Jump to content

riplikash

Members
  • Content Count

    523
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About riplikash

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    http://wizardinatophat.wordpress.com
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    Heber, Utah, United States

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. That one has bugged me for so many years. Is it named after someone enacts the decisions of a contract or will, or is it named after someone who chops off peoples heads! AAAH! AND WHY MUST THOSE TWO WORDS BE SPELLED THE SAME! Actually, the answer to that one is obvious. Because they are both actually the same position at their heart (someone who performs or "executes" a decision), but still, the two have drifted apart and it confuses me now! It's surely ex-e-CUTE-er, rather than "ex-EK-ute-er" - sounds more menacing. That was always my take on it too. Still seem to hear the latter more than the former though.
  2. I would argue that regardless of the root of the word, Tantive is now the official pronunciation simply dued to that being the accepted pronunciation. The US college is "note-er day-mm", the city in Idaho is "l-aa-vuh" (instead of "l-ah-vug"), Woolfardisworthy is called "woo-ser-y", and Worchester is said "wooster". Accepted pronunciate trumps word roots and spellings in most cases.
  3. That one has bugged me for so many years. Is it named after someone enacts the decisions of a contract or will, or is it named after someone who chops off peoples heads! AAAH! AND WHY MUST THOSE TWO WORDS BE SPELLED THE SAME! Actually, the answer to that one is obvious. Because they are both actually the same position at their heart (someone who performs or "executes" a decision), but still, the two have drifted apart and it confuses me now!
  4. All that being said, in this case that is a very interesting bit of information I did not know. Thanks for sharing that. Just wanting to make clear I was disagreeing with later (in my opinion erroneous) post about maintaining "proper" definitions and spellings, and not the OPs tidbit about how the name of the ships is an actual word that has a pronunciation different from how most people would read it. Of course, that also goes back to my previous points on the over complication of the english language. Tantive sure looks like a strait forward pronunciation, but since we mix in external rules willy nilly that isn't the case.
  5. English is, and has always been, an unmanaged language, which means the 'proper' use of words is that decided on by the society. Language changes, and that isn't a bad thing. 2k years ago "decimate" meant 10% casualties. 500 years ago a "truck" was just short for "truckle" and referred to a winch/pulley thing in the back of a wagon. 200 years ago "crafty" meant someone who was good at crafts e.g. they could make interesting and clever devices or manufacture high quality items (hence the "craftiness of men" referred to the things of the world, not people being sneaky). There are battles within language worth fighting, but the natural change of words isn't one of them. Decimate now means (for most people) heavy casualties, a truck is a motorized vehicle with a bed, and crafty means smart and sneaky. If anything, I personally find the battle against needlessly further complicating english spelling with french and latin elements a much more important cause than resisting the natural evolution of a language. English has been ridiculously complicated by that practice. "Colonel" refers to a COLUMN, and should either be spelled as it sounds or pronounced like it's spelled! The rules are nonsensical! And often strait up anti-intuitive! Want to know the "correct" plural of "octopus"? I'll give you a hint, it's not "octopi", because octopus isn't a latin word. It's greek. The "correct" pluralization is "octipuses" (the english plural) or "octipode" (the greek inspired plural). But that doesn't really matter, because english has accepted octopi for centuries, without regard for the correct root definitions. Again, languages change. This isn't a bad thing in and of itself. Color is just as readable and contains just as much information as colour. Decimate can describe a massacre of more than 10% of troops. It's ok.
  6. It's neither "insane" nor "preposterous". Units being abstract objects within the a miniature space and miniatures being to scale with each other are two separate issues entirely. Firestorm, BFG, 40k and numerous other miniature games strive (with varying degrees of success) to maintain scale models while ALSO making it clear in the rules that the actual unit merely occupies a space within the footprint of a model. X-Wing does exactly what you say is preposterous. It aims for reasonable scale accuracy while also maintaining the the size of the ships and the distance between them has been abstracted. They have done exactly this consistently for years, putting off implementing things they new people would buy because they didn't fit in with the rule set. I've heard people say the exact same thing about ISDs in X-WIng for a couple of years now, yet here we are, no ISD in X-Wing. They built a new game to handle the ISD rather than make significant concessions to get it into an established game. And they have done this consistently for YEARS. The 40k RPGs went without Space Marines until they could build a system around it. The Star Wars RPGs have gone without Jedi. 40k without Space Marines? Star Wars without Jedi? Preposterous! Insane! FFG as a company has consistently showed dedication to fluff consistency in their games, to the point of actively sacrificing sales in the name of maintaining consistency. And consistency isn't something they could maintain with an SSD. It isn't just an issue of physical model size, but also of mechanical size in the rules. You couldn't run a game large enough to combat one in a reasonable amount of time, so they would have to severely scale down their effectiveness in rules as well as the physical model. Personally, based on their history, I doubt FFG will do this. I don't be terribly surprised if they DO make a model (because, hey, money), but I do find it more likely that they will follow the pattern they have for many years now, and put making a consistent, fluffy, well balanced game ahead of pure profit. Again, I'm not saying they definitely won't, but I think your hyperbolic claims that anyone thinking they wont release one is "insane" and "preposterous" is entirely unfounded. It would be perfectly in character with FFG to not release a product that broke the scale and scope of their game and required significant sacrifices in terms of lore to fit in.
  7. Hmm, other depictions apparently increase the size of the neck. That makes sense.
  8. Funny thing, while it looks awesome and makes sense, it also DOESN'T make sense. At all. Look at this schematic. Is there no way to get from the bay to the bridge? That neck doesn't seem thick enough. Where does the crew sleep? or stay during trips. Does everyone just hang out in the launch bay and set up tents? Yeah, I think I'm going with tents in my head canon from here on out.
  9. It's class name is technically the Quasar Fire-class bulk cruiser, but yeah, it is typically called an Alliance Escort Carrier. It actually comes from Truce at Bakura, and then later appeared in Rebellion and Empire at War. And I've always had a soft spot for it for some reason (despite not liking the book). A long distance, mobile base of operations for a fighter squadron just makes SO MUCH SENSE for the Rebellion/Alliance. It's one of the ships I sincerely hope finds its way into the game. It certainly looks a lot better than it's ugly imperial counterpart (which I also have an unexplainable love of):
  10. I agree with what most others have said in this thread. It's not that the autoblaster is bad, per se, it's ability is great. For five points it had darn well better be. But it isn't great on the ships that can currently field it, and it isn't great for the points. Mathmatically it only trumps 4 attack against VERY high agility ships. So it certainly has it's niche, but it is a small one, because the same ships it is most useful against are the ones hardest to use it on. It's one of those cases where math is more useful than experience, because of the nature of the experience in this case. It's really hard to compare Autoblaster to the effectiveness five points of upgrades COULD have had on your game. It's hard to compare it to the damage you could have rolled if you had just taken a regular shot (possibly with 5 points of upgrades backing it. It is tricky because when it works it IS going to feel good and you are going to remember it, and you will have very little to compare it too. But in this case I'm going to have to trust the numbers, and it's one of the few situations in life where the numbers are very straightforward. And the numbers say it is only marginally more effective than a 4 strength attack in the vast majority of likely situations, and against low agility ships it is actually less effective. However, I do think the YT-2400 is going to change this. It's str 2 attack, large firing arc, 360 degree turret, and comparative maneuverability are practically tailor made to make the autoblaster shine.
  11. Yeah, the fact that we have Ysanne Isard seems to indicate it is firmly in the Legends camp. Not that I think that is a bad thing.
  12. Personally I think that since they seem to be using a sliding scale an 8" ISD is more likely than a 10" one. Personally I don't mind a sliding scale as long as they are consistent. It's going to be annoying if it's random though.
  13. I'm certainly hoping for asymmetric missions. It much better fits the feel of the universe.
  14. GW has a habit of dropping their most popular games. For awhile I believe Epic was more popular than regular 40k, but they killed it anyways. I do miss the days when they were all about making tons of interesting games that were all set in the same universe, rather than just making the same game forever. Good thing we have FF now! If only they had the board game license too! Then again, my wallet probably couldn't handle that level of awesome.
  15. The more Armada resembles Battlefleet Gothic, the better. That was a heck of a game. That is true...
×
×
  • Create New...