Carrier Based Fighters

What we see here, are failure of communication, since some gamers are not at the luxury of using their own language. Jen from Russia, me from Norway, IL from Germany, Massiomo from Italy and so on, and a rule book writen in English.

I know some of you love to switch carriers and trannies as a strategy, and that is good as long as everybody agree on the rules. In my playgroup we have this dude who always buy a carrier in G1, and in G2 send the Med fleet through Suez, and shuck Japan infantry from India to Africa. So UK has an infantry in Italian East Africa, now Japan send a japanese Battleship to shore bombard, and then attack with two japanese infantry from the german tranny and two japanese fighters from the german carrier. The issues often starts when he move in his empty japanese carrier to join, and land two german fighters on it for protection, and later in mid game want to split this fleet, and swith the fighters on the carriers and the men on the trannies, not to mention who owns that AA-gun wich suddenly appered in Africa.

But to be honest, I think this game would be better if not mixing units. I even have issues with UK/US troops landing in Karelia and marching through Sovjet territory, but tthen A&A Europe always was my favorite game

@Adlertag:

What we see here, are failure of communication, since some gamers are not at the luxury of using their own language. Jen from Russia, me from Norway, IL from Germany, Massiomo from Italy and so on, and a rule book writen in English.

I know some of you love to switch carriers and trannies as a strategy, and that is good as long as everybody agree on the rules. In my playgroup we have this dude who always buy a carrier in G1, and in G2 send the Med fleet through Suez, and shuck Japan infantry from India to Africa. So UK has an infantry in Italian East Africa, now Japan send a japanese Battleship to shore bombard, and then attack with two japanese infantry from the german tranny and two japanese fighters from the german carrier. The issues often starts when he move in his empty japanese carrier to join, and land two german fighters on it for protection, and later in mid game want to split this fleet, and swith the fighters on the carriers and the men on the trannies, not to mention who owns that AA-gun wich suddenly appered in Africa.

But to be honest, I think this game would be better if not mixing units. I even have issues with UK/US troops landing in Karelia and marching through Sovjet territory, but tthen A&A Europe always was my favorite game

First off, Jen moved to america when she was a kid I believe over twenty years ago.

Second, your example is completely against the rules and is what is refered to a “house rule”.

Third, how about German:

Besondere Fähigkeiten
Kampfflugzeuge befördern: Ein Flugzeugträger kann bis zu 2 Kampfflugzeuge beherbergen, einschließlich derjenigen, die verbündeten Weltmächten gehören. Kampfflugzeuge verbündeter Mächte können nur während des Zugs dieser Weltmacht auf Flugzeugträgern landen bzw. von ihnen aus starten.  Ein Kampfflugzeug muss von der ursprünglichen Position des Trägers gestartet werden, um in diesem Zug angreifen zu dürfen. Wenn der Träger zuerst zieht, gelten die Kampfflugzeuge an Bord als Fracht.  Kampfflugzeuge auf angreifenden Flugzeugträgern, die zu verbündeten Weltmächten gehören, gelten immer als Fracht, da sie gerade nicht am Zug sind. Dein Flugzeugträger muss in das Seegebiet ziehen, in dem eines deiner Kampfflugzeuge seinen Zug beendet hat, kann aber in diesem Zug nicht weiter ziehen.

I have to agree with dezrtfish

On page 30, the note says a AC involved in an attack ( first condition: attack move ) and bringing friendly fighters ( second condition ) treats them as cargo.
It does not says you are forced to bring them, only IF you bring them.
It does not says either you cannot do it on Non-Combat move.

If it is too much debate, you can always bring the AC to the sea zone after combat if it occured within 2 sea zones anyways. In non-combat move, no rules force you to bring the friendly fighters ( i beileive it’s same for attack ).

If this logic is not simple enough, i’d go more brutal by saying: Land the uk fighters on uk carrier, since the USA planes have no place to go they either go splash or go to nearby friendly territory ( in this case, the USA carrier now conveniently empty… ) The rule for extra move for landing in nearby save zone should be more than enough, since you DO get an extra move and in this case they actually don’t even have to move anyways since there is a landing place in the sea zone.

OMG people!! Is there nothing left to discuss about this game? Let me try a feeble attempt at logic here. Everyone agrees that this fighter swap is illegal as outlined in LHTR 2.0 correct? the LHTR rule set is developed by the creator of the game, and is meant to better convey the intentions of the original rules, wording and all? So we know waht the intention is in regards to this specific rule, are we really spending so much effort into how one “COULD” or “SHOULD” intrepret the old vague wording? The intention of the rule was made clear by Larry himself, should we move on? I bet not one person in this arguement even uses OOB rules.  :)

(munches popcorn) I use OOB/FAQ rules mostly, but I wasn’t arguing.

@Bunnies:

(munches popcorn) I use OOB/FAQ rules mostly, but I wasn’t arguing.

(munches bacon) I use the bacon/six degrees of separation rules myself, and therer is no argument. Bacon rules!

Nice job, Tim. I suppose when you’re walking around with a can opener, everything looks like a can of worms to you, doesn’t it?

Look everybody. This is a family site. Fighter and wife swapping are to be done in the privacy of your own home ONLY. Now move along.

@U-505:

Look everybody. This is a family site. Fighter and wife swapping are to be done in the privacy of your own home ONLY. Now move along.

LOL, couldn’t be better said

@U-505:

Nice job, Tim. I suppose when you’re walking around with a can opener, everything looks like a can of worms to you, doesn’t it?

Well, I can’t say it was what I set out to do, but it’s been interesting to say the least.

Plus, I’ve got stock in holiday inn express.

That’s interesting, Craig, but I don’t know that using the Gleemax on-line game’s behavior as an argument in a rules discussion is really valid at this time (even if it does support our position!).  There are a few things that it does that are not exactly “according to Hoyle” right now.  Hopefully, the bugs will be fixed soon.

@Craig:

@Krieghund:

That’s interesting, Craig, but I don’t know that using the Gleemax on-line game’s behavior as an argument in a rules discussion is really valid at this time (even if it does support our position!).  There are a few things that it does that are not exactly “according to Hoyle” right now.  Hopefully, the bugs will be fixed soon.

You are right that there are still many bugs in the game, but I don’t think that this topic is one of them.

I agree that the on-line game is doing this particular thing correctly.  My point was that if you use the on-line game to support a rules argument, you set a precedent for others to do the same.  In future arguments, the on-line game may be incorrect in the way it handles the particular rule in question.

For example, the on-line game was allowing land units on transports to be taken as casualties in naval battles.  (This may be fixed by now, but I don’t know for sure.)  Do you really want someone arguing that this is legal because the on-line game allows it?

@Krieghund:

I thought I saw a thread somewhere (BGG?) where the designer of the computer game talked about working with Larry on this project, so I think that this was taken care from the right source. :wink: :-D

Actually, they said that they worked with Wizards of the Coast.  Larry wasn’t mentioned by name.  I’ve already pointed out a couple of problems in their “official” rules interpretations in that thread, one of which directly contradicts the FAQ.  If they’re all that “official”, why are they posted on BGG instead of the Avalon Hill site?