Tzarevitch said:
P.S. I forgot one more thing for my suggested fighter shield rule clarification in my earlier post. If the fighter is used as an interceptor, a failed intercept roll counts as 1 hit on the shield. Hits from failed interceptor rolls are always applied to fighters with down shields first (i.e the shadow player cannot spread the damage to fighters with fresh shields first to keep them all alive longer). For example, a shadow ship is holding 2 fighters back to act as interceptors. The first failed intercept roll takes down the shield of fighter A. The second failed roll destroys A completely. The third failed roll then is applied to B knocking its shields down.
The logic of this is, if the shadow fighter can take a heavy plasma cannon on its shield and not be destroyed, it should not be automatically lost when taking the same hit as an interceptor although a further clarification is needed to prevent shadow players from abusing shielded fighters and getting near-limitless interceptors. Effectively each shadow fighter counts in some ways as 2 fighters which is in keeping with their cost over say Goriths acting in the same role.
Yes, this would fall into making sense for the shields, but also pushes the shadow fighter into a different role than it was intended. Further, it makes a bit (although minor) more book-keeping or failed-interceptor-hit-shields tokens on the table. If adding shield effects to fighters as interceptors, we should also incorporate the shields into dogfighting like Anti-fighter is involved in dogfighting. The small change of allowing shields to work against AF and AAF is simple, makes sense, and allows the shadow fighter to fulfill its intended role. These other additions add unneeded exceptions IMO.
