I had an unusual situation come up the other day and while what's done is
done, neither side is entirely comfortable with it. I'd like to get a
consensus on the best way to play it.
I'll set the scene with a simplified but fairly accurate analogy.
I'm the NAC and have a squadron of destroyers and a fleet carrier. My opponent
is the ESU. My fighters are interceptors and his are attack fighters.
Obviously, I wish to use my fighters to protect my ships from his fighters.
However, I have many small ships and so I cannot screen all my ships.
On turn 3, say, he moves a group designated A to attack a destroyer. I move a
group of interceptors designated 1 into base to base contact to initiate a
dogfight. (We play that he must dogfight; is this generally agreed upon
?).
Both sides have fighters surviving after the dogfight.
On turn 4, his fighters wish to break from the dogfight to attack a new
target. The NAC interceptor group 1 takes a free round of attacks at ESU
attack fighter group A before they move (free meaning they are not retaliated
upon, it does cost combat endurance). Group A moves away, into an attack
position. Group 1 is free to follow, and moves into base to base contact with
A again. (I assumed 1 was free to follow. Any dissenters
?)
Is this a dogfight, or is Group A free to attack? (I would say A is free to
attack, 1 cannot attack A. Had 1 moved into contact with a different group B,
same story).
ESU attack fighter group A also has an even juicier target just outside of
range. A expends combat endurance to reach attack range for that target, then
more to attack it.
Does A come under attack for leaving base to base contact with NAC interceptor
group 1? (I said yes).
Can the NAC interceptors burn combat endurance to maintain base to base
contact with Group 1? (I said yes).
This was an interesting conundrum. I'd always assumed that if there was
fighter parity, fighters would effectively cancel each other out. If one side
had interceptors and fighter numbers were equal, the interceptors were more
than capable of blunting the enemy fighter attack. What this sequence
indicated was that the interceptors would get two attacks on the enemy
fighters before the enemy could attack a target ship, but as long as the enemy
was willing to flee a dogfight to make its attack run, it would indeed make
the attack run.
> Tom McCarthy wrote:
Well, I'll let you in on what we do 'round here.
Background item: Fighters do not have ranged fire, they must be in base to
base to make an attack.
If an attack fighter moved to attack a ship and was intercepted the attack
fighter has only two options: attack the ship or dogfight. If dogfight:
resolve normally. If ship attack: the defending fighters fire and kills are
removed, then the surviving attack fighters carry out the attack on the ship.
FTFB section on endurance: I see no reason why the fighters could not persue
the fleeing attack fighters except, out of endurance or intercepted by fighter
friends of the attack crowd.
Bye for now,
> On turn 3, say, he moves a group designated A to attack a destroyer. I
If they were screening the ship, then there would be no need to "move" them.
Interception would be automatic. "Whenever a ship that is being escorted by a
fighter screen comes under attack from enemy fighters, the attacking group(s)
MUST engage the screening fighters using the DOGFIGHTING rules instead of
attacking the ship that turn." FB p.6
> On turn 4, his fighters wish to break from the dogfight to attack a new
"1" is free to follow, though by doing so, he may no longer be screening
his ship - if he is over 3" away. "...the fighter group must remain
within 3" of the ship it is escorting at all times." FB p.6
> Is this a dogfight, or is Group A free to attack ? (I would say A is
This is a DOGFIGHT. See example from FT p. 17
"B" might not be the same story, depending on whether they've moved or not.
"If one player moves his Group into base contact with an enemy Group and the
opponent does not wish to dogfight, he may move his group away provided it has
not already moved that turn; if he does this, however, the attacking Group
gets a free round of attack rolls before contact is broken." FT p.17
> ESU attack fighter group A also has an even juicier target just outside
Yes. See above.
> Can the NAC interceptors burn combat endurance to maintain base to base
Yes again. However, keep in mind that fighter movement alternates. In theory,
the initiative could go against "1," if the initiative rules are being used.
> This was an interesting conundrum. I'd always assumed that if there
So long as the group is being engaged in a dogfight, as I see it, they cannot
continue with their attack. However, if they can free themselves of those
pesky interceptors, then they're good to go.
The material Schoon quotes suggests no dogfights are in existence at the start
of each turn. Is this a common interpretation?
> The material Schoon quotes suggests no dogfights are in existence at
Not entirely true. A dogfight keeps going till one side decides to leave and
take the "parting shot" is how I read it.
They can start the turn in dogfight status (if that's how they ended last
turn) but then they adhere to the Fighter-toFighter Combat rules (FT
p.17).
"...he may move his Group away provided it has not already moved that turn; if
he does this, however, the attacking Group gets a free round of attack rolls
before contact is broken."
From: Sean Bayan Schoonmaker <schoon@aimnet.com>
> A dogfight keeps going till one side decides to leave
Which brings me back to the point of contention. Can the attacking Group
follow (assuming it hasn't moved yet this turn)? Can it initiate another
dogfight? With the same group?
> Which brings me back to the point of contention. Can the attacking
I've been debating this in my head (a fierce battle). Since a fighter group
can move then dogfight, can it not dogfight and then move? If it does DF and
then move, at least it should not be allowed another attack (no 2 attacks in
one turn).
In the end, my own feelings are that the round after the DF, one group breaks
off, the other gets a parting shot (no debate there) but that is
it -
no move that turn. It gets the benefit of firing at a target that does not
return fire and thus can not move.
In other words, once a fighter group initiates a DF, it can no longer move
that turn. The opposing fighter group can A) accept the DF and fire back, or
B) break off and take parting shots from the attacking group (as long it had
not already moved). We agree that this happens in turn 1 when contact and the
DF is first initiated. OK, now in turn 2 when both groups have survivors, the
groups are still in contact but no longer in a DF unless at least 1 of the
groups declares the DF to still be on. This way both groups can move if they
want to (and the 2nd group could move back into contact with the 1st for
another DF). But if 1 of the groups declares it is still a dogfight, that
group can no longer move (it used its movement to declare the
DF).
So from Tom's original message:
> On turn 4, his fighters wish to break from the dogfight to attack a
I would say no, group 1 was not free to follow since its movement was used to
initiate the dogfight in this round, from which group 4 broke off giving group
1 the parting shots.
OK, somebody find the flaws in my argument since I've been known to screw up
fighter rules before.
> Which brings me back to the point of contention. Can the attacking
I would say "yes." IF the other group hasn't moved yet. Remember that players
alternate moving groups. I would also say that icludes saying,
"I
pass with this group."
> Which brings me back to the point of contention. Can the attacking
[snipped Dean's good arguement]
Dean has an excellent point that I hadn't considered. Dogfighting taking a
group's move. I'd tend to agree with that. I'd say that the group might be
able to expend endurance for their secondary move, however. Thus the
"escaping" group could move up to 24" away, and the "pursuing" group could
only take a secondary move of up to 12" using 1 endurance point.
Sounds reasonable. Have I botched this anywhere obvious?
In a message dated 7/2/99 9:18:55 AM EST, dean.gundberg@noridian.com
writes:
<<
I've been debating this in my head (a fierce battle). Since a fighter group
can move then dogfight, can it not dogfight and then move? If it does DF and
then move, at least it should not be allowed another attack (no 2 attacks in
one turn).
> [quoted text omitted]
I would say NO. The reason is that a dogfight shatters the fighter's cohesion.
When they break off from the engagement the six fighters may be headed at full
thorttle in six entirely different directions. They need to form up assess
damage, get oriented and move out IN formation towards their objective. They
may also have fuel concerns at the end of the fight. Move to dogfight, fine!
dogfight then move as a formation, no way!
> In other words, once a fighter group initiates a DF, it can no longer
> OK, somebody find the flaws in my argument since I've been known to
I attack with a set of torpedo fighters (a single ptorp on each fighter IIRC).
I get attacked by interceptors more the 3" from the target ship (they're not
screening). By some miracle the majority of my torpedo squadron survive a
round of DF.
[p17 of main rulebook - 'If one player moves his Group into
base contact with an enemy group and the opponent does not wish to DF, he may
move away if he has not already moved')
If the interceptors move first next turn, then the torpedo fighters may leave
( and the interceptors get a free shot at them, but may not pursue
)
If the torpedo fighters move first, they move away without any fire from the
interceptors. However, the interceptors may pursue as their movement
and re-engage the torpedo fighters in DF.
The question of using combat endurance to continue the fight means that AFTER
all normal ships have moved, then the fighters get the option to
move again - and if the two groups are again in base-to-base contact the
situation remains that as above.
In summary A fighter fleeing from a DF may be fired upon, but not pursued (the
attacking fighters used their movement to re-initiate DF)
DF needs to be reinitiated each turn. If the defending fighters move before
the attackers, they are not fired upon, but may be pursued (an reengaged if
the attackers are faster)
Therefore, a fast group could move first, flee their full move, and get from
standard fighters who can't keep up.
> In summary
This was the real sticking point in my head. I re-wrote my prior
comments several times and was still not happy with how it turned out. Though
I said
the dogfight needed to be re-initiated each turn, I don't think the
groups
go back to an un-engaged status at the end of the turn. My current
thought on this is no, the attacking fighters should still get a parting shot
since the bases were still in contact at the beginning of the turn.
After 1 round of dogfighting, I think the status of the 2 fighter groups is
somewhere in between "engaged in a dogfight" and "no dogfight initiated at
all". When the defenders move first and decides to break away, now its the
attackers turn for a choice; A) declare the DF over move where he wants to,
including following the defending fighters, or B) declare DF still in effect
and take parting shots (even though it is the defenders turn, I think the
attacker still has a some say in the matter since bases are still in contact).
I see it like a bar room fight, its not over as long as one side wants to
continue (sure there are exceptions to this but in general, the fight does not
stop until one side is elimiated or both sides decide to stop).
I know I could really be reaching on this one. Are these arguments still valid
or do you want an initiative roll to allow a group to break away from a
dogfight without the attackers getting parting shots?
> From: Sean Bayan Schoonmaker <schoon@aimnet.com>
I see no reason why not. Provided the pursuers can catch the fleeing group
(ie: assuming they are not a slower type of fighter), then I would think they
can attack again. Looked at in "real" terms, what happens is that one group
disengages, giving their opponents a clear ("free") shot at their turned
tails, then the other group decides to pursue and finish them off
-
for the sake of game mechanics, assume they catch up to them wherever the
first group finish their move, and another brief furball ensues. Maybe if you
want to give the fleeing group a chance to get away altogether, you might
choose to allow THEM to burn a CEF for an additional move if they want, while
denying the pursuers the chance to do this (perhaps on the PSB
that they've had to spend a little time re-organising themselves after
the
first dogfight, and are thus a little way behind the escaping group) -
but that's just an idea......
> Tom McCarthy wrote:
> From: Sean Bayan Schoonmaker <schoon@aimnet.com>
Page 17 of Full Thrust 2 ed. last column states that if a group breaks away
from a dogfight the other may take a parting shot, then move as normal, but
*may not* attack a second time that turn. One attack by a fighter group per
turn.
> If the defending fighters move before the attackers, they are not
I would think that moving from a dogfight incurs the "free hit" rule (FT p.17)
regardless of when it's done.