Some objective cards tell you to destroyed 3 (or x) number of ships in a space battle, which led to a debate on whether this includes fighters. I've searched the rules and errata, finding things pointing in on direction or the other, but nothing conclusive on the matter.

Anyone know of a passage I might have missed?

What are you own thoughts on this?

Cremate said:

This is an issue that comes up in most groups, the basic problem is that there is no 'hard rule' in regards to wether or not fighters count as ships. However its worth noting that in almost all cases where the word 'ships' is used, in parenthesis it references the exclusion (Non-Fighters) and in most parts of the FAQ where fighter / Ship question come up it rules in favor of fighters not being ships. This quasy ruling however is broken in a number of special rules like advanced fighters for example which is why an argument for fighters being ships can be made.

I've looked through the rules and FAQ and didn't find anywhere where it said that Fighters are not ship, nor the other way around so I think this is one of those cases where groups have to make a house rule.

As reference, the house rule in my group is that fighters are not ships, except when they are advanced fighters.

We always say that fighters count for this objective. Makes you think before you move a carrier with 2 fighters somewhere and leave the big guns behind to defend something else.

The rule is thus: Fighters ALWAYS count as ships. Objectives, cards, or abilities which exclude Fighters specifically say non-Fighter ships.

For the objective in question in the original post, Fighters DO count towards that objective.

sigmazero13 said:

That's the way I had always been taught, from a long while ago.

sigmazero13 said:

I would be interested to see the rules reference where this information is so clear, because from reading the rules and the faq I don't recall it ever stating that Fighters always count as ships anywhere.

Do you have a page number by chance where this rule is cleared up?

We play it that fighters don't count.

Tank you for all the answers so far - especially the more expansive ones. I'm happy to see that we're not the only ones with different takes on this, but for now I'll want to hear some more opinions on the subject before arguing anything myself.

Testing because my reply won't ******* pubish when I hit the publish button.

BigKahuna said:

ALL bold text in the following is quoted from the TI3 rule book

First it is mentioned in page 12 in the Fleet definition:

Definition of a Fleet
For the purposes of the TI rules and cards, a fleet
is defined as all spaceships (Fighters, Cruisers,
Carriers, Dreadnoughts, Destroyers, and War Sun
units) controlled by one player in one system at
any given time.

And in page 21 in the Fleet supply section:

THE FLEET SUPPLY AREA
The number of Command Counters in a player's Fleet
Supply area dictates the maximum number of ships
(not including Fighters) that a player may have in
any given system on the board. A player may never
move units, build units, or otherwise acquire units in
any system so that the number of ships herein (again,
excluding Fighters) exceed the number of Command
Counters in his Fleet Supply area.

And the nail on the coffin of this question is in page 29:

THE FIGHTER UNIT
Units Available: 10 (plus supplement counters)
Cost: 1 (to produce two Fighter units)
The Fighter unit is the most inexpensive ship in a
player's arsenal.

Hope that help you.

--Ugluk

Stefan said:

It's important to note that this is a house rule. Ugluks post above is very clear that fighters are ships. This is coupled with the fact that EVERYWHERE that fighters are excluded by the rules as written, it specifically says non-Fighter ships.

I personally don't think it's necessary to exclude fighters from this objective. If you're going to spam fighters for cannon fodder, there are certain counterbalances to that, both among the increases to anti-fighter destruction in the expansion, and the ability for people to use it to claim objectives.

sigmazero13 said:

I wouldn't call those reference clear. I really think the references that Ugluk is using are very selective because in all three cases when it refers to "ships" or in the first example "spaceships" there really isn't another word that can be used. I guess what I'm saying is that fighters are 'ships' because ships is a noun (as well as spaceships) that describes units in the game that fly around in space. I mean what other word would you use except Ships or spaceships to describe a space fighter? I think this is especially true for the third example where it says that a fighter is the most inexpensive ship, I mean really what other word can you possibily use other then ship and not sound sort of poorly written. Space Craft? Space Vessel? ... I mean I really think its refering to it as a ship for the lack of a better word rather then a definition of ship as a mechanic for fighters.

The word ship and spaceship shows up all over the manual and FAQ and it very rarely is referenced as a rule mechanic. I think its far more convincing to accept fighters as non-ships because in 90% of the games mechanic (in game, not the rule book) when it uses the word ship it adds the (Non-Fighter) exclusion for clarity, because the games intention is to make the word ship and space ship descriptive and not mechanical. I think its more likely that things like the public objectives are oversights (they simply forgot to add the exclusion they put everywhere else in the game cards) then an intentional exception by not adding the exclusion.

Here are some examples in the FAQ that use the word ship in the exact oppossite way (note that the FAQ was written long after the rulebook.

Page 5 of the FAQ

Q: Do enemy Space Docks or Ground Forces block movement
like enemy ships do?
A: No. Only spaceships (i.e., non-Fighter ships) block enemy
ship movement.

Again in the above example it very specificaly says that spaceships are anything except fighters suggesting that fighters are not spaceships. more importantly however its an example of how the word ship and spaceship are used as descriptive terms rather then mechanical. In this case it makes ships and spaceships out to be different things, one including fighters and the other not.

Q: Light Wave Deflector (“your ships may now move through
systems containing enemy ships”) and Advanced Fighters
(“enemy ships may not move through a system your Fighters
occupy”) seem to contradict one another. Does Advanced
Fighters block Light/Wave Deflector-enabled movement?
A: Advanced Fighters merely allows Fighter units to block an
opponent’s movement as if they were normal spaceships. Thus,
Light/Wave Deflectors do work against Fighters enhanced by
the Advanced Fighters tech.

In the above example it clearly defines advanced fighters as the exception and defines the fact that fighters are not normal spaceships. And again it uses the words ship, space ship and now advanced fighters to reference the same things.

Just two examples that make contradictions here as if it wasnt confusing enough already.

The point I'm trying to make is that if you fixate on the word 'ships' in the rulebook you are going to get mixed messages because the word ships is not always (in fact rarely) described in the rule mechanic sense and more often then not simple a word (a noun) used to describe something in a sentence as part of the English language because its the most appropriate word. Example . Fighters are very cheap ships.

I think the most suprising aspect of this debate is that its been around since the origianl 3rd edition game has come out and after several FAQ updates and numerous threads on this topic the developer has never simply clarified the rule.

Its a simple and direct question . Do fighters count as ships as a rule with exclusions being exceptions. Or are the exceptions there because the word ship is not intended to be a mechanic and the few places where the (non-fighter) exclusion are ommitted in the game are simply oversights.

Its a tough one and I would use a lot of words to describe it, but certainly not 'clear'

@Sig: Of course, houserule. Sorry not to mention it. But 'till I read this thread, we thought it was ruled that way.

@ BigKahuna

Do you really thinks that Destroying a Fleet of one Carrier with 6 Fighters and a Destroyer or

a Fleet of 2 Warsuns and 12 Fighters or

even a Naalu Carrier with 6 Cybernetics enhanced Fighters

Would not allow a single VP for Destroying 3 Ships.???

And on the other hands destroying 3 Destroyers should?

They could have use "support units" for Fighters if they did not want them to be ship.

If you think that I am too selective about my quote then next time instead of quoting the revealant page and text to you I will just say:

"Man just go read the rules back, it is clear in it."

BigKahuna - Here are a bunch of rules references that make it clear that Fighters are Ships. All bold text below is bold in the rulebook:

Page 10 (left column): "... but if the system contains no enemy ships, there is no Space Battle..." (If fighters were not ships, that means moving into a system with fighters only would not trigger Space Battles.

Page 11 (left column): "Every ship (except for Fighter units, which move with Carriers or War Suns)..." (Fighters are ships, but have different movement rules).

Page 11 (middle column): "A ship is never allowed to move through a system occupied by enemy ships (except Fighters)." (Fighters are ships, but do not block movement)

Page 12 (Defenition of a Fleet sidebar): "a fleet is defined as all spaceships (Fighters, Cruisers, Carriers, Dreadnoughts, Destroyers, and War Sun units)." (This one EXPLICITELY DEFINES a Fighter as a spaceship"

Page 12, (left column): "...into a system that contains ships controlled by an opponent (even a Fighter)" (Fighters are ships, and even THEY trigger space battles, even though you CAN move through them from earlier)

Page 13 (point 3): "...only move some of the ships (although the Fighters should stay with the Carrier)" (Fighters are ships, but should stay with the Carrier)

Page 14 (2 Movement): "move friendly ships between the two activated systems. As during a Tactical action, Fighters... must be transported..." (This one could be considered a little more vague, but it doesn't say they are NOT ships either, only that they have to be transported)

Page 15 (right column): "roll one combat die for every one of their spaceships in the battle..." (Fighters are spaceships, and so are included in this; otherwise, they would not roll)

Page 16 (left column): "he must destroy one of his ships of his choice..." (If Fighters were not ships, they could not be taken as casualties)

Page 21 (left column): "the maximum number of ships (not including Fighters) " (Here is an example of Fighters specifically being EXCLUDED from something that would normally impact all ships. You do not include fighters in your ship count for this)

Page 21 (left column): "the number of ships herein (again, excluding Fighters)" (Again, Fighters are being explicitely excluded from the count, not because they aren't ships, but because they don't count toward Fleet Supply, and it must be explicitely stated such)

Page 25 (Definition of an "Empty" System sidebar): "free from ship, Ground Force, PDS, or Space Dock units" (Fighters are not on the list. Either they are part of ships, or do not count against a system being empty)

Page 26 (Right column): "New spaceships (Fighters, Cruisers, Carrier, Destroyers, Dreadnoughts, and War Suns)" (Fighters are spaceships)

Page 26 (Rigth column): " blockade , and may not produce spaceship units while the enemy units are in the system ." (I'll use this point later when I go through the FAQ)

Page 29 (Middle column): "The Fighter unit is the most inexpensive ship" (Fighters are ships)

Page 34 (Left column): "Any spaceship (including Fighters) may transport one ore more Leaders" (Fighters are included among Spaceships)

In the base rules, Fighters are ALWAYS considered ships. There are no instances where they are considered separate units. The only places where fighters are not lumped with other ships is the cases where they expilcitely say "not including fighters", just as some cards say non-Fighter ships. Fighters are clearly ships, and always follow the rules for ships unless explicitely noted otherwise.

From the latest FAQ:

Page 2 (Left column): "a previously activated system that contains no enemy ships (but it can contain enemy planets with Ground Forces, PDS, and Space Docks)." Fighters can block retreats, because they are ships.

Page 3 (Left column): "Are Fighters considered ships [for Silence of space]" A: Yes. A fleet using "In the Silence of Space" may not end its movement in a system containing enemy ships (including Fighters)." (This was a clarification question that Fighters ARE ships and ARE included, because they weren't specifically EXcluded)

Page 4 (Left Column): "No. Only spaceships (i.e. non-Fighter ships) block enemy movement." (This is the one you quoted above. I agree that it's worded poorly. However, in the context of ALL other places, this it the only one that tries to say a spaceship is not a fighter. The FAQ in this case is in error because of it's contradiction. I'll let Corey know so hopefully it can be fixed).

Page 8 (Right column): "You simply need at least one non-Fighter ship..." (fighters explicitely excluded from counting in this context)

Page 8 (Right column): "has at least one (non-Fighter) ship..." (Again, fighters are explicitely excluded for control purposes)

Page 9 (Right column): "[With Warfare II secondary] do Fighters ... count against the ship limit? A: No" (This question was actually added because the rules as written would imply that a carrier could NOT use Warfare II secondary to move Fighters with it. This ruling simply says a carrier gets to bring its fighters, and those fighters do NOT count against the ship limit. This one is, in a sense, an errata/clarification to Warfare II, because fighters ARE ships and without it, would count against this limit)

Page 10 (Left column): "Can the "Mirage" planet's refresh Fighters that are under blockade..? A: No". (This is tied to the base-rules quote above that I said I'd talk about. Fighters are ships, and if the planet is under blockade, ships cannot be built. This even includes "free" Fighter ships.)

Conclusion: The FAQ's one question is the only one that seems to imply that fighters are ever NOT considered ships. Everywhere else, in the FAQ and the Rules, lumps Fighters in with Ships, and the only time Fighters do NOT count as ships for a certain purpose is if Fighters are explicitely excluded. I think that one FAQ question just needs to be rewritten to be less confusing.

Well there is no disputing at all that the word 'ships' and 'spaceships' are used over and over again in reference to all 'flying units' in the game which includes fighters. My point was simply that the word ships is used in a 'non mechanical' fashion which is why sometimes they use ships sometimes spaceships, as its not a word used to describe a unit type and used very loosely, but rather simply a 'space vessel' used in the game. Another words the word ship and spaceship are used to describe something in the game with little thought to how the use of that word effects mechanics.

My main reasoning why I think fighters are not ships when it comes to rules is that they are explicitly excluded in the game (not the rule book, the game) in almost every single case when the word 'ships' is mentioned (aka action cards, political cards etc..). The exception being the public objective, which is why I say that this is more likely an omission rather then an intention of the rules.

When it comes to balance and mechanics of the public objective in question however I will say this.

A carrier with 2 fighters is hardly worth a VP and to justify the balance by using 2 carriers with 12 fighters or a warsun with 6 isn't really valid because if fighters are ships 2 carriers with 12 ships count as 14 ships. I think how many fighters a carrier has is irrelevant and it is the strength of a carrier to be able to defend a position alone which is why they cost 4 production. In this case if Fighters count as ships the objective is considerably easier not harder to achieve as its fairly easy in the course of the game to find a carrier with a couple of fighters floating around somewhere.

By the way guys, its just my opinion, there is no reason to get hostile or angry here. Lets keep it friendly, I completetly respect your opinions, I ask for nothing but that in return.

Have I ever said how much I hate these forums? It wasn't letting me publish, and now I'm getting garbage. But here's my text, sorry it's not more readable.

I'll higlight the quoted text by BigKahuna for clarity:

My point was simply that the word ships is used in a 'non mechanical' fashion which is why sometimes they use ships sometimes spaceships, as its not a word used to describe a unit type and used very loosely, but rather simply a 'space vessel' used in the game. Another words the word ship and spaceship are used to describe something in the game with little thought to how the use of that word effects mechanics.

I disagree. I think the word "ship" isn't just a random term, but specifically means what the sidebar on page 12 SAYS it means: Fighters, Carriers, Destroyers, Cruisers, Dreadnoughts, and War Suns. IE, it's a subset of what is considered a "unit". Fighters have their own special rules, but rules that apply to ships apply to fighters. The ones where they don't either spe

My main reasoning why I think fighters are not ships when it comes to rules is that they are explicitly excluded in the game (not the rule book, the game) in almost every single case when the word 'ships' is mentioned (aka action cards, political cards etc..). The exception being the public objective, which is why I say that this is more likely an omission rather then an intention of the rules.

I disagree. here are all the ACs and PCs that mention ships:

ACs:

* Courageous to the End - This could be used when a fighter is destroyed if you want. It just usually wouldn't be the best ship to use it on.
* Diplomatic Immunity - This could be used if a Fighter is your only ship in the system. Nothing says otherwise.
* Direct Hit - The base set version specifically mentions War Suns and Dreadnoughts. Because the expansion introduced means for other units to gain Sustain Damage (like Enhanced Armor or the Sol racial tech), the expansion issued replacement cards. If something gave Fighters sustain damage, there's no reason why this card couldn't be used against one; Fighters are only excluded here because of their lack of taking multiple hits.
* Experimental Battlestations - This could be used even if no ships moved ("any ships" could be "no ships" if you really wanted), and could fire on enemy fleets containing only Fighters
* Experimental Weaponry - Fighters are bypassed by this card explicitely - you cannot use them as cannon fodder against War Suns and Dreadnoughts.
* Flank Speed - Advanced Fighters would be affected by this bonus. Regular fighters aren't, but not because they aren't ships, but because their movement is "N/A", NOT "0" - undefined values cannot be modified.
* Friendly Fire - Affects fighters specifically.
* Ghost Ship - Specifically mentions Destroyers. But enemy Fighters would prevent a Destroyer being placed there
* Grand Armada - The reference to ships refers to reducing down to Fleet Supply. The base rules cover how Fighters would/would not be affected by this.
* Into the Breach - Fighters would get the +1 bonus also
* Massive Transport - In this case, Fighters COULD block the transport. They may not be able to block fleet movement, but since the card does not specify non-Fighter ships here (like the base rules do about moving through systems), Massive Transport CAN be blocked by fighters.
* Military Foresight - You could use this to save a Fighter. Why you'd WANT to is beyond me.
* Surprise Assault - The "ships" usage is in reference to movement, which is optional anyway, but could include fighters only if you really wanted.
* Target Their Flagship! - You could choose a fighter for either ship. Probably not the best choice, but you COULD.
* Transport - Same with Massive Transport in usage.
* War Footing - Same with Grand Armada in usage.

PCs:

* Arms Reduction - Fighters are excluded, but so are War Suns, Carriers, and Destroyers.
* Closing the Wormholes - It specifically says non-Fighter ship.
* Fleet Restrictions - Fighters are specifically INCLUDED in the restriction here.
* Intergalactic Commerce - Fighters would count as ships for gaining Trade Goods. Control is not required, so Fighters count.
* Interstallar Arms Dealer - FOR talks about Destroyers and Dreadnoughts. AGAINST specifically refers to non-Fighter ships.
* Investigage Spatial Anomalies - This would apply to Advanced Fighters.
* Non-Aggresion Pact - Activating an enemy system that only contained fighters would cause you to lose a VP.
* Short Term Truce - Enemy fighters would prevent you from activating the system.
* War Funding - The "ships" reference is referring to Fleet Supply reductions.
* Warship Commission - "Ship" is only used in the title. The text talks about specific ship types (Dreadnoughts, Cruisers, and War Suns)
* Wormhole Research - Fighters would be destroyed in the FOR if a 1-3 is rolled.

Objectives:

* Stage II "I won two Space Battles this turn, each in different systems and against at least 3 opposing ships". This one is one of the objectives being debated. **EXPANSION CARD**
* Stage II "I control the Mecatol Rex system and at least 3 systems adjacent to it." - The definition of control specifically excludes Fighters. **EXPANSION CARD**
* Stage II "I control the Mecatol Rex system and all systems adjacent to it". - Control specifically excludes Fighters. **BASE SET CARD**
* Stage II "I have at least 4 (non-Fighter) ships in two different opponent's Home Systems - Specifically excludes Fighters. **EXPANSION CARD**
* Secret Expansionist - Control specifically excludes Fightesr. **EXPANSION CARD**
* Sercet Keepr of Gates - Fighters specifically excluded. **BASE SET CARD**
* Secret Master of Ships - Fighters specifically excluded. **BASE SET CARD**
* Secret Threatening - Fighters excluded. **EXPANSION CARD**

I could go on with Techs, but I won't.... The point is, in the AC/PC list, Fighters ARE included unless specifically excluded. With the objectives, yes, most of them do exclude fighters explicitely, but it's not logical to make the assumption that it was "accidentally" left off the one in question here - cards from both the Base Set AND the Expansion both use "non-Fighter" when fighters were meant to be excluded. It's more logical to assume that the fact that one objective does NOT say that means it was INTENTIONALLY left off.

When it comes to balance and mechanics of the public objective in question however I will say this.

A carrier with 2 fighters is hardly worth a VP and to justify the balance by using 2 carriers with 12 fighters or a warsun with 6 isn't really valid because if fighters are ships 2 carriers with 12 ships count as 14 ships. I think how many fighters a carrier has is irrelevant and it is the strength of a carrier to be able to defend a position alone which is why they cost 4 production. In this case if Fighters count as ships the objective is considerably easier not harder to achieve as its fairly easy in the course of the game to find a carrier with a couple of fighters floating around somewhere.

The strength of the carrier itself actually depends a LOT on how many fighters it has. A carrier with 6 fighters is a LOT tougher than a carrier with 1 fighter. If you saw an enemy system only defended by a carrier + fighters, I think the number of fighters would make a big difference in what your attack strategy would be. And again, I think it IS unfair to deny someone who went toe-to-toe with 2 War Suns and 15 Fighters (assuming a space dock is there) and WON the VPs, and then give someone who went up against 3 destroyers the points. 3 destroyers isn't much tougher than a carrier with 2 fighters. If no techs are in play, they are actually EQUIVALENT in their combat effectiveness (except for destroyer's AFB).

By the way guys, its just my opinion, there is no reason to get hostile or angry here. Lets keep it friendly, I completetly respect your opinions, I ask for nothing but that in return.

For what it's worth, my intent is not hostile or angry. This forum makes emoticons a pain to use, so I don't use them, but my intent is simply one of "firmness", not "hostility". I respect your opinion, although in this case I think it's incorrect, and I feel the rules are very clear in this matter. (added for emphasis of friendly, even if firm in my standpoint, intent)

Thank you sigmazero13, your post was actually quite informative. I appriciate you being friendly, one really big issue with the old forums was that there was a few people who will remain nameless that were so extrodinarly rude and agressive I literly at one point stopped going to the forums because it seemed it was a 'agree with me' or get flamed situation in every post.

I think at this point the points have been made on the subject of fighters and ships. Hopefully the debate itself triggers Fantasy Flight to put a blurp int he FAQ and settle it.

From the TI3 Rulebook on space battles:

"First determine whether a Space Battle will occur in
the activated system.
If the active player has moved one or more ships into
a system that contains ships controlled by an opponent
(even a Fighter) a Space Battle must be initiated
between the two players. A Space Battle will continue
until only one player has ships remaining in the system.
If a Space Battle is initiated, the active player is the
attacker, and the player whose ships were in the system
before activation is the defender."

It appears that fighters are considered ships for the purpose of space battles.

Beren - That was in my list of rules references on page 1 Granted, it was a lengthly list, so it is easy to miss. It's the Page 12 one for what its worth

The only place that indicates that Fighters MIGHT NOT be "ships" is the one FAQ entry, and I think it was just an oversight based on the overwhelming evidence to indicate they ARE ships (especially the one defining fleets and ships explicitely in the sidebar)

And here is what Nekrimah found when we had this discussion on the old forum. (and this is why the wiki forums are the place to go to have these answered, because all the guys over there have answered these before)

"And The main Rules, page 12:

'Definition of a Fleet
For the purposes of the TI rules and cards, a fleet
is defined as all spaceships (Fighters, Cruisers,
Carriers, Dreadnoughts, Destroyers, and War Sun
units) controlled by one player in one system at
any given time.'

Clearly designatess Fighters as Spaceships."

BigKahuna said:

Looks like you better make it a house ruled change to the rules.