Jump to content

mazz0

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    5,133

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by mazz0

  4. Posted

    17 hours ago, xanderf said:

    I mean...look at the base plate?  Isn't that what we play the game through, anyway?  The models are only ever decorative in this game.

    The base plate very clearly shows these to be Delta-7s.

    Nah, I completely disagree, and I already addressed that in the post you're quoting.  Yes, you can find out what is by inspecting the base (and no, it's not "very clear", it's actually quite hard to see, particularly when it's obstructed by the peg), but it impairs my head-map of the state of the game.  I expect that's why the rules cover this.

    The models are not decorative, they're the quick way of understanding what is where.  I can tell at a glance what's an ISD, what's a Gladiator, what's an Interdictor.  I only need to inspect the base if there are multiple ships of the same type.  I think that's the important point actually - the model is important for the at-a-glance information it provides.

     

    slasher956 and Formynder4 reacted to this

  7. Posted

    3 hours ago, Ophion said:

    - in general, noone serious will ever have a real issue with this, but there is always a risk you will encounter some sanctimonious git

    Woah, dude, gotta take issue with your attitude there.  Cos someone doesn't share your view they're a sanctimonious git?  

    Here's my problem with those mini setups: it's not obvious from looking whether that's a squadron of Torrents or of Deltas (and it would be even worse if there were full squadrons of Torrents in the same list).  Yeah it's clear when you've been told and after you think about it for a second, but when you have to think about it it messes with your intuitive head-map of the game.  That's why we have rules like "They cannot modify a ship model in any way that would create confusion about which ship the model represents."  There's room for nuance here which your attitude denies.

    Clearly this would not be tournament legal, that's cut and dry in the rules.  Whether casual, friendly players would take issue with it is a different matter.  Personally I would never aks you to change it, and I really like how it looks, but it would put me off my game.  I suppose how you feel about that is up to you.

    Frimmel and Formynder4 reacted to this

  14. Posted

    On 12/12/2020 at 4:07 PM, Requete said:

    Dissenting opinion here. The change to standard MtG-sized cards is one of the things that induced me to come back to the game. Not the only thing, and the fiddly stupid tiny cards were not the reason that I left, but they were a constant thorn in the side to me. I vastly prefer the new cards and this change certainly contributed to rekindling my interest and bringing me back to the game.

    Can I aks why?  I’d be interested to hear what advantage people see in the larger upgrade cards.

    Requete reacted to this

  16. Posted

    1 hour ago, JediPartisan said:

    Or you could even have a ruined version of the ship’s picture on the back and have the point total displayed there as well as the front. That way you can flip the card to show the ship was destroyed and still add point values. Either way, I wish all the game info was on one side.

    I love that idea!!  I was planning on printing tarot sized versions (and small upgrades), now I’m hoping someone will do ruined ship pictures to go on the back!

    JediPartisan and Flengin reacted to this

  18. Posted

    14 hours ago, ForceSensitive said:

    @Matanui3 the last thing I'm concerned about is it actually redocking. Brooks said in one of the streams that the playtester pool was using them as ablative body armor while they make an approach.

    More like while your enemy makes an approach - you're practically stationary!

  22. Posted

    42 minutes ago, Battlefleet 01 Studios said:

    I also hope that it is feasible to run three Venators in a standard 400 pt list since that was the number that was most commonly used together in the Clone Wars and I always loved the way it looked.

    I expect it will be, but three Venators plus a decent squadron load out seems unlikely doesn't it?

  23. Posted

    It's really all about feelsies isn't it.  Arguing relative strength in canon is a mug's game (canon being absurdly inconsistent and illogical).  If they want the Venator to feel like an ¨über-carrier, which I hope they do, it needs more than 4 squadron.

    I'm not sure about the 3 command though.  Yeah it's smaller than an ISD, could even be a medium, but perhaps the downside to the massive squadron value should be a high command value.  Seems appropriate too given the complexity of the double-bridge system.

    Rmcarrier1, amazingmrg, bkcammack and 1 other reacted to this

  24. Posted

    Was anybody able to actually buy this thing?  Seems to have been sold out everywhere since launch as far as I can tell.  Anyone got any tips for someone in the UK (who doesn't speak Spanish)?

  25. Posted

    On 12/7/2020 at 10:53 AM, Petersaber said:

    Yeah.

    My resizes are ready to print. All text fits on American mini, all symbology does as well. Font size either equal or 0.5 smaller than the Standard format.

    With the exception of Swivel-Mount Batteries. 1 point smaller. Soooo muuuuuch teeeeeext.

    All I need are high-res graphics and I'm putting them up.

     

     

    PS: CW Tarot ship cards are coming too.

    You are a hero!  How do I subscribe to you?!

×
×
  • Create New...