RE: Using FTFB interceptors

> In summary
>   A fighter fleeing from a DF may be fired upon, but not pursued (the
> attacking fighters used their movement to re-initiate DF)
>   DF needs to be reinitiated each turn.
>   If the defending fighters move before the attackers, they are not
fired
> upon, but may be pursued (an reengaged if the attackers are faster)

This was the real sticking point in my head.  I re-wrote my prior
comments
several times and was still not happy with how it turned out.  Though I
said
the dogfight needed to be re-initiated each turn, I don't think the
groups
go back to an un-engaged status at the end of the turn.  My current
thought
on this is no, the attacking fighters should still get a parting shot
since
the bases were still in contact at the beginning of the turn.

After 1 round of dogfighting, I think the status of the 2 fighter groups
is
somewhere in between "engaged in a dogfight" and "no dogfight initiated
at
all".  When the defenders move first and decides to break away, now its
the
attackers turn for a choice; A) declare the DF over move where he wants
to,
including following the defending fighters, or B) declare DF still in
effect
and take parting shots (even though it is the defenders turn, I think
the
attacker still has a some say in the matter since bases are still in
contact).

I see it like a bar room fight, its not over as long as one side wants
to
continue (sure there are exceptions to this but in general, the fight
does
not stop until one side is elimiated or both sides decide to stop).

I know I could really be reaching on this one.	Are these arguments
still
valid or do you want an initiative roll to allow a group to break away
from
a dogfight without the attackers getting parting shots?

Dean