Listen to it (link on the page below) then go here to vote (It's near the bottom of the page, ep13 and needs BGG registration to vote):

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/162440/

Personally, I thought we (XW) had the better arguments and the AW defenders were rather objectionable, with constant interruptions…

Why can't people like what they like without the need for it be be "better" than something else?

Nothing against you, DrMikeReddy. Just askin'.

Why can't people like what they like without the need for it be be "better" than something else?

Nothing against you, DrMikeReddy. Just askin'.

Because Tom Vasal enjoys conflict when it comes to gaming?

I have to deal with this.....our game is better than your game crap all the time from the GW fanboys....and their W40K. I love telling them, "I used to play it....it was a good game....it just wasn't Star Wars!"

I DID to reflect that exact point, while explaining my preference for XW, and tried to avoid the "my Dad is bigger than yours" name calling. I think it IS worth a listen though…

I LOVE Star Trek....MONSTER fan. Own all of the original series, and available next gen on blu...every other episode on dvd. I'm an uber fan. Have been for the last 30 years.

Star Wars is a must for Sci-Fi fans...great movie. That is all.

X-Wing is the better game. It's better balanced. Flight Path system is NOT "naval combat", thus Attack Wing lacks immersion.

ACTA:Starfleet is a better system for space naval battles than flight path. It's a shame no one plays it and that the companies responsible for it move at a snails pace and are unreliable.

Anyway....X-Wing.

I DID to reflect that exact point, while explaining my preference for XW, and tried to avoid the "my Dad is bigger than yours" name calling. I think it IS worth a listen though…

i enjoy that podcast, and did consider submitting to argue for X-wing, but i don't know enough about AW to speak against it in X-Wing's favor.

I've played both systems and I think Mike articulated in the podcast some of the things that ultimately turned me off to Attack Wing.

Thinking about it, one point comes down to the attack/defense dice spread being smaller in X-Wing. This makes it less likely for ships (other than TIE Fighters, Interceptors, and A-Wings) to be one-shot in a shooting pass. With ships surviving a little longer and maneuvering being more important (since no ship in X-W has more than a 90 degree non-turret), the game feels tighter and more thrilling.

Attack Wing feels like it takes the novelty of the engine without understanding the nuance of making it work. Way back when before the game was released it felt like WK was trying to find a way to dump their lackluster minis in an engine people would buy. After playing it for about half a year this seems to be true. They licensed the FP system thinking it would be an instant win and so far it is... so long as they continually pump out crap and engineer the game to force players to need that crap in order to be competitive for the shiny exclusive prizes. So long as you have a disposable income to throw out in pursuit of the latest and greatest, Attack Wing works.

X-Wing might have fewer releases, longer waits in between, and dubious supply problems but that means the game is quality tested and worth the wait when it delivers. And you'll never have to worry about your favorite list(s) becoming obsolete in three months time.

X-wing has about 60% of the votes! (neutral being around 25%, and attack wing is at around 15%)

I've finally listened to this Podcast, and from my perspective i got the impression that the Attack Wing guys were rude (at least the one guy who insisted on talking over others), repetitive, and didn't articulate their point of view very well.

It makes me happy that "Fly Casual" was mentioned. I think this sums up the differences between the games perfectly...at least the mindset of the players anyway.

My only regret was not properly attributing Fly Casual to its US originators; I couldn't recall the names during the recording. I also didn't properly recognise the Team Covenant and UK X-Wing FaceBook communities, who had both contributed to my preparation. And of course the good people here. I truly believe the wider collective for X -Wing, if not perfect, is a lot more supportive than for other games.

My only regret was not properly attributing Fly Casual to its US originators; I couldn't recall the names during the recording. I also didn't properly recognise the Team Covenant and UK X-Wing FaceBook communities, who had both contributed to my preparation. And of course the good people here. I truly believe the wider collective for X -Wing, if not perfect, is a lot more supportive than for other games.

I believe that would be Hothie, aka Doug Kinney, first World Champ.

Ahh... 99% same **** game. Just pick your scifi flavor.

Eh... No, I think it's more than that DNot. Dice spread, behavior of actions, and list building choices make enough of a difference between both systems, not to mention the relationship between the manufacturer and consumer by means of organized events.

FFG releases unique versions of cards that are functionally indistinguishable from existing cards. WK offers one-of-a-kind cards that empower the haves over the have-nots, even if it's for only the next event.

I am curious to try attack wing just to see for myself whether the flight path system works for capital ships. That has been my biggest issue, it just doesn't seem like the movement system (as is at least) would capture the flavor of big ships.

Eh... No, I think it's more than that DNot. Dice spread, behavior of actions, and list building choices make enough of a difference between both systems, not to mention the relationship between the manufacturer and consumer by means of organized events.

FFG releases unique versions of cards that are functionally indistinguishable from existing cards. WK offers one-of-a-kind cards that empower the haves over the have-nots, even if it's for only the next event.

I am glad someone else sees the more than 1% difference I see!

…

I believe that would be Hothie, aka Doug Kinney, first World Champ.

Yes, Doug, the 1st World Champ. I remembered his name right after we'd recorded :-(

At least I'd mentioned Keith Wilson, who's the UK equvalent; an excellent swarm player who had decided that having fun was more important than winning, but has also been very accessible/supportive to fellow Brits, especially on FaceBook. Sadly, I don't see (but may be wrong) the same mentorship with Attack Wing

Capitalism vs. Communism.

I am curious to try attack wing just to see for myself whether the flight path system works for capital ships. That has been my biggest issue, it just doesn't seem like the movement system (as is at least) would capture the flavor of big ships.

I have both, and I enjoy both. Attack Wing has some nice features. There are more options for repairing shields in Attack Wing, which mitigates the dice spread a bit, plus there are far fewer ways to gain extra actions than in X-Wing.

One big difference I noticed was that the ships that can cloak do not have the Battle Stations action, which is the equivalent of Focus. So they may be rolling four or five attack dice but they can't alter the dice nearly as much as you can in X-Wing. Coupled with the shield repair options and the dice spread isn't nearly the factor you'd think it is.

I think it captured the feel pretty well, if only because the Star Trek ships move a lot more like fighters than the similar sized ships in Star Wars do.

I have both games. Same game. Play what you like, just a game.

I have both games. Same game. Play what you like, just a game.

The attitude we should all have, toward just about everything.

I have both games. Same game. Play what you like, just a game.

The attitude we should all have, toward just about everything.

Agreed.

I am curious to try attack wing just to see for myself whether the flight path system works for capital ships. That has been my biggest issue, it just doesn't seem like the movement system (as is at least) would capture the flavor of big ships.

I have both, and I enjoy both. Attack Wing has some nice features. There are more options for repairing shields in Attack Wing, which mitigates the dice spread a bit, plus there are far fewer ways to gain extra actions than in X-Wing.

One big difference I noticed was that the ships that can cloak do not have the Battle Stations action, which is the equivalent of Focus. So they may be rolling four or five attack dice but they can't alter the dice nearly as much as you can in X-Wing. Coupled with the shield repair options and the dice spread isn't nearly the factor you'd think it is.

I think it captured the feel pretty well, if only because the Star Trek ships move a lot more like fighters than the similar sized ships in Star Wars do.

Honestly, the Romulans don't have as much dice modification, but the Klingons just have crew that does it for a relatively small cost compared to what it gets you. Moreover, since the agility dice are so low already, you don't use battlestations/focus much for defense anyway, so you just target lock instead to get the same attack power boost.

I'm a HUGE Star Trek Fan, so much so that my friends were shocked when I chose X-Wing over Attack Wing. When it comes down to it, there are many similarities, and just enough differences to add the right flavor to each. I have only played one game of Star Trek and several games of X-Wing, and I just like X-Wing better. Game play just seems smoother...but that is just my opinion. Either way I enjoyed them both. X-Wing however is also what is played in my area, and the nearest place to play Trek is over an hour away, so that factored into my decision as well.

Now from a completely different perspective, the "final" blow for my decision, was simply the fact that I felt like us Trek fans got the short end of the stick. I feel that for a game that is selling at the same price as X-Wing, should get the same level of detail and scale that X-Wing has. X-Wing has excellent detail, especially in comparison to Attack Wing. The makers of Attack Wing basically reused the molds from their other games, and did in my opinion, very bad paint jobs. The old Micro Machines look better then what they have put out. Then there is scale. X-wing does a good job in doing scale...Attack Wing does not. I understand that most ships in the Trek universe are "capitol" ships, but lets face it...size is important. Enterprise-D should be at least twice the size as the original 1701...Borg Cube should be way bigger compared to most other ships. Scale should be more important in attack wing. Well, again my opinion and with that....I will step off of my soap box.

it just doesn't seem like the movement system (as is at least) would capture the flavor of big ships.

To be fair, Star Trek cap ship fights aren't the same as Star Wars cap ship fights. In Star Wars it's a very WWII navy feel, in Star Trek it's completely different with a fair amount of moving around and trying to find angles to shoot from.

A Fed ship vs a Klingon Bird of Prey don't just sit still and pound the crap out of each other firing broadsides. I don't think the flight path system we use for fighters would work for a Star Wars cap ship game, but it does work fairly well for Star Trek.