Fighter Rules - BFG:R

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Sure.  No extra time at all.  That whole extra phase twice a turn will just whiz by.  Tough decisions get made quickly.  And having to come up with an AC roster before every game won't take any extra time either.

Of course. You haven't even tried it and you're knocking it already. And coming up with a roster before the game is a problem?

If you want to include AC micromanagement in your games, be my guest.  I want to finish a game in 3 hours.  Don't force this on every player.  Make it optional.

Again, you don't even know if the game will finish in 3 hours or 1 even with the new changes.

[afterimagedan]

That happens all over the place all the time. People use their minds to think about what a change to a rule will be like in games and form opinions on it. You don't have to try everything to understand, at least on a basic level, what a change will look like.

[horizon]

I think it is a lot better then rolling extra dice.

[Phthisis]

Nice one Dan!  

Have you tried stabbing yourself with a fork, Admiral?

I know how long games take with the new rules because so far nobody has added more rediculous record keeping, so it has stayed about the same.

How about you try it, and if you like it then you play that way and I don't because I don't want to spend all that time.  I have trouble enough finding time to play 6 turns in an evening as it is.

@Horizon
I think there are a lot of better solutions than rolling saves for every fighter.  Primarily among them is just not rolling more dice.  I agree that the saves for fighters should go away.  Although the pool is a novel solution, I'd rather streamline the game and keep it moving at a good pace.  But it's a good option for people who enjoy micromanagement. 

[Plaxor]

The save system was to make fighters more defensive. Making it less dominating when someone runs 6 explorers in 1500 points.

As well the fighters don't get a save against torps, which added a small layer of tactics.


Anyways, when RC and I discussed it we both thought that people wouldn't like it, and that if they hated it too much then we would just scrap it. So consider all-round fighter saves scrapped.

Anyone have any better ideas? Nate's system doesn't have all that many fans, and personally I don't like the idea of ordnance running out.

[afterimagedan]

I'm not saying I don't like the rules Horizon posted, I just think having those as an option is good and not the norm. I honestly didn't mean to jab at Admiral with my comment, I just think people have the right to comment on something without having to try it out.

[horizon]

Plaxor,
Wrong. The Explorers can sent out fighters to counter as well (for speed).

On Nate's system:
if people dislike micro management :
keep the pool. Thus pre-select ordnance you take.
But scrap the discard dice rolls in the end phase. But do discard upon crippled/destroyed carriers.

[RCgothic]

Well I'm seriously disappointed that you guys have killed fighters being that little bit better. It was the best of not very many options to sort ordnance out, and now it's dead the chances are things will just remain as they were, with fighters being pointless in an escort role, yet more potent than bombers vs T3+ targets.

[RCgothic]

Plaxor,
Wrong. The Explorers can sent out fighters to counter as well (for speed).

On Nate's system:
if people dislike micro management :
keep the pool. Thus pre-select ordnance you take.
But scrap the discard dice rolls in the end phase. But do discard upon crippled/destroyed carriers.

That completely defeats the point of the pool, as it would be no different than at present yet still be more complicated.

[horizon]

You are correct on that. Would only work if you have as many markers (preselected) as launch bays.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Nice one Dan!  

Have you tried stabbing yourself with a fork, Admiral?

Have you? It's one thing to know stabbing you a fork will hurt. It's another to try out someone's idea which can possibly improve the game which in no way is related to fork stabbing.

I know how long games take with the new rules because so far nobody has added more rediculous record keeping, so it has stayed about the same.

Yeah but can you or can you not say with certainty that Horizon's suggestions will really add more time to the game or more time as RCG's suggestion.

How about you try it, and if you like it then you play that way and I don't because I don't want to spend all that time.  I have trouble enough finding time to play 6 turns in an evening as it is.

I would but the rule Horizon has reposted is still incomplete. There will still be some things needed to be clarified.

[Phthisis]

I don't need to try it to know it will add a lot of time to the game.

Many in our group see fighters as already pretty good.  Adding a save to all of them adds a luck factor without adding to their defensive capability.
 I still favor giving fighters a 4+ save when escorting AC only.  Then they have a better chance of defending than they do attacking and this is the only option so far that works out that way.

[RCgothic]

Many in our group see fighters as already pretty good.  Adding a save to all of them adds a luck factor without adding to their defensive capability.
 I still favor giving fighters a 4+ save when escorting AC only.  Then they have a better chance of defending than they do attacking and this is the only option so far that works out that way.

A save benefits both defensively and offensively. Fighters would become necessary defensively because without them enemy fighters can kill more than their own number of bombers and assault boats. People around here are often arguing to tone down AC slightly - this would do precisely that by causing higher casualties AND forcing LB slots to be 'wasted' on offensively useless fighters. The save mechanic forces no more rolls than if the Ordnance were resilient, a current rule. What would cause more dice rolling is forcing AC battles to continue to the death. This need not be a feature, or it may happen over multiple Ordnance Phases - eg: Bombers or ABs which begin their movement in contact with enemy fighters move half distance to represent their evasive actions. This would allow fighters to slow enemy ordnance and fight defensively without stopping it in its tracks.

A save only when escorting causes 3 fighters and 1 bomber could expect victory over 4 fighters, and is therefore ridiculous.

[afterimagedan]

Could the resilient save just decrease? I mean, 4+ seems a bit much. The numbers of a 5+ resilience may make more sense?

[Phthisis]

Bombers have significant defensive armament.  3 squadrons of fighters should have a good shot at driving 4 squadrons of attacking fighters away as the bombers will contribute to their own defense.  It makes sense to me.

But 1 bomber in a wave of 4 is a bit of a waste isn't it?  I don't think anyone will waste their AC that way.  More likely 2 fighters and 2 bombers.  In this scenario, the fighters are better at protecting the bombers than with the 4+ save to all fighters.    Its only half as dependant on luck as well.

But maybe the 4+ save to fighters isn't so bad.  I didn't like it at first, but I like it better than the pool.