Re: Heavy Fighter Technology

On Wed, 12 Jan 2000, Denny Graver wrote (quoting someone else, whose
post
i have lost - sorry!):

> >A case of contradicting rules here, since KV fighters obviously fire
> >"fighter weapons"

i'd say this is where people's analysis is falling down; in the context
of
the heavy fighter rules, 'fighter weapons' mean the weapons mounted on
human fighters; it's a fighter weapon in that it's not a ship weapon,
rather than being the weapon all fighters have. surely this is obvious?

> (and therefore don't hit on rolls of "4") and equally
> >obviously ignore screens (which the heavy fighters are "treated as"
> >having).

i always thought it was rather simple.

human ships have screens.
kv ships have armour.
human heavy fighters have tough hulls.
kv regular fighters have armour (and so count as heavy fighters).
humans use beams.
the kv use railguns.
screens affect beams, but not railguns.
armour / tough hulls affect beams and railguns.

therefore:

human ships are protected from human (beam) fire, but not from kv
(railgun) fire.
kv ships are protected from human (beam) and kv (railgun) fire.
heavy fighters (whether human or kv) are protected from human (beam) and
kv (railgun) fire.

<rant>this isn't hard, and only a silly and pedantic reading of the
rules
gets you into trouble.</rant>

the only issue i can see is it suggests that humans have the same tech
as
the kv for armouring fighters, which could suggest that humans should be
able to armour ships like the kv do, too. this has to be handwaved
around,
really: say that human heavy fighters are better built rather than
really
armoured (fly with half the airframe missing, etc), whereas kv fighters
really armoured.

tom