Lord David the Denied
Mongoose
Yeah, maybe, but either way the Kothas have created an opportunity to destroy your fighters, and let's face it, Kothas are worthless otherwise.
Shadow Fighters - Just why
- Thread starter Da Boss
- Start date
Sulfurdown
Mongoose
Not a turn. It's probably going to take longer then that and it's also possible for the kotha's to support kotha's (they get that many of them) so when you fire - your back to a 50/50 and then the next turn if you survive, you're going to have to bug out or face the rest you didn't kill.katadder said:
Problem is that you are now open to attack from the ship as well as the fighter you are attacking. Next turn you either move away or the escorting flights move out to dogfight you. Makes shadow fighters pretty unscary really. Way too easy to counter.katadder said:
Now if the were no dogfights, fighters just fired at each other with dogfight score modifying dodge. Shadow fighters will work as their shields would work. You would need 8 Kotha to take one out or more. At least 2 Aurora's to make sure you have a good chance of getting it.
daishi
Mongoose
Scenario/Tourney -
Add another flight per wing.
Allow Shield to work versus AF/AAF
Increase the Dogfight score
Campaign -
Eliminate the double cost for ancient fighters
Add Carrier 1 trait to the Shadow Ship (Young/Ancient)
I think these sound reasonable but I would remove increasing dogfight score & change carrier 1 to fleet carrier. Shadow fighters seem more like drones to me & if you removed the mother ship then you remove some of its enhanced ability granted by fleet carrier dogfight bonus
Add another flight per wing.
Allow Shield to work versus AF/AAF
Increase the Dogfight score
Campaign -
Eliminate the double cost for ancient fighters
Add Carrier 1 trait to the Shadow Ship (Young/Ancient)
I think these sound reasonable but I would remove increasing dogfight score & change carrier 1 to fleet carrier. Shadow fighters seem more like drones to me & if you removed the mother ship then you remove some of its enhanced ability granted by fleet carrier dogfight bonus
katadder said:
As soon as you start playing this way you will loose.
Regarding this special example:
There will be many more Kothas than Shadow fighters - maybe even a Patrol ship with AF + shields + weapons with 8" to 15" range. To win the Abbai player just has to keep his ship and fighters close together.
Even if you kill one Kotha with shooting you will get return fire from any near ship ( if the Kotha was near a ship what will be normal if you know there is a Shadow fighter in the near ). Remember : the Shadow fighter has to get close.
If you move your fighter second you can get into shooting range - yep. The second turn you have to move first and run because otherwise some other Kothas will get into dogfight with you and will be pinned = toast Even if you survie the dogfight against multiple Kothas you won't be able to move and be around in the shooting phase for the ship again :roll:
Sorry for the spelling ...
katadder said:
Well deplete the shields a bit
Do remember that if the Abai are using a Patrol level escort they can add their AF to their fighters so in a say 3 pt patrol game (possible in a scenario)
you have 6 fighters (absolutetly no choice)
they could have 8 fighters and two escorts (with shields and AF) or 16 fighters and 1 escort
Other races can do the same: (and obviously any league fleet can take advantage of this)
Drazi - Guardhawk and Star Snakes - a nasty combination?
It still comes down to the fact that the Sahdow Fighter is THE ONLY choice at this level and I don't agree (nor do others here) that you should not be competative in a campaign at lower levels - that penailises the Player not the race................
and in said 3pt patrol game the minbari can get a torotha and 2 nials. the nials are outnumbered so even their vaunted dogfight +3 isnt going to help, and if they attack the enemy ships they are in a worse position than the shadow fighter for taking AF fire. after all that they even do half the damage a shadow fighter can do (or less due to abbai patrol ships being hull 4 so the shadows need 3s to hit the minbari need 4s).
shadows are not the only fleet with low PL problems and thats just the way it is.
shadows are not the only fleet with low PL problems and thats just the way it is.
Well Minbari can go with just 6 Nials or 6 Tishat or 12 Flyers or any combination of those.
I dont think that 2 Nials per Patrol point is such a bad thing. And its a very good change from 1e.
Plus a single Torotha isnt that bad a ship. Good stealth, good firepower, good speed.
I dont think that 2 Nials per Patrol point is such a bad thing. And its a very good change from 1e.
Plus a single Torotha isnt that bad a ship. Good stealth, good firepower, good speed.
Locutus9956
Mongoose
wait wait wait... you can use the escort trait to protect FIGHTERS?! If so, then frankly, cool but not sure you can actually do this?
Sulfurdown
Mongoose
katadder said:
Not necessarily doing half the Damage, Shadow Fighter fire is subject to target hull and interceptor fire. That means that the effectiveness of Nial or Shadow Fighter versus capital ships is dependent on the target and I think really balances out. The Shadow Fighter is very good at taking down low hull ships without interceptors or any amount of anti-fighter. And you're right that the Shadows aren't alone, the Ancients don't have anything below Armageddon-2 value.
thanks - am intending to they are part of my Darkness Rising project (bit of madness really but keeps my occupied)- so trying bits of that out at present - just tried Psi Corps / minbari against EA / Shadows - had to make a few changes after that - plus I misused the Shadow Carrier I was trying to test :roll:
hmm grammar / Spelling is not my strong point - sorry will check it
they are part of my Darkness Rising project (bit of madness really but keeps my occupied)- so trying bits of that out at present - just tried Psi Corps / minbari against EA / Shadows - had to make a few changes after that - plus I misused the Shadow Carrier I was trying to test :roll: hmm grammar / Spelling is not my strong point - sorry will check it
lastbesthope
Mongoose
Da Boss said:hmm grammar / Spelling is not my strong point - sorry will check it
If you meant to say:
"You are better off with a Maximus" then it should indeed be "You're" not "Your"
"You're" means "You are"
Your implies second person possesive (or something like that) e.g.
Da Boss might say "LBH, thanks for your post, it really cleared it up for me"
LBH
Sulfurdown
Mongoose
And just today I was called a Grammar Nazi, good to know I'm not alone!!
aqp.accounts
Mongoose
Da Boss said:thanks - am intending to
Speaking of Darkness Rising, do you have a webpage with all the toys/rules you have made? I keep an eye on your posts, but I am sure a few have snuck through, and I am most likely not the only one who would like to see all of your madness.
AQP
