Don't remember who said it but the B-S/F 17 name is pretty silly.
Some dummy- "Well, it kinda looks like a B-17 but we need something that sounds more science fictiony..."
Other dummy- "How about B- S/F 17? Eh? Get it? S/F for science fiction... "
First dummy- "We're done here. Lunch!"
Super-fortress. Stratofortress. Starfortress. It makes sense. Oh wait, no it doesn't...
Looks okay to me when comparing it to the Wookieepedia specs.
"Heavy" lasers could just as easily be interpreted as "slow and inaccurate" -- justifying the 2 attack. Having weapons that can shoot just about everywhere justifies the primary turret (although rear or mobile arcs would be more interesting). While I think crew slots are fun, in this case it's easy to imagine all of the crew being busy with manning the guns and bombing and fiddling with the tech and systems upgrades and flying and crew chiefing.
It's just a 12 hit point bomber -- and that's all it really does. We haven't seen anything quite like that before. It's not very exciting when considering all of the options available to Rebels, but if you had to build a Resistance-only squad it would fill a niche very different from the T-70 and Falcon.
I hope there's a bombing-run kind of mission included in the box for casual players.
Edited by DagobahDave59 minutes ago, gamblertuba said:Don't remember who said it but the B-S/F 17 name is pretty silly.
Some dummy- "Well, it kinda looks like a B-17 but we need something that sounds more science fictiony..."
Other dummy- "How about B- S/F 17? Eh? Get it? S/F for science fiction... "
First dummy- "We're done here. Lunch!"
Super-fortress. Stratofortress. Starfortress. It makes sense. Oh wait, no it doesn't...
Agreed. Although it doesn't even look that much like the B-17 (which is obviously what they were going for), it looks more like a guppy or a flying boat of some kind.
1 hour ago, DarthEnderX said:And it remains as wrong as ever.
If I wanted my models to not represent Star Wars, I'd plays some other game, and not a ****ing Star Wars game.
Indeed, gameplay = fluff, in my opinion.
This is my #1 hope for x-wing 2.0(3.0 - whatever you want to call it), that a good deal of ships get a CANON upgrade.
Edited by That Blasted Samophlange1 hour ago, DarthEnderX said:If I wanted my models to not represent Star Wars, I'd plays some other game, and not a ****ing Star Wars game.
This!!
So much.
Because Star Wars games have always had the same interpretations and representations of ships throughout history, and never done weird stuff for gameplay balance - or just because they can.
Hey, did you know in the notes for RotJ, X-Wings, Y-Wings and TIE/LNs have the same maneuverability rating and speed? Guess you need to throw away your entire collection now.
11 hours ago, RufusDaMan said:Ever heard of the tragedy of the TIE Strikers?
I haven't, actually; other than the tragedy of not being able to find them anywhere. What is this tragedy you speak of?
8 hours ago, FTS Gecko said:Meh, the version we have on the tabletop matches the version we see in Rogue One pretty well. I don't particularly care what some writer of some obscure book said it could do, if we get what we see on the screen.
Yeah, they kind of need to draw the lines somewhere. Actually, if one were to go by the PC games, pretty much any ship should be able to choose between missiles, torpedoes, and bombs. Instead, the developers decided to limit what each ship can do. If it bothers some people that much, just consider it the "most common configuration" or something.
Similarly, in real-world militaries, pretty much any fighter with external racks can carry bombs. That doesn't mean that in a miniatures game I would necessarily expect every single fighter to equip bombs.
5 hours ago, IceManHG said:Both names are ridiculous.
B/SF-17 is an obvious play on the B-17 Flying fortress from WW2. It made me cringe when I first read it. MG-100 Starfortress is at least a little more Star Wars like.
1: Don't use cringe, be a little more creative. That term is horribly overused.
2: MG-100 is hardly more star-warsy. Starfortress is just as obvious a play as B/SF-17.
But I'm just gonna link this here.
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/A/SF-01_B-wing_starfighter
24 minutes ago, Captain Lackwit said:1: Don't use cringe, be a little more creative. That term is horribly overused.
2: MG-100 is hardly more star-warsy. Starfortress is just as obvious a play as B/SF-17.But I'm just gonna link this here.
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/A/SF-01_B-wing_starfighter
Well... eh. Point conceded.
1 hour ago, UnitOmega said:Because Star Wars games have always had the same interpretations and representations of ships throughout history, and never done weird stuff for gameplay balance - or just because they can.
Hey, did you know in the notes for RotJ, X-Wings, Y-Wings and TIE/LNs have the same maneuverability rating and speed? Guess you need to throw away your entire collection now.
Let's not forget Star Destroyers chasing the Falcon and keeping up.
1 hour ago, Captain Lackwit said:1: Don't use cringe, be a little more creative. That term is horribly overused.
2: MG-100 is hardly more star-warsy. Starfortress is just as obvious a play as B/SF-17.But I'm just gonna link this here.
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/A/SF-01_B-wing_starfighter
Your lack of wit is cringe worthy. Get it get it?
13 hours ago, eMeM said:ie the ship model and nothing else, apparently they don't even know ship names.
Quite literally yes. I think this was expressed in an interview awhile back, case in point what they were told about the tie striker: it has moving wings, it goes fast, it can fly in space, it doesn’t carry missiles. (You could tell most of this from the trailer. )
Then some guy over writing the visual dictionary goes “hey what if a bomb slot went here?” And LFL says yes, then we complain to FFG when it’s LFLs fault for not properly telling FFG about changes to their ship.
As opposed to say rebels content where they get to sit down with the Voice actors or Pablo and talk through how the character feels about this ship, or what they do with it. How it gets used in the episode. They actually get details from rebels. And it shows, I don’t think we’ve had a Rebels ship release not make some sort of meta splash yet. (Ghost/phantom, Inky, Assajj, Lowrhick, now Fenn or AP-5)
1 hour ago, IceManHG said:Your lack of wit is cringe worthy. Get it get it?
Oh man... Ohh, god... Another one that just... Like... Dude, lol,
you do realize it's a name I have been using happily for some time?
Lemme tell ya a story. So there was this other message board I was part of- I had a different name. I said something stupid or did something done and invoked the wrath of the british admin god, and got an, "Oi, Captain Lackwit,
cut it out."
and I was like.
"Hey. I'm just daffy enough, scatterbrained enough, to be able to realistically call myself Lackwit in an unironic fashion..!" because, I thought the self deprecating name was quite funny. But do you know what's funnier? When somebody tries to use a screen name I chose myself to display as
me,
as an insult. If you want genuinely cringeworthy, the inability to understand the reasoning behind why somebody may choose a name is high up there.
Keep it up. I'm sure you'll find the wit I'm lacking somewhere around here. You should ask @ficklegreendice or @OneKelvin . They're extremely witty, love those guys.
7 hours ago, Scopes said:Speaking of ridiculous, minor spoiler, the dictionary states that EVERY. SINGLE. T-85 X-WING (and I guess all the documentation and factories) has been destroyed by DS3 in TFA and now T-70 is the most advanced X-wing
Some top notch believable world building here, as expected from the sequel trillogy.
^This. I cannot like this enough. It gets tiresome.
My only way to square this circle is to say that the T-85 lines have to start cranking them out again. But all of them destroyed? That's lame.
This is worse than the U-Wing excuse.
That Battlefront II 2, for all its flaws, says "Screw that" to.
4 minutes ago, Captain Lackwit said:This is worse than the U-Wing excuse.
That Battlefront II 2, for all its flaws, says "Screw that" to.
Don’t worry, in a few more hours the sun will rise!
(What’s the U-wing excuse and why does BF2 say “screw it?”)
3 minutes ago, FlyingAnchors said:Don’t worry, in a few more hours the sun will rise!
(What’s the U-wing excuse and why does BF2 say “screw it?”)
Well, the U-Wing excuse is that it was a limited production run.
However,
they are literally
EVERYWHERE
in Battlefront II 2.
I firmly believe its been 'misrepresented' in X-wing in terms of stats etc. for game balance. I don't think it was simply unknown information (some of it was obviously). How they messed the name up is completely different issue... That is just bizzare. At least we know what B/SF stands for now
Maybe its another case of the R22 Spearhead evolving into the RZ-1 after rebel redesign. Maybe one is the manufacturers stock model name, and the other is the Resistance refit model. That's the only other logical explanation I can entertain other than a royal miscommunication by LFL etc.
As far as the stats and in-game ship design goes I'm not so fussed. They clearly wanted to design a large ship capable of formation flight. To do that they needed it to be cheap, and to justify it being cheap they stripped it down in terms of upgrades and stats.
I believe this ship suffered from what I'm calling 'Jumpmaster Remission Syndrome'. FFG have the fear of god put in them after the JM5K fiasco, and have underdone this ships capability in order to avoid having that issue again. No ship under 30pts with a PWT currently has 3 red dice, so I can see why they did what they did. In terms of thematics, all the big hitting PWT ships are unique within the SW universe. The 'Shadowcaster', 'Millenium falcon', 'Outrider' and 'Punishing One' are all one off ships in the SWU, and are designed and costed accordingly. Obviously we all still may use more than 1 in our lists, but that is the mentality in costing in my eyes.
I personally think it would have been great for it to have a mobile firing arc. It really would have been a flying fortress then. I also think crew would have been great but I can also completely understand why they didn't add some of these features. Like Alex Davy said in his interview with Team Covenant, its easier to strip it down and add to it down the road, than give it all the options now, and have potential combinations looming over all future design decisions. I think they learned their lesson with Nym and are trying to avoid that again as well.
I will always prefer function > fluff in this game, and to comment on all the Striker arguments; whether or not it had bombing capabilities and it was/wasn't shown in the movie, a bomber with adaptive ailerons would be broken, and probably too expensive to be worth it. I think this 'misrepresentation' falls under the same category as the bomber has this wave/movie.
we've known for 6 months that the bomber wasnt even closeto 1/270 scale, and we've known that they got the crew and colours wrong. its all right there in the trailer. I dont think its on Disney.
The Lambda Shuttle was a cannon ship for 30 years and featured in dozens of sources, yet FFG somehow didnt notice it has dedicated rear-firing guns on the back.
Then theres the A-wings 12 foot tall pilots... so yeah
9 hours ago, DarthEnderX said:And it remains as wrong as ever.
If I wanted my models to not represent Star Wars, I'd plays some other game, and not a ****ing Star Wars game.
Vociferous applause.
Now, we just need to get all of the missing characters, squadrons, and story elements (like, for example, the Shuttle Tydirium title) into the game.
11 hours ago, Scopes said:Speaking of ridiculous, minor spoiler, the dictionary states that EVERY. SINGLE. T-85 X-WING (and I guess all the documentation and factories) has been destroyed by DS3 in TFA and now T-70 is the most advanced X-wing
Some top notch believable world building here, as expected from the sequel trillogy.
^This. I cannot like this enough. It gets tiresome.
My only way to square this circle is to say that the T-85 lines have to start cranking them out again. But all of them destroyed? That's lame.
I'm pretty sure a few escaped destruction:
11 minutes ago, Wondergecko said:I'm pretty sure a few escaped destruction:
1: if they looked like that I'd jump for joy.
2: Holy crap that looks like the Shrike. I know it ain't, but.
22 minutes ago, Captain Lackwit said:1: if they looked like that I'd jump for joy.
2: Holy crap that looks like the Shrike. I know it ain't, but.
If they looked like that, I'd also jump for joy, because that would mean I'm an ILM designer! ?
7 hours ago, FlyingAnchors said:Quite literally yes. I think this was expressed in an interview awhile back, case in point what they were told about the tie striker: it has moving wings, it goes fast, it can fly in space, it doesn’t carry missiles. (You could tell most of this from the trailer. )
Then some guy over writing the visual dictionary goes “hey what if a bomb slot went here?” And LFL says yes, then we complain to FFG when it’s LFLs fault for not properly telling FFG about changes to their ship.
As opposed to say rebels content where they get to sit down with the Voice actors or Pablo and talk through how the character feels about this ship, or what they do with it. How it gets used in the episode. They actually get details from rebels. And it shows, I don’t think we’ve had a Rebels ship release not make some sort of meta splash yet. (Ghost/phantom, Inky, Assajj, Lowrhick, now Fenn or AP-5)
Pablo wrote the book that gave Striker bombs
I assumed the difference between great Rebels releases and disappointing movie tie-ins is that with Rebels there is no rush, the designers can see the episode, read trivia, and release the ships a year later, while movie tie-ins are rushed to be released before the movie, no matter how little info they have.
Enter the Tie SF and its lack of crew slot then...
7 hours ago, Captain Lackwit said:Well, the U-Wing excuse is that it was a limited production run.
Did it need an excuse? We haven't seen it before because we'd never seen a commando force being deployed on screen that I recall except via a 'sneak in pretending to be the imperials' stolen shuttle or transport.
For that matter, there's even a two-engine 'civilian' version in Rebels, if I recall correctly.
3 hours ago, Wondergecko said:I'm pretty sure a few escaped destruction:
I swear I've seen the art piece that's from, but I don't think it's from the force awakens concept art book.
To be fair, my main memory of X-wings in that book was someone taking a lightsaber to a stardestroyer from an X-wing's cockpit....