Fighters

One thought:

FT3 is likely (perhaps?) the next FT release. In FT3, I expect to see a
consolidation of rules with some mods. What I also expect is that there
will NOT be a reissue of FB1 and FB2, so those designs may change in
NPV, but they won't change in design. Therefore, believing this to be
Jon's most probably approach, I would expect that any tweaks made to
rules will be made with the idea that the FB designs are the benchmark.
I don't expect to see many, but I would expect to see something done
with fighters to reflect common FB designs/frequencies of classes and
the efficacy of larger fighter formations. 

I think some of the discussion towards fighter groups has centered on
these points:
1) FB1 designs will not be reissued
2) As Roger pointed out, in paper-scissors-rock, the odds are balanced
so you can get screwed, but you always had a chance. The same is not
true (as he illustrated) as the advantage will be with the fighter-heavy
force more often than not. This is the imbalance likely to be
approached. 
3) One off games aren't realistic, nor is not knowing about your enemy,
nor are you forced to use FB1 designs or models - BUT, a majority of
people seem to do that - run one off games where each side shows up with
an NPV and FB1 designs as standard. 
4) You are always free to ignore the rules and do your own thing within
your group
5) The objectives of at least one of the better options seemed to be:
Make attacks by small fighter counts at least somewhat useful (okay, who
has showed up with a BDN with one fighter group and thought "what the
heck for?" - hand up, I know you're out there!), make fighter attacks by
huge groups of fighter less efficient/effective, give fighters a reason
to meter their attacks and thus have some staying power. All of these
will tend to make the game more fun - making small fighter formations
have some use will mean when people take standard JoaT designs
(admittedly not optimized), then the NPV for the fighters won't be
wasted. Similarly, when people take large fighter fleets, they will be
very dangerous, but not disproportionately so. And encouraging fighters
to spread their attacks over a turn or two will tend to remove the "one
wave, win or lose, game over" mentality. 

Now, one could argue this is changing rules to setting. Yes and no. Yes,
because it is trying to legitemize the FB designs. No because the PDS
(or other) rules the way they are today exist by an equally arbitrary
choice and reflect some sort of view of how things work... changing this
is not a case of violating some sacred generic system... because ANY
system involves some portion of "setting" in it. Even the one we have
today.

In the end result, you can do whatever YOU want with the game. Some of
you use house rules, others mix alien and human tech, others build their
own ship designs with a very different philosophy, etc. This is all
fine... so why you'd worry about any official modifications to the base
rules, I can't image... you'll just continue to do your own thing, to
change things you don't like, and to ignore what doesn't suit you (as
you should!). OTOH, those who play vanilla out-of-the-book ships/fleets
will tend to have (one hopes) a more enjoyable game.

Tomb