Below is a suggestion for a modified turn and PDAF/ADAF firing sequence.
Write orders Move Missiles Move Ships Move battle debris Move Fighters Fire
PDAF's and ADAF's at missiles and fighters Make attacks with fighters Make
attacks with ships Make missile attacks
Note the following points: 1 Any ship with PDAF systems can engage any enemy
fighters or missiles within 6" 2 Any ship with ADAF systems can engage any
enemy fighters or missiles within 12"
This system makes smaller ships quite handy as they can support the main
line of battle by contributing to anti fighter/missile defence. It also
makes missiles more managable and playable in the game.
> Write orders
I would agree with this except move the "Move Fighters" to before "Move Ships"
to be compatible with MT fighter rules.
> 1 Any ship with PDAF systems can engage any enemy fighters or missiles
I would like to see this rule change!
> Brian Bell writes:
@:) >Write orders @:) >Move Missiles @:) >Move Ships @:) >Move battle debris
@:) >Move Fighters @:) >Fire PDAF's and ADAF's at missiles and fighters @:)
>Make attacks with fighters @:) >Make attacks with ships @:) >Make missile
attacks
@:)
@:) I would agree with this except move the "Move Fighters" to before @:)
"Move Ships" to be compatible with MT fighter rules.
Note that the rule that this change would be compatible with is optional.
Fighters move after ships in the standard FT sequence of play.
> Darryl Hills wrote:
This sequence reminds me of the Traveller system. Actually, I prefer the FT
turn system the way it is with the optional fighter turn sequence. Changing
the this sequence will affect game play and tactics. The C-batt now is
no longer a defensive measure against fighters, only a retaliatory strike.
This sequence reminds me of the Traveller system. Actually, I prefer the FT
turn system the way it is with the optional fighter turn sequence. Changing
the this sequence will affect game play and tactics. The C-batt now is
no longer a defensive measure against fighters, only a retaliatory strike.