Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About borithan

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • MSN
  • Website URL
  • ICQ
  • Yahoo
  • Skype

Profile Information

  • Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. They weren't exactly there long. The droids leave the planet... what, about 4 days after they arrive? Land on the planet, then picked up by Jawas... check.... sold to the Larses, then R2 runs away... check... Luke chases after him the next morning, ambushed by Sand People, rescued by Obi Wan, and returns to find his crispy fried aunt and uncle... check... arrive Mos Eisley and then seem to depart the same day... check. That makes 4 days. Ok, there may have been more between R2 and C-3PO being captured by the Jawas and then maybe an additional day on the way to Mos Eisley, but we have no real evidence of that. 4 days to alert another planet you need additional ground troops, load them up and then transport them, land and unload them, all for what would be seen as a short term assignment? Not sure anyone could justify that. Instead rely on the Stormtrooper detachment on the Devastator, and maybe reinforcements from the nearby patrolling Star Destroyers you have called for the job. Or maybe extra troops were on the way, but had not arrived yet? I would not expect a meaningful force to have been transported from another planet in the time before the droids leave the planet. I will give you the "Ring of Kafrene" (once I found out what it was). Not that we see a whole load, but what we did didn't suggest anything terribly significant that would suggest an "elite" presence. But this is also one of the newer (non-original trilogy) films, which I accept do point more towards the Stormtroopers just being standard Imperial ground forces.
  2. I didn't think the Tatooine troopers were meant to be garrison troops. I had understood they had been landed by the Star Destroyers to search for the droids, and were enacting a very temporary form of occupation. I didn't get the sense that those troops had been based there on an extended basis. The Death Star and Jedha, yes, but as someone pointed out earlier these were both key pieces of secret projects... and Jedha was in the grips of an active insurgency by a particularly desperate band of rebels. Somewhere you might reinforce with higher quality troops, and also a relatively small occupation, going by the fact there only seemed to be one major city, so not where you necessarily need a large permanent garrison force. Same applies to Endor, which was again a key part of a major secret project, and the site of a plan to specifically trap and destroy the Rebels. Their appearances in the original films is entirely explainable as roles given to an elite force ("Only Imperial Stormtroopers are so precise"). Their performance maybe less so (mainly the dismal discipline demonstrated at Endor. "Look, cannibal teddy bears! Quick, scatter and chase them into the forest!"), and I agree their portrayal in films and TV series since doesn't really support anything more elite other than "These guys are the Empire's Army." I like to think of the Stormtroopers are a bit like the Imperium's Space Marines (though nowhere near as elite, obviously!). A rapid response force, deployed on the ships which can be dropped wherever at short notice. Once something get larger scale or more long term, the less mobile Army forces could be moved in.
  3. I have stalled watching it a little, but yes. Some of it is very good, and great fun to watch with some really interesting ideas... and some of it is really dumb. Tonally it is also all over the place ("This is a kid's cartoon? With screaming flamethrower victims, and the flopping dismembered shark head?"). This also extends to what I have seen of Rebels as well. I have enjoyed it... but I don't think it is the classic I have seen some people say it is. The film was awful, and series as a whole is terrible at world building (but then so is Star Wars, since anything except the original trilogy pretty much), but it worth a watch. I going to say don't really understand the love for Maul. His character was that he had a doubled ended lightsaber. He wasn't "the one good thing from the Phantom Menance", he was bad as well. Just there was so little to him and he had some cool lightsaber stunts that in the absolute trainwreck of a film he stood out as "not actually painful to watch." Now, I will give the caveat that I have not seen him in Clone Wars or Rebels yet, and I know a lot of people enjoyed what they did with him, so I may be pleasantly surprised when I do see it. Just from what we see of him in the film... he is entirely "meh?"
  4. Based on their behaviour it is quite clear that battle droids (aside from maybe in the Phantom menace) in Star Wars are thinking and feeling beings. What also makes it worse is there was no apparent reason they needed to be made this way. They could have made them unfeeling automatons and decided they wanted them to be sentient beings. Probably the same someone who put pain receivers on the bottom of GONK droids' feet just so they could be tortured. Basically: Everything about droids in Star Wars is troublesome... at least your living humans chose to join up.
  5. The original concept looks weird now, but remember the aesthetic hadn't been established then. Plenty of 60s and 70s era space ship designs in sci fi had odd spindly bits and dishes. Being in a vacuum means you don't need to streamline or anything, and if your protection is based on fantastical energy shielding you don't need to presume slabs of armour to protect you. It's not like all the ship designs make sense now anyway. The Star Destroyer, for example, with all it's talk of its dagger shape enabling it to concentrate it's firepower forward... can't do exactly that. Based on performance on screen it seems to favour broadsides (as do most of the large ships, which makes sense, as George Lucas said he wanted to evoke "Age of Sail" naval combat), and the main batteries get in the way of each other if you want to fire straight ahead. Now, I have never been a fan of weapons in the shape of dishes (as the original design), so I wouldn't really want to see this do that, but as an update of the design, presuming the dishes are some kind of tractor beam or interdictor array I don't see a major problem with it. That or some kind of comms ship... Doesn't stop it being ugly of course, but ugly can have its place.
  6. Or... or... something controversial here... it could just be that FFG have rather vaguely written the rule (particularly seeing as this doesn't appear to be the RRG). I know they have a super solid reputation for writing tight rules, which don't need a FAQ or Errata or anything, and it has never happened before, but there is always a first chance for everything. I certainly can see an argument for the way you have read the rule, but I can also see the argument that each model is choosing to use a weapon (adding its dice to the attack), but they are all using the same weapon (adding the keywords only once). This also fits better with 1) the apparent advice given by people who are play testing the same, and 2) the apparent balance of the game, where having stormtrooper units running around with the possibility of Impact 5 on their attack seems not to fit with what we have seen so far.
  7. I would guess from the name it is some kind of Interdictor style ship, but smaller. It is ugly, but it isn't that bad. Remember this is a setting that has brought us many ugly (and I would argue uglier) ships. Eg: OK, I will admit my main objection to this one is the stupid ugly way they carry their fighters... and they claim to call these "Assault Carriers"? What about "Intergalactic clown car"?: This one is just... wrong on some level I can't quite identify. It doesn't seem to look that bad, but it just offends me somehow: And obviously the king of ugly Star Wars ships, the K-Wing. Jesus who would put together such an ugly pile of wrongness, all at the same time as ignoring all the rules of Star Wars ship design (External missle racks? And what are those other... things? Mini engines? And what poor sucker has to man that hideously exposed turret? And are they stuck there for the entire flight? How do they even get out?:
  8. I always find it a little curious as a criticism. "I can't fit everything I want!" "Yes... so?" I think it comes down to expectations. People want to have a Star Destroyer AND a whole heap of fighters AND escorts to accompany it AND small zippy attack ships. I don't think the names help either. "Armada" when in fact you might be generous calling the collections of ships you use "squadrons" . And I guess "Star Wars: Legion" sounds cooler than "Star Wars: Reinforced Platoon"
  9. I am slightly worried they will feature whatever the job was that led to Han being in debt to Jabba. I don't want them to, ending with him starting to work for Jabba would be better, but I think they will want to connect to those things we know about Han pre-film (leaving aside EU stuff!). So, Kessel Run, and debt to Jabba. We already know the weird looking state of the Falcon is being referred to as "The Kessel Run Falcon" by some of the merchandise, so that is pretty much a given. There isn't any reference to Jabba in the trailer (as of yet), and they seem to have revealed their villain and the dude that hires Han, so I guess he possibly won't feature, but I am still expecting it. Not sure cockiness is good for a smuggler, at least a realistic one anyway. I think it depends on how much they will be taking it from the EU. As I understand it in the pre-film stories in the old Legends stuff it is pretty clear he is quite idealistic, as mentioned he joins the Academy so he can do good as far as he understands it. Then he becomes quite cynical from his experiences, but Luke and his experience reaches his inner core of a hero. Now, I am not that much convinced by that (The orginal Han Shoots First Han is... quite cold as a character, a little like Connery's Bond, who then opens up, so I definitely saw it as him becoming a hero, not starting as one and it just needing someone to remind him of it). However, aspects of the trailer seem to suggest this. Now, they have the cocky character who just wants to be the best pilot, but the line from Emilia Clarke's character of something like "I know what you really are" (or similar) suggests the implication is that his brashness and cockiness is an act hiding something more underneath... which it is, that is clear from the original films, but not necessarily a "hero". I do think the fact they made the Empire so obviously evil is a slight problem... c'mon, these are guys that blow up planets of billions of people as a demonstration of power. It makes them a little hard to be believable as "this is something I think is ok and right." However, in general I agree. I think the idea is meant to be that generally... things are a little more subtle and gradual than that, and yes people will agree with a lot if dressed up the right way, and even those that don't will generally just want to get on with their lives. I could certainly see the majority of the galaxy seeing the Rebellion (until Alderaan at least) as troublemakers who are just rocking the boat, or even as terrorists. This is also why I find the mass celebration scenes at the end of the Special edition RotJ a little unrealistic... much of the Empire would be going "What now?" instead. Han going to tie up personal issues in Empire: I don't actually see this as showing how self centred he is. Firstly, he has left this "urgent personal issue" for... what? 3 years, spending that time serving with the rebels. Now, this is part obviously down to his personal connection with Luke and Leia, and he hasn't lost his brashness quite yet, but he is starting to identify with the Rebels, just not making it clear yet. Then he also runs back to try and rescue Leia from the base that is being attacked, rather than just take off, which would have been the sensible approach if self-preservation was his first priority. The dialogue from the trailer certainly suggests his motivation is showing off. I guess it all depends why he washes out though. Traditionally I think it has been because he comes to Chewie's rescue, but that remains to be seen in the film.
  10. Going to admit this was the one thing I really didn't like in the trailer. Well, at least when it broke into the Star Wars theme towards the end. Just something that didn't gel with me. Well... it was kind of inevitable? They couldn't have Harrison Ford playing him (obviously), so it was going to be someone different, and unless they did a flawless impression of Ford's Han Solo it was going to be different. Now, I personally was not looking for this film. I have seen enough of the characters I know. I really liked Rogue One, and would have liked to have more films like that, with new characters we haven't heard mentioned before (and the fact that this next film is a Boba Fett one irritates me... unless they turn him into the hired mercenary thug that even Vader has to tell to "Cool it", rather than the "Villain with a code" that various EU presentations have shown him as). I also have my doubts of the lead, based on some of the comments that have leaked out, and I will admit also his appearance in the trailer... something doesn't quite sit with me as him being Han Solo. A little too generic "roguish action hero". Ok, that is what Han Solo is, but he is also has his unique elements. However, the rest of the trailer... looks good. Genuinely surprised by how much I felt "I now want to see this film." Not having politics in movies is a political position. What is defined as "unpolitical" is an act of politics. It states that "This is all normal and how it should be and not examined and questioned." There have always been overtly political films since the days of silent film, but even those that aren't overtly political are a demonstration of the political norm at the time they were made. Note that the only reason it is noticeable that several films have recently been emphasising strong female leads in action roles is because until recently it wasn't common, and it still isn't the norm. I actually look at the current Star Wars films... and don't see much overt politics in the whole thing. It is actually quite subtle, the First Order aside. And frankly, if they were having a "strong female lead" to avoid criticism, it seems to me that the criticism of those that have not liked the current direction of Star Wars has been much louder and more likely to hit profits than the criticism you might have got by some feminist academics for not having any strong female characters. OK, and maybe some dissapointed lines in some reviews which would have had no impact on the film's commercial success. Something along the lines of "Yet again we don't have many strong female characters, but the film is entertaining and well paced. Enjoyable entertainment if dissapointingly unadventurous and unwilling to move with the times." Well, if Rey is a Mary Sue, Luke is as well. Trained by the most powerful Jedi? He gets shown how to use a lightsaber in the briefest period on the Millenium Falcon in a New Hope. Ok, maybe there is some additional training off screen during the earlier flight, or during their travels from his home to Mos Eisley... but nothing else on screen. And in that period he goes from "never handled a lightsaber before" (and we don't exactly have any evidence he is much of a fighter before the film starts) to "I can deflect bolts if a i concentrate very hard" and then (with what amounts to barely any more instruction from Obi Wan than "Do It.") to "I can deflect bolts without even seeing the target". By the time of Empire Strikes Back he pulls telekinesis out of nowhere (no one available to train him). He then gets some training (what, a couple days?) with Yoda, but he doesn't even really get any more abilities. In fact the training seems to be more... spiritual in nature, getting to connect better with himself, lose his limitations that his limited thinking create ("Size matters not!" Though of course Yoda is clearly lying there. Apparently Yoda lies... a lot). Then he comes back in RotJ (not having returned to Yoda for further training), able to use the Jedi Mind Trick (with all the training he received in it being seeing Obi-Wan doing it once back in New Hope), and as a bloody bad *** able to take a whole pirate crew pretty much by himself. He also is able then able to beat Darth Vader in a fight (when Vader had been easily beating aside his attacks in Empire). This compares to Rey, who is implied to be a fighter already, though principly with a staff. Ok, she quite quickly learns how to use the "Mind Trick", but no faster than Luke learns how to use a lightsaber. Then she beats Kylo Ren in a fight. Ok, he is meant to be pretty serious foe, but he has been injured twice already (bowcaster, which has been shown to be pretty deadly, and Finn, just before he was knocked out), and Rey has existing skills to fall back on, unlike Luke. Given how much the Force seems to rely on a belief and openess to it, and given Rey's more open and believing nature... it isn't even surprising. As to the Dark Side not tempting her... were you watching a different film from me? Ok, yes, this contradicts the prequels quite heavily, with years of training required to become skillful with the Force... but then they already contradicted their own origin material, so which do you go with? Anakin is a super flawless character? Luke never tried to strike down his own nephew. What horrified him, and so haunted him, was that he even considered doing it. Am I personally convinced by that storytelling decision? Not necessarily, but I am happy that this would shake Luke down to his core? Yes. Chewie doesn' tell his friends about Han's death... ok, true. However, I suspect this has more to do with the audience, as 1) Chewie is a secondary character and always has been, so less audience focus and 2) he doesn't talk in English. Yes, they could have had the scene where Chewie barks sorrowfully to his friends, and we only get one half of the conversation. Not the easiest scene to get emotionally invested in. Lando doesn't appear... yes? He hasn't appeared in all the new films so far. Why would you expect him to feature in this one? Old Veterans die as side notes: You do realise that for most of the audience these characters are side notes? Yes, Akbar is famous for "it's a trap!" but that is pretty much it for the films. You only get them as more significant characters if you started reading the books etc... and most of those aren't even canon anymore. Poe Dameron does indeed make terrible choice after terrible choice. I don't think this was the best handled bit of the film. However, it was in part meant to be a story of him learning what he needed in order to be a proper leader of the resistance, so narratively it makes sense him then becoming the leader... though I will agree it could have been better handled. Particularly amusing seeing as originally the character was going to die in the first film.
  11. The problem is that this trilogy also has to matter. I liked various, but one of the issues with it was that everything after the films was essentially a long mopping up period... until the Yuuzhan Vong turned up, and they were just bad. The type of story changes significantly (the Republic is in the ascendancy, a lot more political stuff etc). This makes sense... but isn't what most people go to a Star Wars film for. Add on top of that the very long period between the original trilogy and the current one, meaning you can't fall back on those events too much, and... you kind of have to treat the original events as irrelevant. The gap between the films cover the same length of time that in the EU covered everything up until after the Yuuzhan Vong war... by which time much of what the characters did in the original trilogy was irrelevant. I am worried about this. Firstly, I am wanting to see more new stuff and new characters (I like Rogue One, probably my favourite of the new films), secondly... the comments I have heard about the lead's acting are not filling me with confidence, and thirdly, as you say, it is hard to imagine Han Solo not as Harrison Ford. I think the guy they have chosen looks good as a young Solo... but that isn't going to make him (or the film) any good in of itself. I will be happy to have my misgivings proved wrong if they are though. I presume it will be a fun enough film in itself. Bond... is complicated of course. We are now used to the actor changing, but when they first lost Connery they were worried about what would happen (they don't reveal the change into as late as they possibly can in the film). The timeline also makes no sense. I think the presumption is that Connery through Brosnan are the same person... but then he was around for far too long to be realistic, and I know some people think they are meant to be different people with the same "code" name (and rough personality, apparently). But then some plot lines definitely connect Connery Lazenby and Moore as being the same character. And Daniel Craig was meant to be a full up reboot... but then Skyfall confused matters by making various references to the exploits of previous Bonds (it was deliberately very nostalgic, due to the themes of the film and the fact it was the 50th anniversary film), meaning it looks like the events of the previous films were in his past... but then also reinvents some of the older characters and introduces them anew. To be fair, Craig's Bond was already a little confused timeline wise anyway, as even though it was meant to be a reboot, we still had Judi Dench playing M, suggesting a continuity from the Brosnan era. Basically Bond continuity... is a mess and best not thought about. I really have put too much thought into it as my previous paragraph shows.
  12. Oh, at no point did I say that if you get a complete collection you are going to end up cheaper. However, the entry point is cheaper for X-wing than Imperial Assault skirmish. I could get into playing X-Wing with legal lists for... about £80. Yes, there wouldn't be much choice in your list, and you would have no flexibility, but I can play the game "legally" and get good fun out of it. I can then use that as a basis for expanding for a little more freedom in your lists. Yes, a full collection is extortionately expensive, but you don't need a whole collection. To make a competitive list does cost more, as you will need to buy different ships, and some ships just for cards that you need, so at this point you may start to compare to the IA break in point, but if you don't care about competitiveness and just want to play, it isn't expensive at all. At this point, being a completionist for X-Wing is just insane (I gave up a long time ago... wave 3 I think?). Compared to IA, where the break in point is the cost of the core set, plus either each of the boxed expansions or a set of the current skirmish maps. At the very minimum this is... what, £160? and that would only let you use miniatures from the core set... no, wait, you need the cards for the missions, so also whatever expansions that have the current cycle of maps in, so that's another... we'll say £30. Nearly £200 to break in (more if you want more flexibility and or competitiveness). Of course, if you just buy the IA core set you are already getting the campaign, which is the main part of the game, and fun in of itself.
  13. I will grant you the gunners could be an addition, or the fighter pilots (though why you would always have a squad of fighter pilots along guarding a base... I guess the protagonist from the Battlefront 2 game could be a basis?), but the guys in cloth uniforms? We have them. They are the officers. Aside from that I think we see some... non-combatant scanner crews? Don't think they should feature in the game.
  14. Yeah, I was about to say, I remember it being announced as a Co-Op game, and all the "Blech! I hate Co-Op, a true Star Wars card game should be competitive", so it is interesting to see people say "oh, yeah a co-op game would have been better." The quick turn around to a competitive game suggested they were reacting to the backlash, and I admit I think some aspects of the game were a little light (at least initially) because of the rapid turn around (the release date was the same, even though presumably they needed to redevelop the game completely). I also always thought a co-op game suited the Star Wars theme better than than a competitive one (it is a "named good guys vs mostly nameless and even faceless bad guys" story), but I think there was a legitimate complaint that it looked like it was just a re-skin of the LotR game.
  15. You talk about competative lists, like that is what is needed to break into the game and enjoy it... X-Wing can be expensive if you want to collect everything, or competitive with the current meta, but if you just want to fly ships about? Ok, you need the force awakens core set for the rules etc, and that only really provides a taster of the game. However, you can get a playable legal 100 point list for only a little bit more. And then you can expand gradually. Now, saying you want to play Imperial Assault, even if you are not going to do it at events you need to get the core set to even play... welp, and if you want to play in official events even more so. However, it doesn't effect me too much, as the main reason I got the game was for the campaign, so...
  • Create New...