Re: Some more EFSB questions

Comments below

-----Original Message-----
From: Felix Hack <felixh@pacbell.net>
>
>(1)  We're trying to understand the benefits of fighter screens.  If a
>fighter group engages a ship and is itself engaged by screening
>fighters, do surviving fighters still get to attack the ship in the
>same gameturn?

Yes, page 86 (and the last paragraph of Phase 4a on page 73) says
fighters
engage with standard dog fighting rules before they can fire on the
escorted
ship.	Anything that lives gets to shoot at the big ship.

>(2)  We're not sure about the order of attacks when a non-screening
>fighter group engages enemy fighters that are engaging a friendly
>ship.	The rules discuss treating independent dogfights like ships
>that can activate, but this only applies to "free" fighters (not
>screening or engaging ships).	The rules also discuss how screening
>fighters engage attacking fighters.  But I don't know when
>non-screening fighters dogfight the fighters engaging a friendly ship.
>Do you treat them just like screening fighters, so the dogfight is
>resolved when the target ship becomes active?

I would say this falls into the "Furball" catagory.  IMHO, if a fighter
group has not been tagged at the beginning of the turn as a Fighter
screen,
it is not.  In this case I would say that the player attacking the cap
ship
is going to have to make the choice of attacking the cap ship (and going
through his screen first) or the near-by but technically not screening
fighter group.

If the attacking player decided to attack the cap ship, lives through
the
screen dogfight and AF (which happened way back at Phase 3) the
defending
player can probably pounce on what's left of the attacking fighters with
his
nearby but technically not screening fighter group.

If he decides not to attack the cap ship then you could do a standard
dogfight with the nearby by technically not screening fighter group.

Does that make any sense at all? <g>

BTW, I didn't see anything wrong with the example of catastrophic damage
either.  Am I missing something too?

Thanks,
Nathan