Just now, SabineKey said:Heck, one of the most iconic ships from the franchise (aka The Falcon) is asymmetrical.
I personally have nothing against the new TIE design. It's not my favorite, but that doesn't mean it's bad. Heck, I'm actually interested to see if it has an asymmetrical dial like some of the early fan builds are suggesting. But, maybe not as busted as the JM5K's this time.
There is no way they give it an amazing dial, FFG hates Imperials.
On 2/4/2018 at 7:35 PM, Phoenix5454 said:TIE Tumor
Did we really make it to page 8 without an Arnold reference here guys? I might have missed it after page 3. IZ NAWT UH TUMA!
1 hour ago, piznit said:Did we really make it to page 8 without an Arnold reference here guys? I might have missed it after page 3. IZ NAWT UH TUMA!
Yes, you missed it - page 5, I believe.
13 hours ago, RufusDaMan said:No. I dont want any more cheap *** cannons. I want the big guns. 3 pts cannons are a joke, save for Ion which would be OP.
OK, how about
2 cannon slots. You may fire 2 cannons that cost 3 or less in 1 attack. Add all red dice together.
3 hours ago, Odanan said:The cockpit ball looks larger than the regular TIE... hopefully it has a crew (some sort of gunner?). It would be even good too if the twin cannons rotated to 360º (giving it auxiliary arc). Come on, Disney, give us something different (for XWM).
3 hours ago, Odanan said:The cockpit ball looks larger than the regular TIE... hopefully it has a crew (some sort of gunner?). It would be even good too if the twin cannons rotated to 360º (giving it auxiliary arc). Come on, Disney, give us something different (for XWM).
Yeah, it's seems more armoured (4 Hull feels appropriate) - I wonder if it even has a Adv/Ag style body? - and the view-port does look slightly smaller (missing the usual 8 struts and centre circle).
For those suggesting shields, I hope not, I'd like to see it closer to an 'LN' than an 'sf', including retaining Agi 3.
Not convinced I'd like to see a rear auxiliary arc either - I like that that's the sf's gimmick (within the Imp small ship category anyhow).
All that said - I do think it'll be tricky to find the right spot for it along side the existing options. I wouldn't mind it sharing the Bullseye arc with Kimmi though, so perhaps that could be its point of differentiation.
5 minutes ago, spacelion said:OK, how about
2 cannon slots. You may fire 2 cannons that cost 3 or less in 1 attack. Add all red dice together.
Why are you guys afraid of some heavy hitting ship like the B wing or Kimogila?
Why must we keep using cheap cannons? Especially since those are some big *** cannons we see, not some small beam weapons.
Just now, RufusDaMan said:Why are you guys afraid of some heavy hitting ship like the B wing or Kimogila?
Why must we keep using cheap cannons? Especially since those are some big *** cannons we see, not some small beam weapons.
Naah just trying to piss u off
26 minutes ago, RufusDaMan said:Why are you guys afraid of some heavy hitting ship like the B wing or Kimogila?
You know those ships aren't good , right? I'd far rather have a bunch of GUNBOATs slamming around and Flechetting stuff than a couple unmaneuverable 1-agility "heavy fighters" barfing out a single three or four dice attack and then exploding, taking a sizable chunk of my squadpoints budget with them. We all saw how well 1-agility TIEs do with the Punisher, sadly...
Honestly, a Bullseye Arc and a cannon slot with 4 hull would make this fine with me.
Add something (modification?) that increases the range of equipped cannon upgrades by one to a maximun of 3 maybe?
1 hour ago, spacelion said:OK, how about
2 cannon slots. You may fire 2 cannons that cost 3 or less in 1 attack. Add all red dice together.
Cumulative cost of 3, or individual? I honestly would be very afraid of a ship that could run ion cannon + flechette/tractor/jam cannon and give you both effects at once. Even if you could shoot any 2 of the last 3 at once, that’d be...that’d be terrifying.
Heavy L-s1 laser cannon
Cost : 3
Range 1 - 3
Your attack dice can be modified only by spending a focus token for its standard effect.
(Double slot cannon)
On 2/5/2018 at 2:34 PM, RufusDaMan said:Turning on your axis does nothing in space
Okay...
the B-wing while having its s-foils locked in the standard configuration of attack mode will appear symmetrical along the vertical axis while viewing the ship from the fore or aft view of the ship.
While the S-foils are locked into “landing mode” the b-wing will appear asymmetrical.
Whether the thing is in space or not is irrelevant.
So... it has a designation:
Courtesy of:
Heavy TIE Fighter is really lame. Was hoping for something.... better. Oh well.
1 hour ago, Alpha17 said:Heavy TIE Fighter is really lame. Was hoping for something.... better. Oh well.
.
Yeah. Here's to hoping they got that wrong, like the MG-100 StarFortress.
8 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:
Yeah. Here's to hoping they got that wrong, like the MG-100 StarFortress.
Eh, I don't hate it.
I mean, like "TIE Bomber" or "TIE Interceptor"...it's descriptive. It's a Heavier armed TIE Fighter. So...Heavy TIE Fighter. That's fine. It's nice, really, after some of the ridiculousness we've had (TIE Punisher? TIE Silencer?? )
I assume once built out into the full 'tech manual' descriptives, we'll have some kind of technical designation to it, too. I'd love it if it came out "TIE/gt: Heavy TIE Fighter".
Y'know, just looking at the thing...
I'm starting to think Disney has zero faith in us liking any new concepts what so ever. But then again, why should they? Just look at how the fanbase treats the prequels...
17 minutes ago, Captain Lackwit said:Y'know, just looking at the thing...
I'm starting to think Disney has zero faith in us liking any new concepts what so ever. But then again, why should they? Just look at how the fanbase treats the prequels...
Hey, there - steady , now! Remember that this was the 'original' TIE/gt vs TIE/ln:
FWIW, I think this new "Heavy TIE Fighter" is an improvement on that . This ends up a very clear design descendent from the TIE Bomber, which the WEG /gt did not do.
8 minutes ago, xanderf said:Hey, there - steady , now! Remember that this was the 'original' TIE/gt vs TIE/ln:
FWIW, I think this new "Heavy TIE Fighter" is an improvement on that . This ends up a very clear design descendent from the TIE Bomber, which the WEG /gt did not do.
Which is certainly true. I just hope the next new TIE design abandons the whole vertical wing thing, finally.
30 minutes ago, Captain Lackwit said:Y'know, just looking at the thing...
I'm starting to think Disney has zero faith in us liking any new concepts what so ever. But then again, why should they? Just look at how the fanbase treats the prequels...
Probably because they want to target younger audiences, ones who will be less likely to be critical and will want to have the new toys bought, see the movies, and want to go to the Disney parks to check out Star Wars Land/Batuu. Granted, if the toy sales of TLJ are anything to go by it seems that Star Wars isn't really as strong a force to draw children in aside from some of the older/classic characters. I have to wonder, if maybe MCU films are sort of the new hotness for kids nowdays, that rather than waving around laser swords they want to imagine being Iron Man or Captain America instead.
3 hours ago, xanderf said:Eh, I don't hate it.
I mean, like "TIE Bomber" or "TIE Interceptor"...it's descriptive. It's a Heavier armed TIE Fighter. So...Heavy TIE Fighter. That's fine. It's nice, really, after some of the ridiculousness we've had (TIE Punisher? TIE Silencer?? )
I assume once built out into the full 'tech manual' descriptives, we'll have some kind of technical designation to it, too. I'd love it if it came out "TIE/gt: Heavy TIE Fighter".
Agreed. When you look at the military, non-sith, "you can have things in black, white, or grey" imperials, flowery and sinister names seem more out of place.
We took the TIE fighter, and made a heavier version.
Something that's more or less a "Heavy Scyk" analogue (but 4 hull rather than any shields) could be an interesting ship, especially if you gave it a bullseye arc. It depends if it has 2 attack and 1-2 cannons (gunboat fashion), or 3 attack and one cannon (b-wing fashion) - the latter probably would end up as either control cannon or linked battery fodder unless a new, especially shiny cannon came in the pack.
Plus, making it a Heavy TIE Fighter means it counts as a "TIE Fighter" - which opens up design space because Youngster can buddy-buddy them, giving them Rage for stress-heavy double modded dice, or a pseudo-evade action via debris gambit.
So a tie fighter with 3 primary attack ?
3/3/3/0 ? Cost like a tie/fo ?
3 hours ago, Captain Lackwit said:Which is certainly true. I just hope the next new TIE design abandons the whole vertical wing thing, finally.
TIE Defender wants a word.
3 hours ago, Captain Lackwit said:Which is certainly true. I just hope the next new TIE design abandons the whole vertical wing thing, finally.
TIE Striker wants a word.
Since we are getting all the epic stuff into standard, how about the new TIE gets a range 2 - 4 cannon and a 3 - 5 cannon?
Then, as a marketing ploy, do NOT provide a range 4 - 5 ruler, add a acrylic one into a kit two years later when the TIE is obsolete and no one it no more.
That would then open the door to a title or modification card that allows you to convert two crew to a single team.