Right, (and we're getting a LOT off topic here) but if you're going to design a 2D game that represents a 3D environment, why would you make it so that any time two objects overlap, there is a collision? Surely there could have been a more elegant solution?

Two words: abstract representation.

It's a bit of a clumsy abstract representation. Asteroids I can deal with, if you think of them more as a hazy representation of an asteroid field in general, rather than a specific asteroid in particular. Like, if you wind up on top of an asteroid, it doesn't literally represent crashing into that particular lump of rock, it just means that you've been unlucky or careless and worn some damage as a result. Having huge ships obliterate anything they come into contact with seems a bit much though.

Yup its the balance you have to strike between 'detail' and 'playability'

If xwing did require you to track height levels, had momentum/force/thrust mechanics, vectors and tons of modifiers as part of the basic rules it would be more like a simulation.... but it probably wouldnt have sold many copies.

Nearly every wargame uses abstractions to some degree

I mean i've played wargames with huge rulebooks that go for the detail side of things and to be honest they are cool once in a while but not really the hallmark of a great game.

One set of WWII skirmish rules i have takes into account how much fuel each tank has, it uses a different ammount while stationary and for each of its different move rates... you then have to put on a multiplier dependent on the terrain etc

Its detail but its tedious and doesnt actually add much to the game

It's a bit of a clumsy abstract representation. Asteroids I can deal with, if you think of them more as a hazy representation of an asteroid field in general, rather than a specific asteroid in particular. Like, if you wind up on top of an asteroid, it doesn't literally represent crashing into that particular lump of rock, it just means that you've been unlucky or careless and worn some damage as a result. Having huge ships obliterate anything they come into contact with seems a bit much though.

Yep but think of even that in a bigger picture.

Why does every stock battle take place in an ateroid field?

We know from the films its madness to go into them.

Because its an astraction to add a 'scenery/cover' gaming mechanic to the game that would otherwise be much more forgiving with movement dial choices.

Takes too **** long.

A thousand times this.

I don't want this to come off as insulting, because I surely do not mean it that way...

When you say "takes too **** long", do you feel this way because you do not have enough time to play longer games?

Or, do you find it less rewarding to play games that may take several hours to play?

Have you ever played a game of Monopoly or Risk to conclusion? Personally, I think those games take too long to play to conclusion.

I play a lot of wargames... have most of my life... multiple decades now... and an evening gaming with my friends, whether a dozen gamers or just two of us usually takes 3-4 hours (or longer), depending on the game and amount of side-bar conversation. I have never played a game of XWM, of any point value, that I felt took too long, as each moment I was playing, I was doing exactly what I enjoy doing.

WIN!

Exactly i mean have you ever played any old school card counter wargames, they take ages. A game of 'cards against humanity' can take a good few hours and thats possibly as simple as 'snap'.

As others have said 'talisman' or 'arkham horror' take about a day to play.

That 600 point battle of endor game took us about four hours and we had to stop playing (not because it wasnt fun but because my old spinal wound was playing up making it agony to even sit down let alone stand and its hard to play lying on the floor!) but by that point we pretty much knew what the outcome would be.

I think if you play epic with 'flights' of the same ship it doesnt take too long, especially in the opening moves as they all tend to be taking the same move and action. its only after the first contact that things can slow down a bit.

It also helps if you both really know your list before playing. Again taking say 'two flights of four A wings' with similar or identical 'canon' upgrades actually is faster than having a new list with five different ships with completely different upgrades.

I'd agree that , yes it takes longer than a standard game but i'd rather play one three hour game of epic a week than five one hour 100 point games.

I actually get more enjoyment per minute out of the epic format.

Its just so cool to actually have flight engage each other in their true role and for each flight to have a purpose.

As said, its much cooler knowing your bomber flight is there to take out the rebel huge ships, you dont have to worry about dogfighting the bombers... they have a fighter escort

Yep - some sort of visual identifier would be ideal - the rings would be possibly better (if more labor intensive!) as it has the added bonus of being easier to count at a glance...

Ha! You could, but the visual appeal is a big part of X-Wing isn't it?

I'm eagerly awaiting the raider. I've not played an epic game, but the thought of two big ship cracking each other while ties and x-wings dog fight around them is a great visual to me. The battle of vendor, and playing games like x-wing alliance on the pc cemented my love for that imagery.

thaaaaaaaaats armada lol

Ship to ship overlaps emulate the up close and personal "in your face" nature of Star Wars dogfights, provide an elegant alternative to "stacking" models with stands and miniatures, and add tactical options to the game.

Ship to asteroid overlaps emulate the deadly chaos of Star Wars asteroid fields (see TESB) and add tactical options to the game.

And I think the game emulates both of those things perfectly fine.

But capitol ships are neither "in your face" nor "deadly chaos". They're slow, predictable, and easily visible. Yet their "touch it and you're dead" rule makes it the MOST dangerous thing to fly near. Even though the films are full of iconic scenes of fighters flying close above and below the hulls of such ships.

Touching capitol ships should be no different than touching any other type of ship. If you have the movement to clear it, you pass over it harmlessly. If you end up overlapping it's base, you stop short, can't take an action(because you're focusing on not running into it), and can't shoot at it.

It is a bit strange that, in space, things like obstacles have such a profound effect. I can understand when you're dogfighting that if you wind up on top of an enemy ship that you might have to veer out of the way and be unable to attack them. But why do our pilots always crash into asteroids? Why can't they scatter out of the way when a large ship is bearing down on them?

Your pilots crash because you are commanding them to...You can scatter out of the way...you plan a manuver that will turn your ship out of the way...you might have to sacrifice a shot it two though as you come back around...or do you not feel you should have to do that?

I feel that in a three dimensional environment, I should be able to fly under or over things with no penalty. Now obviously if I'm right on top of my opponent then it would be hard to get a shot away, but why do I always happen tobe at the exact same altitude as every asteroid on the map? And why does every dogfight take place in an asteroid field? I realise that certain abstractions are required to make a 2D game work, but I feel like they're a bit counter intuitive in some cases.

As others have said, abstract or just the Star Warsy feel to the game, but I'll also add game balance. With out asteroids it makes of far easier for certain ships. That isn't to say if if you were having a space combat you wouldn't avoid asteroids any less than you'd avoid ground level trees and building in an aerial combat. But the the second Star Wars movie (Empire Strikes Back), the abstract way the game is represented and game balance you'll find asteroids in this system. All three.

Yup its the balance you have to strike between 'detail' and 'playability'

If xwing did require you to track height levels, had momentum/force/thrust mechanics, vectors and tons of modifiers as part of the basic rules it would be more like a simulation.... but it probably wouldnt have sold many copies.

Nearly every wargame uses abstractions to some degree

I mean i've played wargames with huge rulebooks that go for the detail side of things and to be honest they are cool once in a while but not really the hallmark of a great game.

One set of WWII skirmish rules i have takes into account how much fuel each tank has, it uses a different ammount while stationary and for each of its different move rates... you then have to put on a multiplier dependent on the terrain etc

Its detail but its tedious and doesnt actually add much to the game

In Harpoon you add your remaining fuel to the damage a missile can do upon impact.

Ship to ship overlaps emulate the up close and personal "in your face" nature of Star Wars dogfights, provide an elegant alternative to "stacking" models with stands and miniatures, and add tactical options to the game.

Ship to asteroid overlaps emulate the deadly chaos of Star Wars asteroid fields (see TESB) and add tactical options to the game.

And I think the game emulates both of those things perfectly fine.

But capitol ships are neither "in your face" nor "deadly chaos". They're slow, predictable, and easily visible. Yet their "touch it and you're dead" rule makes it the MOST dangerous thing to fly near. Even though the films are full of iconic scenes of fighters flying close above and below the hulls of such ships.

Touching capitol ships should be no different than touching any other type of ship. If you have the movement to clear it, you pass over it harmlessly. If you end up overlapping it's base, you stop short, can't take an action(because you're focusing on not running into it), and can't shoot at it.

Actually it is exactly like that. ONLY if the huge ship overlaps them in ITS own movement small and large ships are destroyed. If they fly into a small ship its the same than landing on a base plus you roll for a damage.

But capitol ships are neither "in your face" nor "deadly chaos". They're slow, predictable, and easily visible. Yet their "touch it and you're dead" rule makes it the MOST dangerous thing to fly near. Even though the films are full of iconic scenes of fighters flying close above and below the hulls of such ships...

I think Arvel Crynyd would beg to differ on that one.

But yeah. As anyone who's flown anywhere near a capital ship in any of the X-Wing games will tell you, they ARE "in your face", and they ARE "deadly chaos". (Rebel Transport aside), they're heavily armed behemoths looking to defend themselves, with point-defence laser systems, tractor beams, engine wakes that can shake a ship apart and other assorted anti-starfighter measures. Which brings us back again to abstract representation.

I think X-wing went for easy access. I've seen wargames where you have to roll for the weather after so many rounds. I've seen games that talk about how much fuel and ammo there is. There are all sorts of rules that go for realism. They tend to only attract the die hard fans. If you want something that almost anyone will get into, you have to keep it simple. You start introducing the third dimension and you go too far one way. X-wing is an easy access game. I like it that way.

I think X-wing went for easy access. I've seen wargames where you have to roll for the weather after so many rounds. I've seen games that talk about how much fuel and ammo there is. There are all sorts of rules that go for realism. They tend to only attract the die hard fans. If you want something that almost anyone will get into, you have to keep it simple. You start introducing the third dimension and you go too far one way. X-wing is an easy access game. I like it that way.

On the other hand, if you REALLY want a third dimention... look up Saganami Island Tactical Simulator. It's a minaures game where the mechanics of 3d space movement have been made really easy- the problem is that trying to wrap your head around the tactics implied by that same freedom sends players into catonia. Which is an issue with players, not the game itself.

Yeah, there are a ton of other rule systems...or modified rule systems that can use X-wing minis and be more in depth.

Scenarios is where it is all at - Played Raid on Fondor and the ships came out in totally different roles.. The Interceptor could use its awesome speed to get from one end of the battle to the other. The Tie Bombers came in as reinforcements and crippled the Corvette with torps and missiles. The A-wing served as a great interceptor etc. And there is plenty of tactical sub-objectives for 2 players on each side.

Battle of Fondor by Babaganoosh:

For a full on cinematic Epic mission (with the big ships) there is also this Battle of Endor mission (Warning: shameless plug) covering the battle to suvive outside the second Death Star as well as the fight through the tunnels:

http://tools.fantasyflightgames.com/xwing/home/4139/

If you play it i would be happy to have some feedback...

But capitol ships are neither "in your face" nor "deadly chaos". They're slow, predictable, and easily visible. Yet their "touch it and you're dead" rule makes it the MOST dangerous thing to fly near. Even though the films are full of iconic scenes of fighters flying close above and below the hulls of such ships...

I think Arvel Crynyd would beg to differ on that one.

But yeah. As anyone who's flown anywhere near a capital ship in any of the X-Wing games will tell you, they ARE "in your face", and they ARE "deadly chaos". (Rebel Transport aside), they're heavily armed behemoths looking to defend themselves, with point-defence laser systems, tractor beams, engine wakes that can shake a ship apart and other assorted anti-starfighter measures. Which brings us back again to abstract representation.

Oh, so THAT was Arvel... wow. His ability is so suiting...

Yeah, there are a ton of other rule systems...or modified rule systems that can use X-wing minis and be more in depth.

I prefer to just fix the few mes-sups in these FFG rules and then add a million cool cards of my own. New gear, titles, and EPT's are all you need IMO.

Our X-Wing is pretty **** good already... but it needs a little boost that will maybe come in a year or not from FFG.

Me no gonna wait all dat years... I can (like most of we ole War-Doggs) "just make up" my own stuff too!

MY CANNON IS CANNON... as much so as the punk kids that are currently making up new Star Wars Ooo-Fish-Alll-Cannon stuff.

I know all bout dat glorious STAR WARS... thanks. Now if you wanna add some new films to the three films we have now, and a few new good books too... okay bring it.

But if it ain't feeling right it ain't gonna stay in my **** houses.

Actually it is exactly like that. ONLY if the huge ship overlaps them in ITS own movement small and large ships are destroyed.

Wait, so if a ship gets Ioned when it's moving in on a like a Corvette and is forced to fly into it, it doesn't get destroyed?

I'll agree with Chucknuckle and others that epic really needs a narrative backdrop to make it (more) compelling. Inculcating that requires community.

Just playing epic, and even more so scenarios, and much more still campaigns, requires a fairly tight-knit community of players. If you don't have that - a person who has the initiative to put it together, and a community who will reward that person for her/his efforts by following through and playing the game - then it's kind of doomed to failure and possibly resentment.

Come fall/winter, I'm hoping to get an integrated campaign together, which will bring together X-Wing, X-Wing epic, Armada and maybe even Imperial Assault. By that time, we'll have the Raider and the Scum faction as well as the newer games will have come into their own a bit more. Also, by that time, I'll know if I have a supportive community that will play the games that I will spend time crafting.

Yeah, when a small or large ship flies into a huge ship, it isn't destroyed outright. Only when the huge ship finishes its movement on them. Esentially the pilot's got the idea into their head that a huge ship is best used as a battering ram to crush enemy fighters, risking damage to said huge ship itself.

Wait, so if a ship gets Ioned when it's moving in on a like a Corvette and is forced to fly into it, it doesn't get destroyed?

Nope. Only if the Corvette flies into it. Page 7 in the Tantive IV rulebook:

SMALL/LARGE SHIPS OVERLAPPING A HUGE SHIP:

When a small or large ship executes a manuever and the final position of the base overlaps a huge ship, the overlapping ship must follow the rules under "Plastic Bases Overlapping" described on page 17 of the core set rulebook. Additionally,the player controlling the overlapping ship rolls one attack dice and suffers any damage (hit) or critical damage (crit) rolled.

As someone that has, for hundreds of hours, I'll tell you that, no, they are NOT.

Uh-huh. So with all those hundred of hours playing the X-Wing games, can you tell me where you took the most damage? Took the most laser hits? Suffered the most fatal ship collisions? Flying in close proximity to those enemy capital ships, or in open space, half a dozen clicks away from them?

There's a reason why your wingmen warn you when you're getting to close, you know.

Uh-huh. So with all those hundred of hours playing the X-Wing games, can you tell me where you took the most damage? Took the most laser hits? Suffered the most fatal ship collisions? Flying in close proximity to those enemy capital ships, or in open space, half a dozen clicks away from them?

Of course "most" ship collisions happen near capital ships. "Most" in this instance being "more than zero". I still made thousands of safe passes above and below those ships for every 1 time I actually ran into one of them.

My point is, again, that's it's not ******* chaotic. Not like an asteroid field or a starfighter furball is.

There's nothing chaotic about capital ships. You weave in on the turrets till you destroy enough to create a blind spot, then you sit in said blind spot and shoot the thing until it explodes, or it jumps away. And if you aren't ready to do that, because there are enemy fighters in the area or something, you sit outside range of it's guns, where all it can do is sit there and move 1mph.

What happens when a small ship collides with a huge ship and then the huge ships moves and ends up touching that same ship?

Here are a few scenarios I came up with after putting some thought into Epic this weekend:

Capture the Flag:

-Set up lengthwise on a 6x3

-Deployment range 1-2 of edge

-Each faction assigns a "flag token" [proton bomb token]

-Flag token is deployed within range 1 of the deployment zone

-To get a hold of the flag token, base must overlap it

-Ships holding the flag token gain the boost and barrel action and cannot perform attacks

-If the flag holder is destroyed, the flag token is set along the front or back pegs before the ship that was holding it is removed

-To return the flag to its deployment zone, a ship from the defending team must overlap the token

-The flag token is captured when both flags are in the team's flag deployment zone

Winning:

-The game is won when one team captures the enemy flag any number of times decided on, recommended once without Respawn Rules and three times with Respawn Rules

Special rules:

-Large base ships holding the flag token do not gain the barrel roll action

-A ship holding a flag token cannot overlap a friendly flag token to return it

Sabotage:

-Set up lengthwise on a 6x3

-One team plays as the defenders and the other team is the saboteurs

-Saboteurs assign a ship with the "bomb token" [proton bomb token]

-If the ship holding the bomb token is destroyed, another friendly ship may overlap it to pick it up

-Defenders assign a large ship base "target" within range 1 with its pegs parellel of the deployment zone edge

-The large ship base "target" is considered to be PS1 and has a 360 degree arc and can move 1-2 straight in any direction parallel to the deployment zone edge

Winning:

-The saboteurs win if the ship holding the bomb token overlaps the defenders' large ship base "target"

-The defenders win if they destroy the ship holding the bomb token and overlap the bomb token

Special Rules:

-The large ship base "target" cannot fly off the board

-Saboteurs must assign the bomb token to a small-base ship when deploying, a large base ship is allowed to pick it up if the deployed ship is destroyed

Respawn Rules:

-Before the beginning of the activation phase, each player rolls an attack die. On a hit result, the player's opponent picks one of the player's destroyed ships and that player deploys it within range 1 of their deployment zone edge. On a crit result, the player gets to pick which ship to deploy within range 1 of the deployment zone edge.

Let me know if it seems I am missing anything or if there are kinks I need to work out! I plan on trying these out tomorrow night!