I imagine that some of the delay is due, in some part, to the incredible backlash that portions of their fan base have when FFG make a mistake of any kind. It's a fairly unforgiving lot, the gamers. (my tongue is only slightly in my cheek)

Man, lighten up people. The announcement will be made. The ships will come. If you utilize your patience, you'll be rewarded. I suspect that FFG is deciding not to release info quickly because people were complaining quite a bit about them releasing too much info too quickly. You can't have it both ways.

Jacob

Orrrrrr they have listened the mountain of complaints about them spoiling too much too soon.

We haven't even had another article on the Raider.

That is because the Raider has gone the way of the star field tiles. Announcement, radio silence, cancellation.

Possibly the semantics are useful, but I would argue that whether "good" misrepresents a ship or not is partially up to the beholder. There is plenty of gray area within our opinions and the fuzzy math of X-Wing ship performance for me to think it is "good" and you to think it only "functional" and for both to be near enough to the truth depending upon our experiences and what we each view as valuable. The reason for not discussing the words is because whether or not the ship is good or merely functional is beside the point - which is that for me, the quality of a ship's mechanics is as important or more important than the quality of its model. I thought Lambdas looked cool, but I didn't buy any until I also perceived them as useful. And my point is unchanged whether the ship is in reality "good", "functional", or even actually "bad", so long as I only believed it to be good.

If you can accept that a word, one typically used in an objective sense, might be misconstrued to mean something else owing to an inherent "fuzziness" in the subject matter, perhaps that word is best not used in the first place - if for no other reason than just this sort of communications issue.

My point is that, whether or not you wish to be obtuse about the wording of it, I believe you understood my message. Function is as important, or more important, than form when it comes to X-Wing for me. And if you view "good" as an objective descriptor, then I think we will remain at an impasse, for we do not speak on similar terms.

In any case, I am certain that this conversation, while undeniably and objectively fun (), is undoubtedly a bore for everyone else, so I'll do my best to let it die.

I imagine that some of the delay is due, in some part, to the incredible backlash that portions of their fan base have when FFG make a mistake of any kind. It's a fairly unforgiving lot, the gamers. (my tongue is only slightly in my cheek)

Man, lighten up people. The announcement will be made. The ships will come. If you utilize your patience, you'll be rewarded. I suspect that FFG is deciding not to release info quickly because people were complaining quite a bit about them releasing too much info too quickly. You can't have it both ways.

Jacob

Orrrrrr they have listened the mountain of complaints about them spoiling too much too soon.

We haven't even had another article on the Raider.

The mountain of complaints from a small number of people. The rest of us had no issue with their timing of announcements.

I imagine that some of the delay is due, in some part, to the incredible backlash that portions of their fan base have when FFG make a mistake of any kind. It's a fairly unforgiving lot, the gamers. (my tongue is only slightly in my cheek)

Man, lighten up people. The announcement will be made. The ships will come. If you utilize your patience, you'll be rewarded. I suspect that FFG is deciding not to release info quickly because people were complaining quite a bit about them releasing too much info too quickly. You can't have it both ways.

Jacob

Orrrrrr they have listened the mountain of complaints about them spoiling too much too soon.

We haven't even had another article on the Raider.

I think that's what I'm saying... at least that was what I was trying to say in my 2nd paragraph.

Jacob

Possibly the semantics are useful, but I would argue that whether "good" misrepresents a ship or not is partially up to the beholder. There is plenty of gray area within our opinions and the fuzzy math of X-Wing ship performance for me to think it is "good" and you to think it only "functional" and for both to be near enough to the truth depending upon our experiences and what we each view as valuable. The reason for not discussing the words is because whether or not the ship is good or merely functional is beside the point - which is that for me, the quality of a ship's mechanics is as important or more important than the quality of its model. I thought Lambdas looked cool, but I didn't buy any until I also perceived them as useful. And my point is unchanged whether the ship is in reality "good", "functional", or even actually "bad", so long as I only believed it to be good.

If you can accept that a word, one typically used in an objective sense, might be misconstrued to mean something else owing to an inherent "fuzziness" in the subject matter, perhaps that word is best not used in the first place - if for no other reason than just this sort of communications issue.

My point is that, whether or not you wish to be obtuse about the wording of it, I believe you understood my message. Function is as important, or more important, than form when it comes to X-Wing for me. And if you view "good" as an objective descriptor, then I think we will remain at an impasse, for we do not speak on similar terms.

In any case, I am certain that this conversation, while undeniably and objectively fun (), is undoubtedly a bore for everyone else, so I'll do my best to let it die.

I did understand your point, and my previous comment has been amended to be a bit more germane, should you care to re-read it.

No news today? No!

We were not Goody-Goody enough.

All praise Wave7 and maybe there will be news!

If ffg releases some info about the new ships, such as how they fix ordinance, I think most people would get over the models. Most people play the game to play the game, and good looking models help make it more fun, but even an ugly ship that serves a good purpose will see lots of play. For most of the competitive crowd, looks matter less than ability to help win the game. I for one don't think they look as bad as I thought they might, but there is some disappointment out there, and an explanation of how they will improve the game might go a long way toward quieting the pitchforks and torches crowd.

So true. I wanted a Lambda from the beginning because it looks so cool. Then once they released it, it was very "meh" on how it played and it took me forever to buy one because of that. Once people started working it out and it became a good ship AND a good looking ship, I bought one. Long story short, the play matters to me, not the looks (so much).

Functionality is important and a game has to be good to play or at least want to play often but...

I actually got into this game because of the looks of the Millennium Falcon and it is the aesthetic (the looks) of the game that, in addition to play, I enjoy. Otherwise hexes and counters is cheaper and can still makes for awesome games.

No news today? No!

We were not Goody-Goody enough.

All praise Wave7 and maybe there will be news!

You'd think a negative response would be more likely to make FFG go for sooner rather than later: to allow the ships to stand on their mechanical merits.

You need to behave first

I'd hold complaints about news until after the 4th.

Just for gods sake please don't predict a coralskipper or a vong wave.

Possibly the semantics are useful, but I would argue that whether "good" misrepresents a ship or not is partially up to the beholder. There is plenty of gray area within our opinions and the fuzzy math of X-Wing ship performance for me to think it is "good" and you to think it only "functional" and for both to be near enough to the truth depending upon our experiences and what we each view as valuable. The reason for not discussing the words is because whether or not the ship is good or merely functional is beside the point - which is that for me, the quality of a ship's mechanics is as important or more important than the quality of its model. I thought Lambdas looked cool, but I didn't buy any until I also perceived them as useful. And my point is unchanged whether the ship is in reality "good", "functional", or even actually "bad", so long as I only believed it to be good.

If you can accept that a word, one typically used in an objective sense, might be misconstrued to mean something else owing to an inherent "fuzziness" in the subject matter, perhaps that word is best not used in the first place - if for no other reason than just this sort of communications issue.

Permit me to make an observation or two, then ask a question. The shuttle has, apparently, enjoyed some minute success at the competitive level. You withheld your purchase of a ship you perceived to be aesthetically pleasing until it proved viable, and we can assume that people will be more forgiving of the K-Wing's aesthetics should it prove the same. How much more "good" will the K-Wing need to be than the shuttle in order to overcome its aesthetic shortcomings?

I can only speak anecdotally on this, as there is really nothing else for me to base an opinion on. I used the Lambda as an earlier example, the HWK is another. The HWK is, to my eye, exceedingly hideous. I never paid it even a bit of attention because I could not get past its appearance. However, as is bound to happen when you lurk about X-Wing forums, you are going to hear about ships. Now the HWK at this point we can all agree was at least "not very good". The generics were (and still are) junk, the PS race was not on, and Jan-boosting seemed awfully expensive. However, Kyle's ability/Moldy Crow/RecSpec in my neophyte eyes seemed to be tremendous fun. So I can build up a ton of focus, pass one to Garven, spend it and pass it on again?!? And put Dutch in there too, why not? Of course, as we know, this is not some earth-shattering build but instead some sort of wonky X-Wing version of a Rube Goldberg machine, but it was interesting at least. So, eventually, I picked one up because it was interesting and it was the ship that made me first see the beauty of list-building.

Move forward a little bit and Wave 4 is released. I thought the E-Wing looked silly. Having learned from my prior experiences, I also had it on pre-order before all of the preview information was out, because I knew there would be something interesting about it as there had been all the other ships in my experience, whether they were good or not.

So, back to the K-Wing. How "good" does it have to be to overcome its looks? The only answer is - it depends, and it depends as much on the person at hand as it does on any objective or subjective measure of its "goodness". If you are like "just starting X-Wing" GiraffeandZebra, there is likely nothing that will convince you. If you are like Wave 2 GiraffeandZebra, then someone will probably have to show that is not an anchor weighing down a list, and it is a little bit fun and/or useful, and that might be enough. If you are like Wave 4 GiraffeandZebra, then you'll probably just assume it will have something interesting and get at least 1 to try it out. And if you are like Wave 6 GaZ, then you will just buy as many as you think you will ever put in a list, no questions asked.

Now, though there are a vocal crowd of naysayers, my unjustified and completely speculative assumption is that for most people that have ventured into the realm of "buying ships you've never heard of before", it will take very little - something on the order of one neat trick such as Kyle Katarn in the HWK-290 to suck most people in, even if it isn't very "good". It is also my unjustified and completely speculative assumption that this group represents most of the people actually PLAYING X-Wing with any regularity. It remains to be seen whether this group represents the largest chunk of X-Wing sales, but my guess is that many of the people buying nostalgia ships to sit on their shelf because they watched the movies bowed out sometime in Wave 4, 5 or 6.

Some portion will likely hold out just as I did on the HWK because the K-Wing is just too ugly for them. And I bet a good chunk of them eventually get to the point that they cave and get it because of "something" about it, like I did with the HWK. Some never will, but I am predicting that the number of people who care about looks, who also dislike the look of the K-Wing, and who also cannot be hooked by the mechanics represent a very small portion of X-Wing sales, but I suppose only the InFlight report has any hope of ever shedding light on that.

That is my completely speculative, totally unsupported guess at a non-answer to your question.

. How much more "good" will the K-Wing need to be than the shuttle in order to overcome its aesthetic shortcomings?

The answer, as always, is 42

I like to think that the Solo kids and the Vong are why Disney gave the finger to the EU

It's almost always how a wave is introduced, Wave 2 Armada (which only had the pictures from that trade show) is the only wave of X-Wing, Armada and IA to deviate from it.

Wave 6 only had the pictures from GenCon and no article that same day, it wasn't until a day or 2 later that FFG had News for it.

There's also pictures out there of new IA models and no news article.

In Flight report announcing Wave 6 was Friday, August 15th.

First preview article was Saturday, August 16th.

This is the longest an X-Wing announcement has ever gone without a preview article. Take that for what you will.

I take it as an effort to curb the "where are the toys I was promised?!?" threads.

I feel like a moderator needs to change this thread's title to more accurately reflect the content, I'm sure there are plenty of people that clicked on this thread because of the false info given by the title.

Yep. The lack of a comma after "FFG" makes it sound like FFG released new cards.

I'm suddenly very inspired to listen to Weird Al's "Word Crimes."

I feel like a moderator needs to change this thread's title to more accurately reflect the content, I'm sure there are plenty of people that clicked on this thread because of the false info given by the title.

The lack of seven other threads with the same news was what tipped me off.

I feel like a moderator needs to change this thread's title to more accurately reflect the content, I'm sure there are plenty of people that clicked on this thread because of the false info given by the title.

The lack of seven other threads with the same news was what tipped me off.

To be fair, we do have more than a few threads clamoring for information. They're just less confusingly named.