G'Koth Trasnport Cruiser

[emperorpenguin]

I disagree with your point 4 view, but then you know what is in second ed, and I don't, but for 6 months in 1st ed...

I actually meant that in 1st ed context. If there was a S&P to put in the G'Koth, I'd prefer personally that it "fix" the current ships instead of adding one which (since it would be better) would be an automatic choice

 

[Locutus9956]

And Locutus... yes exactly my point Iconic ships being used more, is good for the game.

See? He does agree with people sometimes whoever it was going on about that about 5 miles back in this thread (or was it another thread? Ive lost track in all the crazyness )

 

[Burger]

Please stop talking about ***** 2e we are discussing the G'Koth IN 1E
Why is this such a hard concept for you to grasp?.

Well that ceasefire lasted didn't it. Stop going "postal"

I'll stop telling you off for talking about 2e on this thread, if you stop talking about 2e on this thread. Do we have a deal?

 

[emperorpenguin]

Please stop talking about ***** 2e we are discussing the G'Koth IN 1E
Why is this such a hard concept for you to grasp?.

Well that ceasefire lasted didn't it. Stop going "postal"

Stay on topic, stop ankle biting

Stop with losing the head

 

[Locutus9956]

Please stop talking about ***** 2e we are discussing the G'Koth IN 1E
Why is this such a hard concept for you to grasp?.

Well that ceasefire lasted didn't it. Stop going "postal"

Stay on topic, stop ankle biting

Stay on topic.... stay on topic... almost there... just a little further... :lol:

 

[katadder]

as has been said the OP asked about 2e too

 

[Reaverman]

Well that ceasefire lasted didn't it. Stop going "postal"

Stay on topic, stop ankle biting

Stop with losing the head

I am, we are trying to talk about the subject of the Topic and you are detracting as soon as it re-starts.

 

[Burger]

as has been said the OP asked about 2e too

A has been said by the OP in about page 3 or 4 I think, his main intent was to get it in S&P. The mention of 2e was purely speculative, "if its not possible in 1e".

 

[emperorpenguin]

Please stop talking about ***** 2e we are discussing the G'Koth IN 1E
Why is this such a hard concept for you to grasp?.

I am, we are trying to talk about the subject of the Topic and you are detracting as soon as it re-starts.

That was me detracting? :roll:

 

[Burger]

So... the G'Koth... nice ship isn't it? Would be good to see it included in S&P!

 

[Hash]

I think we should focus on 1st edition inclusion as that's somethings that can be done straight away - agreed? (to focus on 1st edition rather than 2ed as the arguments are getting confused here).

Thanks for the useful summary guys - argument was getting lost in the flames

Any other comments? Personally I actually like having G'Quans on the table as well and feel an iconic ship (for all races) should be a very tempting and viable choice at the standard game, say 5 point RAID. [though yes, it could be at battle too.] I reckon I'll try and represent/summarise the other side of the argument (since that seems to be lacking in this discussion) though for fairness:

Valid reasons to deny the G'Koth (in 1st edition)

1) It has been a purposeful design decision in 1st edition to balance fleets at different levels. Narn excel at Skirmish but have reasonable choices at Raid...they don't need to excel at Raid as well and this will balance the fleet as a whole ACROSS PLs and not just at 5 point raid.

2) While I too would like iconic ships to feature, it should *mean* something when they come out on the table. That arguement could naturally lead to a Patrol and even Skirmish level variant of a G'Quan...after all why not? The iconic ships are cool looking but the other ships have a role to play too, we don't need one model/token to rule them all syndrome.

Will post more when I think of 'em!

 

[Reaverman]

Please stop talking about ***** 2e we are discussing the G'Koth IN 1E
Why is this such a hard concept for you to grasp?.

I am, we are trying to talk about the subject of the Topic and you are detracting as soon as it re-starts.

That was me detracting? :roll:

IT STOPS HERE

Two wrongs never made a right, and you are not helping. If you don't have anything constructive to say in the topic, bog off to another topic!

 

[Burger]

1) It has been a purposeful design decision in 1st edition to balance fleets at different levels. Narn excel at Skirmish but have reasonable choices at Raid...they don't need to excel at Raid as well and this will balance the fleet as a whole ACROSS PLs and not just at 5 point raid.

Well it doesn't "excel" at Raid. Sure it is a good ship, but it isn't overpowered.
Not like say, the Prefect

 

[Locutus9956]

Ok I've started an entirely new thread about this now as I'm sick of the flaming. If you want to talk reasonably about the GKoth, see you there, if you want to keep flaming away till you get banned from the forums go right ahead here....

 

[H]

HEYY!!!! I've been reasonable for at least the last 4 pages now!

 

[Locutus9956]

Like I said Im not pointing fingers here, and frankly am past caring, Id just like to see this whole thing DROPPED so we can get back to discussing ACTA? You know like it says in the forum heading?

 

[H]

Whats ACTA then? I thought this was the flaming forum?

 

[leonpaul]

Hi back again, so basically burger and reaverman want the narn to field nothing but g'quans at all levels that is what i am getting,ships are normally designed for a specific role ie carriers,destroyers and subs

 

[H]

Sigh first post back and you stoke it up again. let it go man, let it go.

 

[Locutus9956]

Hardly. Suggesting 1 more varient is not exactly flooding the field with them! (and pretty much noone uses the War level varients at the moment anyway)