Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through March 06, 2011	25		03/06 10:41am
	Archive through August 22, 2011	25		08/22 12:22pm
	Archive through January 21, 2013	25		01/21 02:16pm
	Archive through January 23, 2013	25		01/23 01:17pm
	Archive through January 24, 2013	25		01/24 05:25pm
	Archive through January 26, 2013	25		01/26 09:55pm
	Archive through January 29, 2013	25		01/29 12:13pm
	Archive through January 31, 2013	25		01/31 07:14pm
	Archive through May 02, 2013	25		05/02 08:44pm
	Archive through August 01, 2013	25		08/01 05:07pm
	Archive through October 05, 2014	25		10/05 10:46pm
	Archive through August 13, 2015	25		08/13 10:38am
	Archive through April 22, 2016	25		04/22 08:40pm
	Archive through July 10, 2020	25		07/13 09:54am
	Archive through July 14, 2020	25		07/14 04:17pm
	Archive through July 20, 2020	25		07/21 09:07am
	Archive through July 23, 2020	25		07/23 09:54pm

Problem is that the TC field has become completely ossified. It is what it is and the powers that be aren't changing it, period. I have yet to see any argument sway SPP or SVC to change the TC field in many years.

Maybe that's good. The current Andro is so utterly useless that it's effectively excluded as a serious contender, and personally that's fine with me. I've always strongly believed the Andro does not belong in sanctioned tourneys.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, July 23, 2020 - 12:39 pm: Edit

Andy wrote:
>>Don't know why a fudge or 2 for the Andro is so anathema.>>

Heh, like, I don't actually think it is *necessary* to make up new rules to make the Andro work. The 3xBTTY ship is almost good (we both played it, we both played against it :-). Tweak the guns to a reasonable balance. Maybe if it goes 3xTRL, up the internals a little bit (maybe 2 more power as Brian suggested, maybe a few more hull/cargo to protect the batteries a little longer). That'd probably work.

By Ginger McMurray (Gingermcmurray) on Thursday, July 23, 2020 - 02:32 pm: Edit

I'd gotten it into my head that Orions could only double one engine per turn. I have no idea why. Maybe there's a scenario that specifies it?

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, July 23, 2020 - 03:00 pm: Edit

Heh, nah, in the tournament, the Orions can double normally and use the regular rules (i.e. they can double LW, or RW, or Both, and/or Impulse, and they lose 1 box from whichever they double, so if they double both Warp and their Impulse, they burn out 3 energy boxes at the end of the turn).

By Jack Taylor (Jtaylor) on Thursday, July 23, 2020 - 09:54 pm: Edit

I think the initial play testing should be focused on BP. It seems to me that if plasma ships still can't beat it...like hardly ever...then it is still broken and should not be in a tournament until it is fixed. Only my opinion of course.

Peter - does the Andromedan really have power problems against a plasma ship that can't really get plasma hits without bolting? I mean- you probably are not at reinforced levels on the panels without bolts. And you don't need to charge phasers every turn as there are no drones. So aren't you just screaming around the board, displacing when you need to, and turning to get inside your opponent and on a rear shield just like back then?

By Brian Evans (Romwe) on Thursday, July 23, 2020 - 11:08 pm: Edit

Jack Said: "I think the initial play testing should be focused on BP. It seems to me that if plasma ships still can't beat it...like hardly ever...then it is still broken and should not be in a tournament until it is fixed. Only my opinion of course."

If this is really a problem, then the Fed is broken and should be removed from the tournament. The Fed very rarely beats the heavy droners, and almost never wins against BP. RPS is what it is. Most ships have bad RPS matchups. So I don't think that is a realistic expectation, that no ships have bad matchups against the Andro.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, July 25, 2020 - 08:29 am: Edit

Jack wrote:
>>Peter - does the Andromedan really have power problems against a plasma ship that can't really get plasma hits without bolting?>>

Having played the 3x btty version numerous times (both as the Andro and against the Andro), against plasma ships, it would generally end up slowing down enough late in the game that plasmas could catch and hit the thing. Early on, it needs to go fast to avoid plasmas, and possibly displace over them, etc. But after running from plasma for a few turns without taking a bunch of damage (or taking a bunch of damage, and having trouble emptying panels), the ship runs out of power and slows down. And then plasmas can start hitting it.

Like, it isn't a slam dunk for plasma or anything, but with patience and persistence, the plasma ship can eventually kill it.

By Jack Taylor (Jtaylor) on Wednesday, November 15, 2023 - 07:51 pm: Edit

I have played the neo-Tholian a few times now on both ends. I think if the FH P-1's were FX it might almost be decent. I don't think it would become too strong, just a lot better. As it is now, it is difficult to win in it against almost everything.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, November 16, 2023 - 05:47 pm: Edit

Like, I have played the Neo a bunch, with not spectacular results. It's almost good, even with the 40 power, but there are some ships (Fed, Shark, Hydran) that can take the very obtuse strategy of "Go forward at moderate speeds and arm weapons", and the NTC doesn't really have a chance.

Like, the main issue with the NTC is that the ATC is just plain better. Better phasers and phaser arcs, the wall eyed disruptors, the extra snare, the stronger flank shields. Everything that the Tholian is good at doing, the ATC is just better at doing than the NTC. I dunno that it is really worth the effort to upgrade the NTC any further, as you can always just play the ATC, and will likely do better.

I mean, I like the NTC, and would love for it to be a better ship. And I don't think it is *terrible*; like, Dana has a long history of doing well in it. But still, the ATC is just gonna be better most of the time, until you prop the NTC up so much that it is completely insane.

By Paul Franz (Andromedan) on Monday, January 08, 2024 - 10:52 pm: Edit

Back to my favorite topic. The Andromedan TKC and how to make it a ship with an overall chance of winning.

The current Andromedan ship has 2xTRH, 6xP2s, 3xBtty and 28 power. As was pointed out earlier in this topic by Peter, the issue I that will 3xBtty it runs out of power. I agree with that. It is too easy for an opponent to run you out of power and then you have a very slow moving Andromedan that is dead meat. My recommendation is to revert the power to one of the past. That is give the Andromedan 32 power (possibly 4 AWRs instead of 4 APRs, but that is debatable).


Personally, I think the Andromedan needs a little more defense. But before people scream that it does not need more defense that it is too strong already. I don't think so. Because of the 3xBtty the Andromedan has no way to do a panel dump without taking two turns. I think the solution is not to give the Andromedan a fourth Btty. But to give it an 5 point Energy Module. I think this could allow the Andromedan to do 1 panel dump and still limit the amount of power that the Andromedan has available.

Also, the benefit of using an EM is that it can easily be tweaked.

By Jeff Guthridge (Jeff_Guthridge) on Tuesday, January 09, 2024 - 12:24 am: Edit

The idea I had (which I can already hear the screaming about) is to separate the six forward panels into two banks of three (no change in coverage, just an administrative change), like we see on the SSD. Allow each panel bank (groups shown on the SSD) to be dumped independently in order to limit the amount of released power.

I don't see swapping 4 APR for 4 AWR being much help. Adding two extra AWR might do the trick, you don't need more than two AWR power anyway with only one DisDev.

Other ideas would be a 7th (or even 8th) PH2 with a RH arc, allowing a larger phaser cap without changing the centerline alpha strike.

I like the idea of an EM, it would tend to offer options the current Andro doesn't have. Should there be restrictions on its recovery after launch over and above the normal rules?

Lots of interesting ideas here.

By Paul Franz (Andromedan) on Tuesday, January 09, 2024 - 12:53 pm: Edit

Jeff,
The splitting of the banks will not work, due to the way panel dumping works. When you turn off a bank of panels, the energy is sloshed to the other banks. That would mean that when you turn off one of the front panels, it will slosh to other front panel and the rear panel. Making doing a panel dump (i.e. transferring the panel energy into the batteries quickly) even more difficult..

When it comes to power, I apologize for not being clear. The current configuration of a Andromedan ship is 24 warp, 2 impulse and 2 APR. A past configuration was 24 warp, 4 impulse and 4 apr (changed to 4 AWR at one point). The benefit of changing APR to AWR is just so that the Andromedan would not need to use movement warp to recharge the DisDev.

Personally, I would love having an additional phaser. It would help with the fight with the Kzinti. Andromedan always have issues with drones from them because of the 3 Type-IV-Fs. If the Kzinti launches 4 drones with 3 Type-IV-Fs in that mix the Andromedan has a hard time knocking all 4 drones down. So invariably one has to hit and you are guessing (because of the limited labs) to figure out which one I the Type-I-F.

When it comes to the EM, I think the standard rules apply. The issue with putting the EM out is that it is an immediate target. Good for the Andromedan to have something other than the ship to target but it means most probably the Andromedan will never recover it.

By Jack Taylor (Jtaylor) on Saturday, March 02, 2024 - 04:30 pm: Edit

I think I have offered up this idea before but I will offer it up again if not.

I believe the Neo-Tholian tournament ship would become a much more viable ship with one simple change. I think all the ship needs is the to change the FH P1's to FX.

Easy Peezy.

By Gregg Henry (Labyr) on Tuesday, June 09, 2026 - 08:26 pm: Edit

There is a tournament coming up in August in Toronto, and I have been thinking about the Neo-Tholian a lot. I agree that one of its issues is its phaser arcs. Where I differ is, I think the FH arcs are fine, it's the LS/RS arcs that annoy me.

The way I fly the Neo, I am a lot more likely to go for an oblique shot to keep my distance then center line which may get me too close. If phasers 6-9 were tilted 60 degrees to be FA+L and FA+R I think that would make a huge difference in the Neo's performance.

There are some other changes I'd like to see, like it getting 10 forward hull like a normal NCA or having more LS/RS phaser 3s for padding. But I think the Phaser 1 arcs are more important.

It's interesting, the Neo Tholian in theory has a lot of advantages but at the table it is hard to make it all come together.

By Jack Taylor (Jtaylor) on Tuesday, June 09, 2026 - 10:17 pm: Edit

Deleted-- I already said my peace on this one.

By Stefan Lenfest (Himosan) on Friday, June 12, 2026 - 02:48 pm: Edit

Does the Neo need a buff? Top players always had it middle of the pack but Schirmer's data had it near the bottom, I'd guess that's a mix of the web skill cap in action and more competitive players strongly favoring the Archeo.

Assuming we did want to buff the Neo: I guess phaser arcs are one option but I'd prefer if the Neo and Archeo were further differentiated not less. I like the Forward Hull as a smaller buff. Maybe at the same time the Archeo could lose 2 CH and get it's 30 rear shields back. For a bigger rework maybe you could have the Neo get a P1 where the 2nd WC usually goes, maybe giving up an Imp (move the 5th battery into the COM).

By Jack Taylor (Jtaylor) on Saturday, June 13, 2026 - 07:02 pm: Edit

I have been playing forever and never saw the Neo as middle of the pack. It's bottom 3-4. The webcaster is hard to use and isn't very well protected. The powers that be, have never wanted to drastically change the base ship in the game. Certainly, they did do that some to balance ships for tournaments but otherwise changes have been no-bueno. The ATH doesn't need changes IMHO. It works as it is. Not overwhelming in most people's hands. The Neo is weak. My thinking is that the main problem is that it has worst firepower firing out the 3 and 5 than literally any other ship at r4. Even the KE can bolt an F. Nothing is worse than the Neo except for the Andro but the Andro is a whole other beasty and currently the worst ship there is to play nerfed like it is.

Think about it, the neo is hiding behind cast web but has nothing to discourage a ship from turning in behind it if it has only 1 box of a shield up. 2 p1 doesn't scare anyone who has batteries charged and 1 box of shield repaired. That is the problem. Change the FH P1's to FX only improves the Neo to middle of the pack which is all that is really needed. FX p1's isn't going to make it dominate or anything.

By Stefan Lenfest (Himosan) on Sunday, June 14, 2026 - 08:05 pm: Edit

Some excellent points.

FH to FX would improve damage out the 3/5 but in the situation you describe the forward P1's are often unloaded. Maybe we could change the LS/RS P1's to LS+RR (etc)? Maybe both although you're right they like to keep the core hull characteristics so things like that might be non-starters.

The Neo also struggles at one of the core things Tholians want to do, the basic R2 shot thru web. It only expects 27 off centerline and 33 oblique, neither of which presents much danger to the opponent. Meanwhile the Archeo's 46 oblique average damage can often be avoided but at least it's a threat for many ships. NT can do 40 on the centerline but that's usually the worst approach and it's only +1 vs AT.

That's why I was trying to add a p1. If you put it where the hull WC would be that could be FX (or even 360) which might also help with it's flank damage. Or you could follow the NCH and give it a Collar which has RX phasers. I assume we wouldn't want the Neo to have 2 more P1, so I guess you could try either 1 P1 or 2 P3 (or 2 P2?). The collar also has 2 CHull so if you wanted to make the NT thicker at the same time that's 2-6 more hull between the Collar and COM. For power you could keep it at 40 or do 39 like the NCH if all these buffs seem like they might be too much.

Another rework idea which might be too radical would be a Neo with 2 WC. As you note the Caster is much weaker in duels (and the Snare is clunky at best) so maybe it's not as crazy a proposal as I would have thought in the past. It'd be super fun and flavorful to playtest, might be able to dance a bit and make up for some of the NT's knife-fighting shortcomings. Too powerful? The 6 torp alpha with no reload turn is certainly scary. I think against most ships you're casting at least one web and even firing all 6 it's probably comparable to the Selt's alpha or the Lyran's UIM shot. It'd be fun to try for sure though and would usually operate a lot differently from the Archeo. Webs are kind of uninteractive but in practice freestanding webs just delay things a bit, would multiple webs be too strong at delaying? I'd guess no but maybe.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, June 15, 2026 - 10:33 am: Edit

Getting tourney ship changes is the next best thing to impossible. But it can be an interesting discussion.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, June 15, 2026 - 04:45 pm: Edit

In regards to the Neo-Tholians FH phaser-1s. The firing arcs are restricted by the design of the ship, just as the rear firing arc of the Klingon FX phasers are. Like it or not the FH phasers are located underneath the command module and are blocked by the main hull and engines from any wider arc. This is also why those phasers have a 360° arc when the command module is separated from the main hull becoming an independent ship in its own right. We may as well define all, at least phasers, as 360 degree weapons if we defined the the FH phaser-1s of the Neo-Tholian as having that firing arc while attached to the rear hull.

By Stefan Lenfest (Himosan) on Monday, June 15, 2026 - 05:25 pm: Edit

It does help with the immersion that the arcs for hulls are consistent and with so many other levers for tweaking ship balance I think it's a good idea to rule the arcs out.

By Gregg Henry (Labyr) on Tuesday, June 16, 2026 - 11:29 pm: Edit

I tried playing around with a (very crude) NeoTholian in my CAD software. I can't find a good place to stick phasers with different arcs. It is limiting but having the systems on an SSD match what's in our imagination or on the mini is for the best.

I really wish I could think up something to make the Neo Tholian more competitive in tournaments, but I am stumped.

By Jack Taylor (Jtaylor) on Wednesday, June 17, 2026 - 02:55 pm: Edit

Another idea -- change the cost to repair the snare as a web generator to 4 for the Neo in tournaments to help protect the caster. If the Neo loses the caster, early like t3, it has no toys at all left to play with and the caster takes years to repair.

By Jack Taylor (Jtaylor) on Wednesday, June 17, 2026 - 03:29 pm: Edit

I also like Stefan's idea -- this one -- Maybe we could change the LS/RS P1's to LS+RR (etc)? Is the ship's hull in the way of making this change?

The nearby p-3's already have ra arcs.

Personally, I don't think the ship needs more forward firepower. It needs more firepower out the 3/5. This idea would solve this and not add phasers to the ship. It's got phasers.

By Gregg Henry (Labyr) on Wednesday, June 17, 2026 - 10:21 pm: Edit

I think the 6-9 phasers are stuck to LS/RS based on the ships geometry. But I didn't want to give up so I started flipping through books looking for inspiration.

In Captain's Log 25 there are Neo Tholians with collars that give extra phaser 1s in the RX arc, this would give more firepower out the 3/5. They also add a bit of central hull that adds durability. I doubt the battery and APR counts could change, they are already at the maximum.

I don't know if it's enough to balance the ship, but I will try a Neo with these additions at my next game and I'll report if I see a difference.

By Stefan Lenfest (Himosan) on Thursday, June 18, 2026 - 06:00 am: Edit

I mentioned the collar above, the "historical" collar on the NCH has 2 p1 but I think that's too strong ala the 10 gun Selt. More balanced options include: 1 P1 (most obvious), 2 P3 (a little worse than 1 p1 but comparable), 2 P2 (a little better than 1 p1; not a common system for Tholians); 1 p1 and 1 p3 (maybe the strongest of these options).

The APR can replace some of the extra Impulse that the T-NCA has. If you wanted to, or you could just leave the APR off and not touch the Impulse.

By Gregg Henry (Labyr) on Thursday, June 25, 2026 - 10:55 pm: Edit

So earlier tonight my opponent indulged me and I tried the NeoTholian with an extra RX phaser 1. He flew a Lyran. I think he was a bit rusty with dealing with web, I know I was rusty laying it.

On turn one I forced him into an HET that brought me out of arc of his disruptors. I made an oblique pass and I scored a respectable 21 internals. Turn two saw us both do slow turns to face one another. I fired my web caster on 2.32 to set up another web to limit his movement.

He was unsure how to handle the web, he fired his disruptors early before changing his mind and committing to the attack. I held on until range 1 (another oblique shot), but by now I was presenting a different shield to him and his remaining phasers weren't enough. My alpha landed and we called it there.

So a potential 8th phaser 1 on the Neo, even with its odd arc, will see a good amount of use. It's like a special little reward for lining up an oblique shot correctly. Obviously 1 game is too small a sample size to arrive at any definite conclusion, but it's given me enough optimism for the NeoTholian that I will continue testing it.