<Insert obligatory rant about Faction B desiring Faction A's new special snowflake uniqueness, use words that describe opposite faction poster's behavior as if they were born into that faction in real life, and use rhetoric that insinuates they are infants.>
<Prepare for rebuttal on Faction A having first stole Faction B's unique uniqueness and how Faction A's uniqueness is a copy. Insist Faction A's copy of uniqueness is now it's own uniqueness and be prepared to repeat this as Faction B poster will most likely repeat the stolen uniqueness argument.>
<Witty comment about the poster's lack of understanding of the issue, incorporating suggestions he lacks the intelligence to understand the game mechanics and that his particular interpretation of the lore suggests that he would have difficulty identifying is parentage.>
The KDF already has superior variety in carriers, they have no need for an Armitage analog.
However, should the Federation get yet another carrier vessel (God forbid, two is enough), I will happily throw the above statement out the window. If carriers can't be unique to the KDF, they can at least retain a wider selection of them.
And you don't think combining those with cannons on a Cruiser is going to be... problematic?
Now more problematic than the existing Battle cruisers, since it is based off the Vorcha.
Sacrificed Hull for Turn
Significantly lower Crew than other T5 BCs/Cru
Boffs: Sacrificed Resiliency for Tac capability
note: i fixed an error, it's supposed to be a BG ship