Arc size - Did FFG miss a trick?

By MacchuWA, in X-Wing

It's been pretty obvious for awhile that FFG really restricted themselves and their potential design space when they first built the game. Primarily, this was a result of using low numbers - 3 attack for the X Wing and 3 agility for the TIE fighter set some basic limits on the potential range of statlines for ships, and the scale of gradation that you we're ever going to be able to introducbe between ships (this also, in turn, locked in the role dice variance would play going forward - the likelihood of any given roll being further from the expected statistical mean is higher than would be the case if all dice values were doubled). The number of points in a list was low too - by using 100 point lists, the ability of designers to price cards precisely was limited to single percentage point gradations - i.e. any given card can cost either 1% of your list or 2% (or whatever) but never in between, even if it's only really worth 1.5%. This is one factor that results in over and under costed cards.

I've been thinking lately that about another decision made in those early days had probably been equally as restrictive, but seems to have been less noted by the community - the decision to make all ships have the same size firing arc.

There's nothing inherent in the game system that requires all ships to have the same sized primary arc, and restricting all ships in that way limited FFG's ability to differentiate ships. For example, the B Wi g and the TIE Advanced could have had wider arcs than the X Wing and TIE Fighter respectively to give them more offensive capability than their weaker or less advanced alternatives without increasing their numbers of dice. Alternatively, a narrower firing arc might have been given to ships like the Y Wing as a nod to its lower manoeuvrability, or a wider arc to the A Wing as a nod to its swiveling guns.

It could also have been used as a balancing tool without concern for lore - for example, the TIE Phantom's 4 dice primary could have been balanced a little by giving it a more narrow firing arc, making those four dice potent, but relatively easier to arc dodge.

The concept could even be taken further, and arcs could have been adjusted on a per pilot basis - broadly, a more skilled pilot could have a wider arc than a less skilled pilot, but it could be adjusted to account for abilities on a case by cases basis.

Obviously, all of these represent roads not travelled, and with 10 waves of basically identical arcs behind them, I don't see FFG changing their policy going forward. It's possible that there are very good reasons for keeping arcs consistent - certainly there are potential reasons for the other apparently limiting decisions made way back during the early stages of the games design. Perhaps a desire for consistency came from a desire to make it easy for players to use all the different ships, or maybe it was as simple as wanting the arc lines to be as long as possible so as to make it easier to line up rulers when checking arcs. But whatever the reasons were at the time, with 2017 eyes, I think was a shame that this opportunity to diversify the game was never taken up.

Thing with xwing is that the designers hadnt even dreamed that itd take off like it did

Hence baffling early game balance, from howlie to fels wrath

The strict red green dice system

And the mind bendingly stupid unavoidable pwt mechanic in a game based around maneuvering

I imagine the game at its current size is already very challenging to balance, probably resulting in slower fixes than the community would like. It would have to miserable trying to balance when having to factor in things as gradual as a few degrees variance in firing arcs. Especially not even just between ships, but individual pilots. It probably would cause more issues than it would be worth.

REB%2BYT-1300.png

FFG can still introduce new firing arc stuff (we already have the YV-666 breaking with tradition). I expect they will design another small or large ship with a non-standard arc before too long. And each pilot has its own base plate token, so if FFG wants to add a new X-Wing pilot with a different firing arc or whatever, that's no problem. They haven't missed the boat.

Edited by DagobahDave
1 hour ago, ficklegreendice said:

Thing with xwing is that the designers hadnt even dreamed that itd take off like it did

Hence baffling early game balance, from howlie to fels wrath

The strict red green dice system

And the mind bendingly stupid unavoidable pwt mechanic in a game based around maneuvering

How did they not expect a miniatures game based on one of the most popular sci-fi franchises of all time to be incredibly popular? Particularly when you make it a game with gorgeous pre-painted minis; relatively low entry price; and easy to learn game mechanics.

The thing to think about is that simplicity is its own goal. While I do think they should have done a bit more with dice variation and should have doubled the points on just about every card, those are _simple_ changes. Arc sizes are _complex_ changes.

For instance: every new player has to be told that the standard firing arc is 80°. Most all new players believe that it's 90°. I bet one person is going to learn this fact by reading this comment.

Imagine having to learn that some ships have an 80° arc, some 90°, some 45°, etc. Imagine having to not just learn all the dials, but also all the _firing arcs_. You'd have to not just learn how to visualize where your ships will get to, but also what they will be pointing at, in a much more complex way.

The _idea_ of what you're proposing is interesting. I think the Hound's tooth is a good model for how it might be accomplished. But those kind of arc shenanigans will always be a one off, and not a core mechanic.

Bloody H,

i was on the last paragraph of the OP before I realized this thread wasn't about the scale of the arc 170 miniature.

Anyway, they could still vary the size of the firing arc on a new ship if they wanted to, but the op is right that it really is too late to make it a standard way to vary ships. Other people are right too, however, that it would have been a lot harder to balance if it was standard.

I think a much much bigger trick that they missed is not having a medium ship size on a 60mm base, but that is a discussion for another thread.

2 minutes ago, Dr Zoidberg said:

How did they not expect a miniatures game based on one of the most popular sci-fi franchises of all time to be incredibly popular? Particularly when you make it a game with gorgeous pre-painted minis; relatively low entry price; and easy to learn game mechanics.

A game can have all of those things and still not be fun. FFG was heading into uncharted territory with this and I'm sure it has surpassed their wildest expectations.

5 minutes ago, Dr Zoidberg said:

How did they not expect a miniatures game based on one of the most popular sci-fi franchises of all time to be incredibly popular? Particularly when you make it a game with gorgeous pre-painted minis; relatively low entry price; and easy to learn game mechanics.

Because they hadn't really ever done a miniatures game before.

Prepainted figs had had never been done well before and were largely reviled by miniature gamers

the design was totally unlike the established paradigm for miniature games

the few other miniature games that WERE somewhat similar (wings of war and crimson skies, that I can think of) hadn't been big sellers

its easy to sit back with the benefit of hindsight and see how obvious it was that x-wing was going to be a success, but before it was it would've been a lot harder to realize that.

22 minutes ago, Dr Zoidberg said:

How did they not expect a miniatures game based on one of the most popular sci-fi franchises of all time to be incredibly popular? Particularly when you make it a game with gorgeous pre-painted minis; relatively low entry price; and easy to learn game mechanics.

Star Trek attack Wing is all of those things, and yet...

2 minutes ago, Punning Pundit said:

Star Trek attack Wing is all of those things, and yet...

Um...

25 minutes ago, Dr Zoidberg said:

How did they not expect a miniatures game based on one of the most popular sci-fi franchises of all time to be incredibly popular? Particularly when you make it a game with gorgeous pre-painted minis; relatively low entry price; and easy to learn game mechanics.

I'm pretty sure no one has ever said that about Attack Wing.

27 minutes ago, Punning Pundit said:

Imagine having to learn that some ships have an 80° arc, some 90°, some 45°, etc. Imagine having to not just learn all the dials, but also all the _firing arcs_. You'd have to not just learn how to visualize where your ships will get to, but also what they will be pointing at, in a much more complex way.

Lots of different firing arcs would be irritating.

It wouldn't be hard to learn two different forward firing arcs, though, which is what I would expect if it was a fundamental sort of mechanic. You'd have your narrow forward arc for whatever reason (maybe for secondaries, or +1 attack die with primary), and your wider front arc for standard primary attacks. And I have Actually Tried This with my Crimson Skies FlightPath conversion, and it's not difficult to get used to.

Edited by DagobahDave

4 minutes ago, Punning Pundit said:

Star Trek attack Wing is all of those things, and yet...

STAW also came out at least a year later, didn't it? A lot of people who might have gotten into it had already committed to X-Wing. Also, the STAW ship models ain't got nothin' on X-Wing.

17 minutes ago, Punning Pundit said:

Star Trek attack Wing is all of those things, and yet...

As much as I love Star Trek, the mixing of eras and the scale is a total turn off for Attack Wing. Something FFG has smartly avoided. I don't mind things being off scale for games ... but they should really try and keep things fairly relative. (The Defiant should not be bigger than the Reliant.) It drives me truly nuts. It don't care if they are exact, but keep the sizes at least in order from biggest to smallest.

Edited by Jadotch
9 minutes ago, Jadotch said:

As much as I love Star Trek, the ... scale is a total turn off for Attack Wing. Something FFG has smartly avoided. I don't mind things being off scale for games ... but they should really try and keep things fairly relative.

A perfect example of this: I remember being at Worlds last year and seeing Attack Wing on the shelves of FFG's game centre (I assume only so people can compare it to X-wing directly and laugh at WizKid's incompetence). Two of the ships on said shelves were the original Enterprise, and the refit Enterprise-A. In-universe, there is a 20m length difference between the two, yet the Enterprise-A model was easily twice the size of the original Enterprise model.

35 minutes ago, Forgottenlore said:

Because they hadn't really ever done a miniatures game before.

Prepainted figs had had never been done well before and were largely reviled by miniature gamers

the design was totally unlike the established paradigm for miniature games

the few other miniature games that WERE somewhat similar (wings of war and crimson skies, that I can think of) hadn't been big sellers

its easy to sit back with the benefit of hindsight and see how obvious it was that x-wing was going to be a success, but before it was it would've been a lot harder to realize that.

That and, what many people fail to realize is that being a starxwars game ISNT special

Because holyshit there are HEAPS UPON HEAPS of those

It takes a good game, ie good in the actual game part, to stand out

Hence why fluff is always a justifiable loss for the sake of gameplay

23 minutes ago, Jadotch said:

As much as I love Star Trek, the mixing of eras and the scale is a total turn off for Attack Wing. Something FFG has smartly avoided. I don't mind things being off scale for games ... but they should really try and keep things fairly relative. (The Defiant should not be bigger than the Reliant.) It drives me truly nuts. It don't care if they are exact, but keep the sizes at least in order from biggest to smallest.

The scale is great, but they definitely mixed eras once they introduced TFA ships into the game.

Epic ships actually have some different arc, right? Like they have extra wide arcs or broadside arcs? We have rear auxiliary and special arcs, the mobile arc, the YV is currently the only ship with the "side" aux arc.

There's plenty of room to work there, but I think in general the standardization or arcs is good. You know what to expect, and generally you don't have to think too hard except about what areas are inside that shaded zone on the art. I mean, unlike a lot of people I don't really hold anything against PWTs as a mechanic, even if I don't prefer to play plugger strats, but I will also agree there's a lot of core simplicity in early waves of X-Wing which a lot of people bought into - and while I think some concerns over current complexity are fleeting (much like with bombs or tractors, I assume people will either get used to Conditions in future if they actually are prominent in play) I will say basic mechanics of the game are very easy to visually see on the elements and follow in the rules, especially once you pick up the very minimal lingo.

I wouldn't count that there will not maybe be like, more 180 arcs, extra large arcs in the front and back, triangular arcs (Basically the YV aux arc but on the rear half) or broadside arcs - just that probably won't be common and it'll be specific to ships, and it'll have to be done in ways which work clearly in the mechanics. This game is not really meant to be quite to differentiated or caught up in minutiae that the X-Wing and the TIE Fighter should have arcs which are off by like 5 degrees because a TIE has a narrow firing profile than the X.

2 hours ago, ficklegreendice said:

Thing with xwing is that the designers hadnt even dreamed that itd take off like it did

Hence baffling early game balance, from howlie to fels wrath

The strict red green dice system

And the mind bendingly stupid unavoidable pwt mechanic in a game based around maneuvering

Or, it is just that the first designers did not design the game with a tournament scene and continuing expansions. A lot of the criticisms about the early designs of the game seems to forget that it was different designers, with different goals.

26 minutes ago, ficklegreendice said:

That and, what many people fail to realize is that being a starxwars game ISNT special

Because holyshit there are HEAPS UPON HEAPS of those

It takes a good game, ie good in the actual game part, to stand out

Hence why fluff is always a justifiable loss for the sake of gameplay

This is a good point too. Just being a Star Wars game can kick a good game into best seller territory, but it won't propell a bad game even up to mediocre seller.

For all the noise online about scale issues and fluff accuracy and what a crew slot "really" represents, those discussions can only happen because the underlining game is fundamentally enjoyable.

It wouldn't bother me if there was more variety of firing arcs. I still check something is in arc with the range ruler or laser guide. I don't think the issue is for player, after all there is some variety with the three predominate arc types - primary, auxiliary and turret - in addition we have odd ball ships like the YV and Epic ships. The real issue is how is a wider firing arcs costed? By standardising what is available costing becomes easier for FFG. Ships pay for having good dials which allow them to bring their firing arc to bear more easily and add some depth to the game. Giving a wider arc to a B-wing, for example, would make it more expensive and would it help the ship more than a better dial?

Also, it's not like they cannot use decimal costs if they really wanted. Everyone that has learned how to read and write, has also learned what decimals are. They just need to make a bunch of cards in the same line of Crackshot, Adaptability, etc that are costed 0.5 so that you can always find something to fill up your squadron.

About the stats being too low numbers, that's not a problem either. They can easily get an equivalent of a 2.5 Attack stat or a 2.5 Agility if they want by using some ship specific title or rule that uses the Roll-Keep system. I would say, the ARC-170 and the TIE/SF already have non-standard Attack stats. And any TIE with the Lightened Frame has also a weird Agility stat.

The greatest thing about the X-Wing game system is that it is so easy to tweak and expand, while at the same time is so modular (expansion packs are self contained and independent), that they can do basically anything they want or experiment with without affecting all ships at the same time. And if they really want to, they only need to errata the Rules Reference, that is free to download.

3 hours ago, Punning Pundit said:

For instance: every new player has to be told that the standard firing arc is 80°. Most all new players believe that it's 90°. I bet one person is going to learn this fact by reading this comment.

*Holds up hand sheepishly having been playing for over a year...

I also assumed initially this thread was about the Arc.

It's been a long week...

First of all - to look at it from "realistic" perspective: most of the guns in X-wing are forward fixed. That means they real firing arc is around 5 degrees. Anything above that is turning the whole craft to shoot. So it means that shooting something on the edge of its arc means almost banking in place.

Wider arcs - we already have them in the form of auxilary ones.

Narrow arcs - well that one is interesting! But i thing it is definitely something devs should explore. Imagine 5 dice primary or a ship with reloading torpedos but for example 15-20 degree arc. High risk high reward. I like it.