Re: New Fleet Book errata?

On Sun, Oct 28, 2001 at 09:37:29PM +0100, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
>Roger Burton-West wrote:
>>FB1 p11: example ship second sub-total is wrong. Should be 101 points,
>>not 95.
>No, it should be 98 points. Check the FB1 section of the FT FAQ at 
>http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3565/faq-index.html . The
example 
>design only uses 84 of its 85 Mass.

Ah. I evidently have a different FB1 printing (it's still copyright
1998, but I bought it at Colours this year); the example ship design
in mine is correct in everything except the second sub-total.

All the errata noted at that web page have been corrected in my FB1; I
did check before posting. (A few of the FB2 errata have also been
corrected in my copy of that.)

Am I correct in my reading of the rules, that there is no _human_
weapon which can attack a fighter group that is not itself attacking
a ship? The old ADAF didn't have this limitation; is it a mis-phrasing?
(Certainly, scatterguns and interceptor pods seem to be able to do
this.)

Also: is list consensus that the maximum-thrust-of-8 restriction has
been lifted?