"Specific setting question" Topic
5 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please remember that some of our members are children, and act appropriately.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Collectible Miniatures Games Message Board Back to the SF Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestFantasy Science Fiction Toy Gaming
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Workbench ArticleTwo of Hasslefree's Adventurers venture to Serbia...
Featured Profile ArticlePaul Glasser reports from the A&A Miniatures tournament.
Current Poll
Featured Book Review
Featured Movie Review
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Mute Bystander | 28 Jan 2015 5:09 a.m. PST |
Saw the first three movies the trailers for the rest turned me off the setting/movies. I am using 5150:Fighter Command and was looking at the Starship Battle Star Wars ships on Ebay and have two questions. 1) Visually – canon notwithstanding – when I look at the continuum of Light Fighter, Medium Fighter, Heavy Fighter, Bomber, and Assault (boarding actions) craft would you consider the A-Wing, X-Wing, Y-Wing, and B-wig as filling the first four categories. Again, Visually. 2) Why are B-wings so much more expensive then A/X/Y-Wings on Ebay? Usually that means either they are way less produced (within the Common/Experienced/Veteran/Ace Heroclix style/type pricing scheme) or that they are more useful/powerful in game terms (aka the price gouging GW model.) |
alien BLOODY HELL surfer | 28 Jan 2015 1:07 p.m. PST |
1/ no, the Y wing is a bomber not a heavy fighter, that's more the B-wing. |
Mako11 | 28 Jan 2015 1:57 p.m. PST |
True, technically, but I can see using them like that anyway. My special, non-canon, house rule would be to permit the Y-Wings to fire both their front guns, and the turret weapons at the same time (in any direction desired), as long as the Y-Wing flies straight and level. That should give it a bit more punch, as a fighter. Perhaps, permit the player to arm the turret with different weaponry too, so it's a bit more effective at destroying other fighters too. |
haywire | 28 Jan 2015 2:41 p.m. PST |
Mako11, They could since the turret is usually manned by a gunner. When they dont have the gunner (ala a new hope), they have the turret fixed forward. In the x-wing game you can change the turret to other loadouts. |
Mute Bystander | 29 Jan 2015 9:43 a.m. PST |
alien BLOODY HELL surfer, Well in Star Wars it is but I am planning to use them in THW's 5150:Fighter Command and 5150:Carrier Command games. So what it was designated in the SW game is kind of not relevant to my question about does it look more like a Heavy Fighter visually in my game setting. Interesting, I always saw the B-Wing more as a Bomber or attack/assault ship based on appearance. The line between Light/Medium/Heavy Fighter is grey in my mind and the line between Heavy Fighter and Bomber is only slightly more distinct. Pontification time: I see Light fighters as cheap/plentiful supplements to "standard" (IMO Medium) Fighters. Not sure if I have a historical example right at hand. In WW1 these would like the Sophwith Pup or the the Nieuport "Bebe" aircraft. Medium fighters would be Spitfire or P-51 like craft. Heavy Fighters in aerial combat work be like the P-47, strong in Air to Mud and Good in Air to Air. The Aerospace equivalent. "Bombers" would be equivalent to strike aircraft like the B-26 Marauder or the Mosquito or Blenheim hunting ships in the Baltic. |
|