Re: Another tack on fighters

Thomas Barclay wrote:

>I don't agree with Mr. Foley on all his points.

Nor I with Mr. Barclay on all of his.

>Perhaps the thing to keep in mind here is this:
>The models we mostly buy are FB ships.

This point is disingenuous.  Just because a model was cast to represent
a  
certain ship for a certain background doesn't mean it has to represent
that 
ship in any game, nor are you bound to using the figure solely for that 
background.  For my under-construction Cascadian fleet for my own 
background, I'm using FSE ships from GZG, Narn and Centauri ships from
AoG, 
Star Wars ships, and odds & ends I've found.  None of them will have
stats 
that intentionally resemble any of their stats in their respective
games, 
but they will all have fixed stats that I will (at least nominally) make

available to a limited extent to my opponents beforehand.  I like the
idea 
of standardized designs, just not necessarily the ones found in the
books.

The
>ships used in most games (esp tournament or
>convention) are FB ships. So if fighters
>operating within the FB1 universe are
>overpowering (which they actually are),

I can't comment to that, since I don't use canon designs.  However, I'll

take it as true at least for the sake of arguement.

then the
>FB1 ships would not have evolved. Taking from
>the ex cathedra presentation of the FB, we then
>work backwards and say "how could this have
>come to be? why do ships only have 2-3 PDS?
>why isn't everyone using carriers galore? or
>SMR ships?" Obviously one approach is to toss
>out FB1 designs, but that isn't realistic for most
>people/situations. So the attempt is to try to
>find a band-aid for the problem.

OK, let me see if I have this straight, because I don't want to
misinterpret 
or misqoute Tom.  I read this as saying:

Since fighters in large numbers overpower FB1 designs, and FB1 designs
are 
supposed to be (within the Tuffleyverse) well-designed, yet do not
account 
for defense against large numbers of fighters, then the obvious
conclusion 
is that there must be some reason why large fightewr attacks don't occur
in 
that setting.

That makes sense.  But it is also setting-dependent.  While all the 
suggestions for ways of restricting fihghter attacks have some merits,
they 
are necessary only under the above mentioned conditions.  Thus I would 
suggest that any application of them be optional.  If you start limiting

fighter power in general, you take away options for players who want a 
setting where fighters are powerful, and thus take away from the generic

nature of the game.

3B^2

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: