Shadowfighters: should shields work against AF?
- Thread starter MustEatBrains
- Start date
For the antifighter trait: If it would be reworded into "the antifighter trait ignores dodge and stealth traits on fighters" then there would be no problem at all. As far as I have seen in the rulebook and fleet book, these and the shield traits are the only traits that fighters have, that would have an impact on the antifighter weapon usage.
For dogfights: I would think that it would be a too heavy advantage for shields to work in them. Else one shadowflight would have to be engaged by at least 2 flights that attack it in one turn! (also the bookkeepeing would be almost as hard as it was in 1st edition with the different crew quality scores for the flights).
For dogfights: I would think that it would be a too heavy advantage for shields to work in them. Else one shadowflight would have to be engaged by at least 2 flights that attack it in one turn! (also the bookkeepeing would be almost as hard as it was in 1st edition with the different crew quality scores for the flights).
nekomata fuyu
Mongoose
I'm also of the view that the anti-fighter trait should be reworded as ignoring dodge and stealth, with hits causing one point of damage. This neatly sidesteps the complaints that allowing shields to be useful would create exceptions. Even if it didn't, exceptions aren't necessarily something evil to be avoided, providing that they're kept to a reasonable level. For an example, see the Psi Corps and their Psychic Crew rule.
If you also wanted shields to work whilst intercepting fire, you could make the same simple change to the wording, and have the fighters suffer a point of damage whenever an interceptor dice comes up as a 1.
Overall with the above two rules, I think the big problem was the assumption that one point of damage will kill any fighter flight, which just isn't true when dealing with Shadow fighters.
On the dogfight front though, I'm sticking with the idea that dogfights should be much more decisive in nature, so the being completely destroyed if you lose is more appropriate. For this situation, the shields should be taken into account in the same way as the hull, weapons, dodge and stealth, which is to say that you don't worry about them individually, but they all are taken into account by the dogfight score.
If you also wanted shields to work whilst intercepting fire, you could make the same simple change to the wording, and have the fighters suffer a point of damage whenever an interceptor dice comes up as a 1.
Overall with the above two rules, I think the big problem was the assumption that one point of damage will kill any fighter flight, which just isn't true when dealing with Shadow fighters.
On the dogfight front though, I'm sticking with the idea that dogfights should be much more decisive in nature, so the being completely destroyed if you lose is more appropriate. For this situation, the shields should be taken into account in the same way as the hull, weapons, dodge and stealth, which is to say that you don't worry about them individually, but they all are taken into account by the dogfight score.
I have to agree that changing the wording to reflect that damages against fighters is inflicted at 1 point of damage (thus shields would be effective) would be a simple way to clear up all the confusion concerning fighters and shields, etc.
And increasing the DF on the Shadow Fighter (or any fighter that has the Shields trait) by 1 would be simple and reflective of the nature of shields in a dogfight.
And increasing the DF on the Shadow Fighter (or any fighter that has the Shields trait) by 1 would be simple and reflective of the nature of shields in a dogfight.
nekomata fuyu
Mongoose
Hell, I wouldn't even be too bothered by the idea that the current dogfight of +0 already includes the shields.
The main demonstration of Shadow fighters that I can remember off of the top of my head is against Frazis towards the beginning of S2. Whilst the Shadows had the upper hand, to be fair the Frazis were more concerned with helping G'Kar run away than they were with fighting back for most of that scene. Overall I'd say that the Shadow fighters were either equal to or slightly better than Frazis on a 1-on-1 situation, so either +0 or +1 both work as far as I'm concerned.
The main demonstration of Shadow fighters that I can remember off of the top of my head is against Frazis towards the beginning of S2. Whilst the Shadows had the upper hand, to be fair the Frazis were more concerned with helping G'Kar run away than they were with fighting back for most of that scene. Overall I'd say that the Shadow fighters were either equal to or slightly better than Frazis on a 1-on-1 situation, so either +0 or +1 both work as far as I'm concerned.
Stonehorse
Mongoose
Having the Shields work against Dogfights would be too much, they would never die in Dogfights. Good kjob those Shadow Fighters play fair and press the button that turns their shields off before they enter ethier a dogfight or a bombing run against a ship with (Advanced)anti-fight trait.
Shadows... play a fair game since 2nd Edition, we don't want to be labelled as the bad guys do we now.
Wow Hyperspace Mastery... the most useless ability there is, as very few mission have the ability to keep back a selection of ones force in Hyperspace... maybe I can scare my opponent by using the name as a mantra during the game... that'll work.[/sarcasim]
There are 2 ways to fix the Shadowfighters.
A) 3 per wing... 4 or 5 would be too much.
B) Have shields work against AAT and Af.
Simple and effective... but I'm betting that Mongoose are not willing to listen.
Shadows... play a fair game since 2nd Edition, we don't want to be labelled as the bad guys do we now.
Wow Hyperspace Mastery... the most useless ability there is, as very few mission have the ability to keep back a selection of ones force in Hyperspace... maybe I can scare my opponent by using the name as a mantra during the game... that'll work.[/sarcasim]
There are 2 ways to fix the Shadowfighters.
A) 3 per wing... 4 or 5 would be too much.
B) Have shields work against AAT and Af.
Simple and effective... but I'm betting that Mongoose are not willing to listen.
Least it's not the Sag fleet which they reckoned was fine which they demostrated by getting the next best ship ( whitestars especially for fighting sags ) + terrain, then lost & then said Sags weren't overpowered.
They have good rules but sometimes lack something when making ships/fighter.
It's pretty simple, the Shadow fighter isn't any good if doesn't get to shoot.
Not hard to defend against either with AF or fighters which come with ships as well buying them as flights. Cause of shadow's lack of a fleet list it's pretty easy to decide what you will be facing.
They have good rules but sometimes lack something when making ships/fighter.
It's pretty simple, the Shadow fighter isn't any good if doesn't get to shoot.
Not hard to defend against either with AF or fighters which come with ships as well buying them as flights. Cause of shadow's lack of a fleet list it's pretty easy to decide what you will be facing.
Sulfurdown
Mongoose
I think about 1/2 the scenarios allow Hyperspace and I'd still vote for both A & B, with the campaign addition of the Pilot Drone rule being added to the Shadows.Stonehorse said:
I voted for 'shadowfighters need more...', but I feel that this poll has too many entries, that dilutes the votes for or against any change about it. That's what I feel, but we can see, by merging the entries, that SF are craps. No big news, though. And I still wonder why they felt so good in the TV show. Well, after all, the maximus never existed and was in the 1ed one of the best centauri ship. Less now, but still valuable.
Marc
Marc
Well reading the S&P 50 fighter article I notice this concerning shadow fighters -
'The shadow fighter has the unique distinction of being the only fighter with the shields trait. Unfortunately this doesn’t protect them in a
dogfight, however it does make them especially difficult ships to kill with anti-fighter defences. Their main weapon is short ranged, forcing them to enter anti-fighter range, but between hull five and the shield, they have a good chance of surviving this to unleash their polarity cannon on the enemy, which will hurt.'
Note - bold emphasis is mine to indicate the most relevant phrases
Which rather suggests that whoever wrote it thinks it might be a good idea for shields to work vs AF - well that or the article is off kilter/incorrectly emphasising the link between shields and AF survivability.
'The shadow fighter has the unique distinction of being the only fighter with the shields trait. Unfortunately this doesn’t protect them in a
dogfight, however it does make them especially difficult ships to kill with anti-fighter defences. Their main weapon is short ranged, forcing them to enter anti-fighter range, but between hull five and the shield, they have a good chance of surviving this to unleash their polarity cannon on the enemy, which will hurt.'
Note - bold emphasis is mine to indicate the most relevant phrases
Which rather suggests that whoever wrote it thinks it might be a good idea for shields to work vs AF - well that or the article is off kilter/incorrectly emphasising the link between shields and AF survivability.
On shields working in dogfights...
Why would this make it to hard?
Right now dogfights end in one fighter or the other destoryed, or a tie. Then the other player does his dogfights, in which flights which did not support fight and flights which are involved in a dogfight but were not destroyed fight again. Having the shield work would add NOTHING new to the process of dogfighting.
Shadow fighter in a dogfight would produce the following sequence...
Phase one dogfights - shield saves shadow, stalemate, one opposing flight destroyed.
Phase two dogfights - shield saves shadow (if stalemated previously), one opposing flight destroyed, shadow destroyed.
The only time there would be record keeping is if there was a stalemate. We tend to immeadeately do the second phase fight if there is a stalemate anyway, so no record keeping needed at all.
You would not need two flights to beat a shadow fighter, as there is always two chances to kill the opposing flight in a dogfight. A Nial would almost always win the first dogfight, shield saves, then win again in the second destroying the flight.
I am just confused why folks think having the shield work would make a shadow fighter immune to death in a dogfights.
Ripple
Why would this make it to hard?
Right now dogfights end in one fighter or the other destoryed, or a tie. Then the other player does his dogfights, in which flights which did not support fight and flights which are involved in a dogfight but were not destroyed fight again. Having the shield work would add NOTHING new to the process of dogfighting.
Shadow fighter in a dogfight would produce the following sequence...
Phase one dogfights - shield saves shadow, stalemate, one opposing flight destroyed.
Phase two dogfights - shield saves shadow (if stalemated previously), one opposing flight destroyed, shadow destroyed.
The only time there would be record keeping is if there was a stalemate. We tend to immeadeately do the second phase fight if there is a stalemate anyway, so no record keeping needed at all.
You would not need two flights to beat a shadow fighter, as there is always two chances to kill the opposing flight in a dogfight. A Nial would almost always win the first dogfight, shield saves, then win again in the second destroying the flight.
I am just confused why folks think having the shield work would make a shadow fighter immune to death in a dogfights.
Ripple
nekomata fuyu
Mongoose
The Shadow player doesn't have to make his dogfight attack, which then means that the fighters have only been attacked once, and can survive indefinitely due to the recharging shields.
Why would the Shadow player want to do this? Either way his fighters are pretty much neutralised for the duration of the game, but this way he gets to tie up the opponent's fighters indefinitely, and may even destroy some occasionally. This is preferable to only tying up your opponent's fighters for the one turn in exchange for having your fighters destroyed.
The other problem is that you're ignoring that shields already work in dogfights. As part of the dogfight score. Where they belong. Well, unless of course you think that the weapons, hull, and dodge should also play a part in dogfighting, but not just as part of the dogfight score...
Why would the Shadow player want to do this? Either way his fighters are pretty much neutralised for the duration of the game, but this way he gets to tie up the opponent's fighters indefinitely, and may even destroy some occasionally. This is preferable to only tying up your opponent's fighters for the one turn in exchange for having your fighters destroyed.
The other problem is that you're ignoring that shields already work in dogfights. As part of the dogfight score. Where they belong. Well, unless of course you think that the weapons, hull, and dodge should also play a part in dogfighting, but not just as part of the dogfight score...
MustEatBrains
Mongoose
Reading through the fighter/carrier rules, I was wondering about the following:
A ship with fighters may deploy a flight at the beginning of the game. This flight may be set up apart from its mothership, and even kept in hyperspace (if the scenario allows).
Does that mean that every flight that may be deployed at the start of the game may be left in hyperspace? That´s important for carriers, and even more important for Shadows - I think I´ve said something about attacking straight from hyperspace with Shadowfighters a little earlier, but really being able to do that with the carried flights from Shadow ships looks like a big bonus for the Shadowfighter, especially since the hyperspace Mastery allows Shadows to effectively ignore hyperspace limitations of scenarios...
A ship with fighters may deploy a flight at the beginning of the game. This flight may be set up apart from its mothership, and even kept in hyperspace (if the scenario allows).
Does that mean that every flight that may be deployed at the start of the game may be left in hyperspace? That´s important for carriers, and even more important for Shadows - I think I´ve said something about attacking straight from hyperspace with Shadowfighters a little earlier, but really being able to do that with the carried flights from Shadow ships looks like a big bonus for the Shadowfighter, especially since the hyperspace Mastery allows Shadows to effectively ignore hyperspace limitations of scenarios...
Greg Smith
Mongoose
Myrm said:
The writer of the fighter article is mistaken. Matt points that out in the Shadow fighter thread.
Lord David the Denied
Mongoose
Am I the only one thinking shields is a bit weird for Shadows, anyway? They never use anything shield-like that I noticed on screen...
