https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Jad_Bean
Thanks Max
Carolina Krayts is the best X-Wing podcast
13 hours ago, skotothalamos said:bold of you to assume they'll record in the next two weeks.
I’ll take that bet.
14 hours ago, Boom Owl said:https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Jad_Bean
Thanks Max
this dudes backstory wow. Went from death trooper, to firing the death star laser, yet he somehow survived the deathstar explosion?! If joe blow above average stormtrooper surivived that, then, episode 9 spoilers, literally everyone including palpatine did.
55 minutes ago, gennataos said:
That's pretty funny.
CHAD
SCORCH
24 minutes ago, Brunas said:CHAD
BEAN
FTFY
3 hours ago, catachanninja said:this dudes backstory wow. Went from death trooper, to firing the death star laser, yet he somehow survived the deathstar explosion?! If joe blow above average stormtrooper surivived that, then, episode 9 spoilers, literally everyone including palpatine did.
http://www.jadbean.com/sergeant-jad-bean-an-officially-named-character-in-return-of-the-jedi.html
"The security deflector shield will be deactivated when we have confirmation of your code transmission. Stand by..."
- Jad Bean
I feel an alt art coming
On 10/4/2019 at 9:31 AM, gennataos said:
The one for the Millenium Falcon says that it has a Sublight Acceleration Motor. I’m so out.
Edited by PaulRuddSaysOn 9/30/2019 at 10:54 AM, Sunitsa said:Rr states that it might happens to have a ship fully executing a manouver (aka not bumping) while landing at r0 of another ship and thus being unable to shoot at it.
RR does not state that.
RR states "Although rare, it is possible for a ship to move in such a way that it is at range 0 of another ship"
Examples of what this refers to:
-
90 Rotate (a type of move) with ships that were previously in contact
- Assuming no dimple interference
-
Moving straight forward and bumping while a ship is touching the L/R side of your base
- if you dont move far enough for the ship to not touch anymore
-
Being overlapped, same orientation, and performing the same straight maneuver
- not %100 on this one, but seem to remeber something about it being explicitly allowed, but was that 1.0?
What people think it means:
-
A physically impossible scenario where your complete a move and contact the opponents base but somehow you are not "overlapping"
- Unless to opponents ship is levitated off the mat somehow, the contact effectively happened as you lowered your ship onto theirs, meeting the definition of overlap
6 hours ago, prauxim said:RR does not state that.
RR states "Although rare, it is possible for a ship to move in such a way that it is at range 0 of another ship"
Examples of what this refers to:
- 90 Rotate (a type of move) with ships that were previously in contact
- Assuming no dimple interference
- Moving straight forward and bumping while a ship is touching the L/R side of your base
- if you dont move far enough for the ship to not touch anymore
- Being overlapped, same orientation, and performing the same straight maneuver
- not %100 on this one, but seem to remeber something about it being explicitly allowed, but was that 1.0?
What people think it means:
- A physically impossible scenario where your complete a move and contact the opponents base but somehow you are not "overlapping"
- Unless to opponents ship is levitated off the mat somehow, the contact effectively happened as you lowered your ship onto theirs, meeting the definition of overlap
And what about R0 from obstacles then?
3 hours ago, Sunitsa said:And what about R0 from obstacles then?
Is it not possible for a ship to be at range 0 of an obstacle but still getting an action, because of the difference between R0 and overlapping in the RR?
Edited by SauciestSauceJAD
Should probably make an unironic alt art at some point tho...
18 minutes ago, Kieransi said:JAD
Should probably make an unironic alt art at some point tho...
Wait...that isn't unironic?
11 hours ago, prauxim said:A physically impossible scenario where your complete a move and contact the opponents base but somehow you are not "overlapping"
- Unless to opponents ship is levitated off the mat somehow, the contact effectively happened as you lowered your ship onto theirs, meeting the definition of overlap
The definition of overlap is "would be physically on top of." It is 100% possible (though relatively rare) for a ship to end a maneuver and be touching, without landing on top the other ship or nudging it to fit. I've seen it happen before plenty of times.
41 minutes ago, SpiderMana said:The definition of overlap is "would be physically on top of." It is 100% possible (though relatively rare) for a ship to end a maneuver and be touching, without landing on top the other ship or nudging it to fit. I've seen it happen before plenty of times.
Correct. I've seen it happen 3-4 times now myself.
I get that it can happen in theory and on vassal. But on the table it only happens if one of the two players wants it to happen.
Just the wiggle room alone...
48 minutes ago, SpiderMana said:The definition of overlap is "would be physically on top of." It is 100% possible (though relatively rare) for a ship to end a maneuver and be touching, without landing on top the other ship or nudging it to fit. I've seen it happen before plenty of times.
Contact means force, and force on a non-rigid surface means movement.
Say you place your ship, it touches, you claim "R0 not overlap" but I claim my ship moved (which it definitely did). How do we resolve the scenario?
42 minutes ago, prauxim said:Contact means force, and force on a non-rigid surface means movement.
Say you place your ship, it touches, you claim "R0 not overlap" but I claim my ship moved (which it definitely did). How do we resolve the scenario?
That is wrong, it is possible for 2 objects to touch without specifically occupying the same space, therefore it is possible to be at R0 without overlapping. That is how the universe works
1 minute ago, MasterShake2 said:
That is wrong, it is possible for 2 objects to touch without specifically occupying the same space, therefore it is possible to be at R0 without overlapping. That is how the universe works
Which is wrong? That contact means force, or that force means movement?
Nobody says anything about occupying the same space. I can set my ship down and move your ship in the process, they are not occupying the same space but I "would be have been physically on it" had I not moved it
1 minute ago, prauxim said:Which is wrong? That contact means force, or that force means movement?
Nobody says anything about occupying the same space. I can set my ship down and move your ship in the process, they are not occupying the same space but I "would be have been physically on it" had I not moved it
Your entire premise is wrong. If the objects (ship bases in this case) do not occupy the same 2-dimenstional space of the playing area, they do not overlap. But nothing prevents them from making contact without specifically trying to occupy the same space. The entire idea that your trying to pass off is that the only way for 2 entities to EVER touch is for them to also occupy the same space. That is wrong.
8 minutes ago, MasterShake2 said:
Your entire premise is wrong. If the objects (ship bases in this case) do not occupy the same 2-dimenstional space of the playing area, they do not overlap. But nothing prevents them from making contact without specifically trying to occupy the same space. The entire idea that your trying to pass off is that the only way for 2 entities to EVER touch is for them to also occupy the same space. That is wrong.
I never claimed that touching ships take up the same space, I claim that when you contact the other ship you push it over so as to prevent taking up the same space.
If I set my base down and the opponent's base physically moves in the process, do you not consider that overlapping?