Hey! Lets discuss the G'Koth!
- Thread starter Locutus9956
- Start date
Updated Reasons AGAINST 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 be very good at Raid as well (as in have lots of good choices) and this defeats the design principle of balancing fleets through and 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.
Feel free to add to this...note I've tried to summarise (or is that sanitise
) these from the other thread.
3) Ships are built with a specific purpose in mind and while there may be an aspiration to fulfill a multi-role capability a carrier is still a carrier, a destroyer a destroyer etc. The G'Quan was described as a Narn "heavy cruiser" on the show and their "dreadnought" feel should be reflected in the ship design and it's variants...
4) If the existing G'Quan and variants is not a viable choice (and a battle level ship should be considered at Raid) it makes more sense to suggest an S&P article that would revise those stats that necessarily a new "variant" with the normal ships being one no-one took. You wouldn't have any more G'Quans on the table it would just be G'Koths!
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 be very good at Raid as well (as in have lots of good choices) and this defeats the design principle of balancing fleets through and 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.
Feel free to add to this...note I've tried to summarise (or is that sanitise
) these from the other thread.3) Ships are built with a specific purpose in mind and while there may be an aspiration to fulfill a multi-role capability a carrier is still a carrier, a destroyer a destroyer etc. The G'Quan was described as a Narn "heavy cruiser" on the show and their "dreadnought" feel should be reflected in the ship design and it's variants...
4) If the existing G'Quan and variants is not a viable choice (and a battle level ship should be considered at Raid) it makes more sense to suggest an S&P article that would revise those stats that necessarily a new "variant" with the normal ships being one no-one took. You wouldn't have any more G'Quans on the table it would just be G'Koths!
Hash, point 3. I believe the narn were known to use a modular shiip design, admitedly the models to date don't represent this fluff, but it implies they build standard hulls then adopt each one to a purpose, adding wepons, armour, cargo bays, whatever as necesary... I kind of thing sadly that AOG were responsible for messing this up a bit with so many models, which was obviously a money making move.
As a Narn player I'm happy enough with a g'quann, sure I wouldn't take a fleet of them, but I wouldn't take a 5 point raid fleet with out one either.
Other than needing 1 extra dice of beam I'm more than happy with it as it is. The turn you can get those ship breakers and batteries of secondary in range of a few enemies is just awesome, plus as it is a bit of a slugger people tend to be too busy trashing your more threatening Ka'tan's while it get's closer.
That said I don't play tournaments and so i play people who tend to field fleets balanced out across PLs.
I like the way the Narn fleet works as a whole I think the problem comes in people taking extreme fleets ie 10 x Ka'tan. These ships work fine as part of a balanced PL fleet it's just an issue when taken in large numbers which applies to many other fleet choices. I'd rather (where the model range exists) a limit the number of times any 1 ship can be chosen instead of trying to bring everything up to the level of the "best" choice in a PL.
I like the idea of using the transport raid variant, but as EP said I'd rather have my other raid ships 'fixed' than have a under-powered g'quann fill the same slot.
Other than needing 1 extra dice of beam I'm more than happy with it as it is. The turn you can get those ship breakers and batteries of secondary in range of a few enemies is just awesome, plus as it is a bit of a slugger people tend to be too busy trashing your more threatening Ka'tan's while it get's closer.
That said I don't play tournaments and so i play people who tend to field fleets balanced out across PLs.
I like the way the Narn fleet works as a whole I think the problem comes in people taking extreme fleets ie 10 x Ka'tan. These ships work fine as part of a balanced PL fleet it's just an issue when taken in large numbers which applies to many other fleet choices. I'd rather (where the model range exists) a limit the number of times any 1 ship can be chosen instead of trying to bring everything up to the level of the "best" choice in a PL.
I like the idea of using the transport raid variant, but as EP said I'd rather have my other raid ships 'fixed' than have a under-powered g'quann fill the same slot.
True and the current one + variants as is does so, doesn't it? (was referring to cruiser multi - role point)
Firstly as a Battle level ship that is viable if not very powerful compared to a Primus and secondly as a command ship. There is also a variant that mounts alternative weaponry although does admittedly try to fill the same role.
Remember that the design philosophy in ACTA was to balance ACROSS PLs not necessarily WITHIN PLs...does the G'Quan *need* to be just as good as the Primus (Raid and Battle being the Centauri focal point). Narn focus is at Skirmish and War (although personally I don't think there is anything wrong with current Narn raid level choices).
Firstly as a Battle level ship that is viable if not very powerful compared to a Primus and secondly as a command ship. There is also a variant that mounts alternative weaponry although does admittedly try to fill the same role.
Remember that the design philosophy in ACTA was to balance ACROSS PLs not necessarily WITHIN PLs...does the G'Quan *need* to be just as good as the Primus (Raid and Battle being the Centauri focal point). Narn focus is at Skirmish and War (although personally I don't think there is anything wrong with current Narn raid level choices).
Hash said:Reaverman said:
Well again this argument leads to the Patrol level G'Quan variant extreme
Hash,
thats going to extremes. You know I did not imply that, and there is another fleet, with a ships across 3 PL's, its the EA :wink:
Updated Reasons AGAINST 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 be very good at Raid as well (as in have lots of good choices) and this defeats the design principle of balancing fleets through and 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 argument 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.
3) Ships are built with a specific purpose in mind and while there may be an aspiration to fulfill a multi-role capability a carrier is still a carrier, a destroyer a destroyer etc. The G'Quan was described as a Narn "heavy cruiser" on the show and their "dreadnought" feel should be reflected in the ship design and it's variants...however many people have suggested that history (and fluff) disputes this argument am leaving for completeness.
4) If the existing G'Quan and variants is not a viable choice (and a battle level ship should be considered at Raid) it makes more sense to suggest an S&P article that would revise those stats that necessarily a new "variant" with the normal ships being one no-one took. You wouldn't have any more G'Quans on the table it would just be G'Koths!
5) Lets not try and solve perceived problems with what is argueably abuse of the PL system (taking 10 of 1 good ship e.g. Ka'Tan) by needlessly adding to ship selection and agree to take "balanced" fleets instead.
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 be very good at Raid as well (as in have lots of good choices) and this defeats the design principle of balancing fleets through and 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 argument 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.
3) Ships are built with a specific purpose in mind and while there may be an aspiration to fulfill a multi-role capability a carrier is still a carrier, a destroyer a destroyer etc. The G'Quan was described as a Narn "heavy cruiser" on the show and their "dreadnought" feel should be reflected in the ship design and it's variants...however many people have suggested that history (and fluff) disputes this argument am leaving for completeness.
4) If the existing G'Quan and variants is not a viable choice (and a battle level ship should be considered at Raid) it makes more sense to suggest an S&P article that would revise those stats that necessarily a new "variant" with the normal ships being one no-one took. You wouldn't have any more G'Quans on the table it would just be G'Koths!
5) Lets not try and solve perceived problems with what is argueably abuse of the PL system (taking 10 of 1 good ship e.g. Ka'Tan) by needlessly adding to ship selection and agree to take "balanced" fleets instead.
