fighters, the saga continues...

Nice post Noam. 

One other thought: 
The suggestion of PDS engaging all targets had two parts:
1) To put a nice cap on the number of fighters it is really useful to
attack with (ie there really isn't any PDS overwhelming) 
2) To make fighters in small numbers MORE viable

There has been a lot of focus on #1, but #2 is equally useful. Right
now, if you show up with a BDN or two, your fighters might as well put
on their rising sun headbands and right their last will and
testament.... not only will they die, but probably without having much
effect. 

I liked this solution because:
1) You can attack with as many fighters as you want... just no one gets
a free lunch so the optimal number becomes "how many do I need to do
some damage" not "how many can I pile on". 
2) Small fighter gaggles (not a swarm, not enough of them) are more
effectual, thus making them worth the points you pay
3) In this kind of game, fighters instead of being a one or two-turn
feeding frenzy can end up being a multi-turn weapon used very carefully,
a few squadrons at a time. This is probably even MORE fun. 
4) Nice perk: FB designs end up looking viable both against other
designs that use guns and those that use fighters. 

Although I see 1 as important, and 4 as nice, 2 and 3 are as useful for
making the game interesting and fun.

Remember too that some of FT is a matter of choices and
inclusion/exclusion of rules. Vector or cinematic? FB1 vector or FB2?
Roll allowed or not? etc. Having another PDS rule which you could use
(or keep the current one) wouldn't do anyone any harm. 

And I also noticed Ryan's (I think) assertions about where a carrier
should be and how carrier games should be conducted is based on his PSB,
not anything from the game. The fact we see them on the board and that
fighters have relatively short engagement ranges and fuel supplies
suggests that they may not in fact operate that far from their target.
They could, but the game doesn't really suggest that to me. Whether they
should or should not in the real (???) world of space combat is utterly
a personal opinion. Some might even say due to reaction mass issues,
fighters are not even viable in space. But it all comes down to taste
and PSB. 

And in one small aspect, I agree with 3B^2 --> the rules should not be
strongly tied to a particular PSB or genre assumption. OTOH,
overwhelmable PDS already IS tied to some assumption, so I have no
problem with an alternative mechanism being produced tied to another. In
fact, having both may be considered even MORE generic.... if you think
about it.