supporting Fighters in ACTA

[Burger]

You have a ship with 4 fighters supporting it in a battle, so that it can protect any incoming fighter attacks against the Cap.

Can a supporting flight attack the enemy fighters, or Caps if they are in range during fighter attack phase (We know they cannot move since they are supporting)?

We have looked in the Rules, and SFOS. There is no rule, or conditions to say they cant!

 

[Reaverman]

Wow, I thought someone would have said something?

 

[Greg Smith]

I can't see any reason why not. Although any fighters in range of supporting fighters' guns will also likely be in range of the supported ship's guns - which are likely to be far more deadly.

 

[Reaverman]

I can't see any reason why not. Although any fighters in range of supporting fighters' guns will also likely be in range of the supported ship's guns - which are likely to be far more deadly.

I was thinking more like ships with no other weapons in arcs P, S, and A. The Drazi being one example, keep the fighters in support role. But dont commit them to a dog fight, use some 'Longer Range' weapons.

Another good example, is the Vorlon fighter. Keep it snug under the Vorlon ship, and you have Charged pulse and a 2AD Beam/Precise/AA weapon to put a dent on any fighters or Caps that are passing too close.

 

[Greg Smith]

Again, I don't see why not. They are still supporting the ship by lending it their guns.

 

[katadder]

except if the attacking fighters are going after the capital ship then the fighters on CAP have to dogfight as thats their purpose, intercept enemy fighters. if the fighters are going after ur fighters on CAP then dont see a reason why cant shoot back.

 

[Reaverman]

except if the attacking fighters are going after the capital ship then the fighters on CAP have to dogfight as thats their purpose, intercept enemy fighters. if the fighters are going after ur fighters on CAP then dont see a reason why cant shoot back.

Yeah, I just noticed that it says the "Supporting fighters must engage". But I am allowed to engage any number of the supporting fighters, agains the flight

 

[katadder]

yep, you dont have to engage with all yoru fighters but if only one enemy flight comes in why wouldnt you?

 

[Burger]

OK, what about this situation:

My fighters are supporting my capital ship. I win initiative.

An enemy fighter comes within 2" of my fighters, but does not dogfight. From what Greg has said, my fighters can fire on it (although it would get a dodge since I am not in dogfight).

The enemy fighter survives, and chooses to attack my capital ship. Do I still move to intercept and dogfight?

 

[Ripple]

Since we are on fighter flights in support could we also clear up how you go off support? Right now you go on support by moving onto a friendly bases, but nothing governs coming off support. When is that declared. Oddly came up when a ship all stopped, and I did not know if I had to declare the fighters were on or off support, or even if you could just declare off support and leave the fighters behind.

Other fighter in support question. Matt has stated that fighter flights cannot stack but the support rules have four fighters on a base and/or a fighter supporting another flight. Can the flights stack to be in support of each other or do they end up next to each other?

Ripple

 

[Wulf Corbett]

An enemy fighter comes within 2" of my fighters, but does not dogfight. From what Greg has said, my fighters can fire on it (although it would get a dodge since I am not in dogfight).

The enemy fighter survives, and chooses to attack my capital ship. Do I still move to intercept and dogfight?

This is the problem I have with Support fighters firing. Fighters can't fire twice in one Turn except in a Dogfight (I attack you, you survive, you attack back). But if you fire first, you shouldn't then get to attack me in a Dogfight...

For that reason, I say fighters on Support do not get to fire - they are saving their fire for interception.

Wulf

 

[Greg Smith]

You are probably correct, Wulf.

I think I assumed that the instance being discussed was when the supporting fighter could fire but the enemy fighter was not in range of attacking the ship, ie a t-bolt supporting and a nial 3" away. The nial isn't a danger to the ship, but it still in range of the t-bolt's missiles.

 

[Reaverman]

You are probably correct, Wulf.

I think I assumed that the instance being discussed was when the supporting fighter could fire but the enemy fighter was not in range of attacking the ship, ie a t-bolt supporting and a nial 3" away. The nial isn't a danger to the ship, but it still in range of the t-bolt's missiles.

Exactly

 

[Wulf Corbett]

I think I assumed that the instance being discussed was when the supporting fighter could fire but the enemy fighter was not in range of attacking the ship, ie a t-bolt supporting and a nial 3" away. The nial isn't a danger to the ship, but it still in range of the t-bolt's missiles.

That's true, but another fighter could attack the ship, and then the supporting fighter... can't support.

Wulf

 

[Reaverman]

I think I assumed that the instance being discussed was when the supporting fighter could fire but the enemy fighter was not in range of attacking the ship, ie a t-bolt supporting and a nial 3" away. The nial isn't a danger to the ship, but it still in range of the t-bolt's missiles.

That's true, but another fighter could attack the ship, and then the supporting fighter... can't support.

Wulf

But the rules do not say anything about that

 

[katadder]

think the easiest solution and the one we will probably get is that fighters flying CAP cant fire on anyone, they just intercept fighters attacking their parent ship. however the flip side of this i think is that if they are flying CAP they shouldnt be targetable by enemy weapons as they are too close to the parent ship, this is to stop those opportunistic vorlons not firing on the parent ship and wiping out all fighters flying CAP.

 

[Wulf Corbett]

But the rules do not say anything about that

It's true, there's nothing specific about allowing fighters to act twice in this manner. But it does mean allowing two attacks. I await an official ruling...

Wulf

 

[Wulf Corbett]

think the easiest solution and the one we will probably get is that fighters flying CAP cant fire on anyone, they just intercept fighters attacking their parent ship. however the flip side of this i think is that if they are flying CAP they shouldnt be targetable by enemy weapons as they are too close to the parent ship, this is to stop those opportunistic vorlons not firing on the parent ship and wiping out all fighters flying CAP.

No, I can't agree there. Firing on CAP (CSP?) fighters seems quite reasonable. After all, the fighters get their Dodge, and the enemy isn't firing on the ship they're supporting (so they are, in a way, still doing their job).

Wulf

 

[lastbesthope]

It has always been my understanding thatescorting fighters forego their normal move and attack phase.

However, as for moving fighters off escort, you simply declare that they are doing so when you move the ship being escorted, and leave them where they were until the fighter movement phase.

LBH