> Jerry Han (ancestor to Li Han? ;-) ) wrote:
[Nice battle report snipped]
> One errata question (which I think has been addressed before,
Actually, there are rules saying both things - but not very explicitly
:-/
On p.73, "4A: Ship Selection", last paragraf: "...If a Fighter Screen is
defending the ship, start by resolving all combats between Fighter Groups (see
Dogfights on page 86). Finally, any Fighter Groups that have survived get
their chance to attack the ship..." This seems to say rather explicitly that
any attacking fighter that survived the dogfight with the fighter screen is
also allowed to attack the ship.
However, on p.86, "Fighter Screens", last paragraf, last two sentences: "Each
Fighter Group in the Fighter Screen must be engaged by at least one attacking
Fighter Group. Once this condition has been satisfied, any further uncommitted
attacking groups may fire on the escorted ship." This seems to imply that the
attacking Fighter Groups that have engaged the Fighter Screen may *not* also
attack the target ship.
> So, here's the $64 question: Can fighters that have engaged in and
I'd say no. The rules are contradictory, so logic can prevail :-)
Later,
> One errata question (which I think has been addressed before,
This
> seems to imply that the attacking Fighter Groups that have engaged the
This has been addressed in prior posts, and the answer is yes they can. The
two rules are not contradictory. One states that surviving fighter groups can
attack the escorted ship. The second rule states that once all screening
groups are in combat, that other groups may attack unhindered. Also the first
rule clearly states that a second attack exception can take place, while the
second rule does not say that it can't happen. Take the rule word for word in
this case.
> One errata question (which I think has been addressed before,
Only if they are ignoring the dogfight to go after the ship. (Gutsy or
suicidal depending on your POV, since you can't shoot the enemy squadron.)
This question has cropped up extremely regularly on the B5P list.
'Neath Southern Skies
> On Mon, 04 May 1998 01:30:24 -0400, Jerry Han <jhan@idigital.net> wrote:
> I don't know if this will prove useful to anybody; here's an
Sorry I missed it, Jerry. My parents came into Toronto and I took my Dad for
his radiation treatment at Princess Margaret. They ended up staying the whole
day at our place. I wanted to go to the con, but I wanted to be with my
parents even more (it's funny how finding out that a loved one has cancer
focuses your attention on what really matters). Maybe next year.
On Monday, May 04, 1998 7:48 PM, Oerjan Ohlson
> [SMTP:oerjan.ohlson@nacka.mail.telia.com] wrote:
So would I
The FB has fighter screens, IIRC if attackers engage in a dog fight they can't
attack that turn, I assume this is derivative of the EFSB rule. So I'd say
they can't attack the same turn they are engaged in a dog fight. Only
unengaged/non-dogfighting
ships can attack.
I'll add this to the FAQ
> Scott B. Jaqua wrote:
> >> So, here's the $64 question: Can fighters that have engaged in and
Actually, the answer is no. Here's the official word from Zeke at Wire Frame
Productions:
==== BEGIN QUOTED MESSAGES ====
From: zekespar@bev.net
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 10:59:50 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [BAB]: Fighters and Fighter Screena
> Ship A had a screen of 4 fighter groups (24 fighters) and was attacked
Ships
> 1,2, and B were too far away to be a factor in combat except for their
Yes, ship B's fighters can engage the attacking fighters. The enemy fighters
then have a choice to make, they can either ignore B's fighters and continue
to attack the ship, or they can break from their attack and engage B's
fighters in a normal dogfight. If they continue to attack the ship then B's
fighters get to shoot them up and they have to accept their losses without
returning fire. If they break the attack to engage B's fighters then they
dogfight as normal with B's fighters and no longer get to attack the cap ship.
> sense: B's fighters are going to just fly around and watch? But if
Yes a non-screening fighter group can do the same amount of damage
as a screening fighter group and possibly without fear of counterdamage.
However, you then run the risk of allowing enemy fighters to shoot at
your cap ship freely. The point of fighter screens is that they _force_
attacking fighters to engage them in dogfights. Before a cap ship can even be
shot at by attacking fighters, the attackers must first engage each fighter
screen with at least one group of fighters. Attacking fighters that are
engaged with screening fighters do not get the oppertunity to hit the cap ship
at all. In your given example where ship A dies in short order if ship B's
fighters had been screening ship A all 8 attacking fighter groups would have
had to engage screening fighter groups and the ship (A) would have taken no
damage at all from the attackers.
> How should this have been handled? Our other problem was more
Yes if you ignore your enemies fighters your ships will suffer. It is very
important that your fighters protect the slower moving cap ships from your
enemies fighters. Fighter support is crucial in the B5 universe and if a ship
gets swamped by fighters it usually goes down and fast (you don't want to
start the debate but I will note that I disagree with you on how effective
fighters are on the show).
> B's fighters can attack the enemy fighters and the enemy fighters must
The only difference between this and the way the rules are set up is that you
have screens blocking fighters on a fighter by fighter basis and the rules
have it on a group by group basis.
> This does -dramatically- reduce the effectiveness of fighters, but
Actually in your given example it increased the effectiveness of the attacking
fighters. One of the attacking fighters was allowed to hit the cap ship. In
the current rules the group of 4 screening fighters would have to be engaged
by at least one group of attacking fighters. As there is only one group
attacking it has to engage the screening fighters so all 5 fighters would be
blocked because they belong to the same group.
> Second question: when declaring targets for fighter groups, shouldn't
This is a much easier question to answer;). Yes you should alternate.
> Thanks..
Not a problem hope I cleared it up, if not just ask again.
- -Zeke Sparkes
WireFrame Productions, Inc.
- -
From: zekespar@bev.net
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 15:00:25 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [BAB]: Fighters and Fighter Screena
> If the players activated the A ship BEFORE the B fighters, the
The
> B fighters would have to wait until AFTER the attack on A to activate
Attacking fighters that are engaged by non-screening fighter groups
always have the option of breaking the attack and engaging their challengers.
This is decided immediatly after the group has been challenged. So as soon as
B's fighter groups target some of the enemy fighter groups the enemy player
decides if they will break and dogfight with B's fighter groups or continue
along their path towards the cap ship.
- -Zeke Sparkes
WireFrame Productions, Inc.
- -
From: zekespar@bev.net
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 10:24:13 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [BAB]: Re: the-babylon-project-l-digest V1 #743
> Thanks for the quick reply!
Not a problem.
> Okay, actually, we hunted in the rules for this but couldn't find it.
It seemed to us
> the rules said that screens would block only the 0-2 fighters they
But that's a much
> more minor thing.
I think I see where your confusion is coming from so let met try and help out
again. On page 86 (EF Sourcebook) first paragraph it says "Whenever a ship
with a Fighter Screen comes under attack from enemy Fighter Groups, the
attacking Fighter Groups must engage the Fighter Screen using the Dogfighting
rules before they may fire on the escorted ship." This simply means they have
to deal with the screens before they can begin to go after the ship, not that
they get a second action to hit the ship after they have a brief spat with the
screen. It goes on to say "Each Fighter Group in the Fighter Screen must be
engaged by at least one attacking Fighter Group. Once this condition has been
satisfied, any further uncommitted attacking groups may fire on the escourted
ship." the key there is "uncommitted attacking groups" which cancels any
groups that had to engage the fighter screens (minimum of on per). Yes it does
mean that a 1-fighter screen can block a 6-fighter screen attacking
group but on the flip side it means a 1-fighter attacking group can
engage a 6-fighter screen. The reason is because the game does not
track individual fighters and what they are doing it only follows them on a
group basis.
There is one other part I think might be adding to the problem so I'll go
ahead and mention it now:). Page 73, the last paragraph in 4A: Ship Selection.
It says "Finally, any Fighter Groups that have survived get their chance to
attack the ship (See Fighter Attacks on page 87)." It does not mean fighter
groups that survived dogfighting a screen now get to attack as well. It means
that any fighter groups that have survived
the entire turn (anti-fighter fire, fighters like B's fighters attacking
them ect.) and that were originally targeting the ship in question and not its
fighter screens get to unload.
> it says a lot for the system that simply by "trying to keep in the
I certinaly think so and I'm sure that Tuffley would be thrilled to hear
it :).
Hope I cleared up a bit more for you.
- -Zeke Sparkes
WireFrame Productions, Inc.
- -
Keith Watt Reply's
> >> So, here's the $64 question: Can fighters that have engaged in
The
> two rules are not contradictory. One states that surviving fighter
Ok, so I get to be wrong. Was this from the Babylon Project Mail List. If so,
can you give be an address, so I can subscribe. The information I based my
reply on was on this list about March 20th.
Scott -
> Scott B. Jaqua wrote:
> Ok, so I get to be wrong. Was this from the Babylon Project Mail List.
If
> so, can you give be an address, so I can subscribe. The information I
Yes it was from TBP. Here's the tag that gets added to all the messages:
..To unsubscribe, email the words "unsubscribe the-babylon-project-L"
to..