Jump to content

lightcavalier

Member
  • Content Count

    525
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About lightcavalier

  • Rank
    Sircan

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Array
  • Location
    Array
  • Interests
    Array
  1. I switched to the undergorund lasers movement template (an 8" line with a single 1" 45 at the end, along with a 1" octagon) and it has sped things up immensly over the spartan punch out one. (not gonna lie I would love FTs movement values which allow for accelerationg and deceleration etc....but I highly doubt spartain is going do deviate too far from their existing mehcanic)
  2. literally no release that I can remember has had the stats up before product shipped, and only a handful have ever had them up this quickly after product shipped. (even if it is only the taskforce stats) Also never ask for firm dates, youll just be disapointed and back here ranting some more....its why they stopped giving them.
  3. i can see your point, but its pretty much a staple of SF space combat by now. Although I certainly think the assault robot torpedoes are probably the most accurate depiction of how space boarding would happen
  4. I would be ok with that (as i really do understand the effect bases have with the T1s)
  5. lol as for V1 models, there is (randomly enough) an entire club of 8 or 10 ppl in Nova Scotia who tought spartan had gone out of business......they all have huge V1 fleets and were still playing V1 until i showed them the updated/rules stats about 6 months ago. Was like a time warp when I rand into them.
  6. I agree that the small bases look better....but I have upwards of 50 small ships all of which are permanently based (I have no idea why I do it but all my ships are glued to their bases, which makes the whole idea of "having" to change bases quite a big deal for me.....plus as ive said before Derek was quite clear that they dont want ppl to fell they "have" to change bases) plus you have to remember its also a cost issue. while 1 pound per flight stand may sound great, thats nearly 2$ CAD (usually its over 2$ but the GBP is having a relatively weak few days). I cant think of many ppl willing to drop 100$ just on flight stands for perfectly good models for no other reason than some newer models have slightly smaller bases.
  7. I dont disagree that a standard needs to be set....but end of the day you either loose out on tournament players who dont think the basing system is "tight enough" or you simply drive existing customers to not get invovled in the growing tournament scene. And as ive said before (and as neil and derek have struck at in this thread) Spartan seems to have no interest in making anyone re-base anything. I would also add as a note that even the great evil empire of GW just went with "use the base the model came with or the newest size" so that ppl didnt need to re-base all their terminators etc despite the base sizes having an in game effect. and if ppl really want to go out of their way to buy V1 models to gain some "advantage" in a tournament, let them fill their boots, they better be able to play just as well as they can shop on ebay or better
  8. oh im aware (i have a complete set of V1 Aquans right alongside my newest versions of them) Point being is that there should be nothing to force ppl who dont want to/cant rebase their models, thus my whole "base that it came with is acceptable" idea. I understand the effect it has with SRS and terrain intercation, but if ive learned anything from Neil on this forum is that the absolute last thing he wants to force ppl to do is buy random stuff like new bases just to keep playing this game with older models.
  9. if a rule has to made it should be "models should be on a base of equivalent size to that they were sold with, or (instert the new standard sizes here" because ill be damned tournament or not if I cant get a game or play in an event because I dont have the time, money, or intereset to swap out all the bases on my Snappers.
  10. not having the rulebook yet, did they ditch the whole weapon type (like beam) being seperate from the MARs (like in FSA....where its quite simple until nuke torpedoes showed up)
  11. i have yet to have a prospective player complain about the movement template. spot pivoting would make it too similar to halo imho
  12. all good points there is now a person in charge of community relations (and the vanguard programme) her name is Beth, she has just recently started.
  13. I think that would largly depend on the temperament of both the population and the faction they are constituent to. A counter example would be modern day Iceland, a nation which given its island nature and location would necessitate a military....but is in fact simply protected by it allies, a small coast guard who do search and rescue/policing, and some aerospace control radar.
  14. Am I the only person who doesnt find movement taking up a tonne of time? It is certainly more time consuming than shooting or assault, but ive never found it all that laborious. Also glad to here the "engine" will remain the same...as the minute vector movement comes in, im out (worst experiences with space combat games all used "realistic" vector movement)
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.