Lumbering revisited

SneakyPete

Mongoose
I may be flogging an old horse here, but there has passed quite a bit of time since this was errata'd and there has been lots of time to review this again after many games.

Is there any chance that the errata change that removed lumbering and left the turn nine ships at a severe disadvantage as compared to the turn 6 Fed and Klingon DN's is ever going to be re-addressed in a future update?

The way it is now why would a player ever take a Condor when he get a KC9R that turns circles around it for just a few points more and has all the firepower and reinforced forward shields? (or take a Gorn DN?)

It is sad to see three of these Condors sitting in my fleet box that will probably never see campaign play at my LGS for this reason. I understand emotion should not rule what a ships statistics are, but when similar class ships that were lumbering get a rule change that suddenly enables them to turn twice per round with no cost increase while the rest are basically stuck with lumbering (even though that rule no longer exists) it is perplexing. This doubled their turn ability and lets a Fed DN turn just as nimbly as a CA.

Personally I would suggest turn 8" for most dreadnoughts, and perhaps keep turn 6 for the Klingon based variants.

While I love the game, and play often, this would be nice to see addressed some day. (currently playing the Feds (8-4-0) in a campaign)
 
The removal of lumbering was a quick fix that works in general terms - but yes there is no reason not to look at either increasing points of a couple of ships that did very well out of the change or making some of them turn 8 as you suggest.

Arguably the big looser with the change to lumbering was the Klingon Dreadnought and the big winner here was the Federation Dreadnought

The Romulans have a huge choice of ships including two dreadnoughts - now there is an argument that the Behemoth may be underpointed and should in any case be unique rather than being able to take multiples............
 
Back
Top