This is enlightening and all, but no one is commenting on a dramatic reveal from the podcast...

Alex Davy is only 32!!

I'm old.

Nice! Thanks,

Good to hear Alex talk about my suggestion to fix PWT.

PWT: Only gain +1 Attack die for range 1 while in Primary firing arc.

Nice! Thanks,

Good to hear Alex talk about my suggestion to fix PWT.

PWT: Only gain +1 Attack die for range 1 while in Primary firing arc.

I missed some of what his comments were on that. Did he actually say that? It's an elegant nerf.

Nice! Thanks,

Good to hear Alex talk about my suggestion to fix PWT.

PWT: Only gain +1 Attack die for range 1 while in Primary firing arc.

Is it possible that multiple people have come up with the same idea, independently of one another?

I don't agree, there are opinions and there are facts.

Example of a fact: Some people like to word their opinions like they were facts which makes them look like assholes.

In your opinion.

Nice! Thanks,

Good to hear Alex talk about my suggestion to fix PWT.

PWT: Only gain +1 Attack die for range 1 while in Primary firing arc.

I missed some of what his comments were on that. Did he actually say that? It's an elegant nerf.

The short version is that he acknowledged that if they could do it over again, they'd consider some other ways to handle PWTs.

Nice! Thanks,

Good to hear Alex talk about my suggestion to fix PWT.

PWT: Only gain +1 Attack die for range 1 while in Primary firing arc.

You're aware that a lot of these changes are fairly obvious, right? I wasn't going to mention anything but you bring up FFG specifically using your ideas so much now that it's time to shatter the happy delusion.

The designers aren't specifically mining your posts for ideas. The game only has so much design space so a lot of the ideas are fairly obvious, and many of the changes you claim are yours are fairly obvious and already brought up by who knows how many people.

FFG did not specifically use your fix card for the TIE defender. Fire-linked TIE defenders come from X-Wing Alliance and the mechanic itself is from the Most Wanted Expansion. How to apply this elegantly to the TIE defender and the Assault Gunboat was the subject of multiple large threads with endless permutations of the mechanic. There are only so many ways you can phrase the BTL-A4 card effect and just about every one came up. It was almost impossible for them not to use the exact mechanic someone posted.

Likewise, FFG did not specifically use your idea for the Cloaking Device Illicit card. Providing the Cloak action as an illicit is again not a unique idea and has some Legends basis. You've provided the wrong link to the Sabine so I can't check this one as easily, but again pre-maneuver reposition has been a thing since Wave 3.

As for inhibiting bonus dice to out of arc shots? I've lost track of how many times I've seen that one.

These are all fairly obvious design ideas that countless other people have thought of and that includes FFG. If these fixes were highly unusual and nobody thought of them, then FFG used them then maybe you'd have a point, but as it stands this is like when a new player discovers the Soontir/PTL synergy and for a while believes they came up with it.

Prequel ships may be cash grabs, and all of their designs are sh*tty CGI dumpster babies. ******* chrome banana and, "HEY GUYS, YOU LIKE STAR WARS HERE IS A TRIPLANE X-WING! LOOK GUYS ITS STAR WARS HE EVEN SAYS S-FOILS IN ATTACK POSITION".

I'm sorry you don't enjoy the things I enjoy. I humbly abase myself before you, the arbiter of all space tastes.

This has turned nasty. How about we all back up and chill a little bit. Remember we're talking about pushing little bits of plastic around. Keep it civil.

Side note Alex is awesome. I'm always glad to hear interviews with him.

Prequel ships may be cash grabs, and all of their designs are sh*tty CGI dumpster babies. ******* chrome banana and, "HEY GUYS, YOU LIKE STAR WARS HERE IS A TRIPLANE X-WING! LOOK GUYS ITS STAR WARS HE EVEN SAYS S-FOILS IN ATTACK POSITION".

The ARC is no more stupid than the X-wing. Probably are fair bit less stupid in terms of practicality. As for the four little radiator wings, that's no more excessive than the Assault Gunboat and definitely less excessive than the TIE defender.

The ARC is no more stupid than the X-wing. Probably are fair bit less stupid in terms of practicality. As for the four little radiator wings, that's no more excessive than the Assault Gunboat and definitely less excessive than the TIE defender.

Whoa whoa whoa whoa

Whoa

Whoa

Stop.

You leave my beloved Defender out of this!

My point is that claiming any design in Star Wars is objectively stupid is daft when the basic three are the Millenium Falcon, X-wing and TIE fighter, all three of which are utterly daft from any standpoint of practicality. The prequel ones are usually a little more sensible than the OT ones. AT-TE versus AT-AT for example. ARC-170 versus X-wing also comes to mind, V-wing versus TIE fighter.

Like most of Star Wars it's a question of aesthetic, which is a fundamentally subjective thing. And on that, I find people who dislike the prequel ships but like the OT ones almost invariably are projecting their dislike of the prequels onto its vehicle designs.

My point is that claiming any design in Star Wars is objectively stupid is daft when the basic three are the Millenium Falcon, X-wing and TIE fighter, all three of which are utterly daft from any standpoint of practicality. The prequel ones are usually a little more sensible than the OT ones. AT-TE versus AT-AT for example. ARC-170 versus X-wing also comes to mind, V-wing versus TIE fighter.

Like most of Star Wars it's a question of aesthetic, which is a fundamentally subjective thing. And on that, I find people who dislike the prequel ships but like the OT ones almost invariably are projecting their dislike of the prequels onto its vehicle designs.

The problem with prequel stuff is that no matter how good of a design it may be, it is still from the downright painful prequels. They are tainted by association with those terrible movies. The ARC-170 is not a bad looking ship, but its presence in the game would be a constant reminder of the prequel movies, movies that most of us wish we could forget ever happened.

Is that a bit over dramatic? Maybe. But I can promise you that I will never buy a prequel ship, and their inclusion would push me away from the game. I doubt I'm alone.

My point is that claiming any design in Star Wars is objectively stupid is daft when the basic three are the Millenium Falcon, X-wing and TIE fighter, all three of which are utterly daft from any standpoint of practicality. The prequel ones are usually a little more sensible than the OT ones. AT-TE versus AT-AT for example. ARC-170 versus X-wing also comes to mind, V-wing versus TIE fighter.

Like most of Star Wars it's a question of aesthetic, which is a fundamentally subjective thing. And on that, I find people who dislike the prequel ships but like the OT ones almost invariably are projecting their dislike of the prequels onto its vehicle designs.

The problem with prequel stuff is that no matter how good of a design it may be, it is still from the downright painful prequels. They are tainted by association with those terrible movies. The ARC-170 is not a bad looking ship, but its presence in the game would be a constant reminder of the prequel movies, movies that most of us wish we could forget ever happened.

Is that a bit over dramatic? Maybe. But I can promise you that I will never buy a prequel ship, and their inclusion would push me away from the game. I doubt I'm alone.

You're not. I'm also pretty heavily against prequel ship inclusion.

Irrational or not, the distaste for the prequel ships is there. I believe FFG is aware of this, and as long as they have other sources to pull from, they will, just as Alex seems to have made clear here.

People's inability to separate movie ships from the movie baffles me, honestly. While the movie were bad, generally speaking, the ships were cool. They were also designed for a different era, where ships were taken care of, in a Republic era. When the Galactic Civil War started, the Rebellion had to make do with the ships they had. Eventually they did have some ships built just for them, but again they were not taken care of as well.

I for one look forward to when/if Prequel Ships are added. Especially the ARC-170.

To be clear, I wasn't making a case for prequel ship inclusion. I was making a case against ParaGoomba's latest tantrum about them being silly designs.

To be clear, I wasn't making a case for prequel ship inclusion. I was making a case against ParaGoomba's latest tantrum about them being silly designs.

Of course. I may be a cruel, heartless bastard, but even I have my limits. I would never want to imply that you want content from the prequels. That's just not something you lightly accuse people of.

Call me crazy, but i like the look of the naboo n1... I would buy a couple...

I am far from a fan of the prequels. But some of the starfighter designs are nice, and there's even some canon evidence that restored and refitted prequel-era fighters made it into Rebel hands around the time of ANH.

If FFG rolled out a couple of prequel-era fighters, under exactly those terms, I might be convinced.

I am far from a fan of the prequels. But some of the starfighter designs are nice, and there's even some canon evidence that restored and refitted prequel-era fighters made it into Rebel hands around the time of ANH.

If FFG rolled out a couple of prequel-era fighters, under exactly those terms, I might be convinced.

My point is that claiming any design in Star Wars is objectively stupid is daft when the basic three are the Millenium Falcon, X-wing and TIE fighter, all three of which are utterly daft from any standpoint of practicality. The prequel ones are usually a little more sensible than the OT ones. AT-TE versus AT-AT for example. ARC-170 versus X-wing also comes to mind, V-wing versus TIE fighter.

Like most of Star Wars it's a question of aesthetic, which is a fundamentally subjective thing. And on that, I find people who dislike the prequel ships but like the OT ones almost invariably are projecting their dislike of the prequels onto its vehicle designs.

Actually, I don't think it is exactly aesthetics, but rather design as an effective way to tell a story. Case in point is actually from TFA: Rey's speeder is (I think) ugly as ****, but it works. I find it hard to pinpoint exactly how, but as a viewer I believe what I see, and I really believe that that is her speeder and it somehow illustrates the situation she is in.

This 'conveying a story' is something that Star Wars designs are very good at. And I include the prequels. The ARC-170, for example, really conveys a sense of weight that contrasts the insect-like vulture droids and Jedi fighters. Within less than a second, their design and how they are filmed gives you a small lesson in jousting. Psychologically, the whole picture clicks within a very short time and I think that is brilliant. Not every filmmaker can do that, not even all of the really good ones.

Contrast this with a K-Wing, a craft that might, as a thought experiment, also have been used in the same scene. I think the impression would have been more chaotic, with its turret shooting in all directions at things off-screen, and there would have to be more time to show it shooting missiles or dropping bombs. The K-Wing is not as focused, and its form conveys both weight as well as 'waspiness'. So it is simply not as focused or clear in its message, I would expect (clearly this is very hypothetical, but I am trying to make my point by sketching a contrasting situation that should be easy to picture). This is not a bad thing - the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan is very disorienting on purpose - but I don't think that Star Wars is intended to be that way.

So visual design is important, and about more than what looks good and what does not.

My point is that claiming any design in Star Wars is objectively stupid is daft when the basic three are the Millenium Falcon, X-wing and TIE fighter, all three of which are utterly daft from any standpoint of practicality. The prequel ones are usually a little more sensible than the OT ones. AT-TE versus AT-AT for example. ARC-170 versus X-wing also comes to mind, V-wing versus TIE fighter.

Like most of Star Wars it's a question of aesthetic, which is a fundamentally subjective thing. And on that, I find people who dislike the prequel ships but like the OT ones almost invariably are projecting their dislike of the prequels onto its vehicle designs.

Actually, I don't think it is exactly aesthetics, but rather design as an effective way to tell a story. Case in point is actually from TFA: Rey's speeder is (I think) ugly as ****, but it works. I find it hard to pinpoint exactly how, but as a viewer I believe what I see, and I really believe that that is her speeder and it somehow illustrates the situation she is in.

This 'conveying a story' is something that Star Wars designs are very good at. And I include the prequels. The ARC-170, for example, really conveys a sense of weight that contrasts the insect-like vulture droids and Jedi fighters. Within less than a second, their design and how they are filmed gives you a small lesson in jousting. Psychologically, the whole picture clicks within a very short time and I think that is brilliant. Not every filmmaker can do that, not even all of the really good ones.

Contrast this with a K-Wing, a craft that might, as a thought experiment, also have been used in the same scene. I think the impression would have been more chaotic, with its turret shooting in all directions at things off-screen, and there would have to be more time to show it shooting missiles or dropping bombs. The K-Wing is not as focused, and its form conveys both weight as well as 'waspiness'. So it is simply not as focused or clear in its message, I would expect (clearly this is very hypothetical, but I am trying to make my point by sketching a contrasting situation that should be easy to picture). This is not a bad thing - the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan is very disorienting on purpose - but I don't think that Star Wars is intended to be that way.

So visual design is important, and about more than what looks good and what does not.

You're reading faaar too much into the ship design there. I might be able to understand it if the film was actually *good*, if 'show not tell' was used at all elswhere in the film, or if the ARC-170 got more screen time than 'rip off formation shot from ANH' and 'flying into a confusing melee of moving colours and pictures that move too fast for me to understand what's happening'.

If the film was good, it might lend more credibility to the idea the ARC was stylistically designed to feel heavy and durable and a jouster. There's certainly a lot more the CG team could've done to establish that, like maybe include it in more shots of it actually doing the things you say.

As the rest of the film is so horrifically awful I can only enjoy Star Wars by pretending it doesn't exist, I'm more inclined to believe the designers went 'You like X-Wings? What about an X-Wing with 3 wings? You avin' tha'?'. Because we apparently can't have a space battle without someone saying 'Lock S-Foils in attack position'.

As the rest of the film is so horrifically awful I can only enjoy Star Wars by pretending it doesn't exist

I never get tired of the inane hyperbole that gets applied to the prequels, of the way people speak of them like someone brutally gouged the word "trauma" into their soul with half a smashed glass bottle.

Wait no, I do get tired of it. Very tired of it. It's three films that you didn't like, not a life changing catastrophe. Get some **** perspective.

My point is that claiming any design in Star Wars is objectively stupid is daft when the basic three are the Millenium Falcon, X-wing and TIE fighter, all three of which are utterly daft from any standpoint of practicality. The prequel ones are usually a little more sensible than the OT ones. AT-TE versus AT-AT for example. ARC-170 versus X-wing also comes to mind, V-wing versus TIE fighter.

Like most of Star Wars it's a question of aesthetic, which is a fundamentally subjective thing. And on that, I find people who dislike the prequel ships but like the OT ones almost invariably are projecting their dislike of the prequels onto its vehicle designs.

Actually, I don't think it is exactly aesthetics, but rather design as an effective way to tell a story. Case in point is actually from TFA: Rey's speeder is (I think) ugly as ****, but it works. I find it hard to pinpoint exactly how, but as a viewer I believe what I see, and I really believe that that is her speeder and it somehow illustrates the situation she is in.

This 'conveying a story' is something that Star Wars designs are very good at. And I include the prequels. The ARC-170, for example, really conveys a sense of weight that contrasts the insect-like vulture droids and Jedi fighters. Within less than a second, their design and how they are filmed gives you a small lesson in jousting. Psychologically, the whole picture clicks within a very short time and I think that is brilliant. Not every filmmaker can do that, not even all of the really good ones.

Contrast this with a K-Wing, a craft that might, as a thought experiment, also have been used in the same scene. I think the impression would have been more chaotic, with its turret shooting in all directions at things off-screen, and there would have to be more time to show it shooting missiles or dropping bombs. The K-Wing is not as focused, and its form conveys both weight as well as 'waspiness'. So it is simply not as focused or clear in its message, I would expect (clearly this is very hypothetical, but I am trying to make my point by sketching a contrasting situation that should be easy to picture). This is not a bad thing - the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan is very disorienting on purpose - but I don't think that Star Wars is intended to be that way.

So visual design is important, and about more than what looks good and what does not.

You're reading faaar too much into the ship design there. I might be able to understand it if the film was actually *good*, if 'show not tell' was used at all elswhere in the film, or if the ARC-170 got more screen time than 'rip off formation shot from ANH' and 'flying into a confusing melee of moving colours and pictures that move too fast for me to understand what's happening'.

If the film was good, it might lend more credibility to the idea the ARC was stylistically designed to feel heavy and durable and a jouster. There's certainly a lot more the CG team could've done to establish that, like maybe include it in more shots of it actually doing the things you say.

As the rest of the film is so horrifically awful I can only enjoy Star Wars by pretending it doesn't exist, I'm more inclined to believe the designers went 'You like X-Wings? What about an X-Wing with 3 wings? You avin' tha'?'. Because we apparently can't have a space battle without someone saying 'Lock S-Foils in attack position'.

You're reading faaar too much into the ship design there.