Shadowfighters: should shields work against AF?

[MustEatBrains]

Now, after reading the S&P articles and the previous posts about Shadowfighters, I went back to the thoughts about how much protection their shield trait actually offers. or maybe should offer.

The rules say that both AF-weapons and dogfights ingnore traits on fighters.

Now, judging from the background, Shadow shields represent their ability to refract part of the energies fired at them, so I fail to see how that would be nullified with fighters close by, or weapons designed to fire at fast-moving targets.

Then again, the rules are not only plain at this point, but also represent a simplification which might be required to keep the game run smoothly.

A third question: Would make shields work against AF and dogfights even make the Shadowfighters any more survivable or flexible?

I can´t quite decide yet, so I thought I´d ask what you think about this...

 

[Burger]

Better to keep the rules simple and stick to no traits working in DF and AF, than have an exception. Exceptions to rules are bad.

Better fix is to make Shadow fighters 3 or 4 per wing. But it's not going to happen.

 

[katadder]

dont forget that article was written by our favourite tactician who doesnt seem to know the rules. think every article has something wrong picked up in it doesnt it

 

[Triggy]

Better to keep the rules simple and stick to no traits working in DF and AF, than have an exception. Exceptions to rules are bad.

Better fix is to make Shadow fighters 3 or 4 per wing. But it's not going to happen.

3 (or preferably 4) per wing is how I'd go about it. They are fine stats/rules wise, you just don't get enough of them.

 

[Burger]

dont forget that article was written by our favourite tactician who doesnt seem to know the rules. think every article has something wrong picked up in it doesnt it

Yeah, in fact last month in issue 49 it was exactly the same mistake: shields working against AF!

 

[MustEatBrains]

dont forget that article was written by our favourite tactician who doesnt seem to know the rules. think every article has something wrong picked up in it doesnt it

Maybe, but still it is an understandable mistake, and might even be a desireable change...

I know that exceptions tend to complicate a game, but I see little complication in adding a small sentence to the rule, like "the antifighter trait ignores all traits on fighters, except for the shield trait."

 

[Da Boss]

Would prefer 3-4 flights per wing and would in a ideal world swap out shields for longer range (say 4" even if guns went down in AD )..............but doubt either / or will happen - same chance of actually getting a new Shadow ship sadly.................

 

[Burger]

dont forget that article was written by our favourite tactician who doesnt seem to know the rules. think every article has something wrong picked up in it doesnt it

Maybe, but still it is an understandable mistake, and might even be a desireable change...

I know that exceptions tend to complicate a game, but I see little complication in adding a small sentence to the rule, like "the antifighter trait ignores all traits on fighters, except for the shield trait."

There is little complication in that rule in itself. But it's just a problem with the game in general if every rule has such an exception (and a lot of them currently do!). The fewer exceptions there are, the smoother and simpler the game will be. That is why 3 or 4 flights per wing is a better fix IMO. Both of the ideas would fix the Shadow Fighter IMO, but 3 or 4 per wing is simpler, so wins my support.

 

[MustEatBrains]

of course, Shadow fighters have two advantages no other fighter has: All of them can always be deployed at the start of each battle, and they can use the Hyperspace mastery rule of the Shadows to freely pick their targets... couldn´t you even have a Shadow ship and its payload of fighters enter the battlefield at different locations?

 

[Burger]

Yes but the number of scenarios that allow hyperspace, especially in tournaments, is very limited. IMO the hyperspace mastery rule allowing all Shadows to start in hyperspace is very broken too, but that is another matter.

 

[Sulfurdown]

of course, Shadow fighters have two advantages no other fighter has: All of them can always be deployed at the start of each battle, and they can use the Hyperspace mastery rule of the Shadows to freely pick their targets... couldn´t you even have a Shadow ship and its payload of fighters enter the battlefield at different locations?

Can someone point me to where the Shadow's get the full fighter deployment at the start of each battle?

 

[Silvereye]

Better to keep the rules simple and stick to no traits working in DF and AF, than have an exception. Exceptions to rules are bad.

That's true to a point. But they also don't explain how a flight of shielded shadow fighters interacts with a 1 on interceptor duty?

I know that exceptions tend to complicate a game, but I see little complication in adding a small sentence to the rule, like "the antifighter trait ignores all traits on fighters, except for the shield trait."

Thats the way I'd do it. Background wise, it even fits as a development against the drones of their big enemy. The Anti-Fighter wielding Vorlons.

 

[Burger]

Better to keep the rules simple and stick to no traits working in DF and AF, than have an exception. Exceptions to rules are bad.

That's true to a point. But they also don't explain how a flight of shielded shadow fighters interacts with a 1 on interceptor duty?

Yes it does, a roll of 1 on interceptor duty says the flight is destroyed. Shields only block hits, not automatic destruction.

 

[MustEatBrains]

of course, Shadow fighters have two advantages no other fighter has: All of them can always be deployed at the start of each battle, and they can use the Hyperspace mastery rule of the Shadows to freely pick their targets... couldn´t you even have a Shadow ship and its payload of fighters enter the battlefield at different locations?

Can someone point me to where the Shadow's get the full fighter deployment at the start of each battle?

Fleet book, page 137, under "Fighters", second sentence:"These fighters may be deployed with the rest of the Shadow fleet, regardless of normal scenario restrictions"

 

[Silvereye]

Yes it does, a roll of 1 on interceptor duty says the flight is destroyed. Shields only block hits, not automatic destruction.

Yeah, I get the feeling that section of the rules was written without thought to using Shadow Fighters as Interceptors. Why should a weapon strike they would normally survive, through their shields, kill them outright?

 

[Burger]

Yes it does, a roll of 1 on interceptor duty says the flight is destroyed. Shields only block hits, not automatic destruction.

Yeah, I get the feeling that section of the rules was written without thought to using Shadow Fighters as Interceptors. Why should a weapon strike they would normally survive, through their shields, kill them outright?

And why would an Abbai Comms Disruptor kill a Starfury? Nevertheless, it does!

 

[Sulfurdown]

of course, Shadow fighters have two advantages no other fighter has: All of them can always be deployed at the start of each battle, and they can use the Hyperspace mastery rule of the Shadows to freely pick their targets... couldn´t you even have a Shadow ship and its payload of fighters enter the battlefield at different locations?

Can someone point me to where the Shadow's get the full fighter deployment at the start of each battle?

Fleet book, page 137, under "Fighters", second sentence:"These fighters may be deployed with the rest of the Shadow fleet, regardless of normal scenario restrictions"

Ah, I was looking for fighter rules under the Fleet Special Rules. Does that mean that Shadow Fighters can be independently deployed "with the rest of the Shadow fleet"?

 

[mollari_uk]

I voted for them working in AF as it would make them a viable ship attacking fighter (as they are useless at everything at the moment) and I agree about it making sense to help against Vorlon fighters.

 

[MustEatBrains]

Yes it does, a roll of 1 on interceptor duty says the flight is destroyed. Shields only block hits, not automatic destruction.

Yeah, I get the feeling that section of the rules was written without thought to using Shadow Fighters as Interceptors. Why should a weapon strike they would normally survive, through their shields, kill them outright?

And why would an Abbai Comms Disruptor kill a Starfury? Nevertheless, it does!

It might just disrupt the systems, effectively taking it out of the battle...

 

[victor romeo]

I agree that rules exceptions are bad and therefore have to vote against. However I also agree that shadow Fighters are still a waste of space. My suggestion would be to increase the range of the Polarity Cannon to 3 inches. This would result in the Shields being of use as ships would have to use main weapons against them. Furthermore the shadows would still be vulnerable to dogfights keeping witht the 'drone' background.