Shadowfighters: should shields work against AF?

[Target]

On the Shields thing, wouldn't be easier to have it hull 6 & scrap shields. Have it built into the hull score.
Another idea is always give the fighter a 3+ save due to it having dodge, shields & organic self repair. Making it one tough bugger to kill.
Lose the dogfight, save on 3+. Hit by an e-mine or AF save 3+. That will make it worth 2 per flight.

 

[Ryueokami]

Another possibility would be, to make it so, that Shadowfighters have the same ability as the psi corp fighters (those with psychic crew), either additional or instead of the shields.

(@target your 3+ save idea reminded me of that rule a bit and so I got the idea for this post => tnx^^)

 

[Stonehorse]

The AAF/AF trait could be reworded to being causes a hit, this way those all important shields would work... but onlu against one hit. So for any AAF/AF to get through the enemy would have to allocate more than 1 die of AAF/AF to a given fighter flight. As they only come in wings of 2 flights 4 dice of AAF/AF will give chances to take out a whole wing.

 

[Methos5000]

The AAF/AF trait could be reworded to being causes a hit, this way those all important shields would work... but onlu against one hit. So for any AAF/AF to get through the enemy would have to allocate more than 1 die of AAF/AF to a given fighter flight. As they only come in wings of 2 flights 4 dice of AAF/AF will give chances to take out a whole wing.

That means ships with AF/AAF 1 will never ever be able to kill a shadow fighter unless it uses main weaponry against it or has an escort loaning it AF. I still think rewording the AF/AAF trait is a bad idea because if you make an exception for shields then I think you need to make an execption for stealth too. How do the guns destroy a fighter when they didn't even roll for a lock on?

I think the best solution is more fighters per flight (3 maybe 4 at max, they may have a terrible dogfight score but those guns are still nasty even at 2")

 

[Stonehorse]

In regards to the stealth, if the Fighter is close enough to be shot at by AAF/AF I think the fighter will be visable. What's to say that AAF/AF aren't used manualy?

3 per wing is I think the best option, but it is nice to try out the other ideas.

 

[Methos5000]

In regards to the stealth, if the Fighter is close enough to be shot at by AAF/AF I think the fighter will be visable. What's to say that AAF/AF aren't used manualy?

3 per wing is I think the best option, but it is nice to try out the other ideas.

After reading the exact wording of AF I could see how it could potentially ignore stealth:
Anti-Fighter X: Most warships mount rapid-firing weaponry allied to finely tuned sensors specifically developed to destroy fast-moving fighters. See page 28 for details.
However I would also argue that rapid firing weapons would overwhelm the shields and still destroy the ship.
Im not saying the other ideas are outright bad, I just think its bad to have an exception for every rule. They made things like AF and beams simpler in 2nd Ed so its easier for new people to get into the game but if exceptions keep getting added how is that simpler?

 

[Stonehorse]

My bad... I forgot the wording of AAF/AF trait covered the manual verses fired by sensors.

I'm not trying to see an exception, but rather if a rewording would be better. If it said hit it wouldn't be an exception, as this fits in to the game mechanics smoothly.

Either way I don't think Mongoose are going to change this, as they feel the Shadow fighter is a viable option in the limited Shadow fleet.

 

[Ripple]

No Neko, I am not trying to set up a straw man nor am I attempting any diversions. Your constant attempts to belittle my statements is getting more than a bit tiresome. I attempted to have a discussion covering three points, game design goals, fighter traits and the shadow fighter issue specifically.

From what I've seen of your comments you have laid it out as the shadow fighter is fine. Any change to the shadow fighter should in some way weaken it. I do not agree with either of those positions. I attempted to use other examples within the rules, game environment or fluff to support my points, not 'distract'.

AF does indeed say it cannot be used within a dogfight. Neither are shields, effectively, nor are hull, dodge or weapons, nothing except the dogfight score. But, the other traits are indicative of the role a fighter is supposed to play, and a number of folks, including you, have said that shield is simply folded into the dogfight rating.

I thought this was as inappropriate as folding in AF, which is not done, as the mechanic would not remain the same.

But we don't agree and don't seem able to even agree on a basis for debate or a common set of terms, so lets move on.

Ripple

 

[Target]

Still think shields are to much of a hassle for fighters to have. Raise the hull to compensate, this fix's the AF fighter problem & you won't have to track fighters shields. Dead Simple way to deal with that.
Raise the number of flights to 3 this will help the dogfight issue & not have a fleet carrier.
Mongoose never acknowledge there is an issue. The Sag was one they refused for ages but as far is problems this not in that league.

 

[victor romeo]

(Administers CPR to thread)

After watching War Without End last night I have had another idea. Change the Polarity Cannon on the Shadow Fighter to:
Range:3, AD:2, AP,DD, Accurate.

This way the Shadow Fighter can maintain the range to avoid Anti-Fighter fire, thereby deriving some benefit from shields. The Fighter can still shred capital ships fitting the role Mongoose have envisioned for them. The combination of initiative +6 and an accurate weapon will mean that with some luck the Shadow Fighter can shoot down other fighters before being mugged in a dog fight. (it will still lose dog fights but that should be an inherent racial weakness). Finally we don't see the White Star dodging the Polarity Cannon shots so it fits what we see on screen.

 

[Da Boss]

I like your idea, i like Targets Idea - I'd really like to have a proper fix ( of one of the several excellent suggestions) in someway - be very very nice

Can you tell I am stuck at work waiting for the do to finish so i can go to bed .......................

 

[Ripple]

Agree, Accurate was proposed before as a good answer to the dogfight issue. Range 3 to anti ship role like most bombers, and fits with what the vorlons did for their fighter from the same era, approach.

Both good answers, if they will review the fighter.

Ripple