Burger's ship viewer

[Voronesh]

Well its not worth taking anymore anyway..........so it doesnt have any actual game effect. Though it does make the ship more correct albeit even weaker.

 

[Target]

Does Earth not get a Def Sat anymore, couldn't see it in the list.

 

[lastbesthope]

Yes they still do, nothing from the ship lists in Armageddon has been removed, Burger must have missed it.

I know the B5 stations were missing last night from one of the versions of his shipviewer, they were listed but there was no link.

LBH

 

[Triggy]

Does Earth not get a Def Sat anymore, couldn't see it in the list.

Defence satellites were never on the fleet lists anyway, they're special bonus units for particular scenarios.

 

[lastbesthope]

Hmm, thinking about that I might move Defence Satellites into their own category on my Armageddon Shipviewer

LBH

 

[Right Hand of God]

Burger how accurate is your ship viewer for Armageddon stats? A thread on changes to the WS-2 has posts from Triggy and LBH saying it is unchanged, but your stats for the WS-2 have it downgraded from how it is in SFOS

 

[lastbesthope]

Burger, RHOG has a point, you're WSC-2 stats are way off, they should be as they are in SFOS.

LBH

 

[Burger]

Burger how accurate is your ship viewer for Armageddon stats? A thread on changes to the WS-2 has posts from Triggy and LBH saying it is unchanged, but your stats for the WS-2 have it downgraded from how it is in SFOS

It is as accurate as my reading/typing is... any typos reported to me are normally fixed within 10 minutes of me reading them (I've been away all weekend which is why I've only just got round to fixing the WS-2). Since it is a new ship viewer there are bound to be some typos/errors, so when you print a sheet check the stats with the rulebook and let me know if anything is wrong.

 

[Reaverman]

Burger how accurate is your ship viewer for Armageddon stats? A thread on changes to the WS-2 has posts from Triggy and LBH saying it is unchanged, but your stats for the WS-2 have it downgraded from how it is in SFOS

It is as accurate as my reading/typing is... any typos reported to me are normally fixed within 10 minutes of me reading them (I've been away all weekend which is why I've only just got round to fixing the WS-2). Since it is a new ship viewer there are bound to be some typos/errors, so when you print a sheet check the stats with the rulebook and let me know if anything is wrong.

Unlike Armageddon

 

[Right Hand of God]

I beleive that is what I did

 

[Burger]

I beleive that is what I did

Yeah, thanks for that
But, "how accurate is your ship viewer" is a bit of a redundant question. As far as I know it is 100% accurate, since all mistakes that I have spotted or have been reported to me, have been fixed. There are no known inaccuracies.

 

[Right Hand of God]

Actually it is not a redundant question, a redundant question is a question that doesn't need an answer. It may have been a poorly phrased question, perhaps "Burger are you aware that your ship viewer contains faults?" would have been a better question, but then perhaps not, as if you were aware of them you would, I presume, fix them. If you are going to pick me up on my use of English, old boy, do try harder.

 

[Reaverman]

Actually it is not a redundant question, a redundant question is a question that doesn't need an answer. It may have been a poorly phrased question, perhaps "Burger are you aware that your ship viewer contains faults?" would have been a better question, but then perhaps not, as if you were aware of them you would, I presume, fix them. If you are going to pick me up on my use of English, old boy, do try harder.

Wow...put the gauntlets away guys and chill

 

[Right Hand of God]

Reaverman, I asked a simple question and got a snotty reply, I am perfectly chilled

 

[Burger]

If you are going to pick me up on my use of English, old boy, do try harder.

I beleive that is what I did

That sentence should end in a full stop :lol:

 

[Right Hand of God]

An exclamation mark would have been my choice.

 

[Voronesh]

And well i consider the Question:

How accurate is your shipviewer not 100% rethorical.

But Burger has his won thread about it, and is a very active user around here. So as far as he knows it will always be 100% accurate.

 

[Right Hand of God]

Activity as a user does not entitle one to rudeness, nor does it make one person anybetter than another, something some of the more active posters on these threads would do well to remember. Quality over quantity. Anybody can reply with inane banalities to build up their posting numbers but other than one handed self gratification, what is the point?

 

[Lord David the Denied]

Actually, Burger's reply didn't seem rude to me. As a man who's been a victim of "rudeness" charges when no rudeness was implied, intended or commited, I have to protest on Burger's behalf. I don't always (or often) see eye to eye with him but I've never seen him speak particularly roughly to anyone, and this thread was simply matter-of-fact.

 

[Voronesh]

You did miss my point.

And yes since im very active, you might be careful about equating quantitiy with stupidity. I know not every one of my posts is a beacon of intelligence, and some are plain fun and humor, but thats another matter.

I meant that his activity represents his abilty to keep his shipviewer up to date. Making the question of its accuracy a rather moot point. Knowing Burger i can rule out, hed make one and then leave it full of mistakes......

And i sure know, that neither every one of Burgers post is 100% pure brain we make far tzoo much fun of everything around here.