Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 insaniak wrote:
due to a lack of hobby budget right now as anything else

Im with ya there. My budget is nearly nonexistent right now. Im hoping in a month or two to be able to drop a couple hundred dollars and get a good start on X WIng.

 Manchu wrote:
The scale thing bothers me but also it makes no sense to me that Star Trek ships would move like WWII fighter plane space ships. It just seems like a terrible money grab unless they significantly reconsider the feel of the X-Wing rules.

Yeah, I'm scratching my head over the Trek game as well. Maybe the manoeuver wheels won't have quite so tight turns or something.

I do like their take on cloaking devices though, hopefully something very similar could be used in X wing if they ever put in cloaking ships (not that there are many).

 Mad4Minis wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
due to a lack of hobby budget right now as anything else

Im with ya there. My budget is nearly nonexistent right now. Im hoping in a month or two to be able to drop a couple hundred dollars and get a good start on X WIng.

With the upcoming Federal furlough, I don't see my wife allowing me much in the way of X-wing budget. Looks like I'm selling stuff I don't use as much to fund this afterall.

After checking all available images of the ST-game... movement is little bit more restricted, but still they move like fighters, using the same templates and ships with sizes being multiples of each other have the same base.

Juts buying a good moevemt system does not make your game a good game, you still need to tailor it to your game.

I think WizKids just wants to wring blood out of the stone when it comes to their Star Trek miniatures license.

If someone was serious about creating a popular Star Trek ship combat game (so not Star Fleet Battles or Federation Commander), they'd start by carefully watching Wrath of Khan -- not by aping a system that emulates a completely different genre.

I don't know. By the time we get to Star Trek: Deep Space 9 space combat in ST is portrayed as a similarly kinetic combat. I'm not saying I think that's the best portrayal of space combat, just one that is obviously the easiest interpretation of combat to fit the rules to.

Something else to consider is that the ST ships are on a different scale and thus the incremental distances they move are representative of greater distance. This mitigates the need to represent the decreased maneuverability, even if it doesn't completely satisfy it.

 Manchu wrote:
I think WizKids just wants to wring blood out of the stone when it comes to their Star Trek miniatures license.

Especially seeing as how the initial press release mentioned them reusing the moulds they already have for the clix ship game. I like the *game* of X-wing enough to get a Star Trek game using it (fan of that scifi universe as well) but only if they put the same effort into the minis that I've seen FFG put into the Star Wars ones. Rereleases of the chunky and poorly painted clix minis isn't going to get my money flowing.

 aka_mythos wrote:
Something else to consider is that the ST ships are on a different scale and thus the incremental distances they move are representative of greater distance. This mitigates the need to represent the decreased maneuverability, even if it doesn't completely satisfy it.

TBH, I'm not interested in rationalizations. To me, simulation is the key and in that sense the Enterprise-D (or basically any ST ship, Defiant aside) should not move like a SW fighter over any abstracted distance. Duncan mentioned WizKids has hacked Flight Path to better suit the Star Trek mode so there may be hope on this front but I kind of doubt it. Flight Path's big strength is simulating dogfighting, which I don't think has much application for Star Trek's "capital ships."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 warboss wrote:
Rereleases of the chunky and poorly painted clix minis isn't going to get my money flowing.

Star Trek clix aren't horrible, IMO. But they are nothing close to X-Wing minis, either.

 Manchu wrote:
Flight Path's big strength is simulating dogfighting, which I don't think has much application for Star Trek's "capital ships."

Well, ST ships either run/chase or stand still and exchange salvoes of whatever they salvo with. I think a proper ST game in line with the visual representation of the setting would have no movement rules at all and one 'dodging' table for the run scenario.

 Manchu wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:
Something else to consider is that the ST ships are on a different scale and thus the incremental distances they move are representative of greater distance. This mitigates the need to represent the decreased maneuverability, even if it doesn't completely satisfy it.

TBH, I'm not interested in rationalizations. To me, simulation is the key and in that sense the Enterprise-D (or basically any ST ship, Defiant aside) should not move like a SW fighter over any abstracted distance. Duncan mentioned WizKids has hacked Flight Path to better suit the Star Trek mode so there may be hope on this front but I kind of doubt it. Flight Path's big strength is simulating dogfighting, which I don't think has much application for Star Trek's "capital ships."

The thing is that star trek ships *DO* commonly move like fighters in an atmosphere both in the movies and tv shows. Capital ships don't move like spacecraft in zero G environments in shows except for B5 White Stars but rather accelerate, bank, and turn like slow WWII bombers (much like Star Wars starfighters). Except for the universal ability to do zero and low speed turns, the x-wing maneuver system is actually pretty accurate to what we see in Trek. The only other thing that would need to be changed is the firing arc on some ships (like the Galaxy specifically).

Just sayin.

As to StarTrek, DS9 and the movies and to a lesser degree voyager all started treating starships of various classes essentially dogfighting, with the larger ships simply being a bit ponderous (inconsistently though) but still 'banking' etc. I dunno I think they will be able to sell the game, but they won't get me or many other x-wing aficionados to buy-in unless they do something different enough to be interesting to play. If it just comes down to dog-fighting with different models at the end of the pegs I will be passing strongly on it... scale would also bug me too I suppose, say the defiant was the same size as a borg cube, then it would be a bit much. if the defiant was the size of an a-wing and the cube was falcon size (squared of course) then that is a lot more passable I think. Thing like the Romulan ships and even the Enterprise D-E should probably live on a medium ship base too... leaving the small bases for things like the defiant, Earlier enterprises, voyager etc.

But., all this is a bit OT.

www.themetalbikini.com has some great coverage of the latest pilot and ability cards associated with the crow and lambda up -

 MajorTom11 wrote:
Just sayin.

Yep, that has gone around and around and around. I hope you're not posting it as evidence for your earlier statement that an A-Wing "would only be marginally larger than the cockpit area of a Y-wing" because all the pictures I've seen indicate an A-Wing is at least twice as long as it is wide.

This shot from BGG shows an A-Wing scaled "by eye" (lol) to the hangar picture:

I actually don't care about this kind of scale difference. In my mind, the A-Wing FFG sells looks big next to a X-Wing but I'm willing to accept that there is no such thing as an A-Wing to begin with and so scale is really a matter of what feels right in context. For me, a tiny little A-Wing miniature in this line seems lame.

And for me, tiny little a-wings make a 3rd 'scale' that mixes up the impression on table and makes it all the more dynamic.

The important thing here is that no one has to be 'right' or 'wrong', just as Lucasarts saying it is twice as big as it appears in the films is not enough to convince me they are right, likewise being twice as big in the films is not enough to convince you they are wrong.

At the end of the day it doesn't really matter to all but the most stringent of scale nuts (Insaniak) and even then subjectivity of which side of the coin they fall on about 'accuracy' is also completely unpredictable. The point I would put forward is, flawless scale or mostly good scale, either way, this is a great, great game and you should put aside your misgivings and try it as a game no matter what.

That, and you don't HAVE to buy an a-wing, I think that is the only real question mark ship anyways

 MajorTom11 wrote:
Thing like the Romulan ships and even the Enterprise D-E should probably live on a medium ship base too... leaving the small bases for things like the defiant, Earlier enterprises, voyager etc.

Yeah, I think that would solve a lot (assuming the miniatures were good). But even that example leaves something to be desired.



It's a lot worse than any awkwardness associated with the A-Wing.

Flight Path is awesome for X-Wing but I don't think it will be a good choice for Star Trek, especially since WizKid's is using photo art for the components and their severely "meh" clix miniatures.

X-Wing is truly "the whole package" and has undoubtedly spoiled me rotten.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MajorTom11 wrote:
The important thing here is that no one has to be 'right' or 'wrong'

And moreover, there is nothing to be right or wrong about. This is an imaginary vehicle. FFG has made a big deal about looking at movie props while doing their homework, which I think plays into the wrong impression about the purpose of scale here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MajorTom11 wrote:
That, and you don't HAVE to buy an a-wing, I think that is the only real question mark ship anyways

LOL Tom, you know that doesn't apply to either of us. I have four A-Wings myself and I don't even care to guess how many dozens you've probably bought in the last month.

5 FFG and 5 of the smaller scale SW mini starship battles ones that are almost exactly the size in the mock'd up pic you showed lol!

Even then, I don't have a big problem with the A-wing as is personally, it doesn't make the game any less awesome to me! I bought the smaller ones more as a conversion challenge and to have something unique and for fun of the project, but had they not been out there to try I wouldn't have been sweating it!

I look forward to having a game with you sir at any rate!

Since it is a fictious universe Lucasfilm has all the right in the worl to decide which is the right size. In the past the A-Wing was quite small... but for quite some time now i has been pictured bigger than in the past, even showing that the cockpit is now way more roomy than before. Fact is, Lucas decided at some point that this is the new size of the A-wing and that´s it.

At least the A-wing always was able to seat a pilot, no matter the size... the Enterprise was not always able to hold its shuttles.... they had REAL scale-issues. So much that they needed to nearly double the size of the Abrams Enterprise to make it fit.

See, I am willing to let the argument go Duncan, but I don't take well to absolutist statements precluding my right to form my own opinion based on my experience with the franchise and what I value most, the actual representation in the movies. Lucasarts has pulled 'That's it's' the on the Executor-class quite a few times, mostly because people said it wasn't the right length given the movies. Sure enough, it moved from 8km to 19km slowly over the course of nearly 20 years based on people making the same argument I am now.

So, there is precedence for Lucasarts changing their mind and making mistakes scale wise, so please stop badgering me or anyone else who doesn't wholly agree on this non-issue as if there is no possible way it could be wrong.

Let's PLEASE move on or take the remainder to PM if you feel strongly about it, I don't want to derail this thread further. Live and let live, agree to disagree.

I'm going to start sending my student loan bills to you Tom...

Saving up money in this economy is hard enough as it is without you selling me this game! *shakes fist*

If student loans aren't for buying x-wing then what are they for?
Education? Food? Medicine? That's pansy stuff man, you know what you have to do

 MajorTom11 wrote:
That, and you don't HAVE to buy an a-wing, I think that is the only real question mark ship anyways

Wait... are you saying it's possible to buy a game... and not buy ALL the things...?


What crazy, messed up universe am I living in...?

 insaniak wrote:

 MajorTom11 wrote:
That, and you don't HAVE to buy an a-wing, I think that is the only real question mark ship anyways

Wait... are you saying it's possible to buy a game... and not buy ALL the things...?


What crazy, messed up universe am I living in...?

The capitalistic one.

Still you just know MT11 has like three or four of them, too

(I'd actually consider the A-wing a must-buy if you will only play with official components - not for the ship, but I would hate the idea of not having PTL to go with my interceptor blister... even on other pilots than soontir it's well worth it).

if anything the real question mark ship is the advanced (and no that's not just due to me STILL not finding any in stock anywhere... ) - however I'd imagine that would be different if you dislike the firespray, something has to provide a bit of staying power after all.

 Bolognesus wrote:
Still you just know MT11 has like three or four of them, too

(I'd actually consider the A-wing a must-buy if you will only play with official components - not for the ship, but I would hate the idea of not having PTL to go with my interceptor blister... even on other pilots than soontir it's well worth it).

if anything the real question mark ship is the advanced (and no that's not just due to me STILL not finding any in stock anywhere... ) - however I'd imagine that would be different if you dislike the firespray, something has to provide a bit of staying power after all.

Vader is a good option for Swarm Tactics if you have a Howlrunner on the board too. Remember 40k principles - target saturation. Nothing beats shooting the hell out of my opponent's Howlrunner (with Swarm Tactics) and watching the rest of his TIEs become ineffectually useless. Vader's also not bad for missiles if you don't want to have to resort to the Firespray.

5... I have 5 lol.

Well 10 if you count the mini starship battles ones.

Christ I need help don't I lol....

 Manchu wrote:

This shot from BGG shows an A-Wing scaled "by eye" (lol) to the hangar picture:

I actually don't care about this kind of scale difference. In my mind, the A-Wing FFG sells looks big next to a X-Wing but I'm willing to accept that there is no such thing as an A-Wing to begin with and so scale is really a matter of what feels right in context. For me, a tiny little A-Wing miniature in this line seems lame.

While I don't have a problem with the current scale as is, I think I'd actually prefer having the a-wing at that size. When I first got my a-wing, I had trouble justifying the 2 hull compared with the TIE fighter's 3 hull and I just chalked it up to game balance (the a-wing has 2 shield to "make up for it"). At that size, I wouldn't have wondered why it had 2 hull compared to so many others at 3.

 warboss wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

This shot from BGG shows an A-Wing scaled "by eye" (lol) to the hangar picture:

I actually don't care about this kind of scale difference. In my mind, the A-Wing FFG sells looks big next to a X-Wing but I'm willing to accept that there is no such thing as an A-Wing to begin with and so scale is really a matter of what feels right in context. For me, a tiny little A-Wing miniature in this line seems lame.

While I don't have a problem with the current scale as is, I think I'd actually prefer having the a-wing at that size. When I first got my a-wing, I had trouble justifying the 2 hull compared with the TIE fighter's 3 hull and I just chalked it up to game balance (the a-wing has 2 shield to "make up for it"). At that size, I wouldn't have wondered why it had 2 hull compared to so many others at 3.

Could also simply be more fragile innards, less redundant systems, less armor, etc.

 Enigwolf wrote:

 Bolognesus wrote:
Still you just know MT11 has like three or four of them, too

(I'd actually consider the A-wing a must-buy if you will only play with official components - not for the ship, but I would hate the idea of not having PTL to go with my interceptor blister... even on other pilots than soontir it's well worth it).

if anything the real question mark ship is the advanced (and no that's not just due to me STILL not finding any in stock anywhere... ) - however I'd imagine that would be different if you dislike the firespray, something has to provide a bit of staying power after all.

Vader is a good option for Swarm Tactics if you have a Howlrunner on the board too. Remember 40k principles - target saturation. Nothing beats shooting the hell out of my opponent's Howlrunner (with Swarm Tactics) and watching the rest of his TIEs become ineffectually useless. Vader's also not bad for missiles if you don't want to have to resort to the Firespray.

Fair 'nuff. Never been much for pansy secondary weapons myself but I see your point.

 MajorTom11 wrote:
5... I have 5 lol.

Well 10 if you count the mini starship battles ones.

Christ I need help don't I lol....

...I think you're past that, mate

 Bolognesus wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

 Bolognesus wrote:
Still you just know MT11 has like three or four of them, too

(I'd actually consider the A-wing a must-buy if you will only play with official components - not for the ship, but I would hate the idea of not having PTL to go with my interceptor blister... even on other pilots than soontir it's well worth it).

if anything the real question mark ship is the advanced (and no that's not just due to me STILL not finding any in stock anywhere... ) - however I'd imagine that would be different if you dislike the firespray, something has to provide a bit of staying power after all.

Vader is a good option for Swarm Tactics if you have a Howlrunner on the board too. Remember 40k principles - target saturation. Nothing beats shooting the hell out of my opponent's Howlrunner (with Swarm Tactics) and watching the rest of his TIEs become ineffectually useless. Vader's also not bad for missiles if you don't want to have to resort to the Firespray.

Fair 'nuff. Never been much for pansy secondary weapons myself but I see your point.

My "pansy secondary weapons" combo on my Firespray averages between 2 hits+1 crit and 2 hits+2 crits at range 3. Expensive points options aside, when you're running a hoard list and you've exhausted Pilot/Medal and Modification upgrades and have a few points left, you might as well take something like an Assault Missile to fight other hoards or Homing Missiles to hit other evading-like ships, or Cluster Missile if you're expecting a YT-130 or another Firespray. Especially Cluster Missiles. YT-130's with their 1 evade don't like them given that you can effectively strip most of their shields in one turn of shooting.

I know
That firespray combo wouldn't happen to be the rather cheesy HLC combo, would it?
I know it's useful I just never find room for it and it doesn't quite have the appeal of other upgrades (ever seen a firespray barrel roll? great fun to see the smirk on your opponents face evaporate once you demolish his entire movement plan for a round with just that!)

 Bolognesus wrote:
Still you just know MT11 has like three or four of them, too

(I'd actually consider the A-wing a must-buy if you will only play with official components - not for the ship, but I would hate the idea of not having PTL to go with my interceptor blister... even on other pilots than soontir it's well worth it).

if anything the real question mark ship is the advanced (and no that's not just due to me STILL not finding any in stock anywhere... ) - however I'd imagine that would be different if you dislike the firespray, something has to provide a bit of staying power after all.

I 'regret' buying a second Advanced for the most part, but I still give one a lot of play, either as Vader or as a not especially cheap missile boat.