10 hours ago, Verlaine said:

My guess is that lack of detail works better in the asteroid chase scene. This is purely something that feels right to me on a visual level, but I find that "intuitive + visual" comes close to a short description of how Lucas directed Star Wars, so it would be the kind of explanation we should probably be looking for.

A good design is not something that is pretty, makes you go "yeah!" or even catches your eye. Good design contributes to what you want to achieve, it communicates what you want to communicate (which suggests the problem with some legends designs - they don't say much more than "we really love Star Wars!")

The "visual language" of Star Wars is simple, bold forms. Can you remember what the fabulously complex ships in Jupiter Rising look like? No, you can't. Whereas the Death Star is a sphere, the Star Destroyers are wedges, the TIEs are bowtie shapes and X-Wings, well of course, are Xs. They were so concerned about it that they scrapped the original Millennium Falcon and turned it into the Blockade Runner because it looked too much like a Space 1999 Eagle. And because nothing comparable existed at the time, they didn't have to clutter their designs to differentiate them.

6 minutes ago, Lampyridae said:

They were so concerned about it that they scrapped the original Millennium Falcon and turned it into the Blockade Runner because it looked too much like a Space 1999 Eagle.

I always thought it was the ship from 2001 (which has more of a resemblance to the Tantive IV, IMHO).

Just now, Verlaine said:

I always thought it was the ship from 2001 (which has more of a resemblance to the Tantive IV, IMHO).

Nah the thing is the original Falcon would have had the same apparent size as the Space 1999 Eagle. The designers all pretty much said they had to drop it due to this and come up with something new. Note that (1999 Eagle) +1 -> Millennium Falcon. Then they rescaled it to the Blockade Runner. Because the command module was already on the front, they basically turned it 90 degrees, added another cone to make a hammerhead and put a "bridge" window on the front to give it a sense of scale.

Here we go.

Looks all wrong now, doesn't it?

People are very quick to slag off something that seems similar as a "rip-off." So it's a valid reason. People also want to see intention and design behind things, like symbolic placement of the cockpit. In reality, both the MF cockpit interior and the gun emplacements had been built, so the saucer design had to use them. The cockpit went on the side because it looked weird and was probably easier to build on set. The gun positions went from being waist guns to belly guns with a gravity gradient flip.

On 4/13/2017 at 2:46 AM, Lampyridae said:

The cockpit went on the side because it looked weird and was probably easier to build on set.

18 minutes ago, gabe69velasquez said:

I mean, this is cool and all but it's 100% retcon AFAIK.

On 4/7/2017 at 2:01 PM, Odanan said:

Will you buy it?

No, this is not official. Yet.

I'm pretty sure Wave 12 will have this ship. (well, there aren't many options left, right?)

More about the custom expansion will be posted here .

I got mine last week so I found your post a bit ironic.

7 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

I mean, this is cool and all but it's 100% retcon AFAIK.

So it's just a coincidence that all the diagrams have the tractor beam emitters there?

lol.

10 minutes ago, gabe69velasquez said:

So it's just a coincidence that all the diagrams have the tractor beam emitters there?

lol.

Yes, in amongst the ion cannons, proton torpedoes, lightning gun and other assorted garbage it's accumulated over the EU stories.

15 minutes ago, gabe69velasquez said:

So it's just a coincidence that all the diagrams have the tractor beam emitters there?

lol.

Find me a diagram from thee mid 70s that shows it being used as a cargo pusher in this manner and I might believe it's not a retcon

9 minutes ago, Lampyridae said:

Yes, in amongst the ion cannons, proton torpedoes, lightning gun and other assorted garbage it's accumulated over the EU stories.

The tractor beam emitters are visible in the original filming model according to the Hayes owner's manual.

4 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

Find me a diagram from thee mid 70s that shows it being used as a cargo pusher in this manner and I might believe it's not a retcon

It's a cargo freighter but we have to justify cargo pods to you, lol.

Just now, gabe69velasquez said:

The tractor beam emitters are visible in the original filming model according to the Hayes owner's manual.

You mean those F-4 or whatever model kit pieces the model builders bunged on to add some detail.

George Lucas didn't even think of having Darth Vader as Luke's father until some scriptwriter came up with the idea. You think a bunch of model builders in the 70s were like, "yes, yes... and in the decades to come we must have tractor beams here so that West End Games can incorporate this into their RPGs..."

35 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

Find me a diagram from thee mid 70s that shows it being used as a cargo pusher in this manner and I might believe it's not a retcon

Kenner had the falcon house a scout ship between he mandibles in an unproduced toy from the 80s. So yeah not that much of a retcon. Better thaN the 'it just looks cool' explanation of an off center and elevated cockpit

To get back on topic, I personally don't have a problem with an N-1 Starfighter in X-Wing. Aesthetically, remember that George Lucas was specifically aiming The Phantom Menace at children as a family-friendly film.

But a 2-dice ship is not going to survive in the current meta. It needs something other than Crackshot or Juke to push damage through. I would buy it if there was something that improved the A-Wing as well.

I also think the ship should be 2 hull 1 shield so it can equip a Pulsed Ray Shield. If it can't take Autothrusters, it needs something to improve its survival prospects, and we do see it regenerating its shields in The Phantom Menace after all.

1 hour ago, gabe69velasquez said:

I got mine last week so I found your post a bit ironic.

Nice!! Where did you get those minis?

2 hours ago, gabe69velasquez said:

Pour jouer l a pétanque galactique!

5 hours ago, gabe69velasquez said:

It's a cargo freighter but we have to justify cargo pods to you, lol.

Well, since I know the guy who drew this

and he he talks about how he sketched it out for Lucasfilm in the '80s to explain the offset cockpit, and the fact that it has been confirmed that the original inspiration for the falcon was a partially eaten sandwich from a lunch while the film was in production, I think it's safe to say that yes, the mandibles were originally just a cool looking feature and had no pre-planned purpose.

I think that the N1 could be our first 4 agility ship.

42 minutes ago, rafcpl6868 said:

I think that the N1 could be our first 4 agility ship.

Eta-2 for 5 agility!

10 hours ago, Lampyridae said:

To get back on topic, I personally don't have a problem with an N-1 Starfighter in X-Wing. Aesthetically, remember that George Lucas was specifically aiming The Phantom Menace at children as a family-friendly film.

But a 2-dice ship is not going to survive in the current meta. It needs something other than Crackshot or Juke to push damage through. I would buy it if there was something that improved the A-Wing as well.

I also think the ship should be 2 hull 1 shield so it can equip a Pulsed Ray Shield. If it can't take Autothrusters, it needs something to improve its survival prospects, and we do see it regenerating its shields in The Phantom Menace after all.

Not to be redundant but since there is a gap in the design space. Honestly I think that the thing is so small and squirelly that it would have 4 AGI giving it a special role as a low health ship with bonkers agility. It doesn't seem to do anything nuts in phantom as far as flight so it probably will have a dial comparable to the T70, good but not the best, and super low health prob 1 shield 2 hull with focus, TL, and Barrel roll.

11 hours ago, gabe69velasquez said:

The tractor beam emitters are visible in the original filming model according to the Hayes owner's manual.

It's a cargo freighter but we have to justify cargo pods to you, lol.

Don't be cocky about something you have no reason to be cocky about. This type of stuff, while cool, is absolutely an afterthought.

42 minutes ago, Captain Lackwit said:

Don't be cocky about something you have no reason to be cocky about. This type of stuff, while cool, is absolutely an afterthought.

That's pretty much the definition of EU/legends

Look everybody. Its possible to both dislike the prequels and still want Prequel era ships in the game. Their existence isn't going to ruin anything about the game.

The prequels were bad, but that had nothing to do with the equipment they portrayed. The vehicle designs are a bright spot in the whole debacle. So I'd say its worth salvaging stuff from it. Not like the game is meant to be a faithful replication of the movies.

They could add the Republic and Seperatists as new factions and the game would be fine. IMO its actually going to be necessary eventually. FFG is going to run out of material for the OT and the new movies eventually. Plus its a somewhat unwritten rule of table top wargames that you need at least 4 factions to give a game enough depth. Xwing has done very well given its breaking this rule, but 2 more factions would give an interesting addition. More opportunities for new game mechanics.

20 hours ago, GrimmyV said:

That's pretty much the definition of EU/legends

And that's exactly why I was okay with so much of it being thrown into the bin.

On 4/13/2017 at 7:05 AM, Odanan said:

On 4/13/2017 at 5:32 AM, gabe69velasquez said:

I got mine last week so I found your post a bit ironic.

Nice!! Where did you get those minis?

I found them at a comic book store, but I'm pretty sure they are Star Wars Battles minis. I'd been eyeing some on E-bay for a while but didn't want to pay that much. I found these two for $5 each and laughed all the way home.

On 4/13/2017 at 5:36 PM, Captain Lackwit said:

Don't be cocky about something you have no reason to be cocky about. This type of stuff, while cool, is absolutely an afterthought.

I was responding in kind to the idiotic idea that the cockpit placed on the side was just to be odd when the mandibles with tractor beam emitters tell a different story.