Re: Fighters....Re: Full Thrust vs Starmada

Grant A. Ladue wrote:
>>>One can PSB anything. :->
>>
>>As long as one wants to tie oneself into a particular background,
certainly...
>>
> 
>     Now now, the basic premise of not limiting the number of fighters
that can
>   attack based on range is itself tied to particular backgrounds. 
Star Wars,
>   Battlestar Galactica, Farscape, Babylon 5, heck *most* televised sf
have 
>   fighters that need to get right up close and personal to attack
ships.	Not
>   limiting the numbers of fighters that can attack in these
backgrounds would
>   seem to require a handwaving psb it would seem to me.
>     Bottom line, if limiting the number of fighters that can attack
each size
>   of ship (perhaps based on mass) makes for a better game, then the
rule is
>   far more important than the "reason" for it.  I know that some
people don't 
>   buy the PSB behind rolling for the number of missiles that attack
from a 
>   SM attack.	Thing is, it makes for a good game, so they let it go. 
Now if 
>   you want to argue that limiting the number of fighters that can
attack 
>   doesn't make for a good game, I'll listen.	Still I'd rather that
the reason
>   it was rejected was that it doesn't work, not that we can't find a
reason
>   for it.

With all these suggestions about putting limitations on fighters, I've
got a random question for the general populace: how many people do or do
not use the CEF rule with fighters? I can see where if one opted to not
keep track of this fighters are essentially an infinite-use weapon
(hence
why it was adopted). Maybe limitations or other caps can or should be
put
on CEFs?

All the wondering (having not played with fighters in over a year now),
Mk