Re: [FTFB] "Needle" fighters?

Kind of silly to followup to my own reply, I know, but I had another
thought on a damage mechanic for the Trench Run (needle attacks)

The squadron _modifies_ it's normal attack follows:
- Declare trench runs and targets
- Resolve PDS  (I still like varying bonuses for ftr types)
- Roll normal damage per fighter and compare total to the following:
  (No turkey penalty, Aces roll 2 dice as stated in MT)
  (Attack ftrs already get +1 on die)
  -- If below 'damaged' target # nothing happens.
  -- If equal or above 'damaged' # (say 2) target system damaged.
  -- If equal or above 'destroyed' # (say 5) target system destroyed.

you keep the familiar die rolls (except torpedoes - still thinking on
those) The difference is that instead of applying the damage to the SSD,
you compare it to 2 different threshold levels - 'Damaged' and
'Destroyed'.
2 and 5 were arbitrarily chosen so that a single fighter can damage a
system, even without additional damage from the reroll on the 6, but 2
fighters cannot destroy a system without a successful reroll.  According
to
my math the average roll for 6 fighters will be about 4.77 - so just
under
half the time a full strength squadron would destroy the target system.

As an added bonus, the MT rules already define combat for aces (they add
1
extra die to the squadron), attack fighters (add 1 to the individual die
rolls), and rerolls are per FTFB (only reroll on natural '6').

Biggest 3 remaining questions -
1 - Are the dmg/dest target #'s appropriate?
2 - What about torpedo fighters - can they also resolve their attack
normally use the same 2/5 damage/dest chart?  And if you can and do
surrender 1d6 damage per fighter for a chance to damage a single system,
then what exactly are you smoking? ;)
3 - How about interceptors? I still think they should be capable of a
trench run, just not as effective at it.  My proposal is the following:
Standard fighters get 1dB (1 beam die) vs Ftrs and 1dB vs ships.  Attack
ftrs gain +1 to the die vs ships at the expense of only scoring 1 on
ftrs
on a 6.  I think Interceptors should be the converse - +1 to die roll vs
ftrs, at the cost of only scoring 1 pt vs ships on a 6.  Rerolls should
still apply in both cases.

Comments?  Flames?

>> Personally I don't think fighter type should significantly alter the
trench
>> run, buy YMMV
>
>i can see your point - the trench run is about precision, not power.

Well, I've already changed my thinking (not a lot though).  I feel that
fighter type could affect the trench run, but not totally
dictate/dominate
it.  It seems maneuverable fighters would be more survivable in a trench
run, while those with the heavier guns would be more successful in
attacking the target system. (and coincidentally, there are 2 steps in
the
sequence for PDS and then damage resolution - luck or conspiracy?)

>no. for theoretical reasons - ship systems will have their own armour
>(like Harpoon's Critical Hit Protection), and so you need big guns, not
>rapid-fire light-weight stuff like an interceptor's. for game reasons -
>interceptors are for fighting fighters, atack fighters are for fighting
>ships.

OK - I can accept that (at least partway)

So does that mean that Interceptors can't do trench runs at all? Or
perhaps
their attack resolution should be penalized to represent their weaker
guns
(looking for clarification here)
For example - Normal fighters resolve damage as given above,
interceptors
subtract 1 from squadron strength, attack fighters add 1
What is your current take on Torpedo fighters?	Is the torpedo accurate
enough for the precision strike?  It's pretty powerful, would it do more
damage in addition, or should we just say that giving 1d6 damage per
fighter for a possible 1 system hit per squadron would be silly, thereby
disallowing trench runs by them (that seems kind of arbitrary to me)

>> >> I would still
>> >> allow PDS to take place before the needle attacks
>> >
>> >fair enough. with a bonus, as has been suggested.
>>
>> Agreed - is +1 enough?
>
>yes.

Although when the idea came to me about varying the PDS bonus based on
the
percieved 'agility' of the fighter type, I really liked the feel of it. 
Or
is it too much of a complication?

>Tom

Jared