Re: Fighters and Hangers

Jared Hilal wrote:

> >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;
>
>FB1 and FB2 both specify that fighter attacks are allocated in step 6
>and dogfights ar resolved in step 7.  Seems quite clear that fighters
>cannot allocate their attacks to a dogfight that has not been resolved.

I'm sorry Jared, but you're trying to claim that "allocate attacks" and 
"fire" are the same thing - which they obviously can't be, since you do
the 
former only in phase 6 and the latter only in phases 7 and 8 :-/

Nothing in the rules prevents you from *allocating* attacks against
fighter 
groups currently involved in dogfights, any more than they prevent you
from 
allocating your B2 batteries against a target 40mu away. You just aren't

allowed to *resolve* those attacks - ie., *fire* - until the dogfight
has 
ended, so if the dogfight hasn't ended by the time you have to activate
the 
would-be-attacking fighter group(s) you forfeit those attacks just like 
you'd forfeit B2 shots against a target 40mu away since B2s can't reach 
further than 24mu. That's why the exact order in which you resolve the 
various types of fighter-vs-fighter combat is so important for this 
particular sleaziness.

Sounds stupid? Sure. Against the spirit of the rules? Yessirree. 
Unfortunately it isn't against the *letter* of the rules... and
munchkins 
invariably look at the letter of the rules, not their spirit.

(BTW, talking about the letter of the rules: you are aware that the FB1 
turn sequence stated that fighter groups should be moved close to their 
intended target when they declared their attacks, yes? <g>)

Regards,

Oerjan
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
-Hen3ry