Re: EFSB Combat at ORION

Scott B. Jaqua wrote:

> >> So, here's the $64 question:  Can fighters that have engaged in and
> >> survived a dogfight then fire on an appropriate active ship in the
> >> Combat phase?
>
> This has been addressed in prior posts, and the answer is yes they
can. The
> two rules are not contradictory. One states that surviving fighter
groups
> can attack the escorted ship. The second rule states that once all
screening
> groups are in combat, that other groups may attack unhindered. Also
the
> first rule clearly states that a second attack exception can take
place,
> while the second rule does not say that it can't happen. Take the rule
word
> for word in this case.

Actually, the answer is no.  Here's the official word from Zeke at Wire
Frame
Productions:

==== BEGIN QUOTED MESSAGES ====

From: zekespar@bev.net
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 10:59:50 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [BAB]: Fighters and Fighter Screena

> Ship A had a screen of 4 fighter groups (24 fighters) and was attacked
> by a swarm of 8 fighters groups (48 fighters) from enemy Ship 1 and
Ship
> 2.  Allied Ship B sent 4 fighter groups (24 fighters) to assist. 
Ships
> 1,2, and B were too far away to be a factor in combat except for their
> fighters. Antifighter weapons from Ship A fired, taking out 3 fighters
> (not fighter groups).  Fighter screens for Ship A took out 0-1 enemy
> fighters per group.
> Needless to say, Ship A died in short order.
>
> Now, first question:	Ship B's fighters are not a screen.  Can they
> dogfight the fighters attacking Ship A?  If so, do the enemy fighters
> get to shoot back at B's fighters and still get to attack the ship?

Yes, ship B's fighters can engage the attacking fighters. The enemy
fighters then have a choice to make, they can either ignore B's fighters
and continue to attack the ship, or they can break from their attack
and engage B's fighters in a normal dogfight. If they continue to
attack the ship then B's fighters get to shoot them up and they have
to accept their losses without returning fire. If they break the attack
to engage B's fighters then they dogfight as normal with B's fighters
and no longer get to attack the cap ship.

> sense:  B's fighters are going to just fly around and watch?	But if
B's
> fighters can attack, then fighter screens are pretty useless. You can
do
> the same damage without fear of counterdamage by simply bringing in a
> non-screening fighter group.	Or better yet, the entire attack might
be
> blocked rather than just the one or two fighters that you might kill
in
> a dogfight with your screen.

Yes a non-screening fighter group can do the same amount of damage
as a screening fighter group and possibly without fear of counterdamage.
However, you then run the risk of allowing enemy fighters to shoot at
your cap ship freely. The point of fighter screens is that they _force_
attacking fighters to engage them in dogfights. Before a cap ship can
even be shot at by attacking fighters, the attackers must first engage
each fighter screen with at least one group of fighters. Attacking
fighters
that are engaged with screening fighters do not get the oppertunity to
hit the cap ship at all. In your given example where ship A dies in
short
order if ship B's fighters had been screening ship A all 8 attacking
fighter groups would have had to engage screening fighter groups and the
ship (A) would have taken no damage at all from the attackers.

> How should this have been handled?  Our other problem was more
> philosophical:  capital ships were almost unnecessary in the two
battles
> we played.  The fighters went out, swarmed each ship in turn and
usually
> destroyed it in a single turn.  Aside from the fact this never occurs
in
> B5 (but I won't start THAT debate), I enjoy FT because of the
capitals,
> not because of the fighters.	Here's how we resolved it, and it works'

Yes if you ignore your enemies fighters your ships will suffer. It is
very important that your fighters protect the slower moving cap ships
from your enemies fighters. Fighter support is crucial in the B5
universe
and if a ship gets swamped by fighters it usually goes down and fast
(you don't want to start the debate but I will note that I disagree
with you on how effective fighters are on the show).

> B's fighters can attack the enemy fighters and the enemy fighters must
> decide to continue the attack or break off and engage the fighters.
> Fighter screens work slightly differently, however.  If the enemy
> fighters do not break off, they face the fighter screen, and will roll
> on the dogfight table as usual.  Now, however, before rolling the
> dogfight, every screening fighter (not fighter group) will completely
> block one attacking fighter (not fighter group).  For example, suppose
> both the attacking fighter group and the screening group have six
> fighters each.  This turn, no fighters may attack the ship - they are
> too busy with the fighter screen.  They dogfight and the attackers
kill
> two screening fighters while the screening fighters kill one of the
> attacking fighters.  The attackers now have 5 fighters to the screen's
> 4.  Next turn:  one attacking fighter is unmolested, so will attack
the
> ship.  The remaining fighters dogfight as usual, eliminate any
fighters
> as appropriate, and then the unblocked fighter rolls against the ship.

The only difference between this and the way the rules are set up is
that you have screens blocking fighters on a fighter by fighter basis
and the rules have it on a group by group basis.

> This does -dramatically- reduce the effectiveness of fighters, but
> that's essentially the point:  fighters (in general) should fight

Actually in your given example it increased the effectiveness of the
attacking fighters. One of the attacking fighters was allowed to hit
the cap ship. In the current rules the group of 4 screening fighters
would have to be engaged by at least one group of attacking fighters.
As there is only one group attacking it has to engage the screening
fighters so all 5 fighters would be blocked because they belong to the
same group.

> Second question:  when declaring targets for fighter groups, shouldn't
> this declaration alternate among the players as with movement?  Often

This is a much easier question to answer ;). Yes you should alternate.

> Thanks..

Not a problem hope I cleared it up, if not just ask again.

- -Zeke Sparkes
WireFrame Productions, Inc.
- -

From: zekespar@bev.net
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 15:00:25 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [BAB]: Fighters and Fighter Screena

> If the players activated the A ship BEFORE the B fighters, the
attacking
> fighters would attack A, and only the screening A fighters could
respond.
The
> B fighters would have to wait until AFTER the attack on A to activate
and
fire
> at any attacking A fighters.

Attacking fighters that are engaged by non-screening fighter groups
always
have the option of breaking the attack and engaging their challengers.
This is decided immediatly after the group has been challenged. So as
soon as B's fighter groups target some of the enemy fighter groups the
enemy player decides if they will break and dogfight with B's fighter
groups or continue along their path towards the cap ship.

- -Zeke Sparkes
WireFrame Productions, Inc.
- -
From: zekespar@bev.net
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 10:24:13 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [BAB]: Re: the-babylon-project-l-digest V1 #743

>    Thanks for the quick reply!

Not a problem.

> Okay, actually, we hunted in the rules for this but couldn't find it. 
It
seemed to us
> the rules said that screens would block only the 0-2 fighters they
were able
to kill per
> group, that is, at least some fighters were always -guaranteed- to get
through.  We
> originally thought use groups blocking groups, but then a 1-fighter
screen
could block a
> 6-fighter attacking group.  That didn't seem to make sense either.  
But
that's a much
> more minor thing.

I think I see where your confusion is coming from so let met try and
help out again. On page 86 (EF Sourcebook) first paragraph it says
"Whenever a ship with a Fighter Screen comes under attack from enemy
Fighter Groups, the attacking Fighter Groups must engage the Fighter
Screen using the Dogfighting rules before they may fire on the escorted
ship." This simply means they have to deal with the screens before they
can begin to go after the ship, not that they get a second action to
hit the ship after they have a brief spat with the screen. It goes on
to say "Each Fighter Group in the Fighter Screen must be engaged by at
least one attacking Fighter Group. Once this condition has been
satisfied,
any further uncommitted attacking groups may fire on the escourted
ship."
the key there is "uncommitted attacking groups" which cancels any groups
that had to engage the fighter screens (minimum of on per). Yes it does
mean that a 1-fighter screen can block a 6-fighter screen attacking
group but on the flip side it means a 1-fighter attacking group can
engage a 6-fighter screen. The reason is because the game does not
track individual fighters and what they are doing it only follows them
on a group basis.

There is one other part I think might be adding to the problem so I'll
go ahead and mention it now :). Page 73, the last paragraph in 4A: Ship
Selection. It says "Finally, any Fighter Groups that have survived get
their chance to attack the ship (See Fighter Attacks on page 87)." It
does not mean fighter groups that survived dogfighting a screen now
get to attack as well. It means that any fighter groups that have
survived
the entire turn (anti-fighter fire, fighters like B's fighters attacking
them ect.) and that were originally targeting the ship in question and
not its fighter screens get to unload.

> it says a lot for the system that simply by "trying to keep in the
spirit of
the rules"
> we arrived at a rule that already existed! <g>

I certinaly think so and I'm sure that Tuffley would be thrilled to hear
it :).

Hope I cleared up a bit more for you.

- -Zeke Sparkes
WireFrame Productions, Inc.
- -