RE: [FT] Yet another question about fighters...

Hello chaps - OK, I've been watching this discussion for a while 
without contributing, because it is interesting to see the different 
views and options offered; within your own playing groups you can of 
course do it whichever way feels best to you, but for those of you 
who are interested, this is the way I'd define it within the spirit 
of the way I wrote the rule originally:

The use of the term "free shot" is, in hindsight, a little misleading 
- what I was attempting to convey was not an ADDITIONAL attack, but a 
volley of shots without risk of return fire - if one player moves 
into dogfight contact with an enemy group (or if resolving an ongoing 
dogfight from a previous turn), and that enemy decides not to hang 
around and engage in the dogfight then the attacking group gets to 
fire at them anyway as they disengage - with the disengaging group 
NOT being able to shoot back (they are pointing the wrong way and 
pouring on the thrust!).
Now, if you have multiple groups engaged on both sides of a furball, 
then I would say that in order for the "free shot" rule to apply, ALL 
groups on one side must choose to disengage; if they do so, then the 
other side gets to fire at them as they flee - but if they leave even 
one group engaged in the furball, then the opposing fighters may NOT 
take their "free" shot at the withdrawing groups - they are still 
engaged in skirmishing with the remaining enemy.  This would mean 
that there is a perfectly allowable tactic of leaving one 
"sacrificial rearguard" group in contact to tie up the enemy, while 
the rest of your fighters slip away without being fired on - just the 
sort of heroic act that you might get in the movies!  ;-)

Best,

Jon (GZG)

>  Okay, I'm lost.
>
>I'm not sure what 'lurking' means here. Sounds like the interceptors 
>are already in the battle, and will be taking shots anyway. My point 
>was, in a furball, I expect only one attack, however that translates 
>into weapons expended.
>
>And, an extra attack against each fleeing squadron bothers me even 
>more; I'd rather be able to take multiple shots at the juicy, say 
>torpedo-laden, birds, which seems even more reasonably doable than 
>swinging attacks against several retreating targets.
>
>But, again, I'm lost, don't play with fighters oft, and need to 
>re-re-read the associated sections.
>
>Thanks for the reply, Eric!
>
>I've been talking myself into trying BSG battles, and obviously will 
>have to figure out fighters there.
>
>Doug
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Eric Foley [mailto:stiltman@teleport.com]
>Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 12:01 PM
>To: gzg@firedrake.org
>Subject: Re: [FT] Yet another question about fighters...
>
>Well, here's the flaw in this reasoning:  if you're not allowed to 
>shoot back if you've already taken a free shot in a turn at a 
>disengaging enemy, this effectively means that taking that free shot 
>means you're giving up another free shot to whoever else may be 
>lurking.  If that's the case, I'm going to get seriously tempted to 
>leave some interceptors lurking around the battle just to put it 
>into my opponent's head that maybe that free shot isn't such a good 
>idea.
>
>E
>
>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Douglas Evans <devans@nebraska.edu>
>>Sent: Aug 5, 2012 8:48 AM
>>To: "gzg@firedrake.org" <gzg@firedrake.org>
>>Subject: [FT] Yet another question about fighters...
>>
>>textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
>>
>>Jon, just in case you're not following the Yahoo group discussion, 
>>I'm the Doug.
>>
>>Yahoo 'Full Thrust' Group
>>Re: Fighter vs Fighter
>>
>>I would say that is one 'free round' not a free round per disengaging
group.
>>Does that mean you can shoot regularly in dogfight AND at disengaging
groups?
>>
>>Actually, I'd say no. In every discussion I've seen that included Jon,
>>I got the impression it was 'free round' just because you got to
shoot,
>>but not fear a response shot.
>>
>>Until Jon sez different, I suppose you'll play as you read it, and I
as
>>I've understood it.
>>
>>Doug
>>
>>--- In
> 
>FullThrust@yahoogroups.com<http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/FullThru
>>st/post?postID=vf_uFJMP_pmAEAGDep-psDiHCHUK-MpTmX1cqiuycted54jUErXCCrj
M
>>SRF3LM0mlcVhMHMkyqZ7oJz07w64ynaqI0s>, "johnlunderwoodjr"
>><johnlunderwoodjr@...>
>>wrote:
>>>
>>>  Thanks Adam, what throws me that in the disengagement section it
says
>>>  FREE
>>round of attacks. That tells me if its free it does not count against
>>this rule section.
>>>
>>>  r/
>>>  John
>>>
>>>  --- In 
>>>FullThrust@yahoogroups.com<http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/FullTh
rust/post?postID=vf_uFJMP_pmAEAGDep-psDiHCHUK-MpTmX1cqiuycted54jUErXCCrj
MSRF3LM0mlcVhMHMkyqZ7oJz07w64ynaqI0s>, 
>>>"Adam" <AJwargamer@> wrote:
>>>  > I checked on page 28 & 29 of Full Thrust Cross Dimension and
found
>>>  > under
>>Multiple Group Dogfights:
>>>  >
>>>  > There will be cases, especially when fighters are screening
larger
>>>  > ships, where multiple group dogfight situations (known to fighter
>>>  > pilots as `furballs') may occur. In such combats, all groups
>>>  > engaged in the dogfight may fire only once per turn, but may
choose
>>>  > to attack just one enemy group or to split
>>their kills between two or more. If the player chooses to split fire,
>>the dice are rolled as normal and the casualties then divided as
>>equally as possible between the relevant groups.
>>>  >
>>>  > You could deduce that if a fighter group can split the kills
during
>>>  > a
>>multiple group dogfight but only rolling attack dice once,then they
>>should be able to split their kills between the two groups
disengaging,
>>again by rolling their attack dice once and distribute the kills
>>achieved as even as possible between the two disengaging 
>>groups...just my thought.
>>>  >
>>>  > Adam
>>>  >
>>>  > --- In
>>>  >
FullThrust@yahoogroups.com<http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Full
>>>  >
Thrust/post?postID=vf_uFJMP_pmAEAGDep-psDiHCHUK-MpTmX1cqiuycted54jU
>>>  > ErXCCrjMSRF3LM0mlcVhMHMkyqZ7oJz07w64ynaqI0s>, "johnlunderwoodjr"
>>>  > <johnlunderwoodjr@>
>>wrote:
>>>  > > Question: There is a furball of 3 fighter groups, 2 for side A
>>>  > > and 1 for
>>side B.
>>>  > > Side A decides to break off with both groups....
>>>  > > Does side B get a Free Round of attacks on each group as stated
>>>  > > in the
>>basic FT Rulebook?
>>>  > > My initial thought is yes, as it is a FREE round of attacks.
>>>  > > THANKS!!!
>>>  > > r/
>>>  > > John Underwood
>>
>>