Re: FT: excrutiatingly detailed fighter/missile interaction sequence

Roger Burton-West wrote:

FB2 isn't just the alien stuff; it also includes a number of updates and

corrections to FB1 and earlier books.

>What we came up with was:
>
>When missiles attack, defences are:
>
>(1) ADFC-linked PDSes
>(2) non-screening fighters within range
>(3) PDSes on target ship
>(4) fighters screening target ship

The sequence is:

1) Attacker allocates fighter and missile attacks; fighters may make 
secondary moves. (The rules don't explicitly say so, but fighter
secondary 
moves should use initiative order.)
2) Fighter-vs-fighter and fighter-vs-missile fire is resolved in
initiative 
order (except for dogfights with only one squadron per side, which are 
simultaneous). Any fighters which fire in this step are unable to shoot
at 
ships later in the same turn.
3) Allocate PDSs from the target ship and ADFC ships within 6" of the 
target ship (note that an ADFC ship can only protect one other ship per
ADFC)
4) PDSs fire (order not important)
5) The surviving missiles and fighters which attack ships fire.

>Shouldn't interceptors be more effective against missiles,
>attackers less effective, and so on?

If you check the FT FAQ, you'll find that they are.

>We assumed that screening fighters can act normally without breaking
>from their close patrol of the ship they're screening, but still can't
>engage in combat twice in a turn.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean with this. Please clarify?

>Fighters attacking other fighters at long range attack before dogfights
>start. (Or is this purely an initiative thing, based on which fighter
>group is activated first?)

This is purely an initiative thing.

 >Oh, and a slight contradiction.
 >
 >FT p16 says...
 >
 >FB2 p5 says...

Whenever the rule books contradict one another, the most recently
published 
book is the correct one to use.

Regards,

Oerjan
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."