Jump to content
Crabbok

So excited for wave 7....

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

My opinion may well change after TLJ, for sure.

But I don't see "Major screen time".  We don't even get a hint of its capabilities - It Drops a TIE fighter.  That's it.

 

You're also either dismissing or forgetting Rebels, on top of Rogue One...

If we're talking about the Younger Crowd, thats where Star Destroyers are marketed.  Not Rogue One.

I know, I have a 4 year old, after all :D

 

So Wave 7 will have an ISD with a super tall bridge?

Oh dear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Undeadguy said:

So Wave 7 will have an ISD with a super tall bridge?

Oh dear.

Now you're just being an ***. :D  I didn't say that at all.

Its also not the same thing...

 

But to pander to your response:

 

I highly doubt it.

Because its still an Imperial Star Destroyer - just a "closer to original concept art" version.

 

Silver Lining though - If they Do.

It'll be the Chimera

Since we have Rebels to thank for that (re)Existing now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Diabloelmo said:

Besides, going forward only half the movies slated so far are even set in the TFA era.

Ehhh...we don't know that to be true.  The only confirmed one is the 'Han Solo' movie (bizarrely still slated for May of next year - not even 6 months after TLJ arrives in theaters), which is set a decade-ish before 'Rogue One'.  The third was initially suggested as a Boba Fett movie - pretty obviously pre-RotJ - however that project has been scrapped and there is no word on what is replacing it, yet.

And remember that Bob Iger (Disney CEO) recently indicated they are already working on post-Episode IX plans and 'more trilogies' with movies planned through 2030.  So, sure, technically, that may mean a limit to how many TFA-era movies we get...but only because they seem to want to keep going after that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah I got ya. 

In regards to the Resurgance, I don't see why FFG wouldn't release it. It's not like this game is catering towards the new generation growing up with the new trilogy. They are simply to young, even if they are 14, 15, 16, to fully grasp the depth of Armada. Have you ever tried to sit down and play a game with a 15 year old? You should expect you will get half way through before you pack up cuz they get bored.

I can see the Resurgance being a blight for the older generation though. It's not a "classic" ISD and it would be replacing the ISDs game time. It could come down from Disney that FFG releases the Resurgance to push for the new content they are making. 

Who knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

Nah I got ya. 

In regards to the Resurgance, I don't see why FFG wouldn't release it. It's not like this game is catering towards the new generation growing up with the new trilogy. They are simply to young, even if they are 14, 15, 16, to fully grasp the depth of Armada. Have you ever tried to sit down and play a game with a 15 year old? You should expect you will get half way through before you pack up cuz they get bored.

I can see the Resurgance being a blight for the older generation though. It's not a "classic" ISD and it would be replacing the ISDs game time. It could come down from Disney that FFG releases the Resurgance to push for the new content they are making. 

Who knows.

Y'see, if the Resurgant was "Huge" and had significantly different rules to an ISD, then my game design complaint is invalidated - because its no longer directly competiting and/or replacing the ISD...  its Different enough.     And I feel it fits better than an SSD, because in comparison between the two, its the less "ridiculous" ship.  

Shoehorning it into the Large Size, that is going to take more work to fix.   You would have to see differences in line with the MC80A/C vs MC80B/S for it to not invalidate each other.

As it is, until recently, we basically operated under the statement that the ISD did everything that the VSD did, to the point that the VSD was just not considered -  that was an impingement on design space taht has, hopefully now, been corrected by emphasising what the VSD can do that the ISD cannot.

I'd just hate to see a point where the ISD is set aside because the Resurgent does everything better in the same design area.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Drasnighta said:

Y'see, if the Resurgant was "Huge" and had significantly different rules to an ISD, then my game design complaint is invalidated - because its no longer directly competiting and/or replacing the ISD...  its Different enough.     And I feel it fits better than an SSD, because in comparison between the two, its the less "ridiculous" ship.  

Shoehorning it into the Large Size, that is going to take more work to fix.   You would have to see differences in line with the MC80A/C vs MC80B/S for it to not invalidate each other.

As it is, until recently, we basically operated under the statement that the ISD did everything that the VSD did, to the point that the VSD was just not considered -  that was an impingement on design space taht has, hopefully now, been corrected by emphasising what the VSD can do that the ISD cannot.

I'd just hate to see a point where the ISD is set aside because the Resurgent does everything better in the same design area.

 

 

 

I don't think the ISD will ever be replaced. Avenger+BT. Just like Demo will never be replaced, or Yavaris. Maybe the generic ISD will go, but the titles are what keeps ships alive. Except for the Vic. The titles are just too expensive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

I don't think the ISD will ever be replaced. Avenger+BT. Just like Demo will never be replaced, or Yavaris. Maybe the generic ISD will go, but the titles are what keeps ships alive. Except for the Vic. The titles are just too expensive. 

Titles were never particularly important for the ISD until Boarding Troopers happened, and that was a good thing in my eyes. Why should a ship need to have a title in order to be good, especially one so iconic to the franchise?

Dras hit the nail on the head with his point about design space - if the Resurgent were to fulfill a different role in the game to the ISD, especially at a different size category (I maintain that a normal large base wouldn't provide sufficient physical stability for my peace of mind, let alone being able to see the arcs or shield dials), then that would be a different kettle of fish to just making a bigger, better, more expensive ISD. Being overshadowed that way is why the VSD languished until relatively recently, and was something I trust FFG to have learned from. They care a great deal about the health of the game, so I believe the role of the Resurgent - if is to have one - will be something they consider VERY carefully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Diabloelmo said:

Titles were never particularly important for the ISD until Boarding Troopers happened, and that was a good thing in my eyes. Why should a ship need to have a title in order to be good, especially one so iconic to the franchise?

Sometimes there is no point in running a ship. Like a Neb. 

The next time you play, take note of how many titles there are. Sometimes they make a ship good, or they make the ship better. In the case of the ISD, they got better with the Avenger+BT combo. I like to use Relentless, but other people use Devastator. I don't really see a ton of naked ISDs unless they are run in pairs. My point is, the Resurgance, regardless of class size, will not replace the Avenger+BT combo unless it also has an Avenger title. 

FFG knows what they are doing. They won't make the ISD obsolete with a new, bigger ISD. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given how important activation advantage is in the game - I really don't see a 200 pt ship "replacing" anything else.  Especially not anything in the 110-120 pts range.

It'll FIT in lists, sure, but lists that are specifically built to center around a singular unit and compensate for being completely out-activated in a way that even ISD lists don't have to.

So you'd end up with list options like:

  • GSD/Raider/ARRRGHkitten swarms - My plan focuses on out-activating my opponent, which will usually be true
  • ISD list - I may or may not be out-activating my opponent or by myself out-activated, and I need to plan for both, so name of game here is flexibility
  • RSD list - I'm always going to be out-activated, and there is nothing I can do about that, so have to plan for it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, xanderf said:

A Star Destroyer invalidates a Star Destroyer?  The Resurgent-class is a Star Destroyer - just a new class from the Imperial. 

And if just looking at the timeline of when the movies came out - well, thing is, the Finalizer had major screen time in TFA, and by some accounts will see more screen time in TLJ.  And I bet it'll be in Episode IX, as well.  So...for the current generation of kids and young adults becoming Star Wars fans, and buying into Armada/X-Wing/etc...it's the Resurgent-class that is what they think of when they think 'Star Destroyer', not the older Imperial class their parents grew up with...

(The older movies are a bit of a tough sell with the younger crowd, given the rather dated special effects and different pacing compared to newer movies.  Certainly, 'Rogue One' helped a ton in keeping the old ISD 'fresh in the minds' of the market, but that's only one movie, while there will soon be three putting the RSD in the spotlight...)

I have 5 kids, ages 21,16, 13, 6 and 5. All of them prefer the Original Trilogy. Why? Because I taught them right. Your arguments hold no truth from my point of view. I refuse to believe that Star Wars fans are that bad of parents.

They have even seen and enjoyed the original, pre-special edition versions. My 16 year old made me very proud last weekend while playing X-wing. He revealed a gentle 3 left for the Millennium Falcon, looks me dead in the eye and said "I know a few maneuvers." 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cynanbloodbane said:

I have 5 kids, ages 21,16, 13, 6 and 5. All of them prefer the Original Trilogy. Why? Because I taught them right. Your arguments hold no truth from my point of view. I refuse to believe that Star Wars fans are that bad of parents.

They have even seen and enjoyed the original, pre-special edition versions. My 16 year old made me very proud last weekend while playing X-wing. He revealed a gentle 3 left for the Millennium Falcon, looks me dead in the eye and said "I know a few maneuvers." 

 

I dream of having a kid that awesome some day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Undeadguy said:

Nah I got ya. 

In regards to the Resurgance, I don't see why FFG wouldn't release it. It's not like this game is catering towards the new generation growing up with the new trilogy. They are simply to young, even if they are 14, 15, 16, to fully grasp the depth of Armada. Have you ever tried to sit down and play a game with a 15 year old? You should expect you will get half way through before you pack up cuz they get bored.

I can see the Resurgance being a blight for the older generation though. It's not a "classic" ISD and it would be replacing the ISDs game time. It could come down from Disney that FFG releases the Resurgance to push for the new content they are making. 

Who knows.

........

........

.......

I think we should stop withese broad and sweeping generalisations before some 17 year old who happens to be a massive star wars fan and armada player or some 15-16 year old who happens to also be a armada player and star wars lover gets offended.

.....  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The older movies (especially ANH) have a much simpler, more logical,  fairytale-like plotline with clear-cut characters (Luke, Leia, Han are pure good, Vader, the Emperor and Tarkin are pure evil) not so much fake drama, assumptions and presumptions as in TFA. Therefor the original trilogy is actually better material than anything else (including the Clone Wars or the Rebels series) to make the youngest audience to fall in love with Star Wars. It's easier for them to follow. Just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, cynanbloodbane said:

I have 5 kids, ages 21,16, 13, 6 and 5. All of them prefer the Original Trilogy. Why? Because I taught them right. Your arguments hold no truth from my point of view. I refuse to believe that Star Wars fans are that bad of parents.

They have even seen and enjoyed the original, pre-special edition versions. My 16 year old made me very proud last weekend while playing X-wing. He revealed a gentle 3 left for the Millennium Falcon, looks me dead in the eye and said "I know a few maneuvers." 

 

This, right here, is parenting done correctly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Undeadguy said:

The next time you play, take note of how many titles there are.

90% of the time for me, the answer that reveals itself is 0. Titles are only added after the defensive, turbolaser, and ion slots, and only if I have a specific build in mind. Even default titles. I seldom fly Demo, Admo, Foresight, etc. The first title I default to on an ISD is Relentless. I have yet to run either title on the Whales.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DrakonLord said:

I think we should stop withese broad and sweeping generalisations before some 17 year old who happens to be a massive star wars fan and armada player or some 15-16 year old who happens to also be a armada player and star wars lover gets offended.

:D 

I started reading History by picking up Thucydides when I was 6 or 7, and have loved Star Wars since I was 5. 

Avalon Hill is my favorite gaming company (look them up, they're awesome.)

I'll second the 'Don't generalize' idea. . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Undeadguy said:

Nah I got ya. 

In regards to the Resurgance, I don't see why FFG wouldn't release it. It's not like this game is catering towards the new generation growing up with the new trilogy. They are simply to young, even if they are 14, 15, 16, to fully grasp the depth of Armada. Have you ever tried to sit down and play a game with a 15 year old? You should expect you will get half way through before you pack up cuz they get bored.

I can see the Resurgance being a blight for the older generation though. It's not a "classic" ISD and it would be replacing the ISDs game time. It could come down from Disney that FFG releases the Resurgance to push for the new content they are making. 

Who knows.

While I agree with the overall premise, I have to tell you, that both my 16 and 13 year old sons and their 15 year old friend, all have learned to play Armada... The 13 year old is by far my toughest opponent of the 3. It really has more to do with the individual than the age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ForceGhostofNobodyInParticular said:

90% of the time for me, the answer that reveals itself is 0. Titles are only added after the defensive, turbolaser, and ion slots, and only if I have a specific build in mind. Even default titles. I seldom fly Demo, Admo, Foresight, etc. The first title I default to on an ISD is Relentless. I have yet to run either title on the Whales.

Wow, I am liable to do the exact opposite. Given the choice every ship in my list would have a title. It is the first upgrade I look to, unless I am trying for a specific build. 

I guess, to me every ship should have a name. So much so, that I want to make 0 point titles with no effect, just so I can say I activate X ship.

I much prefer saying, "I activate The Impoverisher, with a Squadron command." to "I activate ISD #2 with a Squadron command."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DrakonLord said:

........

........

.......

I think we should stop withese broad and sweeping generalisations before some 17 year old who happens to be a massive star wars fan and armada player or some 15-16 year old who happens to also be a armada player and star wars lover gets offended.

.....  

 

42 minutes ago, cynanbloodbane said:

While I agree with the overall premise, I have to tell you, that both my 16 and 13 year old sons and their 15 year old friend, all have learned to play Armada... The 13 year old is by far my toughest opponent of the 3. It really has more to do with the individual than the age.

I'm 23 so I was just in that age group not so long ago. I am talking from experience. It's hard to find kids who have the attention span to sit down and play a game for 3-4 hours. I know because I tried to get my friends to Risk, Axis and Allies, Descent, and more. When I started playing Armada, even though we were older, they still did not patience to play.

Also, with every broad generalization, there will be outliers. I am one of those. When I was 9 I was play Star Craft. If you were to go to a school and give that game to a bunch of 2nd graders, how many do you think would pick it up and understand it? By 3rd grade I was playing Civ 3. I was stuck on strategy games. I break that statement I made. Both of you are lucky enough to have kids who are willing to sit down and think about an issue and learn the game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't the Resurgent have some stupidly-huge number of turbolasers? "Over 1,500 turbolasers and ion cannons?" That is the least generous assessment. Compared to what, about 200 for the ISD? LucasFilm's ridiculous penchant of self-one-upsmanship continuing its fine work from the prequels... so what is the point value of something with 7.5 times the firepower of an ISD, and heavier shields and armor, too? I guess they can nerf it by being true to the movie and allowing crits even when the shields are at 100%, but even then, it would still be worth over 800 points on its own.

Sure, there is also a sliding scale for firepower, just as with the CR-90, Gozanti, Nebulon-B, etc.. My assumption so far was that those craft just stood in place for a few of those ships, though. And even then, the Resurgent is still wildly over-capable.

Edited by Knightcrawler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Knightcrawler said:

Doesn't the Resurgent have some stupidly-huge number of turbolasers? "Over 1,500 turbolasers and ion cannons?" That is the least generous assessment. Compared to what, about 200 for the ISD? LucasFilm's ridiculous penchant of self-one-upsmanship continuing its fine work from the prequels... so what is the point value of something with 7.5 times the firepower of an ISD, and heavier shields and armor, too? I guess they can nerf it by being true to the movie and allowing crits even when the shields are at 100%, but even then, it would still be worth over 800 points on its own.

Sure, there is also a sliding scale for firepower, just as with the CR-90, Gozanti, Nebulon-B, etc.. My assumption so far was that those craft just stood in place for a few of those ships, though. And even then, the Resurgent is still wildly over-capable.

1500 Turbolasers!?! If that is the case, it is another example of LucasFilm fluf not matching what is on the screen. A single escaping TIE/FO managed to take out ALL the Turbolasers wit a dozen shots, (in at least one firing arc, though the dialogue suggests it was all of them,) forcing the Finalizer to use an ordinance launcher of some kind to take it down. Fluf is great and all, but I am less than impressed with the Resurgence-Class SD's onscreen firepower or its resilience to damage. Hopefully that will change in TLJ, but only time will tell.

The new benchmark for "impressive firepower" goes to Vader's Hyperspace Assult with an ISD1 in RO! That is what the Resurgence needs to top, before I buy into the fluf, until then it is just a big carrier, with limited weaponry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cynanbloodbane said:

1500 Turbolasers!?! If that is the case, it is another example of LucasFilm fluf not matching what is on the screen. A single escaping TIE/FO managed to take out ALL the Turbolasers wit a dozen shots, (in at least one firing arc, though the dialogue suggests it was all of them,) forcing the Finalizer to use an ordinance launcher of some kind to take it down.

It's really hard to tell what the armament or capabilities of anything in Star Wars is, which is...honestly, it's a bit bizarre.  Over in the Star Trek side of things (you know, the setting supposedly about exploration and science and not constant war at all) the ship's weapon capabilities are so much more specifically defined.  (Although, I suppose, over there the writers still wreak havoc as well - in TOS Trek, the Enterprise was stated in dialog many times as having the firepower to lay waste to an entire planet on its own, and combat ALWAYS happened faster than light...the ship was considered a sitting duck if it had to fight at impulse speed.  But then the movies with their need for whiz-bang special effects and fly-bys, and TNG with it's questionable writing team, managed to nerf even THAT into oblivion, so...)

I dunno, man.  Writers.  Can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em.

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...