Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Corellian Corvette

I Don't Understand: The hate over the K-Wing

Recommended Posts

wave7-02.jpg

2gt87te.jpg

154k780.jpg

SWXW%2B7A..jpg

CC1CuhQUMAEJlY4.jpgCC1CuhSVAAAA1CA.jpgCC1CuhWUsAAI7RW.jpg

Alright, these are ALL the images that I could find that have the K-WIng in them.

 

Including the last one, the K-wing is in the far right, but you get a good glimpse of the ball turret under the body.

 

 

 

What do people think of it?  Can you find more pictures of it?  Specifically, a Straight Top-Down View, a straight side view, a rear view, a front view, and a view of the underside.

 

To be honest, I don't like the picture used in "The Essential Guide to Whatever" book, it made it seem shorter than what I thought it should be.  The Miniature though, it looks good in miniature!

 

 

But recently all I see is gripe about the K-wing, and I want to know why.

Don't say "because it is ugly", I want to know whhhhyyyyyyyyyyy you think it is ugly, and what makes it ugly, or non-starwarzy to you.

 

 

Lets talk shop now:

 

Armament wise, it has a "short" range quad laser turret, and a "medium" range twin cannon turret, both operated by dedicated gunners.  It also apparently has 18 hard-points for different configurations, that's 9 per side!  Concussion Missiles, Proton Torpedoes, and Thermal Bombs (do they mean detonators, lol?(or do they think saying bomb instead of detonator is cooler?).  It might have the ordnance of a TIE Bomber, or possibly greater if they want this to be a super bomber.  (I personally think it will be more of a TIE bomber than a TIE Punisher, and be more of a generalist than the Pun).  The top cannon leaves the possibility of a turret slot, I will talk more about that later.

 

Apparently the top mounted engine is a SLAM(and welcome to the JAM) System, which allows bursts of speed... which is a shame based on how ordnance currently works.  If SLAM(dj- turn it up) is the new action, you boost forward.  And that's your action.  Currently, these strong one-shot ammunition require a lot of prep work, and bombers often travel at MINIMUM speeds, while they acquire a target lock one turn, and a focus the next.  The SLAM(come on a jam) seems like it will be useless, except for making this thing travel faster than a TIE/in or a A-Wing, which kinda feels... wrong, to me.  Sure, once you fire something, you can use your SLAM(hey you, watcha gonna do?) to GTFO of the dogfight, OR you could K-turn and stay in the fray.

I hope that unknown action has something to do with ordnance, and not the SLAM(make sure you don't hurt nobody) System, cause I don't really see a use for it, and they should of just given it a Boost action.  Unless they were concerned about autothrusters on a bomber...

(ITS FUNNY BECAUSE THE PUNNY HAS A BOOST)

 

It lacks a hyperdrive, and has a pilot and a bombardier.  So, potential crew slot there.  Would be a shame if this didn't have a crew slot, and the B-wing did.  Kinda awkward...  (I can understand the Y-wing not having a crew slot, because of the "dedicated gunner" argument, and the fact that some astromech+crew slot combos would be broken, but still a little "meh" on a y-wing.

 

It is kinda funny/morbid to think of all the crew that we read about serving with these ships ending up dead.  Unless I missed a book or two where someone lives...

 

So, what do you think if they gave the K-wing a turret upgrade slot?  Third unique ship to have one, and the 5th of it's kind (if we include the reuse of other ships, outrider not counting).  It already have a base attack of 2, that appears to be in a turret mount (wow, 360 on a small base ship!?), and it probably will be loaded to the brim with bombs/rockets, so would a turret upgrade on it be, well, kinda pointless/waste of points?  Or, would their finally be something about multi-firing weapons?  Currently, if it does have a turret upgrade slot, my response is:  why bother?

 

I am not expecting it to have a good dial, I am not even expecting it to have a NICE dial. I am expecting for a poor dial, because, well, lots of ships already have a decent, or above average (does this mean we should raise said average?) dial, and another average dial would be boring.  A poor dial would make the ship challenging to fly!  It would reduce the cost of the ship (more points for bombs)!  It wouldn't end up a highly effective knife fighter (looking at you B-wing)!  Not everyone would be able to use it at first, people would ***** about how it sucks, and then someone would win a tourney with them or something.

 

 

Wow, that rambled on.  Anyways.  What was the poin-Oh yes, what do people think about the K-wing and why?  Why do you think it is ugly, what parts stand out to you?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the root it is because most of the elements that make it up look tacked on and not part of a cohesive whole. The ball turret just looks like it was pinned under the nose, the engine looks like a modeler had a spare bit that he decided to glue to the top, the underside wings look like some kid had an extra pair of wings from a differently scaled model and just glued them on under the actual wings.

The whole conglomeration makes it look, not like a designed, functional single thing, but rather a badly assembled collection of parts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly this, and I'd also add that it looks like it has two side-by-side cockpits??  Wha?  

 

 

 

 

At the root it is because most of the elements that make it up look tacked on and not part of a cohesive whole. The ball turret just looks like it was pinned under the nose, the engine looks like a modeler had a spare bit that he decided to glue to the top, the underside wings look like some kid had an extra pair of wings from a differently scaled model and just glued them on under the actual wings.

The whole conglomeration makes it look, not like a designed, functional single thing, but rather a badly assembled collection of parts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My complaint is not with the ship itself, but with what ROLE it would play. I feel that the Rebels already have too many turretted, heavy assault ships. I realize that this wave was probably designed to alter ordinance, but ultimately I will be looking for a reason to fly this ship over a Y or B wing. I'll reserve judgement until they reveal more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of people bashed on it before so now they feel like they have to hold the line. It's identity politics writ small.

 

It still looks like duck sex, but even I have to admit that the sculpt is amazing. Whether or not I actually play it will depend on its viability, not aesthetics.

 

I have a photo or two of the K-Wing, I just haven't bothered posting them yet.

Does it look better in person?

Absolutely. It reminds me of how awed I was the first time I unboxed the YT-1300.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, in profile it seems to look better.

 

I guess I'd have to actually hold the thing and see it at every angle to make a final judgement call, but I'm still tentatively in the, "Do not like the aesthetics of the model," camp. 

 

 

Regardless of the subjective appeal of the looks, however, the model (and original design) does fly in the face of the industrial design style seen throughout Star Wars. Very little of that ship looks in any way practical or sensible, and none of it appears to be a case where trade-offs were made in favor of, say, cost-effectiveness (which you might expect from the rebels) or manpower limitations. Like, it has 2 cockpits. Why? That's a lot of extra, presumably high cost materials added for no tangible benefit (there's a reason that modern 2-man fighters just house two seats under the same canopy, within the same cockpit). It has two weapon racks that are independent from, say, the enormous wings. Why? One ship doesn't need that much ordnance - that's what formations are for - and even if it did, look at how much real estate is just left barren on the primary wings and undercarriage. It's extra cost and mechanical complexity (and thus potential unreliability) for no obvious benefit. 

 

The problems kind of just go on and on. Why is your 'SLAM' booster not positioned behind the aircraft? You're going to have terrible performance when you set it off, because it's not aligned to the craft's center of mass (...in fact, why is your 'SLAM' system a separate engine at all? I guess the concept of afterburners has not yet been devised in the Star Wars universe?). What is the purpose of having such a large, fragile-looking neck separating the dual cockpits from the main body? Why are there so many air intakes? Why is the top turret positioned to have such a poor field of fire? Why are the wings set in an awkward top-mounted assembly rather than incorporated into the body of the craft (or, better yet, set on the bottom to provide a nice surface area during atmospheric flight and plenty of space to store ordnance. Note that this is typical of real world bomber design)? 

 

Etc, etc. 

Edited by President Jyrgunkarrd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, from the other side of the spectrum, the dangling ordnance and straight-wing reminds me of the A1 Skyradier and the A10 warthog, and I liked the implication of the explosions they could cause with dumping that much ordnance. The misplaced guns and spindly appearance remind me of World War II bombers as well, particularly the B-25.

 

So I see a tough bomber with guns that can handle itself while it shoots ordnance left and right. Not a bad image. It's not pretty, but it's functional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly this, and I'd also add that it looks like it has two side-by-side cockpits??  Wha?  

I thought about mentioning the side by side separate cockpits, but there is precedence for that in the SW universe and they are, at least, integrated into the body and look like the ship was originally built with them, unlike most if the other elements of the ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are reasons to like and/or dislike the K-Wing.  Practical function is certainly not one of them.

 

TIE fighters are terrible, terrible designs from any number of practical standpoints.  Terrible vision, terrible design for G-force tolerance, no storage for reaction mass, etc.  How could anyone object to the thin connections on a K-Wing but not object to the attachment and position of the panels on a TIE fighter?

 

X-Wings?  Why would you have a transparent cockpit in an environment dominated by visual frequency lasers?  Why do the foils have 2 settings?  Why do you have the weapons mounted at the wingtips rather than centrally?

 

I could go on with even worse examples, but the bottom line is that Star Wars is filled to the brim with ships that appealed aesthetically to whoever was designing them, but did not in any way adhere to practicality otherwise.  Some ships are simply impossible geometrically (for example the Naboo fighter and the way droids simply do not fit), none of these ships adhere to any sort of hard-science fiction speculative technologies.

 

If people don't like the K-Wing, well fine that's just a matter of opinion and individual tastes.  But objecting to anything Star Wars from a practicality standpoint is a very difficult to defend point of view.  Personally, I think the fictional Star Wars universe is a HUGE place filled with countless alien races and human cultures, pretty much any design aesthetic is likely to have been explored by one of them.

Edited by KineticOperator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, from the other side of the spectrum, the dangling ordnance and straight-wing reminds me of the A1 Skyradier and the A10 warthog, and I liked the implication of the explosions they could cause with dumping that much ordnance. The misplaced guns and spindly appearance remind me of World War II bombers as well, particularly the B-25.

 

So I see a tough bomber with guns that can handle itself while it shoots ordnance left and right. Not a bad image. It's not pretty, but it's functional.

 

Well, take a look at how the Thunderbolt II is built (even despite the engineers of that brilliant air frame having to center their work around it's primary cannon). The wings protrude from the bottom of the craft, so the underside of the fuselage is flush with the underside of the wings. This presents a great control surface to steer and pitch the plane with as well as nice home for weaponry and/or underslung avionics aids. The parts of the airframe that look unusual - the two large rudders, for example - are trade-offs to provide the pilot with better control over the aircraft when firing the gun (it needs more yawing muscle to reign-in the recoil), or trade-offs to provide it with better protection against surface-to-air munitions (the cockpit is heavily armored and has a boxy shape as a result, it has many redundant systems, it a mechanical-only manual flight mode in the event it's electronics are fried, etc). 

Edited by President Jyrgunkarrd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is the discomfort from moving out of the original trilogy and as we move into a sequel trilogy there is still some fear caused from the prequel trilogy that the franchise is moving to a catastrophic failure.

 

We like the Tie Fighter, the X-wing, We were amazed at the sight of Han's and Fet's ships. We wowed at the B-wing the A-wing the Tie Interceptor and the Tie Bomber. Now while we have come to accept some of the cannon that exists outside of the movies in Ep IV, V, & VI. those were still in a comfortable period. The noble cause vs the evil oppressive empire. 

 

The thing is after the disasters known as episode I and episode III (episode II was okay somewhat) there is a fear among many fans of the franchise. That is that the next movie may even be worse than the prequels. Now for me despite the hype I think the biggest problem is that us fans have not come to realization that any move after the franchise cannot top the original. So if they try to make the movie like Ep 4,5,&6 if will fail miserably at worse and at best being only slightly better than the prequels but no where near the spectacle of the original movies.

 

As for X-wing Miniatures the Star Wars franchise might be its biggest strength but it is also its biggest constraint. FFG still has to get each model licensed approval by Lucas Films which is now the sole property of Disney. And Disney has some heavy weight behind it (as proven with the X-wing companion fiasco). Also as FFG is forced to expand into the EU for new ship models the other place it can turn to is the prequel models but with that being an entirely different time period it makes some rather unreasonable and immersion breaking. such as NATO vs NAZI Germany scenario.

 

So yes people want to keep it in the good episodes, but the problem is that the good episodes no longer have anything else for us to take. We are going to have to go somewhere with this game.

Edited by Marinealver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I could find any of the ships in this wave attractive or aesthetically pleasing. Maybe they are trying to mitigate the amount of flack the k wing will get alongside the other three? I'm still going to buy it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of my objections have already been raised.  I will say to the point of the practicality standpoint that all of the Star Wars ships have some issues with practicality.  The B-wing rotating cockpit makes no sense.  The TIE fighter panels are poorly designed for visibility, as is the cockpit itself.  The X-wing's S-foils only make sense if you consider additional surface area for cooling the heat from the guns, but even that is a stretch.  That being said, none of the original trilogy (or prequel) ships, have so MANY horrible practicality issues in one package like the K-wing does (and many of those have been listed here).  Moreover, while the X-Wing's S-foils may not make the most sense, they at least look cool.  While the TIE fighter solar panels are in the way of visibility, they give a unique, iconic look to the ship, and they make sense as a sort of homage to satellites and all of our early spacefaring attempts utilizing craft with solar panels.  While the B-wing cockpit rotation idea is ridiculous, the placement of the weapons is not, nor is the cockpit visibility poor, and the result is a visually-interesting craft.

 

Some ships in Star Wars are downright well-designed, in my opinion.  The N-1 is a favorite of mine (and mine alone it seems like).  The A-wing is very well-designed.  The Lambda Shuttle looks quite practical.  We could go on and on, but the point is, all of the existing Star Wars ships have a look to them that seems unified and purposeful, even if maybe we have to make allowances for style.  The issue with the K-wing is that nearly every part of it is not just poorly-designed, but goes against the Star Wars universe.  Hardpoints for munitions?  Every other Star Wars ship has internal munitions bays.  No fixed heavy laser cannons firing forward?  A ball turret that is located in one of the worst possible places for defending the ship, and for attacking other ships, and for the handling characteristics of the ship, and for aesthetics?  A dorsal turret that is blocked by an engine which is off-centerline which messes with the ability to deliver even thrust to the ship?  A set of useless extra winglets adding additional hard points that aren't necessary?  Side by side cockpits which are totally separate?  Really, the mind boggles.

Edited by Nightshrike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well.  WELL.

 

I had just finished typing up a rather lengthy but humorous response, on how the K-wing was possibly designed.  I was breaking apart a paragraph into two smaller ones for ease of reading, and I pressed tab to indent. Nothing happened and I pressed backspace to undo the break, and I would break it at another point.  But, backspace took me to the previous page.  I flipped my ****.  I pressed forward.  Nothing.  All gone.  It was a good 5 paragraphs of creative fiction, too.  Is there no auto-save!?!

 

Whyyyyyyyyy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 Side by side cockpits which are totally separate?  Really, the mind boggles.

 

Here is a reference for that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_F-82_Twin_Mustang

 

f-82_twin_mustang.jpg

 

And I think the extra winglets of the K-Wing are needed for landing. Although of course it's not the best solution (funtional and aesthetic), but at least they could make sense.

 

 

Edit: And an example for a front turret under the nose:

b17-yankee-lady.jpg

Edited by lubbe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My comment, not really a complaint, just an observation, the further FFG gets from the films, the more obscure, oddball, or just plain fannish the ships can get. Now, fans of the game are likely going to be fans of the EU as well, and we know these ships, or at least know of them, but they really don't sell the game as well as the primary fiction stuff.

I'm not going to ragequit over the K-Wing, or the TIE Punishest, but I would like to see some of the film ships get some attention before they bring in even more EU ships.

Edited by Koing907

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well..., hatred is a strong word. Like warthog it has to grow on you (both the animal and the plane). It is sturdy, packs a punch, but man it is ugly. But then again, it is so ruggedly ugly you can't help but like it.

I am not in the latter phase yet ;)

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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...