Jump to content

fast.git

Members
  • Content Count

    22
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About fast.git

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    http://-
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    USA
  1. Depends upon what we're considering Hull Points to represent. If it represents survivability in a combat environment, displacement should not be the most important factor. Freighters are designed to carry cargo. They're typically unarmored and rather easy to poke holes through with naval cannon. They're also much easier to sink. Of course, Destroyers weren't graced with a ton of armor themselves... just ask anyone who served on "Tin Cans." They were, however, typically much faster and more maneuverable than freighters, tankers, and other targets.
  2. I disagree. If the names are meaningless, why use the names to begin with? Clearly the production staff wanted to convey certain ideas. Historically, a corvette is a certain kind of ship, and the way it was portrayed in the movei conformed to that. For those ships they wanted to make less familiar and less terrestrial, they invented a name or modified a type. Star destroyers and medical frigates (whatever that is) for example. Certainly your prerogative to disagree... but the "CR90" was originally described as a "blockade runner" and not a corvette at all. That nomenclature was added as the Star Wars universe evolved. All a blockade runner really needed was to be able to fight its way through a blockade (or avoid it entirely) and then run like heck. The Tantive IV fits that description in appearance, even though it fails catastrophically in its intended role. My point was that we shouldn't get caught up in trying to describe these space vessels with naval terms which have meant different things, to different people, at different times. The most iconic of all Star Wars ships (completely my opinion) has really no real-world analog... as it carries a pretty substantial air wing (aircraft carrier), packs some serious anti-ship weaponry (battleship), is depicted as operating both independently and in squadrons (frigate or cruiser), and can take its fair share of lumps (battleship again). So far as I know, we've yet to see something of that nature on our ocean. In the Star Wars universe, it's a Star Destroyer (and an Imperial-class one, at that)... but I would more readily describe it as a System Control Ship. Looking at this from a gaming perspective, we're limited because there are so few "iconic" Star Wars capital ships, especially when considering the original trilogy (Eps IV-VI). Until RotJ, the Rebels have nothing that can stand with a Star Destroyer. With this being the case, it seems to me that FFG would have missed the boat if they failed to include the first vessel to grace the screen in one of their early waves.
  3. The following are pretty standard terminology for the post-WWI era... DD = Destroyer CL = Light Cruiser (evolution of the protected cruiser) CA = Heavy Cruiser (evolution of the armored cruiser) BC = Battlecruiser (cruiser speed and protection with the weapons of a battleship) BB = Battleship (biggest and nastiest)
  4. Sorry... response got cut off. In other words, I don't think we need to get caught up on ship nomenclature as they relate to terrestrial examples... as those have, themselves, evolved over time. And this isn't even taking into account that the only movie examples of capital ship combat we have look quite a bit like pre-20th century naval warfare... excepting, of course, the snub fighters.
  5. Agreed, but as ship nomenclature/classification has changed so much over time, I'm not all that comfortable saying FFG got things right or wrong. The Star Wars universe has played pretty fast and loose with ship types. Frigates used to serve as the eyes and ears of the fleet and were more likely to operate independently (and aggressively) than the larger, more powerful ships of the line (17th-19th cent). More recently, the name was assigned to a class of escort vessels (often tasked with ASW duties). In WW2, these vessels tended to be smaller than destroyers (and even smaller destroyer escorts), but that's not necessarily the case post-WW2. Destroyers themselves were initially designed to engage and sink torpedo boats (hence their name as "torpedo boat destroyers"), but evolved into escort class vessels post WW1. Cruisers used to range dramatically in size/power (unprotected, protected, and armoured) until the 1920s-1930s when light and heavy classifications came into common usage. They varied so much in displacement, armament, and speed as to almost defy legitimate comparison... although some heavy cruisers were second only to battleships as surface combatants. Now, some "cruisers" are smaller than "destroyers."
  6. Was not planning on a 2nd, but was swayed by the Coolstuffinc sale yesterday...
  7. I've got a couple of those... but they're bent in the wrong direction for them to be mistaken for TIE Advanced.
  8. Hi Klerych. Thanks for the response to my points. I understand where you're coming from... you want to be able to compete in tournaments with a reasonable chance of success, so you're a little bent that FFG isn't providing you with the opportunity to purchase the cards without spending additional coin to buy another model you don't want. I really do get it. And I'm not arguing that point. My point is that FFG may make their money selling the models themselves. Sure, their production costs for a P&P product is certainly lower, but their profit margin could be much greater when you're buying the model, flight stand, cards, etc. If that's the case, then it's in FFG's best interest to sell the models. If you're only interested in purchasing cards, they won't sell models. My other point was that the tournament crowd is not the only crowd. You may be interested in purchasing a set of cards, but only those requiring a non-proxy would be willing to do so. I'll be the first to admit that I have no clue as to how many tournament vs. non-tournament players... but as I can safely assume that not everyone plays competitively, providing a card pack that may fill a niche market may not be in FFG's best interest. That is why I responded to your post.
  9. I really would love that. The War Room is a very nice app with some lovely options and having it all in one application is really convenient and I really didn't mind buying decks even though I had the cards that came with my miniatures. And it even wouldn't be that hard for FFG, given that they are already selling an app that is supposed to help you with Armada/X-Wing. As for business practices... it's really sweet that you guys use "you don't need to have cards in casual games" as an argument, but if you play in a tournament and are forced to buy a Raider just to get TIE Advanced fix card it's a whole different beast. Forcing people to buy models just to get one card -is- terrible business practice and the fact that people sell singles on the internet is not an argument against that fact, it's a workaround for players. Sorry, but no one is being "forced" to buy anything. FFG isn't sending Stormtroopers to anyone's house to march them down to their LGS to buy a Raider or two. FFG is offering a fix to the TIE Advanced, along with a TIE Advanced model and a Raider model. If you feel that it's worth the money, buy it. Otherwise, don't. No offense, but this is one of the most stupid things I ever read. OF COURSE noone forces us to buy anything! Do you really think that expecting people to buy 2 TIE Defenders and/or two Imperial Aces packs while playing Rebels or Scums just to get a few cards (Predator, Opportunist) required for a competitive list is a good practice? Let me quote you something: Look how many -UNNECESSARY- models you pay for in a tournament squad for X-wing just to get a couple cards. Not to mention being forced to get the starter set even if you don't -ever- intend to use those three ships and only need the accessories and damage decks. Seriously, man, stop being so protective of FFG, they can make bad choices too and criticizing them for those is alright, because they may realize that people aren't too fond of that and decide to correct themselves. At least try to understand my point. Then again there still are people who defend Games Workshop, so why do I bother with forums... I understand that you believe these lists to require one to purchase "unnecessary" models, ... but that doesn't make it a bad business model. I would say, rather, that it's a fantastic business model... so long as people are willing to drop the coin to acquire the cards they want, FFG wins. Period. I do not now, nor do I ever, intend to play in tournaments. I buy the models because I love the look and it's an easy-to-learn and intuitive game my son loves to play. If we get a number of cards we like, we use them... if not, then their rarity makes them all the more interesting. But, as I mentioned previously, I've never felt compelled to build a list for a competitive tournament. Not my scene.
  10. Great list of steps! Quick question, however, and I freely admit to the possibility that I simply missed the information if offered earlier: what colors/brands did you use, and to what extent did you thin them out? Thanks, regardless... you're X-Wings are inspiring!
  11. Love the idea! How about something like... Dispatches from the Front ...works for me. "Missives" might work as well.
  12. Sadly, I cannot help but to agree. Anonymity seems to have brought ought the worst in some. For my part, I'm quite pleased with both ARMADA & IMPERIAL ASSAULT. My wallet, on the other hand...
  13. I disagree. The figures are not only *way* better than the tokens, the campaign missions are quite nice, and I'm working on a way to make the skirmish maps fit into the campaigns. I say "buy the expansions."
×
×
  • Create New...