[FT] 2 topics: Tournaments and back to fighters

> I wrote:

*SNIP*

> I don't really play many

In his reply to my post, Binhan pointed out the shortcomings of my
one-shot
fighter idea in tournaments. While I see his point, I wonder if perhaps

it's more of a shortcoming in tournament formats that just happens to be

most nastily exploited by mass fighters. It's been called "Paper Rock
Scissors" by some on the list. If I bring a fleet designed to take on the
greatest range of threats possible, someone who WAY overstacks in one area has
a good chance of thumping me. If I bring a fleet designed specifically
to counter that stacked threat, a good all-around fleet should hand me
my keister (And fighters do seem to be the most extreme example of this
syndrome). I wonder if maybe specific rules for tournament play, as opposed
to generic rules that work in campaigns or one-offs, might be a useful
set of optional rules.

Back to fighters. I really do agree that Mr.Barclay has (not surprisingly)
come up with the most brilliant idea of all: Offer a list of the most
popular and preactical optional rules for fighters and anti-fighter
defenses, and allow people to add them to their own play in layers to best
create the kind of fighter combat they want their background to have. The
ideas for altering CFE, PDS/ADFC capability, and my one-shot rule could
be among those offered.

As for the PDS rule, has anyone thought about the suggestion I made earlier
today? Instead of allowing PDS multiple attacks per turn, alter WHAT they can
attack. I don't know how different from the suggestion to give range to PDS it
really is. The tiered idea I had was:

A) Beam 1's can only fire on fighters directly attacking theie ship. B) PDS
May fire on attacking fighters OR any fighter passing within a given
range of said ship (somewhere in the 3-6" range).
C) ADFC May fire as per normal rules, since the PDS linked to the ADFC would
fall under subrule B. D Scatterguns? You got me, I haven't played the KV yet.

3B^2

In message <F12190gP8yJrNKBqujs000144eb@hotmail.com>
> "Brian Bilderback" <bbilderback@hotmail.com> wrote:

[snip]
> Back to fighters. I really do agree that Mr. Barclay has (not

> popular and preactical optional rules for fighters and anti-fighter
The
> ideas for altering CFE, PDS/ADFC capability, and my one-shot rule

Definitely, this is a god idea.
> As for the PDS rule, has anyone thought about the suggestion I made
Hmm... I quite like this, except that I'm not sure what you mean by C)
- do you mean ADFC acts as written in Fleet Book 1?

I'd be tempted to allow B-1s to attack any fighters in range (6 mu or
even 12 mu), but only hit on a roll of 6 unless the fighter is attacking
the ship the B-1 is on.

Hmm.. scatterguns, according to Fleet Book 2, page 10, Scatterguns "may fire
at any target within a range of 6 mu......or may fire at any target that is
attacking another ship provided that the ship itself is
within 6 mu" so Scatterguns can _already_ shoot down fighters that just
happen to be within 6 mu of the carrying ship and not attacking it!

They probably don't need changing.

> In message <F12190gP8yJrNKBqujs000144eb@hotmail.com>
 The
> ideas for altering CFE, PDS/ADFC capability, and my one-shot rule

A freudian slip if ever there was one.... Tom, I think your status has just
been elevated!!

<GRIN>

In message <v03130302b9029a92d084@[62.121.12.10]>
> Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.keme.co.uk> wrote:

> >In message <F12190gP8yJrNKBqujs000144eb@hotmail.com>
Well, I seem to be doing that a lot recently, or the 'o' key on my
keyboard is wearing out! I though I'd caught all of those :-|

> Charles Taylor wrote:

> Hmm... I quite like this, except that I'm not sure what you mean by C)

Yes.

3B^2