How's a rebel corvette equal to half the hull strength of an imperial VSD?

Also why only 6 turns? Seems limiting. Much like Risk 2110 the boardgame. Makes for just a rush... Especially the last round. Not strategy

I think it's to keep the game down time wise.

Also, it isn't a kill them all type game. The round limit is there I think to help make the objective cards more interesting. The Most Wanted one has an End of the Game condition, so I suspect some will modify who wins based on how things are at the end of the game.

Why? you ask. Tune in next week...

tactical game....nix strategic...

I wonder if the turn limit ensures the missions remain more important than just the destruction of your enemy? On the assumption you win if you break all your opponents toys by the end of the game, thus there being two ways to win any given game.

If the game goes for an indefinite number of turns some players will just ignore the mission and go for destruction of the enemy fleet. Mind you, there could be a mission that is just destroy everything and you have as long as it takes.

I wonder if the turn limit ensures the missions remain more important than just the destruction of your enemy? On the assumption you win if you break all your opponents toys by the end of the game, thus there being two ways to win any given game.

This.

And, I don't see why any of us cant 'break the rules' and simply continue to keep playing after Round 6.

Thoughts?

First question? Balance. Yeah, it's not the most elegant solution (and one more chip on the "should've done corvette squadrons" stack) but not balancing hull values would have led to an unbalanced core set. Which would be... bad. On many levels.

Second question? I'd guess tournaments. Miniature wargames often have a turn cap for tournament play, and X-wing showed there is a very good scene for Star Wars miniature wargaming tournaments. You can happily ignore turn caps in private games and just go for a deathmatch anyway.

I've played WH:40K and WH:FB for years, I have never been bothered by the turn limit.

It doesn't make for rush games in my opinion.

And, I don't see why any of us cant 'break the rules' and simply continue to keep playing after Round 6.

Thoughts?

Go for it, its your recreation time, you should be having fun.

I've played WH:40K and WH:FB for years, I have never been bothered by the turn limit.

It doesn't make for rush games in my opinion.

I went from these games to Flames of War, it doesn't have a turn limit for many missions, it generally has a time limit though. At first I found I was rushing trying to win in 6 turns, I play against people who you can tell are transitioning from 40k into Flames because they do rush and make mistakes where they attack a fortified position without softening it up.

In 40k you may not feel rushed, because you and your opponent are in the same boat, and therefore the tempo of your attacks are modified by this.

I think for me, learning to play to the 6 turn limit will be a challenge. But, one I am looking forwards to, very much.

Hmmm, never got around to playing Flames of War.

Interesting point of view though.

How does the pace of FoW compare to X-Wing? Seeing as X-Wing doesn't have a turn limit either.

As to the hull points issue, I imagine that one (or more) of the 3 Upgrade Icons on the Victory-class that don't appear on the CR90 will greatly increase the durability of the ship. They mentioned also that there is a 'Repair' action that can repair hull and regenerate shields. They didn't go into specifics, but each ship has an 'Engineering' value which, of course, is higher on the Victory-class, and probably influences how many shields or hull points may be repaired.

It doesn't all have to be represented in raw numbers.

How does the pace of FoW compare to X-Wing? Seeing as X-Wing doesn't have a turn limit either.

I am going to answer this by saying I enjoy both games because they are different and each gives me tactical and strategic challenges. So making direct comparisions is quite difficult, plus I haven't played as much X-Wing as I would like and therefore my inexperience could show through.

With respect to pace, I fence and we use the term tempo. I like this term as it reflects the speed of the delivery of our attacks. We can start slow and end slow, start slow and end fast, by changing our tempo we can control the match. In some regards both X-Wing and Flames have the same potential to have a variety of tempo used.

Perhaps in X-Wing you have a squadron that flicks around the edges and takes long range shots, then closes in once it has killed one or two opposition, in terms of tempo you have a slow-fast army. Can this work against a fast-fast squadron? I can't see why not. And just like my fencing the player that takes control of the tempo will have a big advantage.

Not too sure a slow-slow army is viable in either game as there is a time limit, I have seen a friend play a great army in Flames but he fell flat in a competition because he consistantly needed 10-15minutes more each game.

The trouble in a six turn game can be you don't allow the a slow tempo army to be a viable strategy. Both players build a fast-fast army and end up fighting over the middle of the board. At least as a high level generalisation. I enjoyed 40k for this, it creates a level of high action that is fast paced and very viceral.