Fighters as Interceptors?

[Diesel]

Of course, that does assume that opponents are going to be bringing on G'Quans. Not so sure that's a common occurance!

 

[Burger]

Well I do seem to remember a typo in one of the books that had a ship in the wrong priority level. So if we assume the author can't correctly put ships into the right priority level, I guess my opponent could claim his G'Quan is actually a Raid level ship...

 

[Democratus]

#2, I believe, is a good compromise - and it is gramatically correct as per the rulebook. I don't think more than one flight of fighters should be killed by a single weapon hit. It would take a seriously magic bullet to fly all around a ship and smack 18 fighters from the sky.

Especially since you can't have more than 4 fighters supporting a ship. Besides, if several fighters all go after the same incoming shot, they might roll a 1 and collide...

Each flight is 6 fighters. So killing only 3 flights is 18 fighters down. 4 flights destroyed would be 24 fighters out of action.

Raid G'Quans with hull 5, eh? You might be onto something there!

 

[AdrianH]

Armaageddon listed the Vorlon Heavy Cruiser's hull as 6 instead of 5.

So we can't rely on the author to correctly write down hull scores.

Next time my opponent brings on a G'Quan, I'm going to tell him it should be hull 5.

Presumably this was corrected in Armageddon (your own Ship Viewer lists the Heavy Cruiser's hull as 5 in the Armageddon section) and certainly was changed to 5 for 2e. Besides, I'm not the only player who routinely uses the Ship Viewer to generate fleet data sheets for games, so unless you "correct" the G'Quan to hull 5, your opponent may use your own data as evidence against you.

On the other hand, if we're going to use the rules exactly as written rather than note clarifications and revisions posted by the playtesters then next time I play Shadows, they're not waiting a turn between declaring and actually coming out of hyperspace. (The Fleet List only says they use "Initiate Jump Point" to enter hyperspace.) :lol:

 

[H]

Our group finally settled on #2, as #1 doesn't really reflect what is seen in the television show .

I have not been able to see fighters acting as interceptors on the show, and Idid quite a bit of looking at it during playtesting. Do you know which episodes it was seen in?

c'mon greg, you should know better, this opens up a "well you didn't see X" in the show did you lol..

we always play any 1's kill fighters, seems fair, as incoming fire is blinkin dangerous. Gramatically then i believe only 1 fighter per round of rolling is appropriate.

 

[Burger]

Armaageddon listed the Vorlon Heavy Cruiser's hull as 6 instead of 5.

So we can't rely on the author to correctly write down hull scores.

Next time my opponent brings on a G'Quan, I'm going to tell him it should be hull 5.

Presumably this was corrected in Armageddon (your own Ship Viewer lists the Heavy Cruiser's hull as 5 in the Armageddon section) and certainly was changed to 5 for 2e.

Yes it was officially stated as a typo.

Besides, I'm not the only player who routinely uses the Ship Viewer to generate fleet data sheets for games, so unless you "correct" the G'Quan to hull 5, your opponent may use your own data as evidence against you.

Thats a straw man if ever I saw one... my lists are definitely not official! In fact typos are being pointed out all the time. If someone tried to use my lists against me I would point to the book and say I'll correct the typo later.

 

[AdrianH]

So the game conversation goes something like this:

"The book has been known to be wrong about hull values in the past. That G'Quan should only have hull 5."

"But your own Ship Viewer gives it hull 6, so you agree with the book."

"The Ship Viewer is also sometimes wrong - look at the book."

"The book agrees that the G'Quan has hull 6. Fear my G'Quan. :lol:"

As for fighters and interceptors, there appear to be valid arguments both ways. I'll play according to whichever interpretation is favoured by the person running the tournament or hosting the game. But according to the thread in Rulesmasters:

Matt's last post in Rulesmasters was May 19th. His last ACTA-related Rulesmasters post was July 8th 2008. I think you're better off with a PM. Either that, or trust Triggy and Greg since they are the next best thing.

Greg?