Re: New IF ships

***
What do you think? Bad idea? Good idea? I'm not
trying to make work for Jon, but there are places
in the rules where there is a lot of room for
disagreement (especially in the fragmented fighter
rules).
***

While suggestions of resolving conflicts has a nice sound, Jon has from
the
beginning suggested that we work these things out ourselves. Now, I've
admitted I've not been doing a lot of FT of recent, but if my regular
mates
suggested to me that Multiple Group Dogfights means One-on-One
Dogfights,
I'd be deciding I didn't need to playing that often anyway.

Now, there's nothing to stop them from making ALL dogfights initiative
based. They're free to so play if they wish; they just have to get you
to
agree. Not Jon.

I'd much rather he'd be delivering a playtest copy of BDS for the list
to
attempt to make as bulletproof as possible. He doesn't need to be
constantly wording the meaning of 'is'.

We can let US presidents do that.

However, it's Jon's call.

The_Beast