|
Post by YodaBreaker on May 8, 2006 20:11:11 GMT -5
It's a tossup, but I'm leaning toward shooters. Strikers afterall are more likely to knock down a figure, they have more mass and thus a greater force (no pun intended) with their attack. The striking surface doesn't necessarily have more mass than a missile does; in fact, I'd be surprised if anything but a Wookiee hand would weigh comparably to a large missile. Also, keep in mind that the striking surface applies its force to a larger surface area than does the relatively pointed missile, which is a large reason why it is a more effective knockdown tool than the missile. Also keep in mind that strikers can easily attain multiple kills per attack, whereas shooters are far less likely to do so. Though I've never measured with an accelerometer, I'd actually argue that the striking surface hits its target with a greater velocity than does a missile. A striker's attack velocity is slowed by the friction applied against the two halves of the pivot (and the mechanical stop put on it by the pivoting mechanism); however, if you keep the striking surface flush with the figure to be attacked, the loss of kinetic energy is minimal. In contrast, from the moment a missile is launched, it is slowed against the friction of air resistance (which, admittedly, is likely substantially less than that of the friction in the striking pivot). And the toll the missile pays to the resistance of the air grows the longer it flies. Plus, it's not as if these missiles are flying at supersonic speed. I doubt that they launch at appreciably faster speeds than a saber blade's rotational velocity (at least, my knuckles would argue that the striking surface is moving faster than the missile when fired at point-blank range!). I'm not sure how you've come to the conclusion that launchers are less likely to be attacked than strikers. Keep in mind that strikers also move faster than launchers (though with Series 3, the speed distributions of launchers and strikers now overlap at 8 Tix), so they're able to close to an effective attacking distance faster than launchers. However, if strikers use their closing speed, they might make more attractive targets to launchers due to their closer proximity (and hence greater precision in shooting and greater kinetic applied by the missile to its target). Thus, that might be how you came to the conclusion that launchers are less likely to be attacked than strikers. Nevertheless, I still prefer strikers
|
|
awesomejedi
40 Point Warrior
????#???? ?????????????????????????? ?
Posts: 807
|
Post by awesomejedi on May 8, 2006 22:58:47 GMT -5
It's a tossup, but I'm leaning toward shooters. Strikers afterall are more likely to knock down a figure, they have more mass and thus a greater force (no pun intended) with their attack. Shooters however, can attack from a distance, and become they have a larger velocity, they too can likely knock a figure down. It's like comparing a bullet to a kick by Bruce Lee. The reason shooters have the edge is not so much thier attacks in itself. but the fact that sense they can attack from a distance, they are less likely to be attacked themselves. But I'm bias towards strikers because I immagine in my head shooting a launcher only for it to shake a little but not drop, where as a striker hits and it will always drop. Especialy bigger figurines. I agree with you all the way.
|
|
|
Post by Mandalore on May 9, 2006 21:34:36 GMT -5
There is nothing more satisfying to me than using a striker to propel someone flying across the board - especially if it takes another one out in the process.
|
|
Bluebane
20 Point Captain
????#? ?$???? ?
Posts: 197
|
Post by Bluebane on May 11, 2006 14:53:44 GMT -5
I've always favored shooters. I find them so much more exciting that strikers. Figures like Boba Fett and Greedo are so much fun to use. I like it that you don't automatically get success with them, unlike strikers. You're risking more, and that makes success much more enjoyable. There's nothing like Boba Fett completely taking a figure of it's feet with a well-placed shot.
|
|
ebiljawa
20 Point Captain
The sarlacc found me somewhat... indigestible.~Boba Fett
Posts: 177
|
Post by ebiljawa on Jan 13, 2007 16:39:58 GMT -5
I say shooters. I like strikers, though. I like shooters, it's more fun to shoot your foes. Although nothing is more fun (well, a few things are) to use Scorponok to send figs flying! Though, I don't personally have a Scorponok myself, I use my friend's sometimes for fun... It's awesome.
Question: Is Scorp' a striker?
|
|
Ataru
40 Point Leader
????#???? ?
Posts: 1,017
|
Post by Ataru on Jan 24, 2007 19:39:19 GMT -5
Depends. If you mean Striker as opposed to Shooter, yes, I guess so. But he really has a new type of attack I've never seen before. Some people argue there are launchers and strikers and that's it. Others argue there are launchers, prodders, Force blasters, strikers, throwers, tossers, etc.
OK, you said not to say both... but I have to say I can't pick one over the other. Shooters are definitely more fun, and I just love picking people off, especially with base shots. But Strikers are awesome, too. Their speeds are high, so it allows for a lot of maneuverability. Also, multiple kills are a piece of cake if opposing figures are closer than 10 tix to each other. Strikers are definitely more effective on people who like to cluster their figures. That's my brother. Okay, now that I'm done writing out my thoughts, I think I'll go with Strikers.
|
|
|
Post by masterblaster on Jan 24, 2007 21:58:44 GMT -5
I went with strikers. Although I do enjoy playing with shooters, I like strikers better. I usually roll with a striker heavy team with a little shooter support. one hundred point team I use is 6 jedi knights and two s4 starter hans.
|
|
|
Post by redemptionrocks on Jan 26, 2007 2:48:15 GMT -5
Shooters are fun and have long range (I have to agree with radar...I love clones man.) and strikers are fun as well (sending figures sailing is fun) and more close range. so it depends how i feel tho i chose shooters
|
|
Ataru
40 Point Leader
????#???? ?
Posts: 1,017
|
Post by Ataru on Jan 26, 2007 18:39:55 GMT -5
You know... now that I review exactly why I'm into Attacktix in the first place, it's probably because of how much fun it is to knock down opponent's figures with launchers. I mean, multiple kills are awesome fun, but I think it's just very rewarding in general to have your skill as a marksman rewarded. Not that I'm changing my mind, I still think Strikers are better, just because they're more efficient. Not necessarily more enjoyable or more fun, but more efficient with more prowess in battle.
|
|
|
Post by Luke Skywalker on Feb 4, 2007 12:10:14 GMT -5
I like strikers, it is so much fun to swat your opponents figures! And all the best characters are strikers.
|
|
xanatos
30 Point Warrior
????#???? ???????????????????????????? ?
Posts: 401
|
Post by xanatos on Feb 4, 2007 12:22:35 GMT -5
Strikers, hands down.....
|
|
|
Post by redemptionrocks on Feb 4, 2007 14:05:45 GMT -5
I like strikers, it is so much fun to swat your opponents figures! And all the best characters are strikers. I beg to differ. Han,Chewie,G.G. (well he's both but his launcher is O so much better), many jedi have both forms, Droidikas....etc.
|
|
commandercody
40 Point Warrior
????#???? ??????????????????? ?
Posts: 926
|
Post by commandercody on Feb 12, 2007 19:35:10 GMT -5
I love launchers, since you don't have to be at point-blank range
|
|
autobot1000
40 Point Leader
????#???? ?????????????????????? ?
Posts: 1,145
|
Post by autobot1000 on Feb 12, 2007 19:58:17 GMT -5
though with some launchers you practically do to gaurentee a knock down (unless you get a lucky shot)
|
|
AWOL
40 Point Warrior
Warning: Kissing Chihuahua On Head Causes Sporadic Pooping, Urination, and Biting
Posts: 820
|
Post by AWOL on Feb 14, 2007 17:25:54 GMT -5
Strikers without a doubt. Launchers take a more "passive" approach to an offensive, while strikers put the serious heat on the opposition and meet the enemy face to face in an ultimate do-or-die engagement. Strikers rule.
|
|