New Troligan Stats

[H]

I was just thinking that.

Since there were two players with cheese fleets at the Wargames Workshop tourney on Saturday (4 prefects with scouts), it obviuosly isn't terribly bad form. More likely my conscience not allow me to do it.

Tourneys should Implement a Cheese deduction, you loose points for utter cheesyness, after all, it's a bit unsporting really!

 

[TGT]

HaHa...says Mr I've cut my stands so I can squeeze as many ships together...tee hee....

Anyway I mothballed that fleet and took an Explorer....my penance is done!

Tanks Kama has been sorely worn after saturday...pick on him!

 

[Johnny D]

Have to hope that the hull 6 was a missprint like the SM on the T'rakk. Hull 5 and it wouldn't be quite such an unbalanced monster.
If you were to compare it currently to say an Avoki (which does suck admittedly) it does seem better or equal on every level and it has stealth, a flyer flight and a Flight computer.
I hate stuff like this as it really can shake your faith in a company.
If they can add a ship like this to the existing rules it makes you wonder what chance they have of not making a mess of fleet lists in 2E......

 

[H]

Have to hope that the hull 6 was a missprint like the SM on the T'rakk. Hull 5 and it wouldn't be quite such an unbalanced monster.
If you were to compare it currently to say an Avoki (which does suck admittedly) it does seem better or equal on every level and it has stealth, a flyer flight and a Flight computer.
I hate stuff like this as it really can shake your faith in a company.
If they can add a ship like this to the existing rules it makes you wonder what chance they have of not making a mess of fleet lists in 2E......

Problem being it is an ARMOURED cruiser, so it should have a hard hull, unfortunately, it then ignores the fluff that states it is undergunned.

 

[katadder]

I have put this forward for a tone down, hopefully it can be changed in S&P a bit like the T'rakk was to start.
lower weapons, less dam/crew. basically make it like one that has been playtested and works. wether this will be implemented remains to be seen (but i only put it forward as of 1430hrs on 2nd apr)

 

[Davesaint]

Well if its not neutered before the next tourney I won't be attending Mongoose towers

It's unofficial is'nt, surely they will use the SFOS version at a tourney?

Sorry Reverman, it's official. It won't be allowed for use in any of the Chicago area tourneys that I am running.


Dave

 

[Burger]

Well if its not neutered before the next tourney I won't be attending Mongoose towers

It's unofficial is'nt, surely they will use the SFOS version at a tourney?

Sorry Reverman, it's official. It won't be allowed for use in any of the Chicago area tourneys that I am running.

Where does it say it's official?

 

[Davesaint]

It's unofficial is'nt, surely they will use the SFOS version at a tourney?

Sorry Reverman, it's official. It won't be allowed for use in any of the Chicago area tourneys that I am running.

Where does it say it's official?

Everything in that version of S&P that is unoffical had a huge unoffical stamp on it. So therefore if it doesn't say unoffical, it is offical


Dave

 

[Ripple]

Just to be clear about my previous comment...

I know the play testers didn't see this set of stats, that was the designer part... BUT... there have been a few comments along the lines of 'don't worry its better now' from the play testers. I am trying to have faith that it is so, but things like the Sag issue getting into Arm that way has strained some of the faith. I just hate to take someone's word for it at this point.

Ripple

 

[katadder]

well we got more playtesters since the sagi issue. think I already stopped a 2e sagi (the dag'kar) from rearing its ugly head.
as a tourney players as well I do try to break fleets, even if these are not friendly fleets or likely to lose you friends I will try options to break fleets where possible so hopefully we wont get another sagi again.

 

[Burger]

Everything in that version of S&P that is unoffical had a huge unoffical stamp on it. So therefore if it doesn't say unoffical, it is offical

I saw the unofficial stamps. But where does it say that everything without the stamp is official? Or are you just inferring that yourself?

 

[Davesaint]

Everything in that version of S&P that is unoffical had a huge unoffical stamp on it. So therefore if it doesn't say unoffical, it is offical

I saw the unofficial stamps. But where does it say that everything without the stamp is official? Or are you just inferring that yourself?

I am inferring that, as there are ships in past S&P that are not specifically stated as offical, but are. I think the Drazi ships were one of them. However since Matt is the person behind the article, and that he has indicated that "This latest crop is ready for you to start using now, " the implication is that they are official. Especially since everything that was indicated as unoffical is marked as so.


Dave

 

[Burger]

I don't really think you can infer things, from the lack of a red stamp.
For something to be official it really needs to be explicitly stated as such.

 

[Alexb83]

Matt has always said something along the lines of 'it's up to the tourney organisers' when asked previously about S&P ships.

 

[emperorpenguin]

I know the play testers didn't see this set of stats, that was the designer part... BUT... there have been a few comments along the lines of 'don't worry its better now' from the play testers. I am trying to have faith that it is so, but things like the Sag issue getting into Arm that way has strained some of the faith. I just hate to take someone's word for it at this point.

Ripple

*Bangs head on desk*
I am fed up telling people that the consensus the Saggi was broken was only reached AFTER Armageddon was finished playtesting.... :roll:

 

[animus]

Does seem to be a born again hard Battle level ship. I used them before and I'll use them again. I'd like to hear officially if it's supposed to be Battle or War level. I suspect the silence means Battle it is.

 

[TGT]

Any tourney from now will have to say if its allowed or not. Otherwise there will be a lot of questions coming along the same lines.....
see the wargames workshop thread for the ease of which clarification can be gained.

 

[Ripple]

Sorry EP, just stop telling us then...

I understand that the consensus didn't appear before that, but that in part indicated that the play test of the ships did not strain the fleets limits. Then there were a few posts basically saying it was fine, and that whitestars beat them up just fine...and only after quite a few threads did the S&P article come out.

If the Arm response had been 'we've been watching the reaction to the unaltered sag grow over the past few months and want to say right off the bat that we need to adjust the Arm version down...' I would have more faith. But the initial reaction was a defense of the ships new improved stats, at least by the designers. It points out to me that there is a real understanding gap between the players and designers.

Who's right or wrong I don't know, but that gap makes me wary of changes being something I can bite into without caution.

Ripple

 

[H]

I don't really think you can infer things, from the lack of a red stamp.
For something to be official it really needs to be explicitly stated as such.

would you like Matt to come round to your house with a fruit basket and bottle of wine and sit you down and say "Burger, honey, It's official!" :wink:

 

[Burger]

I don't really think you can infer things, from the lack of a red stamp.
For something to be official it really needs to be explicitly stated as such.

would you like Matt to come round to your house with a fruit basket and bottle of wine and sit you down and say "Burger, honey, It's official!" :wink:

That is a very scary thought.

No, just that "official" should be written on things that are official. Other S&P articles have stated that they are official, such as the Sag and Command Omega. If it doesn't say official, it is not IMO.