I can understand where Nightshrike is coming from with regards to the K-wing. It's reminscent of a WW2 bomber and therefore not a design that fits neatly into Star Wars.

I find it reminiscent of a bomber crossbred with a Y-wing crossbred with (surprise surprise) a letter K.

The bubble turret matches the concept art for the Y-wing and the BTL-B, same widened "head", same cockpit windows, same vent on top of the upper back fuselage, same base colour as FFG's Y-wings.

Well, it's good to know I won't need to make any purchases for the next few months from FFG at any rate.

Doesn't that Scum fighter look like your Dunelizard?

No, the Dunelizard is actually pretty. And the Kirahz or whatever isn't even from the same company as the Scyk. It's not a Hutt fighter, it's one of the game's Black Sun fighters. And it's the ugliest of the bunch too. If they wanted to go with the Black Sun fighters, why not go with the Vaksai? It's way cooler looking and it featured in the card art for one of the other ships in the game already. But logically, with the paint scheme they chose, they should have gone with the Dunelizard, or if they wanted to give another large base to the scum, the Kimogila or M-22 Krayt. This decision, much like the K-wing, is really poorly thought out.

Since I'm relatively new to the game, this is the first release I've seen where I've been a part of the game community. I have to say, I am incredibly disappointed in FFG. I certainly won't be buying any of these retarded EU ships, and possibly will be reconsidering my commitment to the game as a whole.

You know, you were starting to become one of the members I respected after thevarious N-1 EU threads. But the sheer arrogance of these posts, well, I'm starting to doubt my prior opinion of you.

You have no idea what goes on at FFG. You think they don't know these other ships exist? You think they didn't consider these other ships? You think, because you don't understand their decision making process that it doesn't exist? Don't you think that maybe, just maybe, the professional design department of FFG and LFL itself might actually know what they're doing?

You think you could do so much better? That your personal aesthetic gut feeling is a better judge than the decision of a whole design department taking into consideration aesthetic, marketing, mechanical role and licensing?

Oh, and the things you fan over? The Dunelizard, Juno Eclipse? They're EU too. Some might even, in their opinions, apply the same adjective you used.

So you know what? If your pet ship not being released this wave offends you so deeply then by all means "reconsider your commitment to the game," go. But leaving is leaving, not hanging around the forums and bitching that you don't personally like the designs of a few fictional spaceships.

Ragequitting because someone flies a K-wing? That's just so... well... childish.

First, off, if you have a problem with my ideas, feel free to disagree with the ideas. I'm always open to that. I am, however, getting a little tired of the ad hominem attacks when I offer none to provoke them. As I've explained, I believe to you, before, it's not about a pet ship. It's about the decision-making process and the potential alternatives.

You don't work for FFG, why does this so offend you? Also, why do you assume that they somehow "know better." Do you think there is some great plan going on that is logically superior to anything I've stated? If so, maybe give me a hint of it. The fact is, FFG has produced a wave that about half of the forum seems to think is hideous. Maybe that's true of every wave, but like I admitted in my "arrogant" post you quoted, I haven't been around long enough to know that.

What I do know, and what I've laid out quite clearly, is that the Kihraxz is a light fighter in the Star Wars Galaxies Jump to Lightspeed game. It's the Black Sun equivalent of the Scyk. Here it has been given medium fighter stats. The Black Sun medium fighter was the Vaksai. The Hutt cartel medium fighter was the Dunelizard. The Vaksai, as I pointed out to you earlier, shows up in the card art already in the game. It's a cool design. I'd have preferred to see it to the Kihraxz. In fact, I like Mel's version of it so much I've been painting one up. It would have been a good fit for scum, with a different aesthetic from the other scum ships. The other alternative, the Dunelizard, would have been a good choice if you wanted to continue the Scyk line, and produce the MandalMotors medium starfighter and give a unifying design aesthetic to the Scum faction. Either way, I think those would have been better decisions on the part of FFG. You're suggesting that there is some very good reason for this decision on the part of the design team. I'd love to know it.

As to the K-wing, as I stated in another thread, I understand the decision. It was really the only Rebel heavy bomber design that is there to build. I just think it's hideous and poorly thought-out, and I wish they had chosen something else, or invented their own design for it, or their own design for a different bomber. I suppose though, that would have come with its own risks in regards to fan reaction.

As to not wanting to play with K-Wings, sorry, but that's the way I feel. They kind of ruin my suspension of disbelief with the game. If someone at the local game shop wanted to play a game with me, and he had K-Wings, obviously I wouldn't tell him to go screw himself, I'm polite, but I don't want to play in tournaments where I know I'm going to encounter a lot of the things. So, I may curtail my tournament play, which I was considering doing anyway.

On the subject of reconsidering my commitment to the game as a whole - I think that's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. I've bought what, 600 dollars worth of ships since February? That's nuts. It's not as nuts as some people, but it's pretty crazy by my standards. I've really enjoyed the game. I think it's got so much going for it, and up until now, I've thought the ships were really great, even the EU ones. I kind of didn't like the Starviper aesthetic, but I could tolerate it. But this wave doesn't live up to my expectations. Maybe that's the fault of my expectations, but in the end, it doesn't matter whose fault it is. If I don't like a wave, I'm not going to buy it - that's my right as a consumer. Because of the way the game is set-up, not buying a wave basically ends your chances of playing in tournaments, because you'd have to either borrow cards from others or use proxies. So, just by virtue of not buying this wave, I will be reassessing my commitment to the game. Does that mean rage quitting? No. It means reassessing how much time I want to sink into it, how much work I want to spend on improving my play, and how much of my money I want to spend on the starfighters they're selling.

Yeah, it is a bit of an overexageration that not buying the latest wave hurts your competitive chances. It does hurt your options, but it doesn't mean that what you used to play is now worthless.

Yeah, it is a bit of an overexageration that not buying the latest wave hurts your competitive chances. It does hurt your options, but it doesn't mean that what you used to play is now worthless.

No but the ordnance fix cards are in the new wave. I suspect that may have meta consequences which will prohibit competition without purchasing the new wave. If not prohibit, at least reduce the odds.

Yeah, it is a bit of an overexageration that not buying the latest wave hurts your competitive chances. It does hurt your options, but it doesn't mean that what you used to play is now worthless.

No but the ordnance fix cards are in the new wave. I suspect that may have meta consequences which will prohibit competition without purchasing the new wave. If not prohibit, at least reduce the odds.

You may be able to pick up the upgrade cards you want on the secondary market.

We don't even know what the "fix" is yet, though. Is it just new, awesome ordnance? Is it a modification like Autothrusters? And really, I don't think making ordnance viable automatically makes not playing with ordnance unviable.

We do know that there is a new action that suspiciously looks like a missile.

First, off, if you have a problem with my ideas, feel free to disagree with the ideas. I'm always open to that. I am, however, getting a little tired of the ad hominem attacks when I offer none to provoke them.

Calling their ship choices "retarded" is somehow not personal? Acting like your gut choices on aethestic are somehow objectively better than FFG's and assuming that when you say another ship is better that that's somehow universally obvious is not arrogant?

As I've explained, I believe to you, before, it's not about a pet ship. It's about the decision-making process and the potential alternatives.

I've yet to see a single compelling argument from anyone on this forum for an alternative beyond "I personally don't like the look of it and I like the look of this one."

What I do know, and what I've laid out quite clearly, is that the Kihraxz is a light fighter in the Star Wars Galaxies Jump to Lightspeed game. It's the Black Sun equivalent of the Scyk. Here it has been given medium fighter stats.

We haven't seen stats yet. We have statlines, we don't have dials or FFG's role descriptions that accompany every ship. We have names and pictures. That's it.

"Do you think there is some great plan going on that is logically superior to anything I've stated?"

Fixing ordnance? "Great plan", no idea. "Logically superior" though? FFG decides on ships with LFL based on what LFL's happy to make, what they want to make and primarily what role they want it to serve in the game. You've said "i think another ship looks cooler" I'd definitely put FFG as "logically superior" here.

"The fact is, FFG has produced a wave that about half of the forum seems to think is hideous."

The eternal fallacy of assuming the vocal minority is the majority. Most of the forum has fairly mild opinions that they may state in a post or two. There are very few vocal detractors and defenders of Wave 7, we just shout so loud we drown out everyone else.

The Interdictor looks like the TIE bomber. The Kihraxs looks like just about any brown SWG fighter. The K-wing has an unflattering picture on Wookiee with the chin turret derping around and very poor shots of the actual model. The Hound's Tooth is canon.

Either way, I think those would have been better decisions on the part of FFG. You're suggesting that there is some very good reason for this decision on the part of the design team. I'd love to know it.

Firstly, you've only said "they're better" without giving any reasoning whatsoever. I'm suggesting that it's highly unlikely that FFG just picked a ship out of a hat: they likely decided which ship to go with after considering other options. I'd love to know what makes you think you're a better judge of which of the random not-E-wings to make.

That being said, I thought the Kihraxs was the one on Roark.

The other alternative, the Dunelizard, would have been a good choice if you wanted to continue the Scyk line, and produce the MandalMotors medium starfighter and give a unifying design aesthetic to the Scum faction.

And why would you want to do that for a faction that's meant to look like a rag tag mob?

"But this wave doesn't live up to my expectations."

We haven't seen a single card yet.

"They kind of ruin my suspension of disbelief with the game."

If it's based on functional appearance, so should the TIE fighter, hell, so should the X-wing. Offsetting the guns like that isn't bright design practice at all. Most of the ships in Star Wars are literally "looks cool." If the B-wing were EU imagine how much hate it would get. Same with the A-wing.

If it's about "not looking Star Wars", it's no less Star Wars looking than any other ship in the game. Probably a little more than some (looking at you IG-2000).

As to not wanting to play with K-Wings, sorry, but that's the way I feel. They kind of ruin my suspension of disbelief with the game. If someone at the local game shop wanted to play a game with me, and he had K-Wings, obviously I wouldn't tell him to go screw himself, I'm polite, but I don't want to play in tournaments where I know I'm going to encounter a lot of the things. So, I may curtail my tournament play, which I was considering doing anyway.

You're aware just about every ship in Star Wars is stupid when it comes to design practicality, right? Your main beef with the K-wing from what I've seen is that it blocks its rear shot with its engines.

Go look at the CR90.

"But this wave doesn't live up to my expectations. Maybe that's the fault of my expectations, but in the end, it doesn't matter whose fault it is. If I don't like a wave, I'm not going to buy it - that's my right as a consumer."

Indeed. Such is your right. Quitting the game because someone else might fly one ship you've made a pet hate based on aesthetic alone though? That's childish.

The Vaksai, as I pointed out to you earlier, shows up in the card art already in the game. It's a cool design.

And this is my main beef with the line of reasoning against the reaction to Wave VII.

"This is a cool design." "This is an ugly design."

There's a word for these statements. Subjective.

And people seem to be acting like their assessments are objective, and that FFG's somehow stupid for not consulting them personally on ship aesthetics. That, because they didn't pick the ships you like, their decision is, I quote, "poorly thought out."

Maybe I think your choice of ships is hideous, and maybe your choices deserve to be called "retarded" and you be treated like you can't design for **** because I don't like the aesthetics of the fictional ships you picked.

Yeah, it is a bit of an overexageration that not buying the latest wave hurts your competitive chances. It does hurt your options, but it doesn't mean that what you used to play is now worthless.

No but the ordnance fix cards are in the new wave. I suspect that may have meta consequences which will prohibit competition without purchasing the new wave. If not prohibit, at least reduce the odds.

We have no idea what the ordnance fix is and therefore can't make any judgement on the necessity of Wave VII until we see it. It may well be a rule change. Even if it is mods and new ordnance the two superbombers are likely to come with a lot of copies: FFG's policy seems to be to pack an excess of any "fix" card in a ship. The Raider contains one TIE/x1 and four sets of fix cards, Rebel Aces came with one A-wing and three Chaardan refits, StarViper came with two copies of Autothrusters.

It does make me wonder if the TIE Interdictor was a no go from LFL for some reason...

The TIE punisher is the TIE interdictor. Same ship.

Why the name change? That one's fairly obvious actually. In Star Wars, interdictors are ships with gravity well generators. TIE interdictor bore the implication that it carried gravity well projectors. Kinda like having a TIE boarder that doesn't board.

And people seem to be acting like their assessments are objective, and that FFG's somehow stupid for not consulting them personally on ship aesthetics. That, because they didn't pick the ships you like, their decision is, I quote, "poorly thought out."

Maybe I think your choice of ships is hideous, and maybe your choices deserve to be called "retarded" and you be treated like you can't design for **** because I don't like the aesthetics of the fictional ships you picked.

I find it a little bit disconcerting that you chose to chop up my post in your quoted reply, change the order of the things I said, and then remove all the reasoning I gave that wasn't related to aesthetics. One might wonder if you were busy constructing a straw man (or maybe straw woman in this case).

As to the venom you're leveling in my direction, I think that's far more childish than anything I've said. I haven't denigrated you, or your opinions. I've treated you with respect. You might try doing the same.

Edit: I'd also like to point out that I never called anybody's decisions retarded. I called the ships themselves retarded. Quite a different thing.

A straw man is when you argue against a point another person has not made.



It's chopped up like that because I don't construct responses in order, so I apologise if anything was left out that was misleading. However, given your post is directly above mine the notion that I am attempting to conceal some illuminating evidence that your assessment of which ships to make surpasses FFG and LFL's is a little flawed, no?

All else you had was some light fighter point that held about as much water as a colinder given we haven't seen a single stat card yet. Fairly sure I mentioned that one actually.

As to the venom you're leveling in my direction, I think that's far more childish than anything I've said. I haven't denigrated you, or your opinions. I've treated you with respect. You might try doing the same.

You haven't treated the design team or the artists at FFG with respect. You've said that you'd rather quit the entire game outright than ever see a "retarded", "hideous" ship used by another player, saying you need to "get this K-wing filth out of my eyes."

If you don't think that comes under the definiton of "denigrate" then I don't know what does. Saying you don't like the design of the ship is fair enough but this is above and beyond this. Your response to the K-wing is nothing short of vitriolic.

A straw man is when you argue against a point another person has not made.

It's chopped up like that because I don't construct responses in order, so I apologise if anything was left out that was misleading. However, given your post is directly above mine the notion that I am attempting to conceal some sort of

All else you had was some light fighter point that held about as much water as a colinder given we haven't seen a single stat card yet. Fairly sure I mentioned that one actually.

As to the venom you're leveling in my direction, I think that's far more childish than anything I've said. I haven't denigrated you, or your opinions. I've treated you with respect. You might try doing the same.

You haven't treated the design team or the artists at FFG with respect. You've said that you'd rather quit the entire game outright than ever see a "retarded", "hideous" ship used by another player, saying you need to "get this K-wing filth out of my eyes."

If you don't think that comes under the definiton of "denigrate" then I don't know what does. Saying you don't like the design of the ship is fair enough but this is above and beyond this. Your response to the K-wing is nothing short of vitriolic.

Yes, and my vitriol is directed towards the K-Wing, an imaginary spaceship. Your vitriol is directed towards me, a human being. I think that distinction should be fairly clear.

As to the straw man argument, you made several. The first one you made was claiming I called the designer's decision retarded. I never did. You invented that and then accosted me for it. The second straw man argument you made was that the entire basis for my argument was subjective - it wasn't. I mentioned the medium/light fighter distinction, which you glossed over saying we don't have cards. We don't need cards to know that a four hull one shield ship is a medium fighter. That's the same number of hit points as the X-Wing, and people have already said it's going to be the Scum's X-wing equivalent. I think you would agree with that yourself if not for the fact that it supports my argument for the Vaksai or Dunelizard as a better alternative.

Yes, and my vitriol is directed towards the K-Wing, an imaginary spaceship. Your vitriol is directed towards me, a human being. I think that distinction should be fairly clear.

My distaste is towards your response to FFG's implementation of the Rebel Wave 7 ship.

The first one you made was claiming I called the designer's decision retarded. I never did. You invented that and then accosted me for it.

Does calling the ship "retarded" not bear the implication that choosing that ship is also somehow the height of stupidity?

The second straw man argument you made was that the entire basis for my argument was subjective - it wasn't. I mentioned the medium/light fighter distinction, which you glossed over saying we don't have cards.

We don't.

"We don't need cards to know that a four hull one shield ship is a medium fighter. That's the same number of hit points as the X-Wing, and people have already said it's going to be the Scum's X-wing equivalent. I think you would agree with that yourself if not for the fact that it supports my argument for the Vaksai or Dunelizard as a better alternative."

Arbitrary designations applied to fictional ships with inconsistent classification systems. Statwise, the B-wing also has higher hit points than the TIE defender. The TIE fighter has a stronger hull than the E-wing. The VT-19 has more hull than the GR-75. Do these match the lore? Hell no. They are where they are as a result of playtesting and game mechanics. Trying to say "this many hit points means this classification" is as silly as saying "this ship has this many barrels and therefore must have this attack dice value."

People are saying it is Scum's X-wing equivalent. People with just as little information as you and I, a picture, a name and some blurry numbers. As I said, we have no cards. We do not have an assessment of how this ship performs in game.

What defines a "light", "medium" and "heavy" fighter in Star Wars? Nothing. Their classifications are as weak and inconsistent as those for capital ships, both the Republic Cruiser (the little red thing from the start of TPM), the Gozanti Cruiser and the MC80 Mon Calamari Star Cruiser are somehow all Cruisers. The Venator sometimes gets called a "Jedi Cruiser." Even in X-Wing you can see this. Both the M-3A and TIE interceptor are interceptors, but is there any corcordance in their statlines? Not really. Star Wars ships cannot be modelled based on real world aviation because there is no underlying force forcing it to, and thus the various content creators will do things how they want to.

They decided to make the Kihraxz to fill the role they wanted filled, and they playtested it to hone its statline, point cost and dial. There could be any number of reasons why they didn't se the Vaksai or the Eurofighter Typhoon with an extractor fan underneath. Maybe LFL didn't like it? Maybe they have plans to release one of those two in the future? Maybe it was Christian T Petersen's ship of choice when he played SWG and of all the equal Scum SWG ships (they're all brownish, early EU looking starfighters with oft unpronoucable names) they could pick from he went with one he personally was fond of rather than the one you were.

So yes, your argument is a subjective one. It is in no way an objective truth that the statline we haven't seen is absolutely incorrect for a "light fighter" and thus a "medium" one must be selected instead.

Also, explain to me how the last sentence of his post is not itself an ad hominem?

If me suggesting that you don't want to agree with me is an ad hominem, what do we call this?

You know, you were starting to become one of the members I respected after thevarious N-1 EU threads. But the sheer arrogance of these posts, well, I'm starting to doubt my prior opinion of you.

Or this?

Ragequitting because someone flies a K-wing? That's just so... well... childish.

Or this?

Acting like your gut choices on aethestic are somehow objectively better than FFG's and assuming that when you say another ship is better that that's somehow universally obvious is not arrogant?

Or this one?

Indeed. Such is your right. Quitting the game because someone else might fly one ship you've made a pet hate based on aesthetic alone though? That's childish.

Or by the same logic you used when addressing my post, we might say that this is an ad hominem as well

And people seem to be acting like their assessments are objective, and that FFG's somehow stupid for not consulting them personally on ship aesthetics. That, because they didn't pick the ships you like, their decision is, I quote, "poorly thought out."

The use of "maybe" here does nothing to detract the pure ad hominem

Maybe I think your choice of ships is hideous, and maybe your choices deserve to be called "retarded" and you be treated like you can't design for **** because I don't like the aesthetics of the fictional ships you picked.

I could also address the overall tone of what you've said, but I think I can leave it there. Suffice it to say, I've found your conduct to be less than polite.

He's not wrong, tbh

He's not wrong, tbh

I may have been vitriolic about the K-Wing, but at least I've never gone around insulting anybody on the forums.

You're starting to become the ficklegreendice of the K-wing and the dune lizard lol

You're starting to become the ficklegreendice of the K-wing and the dune lizard lol

What does that mean?

I could also address the overall tone of what you've said, but I think I can leave it there. Suffice it to say, I've found your conduct to be less than polite.

I never claimed it was, posts borne out of mounting frustration rarely are. You however, asserted in your previous posts (first paragraph of #152) that you were not making any ad hominem arguments, then suggest that the only reason I do not agree with you is because I have some vested interest in not doing so.

However, I will point out that none of those quotes actually are ad hominem, because an ad hominem is an attempt to weaken someone's argument by casting asperstions on their character. While you could argue those quotes come under personal attacks (I personally think they're borderline) they aren't ad hominem. When I called your attitude arrogant, I was calling your attitude arrogant, not claiming that being arrogant means ones points are wrong. When I called the act of quitting over the presence of a K-wing childish, I was calling that act childish, not claiming that one responding in a childish manner means one's points are wrong. When I state that my high opinion of you is cast into doubt by recent posts, that statement is again simply a statement of what it says, my opinion of you has no bearing on the validity of your points.

What does have a bearing on the validity of your points is the lack of them. I can understand the Kihraxs/Dunelizard/Vaskai argument, even if I do not agree with it. But the K-wing, the Hound's Tooth the TIE interdictor? There all you seem to have is name calling.

And this final one?

The use of "maybe" here does nothing to detract the pure ad hominem

"Maybe I think your choice of ships is hideous, and maybe your choices deserve to be called "retarded" and you be treated like you can't design for **** because I don't like the aesthetics of the fictional ships you picked."

The maybe here is critical, as is what was written before it. Without it, this is indeed just an insult. With the maybe, this is words to the effect of "put yourself in their shoes."

While ad hominem is a fallacy, another fallacy is to disregard the entirety of an argument that contains a fallacy. Am I to take your lack of response to the rest of the post to mean you do not have a response to it or that it was forgotten in the pursuit of going back through my posts for ostensible ad hominem?

You're starting to become the ficklegreendice of the K-wing and the dune lizard lol

What does that mean?

To TIE Pilot:

No, my lack of response to that part of your post is because we've been over this territory and I think you're wrong, and you think I'm wrong, and that's probably going to be the end of the matter. I would however, object to your assessment of my argument as holding as much water as a colander. Again, verging on the ad hominem there.

I think it's interesting that you take umbrage with me venting my personal frustrations on an imaginary ship, and the design process that led to its acceptance, and then proceed to vent your personal frustrations on me personally, all the while, making as your primary argument, the notion that my expression of my frustrations is "childish." What do we call the expressions of your frustrations then, considering that they involved directly insulting somebody?

You're starting to become the ficklegreendice of the K-wing and the dune lizard lol

What does that mean?

Lol have you ever seen fickle post? I can summarize 80% of his posts. "Turrets are stupid and I hate them because they ruin the game!" Lol

Fair enough. My K-Wing hate is not approaching anything close to 80% of my posts, and I'm sure I'll get over it eventually...probably.

So temped to just say "LOL K(wing)"

But I won't. Please take your argument to private messages or something, the last two pages are just filled with massive quoted responses.

No, my lack of response to that part of your post is because we've been over this territory and I think you're wrong, and you think I'm wrong, and that's probably going to be the end of the matter. I would however, object to your assessment of my argument as holding as much water as a colander. Again, verging on the ad hominem there.

Ad hominem is the fallacy of the validity of a point depending on who says it: that if you cast aspertions on someone's character it somehow weakens their point. We're also both guilty of a quite a lot of "appeal to motive" in this exchange, which is "of course you'd say that because you want this."

If I say your point" holds as much water as a colinder" I'm simply saying it doesn't hold up to examination, and I go on to express reasoning behind that statement. That's not an attack on you and certainly not an attack on you in order to make you appear wrong.

No, my lack of response to that part of your post is because we've been over this territory and I think you're wrong, and you think I'm wrong, and that's probably going to be the end of the matter.

I'm fairly sure we haven't been over the territory of statlines not perfectly matching lore and starship behaviour not matching aviation.

I think it's interesting that you take umbrage with me venting my personal frustrations on an imaginary ship, and the design process that led to its acceptance, and then proceed to vent your personal frustrations on me personally, all the while, making as your primary argument, the notion that my expression of my frustrations is "childish." What do we call the expressions of your frustrations then, considering that they involved directly insulting somebody?

The reason I vented against you is because my frustration is with you, or more correctly your posts over the last few days. As I said, prior to the Wave VII annoucement I held you in very high esteem and I still do: it wouldn't be fair to overwrite an opinion formed over the timescale of weeks and months based on two days. he forum itself is prone to teacup storms and a few days of skyfalling I've simply come to expect, as irritating as I find it, but I didn't expect it from you. To see the K-wing intelligently deconstructed, discussed and critiqued in terms of avionics, that I fully expected and almost looked forward to, but your posts read more like you'd taken it as a personal insult. I expected you to call it wildly impractical, but not "retarded" and "filth."

It's the people one respects who's actions one judges most harshly. I guess that's where "never meet your heroes" comes from.

No, my lack of response to that part of your post is because we've been over this territory and I think you're wrong, and you think I'm wrong, and that's probably going to be the end of the matter. I would however, object to your assessment of my argument as holding as much water as a colander. Again, verging on the ad hominem there.

Ad hominem is the fallacy of the validity of a point depending on who says it: that if you cast aspertions on someone's character it somehow weakens their point. We're also both guilty of a quite a lot of "appeal to motive" in this exchange, which is "of course you'd say that because you want this."

If I say your point" holds as much water as a colinder" I'm simply saying it doesn't hold up to examination, and I go on to express reasoning behind that statement. That's not an attack on you and certainly not an attack on you in order to make you appear wrong.

No, my lack of response to that part of your post is because we've been over this territory and I think you're wrong, and you think I'm wrong, and that's probably going to be the end of the matter.

I'm fairly sure we haven't been over the territory of statlines not perfectly matching lore and starship behaviour not matching aviation.

I think it's interesting that you take umbrage with me venting my personal frustrations on an imaginary ship, and the design process that led to its acceptance, and then proceed to vent your personal frustrations on me personally, all the while, making as your primary argument, the notion that my expression of my frustrations is "childish." What do we call the expressions of your frustrations then, considering that they involved directly insulting somebody?

The reason I vented against you is because my frustration is with you, or more correctly your posts over the last few days. As I said, prior to the Wave VII annoucement I held you in very high esteem and I still do: it wouldn't be fair to overwrite an opinion formed over the timescale of weeks and months based on two days. he forum itself is prone to teacup storms and a few days of skyfalling I've simply come to expect, as irritating as I find it, but I didn't expect it from you. To see the K-wing intelligently deconstructed, discussed and critiqued in terms of avionics, that I fully expected and almost looked forward to, but your posts read more like you'd taken it as a personal insult. I expected you to call it wildly impractical, but not "retarded" and "filth."

It's the people one respects who's actions one judges most harshly. I guess that's where "never meet your heroes" comes from.

And my reactions have been, well, let's be honest, less than measured, because I feel profoundly disappointed and not listened to. They read the forums, and this is not the first time the K-Wing has been deconstructed, and it won't be the last. It will probably be the last time I do it, because there is no point at this juncture to continue. Alea iacta est, as some Roman dude once said. I feel the same way about the choice of the Kihraxz, and I strongly feel that the news releases concerning it will show it to be a Scum medium fighter. Yes, that's a nebulous category, but basically, more hull than the Scyk, more weapons slots, and less maneuverability on the dial, and probably in its action economy. That would be my guess. I could be wrong - I was certainly wrong about the K-wing. I never imagined for a second they'd produce it. But if I'm right, and it is a Scum medium fighter, I think you would have to agree that it doesn't make much sense, considering the ship in question was a light fighter in the game they took it from, and there are other fighters from that game which are medium fighters, and one of those would certainly fit with the Scyk better, all questions of aesthetics aside. Which, all things considered, would strongly suggest that my argument regarding the Dunelizard/Vaksai is more pot-like and less colander-like.