Re: Fighters and Hangers

Randall Joiner wrote:

>>>A dogfight is only when base to base?
>>
>>A *dogfight* is only when base-to-base. Unfortunately for your
parsing, 
>>fighters don't need to be in a dogfight to shoot at one another.
>
>So what's the difference between dogfighting and ranged combat? No,
don't 
>give me the snappy answer. Yes, thier bases are touching. So? So you've

>got different rules, why?

I can't give a definite answer on this one (this part of the rules was 
written long before I became a playtester), but my guess is that the 
dogfight and furball cases are supposed to represent close-range 
manoeuvres-intensive fights where the two sides are too closely
intermixed 
to allow outsiders easy targetting solutions against one side only;
whereas 
the ranged fire is akin to dropping off BVRAAMs in a long-range battle 
between combat aircraft.

>>>Fine... If Jack doesn't place his fighters in a dogfight, then I
can't 
>>>split fire. If he doesn't dogfight, then there's no dice to roll. No
problems.
>>
>>Incorrect. Thanks to the screwed-up nature of the FT fighter rules,
there 
>>are currently three different types of fighter-to-fighter combat in
the game:
>>
>>1) Ranged combat (FT2 p.17): A fighter group can fire at any *one* 
>>fighter group (no splitting fire) within 6 mu, as long as neither
group 
>>is involved in a dogfight or furball. Firing is done in initiative
order.
>
>Why can't they split fire?

Because the rules as currently published say so (FT2 pps16-17). As for 
*why* they say this, I have no idea.

>>2) Dogfight (FT2 p.17): One *single* fighter group is in base-to-base 
>>contact with one *single* enemy fighter group. Both groups fire 
>>simultaneously at one another, may only fire at one another (so still
no 
>>splitting fire, since there's only one enemy group in the dogfight),
and 
>>may not be fired at by any units outside the dogfight. If one of the 
>>fighter groups attempt to leave the dogfight, the enemy gets a free
shot at it.
>
>Doesn't work. Contradictory to rule 3?

Works. Rule 2 only applies when a fighter group is in base-to-base
contact 
with ONLY ONE SINGLE enemy fighter group; rule 3 only applies when a 
fighter group is in base-to-base contact with MORE THAN ONE enemy
fighter 
group. Since a group can't simultaneously be in contact with only one 
single enemy group and more than one enemy groups, the two cases don't 
overlap and therefore don't contradict one another.

They are certainly *inconsistent* wrt one another, but that's not the
same 
thing as *contradicting* one another...

>>3) Multi-group dogfight aka "furball" (FB1 p.6): A fighter group is in

>>base-to-base contact with *more than one* enemy fighter group. As in
the 
>>dogfight none of the fighter groups involved may fire out of the
furball 
>>and no outside unit may fire into it and you can get shot in the back
if 
>>you try to leave early, BUT unlike the normal dogfight firing is done
in 
>>alternating initiative order (just as for ships and ranged fighter 
>>combat) and the firing group may spread its attacks evenly among those
of 
>>the enemy groups in the furball it wants to attack. (It may choose to 
>>attack only one single enemy groups.)
>
>If a group is in a dogfight already (one group moves at a time) then 
>according to rule 2, they can't be fired on by anyone else.

You can't FIRE into a dogfight from the outside - but there is no rule 
which prevents you to MOVE a fighter group into base-to-base contact
with 
an existing dogfight and thus turn it into a furball.

>OR, rule 3 means that part of rule 2 is over-ruled,

Nope.

>So, either rule 2, or 3. Not both...

Yes, both. I told you the rules were screwed-up, didn't I...

>>There's an even nastier scenario for Bob if you resolve dogfights in 
>>initiative order - ie., you resolve the dogfight when either player 
>>activates his dogfighting group in the normal initiative sequence.
(The 
>>order in which you resolve dogfights isn't specified in the rules;
some 
>>groups resolve dogfights last instead, which avoids this particular 
>>nastiness.) Here goes:
>>
>>Jack uses four individual fighters to lock each of Bob's four group
into 
>>dogfights (not furballs), leaving the remaining 20 of Jack's fighters 
>>unengaged. Regardless of who won the initiative the dogfights are 
>>resolved before any other fighter fire - Jack chooses to activate the 
>>dogfighting groups first, and Bob of course doesn't have a choice
since 
>>all of his fighters are tied up in dogfight. The fighters in each of 
>>Bob's groups can only fire at the single fighter they're dogfighting; 
>>they'll almost certainly destroy it, but since this is a dogfight
rather 
>>than a furball fire is simultaneous and that single fighter will get
to 
>>shoot back.
>>
>>Now comes the fun part: since they have destroyed their dogfight 
>>opponents, Bob's fighters are *no longer involved in dogfights*...
which 
>>means that they are now legal ranged-combat targets for Jack's 20 
>>remaining fighters and will probably lose at least 15-16 fighters in 
>>return for killing 4 of Jack's.
>
>Um... no... I'd assume that a dogfight, since it _depends_ on
base-to-base 
>contact, it's declared in movement, not fire, phase.

You don't declare dogfights. The rules (FT2 p.17) define "dogfight" as
the 
special situation where a fighter group is in base-to-base with an enemy

fighter group; if it ceases to be in base-to-base contact with all enemy

fighter groups for whatever reason, eg. because it has destroyed them,
it 
is no longer in a dogfight.

Which is why the above trick only works if you resolve the dogfights
within 
the normal initiative order; if you resolve all dogfights at the end of
the 
fighter combat phase instead (ie. outside the normal initiative order) 
Jack's 20 unengaged fighters will be unable to do shoot at Bob's
fighters 
at all. It still isn't a very good deal for Bob since his fighters are
tied 
up in dogfights where most of their firepower will be wasted (and where 
they risk being left too far behind their ships to catch up), but at
least 
it is better than the alternative :-/

Later,

Oerjan
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
-Hen3ry