All this bile over it, though, is lame on both sides.

Amen. Happen to love both Star Wars and Star Trek. I also love a good red wine and Twinkies, but I've never soak a Twinkie in red wine and then eaten it.

A combination of things doesn't always make for a better experience.

It seemed to work OK for heroclix that has both Marvel and DC

Same for that VS card game. But maybe thats just super heroes and there is less fan war between marvel and dc than between trekkies and star wars fans*

*(what are they called anyway?)

We must be getting hard up for things to discuss. I've noticed more than a few old threads resurfacing of late.

We'll be discussing whether pepsi or cola is better next...

No Luke, I AM your father.

- Captain James T. Kirk (The Federation Strikes Back- 1979)

No Luke, I AM your father.

- Captain James T. Kirk (The Federation Strikes Back- 1979)

Three posts in a row? Bro.

No Luke, I AM your father.

- Captain James T. Kirk (The Federation Strikes Back- 1979)

Three posts in a row? Bro.

Trek vs wars has always been a volatile subject- and i'm on FIIIIIIRRRE!

No Luke, I AM your father.

- Captain James T. Kirk (The Federation Strikes Back- 1979)

Three posts in a row? Bro.

Is there a limit?

Trek fluff states that the enterprise' shields are impervious to lasers. A star destroyer has turbo lasers. This, asuming turbo in this case means rapid-fire, would mean that a Star destroyer has no hope of damaging starfleet ships.

This is stupid, and Star Trek fanboys need to stop repeating this myth. Turbolasers might have "laser" in the name, but they don't act anything like lasers. The obvious conclusion here is that the "laser" part of the name is the result of how language evolved, just like how in the real world we still refer to "blueprints" even though the original process they're named after hasn't been used in a long time. Plus, which is more likely:

1) In the Star Trek universe laser weapons are rarely used by top-tier militaries, as phaser technology is better. Saying "lol, they have lasers, they can't hurt us" is just an observation that a ship armed with lasers is likely to be far more primitive than a Federation warship and have no hope of damaging it. This would be the equivalent of a modern battleship captain observing that "cannons can't hurt us" when threatened by a 1700s ship. Obviously the battleship's immunity to "cannons" doesn't mean that no projectile weapon could possibly damage it.

or

2) Star Trek ships have magic immunity to any weapon with "laser" in the name, regardless of power level.

If you know anything about science or engineering #1 is the only possible choice.

Trek has teleporters: teleport photon torpedo on enemy bridge, anyone? (srsly, why don't they do that on the show?)

They don't do it because everything from battleship-strength shields to naturally-occuring mineral deposits can block transporters. The obvious conclusion is that by the time a ship is crippled to the point that you can transport over a torpedo you've already won the fight.

Interestingly, the old SFB games had transporter mines, which used the ship's transporters to place a giant bomb in the path of an enemy ship.

Nuff said...

Trek fluff states that the enterprise' shields are impervious to lasers. A star destroyer has turbo lasers. This, asuming turbo in this case means rapid-fire, would mean that a Star destroyer has no hope of damaging starfleet ships.

This is stupid, and Star Trek fanboys need to stop repeating this myth. Turbolasers might have "laser" in the name, but they don't act anything like lasers.

i'm relieved star wars lasers aren't the same as trek lasers. I'm actually more closer to wars than trek and the tought of the entprise being imune to a star destroyer was bugging me a bit.

Now i wonder what effect a "wars" ion canon would have on "trek" ship.

Nuff said...

You couldn't find a picture of seven of nine?

I don't think x-wing and attack wing would be compatable due to scale issues. You could probably mash them together for a bit of fun, but an x-wing would look a bit odd yhe same size as the enterprise D.

As to who would win in a non-board game real world(!) battle, that's a question. Trek ships seem way more advanced but wars ships are much, much bigger. I guess it would depend on how a star destroyer copes with antimatter photon torpedoes and transporter technology and how starfleet shields cope with the volume of fire that the ssd executor puts out.

Warp drive seems much more tactically flexible than hyperspace, given that you can still use your sensors while at faster than light speeds.

A lot would ride on the big question; can the Defiant fit in the Death Star trench.

I need to turn down my geek factor. Fact.

I dont think scale is a issue because most of these fighters and larger crafts are capable of / have killing capships.

As for actual lore, I think I posted this before, militar tech is way better in SW. They use lots of ECM and ECCM which is just about nonexistant in the primary timeline, JJ Trek has had ecm. Fighting the SW cap ships would require the Trek ships to fire manually if they can even see because of the ECM. We have seen them fight without a targeting computer and it wasnt good (ST TWOK) It could be possible to beat the ECM being used by SW as long as they out number the SW AND there no DS. The DS had the best tactical jammer ever made They were also so advanced that it never lit itself up like a christmas tree.

A fully built DS2 would be unstopable. DS1 has the tep issue but the good thing is no one in ST is using guided explosives the size of a softball. Photon and Quantom torps are big enough to be used as a casket Even if the trekkers knew about this weakness the DS1 had, and they could defeat the ECM and survive getting to the tep the torp would bounce right off or explode by the hole.

Theres the transporters, which will also suffer from the ecm issue as well as shielding blocking teleporting. Now SW equv of beaming is the handful of force abilites that teleport. Best users under the Emperor are his legion of Sith wizards constructed from Star Killers dna. Same with Terror trooper but I dont think there version is long range.

Trek fluff states that the enterprise' shields are impervious to lasers. A star destroyer has turbo lasers. This, asuming turbo in this case means rapid-fire, would mean that a Star destroyer has no hope of damaging starfleet ships.

This is stupid, and Star Trek fanboys need to stop repeating this myth. Turbolasers might have "laser" in the name, but they don't act anything like lasers.

i'm relieved star wars lasers aren't the same as trek lasers. I'm actually more closer to wars than trek and the tought of the entprise being imune to a star destroyer was bugging me a bit.

Now i wonder what effect a "wars" ion canon would have on "trek" ship.

To be exact LASER technology is way more advanced in SW, the GE to be exact, than trek.

That being said in one ST ep fusion powered (doesnt say output) lasers damaged the D. Also the Borgs most dangerous weapon "the cutting beam" is a LASER. Worf scans this weapon in the first ep the Borg show up in.

This comparison will only make sense to people who are not in ISD la la land,

and those who don't forget this thread is about the miniatures games.

These are all the same scale, in game the CR90 & GR75 are not.

The games will never match in scale, and anyone who tries to force it is kidding themselves

or likes to see Star Wars X-wing miniatures ship destroyed effortlessly.

These are all the same scale, in game the CR90 & GR75 are not.

What does size have to do with anything? A Culture warship is smaller than a star destroyer but it could effortlessly slaughter everything in the Star Wars and Star Trek universes combined, if it didn't get bored first and delegate the task to a non-sentient drone.

After playing the Attack Wing/X-Wing mash-up, who wants to try my Clue/Monopoly mash-up?

The Thimble did it in the Library with the Lead Pipe and had had to past Go to collect $500.

We must be getting hard up for things to discuss. I've noticed more than a few old threads resurfacing of late.

We'll be discussing whether pepsi or cola is better next...

Coke by far!!!

Pepsi just tastes flat.

Yes, this is one of the many endless stupid discussions.

Coke vs Pepsi

Real Madrid vs Barcelona

Crappy consoles vs PC (lol that one isn't even a contest)

Crappy console 1 vs Crappy Console 2

It is right, some people can have bad tastes, but you won't be able to change it, so deal with it.

Things to consider:

Trek fluff states that the enterprise' shields are impervious to lasers. A star destroyer has turbo lasers. This, asuming turbo in this case means rapid-fire, would mean that a Star destroyer has no hope of damaging starfleet ships.

Trek has (almost) no carriers or fighter squadrons, so i'd like to see how that would play out in the game. Can't we make it a threeway with battlestar galactica?

Trek has teleporters: teleport photon torpedo on enemy bridge, anyone? (srsly, why don't they do that on the show?)

Why not make it a four way and bring in Babylon 5

Trek has teleporters: teleport photon torpedo on enemy bridge, anyone? (srsly, why don't they do that on the show?)

They don't do it because everything from battleship-strength shields to naturally-occuring mineral deposits can block transporters. The obvious conclusion is that by the time a ship is crippled to the point that you can transport over a torpedo you've already won the fight.

Step one: Photon torps to take out ISD's Deflector projector domes.

Step two: Transport Photon Torp to ISD's Bridge and main reactor

Step three: Fire works

We must be getting hard up for things to discuss. I've noticed more than a few old threads resurfacing of late.

We'll be discussing whether pepsi or cola is better next...

Coke by far!!!

Pepsi just tastes flat.

Completely agree... Pepsi takes like generic flat soda.

I had a look at attack wing in my local store the other day.

While i can watch star trek if its on (i've never gone out of my way to watch it) TV and i've seen a few of the big films, i've always found it very naff compared to 'star wars'. I think it was the 'used future' gritty realism of the SW universe (even if plot isnt always realistic)

This to me was echoed in the difference in the game pieces. The prepaints in AW are just dull, pristine ships that look like board game pieces rather than wargames miniatures (my wifes observation actually, she prefers star trek to watch so that is rather telling), no weathering, no blaster marks, no detail and everything a nasty tone between satin and gloss.

Give me a battered xwing with dirt in the grooves any day

Step one Get young anakin skywalker.

Step two give him a starfighter

Step three point him to the USS enterprise

Step four ??????

Step five Profit

Or just send Jar Jar as a present, if you wish to do some overkill.

Things to consider:

Trek fluff states that the enterprise' shields are impervious to lasers. A star destroyer has turbo lasers. This, asuming turbo in this case means rapid-fire, would mean that a Star destroyer has no hope of damaging starfleet ships.

Trek has (almost) no carriers or fighter squadrons, so i'd like to see how that would play out in the game. Can't we make it a threeway with battlestar galactica?

Trek has teleporters: teleport photon torpedo on enemy bridge, anyone? (srsly, why don't they do that on the show?)

Why not make it a four way and bring in Babylon 5

because b5 has no shields at all and their ships would be slaughtered by fighters with torpedo's.

Things to consider:

Trek fluff states that the enterprise' shields are impervious to lasers. A star destroyer has turbo lasers. This, asuming turbo in this case means rapid-fire, would mean that a Star destroyer has no hope of damaging starfleet ships.

Trek has (almost) no carriers or fighter squadrons, so i'd like to see how that would play out in the game. Can't we make it a threeway with battlestar galactica?

Trek has teleporters: teleport photon torpedo on enemy bridge, anyone? (srsly, why don't they do that on the show?)

Why not make it a four way and bring in Babylon 5

Five-way: Gundam. All of them.

I had a look at attack wing in my local store the other day.

While i can watch star trek if its on (i've never gone out of my way to watch it) TV and i've seen a few of the big films, i've always found it very naff compared to 'star wars'. I think it was the 'used future' gritty realism of the SW universe (even if plot isnt always realistic)

This to me was echoed in the difference in the game pieces. The prepaints in AW are just dull, pristine ships that look like board game pieces rather than wargames miniatures (my wifes observation actually, she prefers star trek to watch so that is rather telling), no weathering, no blaster marks, no detail and everything a nasty tone between satin and gloss.

Give me a battered xwing with dirt in the grooves any day

That's fail kids Vs Fantasy Flight. Of course FFG wins here

Got nothing to do with Wars Vs Trek though