The green P.A.C.K 216 contains the table tray and dials: Range templates are from Applied Perspective. Two each range-3, range-2, and range-1, and a single range-5, all hand-painted. Beneath are the cardboard range rulers. Custom tuckboxes for the straight maneuver templates, two sets. Custom damage deck holders from scavenged Ultra Pro deckboxes. Dials need to be sorted and labeled, but I was excited to finally have something I was comfortable with. The black P.A.C.K. 216 will be used for the Epic tray once Scum arrives. I'll be getting a second black 216 for my two Raiders.

The P.A.C.K. 720 contains the fleet. Rebel squadrons: Rebel squadrons: Rebel large with in-progress YT-1300 gunship: Imperial squadrons: Imperial large: Epic: 2x GR-75 separated by a thin layer of foam; tokens, bases, stands and epic-only cards in the lower section. Damage cards in tuckboxes beneath the CR-90.

Finally satisfied with my storage solution. It should have the flexibility and uniformity to survive at least a few more expansions. 1x Battlefoam P.A.C.K. 720 2x Battlefoam P.A.C.K. 216 3x Stanley 25-Removable Compartment Professional Organizer 2x Stanley 10 Removable Bin Compartment Deep Professional Organizer Stanley solution courtesy of xBino's thread from BGG. The stack: Token tray: Upgrades tray: Ship token tray with mission tokens: Pilot cards, bases, and stands: (Edit: Didn't include the second deep tray which just contains extras: number tokens, TL, card sleeves and foam bits)

Nailed it. Every sniveling, self-entitled tantrum about the prequels over a fifteen-year period boiled down to a single sentence. Perfect.

I don't understand why the dialogue's not about the separate-but-compatible Clone Wars-era game, which I choose to believe is inevitable. Everything makes more sense in that context.

Seconded. I vastly prefer singleplayer campaign, or couch co-op. It's been really difficult to watch the focus shift so strongly to multiplayer at the expense of campaigns.

Ah, that's good. Very tasteful. I might do one similarly.

Or it's called ask a community of people that might know from experience? Don't be a d*ck.

Free shipping at $99. Nailed it—with some to spare!

Each X represents a ship you don't think could be introduced? Because the Scimitar Assault Bomber is a favorite of mine, and I hate to see it lumped in with stuff like the TIE Star Cruiser. Why do you have to be hating on the TIE Star Cruiser? That's got to be the ... ... Okay, even I can't make that quip. Still, I don't see why the Lone Scout had to be crossed out. Freud could have filled volumes' worth of notes if he'd met you. I'm with UnfairBanana at this point: you might want to look into an Introduction to Anatomy course. There seem to be a lot of people here with obsessions over the plausible phallic shapes of spaceships. As if real-world rockets, which thrust their way into space to unload their cargo upon reaching orbit, don't have their own connotations. I say, if it's fine for NASA, it's fine for Star Wars. And I'm not sure if Anatomy 101 will really be helpful here. This sort of Star Wars Rorhschack test demonstrates that some minds gravitate towards the phallic with only limited stimulus. ANYWAY, I'd be disappointed if FFG goes with XG-1 or the Missile Boat. Look, I loved the TIE Fighter game as much as anybody, but these non-TIE looking TIEs just never sat well with me. Same goes with the Defender, which I'm mean-spiritedly happy is not seeing a lot of play. I think enough is enough on those. That said, FFG does seem to cater to the people who grew up with the video games much more than they cater to those who grew up with the RPGs. (Yes, I feel discriminated against. Meh.) So, while I would like them to do the Skipray (with both Empire and Scum pilots) - and I think it would be good for them to do a ship of that sort - I don't actually see them doing it, precisely because they are catering to the video gamers rather than the RPG players. The Cloackshape or Otana-whatever also might be in the cards, but I would point out that I don't like 'em, and I'll be grouchy if they decide to go with those. I'm with you on the non-TIEs. I always preferred the depictions with some military-industrial unifiormity. Role-specific variations of a common theme. The XG-1 and Missile Boat never sat well with me, at least not in that context. I do like the TIE Defender, though. I like the modularity of the TIE series. I'd be happy with an Aggressor too.

I was gonna bring up Crimson Skies if you didn't. One of my favorite fictions. Far-fetched air piracy aside, ever since that game came out, I've wondered why Zeppelins couldn't revolutionize the shipping industry. I know they come with a host of logistical challenges, but it doesn't seem that any are insurmountable. As I understand it, it's an aerodynamic issue (caveat: I am not an aeronautical engineer, and it's been years since I talked to one about blimps and zeppelins). Basically, a structurally feasible envelope for whatever lighter-than-air gas you're using adds mass and creates drag, which means that in comparison to fixed-wing aircraft it takes more thrust to accelerate the same cargo, which means higher fuel costs. Also they tend to be inflammable. Yeah, no. They don't.

I was gonna bring up Crimson Skies if you didn't. One of my favorite fictions. Far-fetched air piracy aside, ever since that game came out, I've wondered why Zeppelins couldn't revolutionize the shipping industry. I know they come with a host of logistical challenges, but it doesn't seem that any are insurmountable. As I understand it, it's an aerodynamic issue (caveat: I am not an aeronautical engineer, and it's been years since I talked to one about blimps and zeppelins). Basically, a structurally feasible envelope for whatever lighter-than-air gas you're using adds mass and creates drag, which means that in comparison to fixed-wing aircraft it takes more thrust to accelerate the same cargo, which means higher fuel costs. But that's not necessarily the case. Like I said, there are challenges to overcome, but have a look at this: http://rt.com/news/aeroscraft-revolutionary-airship-cargo-187/

I could see three-ship releases eventually, but probably not right away. I wouldn't count on seeing prequel ships a couple waves out. I half expect (and hope) it to be a standalone companion game, though. You're probably right about ground attack, but I'm still hoping for that, too.

stardestroyer.net is critical to these comparisons, so I'm glad someone brought it up. I'm a huge Trek fan (not nearly as much as SW, but still), but stardestroyer.net annihilates the debate. SW always wins.

Well, this got weird.

In that way this isn't much of an improvement over the decimator isn't it? All of them are flying saucers. The Empire at least has other designs to pick from for their large craft but the rebels? All CEC products, which are flat and circular. I'm curious what makes the Decimator with it's R2 head more "Empire" than this one. That makes sense. I happen to like the CEC pancakes for the most part [some exceptions]. I definitely prefer the above in favor of the VT. I might like a more TIE-like cockpit, like the Sith Fury-class Interceptor from SWTOR or the Rogue Shadow. I think that would integrate nicely with this one.

That comes with its own problems though. I was gonna bring up Crimson Skies if you didn't. One of my favorite fictions. Far-fetched air piracy aside, ever since that game came out, I've wondered why Zeppelins couldn't revolutionize the shipping industry. I know they come with a host of logistical challenges, but it doesn't seem that any are insurmountable.

I'm wondering, though, if I should change those pips on the side from red to blue? Any thoughts?

I don't care for that Death Star one at all, but I am interested in the starfield. I much prefer that plain starfield over nebulae; it looks more appropriate to the visual feel of the Star Wars films.

I like this design quite a bit, including the wings, and especially if it was scaled up a bit in size from the Falcon. Norsehound, I'm curious, though; how does this sit with your oft-repeated disdain for the "flying pancake"?

I am. I have. Mine... Missile... Autopilot Engaged... Wipeout!

I thought I was the only one! I can't not see R2 on that stupid thing. Next FFG and LFL partnership (hoping the Raider isn't the last)—please partner up with Fractalsponge.

Painted up a second one with similar livery to the first.

Mel, I concur with the above: I think in the context of an official game the situation would be different. I have no reason to fly N-1 right now, but if there was a separate-but-compatible game, I would buy at least 8 of them, probably more.

Well, you know one, now. I would buy heavily into both sides. How about that? That's one reason I'm advocating for it being a separate-but-compatible game. Everybody wins: the people that enjoy Republic-era Star Wars get what they want, and people like you have nothing to keep bellyaching about.