Jump to content

Beardface2

Members
  • Content Count

    163
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Beardface2

  1. "No ship that small has a cloaking device!" Nice work! And are those RoTJ-blue TIEs that I see?
  2. The Raider-class Corvette was originally created by FFG for an Imperial counterpart to the CR90 for X-Wing, as the Empire didn't have a preexisting warship that fit the bill. Porting it over to Armada is only natural...though I'm a little surprised they're giving it missiles, as it doesn't have any in X-Wing.
  3. I hear that they're supposed to be 'On The Boat.'
  4. The figures that I've seen quoted most often: Imperial-I-class Star Destroyer: 6x Dual Heavy Turbolaser turrets, 2x Dual Heavy Ion Cannon turrets (3+1 on either side of the superstructure), and an additional 60 turbolasers and 60 ion cannons. Imperial-II-class Star Destoyer: 8x Octuple Turbolaser Barbettes (replacing the main turret battery), 50 heavy turbolasers, 50 turbolasers, 20 heavy ion cannons. Both classes featured 10 tractor beam projectors, and the Imperial-II sported heavier armor and shielding. Honestly, I could see the 3R/2Bu/3Bk armament for the Imperial-II, but it doesn't make much sense for the Imperial-I (which had more ion cannons than Victory destroyers had guns.) Also, Imperial-class Star Destroyers have plenty of anti-fighter weaponry. It's called a full wing of TIEs. WWII showed that a CAP is a far more effective anti-fighter defense than any number of AA guns.
  5. *cringes at the mention of the Executor, and what it means for where this thread is going to go* If we get a utility/support ship, my money is on it being the Immobilizer-418. Here are my predictions/guesses for ships we'll see in the next wave or two: Immobilizer-418 Strike-class Cruiser Ton-Falk-class Escort Carrier DP-20 Corellian Gunship Liberty-class MC80 Star Cruiser Unfortunately, the Rebellion runs out of ships pretty quickly unless they start pulling from the prequels (unlikely) or New Republic-era ships (as with later waves of X-Wing). Finally, I don't think we'll get the Executor-class Star Destroyer, but if we do, I wouldn't be surprised to also get a Viscount-class Star Defender along with it.
  6. A is for Assault Missiles A versatile weapon Ready to thrill Catch a formation And watch it kill.
  7. Nice work! I'm loving the...well, everything! Any close-ups of the other snubfighters? And are you planning on getting a second AF MkII to be the Gallant Haven? After all, you'll want to keep those beautiful fighters on the table as long as you can...
  8. http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/XI7_turbolaser Unfortunately, Wookieepedia and FFG use sans serif fonts, so it can be difficult to tell the difference between [ex-eye-seven] and [ex-one-seven] or [ex-seventeen]. However, look at the title of the page in your browser's address bar. Compare it to other instances of 'I's and '1's on Wookieepedia. Copy/paste the title into Word, and change it to a serif font so you can clearly see that it is a capital 'I'. They are XI7 turbolasers, not X17. Carry on.
  9. I prefer Dropzone Commander for that title. Armada is a close second.
  10. Capital ships? To me, it seems like TIE Interceptors are nasty enough (especially with Howlrunner) that I wouldn't want to tangle with them fighter-on-fighter.
  11. It's like Luke, but better and works with Outrider/missiles/etc. Might be balanced if it had an appropriate points cost (I notice the author left that part blank).
  12. Victory-class Star Destroyers are Clone Wars-era tech, and they seem to be pretty good.
  13. Recall that both the RZ-1 and the A/SF-01 are pretty advanced pieces of military tech, tech that the Alliance didn't have much production capability for until later in the movement - and I figure that with the Alliance's limited resources, they would focus more on building more jack-of-all-trades X-Wings rather than specialist starfighters. I can completely understand having a handful of each in outlying Rebel cells, yet never seeing them until the main battle at Endor - as the old saying goes, 'don't keep all your eggs in one basket'. If the Death Star had blown Yavin IV apart, and all of the Alliance's resources were there, then that would be the death of the movement - a lot of the Alliance's higher-ups were former members of the Republic, and I'm sure they remember how difficult it was to pin down and destroy a separatist movement that was spread out across the galaxy. Also, having one cell use A-Wings, another use X-Wings, a third use B-Wings, and some with Headhunters and Y-Wings can help generate the illusion that they are separate, unaffiliated groups.
  14. K is for Kir Kanos Neat pilot ability But no EPT Nobody likes him Not even me.
  15. For a more 'evasive' Corran ability, why not let him use Focus tokens as Evade tokens? That would keep it as a pilot ability, rather than a modifier to the ship, and would also have some synergy with Rebel focus-sharing while not allowing Corran to get Focus+Evade from PTL. That's not Corran's X-Wing.
  16. Usually depends on the target for me. If I have 2 or more red dice than the defender has greens, I'll use guns. Otherwise, I'll tend to use the ion.
  17. I'm a little annoyed that it has two bomb slots but only one for missiles...but that's just personal preference. Your overconfidence is your weakness. I plan on buying 3, but I don't plan on stopping at 3 - I'll probably get 8 or 9 to run a full K-Wing epic list. Because I love that ship. But yeah, a 2-die turret is not the most useful thing - I see it more as a cool thing to use when there isn't a good shot with your ordnance (or you've run out).
  18. I can't even begin to count how many craft across all fictions and reality fit that description. Maybe. But the K-Wing looks like it covered itself in glue and rolled around in a bowl full of missiles and bombs. Same with pretty much any modern mud-mover. Take the F-15E Strike Eagle for example - with more hardpoints than the K-Wing, when it's fully loaded it can look a bit like it suffered a case of overzealous child hobbyist.
  19. It is an interesting mix. But the "space-wizards with laser-swords" tends not to apply during military engagements during the OT - it's more of a neat side-show. After all, Wedge Antilles and Lando Calrissian - two people who I'm pretty sure weren't space-wizards - would have made the end result of the Luke/Vader/Palpatine Death Star II duel irrelevant. And that is one of the things I like about Star Wars: the fact that in a galaxy far, far away, normal people can have as much of an impact on galactic events as Jedi and Sith. Sure, Force-users are special, but they aren't all-powerful.
  20. Yet Star Wars is pretty heavily grounded in realism, so the function is important. This isn't Harry Potter where you can do whatever because magic, this is Space WWII. Vader wears a Stahlhelm, Hoth was Dunkirk, the Death Star was the Bismarck, Yavin was the Dambusters raid, Endor was a cross between Midway and Operation Crossbow, and dogfights are the Battle of Britain. If a piece of military equipment exists, it should fill a logical purpose that would exist if Star Wars were reality. If the B-Wing didn't exist and you were told that the tiny little A-Wing was designed as the Alliance's primary heavy strike fighter at Endor, you wouldn't believe it, would you? Sure, the slim arrowhead shape of the RZ-1 is pretty, but it doesn't fit the part. In-universe, the K-Wing is intended to fill a specific role, and the artistic design of the ship must reflect that. Sure, it's not pretty...but the requirements for close air support rarely lend themselves to beauty. Durability, redundant systems, a clear forward view, and firepower - those would be the tasks were the K-Wing real, and can you deny that it looks the part? A broad wing for stability, even with combat damage; plenty of hardpoints, including on secondary airfoils; defensive turret placement that allows for excellent defensive coverage (ventral turret can cover a lot of the forward arc, flanks, the belly, and a good portion of the aft between the lower wings, where the dorsal turret covers most of what the ventral misses, plus can overlap in the forward arc for maximum firepower); pilot and gunner in side-by-side seating, allowing both a clear view of the target; and what I see as an emergency back-up 'get home' engine that is protected from ground fire by the entire fuselage. The K-Wing isn't supposed to look fast, it isn't supposed to look maneuverable, it's supposed to look like it blows big things up and brings its crew home. Also, every modern real-world military vehicle's design is dependent on its function - even the 'pretty' ones. Take the F-22 for example - it's a mix of low-speed agility, high-speed performance, range, payload capability, and pilot awareness, shaped by area rule and current understanding of stealth technology.
  21. Eh, I find being able to K-Turn after the OPFOR, to put my Defender where they used to be, is extremely useful. But that's just me. Why? I would think you'd want to move later in the activation order, in order to acquire Target Locks on lower-skilled pilots in the opening joust to use your long-range ordnance. It's why I plan on paying the points for the higher PS generic K-Wings.
  22. As I said before, it says that it can be manually controlled. That doesn't mean that it must. Also, I didn't say that it's an unreliable source, I said that it's an unreliable source for comparing which of the two is the superior craft. There's a pretty big difference...and it's impossible to compare two things with a source that completely omits one. Additionally, there's no reason to modify the Defender when the factory stock version is better than any post-production modifications would be - it was designed to be as best as possible, no matter the cost. You seem to think that this would be a setback, when it is in fact a benefit. You seem to forget the targeting systems all ships had in the video games - visual blind spots are irrelevant when everyone has full 360o sensors. Also, being a slightly larger target and being easier to spot isn't going to help someone against a Defender when the Defender is more maneuverable. Put an F-16 against an F-22 in a dogfight with equal pilots, and the size difference won't matter at all. Here is an archived version of the starwars.com databank page on the TIE Defender: http://web.archive.org/web/20100328055302/http://www.starwars.com/databank/starship/tiedefender/index.html From that page: "A triple array of maneuvering jets on the branching tri-wing assembly allows the TIE defender to tumble through seemingly impossible dives and jinks, outshining the impressive TIE interceptor in sheer agility." I don't see any reason why I should continue to revisit the same discussion when you are quite plainly wrong about the Interceptor being better than the Defender.
×
×
  • Create New...