Jump to content

Norsehound

Members
  • Content Count

    3,254
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Norsehound

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    , California, United States

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. This is the only way I'd accept a Tector. Yet seldom people add this caviat when discussing the ship, all the time it's always the presumption that it's going to look like an ISD from the trench up.
  2. Right. So, for your top-down model of the ISD, use a Kuat cardboard base. There! A Tector, surely. Squadron 2 isn't low enough? Well, it's not like the Arquitens is known for it's fighter capacity and it's fighter 2. Thing is, the "tector" is not worth the effort. Why should FFG spend effort essentially making a nearly identical ISD model? Moreover, if you're going to the effort of presenting us a new large ship, why release one that is only different on the bottom?... the angle we don't see during gameplay? The Tector is represented best by a generic title for the ISD, since it's about as different as the BTL-B, BTL-S3, and BTL-A4 from one another. Now, if LFL used their concept art resources and designed something that looks wildly, entirely exciting and different from the ISD (while re-using the one angle we get on something that is stated to be a Tector)... then we're talking. Otherwise it's not like the "Imperial Star Destroyer Kuat Refit" really exists outside of Armada- just plate up the model's bottom hangar with plasticard and use the Kuat base. The Secutor and the Venator are much better options for large-based ships, because they are clearly and distinctly different. New firing arcs, new upgrade slots, etx.
  3. Look at your Imperial Star Destroyer model from the top. There, you're done. That's a Tector. For me I want MC40as and Nebulon-B2s for the Rebellion and Empire, respectively. Medium and light. One fighter pack for TIE Avengers / Assault Gunboats / DX-9 Transports / TIE Vanguards. Rebel fighters end up with T-Wings / R-41 Starchasers / Muurian transports / and YT-2000s. Any of these items have been on my wishlist for a while, hoping that as canon content got thinner these craft would be more likely to be seen.
  4. Well, yeah. Before I started this thread we had an entirely different thread where people talked about killing the SSD. I was interested in accounts of this thing winning, and how well it's been doing wins/losses. Again, this should be more than a $200 expansion pack of a few upgrade cards.
  5. How long does it take you guys to do the larger-point games with the SSD? I'm thinking about drawing up a custom battle of Endor scenario now that the SSD is out. Thinking it would be, at least, a 3v3 with maybe some 1v1 wings on 3x3 tables to give it that epic feeling without bogging everyone down.
  6. That's a good followup question; is it seeing more play at 800? Makes sense- the Executor variants are sexier than the prototypes. It's for all intents and purposes an Epic ship out of X-Wing with the option of showing up in standard games.
  7. We've got a thread commemorating the times when it's killed, but it makes me wonder, is the SSD losing more games than it's winning? We drop $200 on the largest miniature FFG has ever produced. I hope this doesn't make it the most expensive upgrade card pack ever- is this thing actually winning games?
  8. It's not as if FFG isn't giving ships AA upgrades. The problem here is that they aren't as effective as other squadrons. I wonder why this is. It's as if FFG is purposefully avoiding giving ships effective upgrades to combat fighters- perhaps to prevent fighters from being totally obsolescent? Or by maintaining the viability of 8 point TIE Fighters, which in a stronger AA meta would be an incredibly wasteful investment? I suppose here the thought should be that commanded fighters are a better investment than speedbumps / rogues, because they can activate first to destroy those other fighters in the squadron phase- necessitating a carrier. Crash fighters into the battle line to eliminate a few of the squadrons as your carrier chases down their lone capital ship? I dunno.
  9. I think opening up the support team on the VSD is just a good idea in general. You have fighter coordination teams for a fighter 3 (or 4) platform, which you could follow up with a Flight commander if you're brave enough not to take Tua (which if this is clearly a carrier, that's a Fighter Coordination Teams on a tankier platform than the Quasar). For extra awesome carrier bonuses, stick Flight Controllers in the offensive slot. You have support options open with Projection experts on a decently tanky ship to support the rest of the fleet. Aux Shield Teams may not look like much, but at least on the approach you could send your shields to the sides to either redirect damage into or just tank as you make your way out of the battle zone. Yeah Harrow isn't a perfect solution (as with many VSD "patches", it fixes only one VSD), but it opens up a platform at a lower point cost that's been overshadowed by the ISD for a very long time. Where you'd always default to a Demolisher cocktail for a 'second' ship with an ISD, maybe this warrants considering the VSD as your sidecar ship instead.
  10. The poor thing's gotta take what it can get, especially since you get one in the starter kit that becomes basically garbage when you buy your first ISD. There's zero chance it's getting a gift repaint package like the Chimera did for the ISD, either.
  11. There it is- the speed the VSD's needed forever.
  12. Victory Star Destroyers get so little love in the new scope of the franchise that I hope we don't see a Venator, and instead see the VSDs come back. I missed out on Thrawn: Alliances... wonder if it's required reading before jumping to Treason.
  13. I did up until the Borg was released, whereupon they dominated everything. My faith in Attack Wing was shaky up until that point but that killed my interest in the game. Now I see it as nothing more than a thinly-veiled cash grab by re-skinning X-Wing and crapping out poor quality minis to make a quick buck on a hot franchise. Balance for the game was dismal when I played it as well, core ships became rapidly outclassed by the next hotness in the next wave. It may have changed since I played, but I wouldn't put my faith in WizKids from learning their lessons. I still desire a quality Star Trek game though, something akin to Armada here in terms of grind vs ease of playability. My favorite era of Trek is the Motion Picture era (Trek 1-6). This is what I was designing for whenever I put effort into my own Armada module for introducing Star Trek ships into. Whole new upgrade categories and ships, since while I wanted the ships to play together, I didn't want them to re-use their upgrades.
  14. I wish I was active during the days of Epic 40K, too
×
×
  • Create New...