BoLS Lounge : Wargames, Warhammer & Miniatures Forum
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 27
  1. #11

    Default

    If each side were clearly separate, Scum wouldn't have any Z-95s, Y-Wings, HWKs or Firesprays.

    It is rather pretty. I like the way it's small enough to have solar panels instead of an ionisation reactor. I suspect it will grow on me.
    (Edit: I've decided I also like the notches in the middle. They're reminiscent of the Venator.)

    And you never know; if they're willing to make up new things themselves, maybe they're willing to use Rebels stuff. I'd love to get a wave with a VCX-100 and a Gozanti cruiser.
    Last edited by Houghten; 12-20-2014 at 09:00 AM.

  2. #12

    Default

    Some people looked hard at FFG's page again and found this card:


  3. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Houghten View Post
    If each side were clearly separate, Scum wouldn't have any Z-95s, Y-Wings, HWKs or Firesprays.

    It is rather pretty. I like the way it's small enough to have solar panels instead of an ionisation reactor. I suspect it will grow on me.
    (Edit: I've decided I also like the notches in the middle. They're reminiscent of the Venator.)

    And you never know; if they're willing to make up new things themselves, maybe they're willing to use Rebels stuff. I'd love to get a wave with a VCX-100 and a Gozanti cruiser.
    I meant more the Rebels and Imperials, need to keep them separate but you can fudge the lines a bit with pirates.

    I hope for Rebels stuff too, so far that would be the Ghost YT_whatever and the Imperial transport. Which also has a civilian model.
    Ask not the EldarGal a question, for she will give you three answers, all of which are puns and terrifying to know. Back off man, I'm a feminist. Ia! Ia! Gloppal Snode!

  4. #14

    Default

    It occurs to me that "Raider" isn't a very Star Destroyer-y name for what is clearly meant to be a mini Star Destroyer. The Acclamator, Venator, Victor(y), Imperator (later renamed Imperial) and Executor classes set something of a pattern.

    My knowledge of Latin isn't very good, but a little research suggests that "Praedator" is the word that most closely translates to "Raider" while fitting the "-tor" pattern. Unfortunately, it would inevitably get misspelled "Predator" by hundreds of players. Anybody got some better ideas?

  5. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Houghten View Post
    It occurs to me that "Raider" isn't a very Star Destroyer-y name for what is clearly meant to be a mini Star Destroyer. The Acclamator, Venator, Victor(y), Imperator (later renamed Imperial) and Executor classes set something of a pattern.
    correct me if I'm wrong - latin class has been ten years ago, and even if I still use it as stundent of History my latin is very, very rusty:

    acclamare - to pronounce s.o./to give a title to s.o.
    venerare - to worship/honour s.o.
    vincere - to win s.th.
    imperare - to command s.o.

    predare (?) - to hunt

    rapere - to steal s.th. (the use of violence is implied)

    So Raptor-class would but my pick
    Last edited by 0rph3u5; 12-24-2014 at 07:49 AM.

  6. #16

    Default

    But it's not a Star Destroyer. It's a Raider. It's not meant to cow systems, but nip in, smash stuff up in the face and shoot down all your doods, then nick off again before the big boys come out to play and kick all it's teeth down it's throat.
    Fed up for Scalpers? https://www.facebook.com/groups/1710575492567307/?ref=bookmarks

  7. #17
    First-Captain
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    The North, UK
    Posts
    1,627

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Houghten View Post
    To borrow my own words from the Disqus thread:



    I'll still be getting one. I'm undecided as to whether or not I like the Raider itself,* but I need those TIE Advanced cards more than I need hot water and electricity. I will definitely be putting together a Maarek Stele list. By which I mean I will have Maarek Stele off by himself and a flight of TIE Interceptors so he has somebody to show off to. Because that is how Maarek Stele do.

    *I have a pathological reaction to ships and vehicles made up to fill an arbitrary niche (like pretty much anything original to Galactic Battlegrounds), or that are made up to fill a niche that was already filled up by something someone else made up (the TIE Hunter wasn't something that needed to exist when the TIE Avenger already did), or that are both at the same time (the Decimator's raison d'ętre is so that Imperial players of Jump To Lightspeed could have a Falcon equivalent. You know what the Imperial equivalent of the YT-1300 is? THE FREAKING YT-1300!). Some things just make sense to have. "Protect AT-ATs from any more clever people with harpoons and tow cables" is a valid reason to develop the AT-AA. "The ability to strike anywhere without warning" is perfectly in line with the Tarkin Doctrine and so developing the Phantom TIE is something the Empire would do with great enthusiasm. But the Raider exists because FFG wants Imperial players to be able to play with a Huge ship. It's metagamey.
    In the real world, on just one planet, we have multiple manufactors are forces using many different types of vehicle for the same role, using two different TIEs for the same role isn't so bad really, its a big galaxy

  8. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 0rph3u5 View Post
    rapere - to steal s.th. (the use of violence is implied)

    So Raptor-class would but my pick
    I wondered about "Raptor" but my research suggested it meant "rapist" rather than "robber," so I didn't really want to consider it. Hopefully I was just wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Mystery View Post
    But it's not a Star Destroyer. It's a Raider. It's not meant to cow systems, but nip in, smash stuff up in the face and shoot down all your doods, then nick off again before the big boys come out to play and kick all it's teeth down it's throat.
    It's a wedge-y ship manufactured by Kuat Drive Yards. That's what I mean by "Star Destroyer," rather than a role a ship plays. After all, Imperial-class Star Destroyers are not themselves destroyers, which are small escort ships, but more like Star Battleships.

    Quote Originally Posted by Path Walker View Post
    In the real world, on just one planet, we have multiple manufactors are forces using many different types of vehicle for the same role, using two different TIEs for the same role isn't so bad really, its a big galaxy
    Except that all the TIEs are manufactured by Seinar Fleet Systems.
    The 40k galaxy is pretty big. Hyperdrives and the Holonet make the GFFA pretty small. There's no reason for Seinar to not internally distribute their own specs to their own plants.
    Last edited by Houghten; 12-24-2014 at 09:15 AM.

  9. #19
    First-Captain
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    The North, UK
    Posts
    1,627

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Houghten View Post
    I wondered about "Raptor" but my research suggested it meant "rapist" rather than "robber," so I didn't really want to consider it. Hopefully I was just wrong.



    It's a wedge-y ship manufactured by Kuat Drive Yards. That's what I mean by "Star Destroyer," rather than a role a ship plays. After all, Imperial-class Star Destroyers are not themselves destroyers, which are small escort ships, but more like Star Battleships.



    Except that all the TIEs are manufactured by Seinar Fleet Systems.
    The 40k galaxy is pretty big. Hyperdrives and the Holonet make the GFFA pretty small. There's no reason for Seinar to not internally distribute their own specs to their own plants.
    Its plausable that such a large corporation would have more than one R&D department though and they might be working of ships to fulfil the same roles, just saying, its not the silliest thing about star wars ships. the fact that they act like aeroplanes is a lot dafter.

  10. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Houghten View Post
    I wondered about "Raptor" but my research suggested it meant "rapist" rather than "robber," so I didn't really want to consider it. Hopefully I was just wrong.
    You are not wrong, you just overestimated the sensitivity to rape as subject matter in the latin source material

    "to take" or "to rob" a woman from her home/father/husband is in the language of the source material is used to imply sexual violence but the terms are to talk about the theft of objects or the looting of places ...

    (I meant not to give offense by the suggestion of "raptor" as a designation, although I know the full implication; we are talking about a vessel that is tool of tyranny after all. But if it is found to be objectionable I'm glad we talked about it and dismiss it as a result of discussion)

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •