Oh I certainly am very happy with the responses in general, there were just some that were a bit lacking and mainly negative.

Lets not stay on this too much, though, the topic at hand is way more interesting

I sometimes feel like we focus way too much on listbuilding when that is almost never going to win you a game, while good manouvering certainly will. That thread about piloting A-Wings in the squadbuilding section was really interesting (changing formation and reforming it), we need a bit more of that! Although of course by their nature lists are the component of the game most easily discussed.

I had posted that Attack Wing article on BGG up about 22.5 degrees, which allows a 3 bank to go about as far forward as a 2 straight had you lined up "normal". It also allows bobbing and weaving, while still leaving you in a semi-jousting orientation. The big advantage is when you add in barrel rolling, because small based ships can then potentially barrel roll into arc, leaving your straight ship without a shot. If you line up straight on, barrel rolling effectively is negated with a small ship to small ship combat, because you'll both be in or out of a shot. You may even find a better path through the asteroids/debris with any angle as opposed to straight on. I make sure to spread asteroids out to try and negate this effect.

It doesn't work very well with boosting turrets, as the lines they want down the side for maximum speed (to run) just doesn't happen if you're at an angle.

The article was shot down, but it still works surprising well for me. Just don't ever try it on Echo unless you want a melted brain!

That are some really interesting points, now I have to get my ships and templates to try that out! 22.5° sounds so precise, did you do a lot of science to pinpoint that?

22.5 degrees is 1/2 of a bank template, so if you setup at that, then bank, you move straight forward and are pointed exactly 22.5 degrees the other way. you can still move directly forward with banks!

I've played around with 22.5 (or roughly half of 45 degree angle offsets) a little bit. There are probably other advantages, but the one that struck me from the outset is that you sort of get an extra set of moves. A straight on approach lets you do a hard-away, a bank-away, or straight. The slightly offset gives you an even harder turn away from your opponents, and more variation in your more directly approaching moves, which can be useful. You give up a hard-away set in one direction, but if you've got that direction blocked by a board edge or an asteroid field, you only gain maneuverability.

Yes, that. If you're good at it, you only gain maneuverability and unpredictability.

The one thing that made it work so much better in attack wing was that their "barrel roll" was actually called "Sensor Echo", and used the 2 straight template instead of the 1 straight. Now that we have a tie fighter that uses the 2, things have definitely been more interesting from my side of the table.

By using the knowledge of the exact number I actually found an article concerning this on BGG: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/1077564/armchair-admiral-112-aim-and-weave/page/1

Is that yours? It is a pretty nice read with good pictures, although some things of course don't apply to our games. Worth a look at.

It is not my article, but I definitely subscribed to it when playing attack wing (I was heavier into AW that x-wing for about a year). Its interesting to know that attack wing fields usually just has a planet in the middle, so this strategy developed without angled debris fields. Will Sanchez is one of the top players in Attack Wing, if not the best hands down.

I agree its worth a look, and if you don't subscribe to that strategy you should at least know about it should you end up across the table from someone that knows how to exploit it.

Edit: I've also used his pinwheel formation at 22.5 degrees in mini-swarms. Really works well!

I'm a big fan of angled deployments, but largely of the 45-degree sort.

With low-PS ships, it lets you react to your opponent's deployments better, as you can execute a bank in either direction and also makes formation flight easy. My primary deployment for Panic Attack used this method.

With higher-PS ships, it can make it a little harder to guess which direction you're actually going to deploy in, which can help for setting up more advantageous engagements with the obstacles on the board.

I rarely use squared-up deployment anymore. The angled deployment (in a variety of angles) just opens the dial to all the banks and straights, even turns provided you aren't near a board edge or can boost to change your heading. It gives your opponent a little more to think about and gives you more options to react. Plus, it works really well with the standard "1 straight" opener to see if your opponent tips their hand.

Overall, don't think most people have "missed" this, but it's a good refresher for the newer players. The good players have been considering deployment heavily for a long time and have tactics better than "line up and joust."

I fly mini-swarms a lot (often on Vassal), so I rarely use or see off-angle deployments if only because it loosens your formation. The typical 90 degrees or 45 degrees for large ships - yes.

I think asteroid placement and overall comfort level are huge factors, but myself I rely on the board edges and straight asteroid lanes as reference. So it would definitely be more difficult for me to gauge my maneuvers.

I can see off-angled deployment being a thing for ships with Barrel Roll though. Angled approaches with TIE Defenders, for example - but I'm not sure you can't achieve similar effects with 45 degree banks.

I think debating whether the community as a whole does or doesn't do something is weird! Who honestly knows everything that happens on the other 49 tables at a tournament? I just think it's funny that someone generalizing a player base can spark debate!w/

I have seen and used lots of different deployment methods. One isn't really better than the other in a vacuum, but really only makes a difference based on the deployment of the enemy. Starting at an angle and going forward isn't much different than starting facing forward and banking. You can end up in almost the exact same location with the right dial choice. What matters is how each starting position lets you control distance and angle based on rocks and opposition setup.

Setting up sideways can let ships move slowly across the board, opening up with 1 turns or riding the board edge. This lets ships avoid range 3, round 1 engagements vs IG88, for example. Or set up to traverse the asteroids when the opponent is in a certain position.

Setting up at an angle can mean your opponent becomes unsure if you are running away or still setting up to joust, etc etc.

Setting up forward means you can get across the board into a certain position quickly. Or unexpectedly open up with a turn to basically get you in the same position as a sideways setup.

Every setup has its merits, and can basically turn into another setup with the right dial choice. I don't think one is better than the other without seeing the rocks or the opponent's setup.

Its less about the doing and more about the talking about it. I have never seen anyone write an article about this in the X-Wing community for example. Funny that Attack Wing players with their crazy combo possibilities talk more about higher nuanced manouvering than us X-Wing players who always said it is less about the list and more about how you fly it.

Squared up deployment is what I would consider a very rookie mistake and yet many (maybe most?) players stick to those kinds of simple deployments. It is tactical folly, like the Charge of the Light Brigade or sending Pickett's Brigade against the Union center at Gettysburg. This is why the "jousting" efficiency of a ship can be a misnomer. No matter what kind of a ship you choose to build your squads with, you should always endeavor to flank (in piece or en masse) an opponent instead of attacking at his strength.

Angling does offer good maneuver options, unpredictability, but also psychologically messes with your opponent. This is compounded if you're flying a list of fast ships that can easily redirect. For instance, deploy a squad of Awings squared up, facing the opponents edge. Then, watch as the opponent probably deploys in response to that element. Then deploy your Corran at an angle or facing the Awing side of the board on the other side of your deployment zone. Suddenly, the opponent cannot rightly predict the direction of your opening moves and it will affect his play. Your Awings can cut left immediately, link with Corran, and face the enemy by turn three (and vice v. All the while, your opponent is probably out of sync because he chose an opening maneuver against either squad element and is now out of place.

Maybe we don't want to spill out secrets!

I also think that asteroid setup and the opponent's setup can vary enough that it's tough to stick to anything but a few rule of thumbs, like "don't engage the swarm until it has been forced to split up through the rocks" or "keep Dash at Range 3" or "don't let my opponent get more than 1 arc each round on Soontir".

Talking about deployment and position for 2 ship lists is especially difficult and hard to generalize. With boosting ships, especially turrets, you can pretty much start each match with a somewhat random setup, or a setup with a plan to exploit the enemy's setup. It's tough to define this, though, because the rock path or the opponent's angle could easily change if the opponent sees the game you are trying to play.

There used to be more articles about this sort of stuff, back when formations were more prevalent, and boosts and barrel rolls were less prevalent.

Maneuvering is still very important, but the game has evolved such that it is hard to define any rigid strategies in a vacuum. The best discussion now would be players commentating their videos, describing turn by turn their strategy, and explaining their mistakes, advantages gained by guessing, and advantages purposely set up. Then commentating another game against another list, or the same list using a different strategy.

I did pretty well in a store championship using 4 B-Wings and setting up at angle. I'd slow-roll and crab-walk my formation for two or three rounds, staying in my own corner as long as possible while letting my opponents work their way through or around the rocks, indicating their direction of approach. Without the angled deployment, I'd have to commit to my approach sooner, instead of being able to barrel roll toward the neutral edge closest to me.

It's funny you post that Phildo... I was right about to comment that there was a string of about a dozen games between Phildo and myself on Vassal where we were setting up at odd angles, primarily because we both used asteroid placement to shut down the easy 90 degree and 45 degree lanes, thus opening a wide 60 degree lane, and leading to strange angle deployments (especially of the shuttle!).

Its less about the doing and more about the talking about it. I have never seen anyone write an article about this in the X-Wing community for example. Funny that Attack Wing players with their crazy combo possibilities talk more about higher nuanced manouvering than us X-Wing players who always said it is less about the list and more about how you fly it.

This particular BGG article also came out before the game had PWTs, which are much MUCH nastier than what we have in X-Wing. I think at the time it was also the meta when the falcon got REALLY good (C3P0). Falcon and EU big based ships didn't need this nuanced maneuvering.

I admit it really does work a LOT better with higher PS imperials than anything else, but I use it on anything with a barrel roll. Its fairly easy to counter if you deploy first... then just match it up the opponent's deployment angles to take away the potential advantage. Or you can always think of just lining up at 22.5 degrees rotation from your opponents deployment to potentially get that maneuvering advantage.

But seriously. Don't do it with Echo.

I'm still surprised at the distinct lack of people formation flying in pin wheels. Sure, occasionally I screw up and have them too close together or slight variation just through general play, but allowing me to choose any maneuver on my dial that won't bump is pretty nice.

On a different note, it might be time to bump Osoroshi's article on maneuvers again for those who haven't read it (must read for all players). So much easier to visualise maneuvers after reading that, but I probably need a refresher, I constantly misjudge 3 turns and 3 banks.

On the reason why small ships aren't usually angled? Laziness I suspect.

start out at an angle and use alternating

turns and you go farther than you would if you lined up with the mat edge!!

I'm still surprised at the distinct lack of people formation flying in pin wheels.

In VASSAL, which is 100-percent precise, pinwheels are awesome.

In tabletop play, a tight and useful pinwheel is incredibly difficult to maintain. I am a precise flyer, and by my third or fourth move, I could have a bump.

When I've seen people trying to use pinwheels on the table, they're always "compensating" for normal tabletop drift by the third turn: "Oh, I did all the same maneuvers, so this really can't be a bump."

No, I'm afraid on a tabletop surface -- with the imprecision of guides, templates, and human beings -- it can be. And is.

I'm still surprised at the distinct lack of people formation flying in pin wheels.

In VASSAL, which is 100-percent precise, pinwheels are awesome.

In tabletop play, a tight and useful pinwheel is incredibly difficult to maintain. I am a precise flyer, and by my third or fourth move, I could have a bump.

When I've seen people trying to use pinwheels on the table, they're always "compensating" for normal tabletop drift by the third turn: "Oh, I did all the same maneuvers, so this really can't be a bump."

No, I'm afraid on a tabletop surface -- with the imprecision of guides, templates, and human beings -- it can be. And is.

Pin wheels and bumps on the tabletop are a bit like golf, "play the ship where it lies".

Can you give me a picture of what a pin wheel formation looks like?

After shots are fired I don't care if you've done every move the same in your pathetic little formation. If you bump, it's a bump. Not my fault you misjudged your maneuver... Your ships bumped.

I can only remember a few games in the past few years where I lined up all my ships when playing competitively . If I did I got perfect asteroid placement and know exactly where I'm going rounds 1-2. That knowledge is powerful but more often I do it when teaching new players about angles of attack. The third game or so I play against a new player and line my ships up sideways or at angles and immediately get the "why would you do that?" Question. Followed shortly by, "oh. Wow. I get it.

This isn't new. It probably is a refesher however.

Can you give me a picture of what a pin wheel formation looks like?

http://teamcovenant.com/klutz/2014/04/29/understanding-the-pinwheel-formation/

Sure, have a read of this.

Interesting. Thank you.

I've been interested in angling of ships in accordance with the angling of your obstacles. I'm sure some high level player out there may take the time to measure out and determine what is the optimal angle for ships based on what obstacles are in the game and at which angles they are placed, but I'm not that player.

I think you've to be a bit forgiving with bumps and what a ships "theoretical" position should be. To take a hard line "play it where it lies" attitude just encourages endless micro adjustments as players try to ensure absolute precision. If we know where a ship SHOULD be, then we should endeavor to make sure thats where it actually is.

I think you've to be a bit forgiving with bumps and what a ships "theoretical" position should be. To take a hard line "play it where it lies" attitude just encourages endless micro adjustments as players try to ensure absolute precision. If we know where a ship SHOULD be, then we should endeavor to make sure thats where it actually is.

Bear in mind I am talking about my own play here. I take responsibility for my own bumps.

That being said, there really isn't a where it "should" be, there is only a where "it is". With templates there really isn't any scope for micro adjustments which is generally what I am talking about. Sometimes the bumps are caused by minor fluctuations or knocks, and sometimes it is caused by poor initial placement (not taking account of nubs is common). Hence to say it shouldn't bump implies that it was a recent manoeuvre that caused the issue, when it is just as likely to be something completely different or way earlier in the game that is only revealed when you start banking (you are typically ok with straights and turns).

I think both players have a responsibility for making sure ships are as close to where they should be, but without digital tracking we can't be perfect. It is a rare player indeed who manipulates a knock into a position where he is advantaged. Sometimes stuff happens and if both players agree they thought it was in arc before any accidental movement that's cool.

Don't get me wrong I am a pretty relaxed player and I give my opponent the benefit of the doubt in general, so when I say "play it where it lies" doesn't mean context of what has occurred is not important. If it is the first turn for example I don't believe it makes much of a difference (with my opponents movements that is, I just suck it up if it is mine).