Jump to content

tedshinn

Members
  • Content Count

    28
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About tedshinn

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 11/24/1973

Contact Methods

  • Yahoo
    ted_shinn@yahoo.com

Profile Information

  • Location
    Clarksville, Tn

Recent Profile Visitors

413 profile views
  1. Thanks for sharing. This looks great. Curious why there is a front arc on the command section and a rear arc on the front section? Are you saying is it like the command section is on top of the outer hull and has it's own 360 degree fire? That is quite and interesting concept...
  2. Just thought I would share my own Thread on this. Thanks!
  3. My intent with this design was to make like running somewhere between 2.5 to 3 ISDs. That should not break the entire game if you have equivalent points on the other side. Also, and perhaps more importantly, we cannot overlook the possibility of scenarios and campaigns. This is where this thing could really shine. Maybe the balance is done with having different objectives for each side. They may not last long against a Super Star Destroyer, but can they last long enough to accomplish their mission and get out? Having asymmetric forces with different objectives is more true to the spirit of the movies and could really open up a world of thematic fun!
  4. I want a Super Star Destroyer for Armada, and the ground game for X-Wing (with AT-ATs, AT-STs, and Speeders). Anything else is gravy.
  5. Asymmetrical is what Star Wars is really all about. Many of these mini battles are screaming for scenario/campaign play. I think it is possible to play both balanced and scenario/campaign style with asymetry. I think it is possible to have our cake and eat it too.
  6. This is all great, and more power to them. Looks good and will enjoy it I'm sure. The disappointment is that I don't see recreating the Epic Battle of Hoth with 5 AT-ATs in this format. Maybe, but would take a pile of money for that scale, a warehouse to set it up in, and probably about 6 to 10 hrs to play it. That is the game I really wanted, but I don't think this is it. I'm sure there is great fun here, I will enjoy it, but still looking forward some day to the definitive Hoth Battle experience.
  7. Spot on! This is the game we want - the remaining itch that needs to be scratched. Cudos to FFG for giving us dog fights in X-Wing, Fleet Battles in Armada, skirmish/campagn squad fights in IA, the Rebellion Board Game which is awesome, and heck, this Legion Game looks good, but not the game I was really hoping for. Maybe one day
  8. I like the Disney Store AT-ATs and the Hot Wheels AT-STs and Snowspeeders.
  9. I want AT-ATs! I really wanted them in X-Wing scale, with playability as an X-Wing ground game. Bottom line, there are two games I want to play - the Battle of Hoth (and sure Scarif too) and Star Wars Battlefront the board and/or the mini game. Yes I am talking about the EA game featuring Walker Assault mode -- So you have a bunch of infantry/vehicles fighting over communication nodes in order to call in bombing on the invincible AT-ATs as they plod toward the objective. Once a com node is successfully held by the Rebels, the AT-ATs are ion bombed which opens them up to take damage. Now, the Imps must defend the Walkers while the Rebels must concentrate fire on the Walkers in order to bring them down for the limited time they are vulnerable. Now that's a fun cool game I want to play and it gives us SW Battlefront the Board/mini game. For Hoth, different set of rules, AT-ATs Vs snowspeeders. AT-ATs plod and speeders zip all over the place. Someone posted a great idea that you have the speeders move then shoot and move again. This can be advantageous, but can also make them overshoot into the Walker's firing arcs. Add in the infantry, turrets, and vehicles and you have a fantastic game. Come on FFG, WE WANT AT-ATs!
  10. I want AT-ATs! I really wanted them in X-Wing scale, with playability as an X-Wing ground game. Bottom line, there are two games I want to play - the Battle of Hoth (and sure Scarif too) and Star Wars Battlefront the board and/or the mini game. Yes I am talking about the EA game featuring Walker Assault mode -- So you have a bunch of infantry/vehicles fighting over communication nodes in order to call in bombing on the invincible AT-ATs as they plod toward the objective. Once a com node is successfully held by the Rebels, the AT-ATs are ion bombed which opens them up to take damage. Now, the Imps must defend the Walkers while the Rebels must concentrate fire on the Walkers in order to bring them down for the limited time they are vulnerable. Now that's a fun cool game I want to play and it gives us SW Battlefront the Board/mini game. For Hoth, different set of rules, AT-ATs Vs snowspeeders. AT-ATs plod and speeders zip all over the place. Someone posted a great idea that you have the speeders move then shoot and move again. This can be advantageous, but can also make them overshoot into the Walker's firing arcs. Add in the infantry, turrets, and vehicles and you have a fantastic game. Come on FFG, WE WANT AT-ATs!
  11. I want AT-ATs! I really wanted them in X-Wing scale, with playability as an X-Wing ground game. Bottom line, there are two games I want to play - the Battle of Hoth (and sure Scarif too) and Star Wars Battlefront the board and/or the mini game. Yes I am talking about the EA game featuring Walker Assault mode -- So you have a bunch of infantry/vehicles fighting over communication nodes in order to call in bombing on the invincible AT-ATs as they plod toward the objective. Once a com node is successfully held by the Rebels, the AT-ATs are ion bombed which opens them up to take damage. Now, the Imps must defend the Walkers while the Rebels must concentrate fire on the Walkers in order to bring them down for the limited time they are vulnerable. Now that's a fun cool game I want to play and it gives us SW Battlefront the Board/mini game. For Hoth, different set of rules, AT-ATs Vs snowspeeders. AT-ATs plod and speeders zip all over the place. Someone posted a great idea that you have the speeders move then shoot and move again. This can be advantageous, but can also make them overshoot into the Walker's firing arcs. Add in the infantry, turrets, and vehicles and you have a fantastic game. Come on FFG, WE WANT AT-ATs!
  12. Check out my own post on this (link below). I did my own SSD Armada project with this size/scale question in mind. It started out being merely a test print out to see what it would look like, then I got to playing around with cardboard and next thing you know, I went and built the whole thing! It just took on a life of it's own. Anyway, I think it looks awesome, as long at you slightly manipulate the dimensions to be about 10 to 15% wider than normal, and mount it higher then the rest of the Armada ships. The increased height creates the illusion of greater size. Yes it is still smaller than what the SSD should be, but I think it scales nicely as a compromise and still delivers something you can play with on the table. Haven't gotten a chance to play it yet, but looking forward to it. https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/222863-super-star-destroyer-pics-and-stat-development-question/
  13. Here is the latest change for two card format: This kind of starts us over with regards to command stats, tokens, AS, points, upgrades... what do you think? Also, here are some updates to upgrade cards: Thank you all for contributing. Please keep the comments coming, this good stuff.
  14. Awesome ideas Drasnighta. I like it - massive firepower in front, but less hull strength, and upgraded hull strength in the rear but less firepower. It will have to be very carefully fine tuned so as not to be too out of balance on either side. Will definitely consider that!
  15. Agree with cactus - we definitely are in the mode of a two card ship (whether I actually have two physical cards or print one special design remains to be seen). Ultimately, I am starting with the base stats for two upgraded ISDs. If I just took two ISD cards and slapped them together and called it a day, then there would be no compelling reason (besides the cool factor) to pick this ship over two upgraded ISDs which would be faster and more maneuverable. In fact, I started off with the base stats of an ISD and everyone said it was too fast - it should be slow and lumbering -- and I agree with that. But if it is slow and lumbering, then it needs to be a tank that deals some good damage. At 21 hull points, it is already less than two ISDs - again the two card system would fix that, but to me, I really like the idea of having to bring it down 21 total hull points. I'm thinking there should be a way to keep that concept. Of course that may be too tough a challenge, but I think it is mitigated somewhat by the option to take out the bridge by scoring a critical hit with fighters against an unshielded aft section. That may be a tough challenge as well, but it would cripple the ship by cancelling all command actions and upgrades. Of course I realize full well that when you split the ship in two halves you still have the same combined number of hull points, so it really is the same thing - It just doesn't look as impressive - LOL. Anyway, that may end up being the only way to go so I have definitely not ruled it out. I just feel like taking out 11 hull points in front and 10 or 11 hull points in the back just gives the feel of two ISDs that move and maneuver like a VSD. That's not going to compel anyone to use it, so yes, it certainly will need to be a little overpowered, but balanced by slow speed and the "Achilles Heel" of taking out the bridge. Tough and powerful, but not impossible. Interesting challenge.
×
×
  • Create New...