Jump to content

Icebox

Members
  • Content Count

    65
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Icebox

  1. Icebox

    New Asmodee Forums

    Diito. Keep moving along.
  2. Giving a slight edge to a swarm or squadron that stays in proximity to each other makes sense. (Where the swarm/squadron is a minimum of 3 of the same type?) It does seem to me that a squadron should also get an advantage from staying close to it's squadron leader. Whereas I don't see a swarm being so linked to a leader, more of benefiting from a 'hive' approach. Should a squadron that loses it leader behave like a swarm as long as they stay proximal?
  3. Icebox

    the rant meta

    If people aren't having fun playing that way then sure. But there is nothing inherently wrong with the 100 point death match, regardless of what some people here think. As far as X-Wing 2.0 goes. If I have to spend more then $50 to update everything I own to be 2.0 compatible, I'm done and I'm willing to bet that the vast majority will feel the same way. Not that 2.0 is actually the magic bullet that some people seem to think. You are correct that there is nothing wrong with the 100 point death match. My point is - there is so much more than that!
  4. Icebox

    the rant meta

    And that probably requires players to step past the 100 pt death-match dogfight. And heychadwick is completely on-point.
  5. Can’t pick just one, but here are some favourites; First = A-Wing, my old-school go-to, right from the beginning playing X-Wing and Tie Fighter in the 90’s. Second = Hard to choose between the Rogue-class fighter and the Belbullab-22, especially Cad Bane’s “Xanadu Blood” or General Grievous’ “Soulless One”. Third = If I wanted to have a personal ship to cruise the galaxy, it would be the Naboo Star Skiff. Classy! Large ship = definitely the Munificent-class frigate, delightfully ugly. But now along comes the “U-Wing”. I need to watch Rogue One again to be sure but it is a fascinating ship. It’s probably my favourite ‘atmospheric’ ship. A couple of months ago a question arose among a mix of old and young geeks; If you were going to travel the galaxy what ship would you choose – from any sci-fi genre. That prompted a lively discussion. Most of the younger set talked Star Wars. The older ‘kids’ were a mix of SW and Star Trek with the odd Battlestar Galactica and one hard core Firefly fan.
  6. Epic X Wing is best X Wing. The 'soul' of X Wing is destroyed by the mindless adherence to the 100/6 tournament style games. There's no Star Wars in that, there's no narrative, no... soul. Yes, Yes, Yes. YES. YES, YES, YES, YES, YES................. A simple "Like This " wasn't enough.
  7. @ heychadwick - You are the God of Casual and thanks for the work you put into the Shuttle Tydirium !! I put in the links to the old threads in the hopes people would not start those discussion over again here. I don't really see this as a being two separate groups of people, more different styles of play. There is probably more player overlap than either 'side' will acknowledge. Maybe this is why things are mellowing. Another reason I'm in favour of a 'Casual' forum (not using the word 'casual' would be important) is exactly because of what you said about seeing "a lot more non-tournament discussion on the main forums in the past year". To find those discussions, I have to weed through a lot of threads I'm only marginally interested in unless the thread title makes it obvious like this one. And there already is the flamer who blasts the non-tournament discussions as being irrelevant to the 'real' game. Maybe simply renaming the existing "X-Wing Mission Control Technical Support and Feedback Forum" to "X-Wing Mission Control" or some similar name would attract more detailed discussion and highlight the type of play we are talking about. That is the least used forum. Might this stimulate expanded FFG support?
  8. I think we need to talk about the types of play for a moment; in particular ‘casual’. Casual for me includes; missions, campaigns, cinematic, Mario Kart, narrative, Epic and so on. To me the nick-name ‘casual’ is a misnomer if it means “without definite or serious intention; careless or offhand” or the more disparaging “a person who plays games that do not require much skill or time commitment”. (The idea of the ‘casual player’ gets more confusing when used to refer to the non-pro tourney player. I’m not talking about them.) I’m coming from the perspective that the casual player is looking for fun that is not dependent on winning or even competing. From my perspective the non-competition types of play are where you can get the full value from the diversity of ships in X-Wing. There are ships that are falling out of favour in the 100 point death-match world that are great fun for scenarios! I know that the rules seem to be optimized for the dogfight but I don’t see anything incompatible with the casual modes listed above. I have great admiration for those who run campaigns; the amount of work required is anything but ‘casual’ and requires a lot of skill and commitment. (HOTAC – Wow!) The negative comments about Epic play seem to revolve around the extra time required for prep & setup and the time commitment to see a full game through. Missions, cinematic or scenario play can be as simple or complex as you want. Nothing ‘casual’ about any of that! This is where the serious Star Wars fan can play & replay scenes from books & movies to their hearts content, limited only by their imagination and stock of ships & game aids. Do you really have to know anything about the intricacies of the Star Wars universe to play a 100 point tourney list? You certainly do if you are going to write a convincing Star Wars scenario. There is a lot more about “The Clash” here; https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/222864-competetive-vs-casual-why-the-clash/and I don’t want to rehash that. I was amused when one tournament player said. “I play fun games from time to time”, when referring to non-competition play. I have nothing against tournaments and there is value there. But some support for the other forms would be appreciated. There was a thread some time ago that suggested a separate sub-forum for “casual” players who don’t get a lot of love on this site - https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/221707-should-epiccinematic-play-get-its-own-subforum/?hl=cinematic . There are many threads spread throughout this site that would benefit from being in the same place. Example: https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/234968-skirmish-missions-and-campaign-generator-advice-needed I have two points: 1. I would like to see a different label for the non-tournament modes of play other than ‘Casual’. 2. These forms of play are rich & diverse and would definitely benefit from a forum where people could share ideas and support without getting flamed by the tourney diehards. Maybe it has to be some place other than the FFG site though. In conclusion; there is no “one real” way to play X-Wing. Just rich diversity if you choose to widen your thinking beyond winning a 100 point dogfight.
  9. As the add-ons unfold for the the UT-60D U-Wing, I hope they keep them true to the aircraft that inspired it - the Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter. The Blackhawk is the finest multi-role helicopter around. It's a troop carrier (up to eleven) and close-support gunship (mini-gun, rockets, etc). And that seems to be the role of the U-Wing is doing in Rogue One. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwPzz9oVv4s
  10. Taking it to the next level: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaCjjda5v1o&feature=youtu.be
  11. Scariff had to be destroyed to ensure that the Imps don't know what data may have been stolen by the Rebs.
  12. Not only does Rogue One stand out as one of the best in the panoply of Star Wars movies and TV shows, it is one of the best space operas you will see. To take that designation further; Rogue One is a superb Grand Tragic Space Opera. (I would call many of the Lucas SW films "operettas" though.)
  13. One of the ways to bring variety to scenarios is to embrace the unbalanced or asymmetric engagement. What is it you ask? Well let’s go to good old Wikipedia: “Asymmetric warfare (or asymmetric engagement) is war between belligerents whose relative military power differs significantly, or whose strategy or tactics differ significantly. This is typically a war between a standing, professional army and an insurgency or resistance movement.” Sound familiar? The key to playing this out in a wargame is to realise and accept that the two sides have different strengths, use different tactics and have different goals or victory conditions. The last point is where some gamers have difficulty and this is especially true with X-Wing players and their dogfight fixation. The key is to set different but appropriate victory conditions where balance comes from each side having a fair chance to achieve their victory. A good back story can put this in perspective and supply the rationale for the scenario. Some of the above examples show this concept. Another example would be; the outpost is under attack by a superior force however their rescuers will arrive in 5 hours. The defenders just need to survive the 5 hours to win but the attackers need to take possession of the outpost to win. Alternatively, to keep this approach competitive; run the scenario twice and swap sides to see who can achieve the same victory condition in a shorter number of turns or with fewer losses. Most tactical scenarios address this to some degree and a bit of game-testing can lead to a balanced pair of victory conditions. Time to apply imagination!
  14. Don't really need a new one. Just add on = Scum, Villainy and the Merchant Marine! Largely similar ships since the the main source for 'pirate' ships is 're-purposed' merchant vessels anyway.
  15. The Star Wars version of the "Forlorn Hope" or "Enfants Perdus". Nos morituri te salutamus !
  16. Who has a recommendation for the best place to find Star Wars fanfiction? And even their favourite author(s)?
  17. Tickets to Rogue One 3D. 7:00 pm Dec. 15. :D
  18. Icebox

    Scale is off

    Well, Harry Potter, Dr. Who or the crew of the original Jupiter 2.
  19. Icebox

    Scale is off

    I am not the least put out by an ship having a number of variants (e.g. single seat - 2 seat) or evolving over time with changes to engines and armament. During WW2 the Supermarine Spitfire went through at least 9 variants; starting with a 1,300 hp power-plant & ending up with a 2.300 hp power-plant, and armament combinations from 8 light machineguns to 4 cannons with bombs. The P51 Mustang had even more variants and horsepower that ranged from 1,300 to over 2,000 and armament from light machineguns to cannons to rockets. It is very reasonable to expect variations in starships as well, especially when operated for many years and in many locations across the galaxy. Notwithstanding that; 2-seaters must be big enough for two and the inside can't be bigger than the outside (unless Harry Potter is flying?).
  20. Icebox

    Scale is off

    I did a search on model scale and this thread popped up. Then, I noticed that with the resurgence in interest in old videos that some of them had been newly posted - so I put up the link to the video being referred to in this thread. I was doing the scale model search trying to get info on the ideas posted in other threads about trying to select a scale for mixing land and space games. 1/270 allows for using 6 mm figurines - as long as they are actually made to that scale. (I like that scale, by the way) The real test is being referred to in most of the posts here. Do the cockpits make sense when you put a human sized figure in them! Then, are the larger ships sensible when compared to the ships that you can size to those cockpits.... Obviously, there is a problem with some of the allegedly 'true scale' models.
  21. A couple of other relevant threads (to avoid duplicate discussions). https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/199996-best-scale-for-an-at-at/ https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/105371-dont-hassle-the-hoth/?hl=%20don https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/184000-star-wars-6mm-wargame/ I like the idea of keeping to the 1/270 (6 mm) scale as much as possible to keep things in the skirmish/ small tactical realm.
×
×
  • Create New...