Re: Fighters and Hangers

Ow. My head hurts.

Oerjan Ohlson wrote:

>> I'm not parsing this correctly...
>
>
> Not surprising, since the FT fighter-to-fighter rules are currently an

> unholy mess :-(
>

No kidding.

>> A dogfight is only when base to base?
>
>
> A *dogfight* is only when base-to-base. Unfortunately for your 
> parsing, fighters don't need to be in a dogfight to shoot at one
another.
>

So what's the difference between dogfighting and ranged combat? No, 
don't give me the snappy answer. Yes, thier bases are touching. So? So 
you've got different rules, why?

>> Fine... If Jack doesn't place his fighters in a dogfight, then I 
>> can't split fire. If he doesn't dogfight, then there's no dice to 
>> roll. No problems.
>
>
> Incorrect. Thanks to the screwed-up nature of the FT fighter rules, 
> there are currently three different types of fighter-to-fighter combat

> in the game:
>
> 1) Ranged combat (FT2 p.17): A fighter group can fire at any *one* 
> fighter group (no splitting fire) within 6 mu, as long as neither 
> group is involved in a dogfight or furball. Firing is done in 
> initiative order.
>

Why can't they split fire? I roll for each unit in a group on whether it

hit's or not, so they certainly aren't using a mutual targeting system. 
So why only one target at range?

> 2) Dogfight (FT2 p.17): One *single* fighter group is in base-to-base 
> contact with one *single* enemy fighter group. Both groups fire 
> simultaneously at one another, may only fire at one another (so still 
> no splitting fire, since there's only one enemy group in the 
> dogfight), and may not be fired at by any units outside the dogfight. 
> If one of the fighter groups attempt to leave the dogfight, the enemy 
> gets a free shot at it.
>

Doesn't work. Contradictory to rule 3?

> 3) Multi-group dogfight aka "furball" (FB1 p.6): A fighter group is in

> base-to-base contact with *more than one* enemy fighter group. As in 
> the dogfight none of the fighter groups involved may fire out of the 
> furball and no outside unit may fire into it and you can get shot in 
> the back if you try to leave early, BUT unlike the normal dogfight 
> firing is done in alternating initiative order (just as for ships and 
> ranged fighter combat) and the firing group may spread its attacks 
> evenly among those of the enemy groups in the furball it wants to 
> attack. (It may choose to attack only one single enemy groups.)
>

If a group is in a dogfight already (one group moves at a time) then 
according to rule 2, they can't be fired on by anyone else. OR, rule 3 
means that part of rule 2 is over-ruled, and makes other segments of 
rule 2 useless/impossible. (Can't fire at anyone else, simultanseous 
fire isn't)

So, either rule 2, or 3. Not both...

Argh, head hurts.

>
> Easy: Jack uses ranged fighter combat, not dogfighting...
>

Ok, that makes sense. With the above clarifications.

> There's an even nastier scenario for Bob if you resolve dogfights in 
> initiative order - ie., you resolve the dogfight when either player 
> activates his dogfighting group in the normal initiative sequence. 
> (The order in which you resolve dogfights isn't specified in the 
> rules; some groups resolve dogfights last instead, which avoids this 
> particular nastiness.) Here goes:
>
> Jack uses four individual fighters to lock each of Bob's four group 
> into dogfights (not furballs), leaving the remaining 20 of Jack's 
> fighters unengaged. Regardless of who won the initiative the dogfights

> are resolved before any other fighter fire - Jack chooses to activate 
> the dogfighting groups first, and Bob of course doesn't have a choice 
> since all of his fighters are tied up in dogfight. The fighters in 
> each of Bob's groups can only fire at the single fighter they're 
> dogfighting; they'll almost certainly destroy it, but since this is a 
> dogfight rather than a furball fire is simultaneous and that single 
> fighter will get to shoot back.
>
> Now comes the fun part: since they have destroyed their dogfight 
> opponents, Bob's fighters are *no longer involved in dogfights*... 
> which means that they are now legal ranged-combat targets for Jack's 
> 20 remaining fighters and will probably lose at least 15-16 fighters 
> in return for killing 4 of Jack's.
>

Um... no... I'd assume that a dogfight, since it _depends_ on 
base-to-base contact, it's declared in movement, not fire, phase. Which 
would mean it's effect would last through multiple phases, leading one 
to conclude rather easily that it lasts through one more phase (firing) 
intact.

> ***
> I've said it before and I'll say it again: The Full Thrust fighter 
> rules don't need to be *amended* - they need to be *completely
replaced*.
>
Amen.

Rand.