I somehow missed this threat going up last week (probably traveling). It looks like there's quite a bit of quibbling over definitions. Definitions and classifications are good inasmuch as they help us understand the game better and therefore help the players make better decisions.
Although I think the basic idea of a bomber works especially well for the Tie Bomber, most squadrons carry a mix of anti-squadron utility and anti-ship utility, and designing a good list is often a matter of finding that right balance between the squadron game and the ship game. So for example, the X-wing has a bomber die and four anti-squadron dice. So its first an anti-squadron unit and will generally perform the best shooting enemy squads first and secondarily taking out ships after you've won the squadron contest. The B-wing meanwhile packs a punch against ships, but three anti-squadron dice are still very strong. So while you'd prefer to fire at ships, you've got anti-squadron utility out of them.
Escort: Given the point costs of units, you can often just take another bomber for the points. The real point of escort is to protect your high value aces and/or Intel, and then you end up with your Escorting units still being able to do things like bomb and attack squadrons. And although Dengar and Jan both provide critical utility to the rest of your squadrons, they also come with some anti-ship and anti-squadron capability.
High/Low/Variable Investment is an interesting concept. I wonder whether again if most of the units would fit more into a variable category, at which point, does the category breakdown actually get us to some kind of productive knowledge?
