Re: Using FTFB interceptors

>On turn 3, say, he moves a group designated A to attack a destroyer.  I
move
>a group of interceptors designated 1 into base to base contact to
initiate a
>dogfight.  (We play that he must dogfight; is this generally agreed
upon ?).

If they were screening the ship, then there would be no need to "move"
them. Interception would be automatic. "Whenever a ship that is being
escorted by a fighter screen comes under attack from enemy fighters, the
attacking group(s) MUST engage the screening fighters using the
DOGFIGHTING
rules instead of attacking the ship that turn." FB p.6

>On turn 4, his fighters wish to break from the dogfight to attack a new
>target.  The NAC interceptor group 1 takes a free round of attacks at
ESU
>attack fighter group A before they move (free meaning they are not
>retaliated upon, it does cost combat endurance).  Group A moves away,
into
>an attack position.  Group 1 is free to follow, and moves into base to
base
>contact with A again.	(I assumed 1 was free to follow.  Any dissenters
?)

"1" is free to follow, though by doing so, he may no longer be screening
his ship - if he is over 3" away. "...the fighter group must remain
within
3" of the ship it is escorting at all times." FB p.6

>Is this a dogfight, or is Group A free to attack ?  (I would say A is
free
>to attack, 1 cannot attack A.	Had 1 moved into contact with a
different
>group B, same story).

This is a DOGFIGHT.  See example from FT p. 17

"B" might not be the same story, depending on whether they've moved or
not.
"If one player moves his Group into base contact with an enemy Group and
the opponent does not wish to dogfight, he may move his group away
provided
it has not already moved that turn; if he does this, however, the
attacking
Group gets a free round of attack rolls before contact is broken." FT
p.17

>ESU attack fighter group A also has an even juicier target just outside
of
>range.  A expends combat endurance to reach attack range for that
target,
>then more to attack it.
>
>Does A come under attack for leaving base to base contact with NAC
>interceptor group 1 ?	(I said yes).

Yes. See above.

>Can the NAC interceptors burn combat endurance to maintain base to base
>contact with Group 1 ? (I said yes).

Yes again. However, keep in mind that fighter movement alternates. In
theory, the initiative could go against "1," if the initiative rules are
being used.

>This was an interesting conundrum.  I'd always assumed that if there
was
>fighter parity, fighters would effectively cancel each other out.  If
one
>side had interceptors and fighter numbers were equal, the interceptors
were
>more than capable of blunting the enemy fighter attack.  What this
sequence
>indicated was that the interceptors would get two attacks on the enemy
>fighters before the enemy could attack a target ship, but as long as
the
>enemy was willing to flee a dogfight to make its attack run, it would
indeed
>make the attack run.

So long as the group is being engaged in a dogfight, as I see it, they
cannot continue with their attack. However, if they can free themselves
of
those pesky interceptors, then they're good to go.

Schoon