From: Beth Fulton <beth.fulton@m...>
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 13:40:48 +1100
Subject: RE: excrutiatingly detailed fighter/missile interaction sequence
G'day, > Something that raised a lot of Actually we interpreted the FB1 sequence to run like this when a missile attacks (it seems pretty clear, at least to us): 1) Allocate any missile attacks and fighter interceptions 2) Screening and intercepting fighters attack the missiles (order not important) 3) All PDS from target ships and covering ADFC ships allocated and then resolved (order not important as once allocated they can't be used elsewhere anyway whether they were actually need to bring down the missile or not... at least that's the way we play it). 4) Any surviving missiles attack > Shouldn't interceptors be more effective against missiles, While it doesn't say so in FB1 we do apply the "interceptors add 1 to their roll...attack fighters must roll a 6" etc to attacking missiles not just dogfights. Its worked just fine for us, so if you want to play it that way it doesn't seem to mess anything up. > We assumed that screening fighters can act normally without breaking When you say act normally, do you mean dogfight/intercept missiles coming into attack the ship they are escorting? If yes then I'd agree. However, we do say that if they use their secondary move to get into a dogfight/missile intercept then they've broken away from the ship they were screening (as they've moved more than 3" from the ship they are escorting) and can't just move with it next turn. > Fighters attacking other fighters at long range attack before I'm sorry I don't quite understand what you mean here? For fighters to attack fighters they have to dogfight (its just the name given to any fighter vs fighter action) - you allocate who is fighting who and where based on initiative, but there are no "long range attacks" per se. > Oh, and a slight contradiction. I know you were only using human stuff, but even then I'd say FB2 overrules FT regardless. Cheers