Shadow Fighter's shields: totally useless, after all!
- Thread starter Burger
- Start date
Prophaniti
Mongoose
Then you'd need to lose the shields really. Count shields against (A)AF fire and it makes them twice as hard to kill as any other fighter.
If (A)AF were to be absorbed by shields then I think they need to be changed to 1/0. Otherwise using 2 AF dice would only have a 1 in 9 chance of killing a flight, that is way too hard! They would be immune to ships with AF 1!Changing to 1/0 would at least mean you can take down the shields one tun and kill it the next.
Would also fit Matts fluff a bit more - that they are ship killers and the best way to deal with them is other fighters - which can still take them down...........this way they would be a definate threat!
withouting rehashing many pages of argument - best to make them better or make them appear as a proper swarm.
withouting rehashing many pages of argument - best to make them better or make them appear as a proper swarm.
Grimbart_Kriegsaxt
Mongoose
What Da Boss says ^^
Great! Although can I just re-iterate, that the Shadow Fighter's shields really should be dropped from 1/1 to 1/0 if this change goes through. Being 1/1 makes it totally immune to ships with Anfi-Fighter 1, and even with AF 2 it only has a 1 in 9 chance to get killed each turn! Changing to 1/0 means AF 1 ships have a chance to kill it over 2 turns, and higher rated AF have a fairer chance too.
Burger said:
That is not necessarily a bad thing - think what the effect of fighters is on ships with no AF. . .
Tzarevitch
Mongoose
msprange said:
No offense, but you are the Supreme Mongoose. You can clarify what the fighter shields do and do not do once and for all and simply issue a rules clarification. Right now all that is clear is that Burger is correct, per the rules the shields don't really do much of anything. They oddly stop cap-ship fire but not lighter AF fire or dogfighting.
There are 2 conflicting rules here:
1) Shields stop hits. Anti-fighter rolls to hit therefore shields should stop it.
2) Anti-fighter is a trait and is not stopped by traits on fighters with stealth being the specific example.
The problem is that under standard rules interpretations the specific rule #2 overrules the general rule #1 and it produces a clearly illogical result. The solution is simple, clarify the rule. You have that power. Put an end to this silly debate and fix it.
Truthfully, if a shadow fighter's shields can completely stop a hit from a vorlon quad laser, it should be capable of repelling a single AF hit because it IS a hit from a weapon even if the weapon is listed as a trait.
Honestly fighter traits should have been spelled out clearly under the special rules for each fleet. After all, there are only 4 real ones that I know of. Here are my suggestions:
1) Dodge: All fighters - general rules apply here. AF ignores dodge, dogfighting ignores fighter dodge, the Accurate special property ignores dodge, the E-Mine special property ignores dodge.
2) Stealth: Minbari, Centauri rutarians and maybe a couple of others - Close range means that stealth does not apply to AF or dogfighting.
3) Shields: Shadows - AF, AAF and dogfighting are individual hits for these purposes. Functionally, shadow fighters must be hit twice or be successfully dogfighted (dogfought?) twice or some combination that equals 2 hits in the same turn, in keeping with standard shield rules.
4) Anti-Fighter: Vorlons - The AF fire is generally resolved as per standard AF/AAF rules. The net effect is for fighters trying to dogfight a vorlon fighter, the vorlon fighter can elect to fire first before the dogfight is even technically entered.
Tzarevitch
P.S.
Hmm. My post is kinda obsolete now. A whole groundswell of support to clarify the rule came in after I started typing it out. I think I need to learn to type faster.
Tzarevitch
Mongoose
Burger said:
It merely forces ships with AF 1 to actually devote a second weapon to try and kill the fighter before the shields recharge. As stated, they are no worse off than ships with no AF.
Tzarevitch
Stonehorse
Mongoose
msprange said:
I'm with you on the 'Players would think that it absorbs a hit'. Which is why I think the conclussion Greg is suggesting seems to be a bit off the intended role of the shields being on the Shadow Fighters.
hiffano said:
Heck I'd buy myself loads of the little blighters, as it is at the moment they aren't worth taking.
Da Boss said:
Now that would be too powerful. Nice, but for the sake of Game Balance, way to much!
The future bight be a bit brighter for Shadow Players... and a bout time as well!
eldiablito
Mongoose
Tzarevitch said:
Here here! Although I don't think that 1 nor 2 was too tough to figure out, 3 and 4 SEEM reasonable, but really need to be on a FAQ.
True. But, it does make Shadow Fighters a lot stronger than any other range 2 fighter out there, even counting long range ones only the Porfatis with its hull 6 (but range 8 ) comes close. Pesonally I'd either make its shields 1/0 or drop it to hull 4. IMO it wuld be a bit too strong as-is.Tzarevitch said:
Stonehorse
Mongoose
Burger said:
Good idea there, Hull 4 would seem to give more power to AAF, as they only need to roll 2 3+ to destroy a flight.
Shields 1/0, would be interesting, and reflect the Shadow Fighter using up it's energy on the initial attack run.
Either way here's hoping for an FAQ on the shadow fighters.
mollari_uk
Mongoose
Burger said:
They are supposed to be strong, you only get 2 per wing!
Sheilds of 1/0 is too much book keeping.
To keep balance I would keep sheilds as is for dogfighting (i.e. they don't work) as it's all in the dogfight score as is every other trait and weapon.
IMO fixing sheilds like this would fix shadows fighters full stop. Please make it so!!!!
Tzarevitch
Mongoose
Burger said:
They cost more than a Porfatis though, and have less range AND firepower. They cost more than nearly any non-Minbari or Whitestar fighter. Heck they cost as much as a Sho'kos but with less firepower and durability. They should get something good for that cost.
Plus they aren't any stronger than other range 2 fighters, they are just more durable. Compare it to the Nial or the Whitestar fighter. They all share similar cost. In many ways it is still weaker than both. The only thing the 1/1 shield gives it over them is durability. They all have similar firepower but the nial and the whitestar can perform multiple roles and dogfight like a champ as well. The shadow fighter dogfights like a Frazi. The shadow fighter is also the slowest of the three.
If the shield rule is corrected the shadow fighter just becomes a good assault boat in that it can survive light AF fire to deliver its payload. It is still less of a multidimensional threat than a Nial or a Whitestar Fighter which are both good at several things.
Tzarevitch
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.
