August 04, 2024, 09:13:01 AM

Poll

Should we adopt the changes listed in the first post?

Yes, make it official.
2 (33.3%)
No, needs more work.
4 (66.7%)

Total Members Voted: 6

Voting closed: February 24, 2013, 05:52:20 PM

Author Topic: BFG:R Vote 40: Relictor and Desecrator Stats/Cost  (Read 8061 times)

Offline Talos

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 542
Re: BFG:R Vote 40: Relictor and Desecrator Stats/Cost
« Reply #30 on: February 27, 2013, 06:00:41 PM »
Hmmm...fair point, danny ol' boy! Consider me sold.

Offline afterimagedan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1902
    • Loc: Chicago IL, USA
Re: BFG:R Vote 40: Relictor and Desecrator Stats/Cost
« Reply #31 on: February 27, 2013, 06:08:26 PM »
At this point, they are in a separate part of the document than the other battleships. Why not just keep them there?  Overall, I worry that we are going the "do something syndrome" route with BFG:R.  We unanimously (those who voted) passes the point values for the Desecrator, Wages of Sin, Conqueror, and Relictor with stat changes.  A similar thing happened to the 2 hit escorts.  People passed them then wanted to move it to a second document, presumably because they are either rethinking it or just won't stick to their guns. What up with that?!
« Last Edit: February 27, 2013, 06:14:36 PM by afterimagedan »

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 4197
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: BFG:R Vote 40: Relictor and Desecrator Stats/Cost
« Reply #32 on: February 27, 2013, 06:39:34 PM »
Hey,
this stems from the following:
there was discussion / vote on wages of sin & friends. Now we talk about the parent vessels (the vanilla ones) and a new idea arrives. Can happen. That is called progress.

People still passed those votes but just want it in another place, eg to keep BFG:R to its intent and otherwise keeping 'weird'  stuff separately.

Offline afterimagedan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1902
    • Loc: Chicago IL, USA
Re: BFG:R Vote 40: Relictor and Desecrator Stats/Cost
« Reply #33 on: February 27, 2013, 06:47:19 PM »
Maybe. Well, if anyone would like to propose a vote to change what we have now, someone put together stuff in an AndrewChristlieb fassion (sort of bullet point style), we can discuss, then vote.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2013, 06:50:50 PM by afterimagedan »

Offline AndrewChristlieb

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1651
Re: BFG:R Vote 40: Relictor and Desecrator Stats/Cost
« Reply #34 on: February 27, 2013, 09:13:18 PM »
I think everyone if happy with the ships as they sit, the named barges should still have their own seperate entry tho and i would place them before the rest of the document just after the PK.
I don't make the rules, I just think them up and write them down.

Offline Bessemer

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 339
    • Loc: UK
Re: BFG:R Vote 40: Relictor and Desecrator Stats/Cost
« Reply #35 on: February 27, 2013, 09:17:42 PM »
Does sound like the best place to put them.
I refuse to be killed by something I've never heard of.

Offline afterimagedan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1902
    • Loc: Chicago IL, USA
Re: BFG:R Vote 40: Relictor and Desecrator Stats/Cost
« Reply #36 on: February 27, 2013, 09:46:40 PM »
I think everyone if happy with the ships as they sit, the named barges should still have their own seperate entry tho and i would place them before the rest of the document just after the PK.

I will make that change right now. Alright, let's call this closed for now and move on to Bakka, Admech, and Daemon ships.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2013, 09:49:57 PM by afterimagedan »

Offline AndrewChristlieb

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1651
Re: BFG:R Vote 40: Relictor and Desecrator Stats/Cost
« Reply #37 on: February 27, 2013, 10:01:37 PM »
If you throw up a thread for the Est, Scion, and Vs we can try to finish off the standard Chaos ships. Is there anything that we are missing other than these, daemons, and the finalised fleet lists?
I don't make the rules, I just think them up and write them down.