Sulfurdown
Mongoose
Technically that would be dicekeeping, not bookkeeping!Locutus9956 said:
Shadow Fighters - Just why
- Thread starter Da Boss
- Start date
This thread wasn't dead, it was only sleeping.
I don't think allowing shields to work in dogfights is the answer. Not because it adds bookkeeping, but because it adds exceptions. At the moment the rule is simple: "no traits work in dogfights". If it were changed it would be "no traits work in dogfights... except shields". Exceptions are bad.
I don't think allowing shields to work in dogfights is the answer. Not because it adds bookkeeping, but because it adds exceptions. At the moment the rule is simple: "no traits work in dogfights". If it were changed it would be "no traits work in dogfights... except shields". Exceptions are bad.
Locutus9956
Mongoose
Sulfurdown said:
Technically wrong (in necromancy the mancy part is just refering to 'magic' not the bringing back from the dead)
Necroforuming would probably be more accurate
Sulfurdown
Mongoose
Biding it's time....Burger said:
There actually already is quasi-exceptions to the dogfighting with the Anti-Fighter score - but I agree with you Burger, dogfighting should avoid exceptions like the plague.
Standard slang seems to be threadomancy... but I like Necroforuming better...Locutus9956 said:Sulfurdown said:
Technically wrong (in necromancy the mancy part is just refering to 'magic' not the bringing back from the dead)
Necroforuming would probably be more accurate
Locutus9956
Mongoose
well foruming isnt latin or greek (Im not actually sure which 'mancy' comes from) (at least the 'ing' part isnt but I'm sure someone geekier than me will find out a proper latin term for 'posting' or 'discussion')
but I'm sure someone geekier than me will find out a proper latin term for 'posting' or 'discussion')Locutus9956
Mongoose
Burger said:
as I said, Forum I know is Latin but forumING isnt. In fact Im fairly sure its horribly grammatically wrong but it was the best I could think of besides Necroposting (which is mainly english)
Locutus9956
Mongoose
cant see whatever it is, maybe blocked by the stupid filter here that seems to have become alot more psychotic lately....
EDIT: seems to be working now... how odd...
PS. Rofl :lol:
EDIT: seems to be working now... how odd...
PS. Rofl :lol:
Locutus9956
Mongoose
awww... back on topic, how boring 
Anyway:
My suggestion, dont change em in any way but let shadow ships regrow them for free after battles in campaign play.
Anyway:
My suggestion, dont change em in any way but let shadow ships regrow them for free after battles in campaign play.
Sulfurdown
Mongoose
That doesn't change anything for the scenario play and Tourney players. Which is why I suggested the +1/wing, Shield vs AF & "Pilot Drone"- two boost the in scenario game by bringing it to an anti-ship capacity per wing and compensates for the range (hopefully not too much) and the other boosts the campaign game (again - hopefully not too much).Locutus9956 said:awww... back on topic, how boring
Anyway:
My suggestion, dont change em in any way but let shadow ships regrow them for free after battles in campaign play.
Locutus9956
Mongoose
I know it doesnt, but to be frank I dont see it as a problem for tournament and scenario players! Its a little weak maybe but not that big a deal.
The shadow fighters only REAL problem in my eyes is the prohibitive cost of replacing losses in campaign play!
The shadow fighters only REAL problem in my eyes is the prohibitive cost of replacing losses in campaign play!
Clanger
Mongoose
Same with the Vorlon fighters in campaign play they cost a lot. Also Vorlons do not get ships that carry fighters. They have to buy them as patrols.
So Shadow players should stop moaning, at least they get ships that carry fighters (and scouts). Which the Vorlons do not. The Shadow players are not hard done by...the Vorlons are hard done by .
So Shadow players should stop moaning
, at least they get ships that carry fighters (and scouts). Which the Vorlons do not. The Shadow players are not hard done by...the Vorlons are hard done by .Clanger said:Same with the Vorlon fighters in campaign play they cost a lot. Also Vorlons do not get ships that carry fighters. They have to buy them as patrols.
So Shadow players should stop moaning
You will have to consider that you get 2 fighters for buying a PL War level ship and 6 for Armageddon.
Considering campaign refits both races get almost the same level of figther updates - i would personally say that Vorlons get a little bit more because the Transport is Skirmish, the Scout Raid. Just regarding the total numbers of ships/cost per ship you will have more Transports than Scouts ...
IMHO it feels strange for both ancient races to pay double RR for fighters that do not regenerate or are "coming back" from a trait ... maybe that's only me :roll:
Ah well if we are going carry on the debate
Vorlons - now have a great fighter - "Clanger" -you watched the game last night - did I bother getting any fighters out - no - cos they would have been immediately slaughtered by Nials and /or AAF and cost a fortune to get back................
Scouts / Carriers - as you know I would like the Vorlons to have one but Matt has said that is not going to happen....................
Reasons why your fighters are better:
3 per wing rather than 2
3 " range which means you can ignore AF or even AAF
its a precise beam!
it has Advanced Anti fighter to make it win dogfights
reasons Shadow fighters are better :roll: err -
it can come out of hyperspace - may be handy if able to use against none defended ships and the scenario allows.
its got a 1 pt shield if someone fires a main gun against it
Its "free" with a War or armagedon ship - well no actually, as I understand it this capacity is factored in the value of the ship like carrier?
As I have said before make them a proper bomber (more range) like this
or give them more flights per wing and/or make the above ships fleet carriers
Shadow Fighter Patrol (2 flights per Wing)
The polarity cannon mounted in the nose of this craft is incredibly powerful and its pulses can easily rip through the armour of the largest capital ship. Other fighter craft engaging these ships are usually advised to rely on their own agility to evade these devastating blasts and engage as quickly as possible. Like all Shadow vessels, these fighters have the ability to phase in and out of hyperspace at will, effectively making them jump-capable, an enormous advantage for so small a craft to possess.
Speed: 12, Turns: SM, Hull: 5, Damage: -, Crew: -, Troops: -,
Dogfighting: +0, Craft: - ,
Special Rules: Atmospheric, Dodge 4+, Fighter,
Weapon Range Arc AD Special
Polarity Cannon 6 T 4 AP, Double Damage
however I think both sides of this argument are too far apart to bridge.
Vorlons - now have a great fighter - "Clanger" -you watched the game last night - did I bother getting any fighters out - no - cos they would have been immediately slaughtered by Nials and /or AAF and cost a fortune to get back................
Scouts / Carriers - as you know I would like the Vorlons to have one but Matt has said that is not going to happen....................
Reasons why your fighters are better:
3 per wing rather than 2
3 " range which means you can ignore AF or even AAF
its a precise beam!
it has Advanced Anti fighter to make it win dogfights
reasons Shadow fighters are better :roll: err -
it can come out of hyperspace - may be handy if able to use against none defended ships and the scenario allows.
its got a 1 pt shield if someone fires a main gun against it
Its "free" with a War or armagedon ship - well no actually, as I understand it this capacity is factored in the value of the ship like carrier?
As I have said before make them a proper bomber (more range) like this
or give them more flights per wing and/or make the above ships fleet carriers
Shadow Fighter Patrol (2 flights per Wing)
The polarity cannon mounted in the nose of this craft is incredibly powerful and its pulses can easily rip through the armour of the largest capital ship. Other fighter craft engaging these ships are usually advised to rely on their own agility to evade these devastating blasts and engage as quickly as possible. Like all Shadow vessels, these fighters have the ability to phase in and out of hyperspace at will, effectively making them jump-capable, an enormous advantage for so small a craft to possess.
Speed: 12, Turns: SM, Hull: 5, Damage: -, Crew: -, Troops: -,
Dogfighting: +0, Craft: - ,
Special Rules: Atmospheric, Dodge 4+, Fighter,
Weapon Range Arc AD Special
Polarity Cannon 6 T 4 AP, Double Damage
however I think both sides of this argument are too far apart to bridge.
ShopKeepJon
Mongoose
This is just an idea based on an idle comment made way back in this thread.
It seems to me that all of the perceived problems with the Shadow Fighters could be solved by just making them normal ships. Remove the fighter trait, give them one point of damage, allow two per Patrol choice and leave everything else as is.
This would keep the fluff of "we don't do fighters," and would alleviate the problem of being lousy at dogfighting and vulnerable to anti-fighter.
I know that this is too big a change to readily implement in the actual rules (and may be completely broken in actual play), but it seems like a very interesting idea to try out...
ShopKeepJon
It seems to me that all of the perceived problems with the Shadow Fighters could be solved by just making them normal ships. Remove the fighter trait, give them one point of damage, allow two per Patrol choice and leave everything else as is.
This would keep the fluff of "we don't do fighters," and would alleviate the problem of being lousy at dogfighting and vulnerable to anti-fighter.
I know that this is too big a change to readily implement in the actual rules (and may be completely broken in actual play), but it seems like a very interesting idea to try out...
ShopKeepJon
