Col. Dash

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Col. Dash

  • Rank
  • Birthday

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Orlando, 0, United States
  1. Yes Malachai, B wing prototypes were not even fielded until between the ESB and ROTJ nor were the super expensive and hard to maintain A-wings. A-wings were a quick counter to the TIE Interceptors which were themselves a counter to the Rebels increased use of X-wings over the older and slower Y-wings and zebras and were based on what was learned from Vader's TIE improved. A-wings after the war were replaced by more advanced and more easily maintained fighters although the existing fleet of them was maintained. B-wings were Ackbars pet project because Alliance command didn't see the point of an expensive fighter bomber when they were already stretched on resources for their existing fighter fleet. One of the reasons I only watch Rebels for the story because the timeline is all screwed up. I mess with my wife when we watch it and she says something about one of the characters and casually mention, "You know he/she is going to die, right?"
  2. Ahh could have sworn he was wearing white pants too. Well that's good. As for Rebels, I really despise how they have screwed up the development timeline and was thankful they held to it in RO by not having interceptors, A and B wings present. I never noticed the Hammerships in Rebels, although my wife loves the show and we have seen all of them I think. Have never figured out why A wings are so prominent in Rebels as in the lore they are super expensive to build and maintain thus the Alliance, after developing them AFTER TIE Interceptors are pushed out to counter the X-wing between movies 5 and 6, never had large numbers of them. B-wings were Admiral Ackbar's pet project and were never numerous since they were also highly expensive to build. He is not an admiral yet in the time of Rebels as far as I know.
  3. Without going through the whole thread, I loved this movie, enough to motivate me to start a SW campaign. There was very little I didn't like, it filled many of the holes I have wondered about since 77(yes I am that old but no I wasn't thinking about plot holes then really). -The battle scenes were awesome, been waiting for a good star wars war movie. -Not sure why cargo At Ats were used in place of combat AT-ATs. They definitely proved why you didn't see them in later movies when they could be taken down by simple X-Wing cannon. Maybe they were still designing them at this time. If all AT ATs were that easy, the Hoth battle would have simply used X-wings and it would have ended completely different. -Easily the second best star wars movie after Empire. Yes I know blasphemy, but I liked it more than New Hope. Problem is, as mediocre as TFA was, they will have to majorly up their game on episode 8 in order to keep up with RO. Since I really dislike the characters in TFA, especially the bad guys, they are going to have to really really up their game. Recast Kylo into someone worthy of being a dark lord, kill him off early on and bring on someone who is an actual badass and not a petulant millennial with granddaddy issues. -Acting was great, far better than TFA. Much more likeable character all around. Even Krennic was a more believable bad guy than Kylo. Wish they would have swapped casts since we wont see RO2 and have to live through the sequels of TFA. -Costumes were flipping awesome. The various new style troopers plus the old ones have motivated me to start building a new 501st kit. I was underwhelmed by TFA's new troopers except the TIE pilots which seemed much more efficient from an actually wearing it aspect from the older TIE pilot kit(I have one and cant see jack out of it and the hoses get in the way constantly) -This movie answers a decades old question I have had, why when faced with a moon sized killing machine did the rebels send only a dozen star fighters to take it out and why would they send untrained farm boys and Pink Five up? Movie answered this with, that's all they had left after Scariff and they needed everyone they could get. -Left a new question though, since there were literally hundreds of TIE fighters left without a home who were likely recovered by the Death Star along with the pilots, why did the Death Star only send a dozen TIEs up to fight the rebel fighters in NH? Before I think it had been answered with the Death Star being newly commissioned and it didn't have its full complement of troops and fighters yet, but now..... -Love the new vehicles, especially the Rebel ones and while the Hammerhead was cool, it seemed a little too convenient. They just happened to ion incapacitate a large star destroyer with a couple Y-wings(which doesn't make a lot of sense since even capital class ion weapons take some work to do that) and then they happened to have a ship designed specifically for ramming just hanging around to push it with? Also why the hell does every individual commander have his or her own shuttle that's a completely different class from the preceding shuttle even though the Lambda is the standard Imperial shuttle. Just seems a bit silly to me when the Empire is very conformatory to have these individuals using government funding to design and buy their own "special" shuttles when you already have a fleet of standard shuttles which are pretty badass on their own. -Dislike Director Krennic's costume. He was dressed as a Grand Admiral but wasn't a Grand Admiral. -Hoping they release the original version. Was listening to a podcast which had someone who had seen the original cut before they reshot everything. They apparently didn't reshoot it because it was bad, they reshot it because it was too dark and grim. And yes he commented that the released version was dark but the original made the release look like a happy ewok movie but wasn't allowed to give any real details. He did say the original was fully finished so there is no reason they couldn't release it with the DVD unless they simply choose not to. Now to figure out, do I want the d6 rpg or the new stuff for the campaign.
  4. See i like TLOS in theory. You just have to make some abstractions to make it believable. For example in 40k a tree is a tree, but if your infantry are in the tree template then they are in cover, however an actual tree model has to block LOS for a vehicle. We played with common sense until recently and it lost me a $50 gift certificate when I found this rule out from a player from a different area. We had always played(since the start of 5th) the trees are abstract and the whole template blocked LOS for the purposes of giving cover. In fact on some terrain pieces the trees are removable, so often we would remove them in order to position troops and vehicles in the template, because "Trees are abstract, the template itself is what matters. A woods obviously consists of more than just 3 or 4 trees." We can shoot over trees if the models are taller than the trees and can see their targets. This is the kind of common sense I would like to see applied to Dust:W.
  5. Yeah, there i will agree. I didnt even know a Warfare forum existed until I was bouncing around the main website.
  6. Keep them seperate. I have no interest in Dust: T and would find the cross rules between the games confusing. Easier just to talk about rules for the game on the forum its from without having to specify the game being referenced.
  7. Will the game use some common sense as opposed to some other games? If I have an infantry squad with a rocket launcher and 4 guys with assault rifles. Common sense says the the rocket will fire at a vehicle while the rifles shoot at other infantry. Warzone(Ultimate WZ was perhaps the greatest tabletop game of all time, just a bad company ran it into the ground) allowed for this and the game was not imbalanced at all. It is afterall what real infantry would do, I know, i have been there in that exact situation. Also will there be a action for taking cover and shooting from a covered position? 40k has it but the system it uses is retarded. I can understand going to ground screwing with a unit's movement, but going to ground in cover should provide better defended firing postions, not impede firing. Editing as I think of things until my post gets too far behind.
  8. I completely agree. As someone shared some useful ideas above on easy conversion rules. True line of sight with the cover type being important. You will have to differentiate buildings and trees as different obviiously, but that can be done before game and isnt anything TT gamers arent used to doing already. Range between squad leaders. Move and range distance is simply a matter of turning the squares into inches or cm. I dont think there would be a problem with U range weapons, tank battles generally were not fought point blank so shooting across the table still doesnt take advantage of the tanks main weapon's range. From a business end, this makes great sense and taps into a large market that already exists. I know at least several TT gamers who refuse to play 40k but love historical and sci-fi minis games and this is perfect for them.
  9. I for one am looking forward to the TT rules and think they cant come soon enough. My gaming store group likely will not take it seriously as a minitures game until it is. No one is going to pay $100 bucks for a minis game without the terrain rules go with it, locally anyway except a few of us. Just like AT43 we had two players until we quit demoing with the tiles and started using TT and we picked up a bunch more interest because now the game looked cool and became cinematic. Aside from a starter set here and there to paint the awesome minis I doubt the game will pick up in my area with the regular gamers until true TT rules are released.