It’s not allowed.
Carrier Based Fighters
-
I think you need to be able to use other nations carriers, I rarely see the multination transport thing though. But in terms of Ftrs and AC it is usually a huge part of early Allied moves for protection.
Think about how much the UK/US fleets move from sz 8 to sz 12 to sz 6 to sz 5, etc. Without the ability to land US ftrs on the UK AC (or UK ftrs on US AC) that could really hurt in terms of holding off Germany.
The game would require some serious rebalancing in the Atlantic which could ultimately lead to even more formulaic openings.
Without the US ftrs option to land, I can see an aggressive Germany actually going after London and sinking the Brits before the US can place and move ships into range.
Also it cuts down on attacking options. I’m thinking of a US strike on a German fleet in Sz 7. With no option to land on a potential UK AC that could really be trouble.
Finally, I can’t see the game logic for disallowing it (after it has been in use for so long). The game isn’t about accuracy, and I can’t see why you would be allowed to have stacks and stack and stacks of UK and US troops all over Moscow, Novo, etc yet two of the friendlier allies (UK and US) can’t land a ftr or two on one or the others AC.
Quite honestly, I think the argument (about swapping ftrs) has been blown way out of proportion. While we can dream up scenerios all day the long the reality is the need to swap 4 ftrs on 2 ACs in the same sz just doesn’t happen much if ever in a real game. The UK buys maybe one AC (if that) and after that the US would buy any remaining capital ships. It is not like you constantly have AC and ftr buys with every country and do all this mixing and matching. You usually end up with 1 UK AC that carries a few US ftrs until you have enough trns or other capital ships in place and then you naturally switch up if you want.
Also it is not like this is a new rule or something, Ftrs/ACs have had this option since at least 2nd Ed (I never played 1st Ed) and it was an integral part of the game - UK buys AC and US lands ftrs for protection, but in Revised now that you can place directly onto a newly purchased AC or hover and wait for a new one to be placed this reduces the need for mixing and matching even more.
-
what can I say ?
-
dezrtfish:
Correct, according to page 13 you can choose NOT to launch any fighters you want. Notice it did not say MOVE the fighters, it said launch. Since movement is defined as crossing solid black lines (whether from sea zone to sea zone, land to sea zone, sea zone to land or land to land) leaving a carrier deck is NOT considered movement. This is reinforced by the fact that you do not have to count leaving the deck of a carrier as one of the movement points when making your attack or non-combat moves.
So the nation can choose to “launch” the allied fighters, just not “move” them and leave them in the sea zone.
Further, it appears that your page 30 quote says that if the carrier moves FIRST, then the fighters are cargo. If you declare that you’re launching the allied fighters and then move your carrier, then the carrier is not moving first.
However, I will accept your LHTR 2.0 quote since it does lock down the rule that “guest fighters” must remain on board until their turn.
So, what we have here is in the case of the rules that came with the game is the ability to put your fighters on any bloody carrier you want as long as there is room and you do not “kamikazee” them. And in LHTR 2.0 they have repaired the rule so that your carriers act more like Transports and less like Carriers.
-
The scenario actually comes up pretty often, more so in classic, but it does in revised too. For instance, America lands two fighters on a British carrier in SZ 8 to defend the fleet and then, 3 turns later, has bought and moved their own carrier into the sea zone and wants her fighters on her own carrier to make strikes 3 sea zones away (fighters move three, carrier moves to retrieve them two spaces away.)
Or when the British and American fleets meet in the Pacific. If the English landed a fighter in SZ 52 and Japan either did not sink the fleet or failed to sink the fleet, and then England moves their existing Carrier to SZ 52, maybe he wants his fighter on his own carrier.
It’s hardly a “moot” issue.
Also, I agree, it should be forbidden to land your fighters or move your units onto allied transports/aircraft carriers. Either that, or make a rule stipulating that if you own a land mass in, or adjacent too the sea zone the equipment is in (or it’s friendly land mass if you don’t own it) then your equipment can be considered to be on the land which would allow you to move your units from TP to TP or AC to AC as needed. That way, if Russia has 2 transports in SZ 52 and America has 2 infantry on those TPs, they can declare on America’s turn you have 1 on each or 2 on one, or whatever. Which, yes I know, is currently against the rules.
-
@Cmdr:
The scenario actually comes up pretty often, more so in classic, but it does in revised too. For instance, America lands two fighters on a British carrier in SZ 8 to defend the fleet and then, 3 turns later, has bought and moved their own carrier into the sea zone and wants her fighters on her own carrier to make strikes 3 sea zones away (fighters move three, carrier moves to retrieve them two spaces away.)
Then move the Ftrs. At that point Germany CAN’T ATTACK sz 8. At this point the Allies have 1 sub (russian), 2-3 UK trns (minimum), 2-3 US trns (minimum), 2 US DD, 1 US BB (either there or one move away in sz 10), 1 UK AC with 2 US ftrs (per your post), and 1 US AC.
Thats, 1 sub, 4-6 trns, 2 dd, 2 ac, 2 ftrs, 1 bb (maybe 2 with US bb).
No way Germany sacks its air on that! I wouldn’t even be afraid if Ger had up to 9-10 planes in WE.You simply move the US AC to Sz 8 and declare the US ftrs land there (from the UK ac). Then on UK’s turn you’re free to move UK ftrs to the UK AC in Sz 8 or if you move it to Sz 6.
@Cmdr:
It’s hardly a “moot” issue.
It is a moot point.
If the Allies can’t coordinate their fleet and air movements then they deserve to lose or at the very least have their fleets sunk. :-D -
Yea, but what if USA has the carrier with 2 UK fighters and UK has a carrier iwth 2 USA fighters in SZ 8? That’s when the problem really comes up. Especially online after 3 or 4 rounds of the fleets sitting there after which is generally, in my experience, when the two fleets split up.
-
OK here you go, I don’t think coment is required.
From the box rules:
Page 30 (Aircraft Carriers)
Carry Fighters: An aircraft carrier can carry up to two fighters, including those belonging to friendly powers. Fighters from friendly powers can take off and land from your carriers, but only during that power’s turn. A fighter must be launched from the carrier’s initial position to participate in an attack this turn. If the carrier moves first, the fighters on board are cargo. Fighters belonging to friendly powers on attacking carriers are always treated as cargo, as it is not their turn. Your aircraft carrier can move to a sea zone where one of your fighters has ended its move (and in fact, it must do so) but cannot move any farther that turn.
Fighter Defense: Whenever a carrier is attacked, its fighters (even those belonging to friendly powers) are considered to be defending in the air and can be chosen as casualties rather than the carrier. (However, a fighter can’t be chosen as a casualty from a submarine hit, because submarines can attack only sea units. See Submarines, on page 32.)and
From LHTR 2.0
Page 28 Aircraft Carriers
Special Abilities:
Carry Fighters: An aircraft carrier can carry up to two fighters, including those belonging to friendly powers. Fighters from friendly powers can take off and land from your carriers, but only during that power’s turn. Any fighters belonging to the aircraft carrier owner move independently of the carrier. These fighters can make a combat move from the carrier’s original sea zone, or they can remain in the original sea zone until the noncombat move phase. Fighters belonging to friendly powers on attacking carriers are always treated as cargo, as it is not their turn. Your aircraft carrier can move to or remain in a sea zone where one of your fighters will end its noncombat move (and in fact, it must do so if it is able).Fighter Defense: Whenever a carrier is attacked, its fighters (even those belonging to friendly powers) are considered to be defending in the air and can be chosen as casualties rather than the carrier. (However, a fighter can’t be chosen as a casualty from a submarine hit, because submarines can attack only sea units).
In case it’s not obvious they’re pretty similar.
@Cmdr:
However, I will accept your LHTR 2.0 quote since it does lock down the rule that “guest fighters” must remain on board until their turn.
So, what we have here is in the case of the rules that came with the game is the ability to put your fighters on any bloody carrier you want as long as there is room and you do not “kamikazee” them. And in LHTR 2.0 they have repaired the rule so that your carriers act more like Transports and less like Carriers.
I’m curious, what’s the difference between the quoted rules above that makes you say that the box rules and LHTR differ on this point?
-
1. In the box rules it never states that a fighter is stationed on a specific aircraft carrier.
2. The rules make it clear that carriers can choose to keep the fighters on board and move with them, or launch the fighters and move without them.
3. The rules also very clearly stipulate that fighters can land on any carrier in that specific sea zone provided room for the fighter is available.
4. The rules are also very specific that fighters CAN move when it is not their turn, when no available room to land in a sea zone is left after combat has concluded (presumably because the carrier they were on originally was destroyed.)
5. The rules very clearly state that ALL fighters are airborne in the combat move, conduct combat and non-combat phases which allows fighters on aircraft carriers to defend against attacks.
6. The rules are very specific in regards to using allied transports, stating very clearly that you first load the transport, then wait for the owner to move or not move it, then you can unload the transport. But no such description exists when it comes to landing on allied carriers - therefore, no such rule exists for allied carriers!
However, in LHTR 2.0, as was posted, the rule DOES SPECIFICALLY state that Fighter AB-1209 IS on the USS Deadmeat and CANNOT change aircraft carriers until the owner of Fighter AB-1209 moves it on THEIR turn.
That’s the difference. So in LHTR 2.0, fighters ARE assigned to specific carriers chosen by the fighter’s owner and can only be changed when the owner of the fighter so choses to change carriers. However, in the box rules, fighters are NOT assigned to specific carriers, they are present in the sea zone and may choose to land on any carrier present, even if it was not the carrier it was originally on - likewise, carriers can choose to “launch” allied fighters and move without them, provided it does not result in the death of said fighters, and thus be available to “recover” their own fighters.
It’s interesting to note that in BOTH set of rules, launching and recovering fighters does NOT constitute movement on the part of the fighter. Movement does not occur until such time as the fighter crosses a territorial boundary such as from Hawaii to SZ 52 or from SZ 52 to SZ 45 or from E. USA to C. USA. Moving from Aircraft Carrier 1 to Aircraft Carrier 2 in the same sea zone, in BOTH sets of rules, does not constitute movement on the part of the fighter.
All LHTR 2.0 has done is to clarify that the owner of the fighter has to designate a new carrier for a landing zone on that player’s turn; whereas the box rules state that the owner of the carrier can choose to bring allied fighters along as cargo, or leave them behind - but in either case, the carrier owner makes the choice - not the fighter’s owner.
It’s a very significant difference! No longer, under LHTR 2.0, can you just move your carriers and fighters out and forcing the allied fighters to move to their own carrier, now you have to move your fighters to a land territory, then move the allied fighters, then move your fighters back. A significant delay.
-
Actually, I meant what’s the exact difference in the wording between the two rulesets that makes you say they differ.
-
The exact rule from the box is that the Aircraft Carrier can “launch” its fighters before moving OR carry them as cargo. It does not specify that the carrier can only launch that player’s fighters, it says launch fighters. That means ANY fighter on the carrier can be launched, therefore, you can launch allied fighters from your carrier, move your carrier, and have those fighters land on a different carrier in that sea zone if you want too. (The fighters must be able to land on a carrier in the sea zone, since they are not permitted to MOVE, and moving is defined as crossing from one zone to another.)
LHTR, as was quoted, states that “Fighters from friendly powers can take off and land from your carriers, but only during that power’s turn.”
That contradicts the rules in the box and limits the fighters to only launching and recovering when the owner of the fighter decides to launch and recover them on that player’s turn, not on the owner of the carrier’s turn.
That’s the difference between LHTR’s phrasing and OOB’s phrasing.
-
Would troops in transports also fall into this topic?
LT
-
@Cmdr:
dezrtfish:
Further, it appears that your page 30 quote says that if the carrier moves FIRST, then the fighters are cargo. If you declare that you’re launching the allied fighters and then move your carrier, then the carrier is not moving first.
Since originally posting the question that got this started, I’ve done a bit more digging. Focusing on the unit descriptions…
Both sets of rules (oob and lhtr 2.0) clearly state “Fighters from friendly powers can take off and land from your carriers, but only during that power’s turn.” [emphasis added] the only stated exception is when the carrier it was “based on” is sunk on defense. Not “any carrier”, it’s the carrier the fig is BASED on.) Any concept of them “taking off” or launching as you call it, when it’s not their turn is therefore not part of the rules. If attacked, they “are considered to be defending in the air and can be chosen as casualties” but to do so they clearly don’t take off and land because that happens ONLY DURING THAT POWER’S TURN with the one clearly stated exception for defense at sea.
So…The planes are “considered to” defend in the air through the magic of game rules but they never actually take off from or land on their boat because that only happens on that power’s turn. and they can otherwise only land on another one in the seazone if the carrier they were based on is sunk.
Both OOB rules and LHTR 2.0 use this terminology that planes take off and land from a carrier “only during that [the fig-owning] power’s turn” and that landing on another carrier can happen if the fig they are “based on” is sunk. This seems to be a clear indication that, in both rulesets, the planes are associated with (“based” on) a particular ship, and that they can not be launched or land except during their turn with one specific, noted exception.
-
Thanks Tim.
BTW: In more than 60 games and about 15000 moves, I cannot recall a single case of 2 loaded AC’s with the “wrong” nation’s FIGs on them ever coming up.
-
@Cmdr:
LHTR, as was quoted, states that “Fighters from friendly powers can take off and land from your carriers, but only during that power’s turn.”
That contradicts the rules in the box and limits the fighters to only launching and recovering when the owner of the fighter decides to launch and recover them on that player’s turn, not on the owner of the carrier’s turn.
That’s the difference between LHTR’s phrasing and OOB’s phrasing.
But, as Tim has just pointed out, the exact same sentence appears on page 30 in the box rules.
-
@Cmdr:
LHTR, as was quoted, states that “Fighters from friendly powers can take off and land from your carriers, but only during that power’s turn.”
That contradicts the rules in the box and limits the fighters to only launching and recovering when the owner of the fighter decides to launch and recover them on that player’s turn, not on the owner of the carrier’s turn.
That’s the difference between LHTR’s phrasing and OOB’s phrasing.
The thing is, that exact quote is in both rulesets. For OOB it’s on p.30, as part of Unit Profiles/Air units/Aircraft Carriers/Special Abilities/Carry Fighters. I don’t see why you would think that doesn’t apply to OOB.
Edit: kreighund beat me too it.
-
Wow, it is certainly clear to me that I will never have enough passion for this game to make a post in this thread!!! Wait, I just did. Can you imagine those two doofuses from the utube video reading this thread!! :)
PS- so How many of you are lawyers?
-
I’ve screened through all 80+ pages of both manuals, and the ONLY TIME I see a restriction on two carriers with 4 fighters from two or more nations PROHIBITING a carrier and fighter set from leaving is the LHTR 2.0.
I think you may have accidentally read the LHTR 2.0 not the box rules when you found that one. I went through pretty meticulously and even opened the PDF, converted to word (because I know how to use word better than Adobe) and did a find/replace search to find the text and it didn’t pop.
The only time I’ve seen it appear, currently, is the LHTR 2.0 version where they specifically locked fighters to carriers until the owner of the fighters move them. In the book it specifically states that the carrier owner decides whether or not to bring the fighters along and if the fighters happen to be of a friendly nation and not the carrier owners, they are treated as cargo if brought along. But it is very clear the book rules allow for the possibility of leaving friendly fighters behind.
In the other thread I had something around 12-15 different quotes from multiple pages demonstrating that fact. I’ll concede that LHTR 2.0 (maybe even 1.3, didnt check) changed the rule, and that the rule change can be understandable; but the original rules never said that Fighter AB-1209 has to be on the USS Deadmeat until the owner of Fighter AB-1209 decides otherwise. The original rules state that the owner of USS Deadmeat decides when Fighter AB-1209 is kicked off, assuming Fighter AB-1209 has a valid carrier in that sea zone to be placed on when USS Deadmeat leaves.
-
From the box rules:
Page 30 (Aircraft Carriers)
Carry Fighters: An aircraft carrier can carry up to two fighters, including those belonging to friendly powers. Fighters from friendly powers can take off and land from your carriers, but only during that power’s turn. A fighter must be launched from the carrier’s initial position to participate in an attack this turn. If the carrier moves first, the fighters on board are cargo. Fighters belonging to friendly powers on attacking carriers are always treated as cargo, as it is not their turn. Your aircraft carrier can move to a sea zone where one of your fighters has ended its move (and in fact, it must do so) but cannot move any farther that turn.
Fighter Defense: Whenever a carrier is attacked, its fighters (even those belonging to friendly powers) are considered to be defending in the air and can be chosen as casualties rather than the carrier. (However, a fighter can’t be chosen as a casualty from a submarine hit, because submarines can attack only sea units. See Submarines, on page 32.)Jen this cut and pasted directly from the PDF on the AH/WotC website rules download. The second sentance is the one I believe you are questioning.
-
Wow, it is certainly clear to me that I will never have enough passion for this game to make a post in this thread!!! Wait, I just did. Can you imagine those two doofuses from the utube video reading this thread!! :)
PS- so How many of you are lawyers?
I’m not a lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night… :wink:
-
Wow, it is certainly clear to me that I will never have enough passion for this game to make a post in this thread!!! Wait, I just did. Can you imagine those two doofuses from the utube video reading this thread!! :)
PS- so How many of you are lawyers?
I’m not a lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night… :wink:
That makes u a lawyer in my book.
Suggested Topics
