|
Post by Jw18 on Mar 31, 2007 13:12:47 GMT -5
scorponok is the bomb
|
|
Leumas
40 Point Leader
?????$??? ?
Posts: 1,204
|
Post by Leumas on Apr 18, 2007 14:21:37 GMT -5
It's basically just a battle between Scoponok and Battle Ravage; none of the other strikers are very good. I think they should have put more strikers in the series. But then again, they do rely much more on blasters than they do melee weapons on the shows, so I guess it would make sense to make the majority of the figures shooters. Battle Ravage gets my vote!
|
|
autobot1000
40 Point Leader
????#???? ?????????????????????? ?
Posts: 1,145
|
Post by autobot1000 on Apr 19, 2007 4:31:57 GMT -5
it would be nice to see more strikers. maybe S3 if we're lucky
|
|
Annointed 1
30 Point Warrior
????#??? ?$????????? ?
Posts: 408
|
Post by Annointed 1 on Apr 19, 2007 9:14:36 GMT -5
it would be nice to see more strikers. maybe S3 if we're lucky I personally think that the Transformers line is going to stay the way it is. Yeah, there will be three to four strikers in every line but the majority will always be shooters. That is the way the Transformers universe is made, almost every battle are all blasters. Initially, I was frustrated that the TF line just could not compete against a Marvel to SW team, but I have come to accept that this is the way it is going to be. Once I figured that out, I was much more successful in my team building, and it eventually led to me winning the TF universe 100pt tournament at Tixcon. Big guns and sturdy figures, get used to it and you can really start competing against the other universes. AND you have got to love SOP!
|
|
|
Post by malform on Apr 19, 2007 9:30:49 GMT -5
Once I figured that out, I was much more successful in my team building, and it eventually led to me winning the TF universe 100pt tournament at Tixcon. Big guns and sturdy figures, get used to it and you can really start competing against the other universes. AND you have got to love SOP! I have never seen someone fire missiles as if they are mortars like that before... You are the king of the lob.
|
|
Gideon
30 Point Warrior
????#???? ?????? ?
Posts: 545
|
Post by Gideon on Apr 19, 2007 10:43:13 GMT -5
Battle Ravage! I have two. One time, I struck down a Sandtrooper and he flew into the next room! Freaky!
Gideon
|
|
autobot1000
40 Point Leader
????#???? ?????????????????????? ?
Posts: 1,145
|
Post by autobot1000 on Apr 20, 2007 17:21:30 GMT -5
it would be nice to see more strikers. maybe S3 if we're lucky I personally think that the Transformers line is going to stay the way it is. Yeah, there will be three to four strikers in every line but the majority will always be shooters. That is the way the Transformers universe is made, almost every battle are all blasters. Initially, I was frustrated that the TF line just could not compete against a Marvel to SW team, but I have come to accept that this is the way it is going to be. Once I figured that out, I was much more successful in my team building, and it eventually led to me winning the TF universe 100pt tournament at Tixcon. Big guns and sturdy figures, get used to it and you can really start competing against the other universes. AND you have got to love SOP! thats why it would be good to see some BW attacktix, in one mode they're shooters, then as a reserve they transform to become strikers (or vice versa)
|
|
Pac-Man
30 Point Captain
????#???? ????????????????????????? ?
Posts: 399
|
Post by Pac-Man on Apr 30, 2007 19:11:43 GMT -5
Scorponok isn't a striker I get angry when people call uppercut figures strikers,but scorponok dosn't even have a striking mechanism!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
autobot1000
40 Point Leader
????#???? ?????????????????????? ?
Posts: 1,145
|
Post by autobot1000 on May 1, 2007 8:09:23 GMT -5
depends how you define it. a striking mechanism works with the force a player puts into it, the same can be said for scorponock, so although it isn't technically a striker it follows the same fundimentals....
although saying that the same could be said for prodders and launchers since you press a button...so i just kinda ruined my whole point but never mind...lol
|
|
|
Post by malform on May 1, 2007 8:24:05 GMT -5
Scorponok isn't a striker I get angry when people call uppercut figures strikers,but scorponok dosn't even have a striking mechanism!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I think you are splitting hairs here. I personally like to think of attacktix as currently only having 3 attack types, launcher, striker, and prodder. I would really rather have just 2 types (launcher and striker), and roll the prodders into strikers. But you really get different, consistent results with a strike attack and a prod attack... So I leave it as the 3. Now if you really wanted to get technical about it, you could have launcher, striker, prodder, uppercutter, downward striker, non-spring loaded strike, hinged spring in shoulder strike.... I dont know, that just sounds crazy. Its just different descriptions of strikers isnt it? Just because a striker swings horizontally, or in an over head fashion doesnt really define them any less as a striker. Strikers are strikers because they strike (to boil it down and get to the point directly), just as a launcher is a launcher because they launch. Even if its a force blast, small missile, or a giant hook thing... They are still launching...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2007 7:41:41 GMT -5
Scorponok isn't a striker I get angry when people call uppercut figures strikers,but scorponok dosn't even have a striking mechanism!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I think you are splitting hairs here. I personally like to think of attacktix as currently only having 3 attack types, launcher, striker, and prodder. I would really rather have just 2 types (launcher and striker), and roll the prodders into strikers. But you really get different, consistent results with a strike attack and a prod attack... So I leave it as the 3. Now if you really wanted to get technical about it, you could have launcher, striker, prodder, uppercutter, downward striker, non-spring loaded strike, hinged spring in shoulder strike.... I dont know, that just sounds crazy. Its just different descriptions of strikers isnt it? Just because a striker swings horizontally, or in an over head fashion doesnt really define them any less as a striker. Strikers are strikers because they strike (to boil it down and get to the point directly), just as a launcher is a launcher because they launch. Even if its a force blast, small missile, or a giant hook thing... They are still launching... That sums it up nicely!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2007 9:40:19 GMT -5
It occured to me that we could just end the "what counts as a striker" debate by simply calling all figures in this category:
striker, prodder, uppercutter, downward striker, non-spring loaded strike, hinged spring in shoulder strike....
[glow=red,2,300]melee[/glow] figures. It makes sense to me.
Just as a Chirpa would be called a launcher for throwing his boulder.
Launcher and Melee, pretty simple notion, huh? ;D
(My apologies if someone else already mentioned this solution)
|
|
|
Post by malform on May 14, 2007 10:07:57 GMT -5
It occured to me that we could just end the "what counts as a striker" debate by simply calling all figures in this category: striker, prodder, uppercutter, downward striker, non-spring loaded strike, hinged spring in shoulder strike.... [glow=red,2,300] melee[/glow] figures. It makes sense to me. Just as a Chirpa would be called a launcher for throwing his boulder. Launcher and Melee, pretty simple notion, huh? ;D (My apologies if someone else already mentioned this solution) This would do the job of easily summing them all up into one catagory. But it side steps the pending need to define what a striker is. As you can see in the figure gallery on attacktix.com, there is a new special on the horizon called "strikeback". And seeing that a "shootback" is stated as so: "Free attack for [one/up to XX] of your [CLASS/NAME] launcher figures.", I wouldnt think that it would be too much of a streatch to assume that a strikeback will be worded much like this: "Free move and attack for [one/up to XX] of your [CLASS/NAME] striker figures." (I took the liberty of adding "move" as well to the text). So really... There is a certain need to define what a striker is. Will this strikeback apply to C3-PO, blackheart, thor and skyblast?... I would venture to guess that it would. But, who knows.
|
|
|
Post by superflytnt on May 14, 2007 12:59:16 GMT -5
Me, I hate Battle Ravage - the ball and chain sucks.
The only striker I really like is Scourge. He's got a big, bad axe and he knows how to use it. The rest are 'novelty' strikers in my opinion....unless you use the patented Xavier6 "Pick up and Fling" he's not all that great.
|
|
|
Post by malform on May 14, 2007 14:17:54 GMT -5
Me, I hate Battle Ravage - the ball and chain sucks. The only striker I really like is Scourge. He's got a big, bad axe and he knows how to use it. The rest are 'novelty' strikers in my opinion....unless you use the patented Xavier6 "Pick up and Fling" he's not all that great. That "pick up and fling" thing doesnt seem very effective, and its legality is questionable at best. Its kind of hard to compare battle ravage and scourge... They both cost 20, they are both strikers. But other than that they are dramatically different. BR is 2 tix faster, and has a larger base.. But scourge has a better chance of bringing in a trooper.... In the end I always end up going with battle ravage over scourge. Hes heavier and more bulky, much harder to kill than the leaner scourge with missile fire. And even though his rally is about 10% lower than scourge's recruit, it still seems to come up at least once a game if you have 2 or 3 of him on the field.
|
|