Fighter Rules - BFG:R

[afterimagedan]

But we don't want to ruin an ordinance heavy fleet, do we? I mean, we want fleets to be able to do damage with bombers.

Would these resilient rules work alright with the turret suppression listed in faq2010? I think game-wise it would but I wonder if that would make the AC in a fleet so much more dependent on fighters. Maybe it should be that way?

[RCgothic]

I would happily bin Turret suppression and make bombers do an unmodified D3 attacks in all circumstances. Fighter-Bombers could do 1 attack. But I got my head chewed off for suggesting that last time.

[afterimagedan]

I think I would prefer something to that effect.

[Plaxor]

So here we have 2 options;

Delete resilient fighters, or reduce their save to 5+. I'm assuming no 'yays' on that one but we'll see.

[Phthisis]

If fighters are resilient, are fightabommerz resilient too?

[afterimagedan]

This is a good question... It they are resilient, they are much more powerful as bombers as well, not just fighters.

[Zhukov]

Nate Montez rules rock. After the first game my group ever played, we've played with the Montez rules every game ever since (and that's YEARS of BFG games, btw).

In fact, after discussing it, our group gives the fighters, bombers, and assault boats of each race an attacking (for fighters only) and defending value for combat.  Any survivors of combat need to roll to see if they have expended their fuel (hence needing to go back to base). The remaining AC on the board need to decide whether they disengage or continue to fight. We also give the option of having green, veteran, or elite AC pilots. Green pilots mean cheaper carriers and have a -1 in combat. Veteran are normal. Elite have a +1. We have played this way for a few years and it hardly slows the game down at all.

-Zhukov

[Plaxor]

Fightabommaz would have a resilient save of 6+. Our plan was 5+, but this works fine too.

[RCgothic]

I really do think fighters should have the 4+. They're just not worth using as escorts otherwise.

It doesn't matter whether or not fighterbommers get the save, as they're never going to be used to escort anything.

[Phthisis]

Ok.  I'm on board with 4+ saves for fighters, 6+ saves for fightabommerz.

I'm also on board with bombers making D3 attacks and figtabommerz making 1.

[RCgothic]

As a general note: this save is not going to be called resilience.

Resilience is a different (though similar) mechanic where things get even tougher than they already were.

I think D3 attacks for bombers is an argument for another edition.

[horizon]

So from balanced ordnance we go to weak ordnance.

If such a ruling as phtthisis writes comes please deduct points from carriers across the board...

I'm no ordnance fan but this is the other end.

[Phthisis]

RC's idea was D3 with no subtraction for turrets.  Its an increase.

@RC
Another edition?  Good idea.

[RCgothic]

It would be counterbalanced by turrets hitting on a 3+ and fighters having a 4+ save.

But no, I don't think giving fighters a 4+ save will have too much effect. Their 1 round damage potential would be identical to what it is now - under current and proposed rules, 4 fighters will eliminate 4 bombers. If they can subsequently catch the bombers, then yes they'll do some more damage if they've survived and you didn't just re-launch a fresh wave anyway.

[Plaxor]

@RC
Another edition?  Good idea.

There are some things worth fighting over now, and some that aren't. We couldn't come up with an easy solution so the simplest is to just... well wait and think about it after the other changes settle.