Re: The Fighter Debate

>Don't we have this already wrt interceptor and attack fighters?
...
>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)
...
>Torpedo fighters already have this limit placed on them.
>After they expend their ordnance they act (iirc) with
>rather limited combat capability.
...

Of course, but Michael appears to be making the case that these be used
as
the basic fighter, with torpedo fighter limitations for the basic
fighter
attacks on ships, as well as interceptors having no attack on ships. To
some extent, fighter endurance imposes the same limitations.

This would increase defense; interceptors more effective against
fighters
while fighters lose some anti-ship teeth. I don't think this addresses
the
non-linearity that keeps being mentioned, though. And there in the idea
falls.

Does anyone else think either you make fighters more closely follow ship
mechanics, or you have to apply some defense-against-fighters that also
is
non-linear?

Thanks for the attempt, Michael. Keep swinging!

The_Beast