Re: FB designs & fighters

Noam Izenberg Wrote:

>Can't say I agree.
>1) The FB fleets balance decently against each other. In the context of
>the "provided" universe of FT, they work just fine.

*SNIP*

>3) As Indy said, The FB ships were never meant to be min-maxed or
>necessarily to face up to min-maxed ships. If "bad" = "not min-maxed"
>then We Bad, We know it, Jam on.

I agreee with all of this.  If FB design - on - FB design battles are 
well-balanced, then that's not where the problem lies, and the rules 
shouldn't be changed to make these same designs hold their own against 
optimized designs - because such designs should be faced only by other 
optimized designs.

>Agreed, given the way fighters and PDS work now, this is one of the few
>effective ways to modify FB1 ships to fight custom jobs heavy on the
>fighters. Hence the quest for a solution.

Again, if one side is using custom jobs, why isn't the other?  and
what's to 
say that modifications of the FB designs that CAN deal with custom jobs 
wouldn't be the next step in development amongst the powers?

>Actually we want to make the rules better and more consistent without
>invalidating current designs. Big difference.

If the current designs are valid within the context of facing other
current 
designs, then no change seems necessary.  If the changes are intended to

make the current designs more useful against more advanced/optimized 
designs, then the changes skew the rules.

>>Idea #2: Anti-fighter SM's
>>Mass 1 (Mass 2 for single shot packs), fired from Launchers or packs,
>>each AF-SM has a range of 12" kills 1-6 fighters.
>
>See the WDA also for AFHAWKS

Huh?  Sorry, you lost me there.  I'm still learning. :-)

3B^2

_________________________________________________________________