Re: Fighters and Hangers

[agoodall@xxxxxxx]

Rand wrote:

> *shrug* It was made very clear to me, long ago, that the more fighters, 
> the more unbalanced the rules.

Oerjan was just pointing out that if you increased the number of fighters, my example would lead to more fighters available to destroy a cruiser. Another way of looking at it is how I corrected it, just replace "cruiser" with "destroyer".
 
> Erm... Actually... It does make some difference. By tieing up his not 
> yet involved fighters, you lessen the number available to gang-up... If 
> he assigns one to each ship, and then I entangle one for each group I 
> have, that leaves that many fewer that he can then pile on one ship.

In my example, it meant that I had one fewer fighter to use. Not much of a change.

> Oh, and that same rule keeps a furball from happening... If they can't 
> be fired apon, they're not in a furball, eh?

No. You seem to be confused on this. A dogfight is triggered by moving fighters. A furball is triggered by moving fighters. Dogfights and furballs are resolved in the combat segment. The rule that prevents firing into a dogfight does not prevent the creation of furballs, because furballs are created in the movement segment.
 
> I didn't say they were elegant, or effiecient solutions. :) (Did I?)

No, you didn't. Oerjan's point, and mine, is that they don't fix anything in the current rules, and just make the game harder to play.
 
> > So why can't you do this against salvo missile salvoes that roll less 
> > than a "6"? (Or if you use scatterguns, against strength-1 plasma bolts?)
> >
> 
> You really want to open this can of beans? One problem at a time... :)

He's just pointing out that when you go to tinkering with one aspect of the rules, you end up opening all sorts of metal nematode containers. *S* It's the reason that a fix to the fighter problem has been so long in coming.

--
Allan Goodall              agoodall@att.net
http://www.hyperbear.com   agoodall@hyperbear.com