RE: First EFSB game was great! A few questions

We also play that any fighter within range of a mine is automatically
destroyed.  We also don't pick one ship at a time as active. Everyone
declares their targets before any firing takes place and all combat is
simultaneous except for intercepting fighters when they start their run.
 It doesn't slow things down and we feel it makes it more realistic.

David Best

>----------
>From:	Oerjan Ohlson[SMTP:oerjan.ohlson@nacka.mail.telia.com]
>Sent:	Thursday, March 19, 1998 2:58 PM
>To:	FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
>Subject:	Re: First EFSB game was great!	A few questions
>
>Felix Hack wrote:
>
>> 1.  Can anti-fighter weapons shoot at fighter groups that aren't
>> engaging your ship? 
>
>EFSB p. 84, Anti-Fighter Batteries: "... An Anti-Fighter Battery may
shoot
>at one Fitghter Group that is within its specific arc of fire, and is
>within 6 MU. The Fighter Group does not have to actually be making an
>attack on the ship." So the answer is Yes.
>
>> 2.  Fighter engagements are resolved when the target ship becomes
>> active.  Is damage by fighter weapons resolved before the target ship
>> has a chance to shoot at its targets?  
>
>EFSB p. 72, Summary of Turn table:
>"4) Combat Phase. Ships and fighers fire weapons.
>	4a) Ship selection. Choose Active Ship and resolve fighter
attacks against
>it.
>	4b) Weapons fire. Active Ship fires on other targets."
>
>So the answer is Yes.
>
>> 3.  We couldn't find any rules describing the effects of energy mines
>> on fighters.  We ruled there was no effect.
>
>I can't find any such rule either, but 1 point of damage kills any
fighter,
>and the Energy Mine attacks all targets in range so I'd say that any
>fighter within 6 MU of an exploding Energy Mine is dead. This ruling is
>influenced by similar rules for the Nova Cannon and Wavegun from Full
>Thrust and More Thrust, though.
>
>> 4.  This question is about catastrophic damage.  First, the rules
>> contradict the example (the example's die rolls shouldn't be causing
>> catastrophic damage). 
>
>Hm. I don't see where the example is wrong (assuming you're talking
about
>the example on p.83, of course): the first Catastrophic Damage check is
>failed on 5 or 6 (the first two lines on a Primus lost), and rolls a 5
-
>failure, roll again (fails on 4 or more this time since three rows are
>lost) and gets a 6. Fails again, rolls again (fails on 3 or more) and
gets
>a 4 - last row lost, and the ship dies. Where's the contradiction? What
did
>I miss this time?
>
>> We followed the rules, as we felt the example
>> made chain reactions too likely. 
>
>So do I.
>
>> Next, in our game the first Centauri
>> CL almost lost three whole rows of damage boxes to fighters in a
>> single attack, requiring two Threshold checks.  If it had required
>> three Treshold checks from a single attack, should I have rolled once
>> or twice for catastrophic damage?
>
>You roll once. If you fail that roll, you lose another row of damage
boxes
>and roll once more for Catastrophic Damage; repeat until the ship dies
or
>it manages a check.
>
>>  If in the same gameturn it lost yet
>> another row to weapons fire (not catastrophic damage) requiring a new
>> Threshold check, would I roll again for catastrophic damage?
>
>I'd say yes (that's why you keep rolling for the chain reaction!).
>
>Later,
>
>Oerjan Ohlson
>
>"Life is like a sewer.
>What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
>- Hen3ry
>
>