Jump to content



Photo

X-Wing Mini Alternates/Customs


  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#41 Rob Jedi

Rob Jedi

    Member

  • Members
  • 373 posts

Posted 08 August 2014 - 10:27 AM

Yeah these are interesting please keep posting.

 

Also nice RoboRally board.


Edited by Rob Jedi, 10 August 2014 - 07:08 AM.

Rob_Jedi's Miniature Painting Blog   My Repaints   Armored Hull YT-1300   Imperial Transport

Rebels: Ax3  Bx3  Ex1  CRx1  GRx1  Hx2  Xx6  Yx3  YTx3  Zx3

Empire: FSx3  LSx1  TAx2  TBx2  TDx2  TFx7  TIx7  TPx1 


#42 lee337

lee337

    Member

  • Members
  • 33 posts

Posted 10 August 2014 - 11:45 PM

CORRECTION: As has been pointed out in another thread, my estimate for 70m for the length of the Gozanti-class cruiser just won't work.  THAT IS TOO SMALL.  Clips from the new Rebels TV series show a very significant gap in between the TIE fighters when the ship is viewed from the front (just about wide enough to squeeze in another TIE in between if only there was another docking tube) -- so my build just doesn't cut it.  So, it's back to the drawing board for me.

 

Meanwhile, I took a few pictures of some other ships I've been considering as proxies for starfighter battles in my campaign.

 

ARC-170 Revisited:

2014-08-07-arc-170-comparison.png

 

Despite my earlier predictions, I actually got some push-back from the players on the Titanium ARC-170 on the table.  "Surely, it can't be THAT big, can it?"  Well, surely it can't.  If I had a proper model to represent the ARC-170 at 1:270 scale, it would be about 3.3" wide, and the Titanium ARC-170 is 4" wide.  There's a Shapeways model from Mel Miniatures that comes in at 3.36" wide, but I'm not keen on the "peach fuzz" and the surface detail from 3D printers for miniatures that small.  I'm trying out the Starship Battles ARC-170 (too small at 2.25" wide) as a substitute, since I think it does a bit better at passing the "eyeball test" on the table.  If I get any gripes, I'll fall back on, "Well, then *YOU* find me a better model!"   ;)

 

 

Virago / StarViper Comparison:

2014-08-07-virago-comparison.png

 

In my campaign, the PCs have had a few brushes with the Zann Consortium, and the "StarViper" is supposed to be a key starfighter for that group, so I figured I should fix up a few for the nigh-inevitable battle.  The Wookieepedia entry for the Virago/StarViper is pretty useless.  It gives a length as 24m.  24m measured from whence to where?  Those wings are supposed to move about, after all.  I'm guessing there's unlikely to be an official FFG Virago -- at least not anytime SOON -- so I figured I'd settle for a Micro Machine that "looks about right."  As luck would have it, the Starship Battles Virago, while having the wings in a wider configuration, happens to still be about the same size/scale.  This is especially evident if I put the two models together, cockpit to cockpit -- the cockpits are the same size.  (As for which model is BETTER ... well, the Starship Battles model has a little finer detail, but it's subject to lots of warping.)

 

 

Corellian Corvette Comparison:

2014-08-07-blockade-runner-comparison.pn

 

Lastly (for now), I picked up one of those old Collectors' Fleet "Rebel Blockade Runner" models.  The sound effects still work!   :D  It's a bit bigger than FFG's model (I can live with that), but the level of detail is ATROCIOUS by comparison.  Where FFG's model has a finely detailed vent, the Collectors' Fleet version just has, say, a bump if you're lucky.  I'm toying with the idea of using Instant Mold to get impressions of greebles on the FFG version, and then try to recreate them with putty on the Collectors' Fleet one.  Sure, the scale is different, but I think the added individual spot details would still constitute an improvement.

 

Right now, I can't really envision having much need for TWO Corvettes in a single starfighter encounter, but a long time ago I had wanted to get one of these so I could convert it to resemble the FarStar from the DarkStryder campaign.  (The variant had a hangar bay and some docking tubes for X-Wings, and I liked the idea of having a ship that could act as a roving base for a bunch of starfighters.)  If I ever settle on a proper size for the Gozanti-class Cruiser (with TIE support) and start actually building it, perhaps this could be the Rebel equivalent once I add on the docking tubes and fighter bay.  It's not something really called for in my current campaign, however, so it's a lower priority.

Would something this work in scale for you?..http://starshipmodel...nti-cruiser.cfm



#43 Jordan Peacock

Jordan Peacock

    Member

  • Members
  • 59 posts

Posted 11 August 2014 - 06:56 AM

 

Would something this work in scale for you?..http://starshipmodel...nti-cruiser.cfm

 

 

Thanks for the link!  That looks like a beautiful model, but it says it's about 6" long, which wouldn't be much longer than FFG's Millennium Falcon / YT-1300 model.  (At 1:350 scale, that means they're going with the old 42m measurement.)  It sure makes me wish there were some marvelous scaling tool I could use to take a "master" at one scale and somehow sculpt an exact duplicate scaled larger or smaller.  :D



#44 Radarman5

Radarman5

    Member

  • Members
  • 389 posts

Posted 11 August 2014 - 01:54 PM

I was GMing Edge of the Empire just before getting into X-Wing. We had trouble with its more abstract space combat and I thought about using the X-wing rules instead but the diferances in the two systems didn't seem like they would mesh, so I never tried it. What's your aproach, do you alter the talents and skills from eote or change the ship stats from x-wing? Say a PC has training in pilot(space), how does thier ability score/skill ranks translate?


Since I'm doing this for RPG purposes, there's an awful lot of "winging it" going on, and I need to make some updates to my "cheat sheet" since the last game. For each ship being used by the players, I've been pasting together quick-ref sheets that have the Edge of Empire stats, and then a bogus (Photoshop patched) ship card for the X-Wing stats, along with paste-in equipment cards that seem appropriate (for ion cannons, proton torpedoes, etc.). In some cases, I don't happen to have both Edge of Empire *AND* X-Wing stats for a given ship, so I have to make something up. I don't yet have a smooth "conversion" process, so it mostly consists of my conjecture about stuff like, "Well, this ship is supposed to be a lowly mass-produced craft, so it's probably close to a Headhunter in stats,
I've seen folks posting stats for various ships, but quite often, when I examine the stats, they tend to be suspiciously powerful (as in, "Why would anyone ever want a mere X-Wing, when they could have THIS?!"). So for now I'm just eyeballing it and hoping the players don't think too much about WHERE I got these stats.
For game play ... it's still a work in progress, and I think my own balance is a bit broken and in need of further work. But with that in mind, here's where I am at the moment.
>>> Determine Piloting score by adding up the character's dice in Piloting (Space). Each green die = 1 point; each yellow die = 2 points. This puts the typical TIE fighter pilot (3 Agility + 1 rank Piloting) at a Piloting score of "4." This is used for purposes of determining order in which movements are made.

>>> Every PC who is a member of the crew of a ship (e.g., multiple PCs acting as gunners, etc.) acts at the same time as the ship's pilot. (Yes, this means a ship with awesome gunners and a lousy pilot will be severely disadvantaged in terms of action order, but I can live with that. And what player group will tolerate having a lousy pilot at the helm for very long? ;) )

>>> We go through rounds of X-Wing Miniatures combat like usual -- but if there is any non-starfighter-combat activity that's taking place at the same time (e.g., a fight taking place ON one of the ships right in the middle of the battle, or the "talkie" guy in the group is trying to negotiate in the middle of the shooting), then any die-rolling exercises related to that are handled at the "bottom" of each round.

>>> For the various Talents, I've been figuring out their impact on the game on an "as it comes up" basis. Being able to reroll a Piloting check isn't of much use if Piloting is just a fixed value determining your position in the action order each round ... but I can entertain the idea that it could be used to reroll anything involving dice that could reflect upon actual piloting (e.g., reroll the damage dice when you pass "through" an asteroid in hopes that it'll come up with no hits ... or reroll evasion dice in hopes of negating an attack). Once I make a house-ruling on that, I write it down for future reference, but I haven't exhaustively gone through ALL the Talents to see how they might apply.

>>> Having multiple players on, say, a YT-1300 to man the turrets, etc., means the ship can get in more attacks. A YT-1300 has two turrets, so if you've got one pilot and one gunner, the pilot could make an attack in his forward arc, AND the gunner gets to make one attack that can go outside the forward arc (because it's a turret). If you've got TWO gunners, then it can make two attacks, each one ignoring the forward firing arc (but it doesn't magically add a THIRD attack, because in-game there are still only two turrets.)

>>> I calculate a "score" for certain other skills that might impact game play, mostly in the form of allowing rerolls on dice. My current formula is similar to that for Piloting: Add up your dice (green = 1, yellow = 2), but then SUBTRACT TWO. If, SOMEHOW, after that, you end up with zero or a NEGATIVE score, you're just too incompetent at that skill to contribute, or there's some sort of penalty.

(Note: I don't apply this to the Piloting score because it would be kind of moot anyway, since there it's just used to determine turn order.)

>>> Gunnery: You get to reroll a number of attack dice equal to your "gunnery score." You must take the new result, whether better or worse. If you have a negative Gunnery skill, you get NO rerolls, and in fact you must pull out one attack die per negative score. (Note: I treat the typical space pirate as having a "Gunnery Score" of zero. This tends to mostly benefit the players and "major NPCs.") If "Lock On" is an option, a gunner can "lock on" separately from the pilot.

>>> Mechanics: For this, I listed a number of abilities based on the various Astromech cards, and then ranked them by how "powerful" I thought they were (e.g., the ones that let you flip a Critical over to be a regular damage, or let you restore a shield point if the pilot takes a green action). Each round, anyone who is acting as a Mechanic (i.e., not doing anything else!) can take a repair action, choosing from the list, as long as he meets the minimum Mechanics score for each option.

>>> Computers: For this, I think I went overboard: You calculate your Computers score, and then you can engage in "electronic countermeasures" or providing "targeting support" over the course of the round (rather than waiting until your "turn") ... which basically means that you get a limited number of dice you can reroll on any attack or defense die that round, for friends or foes who happen to be within 3 range. So if you've got 4 yellow in Computers (4 * 2 -2 = 6) then over the course of each round, you'd get to reroll up to 6 attack or defense dice, friend or foe, hoping each time that the new roll is better than the old.

The first time I did this, however, there was no range limitation. Having a Slicer in the group meant that he was probably the most versatile and engaged character in the entire conflict, since he could mete out help or hindrance as desired, over the course of the round. (And being able to pick and choose which dice to reroll on both sides of an exchange is a pretty big deal.) Next time, I'm going with the range limitation, at the very least.

Since I've got a Slicer in the group, I pretty much have to make sure he CAN do something, and the fact he's specialized means that he's got lots of dice in it -- while others in the group (those acting as gunners, pilots, etc.) tend to be more diversified in their skill sets (since they need to be competent not only at space combat, but when the action takes place on land as well), so I'm not sure on where to properly balance things.

...

Anyway, that's just an abstract overview, and I still need to do some edits to reflect observations from our last game. We don't go through THAT much starfighter combat in our campaign (as half the time the group keeps AVOIDING combat situations through trickery, fast-talking, etc., and they're smugglers, not soldiers), so it takes me a while to go through iterations of "playtesting" this properly. Hence, it's going to be a while before I there's even a hope that I'll have anything worthwhile to post over on the Edge of Empire forums.
Have you considered dropping the x-wing stats, actions, upgrades and maybe dials, and just using the ships, range ruler, and maneuver templates from x-wing along side the EotE/AoR rpg ship stats, actions, maneuvers, skills and talents? That way there's less conversion to worry about, and the PCs' abilities are consistent with the rpg rules. All you'd need to change is a couple talents and pilot actions/maneuvers.

Initiative could stay the same, so if you had for example a pilot, and 2 gunners:
Pc
Pc
Npc
Pc

Then the PCs could still have the normal options.
Pilot flys the ship
Gunner 1 attacks
Npc moves and attacks
Gunner 2 attacks

Or

Both gunner attacks
Npc attacks
Pilot flys the ship

- The Full Throttle talent could be the same as the boost action from x-wing, with supreme full throttle granting use of either a 1 or 2 straight/bank template.
- Ship speed would only be necessary for Chase scenes. With Gain the Advantage, you could either use the speeds of each ships chosen maneuver or with an opposed pilot skill check. Punch It and Accelerate/Decelerate wouldn't be used in combat anymore.
- Determining which section of a ship can be targeted could use the closest point to closest point rule.

The only thing I'm not sure on is the range issue. Standard ship weapons only work at close range, but missiles and such can be fire from short. Maybe range 1-2 for close and 3 for short.i think this would need some play testing.

Edited by Radarman5, 11 August 2014 - 01:57 PM.

5 TIE Fighters, 4 TIE Bombers, 4 TIE Interceptors, 1 TIE Advanced, 1 Lambda Shuttle, 1 Firespray
2 A-Wings, 2 B-Wing, 4 X-Wings, 1Y-Wing, 1 HWK-290, 1 YT-1300, 1 CR-90, 1 GR-75




© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS