RE: Interceptors

In message <20020510165633.28583.qmail@web12308.mail.yahoo.com>
	  John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> wrote:

> 
> --- Brian Bilderback <bbilderback@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > This is a big minus in tournament games since
> > interceptors have no anti-ship 
> > capability and are wasted if the opponent has no
> > fighters.
> 
> Out of curiousity, what rules do most tournaments use
> for selecting fighter types?	I don't really play many
> tournaments because I really don't like them in
> general.  I wouldn't want to select any of the
> differing cost types for swapping out because it
> affects point cost calculations, but wouldn't it make
> sense to be able to swap out standards and
> interceptors?  As a side note, you could rationalize
> swapping out attack, long range, or fast fighters as
> well.  Fast is the ship stripped down and anti-fighter
> weapons added, long range is the ship with extra fuel
> cells, and attack is with Anti-ship ordnance.
> 
> John
> 
Well, in the tormanents Paul Radford and I run, we have pre-defined
fleets (Allan Goodall's tormanent fleets IIRC) where, if any of the
ships have fighter bays, we cost the fleet assuming normal multirole
fighters, and list how many surplus points the player has for upgrading
the fighters (if required). Again, IIRC, each player will know what
fleet the other has, and can chose fighters accordingly.

I've considered the possibility of allowing fighters to be re-armed with
different loadout, perhaps requiring additional time in the hangers?
Although, I'm tempted to make it a Phalon speciality (or let Phalons
're-configure' their fighters quickly) - based on the assumption that
Phalon fighter weapons are scaled down Pulsars.

Charles