Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[milo christiansen]

Ebbor. Stop, or we are trading you to Kasgyre.

[10ebbor10]

Ebbor. Stop, or we are trading you to Kasgyre.

I have a complaint. I have explained this complaint and backed it up with quotes. The complaint is that the proposed revision was not intended as a roll at advantage, backed up by the idea that it was explicitly written to avoid using a roll at advantage and losing a dice.

What have you added to the discussion?

Honestly, please don't poison a discussion by attacking the person behind it, or trying to order them around. It's a shitty arguing tactic. On a side note, here are some relocation forms. You're being reassigned to Three Captains as leader of plan "Spiderbait".

[milo christiansen]

I tried to make the wording of the write up imply that it would effectively roll at advantage if the first roll went bad, but to not waste the second die if it went well. As far as I'm concerned, the SUCKERPUNCH was a total success.

There, straight from the mouth of the guy who wrote the revision.

[Jilladilla]

In any case, it's clear your write-up got entirely ignored. It explicitly stated to evaluate and change the design, but then the update says that the design is left exactly the same.

It said if we got a breakthrough and got it working ahead of schedule (implying the first dice) to work on the accuracy and fire rate.
And that's just what happened.
The 4 got us a cannon that worked.
The 6 completely and utterly obliterated all accuracy issues related to the design, and any reduced fire rate issues caused by the vastly increased heat from the double strength blast.

The changes were always intended to be minor edits to make it not explode, if I was going for a significantly different design, I wouldn't have called it SUCKERPUNCH, Take Two, and given it its own name.

[10ebbor10]

Not as I understand it.

As I understand it, the 6 would have solved all the issues, regardless if we got the 4 before it or not. That means that the 4 is effectively wasted.

Edit : I argued against rolling for advantage. We voted for a proposal that was explicitly written to avoid wasting the effect of a good die roll, and hence, explicitedly wasn't a roll at advantage. And then everything that's written is ignored and we get a roll for advantage.

It just seems like a bait and switch.

Especially since it's quite clearly a misunderstanding. The revision explicitly calls for a revision of the previous attempt and an analysis of what went wrong. None of that is present in the current version.

[NUKE9.13]

Okay, so. We deploy the Windrider with 16 regular trim crystals, and 10 Select SUCKERPUNCHes. Firepower is the only advantage we have over Kasgyr. We should absolutely exploit that to the fullest.

I don't want to send Herbie to TC this turn. Because she'd be facing two Kunais, which is unlikely to go well for her. If we wait a turn, it is likely that either one of the Kunais has been damaged, or if not, that one will be sent back with their transport on escort duty. Herbie might be able to sneak past a single Kunai.
Plus, that way we can actually send some well-equipped marines, instead of a bunch of mooks carrying pincushions. 

Not as I understand it.

:/
I mean, we have the SUCKERPUNCH. It is basically perfect. The wording of the results makes it pretty clear that we could not possibly get anything better without spending a design.
Even if your complaint is valid, it's not like anything would change. We maxed out the ability of a revision to improve cannons. 

[Jilladilla]

Not as I understand it.

As I understand it, the 6 would have solved all the issues, regardless if we got the 4 before it or not.

Alright. Let's say this would be the case. If we only spent one die on the SUCKERPUNCH it wouldn't have mattered because we would be stuck with the 4! (And also! DIMINISHING RETURNS ARE IN EFFECT.)

Either way, it is clear that you are utterly entrenched into your position, and nothing would get you to move from it, short of convincing the GM to perform a retcon to further improve a pair of revisions that more or less went flawlessly.

[10ebbor10]

I'm not moving from my position, primarily because the only answers I get are.

"You're wrong"
"You're deliberately trying to screw us up"

and other variants of "you're a bad person and you should feel bad". There's no logic, only attempts at guilt tripping. Clearly, we need to revise our debate statistics beyond simply asserting your own position and ad hominem. Only Nuke actually has a decent argument.

But anyway, it's clear this discussion is indeed going nowhere. There are 3 pieces of evidence here, and all have been quoted.

[NUKE9.13]

Marine plan A: (3) Tack, Milo, Jilladilla, NUKE9.13

Sky Plan A: (2) Tack, Milo
Sky Plan B: (2) Jilladilla, NUKE9.13

So far, so good.

Windrider:
Suckerpunch-pattern, switch IS chases for 1 armor: (2) Tack, Jilladilla

But what does this mean? What is the Suckerpunch pattern? I want to vote for all Select cannons, all the time. What do I vote for?

Here's a non-broken up votebox, for quoting convenience.

Marine plan A: (3) Tack, Milo, Jilladilla, NUKE9.13

Sky Plan A: (2) Tack, Milo
Sky Plan B: (2) Jilladilla, NUKE9.13

Windrider:
Suckerpunch-pattern, switch IS chases for 1 armor: (2) Tack, Jilladilla

[milo christiansen]

You grabbed the wrong vote box and erased my vote change...

Also changed to more sensible wording. If I screwed it up let me know.

Marine plan A: (3) Tack, Milo, Jilladilla, NUKE9.13

Sky Plan A: (1) Tack
Sky Plan B: (3) Jilladilla, NUKE9.13, Milo

Windrider:
Normal chases instead of Suckerpunch, +1 armor: (2) Tack, Jilladilla
Suckerpunch chases:

[Jilladilla]

Alright, clarifying the Configuration I'm voting for.
Windrider, Armored Configuration
2 Itshana Select Small Cores (12c, 12o)
2 Small Lift Crystals              (6c, 4o)
8 SUCKERPUNCH LACs          (8c, 16o)
2 Normal LACs on front         (2c, 2o)
16 Trim Crystals                    (8c)
1 Copper Plating over critical spots (3o)
8 Reams of Webbing (In stock)
Total:                                   (36c, 37o) (14c, 1o remain)

(Possible Subvote: 2 Itshana Select Trim Crystals)

Marine plan A: (4) Tack, Milo, Jilladilla, NUKE9.13

Sky Plan A: (1) Tack
Sky Plan B: (3) Jilladilla, NUKE9.13, Milo

Windrider:
Armored Configuration: (1) Jilladilla
Normal chases instead of Suckerpunch, +1 armor: (1) Tack
Suckerpunch chases:

[milo christiansen]

That is "Normal chases instead of Suckerpunch, +1 armor", so why split the vote?

[Jilladilla]

That is "Normal chases instead of Suckerpunch, +1 armor", so why split the vote?

Clarification so everyone knows what exactly is being voted for. NUKE was conveying some confusion as to what was that particular loadout was (heck I wasn't even entirely sure), and I won't just potentially change everyone's vote to this.

[NUKE9.13]

You grabbed the wrong vote box and erased my vote change...

Whoops, sorry.

Alright, clarifying the Configuration I'm voting for.

Thanks.


In support of SUCKERPUNCH chases over armour: apparently it takes eight shots (from a standard LAC) to penetrate our shroud. So even if every single shot of theirs is on-target (unlikely, given that the standard LAC is stated to be inaccurate), we still won't need armour. I mean, yeah, eventually the shroud will fail. And, yeah, armour would help survive the ten seconds until the backup shroud engages. And... wait, I've just convinced myself to support armour. 

Marine plan A: (4) Tack, Milo, Jilladilla, NUKE9.13

Sky Plan A: (1) Tack
Sky Plan B: (3) Jilladilla, NUKE9.13, Milo

Windrider:
Armored Configuration: (2) Jilladilla, NUKE9.13
Normal chases instead of Suckerpunch, +1 armor: (1) Tack
Suckerpunch chases:

[Nirur Torir]

Marine plan A: (4) Tack, Milo, Jilladilla, NUKE9.13

Sky Plan A: (1) Tack
Sky Plan B: (4) Jilladilla, NUKE9.13, Milo, Nirur
Windrider:
Armored Configuration: (3) Jilladilla, Nuke9.13, Nirur
 -Upgrade 2 Trim Crystals to Itshana Select Trim Crystals: (1) Nirur
Normal chases instead of Suckerpunch, +1 armor: (1) Tack
Suckerpunch chases: