Jump to content

DarthSidious

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    938

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by DarthSidious

  3. Posted

     

    I believe that Star Wars Episode 7 ships should not be in the X-Wing game. (Though I believe the FFG had no choice in the matter!) These ships are separated in time from the OT as the OT is from the prequels. There are many more ships from the same era that could be explored. 
     
    To me, it’s like playing a WWI air combat game using WWII air craft. 
     
     
    What is everyone opinion?
     
     
    P.S. Should be it's own game.

     

    That ship already sailed.

  4. Posted

     

     

    On the other hand, it WOULD be cool to see some 'terrain' modeling stuff - turbolaser turrets, asteroids, debris, derelict ships, whatever.  Maybe that would get around the licensing issues mentioned above?

    There are plenty of people doing those without the need for buying a kit.  It's probably less expensive, too.

     

     

    Just don't love what I've seen so far (other than my Space Rocks asteroids with acrylic bases shaped like the tokens from the first core set, those are whipass).

     

    That and I think it would be cool to see FFG produce some campaign packs or some such that are complemented by terrain features.  Like a long, narrow game board with models of pipes and conduits and stuff, and roles for smashing into the walls, for simulating the attack on the second Death Star's reactor.  Or maybe just the command tower section of a Star Destroyer to fly around.  I dunno, I was just at an Epic tournament a few weekends ago that was part of a larger miniature gaming event and I got jealous of all the sweet 40k terrain and stuff like that.

     

    I don't see that happening.  The ships are the focus, not the terrain. I doubt that FFG is going to change their business model any time soon to include terrain when third parties are already doing it.

  5. Posted

    On the other hand, it WOULD be cool to see some 'terrain' modeling stuff - turbolaser turrets, asteroids, debris, derelict ships, whatever.  Maybe that would get around the licensing issues mentioned above?

    There are plenty of people doing those without the need for buying a kit.  It's probably less expensive, too.

  6. Posted

     

    "A vast majority of X-Wing players refinish their ships with new paint schemes"

    not really...most just like the game...it seems like it's a "majority" but I would guss it's about 20% to 30% of the population

    Maybe 20-30% of this forum. But how many kids out there own at least a few X-Wings/TIE Fighters and haven't painted a **** thing?

     

    *Raises Hand*

     

    I've got enough miniatures that I have to paint that I'm not going to spend any time on ones that are already painted.

    Punning Pundit reacted to this

  7. Posted

    Esteemed pilots, and fellow rogues,

     

    A vast majority of X-Wing players refinish their ships with new paint schemes.

    Wouldn't it be a lot simpler if FFG offered their ships in kit form, much like Dust Studios is starting to now do with their Dust Tactics/Warfare models?

    Since X-Wing ships are fairly small, painting them on the plastic sprue would certainly make it simpler before assembly, particularly with Tie Fighters.

    Just a thought. Comments/criticisms? :)

     

    Carl Strack

    Yeah, I think you've got an incorrect impression on the number of repaints.  This forum is most likely not representative of the wider X-Wing community.

    SFC Snuffy, Plainsman, FuturistiKen and 1 other reacted to this

  12. Posted

     

    Colzet crippling Corran horn with Blinded Pilot DOES NOT LIKE BLINDED PILOT CHANGE

     

    It ends up being another subtle nerf to PWT ships in favor of firing-arc ships.

     

    IE., a firing-arc ship has the opportunity to fly away from the battle and still get rid of this crit "losing nothing" (it didn't have a shot, anyway).  A PWT *always* has a shot if the enemy is in range, so the blinded pilot guarantees it wastes a turn of fire that it could otherwise have taken.

     

    Subtle, but nice.  I dig.

     

    Not guarantees, just makes it more likely.  You can still have situations where the ships are flying away from each other, and the turret ship wouldn't have had a turn of fire anyway.

    Marinealver reacted to this

  17. Posted · Edited by DarthSidious

    Falcon's supposed to be a century old, Z-95s and Firesprays both predate the Empire as well.  Not sure about HWK-290s or YV-666.  The TIEs and alphabet soup are all Civil War-era onwards (with the sole exception of the Y-Wing).

    A YV-666 is (briefly) shown in an episode of The Clone Wars, so it's at least that old.  The Gozanti Cruiser shows up in several episodes, as well as in TPM.

  20. Posted

    So there you have it.  How I would schedule the X wing releases if it was a perfect world (which it isn't).  But I do think that going forward, knowing the game is a commercial success, it would be easy enough to adopt this strategy.  And it would be instantly feasible to adopt the announcement schedule.

     

    Except that your distributors would most likely need that information more than 10 weeks in advance.  So the information gets out earlier than you'd want, and you no longer have control of when that information reaches the players.

  24. Posted

    They should also errata the collision rules so that small ships are obliterated when they try to block a large ship.

     

    It's only logical. Small ships are benefiting proportionally more from a lack of collision damage than large ships do and this needs to be addressed.

    You've confused bumping with actual collisions.

    Scojo2 reacted to this
×
×
  • Create New...