Jump to content
FTS Gecko

XG-1 "Star Wing" Assault Gunboat Thread

Recommended Posts

 

 When it comes to the miniatures though, the Rebels ships look a bit cartoony and clean-cut alongside the rest of the X-Wing range.

 

The Rebel Aces, Imperial Aces, and Imperial Veterans miniatures look to me to be at least as stridently coloured as the Rebels TV Series ones.

 

I don't think it's a matter of colours, but of texture and detail.

The classic Star Wars look is of many grebbles, dirty engines, rusty panels, rough shapes, worn out ships.

Look at the Falcon miniature, or the Y-Wing, or the corvette. Their surfaces aren't smooth. There are plenty of holes, cables, pipes.

Now look at the ships from Rebels, the VCX-100, the attack shuttle, the shadowcaster. They are made of smooth, uniform surfaces, almost unaltered simple geometrical shapes.

 

The OT ships (and the EU ships inspired on the OT) are full of little details and imperfections that make them feel real, or Star Wars real.

The Rebels ships feel like Mattel toys.

Edited by Azrapse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 When it comes to the miniatures though, the Rebels ships look a bit cartoony and clean-cut alongside the rest of the X-Wing range.

 

The Rebel Aces, Imperial Aces, and Imperial Veterans miniatures look to me to be at least as stridently coloured as the Rebels TV Series ones.

 

I don't think it's a matter of colours, but of texture and detail.

The classic Star Wars look is of many grebbles, dirty engines, rusty panels, rough shapes, worn out ships.

Look at the Falcon miniature, or the Y-Wing, or the corvette. Their surfaces aren't smooth. There are plenty of holes, cables, pipes.

Now look at the ships from Rebels, the VCX-100, the attack shuttle, the shadowcaster. They are made of smooth, uniform surfaces, almost unaltered simple geometrical shapes.

 

The OT ships (and the EU ships inspired on the OT) are full of little details and imperfections that make them feel real, or Star Wars real.

The Rebels ships feel like Mattel toys.

 

 

I COMPLETELY disagree that they feel like Mattel toys.  I DO, however, agree that they look different because the source material is an animated show.  It's like basing an RD-D2 model on the Clone Wars version.... it will naturally look less realistic. I don't think that's a reason to NOT do them.  I still think the models look fantastic, and I think they look great on the table. It would be interesting to see a live-action VCX-100.  I bet it would get a lot more greeblies.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 When it comes to the miniatures though, the Rebels ships look a bit cartoony and clean-cut alongside the rest of the X-Wing range.

 

The Rebel Aces, Imperial Aces, and Imperial Veterans miniatures look to me to be at least as stridently coloured as the Rebels TV Series ones.

 

I don't think it's a matter of colours, but of texture and detail.

The classic Star Wars look is of many grebbles, dirty engines, rusty panels, rough shapes, worn out ships.

Look at the Falcon miniature, or the Y-Wing, or the corvette. Their surfaces aren't smooth. There are plenty of holes, cables, pipes.

Now look at the ships from Rebels, the VCX-100, the attack shuttle, the shadowcaster. They are made of smooth, uniform surfaces, almost unaltered simple geometrical shapes.

 

The OT ships (and the EU ships inspired on the OT) are full of little details and imperfections that make them feel real, or Star Wars real.

The Rebels ships feel like Mattel toys.

 

Yes, that's probably a big part of it isn't it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I COMPLETELY disagree that they feel like Mattel toys.  I DO, however, agree that they look different because the source material is an animated show.  It's like basing an RD-D2 model on the Clone Wars version.... it will naturally look less realistic. I don't think that's a reason to NOT do them.  I still think the models look fantastic, and I think they look great on the table. It would be interesting to see a live-action VCX-100.  I bet it would get a lot more greeblies.  

 

 

The problem I have, and it's true of the card art too, is that it gives the game an inconsistent style.  I'd personally prefer it if they chose one art style for the models and cards and did all in that style, regardless of source material.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I COMPLETELY disagree that they feel like Mattel toys.  I DO, however, agree that they look different because the source material is an animated show.  It's like basing an RD-D2 model on the Clone Wars version.... it will naturally look less realistic. I don't think that's a reason to NOT do them.  I still think the models look fantastic, and I think they look great on the table. It would be interesting to see a live-action VCX-100.  I bet it would get a lot more greeblies.  

 

 

The problem I have, and it's true of the card art too, is that it gives the game an inconsistent style.  I'd personally prefer it if they chose one art style for the models and cards and did all in that style, regardless of source material.

 

 

I get that, but with an IP that exists in so many media forms, that's tough.  I always thought the HWK looked out of place too, for that same reason.  It's design was largely driven by a need to keep the poly count down, so LOTS of flat surfaces.  But I just roll with it.  I assume LFL would be reluctant to let the models deviate too far form the source material.  A more detailed VCX-100 might be cool to see, but would it feel like the VCX we see on screen?  It's a balancing act.  I'm satisfied with what they've done, but I understand the feeling of dissonance that some experience. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I COMPLETELY disagree that they feel like Mattel toys.  I DO, however, agree that they look different because the source material is an animated show.  It's like basing an RD-D2 model on the Clone Wars version.... it will naturally look less realistic. I don't think that's a reason to NOT do them.  I still think the models look fantastic, and I think they look great on the table. It would be interesting to see a live-action VCX-100.  I bet it would get a lot more greeblies. 

 

The problem I have, and it's true of the card art too, is that it gives the game an inconsistent style.  I'd personally prefer it if they chose one art style for the models and cards and did all in that style, regardless of source material.

 

I get that, but with an IP that exists in so many media forms, that's tough.  I always thought the HWK looked out of place too, for that same reason.  It's design was largely driven by a need to keep the poly count down, so LOTS of flat surfaces.  But I just roll with it.  I assume LFL would be reluctant to let the models deviate too far form the source material.  A more detailed VCX-100 might be cool to see, but would it feel like the VCX we see on screen?  It's a balancing act.  I'm satisfied with what they've done, but I understand the feeling of dissonance that some experience.

 

What they need is their own personal ***** at Disney to officially design any ship or person they need to film standards on demand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I COMPLETELY disagree that they feel like Mattel toys.  I DO, however, agree that they look different because the source material is an animated show.  It's like basing an RD-D2 model on the Clone Wars version.... it will naturally look less realistic. I don't think that's a reason to NOT do them.  I still think the models look fantastic, and I think they look great on the table. It would be interesting to see a live-action VCX-100.  I bet it would get a lot more greeblies. 

 

The problem I have, and it's true of the card art too, is that it gives the game an inconsistent style.  I'd personally prefer it if they chose one art style for the models and cards and did all in that style, regardless of source material.

 

I get that, but with an IP that exists in so many media forms, that's tough.  I always thought the HWK looked out of place too, for that same reason.  It's design was largely driven by a need to keep the poly count down, so LOTS of flat surfaces.  But I just roll with it.  I assume LFL would be reluctant to let the models deviate too far form the source material.  A more detailed VCX-100 might be cool to see, but would it feel like the VCX we see on screen?  It's a balancing act.  I'm satisfied with what they've done, but I understand the feeling of dissonance that some experience.

 

What they need is their own personal ***** at Disney to officially design any ship or person they need to film standards on demand.

 

 

That would actually be cool, but probably too expensive.  But I think they kind of did that for the Raider, right?  They really wanted something comparable to the CR-90, and worked with LFL to produce the Raider.  I think the Raider look completely at home in a Star Wars film.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What they need is their own personal ***** at Disney to officially design any ship or person they need to film standards on demand.

 

That would actually be cool, but probably too expensive.  But I think they kind of did that for the Raider, right?  They really wanted something comparable to the CR-90, and worked with LFL to produce the Raider.  I think the Raider look completely at home in a Star Wars film. 

 

They could certainly have had it in Rebels, but I suppose the Kittens class does the same role.

Edited by mazz0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 When it comes to the miniatures though, the Rebels ships look a bit cartoony and clean-cut alongside the rest of the X-Wing range.

 

The Rebel Aces, Imperial Aces, and Imperial Veterans miniatures look to me to be at least as stridently coloured as the Rebels TV Series ones.

 

I don't think it's a matter of colours, but of texture and detail.

The classic Star Wars look is of many grebbles, dirty engines, rusty panels, rough shapes, worn out ships.

Look at the Falcon miniature, or the Y-Wing, or the corvette. Their surfaces aren't smooth. There are plenty of holes, cables, pipes.

Now look at the ships from Rebels, the VCX-100, the attack shuttle, the shadowcaster. They are made of smooth, uniform surfaces, almost unaltered simple geometrical shapes.

 

The OT ships (and the EU ships inspired on the OT) are full of little details and imperfections that make them feel real, or Star Wars real.

The Rebels ships feel like Mattel toys.

 

 

While comparing a lot of the existing ships to the Ghost or Shadow Caster might lead to that conclusion - it's hardly universally true.

 

I mean, look at that CR90, again.  IMHO, it just looks out-of-place next to the GR75, as the GR75 has the level of "greebles" of the smaller fighters that the CR90 just lacks.

 

If you set the Ghost, GR75, and CR90 side-by-side to each other, it's really the (on-screen canonical) GR75 that looks 'out of place'...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, look at that CR90, again.  IMHO, it just looks out-of-place next to the GR75, as the GR75 has the level of "greebles" of the smaller fighters that the CR90 just lacks.

 

If you set the Ghost, GR75, and CR90 side-by-side to each other, it's really the (on-screen canonical) GR75 that looks 'out of place'...

 

 

Well, if you say so... I agree that the GR-75 is a piece of art. The underside of it has more details than all "Rebels" ships put together:

 

DSC_0961.JPG

 

But the Tantive IV is quite good also, considering that it is supposed to be bigger and it doesn't really follow a 1:270 scale, so of course grebbles and details should be smaller. But they are still there!

maxresdefault.jpg

 

Look at those pipes, heatsinks, containers,  gadgets and little, variated and almost chaotic shapes filling the joints between the larger panels.

Now, compare with a similar size chunk of the VCX-100:

maxresdefault.jpg

 

And it's not like FFG has not tried to make it more interesting and "real". Compare it with the one that we can see in the series:

15663240822_cf1ef4c2ec_o.jpg

That is even flatter and less detailed.

FFG has done a good job at making the miniature. Unfortunately it seems they had less freedom to make the Ghost interesting than they had with the K-Wing (That I still consider a sample of mastery how they turned that dull concept art into the beautiful, StarWarsy model we got).

Edited by Azrapse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 When it comes to the miniatures though, the Rebels ships look a bit cartoony and clean-cut alongside the rest of the X-Wing range.

 

The Rebel Aces, Imperial Aces, and Imperial Veterans miniatures look to me to be at least as stridently coloured as the Rebels TV Series ones.

 

I don't think it's a matter of colours, but of texture and detail.

The classic Star Wars look is of many grebbles, dirty engines, rusty panels, rough shapes, worn out ships.

Look at the Falcon miniature, or the Y-Wing, or the corvette. Their surfaces aren't smooth. There are plenty of holes, cables, pipes.

Now look at the ships from Rebels, the VCX-100, the attack shuttle, the shadowcaster. They are made of smooth, uniform surfaces, almost unaltered simple geometrical shapes.

 

The OT ships (and the EU ships inspired on the OT) are full of little details and imperfections that make them feel real, or Star Wars real.

The Rebels ships feel like Mattel toys.

 

 

While comparing a lot of the existing ships to the Ghost or Shadow Caster might lead to that conclusion - it's hardly universally true.

 

I mean, look at that CR90, again.  IMHO, it just looks out-of-place next to the GR75, as the GR75 has the level of "greebles" of the smaller fighters that the CR90 just lacks.

 

If you set the Ghost, GR75, and CR90 side-by-side to each other, it's really the (on-screen canonical) GR75 that looks 'out of place'...

 

Corellian+Corvette.png Star-Wars-X-Wing:-Rebel-Transport.jpgghost-600px.gif

 

Hmm, I dunno

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Unfortunately it seems they had less freedom to make the Ghost interesting than they had with the K-Wing (That I still consider a sample of mastery how they turned that dull concept art into the beautiful, StarWarsy model we got).

 

 

Did FFG really change it that much?

 

New Essential Chronology

k-wing-assault-starfighter-3.jpg

 

New Essential Guide to Vehicles & Vessels

k-wing.jpg

 

Starships of the Galaxy

056-k-wing.jpg

 

FFG model

kwing.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Azrapse summed up my reservations over the Rebels designs quite well up the page.

 

As for the K-Wing... you know what the difference is between those EU images and the FFG model?  Oh, to hell with it, I'll let Will Smith explain it...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 Unfortunately it seems they had less freedom to make the Ghost interesting than they had with the K-Wing (That I still consider a sample of mastery how they turned that dull concept art into the beautiful, StarWarsy model we got).

 

 

Did FFG really change it that much?

 

New Essential Chronology

 

k-wing-assault-starfighter-3.jpg

 

New Essential Guide to Vehicles & Vessels

 

k-wing.jpg

 

Starships of the Galaxy

 

056-k-wing.jpg

 

FFG model

 

kwing.jpg

 

 

Hmm. You have a good point. The model doesn't differ too much from the concept art.

There are, however, a few differences, like the shape of the cockpit canopies, that are closer in the FFG mini to the ones in Starships of the Galaxy, while the shape of the cockpit module itself is closer to the New Essential Guide. A more robust "neck" in the mini than in the concept art, that makes it feel like a closer relative to the Y-Wing (the thing seems like it could snap at any moment in Starships of the Galaxy). A way smaller hanging turret pod that makes it look less silly (or perhaps is just a matter of perspective?). 

And perhaps it's just the panel lines, that are actually carvings in the miniature, while in the reference art they are just lines. Or maybe the paint job and weathering also contributes to give it a believable rebel ship look. 

I don't know.

It's like that "uncanny valley" thing, that you can barely explain why, but some 3D render or mannequin representation of a human face gives you the creeps. This is the same, but in the other way.

Edited by Azrapse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I didn't say they were bad.

I said they were ugly. I like the Mon Cal stuff and Falcon just fine but they're ugly as sin. In a charming way.

I really, really really REALLY  REALLY do not appreciate the insinuation that I think the ships in Star Wars don't look brilliant. I can say one or two are ugly without saying every single one is ugly.

What is with you guys? This world of absolutes must be very hard to live in.

 

Alright alright, calm down!  I don't know why you're getting in such a huff.  You seem very keen on your right to think awesome ships from the films are ugly, but not so keen on my right to think ships from the cartoons are ugly.

"MUH RIGHTS"

What? I... Man. I don't even know what this discourse is anymore. One is a complaint (ew everything in rebels is ugly and ruined) and the other is a statement (The falcon ain't pretty). That's my thing here.

 

 

 

What they need is their own personal ***** at Disney to officially design any ship or person they need to film standards on demand.

 

That would actually be cool, but probably too expensive.  But I think they kind of did that for the Raider, right?  They really wanted something comparable to the CR-90, and worked with LFL to produce the Raider.  I think the Raider look completely at home in a Star Wars film. 

 

They could certainly have had it in Rebels, but I suppose the Kittens class does the same role.

Eh, it's a different role to be honest. The Raider is a pretty Post-Yavin idea, in concept. Specifically built to fly with and take out other fighters with nothing but high-accuracy anti-fighter turrets? The Arquitens is very much a general patrol frigate, where the Raider is extremely specialized.

 

I'd love to see it in Rebels no less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say they were bad.

I said they were ugly. I like the Mon Cal stuff and Falcon just fine but they're ugly as sin. In a charming way.

I really, really really REALLY REALLYdo not appreciate the insinuation that I think the ships in Star Wars don't look brilliant. I can say one or two are ugly without saying every single one is ugly.

What is with you guys? This world of absolutes must be very hard to live in.

Alright alright, calm down! I don't know why you're getting in such a huff. You seem very keen on your right to think awesome ships from the films are ugly, but not so keen on my right to think ships from the cartoons are ugly.

"MUH RIGHTS"

What? I... Man. I don't even know what this discourse is anymore. One is a complaint (ew everything in rebels is ugly and ruined) and the other is a statement (The falcon ain't pretty). That's my thing here.

What they need is their own personal ***** at Disney to officially design any ship or person they need to film standards on demand.

That would actually be cool, but probably too expensive. But I think they kind of did that for the Raider, right? They really wanted something comparable to the CR-90, and worked with LFL to produce the Raider. I think the Raider look completely at home in a Star Wars film.

They could certainly have had it in Rebels, but I suppose the Kittens class does the same role.

Eh, it's a different role to be honest. The Raider is a pretty Post-Yavin idea, in concept. Specifically built to fly with and take out other fighters with nothing but high-accuracy anti-fighter turrets? The Arquitens is very much a general patrol frigate, where the Raider is extremely specialized.

I'd love to see it in Rebels no less.

Everything in rebels is ugly is a statement, they've ruined the beautiful hammerhead is a complaint. I don't know what we're arguing about either.

Tell you what though - when I saw somebody getting into an A-Wing in Rebels I thought it looked about the right size. I'd like to see them next to some Y-Wings!

Yeah, you're right about the Kittens and the Raider. Just had a look at their stats in Armada and Raider is more close range, all blues and blacks, while the Kittens has reds. Be good to have the Raider in Rebels, I don't even think they'd spoil it too much, it's a simple look that might lend itself to their style.

Edited by mazz0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I didn't say they were bad.

I said they were ugly. I like the Mon Cal stuff and Falcon just fine but they're ugly as sin. In a charming way.

I really, really really REALLY REALLYdo not appreciate the insinuation that I think the ships in Star Wars don't look brilliant. I can say one or two are ugly without saying every single one is ugly.

What is with you guys? This world of absolutes must be very hard to live in.

Alright alright, calm down! I don't know why you're getting in such a huff. You seem very keen on your right to think awesome ships from the films are ugly, but not so keen on my right to think ships from the cartoons are ugly.

"MUH RIGHTS"

What? I... Man. I don't even know what this discourse is anymore. One is a complaint (ew everything in rebels is ugly and ruined) and the other is a statement (The falcon ain't pretty). That's my thing here.

 

 

What they need is their own personal ***** at Disney to officially design any ship or person they need to film standards on demand.

That would actually be cool, but probably too expensive. But I think they kind of did that for the Raider, right? They really wanted something comparable to the CR-90, and worked with LFL to produce the Raider. I think the Raider look completely at home in a Star Wars film.

They could certainly have had it in Rebels, but I suppose the Kittens class does the same role.

Eh, it's a different role to be honest. The Raider is a pretty Post-Yavin idea, in concept. Specifically built to fly with and take out other fighters with nothing but high-accuracy anti-fighter turrets? The Arquitens is very much a general patrol frigate, where the Raider is extremely specialized.

I'd love to see it in Rebels no less.

Everything in rebels is ugly is a statement, they've ruined the beautiful hammerhead is a complaint. I don't know what we're arguing about either.

Tell you what though - when I saw somebody getting into an A-Wing in Rebels I thought it looked about the right size. I'd like to see them next to some Y-Wings!

Yeah, you're right about the Kittens and the Raider. Just had a look at their stats in Armada and Raider is more close range, all blues and blacks, while the Kittens has reds. Be good to have the Raider in Rebels, I don't even think they'd spoil it too much, it's a simple look that might lend itself to their style.

 

It's true, visually the Raider may fit. Though you know, I'm not super keen on just how simple and sleek it is. What really bugs me is that incredibly massive engine in the back. Why so big? Why not do a pair of badass triangular engines instead? That'd be cool.

 

And yeah, Rebels nailed the A-Wing scale. You'll get your Y-Wings wish pretty soon too, I believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...