Re: The Fighter Debate

Michael Robert Blair wrote:
> 
[...]
> Making shields more effective against fighter weapons.
> I love this idea. The fighters have to wait until
> something (strike fighters?) can knock the shields
> down.  We should see a division between space
> superiority fighters and strike fighters, the former
> are all but useless against ships while the latter are
> dogmeat in a dogfight.

Don't we have this already wrt interceptor and attack fighters?

> Developing from this what about increasing the
> specialisation of fighters? You can have a dogfighter
> or a strike fighter but not one that can do both. The
> Strike fighters can be limited in the number of
> attacks they can make – one or two at most then they
> have to return to the CV and rearm.

While it is not explicitly stated in the rules, I believe
most people keep "attack" and "intercept" fighter options
seperate, not combining them into one fighter (which would
be a bit cheesy and GW-y)

> The idea mutates again. Limit fighters to one attack
> against ships but otherwise keep the rules as they
> are.

Torpedo fighters already have this limit placed on them.
After they expend their ordnance they act (iirc) with
rather limited combat capability.

Mk