Really making a big controversy in the miniatures space. All the GW haters are splashing about the webs. Meanwhile 3 days to go and still needs a good chunk of change to get funded.
So I just picked up two sets of X-Wing Miniature Core Sets, and this game seems incredibly elegantly designed! I love the movement system, and the amount of prediction required to catch your opponent off-guard.
I also love that I don't have to paint my own minis, and that each mini can serve as multiple different pilots.
It is an incredibly well balanced game with no dominant strategy (although there are a handful of competing popular ones).
My only suggestions are to play by the tournament rules. They honestly make for the best possible game experience. Play 100pts vs 100pts, with all 6 of the asteroids, on a standard 3'x3' table size, and limit the match to at most 75 minutes (60 is cool too).
I really can't say enough good things about the game. Took me two years to find something to bitch about (them selling useful cards in expensive large ships that a 100pt tournament player shouldn't be interested in).
If you have any questions about the game, I could talk forever about it.
Ah, I got one! Have you seen the Star Trek Attack Wing games (which seem like a blatant ripoff, if you ask me), and how does that scene compare to X-Wing's?
The game looks like shit, and the publisher runs it like shit. Some people like it and I've just written them off as fanboys. I've seen people who prefer it to X-Wing b/c they don't like playing Rebels vs. Rebels or Imperial vs. Imperial, which often happens.
The game is more focused on less ships, but managing the crew on those ships (a natural step to take for a Star Trek game). I've glanced at the rules and it simply doesn't seem as much fun as X-Wing.
Edit: My comments on the publisher relate to how many waves WizKids pumps out vs. how frequently FFG pushes new product. They also sell ships in RANDOM BOOSTERS, and have game-changing exclusive stuff tied to promotions and events. The model quality is also quite poor.
They're also creating a D&D dragon-flying game using the same rules base as X-Wing and Attack Wing (called the FlightPath system, a derivative of WWII flying game Wings of War, although FFG disputes FlightPath is legally distinct from WoW and pays no royalties. The WoW designer was originally involved and then cut out of the project. oooooooh juicy.)
In Star Trek the ships stand perfect still in outer space while taking turns firing lasers that always hit. You would think with such advanced technology that combat would be a lot faster.
Meanwhile in the Star Wars universe, they have developed the very advanced technology of space ships that move.
They also sell ships in RANDOM BOOSTERS, and have game-changing exclusive stuff tied to promotions and events. The model quality is also quite poor.
God, I hate that. I looked at a ton of their models, and they look like absolute garbage. The "random boosters" aspect of the purchase model just clinches Attack Wing as a simple "me too" cash-in.
I'm definitely more than content with X-Wing (I have more respect for Fantasy Flight's games overall), and I'm hoping they keep adding more to this game in the coming years.
In Star Trek the ships stand perfect still in outer space while taking turns firing lasers that always hit. You would think with such advanced technology that combat would be a lot faster.
Meanwhile in the Star Wars universe, they have developed the very advanced technology of space ships that move.
Actually, I think it's more of a case that in Star Trek the targeting technology is so good that essentially the only way to win a battle is to basically make your capital ships so heavily armored/shielded (with the occasional use of clever maneuvering to try to confuse your enemy's targeting systems, a la the Picard Maneuver) that they can win in a slugfest that comes down to which ship can take the biggest beating. The handful of times we've seen space fighters akin to X-Wings or TIEs in Star Trek, they get picked off in seconds.
They do have some smaller ships that dart around a bit more than the big ones, such as the Defiant in DS9, but they certainly do not appear to dart around as much as the fighters do in Star Wars.
Compare that to your average Imperial Star Destroyer or, worse, the Death Star, which seems completely incapable of locking on to and hitting an X-Wing. The same seems to apply when it comes to Rebel ships trying to take out TIEs. Either the targeting technology in Star Wars is utter junk compared to Trek, or they have some crazy ass ECM that basically means only visual targeting is possible in that universe.
If all weapons always hit because targeting is so good, then the results of any battle are a foregone conclusion. It comes down to how how much of a beating each side can take , how much damage they can deal, and how quickly they can deal that damage.
Imagine a video game where you had to design ships according to these rules, and everyone had equal tech. I would design completely automated ships. They warp to the enemy location, deploy more than enough ordinance to destroy the enemy as quickly as possible, and then warp away if possible. If the escape fails, who cares? The result of the war would be solely determined by who had more resources and ship building capacity.
If all weapons always hit because targeting is so good, then the results of any battle are a foregone conclusion. It comes down to how how much of a beating each side can take , how much damage they can deal, and how quickly they can deal that damage.
That pretty much describes most battles in Star Trek. In a straight-up, no funky trickery (like sneaking up on your enemy by being cloaked) battle in Star Trek, it's always the side with the most and/or biggest, baddest ships that wins any particular battle. Admittedly, "standard" Star Trek battles among enemies familiar to each other (i.e. both sides have a decent idea of what the other side can throw at them) aren't as exciting as Star Wars battles due to this.
In order to make their battles interesting/exciting, Star Trek always seems to pull one of these tricks:
Side A has cloaking technology where Side B doesn't, therefore Side B needs to find some way to crack the cloaking technology otherwise they'd be overwhelmed with sneak attacks.
Side A has some new exotic weapon or shielding system that lets them completely own Side B's ships. If a rematch occurs later on, Side B may have developed countermeasures against Side A's new tech. Lather, rinse, repeat.
The battle takes place in an environment that negates the targeting and/or shielding technology, forcing the ships to maneuver and use tactics other than just pounding each other silly. The classic example is the Mutara Nebula in Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan.
Side A's ships are vastly superior to Side B's. Side B therefore needs to come up with some sort of unorthodox strategy to defeat Side A. For example, Side B may use a short range warp to confuse Side A's targeting systems by making it appear as if the ship is in two places at once (the aforementioned Picard Maneuver). Another example would be Side B somehow hacking Side A's ship's computer in order to disable its shields and/or weapons.
Of course, Star Trek is rarely about the battles, whereas Star Wars (as the name implies) is all about the battles. Star Trek fans may like seeing spaceships duke it out as much as the next guy, but they'll readily admit that they don't watch the show expecting to see "awesome battles." Sure, they'll get an episode or movie with some really cool battles now and again, but they typically use some variant of the above rules to make them more interesting.
Typically, a meeting between enemy ships in Star Trek ends up mostly with posturing and sabre rattling as opposed to battling, kind of like the meetings between US fighter jets and Russian bombers up near Alaska during the Cold War (and to a lesser extent even now).
Imagine a video game where you had to design ships according to these rules, and everyone had equal tech. I would design completely automated ships. They warp to the enemy location, deploy more than enough ordinance to destroy the enemy as quickly as possible, and then warp away if possible. If the escape fails, who cares? The result of the war would be solely determined by who had more resources and ship building capacity.
Very true, and it probably wouldn't make for the most exciting game either. Star Trek at least justifies what it does somewhat by indicating that, for the most part, all the major powers had roughly comparable resources and ship building capacity.
That's not to say there's anything wrong with Star Wars either. I like both, albeit for different reasons.
If your opponent has stealth, and you don't, you should be dead before you even know a battle is happening. If you know they are there, but just can't target them, then RUN away. You've got warp and shit. Just go all the way home instantly. It's better than dying.
If your opponent has stealth, and you don't, you should be dead before you even know a battle is happening. If you know they are there, but just can't target them, then RUN away. You've got warp and shit. Just go all the way home instantly. It's better than dying.
In general, yeah, at least if it's perfect stealth. If it's imperfect stealth, you may have a chance. No one in Star Trek has perfect stealth, although, they still generally follow the rule of thumb of "not getting into a battle against an enemy with stealth if you can avoid it," like you said. However, for when they absolutely must engage an enemy with stealth, the stealth in Star Trek is also gimped somewhat in that it's an active stealth technology that uses so much power that you can't use your shields, can't run your engines at full power, and usually can't use your weapons when it's turned on. Even if you can use your weapons when it's turned on, using them alerts the enemy to your presence and they can then recalibrate their targeting systems to home in on your exhaust, weapons fire, etc. Finally, it is also possible to set up anti-stealth "tripwires" such that while your stealth will allow you to sneak up on individual ships, it won't let you sneak across a border (or a network of ships) set up with such tripwires. Stealth in Star Trek works that it lets you get the first hit in, but you'd better be able to take out your enemy with that first hit, otherwise if they survive there's going to be a whole lot of hurt headed back at you.
Can invent weapons that never miss. Can go faster than light. Can't generate enough power to hide and shield at the same time. lolololol
Stealth in space is freaking hard. Even with our present day technology, we can detect something that's only a tenth of a degree warmer than ambient space at least as far away as Pluto.
Besides, it's science fiction and you gotta deal with the rules of the universe as set within the work. If the rules say stealth is hard to pull off due to the power constraints, then you gotta flow with it.
I could turn your statement around for one of your favorite (okay, mine too, but hey, I'm playing devil's advocate here) works and say "Can go faster than light. Can blow up entire planets. Can't target enemy ships with anything but the naked eye. lolololol"
I'm saying that whoever decided on the rules of the Star Trek universe made some really stupid choices.
Star Wars bad targeting? That's easy to explain. They actually have incredible targeting systems. The ships are just that ludicrously fast. If you slow down, you die.
Also, the three good Star Wars movies are basically during the dark ages. The battles are shitty because shit got worse. A full tech Star Wars battle is like that early scene in Episode III.
Can invent weapons that never miss. Can go faster than light. Can't generate enough power to hide and shield at the same time. lolololol
Since we're Gandalf girthing, there's a pretty simple response to that.
Stealth technology has to do a lot of work to mask the power that you're using on everything else (and, for that matter, on the stealth system itself), and you can't use shields because the EM signature would be essentially impossible to mask .
Most depictions of space combat look like terrestrial flight battles with the ground removed.
Very true. The only shows I can think of that did it more or less realistically (well, at least as realistic as could be expected -- i.e. it looked like they took place in space as opposed to in an atmosphere that looked like space) were Firefly (IIRC) and Babylon 5.
New Battlestar Galactica was pretty good about it too, if I remember correctly, but I didn't watch much of that show, so I might be wrong. I remember vipers pulling a bunch of maneuvers that would be practically impossible(Or in some cases, just straight up impossible) in air, rather than space.
Good point about new BSG. I forgot about that. There even were scenes of the Vipers puffing their reaction control jets in order to flip about and pull off their crazy zero-g maneuvers.
I'd imagine most space battles would be more U-Boat combat rather than Age of Sail broadside slugouts. It'd probably be 90% information and sensor warfare where ships would try to slingshot torpedos missiles around planets from the other side of the solar system and try to hide their signature using radiation and gravitational fields.
Comments
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1613260297/golem-arcana?ref=live
Really making a big controversy in the miniatures space. All the GW haters are splashing about the webs. Meanwhile 3 days to go and still needs a good chunk of change to get funded.
I also love that I don't have to paint my own minis, and that each mini can serve as multiple different pilots.
My only suggestions are to play by the tournament rules. They honestly make for the best possible game experience. Play 100pts vs 100pts, with all 6 of the asteroids, on a standard 3'x3' table size, and limit the match to at most 75 minutes (60 is cool too).
I really can't say enough good things about the game. Took me two years to find something to bitch about (them selling useful cards in expensive large ships that a 100pt tournament player shouldn't be interested in).
If you have any questions about the game, I could talk forever about it.
The game is more focused on less ships, but managing the crew on those ships (a natural step to take for a Star Trek game). I've glanced at the rules and it simply doesn't seem as much fun as X-Wing.
Edit: My comments on the publisher relate to how many waves WizKids pumps out vs. how frequently FFG pushes new product. They also sell ships in RANDOM BOOSTERS, and have game-changing exclusive stuff tied to promotions and events. The model quality is also quite poor.
They're also creating a D&D dragon-flying game using the same rules base as X-Wing and Attack Wing (called the FlightPath system, a derivative of WWII flying game Wings of War, although FFG disputes FlightPath is legally distinct from WoW and pays no royalties. The WoW designer was originally involved and then cut out of the project. oooooooh juicy.)
Meanwhile in the Star Wars universe, they have developed the very advanced technology of space ships that move.
I'm definitely more than content with X-Wing (I have more respect for Fantasy Flight's games overall), and I'm hoping they keep adding more to this game in the coming years.
They do have some smaller ships that dart around a bit more than the big ones, such as the Defiant in DS9, but they certainly do not appear to dart around as much as the fighters do in Star Wars.
Compare that to your average Imperial Star Destroyer or, worse, the Death Star, which seems completely incapable of locking on to and hitting an X-Wing. The same seems to apply when it comes to Rebel ships trying to take out TIEs. Either the targeting technology in Star Wars is utter junk compared to Trek, or they have some crazy ass ECM that basically means only visual targeting is possible in that universe.
Imagine a video game where you had to design ships according to these rules, and everyone had equal tech. I would design completely automated ships. They warp to the enemy location, deploy more than enough ordinance to destroy the enemy as quickly as possible, and then warp away if possible. If the escape fails, who cares? The result of the war would be solely determined by who had more resources and ship building capacity.
That's exactly how space wars are determined.
In order to make their battles interesting/exciting, Star Trek always seems to pull one of these tricks:
- Side A has cloaking technology where Side B doesn't, therefore Side B needs to find some way to crack the cloaking technology otherwise they'd be overwhelmed with sneak attacks.
- Side A has some new exotic weapon or shielding system that lets them completely own Side B's ships. If a rematch occurs later on, Side B may have developed countermeasures against Side A's new tech. Lather, rinse, repeat.
- The battle takes place in an environment that negates the targeting and/or shielding technology, forcing the ships to maneuver and use tactics other than just pounding each other silly. The classic example is the Mutara Nebula in Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan.
- Side A's ships are vastly superior to Side B's. Side B therefore needs to come up with some sort of unorthodox strategy to defeat Side A. For example, Side B may use a short range warp to confuse Side A's targeting systems by making it appear as if the ship is in two places at once (the aforementioned Picard Maneuver). Another example would be Side B somehow hacking Side A's ship's computer in order to disable its shields and/or weapons.
Of course, Star Trek is rarely about the battles, whereas Star Wars (as the name implies) is all about the battles. Star Trek fans may like seeing spaceships duke it out as much as the next guy, but they'll readily admit that they don't watch the show expecting to see "awesome battles." Sure, they'll get an episode or movie with some really cool battles now and again, but they typically use some variant of the above rules to make them more interesting.Typically, a meeting between enemy ships in Star Trek ends up mostly with posturing and sabre rattling as opposed to battling, kind of like the meetings between US fighter jets and Russian bombers up near Alaska during the Cold War (and to a lesser extent even now). Very true, and it probably wouldn't make for the most exciting game either. Star Trek at least justifies what it does somewhat by indicating that, for the most part, all the major powers had roughly comparable resources and ship building capacity.
That's not to say there's anything wrong with Star Wars either. I like both, albeit for different reasons.
Besides, it's science fiction and you gotta deal with the rules of the universe as set within the work. If the rules say stealth is hard to pull off due to the power constraints, then you gotta flow with it.
I could turn your statement around for one of your favorite (okay, mine too, but hey, I'm playing devil's advocate here) works and say "Can go faster than light. Can blow up entire planets. Can't target enemy ships with anything but the naked eye. lolololol"
Star Wars bad targeting? That's easy to explain. They actually have incredible targeting systems. The ships are just that ludicrously fast. If you slow down, you die.
Also, the three good Star Wars movies are basically during the dark ages. The battles are shitty because shit got worse. A full tech Star Wars battle is like that early scene in Episode III.
Stealth technology has to do a lot of work to mask the power that you're using on everything else (and, for that matter, on the stealth system itself), and you can't use shields because the EM signature would be essentially impossible to mask .
Real laser weapons work like this.
Not like this
SABOT rounds too.