of their movement.
So if a ftr came three spaces into a battle, it has to land one move away.
Ok, I see. For a second I thought a fighter could move 4 spaces in an attack, land and then move another 4 spaces in non-combat. We usually just complete the fighter or bomber’s moves all at once. It tends to speed things up and we never forget to move it etc.
Is there any reason not to move the fighters or bombers in this way? What I mean to say, should my buds and I be moving in attack, then wait for non-combat to land?
What I mean to say, should my buds and I be moving in attack, then wait for non-combat to land?
well aside form rules prespective,
you should wait cos the strategic situation might be different after you see the results of the combat
also, although you are not going to lose control of a territory during your turn, you may lose a carrier and then your fighters won’t be able to land in the sea zone you wanted to
wait a second, so fighters and bombers can attack, then move in non-combat in the same turn?
Maybe. This is a point of confusion, as the rule is different in LHTR than it is in the box rules.
In the box rules, air units that are involved in combat finish their movement immediately after that combat is over. However, they only move to their destination at this point. They don’t actually “land” until the end of the Noncombat Movement phase, so carriers have a chance to rendezvous with them before they land. Under these rules, they may not move in both Combat and Noncombat Movement.
In LHTR, air units that are involved in combat stay in the contested space (whether they win or lose) until the Noncombat Movement phase, during which they finish their movement and “land”. Under these rules, they may move in both Combat and Noncombat Movement. (A fighter may “land” in a sea zone that doesn’t contain an eligible carrier if that sea zone is adjacent to an industrial complex from which a new carrier will be placed that turn, if there is sufficient landing space available on that carrier. The carrier is simply placed under the fighter.)
I hope this clears things up.
At least the fighters only cost 10 now, not 12. :P
And yea, I like the idea that defending fighters and bombers who survive the first round can retreat with any movement points they have left after their turn.
Alright, good info guys/gals. We’ll probably just continue to complete their movement inside the combat phase. If I saw a plane sitting by it self, I would be less likely to miss it’s destruction ;) .
I played the original when I was 11, I forgot how different it was lol.
We usually play that the fighters and or bombers can only retreat one space adjacent to the territory they’re currently in. Obviously that retreating area has to be friendly.
We’ve also been playing that the fighters/bombers could defend more than once. So if they retreated into another area, and you wanted to attack that area in the same turn then they would defend there as well. I don’t know how I feel about this though. At the risk of complicating this further I suppose it would be better to have a fighter defend on a 3 in the second defense position. Bombers would still defend on a 1, I can’t see any reason to totally nerf them.
We usually play that the fighters and or bombers can only retreat one space adjacent to the territory they’re currently in.
That is an interesting house rule. I assume it works the same with ally fighters too. Like if you have 2 UK fighters in a Russian territory they are also able to retreat? If so that would really open the door to a new strategic angle of parking ally fighters in newly captured territories. I can picture having a whole fighter rotation going just for that purpose. ~ZP
Thats one of the tactics the Allie player usually uses. I actually used it inside Africa with Japan fighters helping to defend a German position. I lost them all though. We usually don’t retreat them unless it’s a lost cause.
I prefer to play this way but we’re just starting a game now and are going to give the LTR rules a try.
Well, it seems as though this personal house rule effects the allies more so than the Axis. As far as I can tell the allies are doing quite a bit more defending in the first 4 rounds.
We use to commit more forces to try and kill off the fighters but without a def withdraw option they’re not much of an issue.
Usually what happens is during pearl harbor, the one fighter retreats to Hawaii and the china fighter retreats if the japs get a bad roll. The rule way doesn’t give much of a chance for them and it makes it quite a bit easier to deal with them. I think I like the house rule better.
The way to get around them doing multiple defenses is just to attack all the areas around the blasted fighter, then attack the fighter. Then it cannot retreat to a territory you want to attack and defend against you. :P
Actually, I’ve oft pondered the question of fighters retreating to a zone you are attacking in the game as written. If Japan attacks SZ 55 and kills the navy but retreats before killing the fighters, and Japan’s also attacking W. USA from SZ 54, can the fighters land in W. USA and defend; or do they hover over SZ 55 until Non-Combat and then land in a safe zone?
@Cmdr:
Actually, I’ve oft pondered the question of fighters retreating to a zone you are attacking in the game as written. If Japan attacks SZ 55 and kills the navy but retreats before killing the fighters, and Japan’s also attacking W. USA from SZ 54, can the fighters land in W. USA and defend; or do they hover over SZ 55 until Non-Combat and then land in a safe zone?
In LHTR, “stranded” defending fighters are moved after all of the attacker’s combats have been resolved and before the attacker’s non-combat movement phase begins. Thus, they may land in any space that is still available after all combat is resolved.
In the OOB rules, “stranded” defending fighters are moved immediately after at the end of the combat that involved them, before the attacker’s next combat begins. The movement may not end in a contested territory or sea zone (one that has had or will have a combat resolved in it this turn). Thus, it’s possible to cut off their retreat by attacking every possible landing spot, resulting in their destruction.
In neither ruleset would they be able to participate in more than one battle.
In that case, the defender would have to lose fighters before carriers. Interesting. Think I like the OOB better then LHTR in that case.
hmmm, I don’t know. We’ve not run into to many problems while doing this. Only one time out of 6 games have the fighters defended twice so I think it’s a rare occurrence. We just played that if the aircraft carrier wasn’t adjacent to a friendly territory or another aircraft carrier then the plane would be destroyed. So we would just keep them in the fight.
One thing we ran into on this past game was the aircraft carrier movement. Can you move the aircraft carrier in combat one space, send off the fighters and then move the aircraft carrier again one space on non-combat?
I’m inclined to say no. The reason I am inclined to say no is because you cannot move the tanks one space into combat and then one space in non-combat. (You may blitz in and out of an unoccupied, enemy zone however.)
If the carrier is NOT going into combat, why move it at all? Just declare it will move to retrieve the fighters if it has too, then don’t move it if the fighters are dead.
One thing we ran into on this past game was the aircraft carrier movement. Can you move the aircraft carrier in combat one space, send off the fighters and then move the aircraft carrier again one space on non-combat?
No. Units may not move in both Combat and Noncombat Movement, although air units can in LHTR. Also, fighters must take off from a carrier before it moves if they are going to take off at all (they’re considered cargo if they don’t), and a carrier may not move after a fighter lands on it. Because of this, air units may not artificially extend their movement by using the carrier’s movement in addition to their own.
An interesting “exception” to this involves getting a ride from an ally’s carrier. A fighter can move its full four spaces and land on an ally’s carrier, then on that ally’s turn the carrier can move its two spaces, then on the next turn the fighter can move another four spaces. The net effect is that the fighter has moved ten spaces in two turns.
No, the fighter has moved 8 spaces. The allied carrier moved 2 spaces. :P
It’s really no different then moving your carrier 2 spaces and picking up the fighters who may have moved 4 spaces already. In effect you’ve extended their range because they don’t have to find a landing zone now. But in reality, you have not extended anything because you’ve used up the carrier to save the fighters. Same with an ally’s carrier. He has to leave his carrier open, move it, and leave it open again before landing his own fighters on it. In effect, he’s gone 3 rounds without being able to use his own carrier to move your fighters two spaces.
in that specific instance my bud was trying to save the UK Indian ocean fleet but attack the German transport with two planes as well. He was going to land both fighters in Egypt after the attack and retreat the UK fleet to SZ33. This was a round 1 UK1 turn. We ended up not allowing it, it just seemed too complicated so he attacked with one fighter.
Some thing funny though, he was trash talking about how he was going to pound me and another one of my friends with the allies. He lost 4 UK fighters and a bomber in UK1 from AA and transports ROFLMAO. I couldn’t believe it, one of the transports survived too hahaha. Karma’s a [insert bad word].
As you play more you will learn that transports love to take out fighters for some reason. Park a battleship next to a few and watch it roll fives and sixes while the transports rack up the ones.
@Cmdr:
No, the fighter has moved 8 spaces. The allied carrier moved 2 spaces. :P
Perhaps I should have said the fighter “has been moved” ten spaces. :-P
@Cmdr:
It’s really no different then moving your carrier 2 spaces and picking up the fighters who may have moved 4 spaces already. In effect you’ve extended their range because they don’t have to find a landing zone now. But in reality, you have not extended anything because you’ve used up the carrier to save the fighters. Same with an ally’s carrier. He has to leave his carrier open, move it, and leave it open again before landing his own fighters on it. In effect, he’s gone 3 rounds without being able to use his own carrier to move your fighters two spaces.
I didn’t necessarily say it was a good idea, just that it was possible. :-D
As you play more you will learn that transports love to take out fighters for some reason.
Particularly with the Hasbro A&A Iron Blitz CD-ROM :-P ~ZP
