This has been hinted at in other threads, but I can't help want to speculate: what previews are we going to see coming up next and when?

We have two more Mondays before GenCon, but it seems like we've got way more than 2-previews worth of material. We have yet to see:

TIE/ln expansion pack details (as alluded to today)
Y-wing expansion pack details (including ion cannons)
TIE Advanced expansion pack details
Squdron-building for X-Wing
Rules posting

So, do you think we'll start seeing more than one preview per week? Alternatively, maybe the rest of the expansion pack previews will be posted after GenCon leading up to the general release.

Boy would I love to see them pick up the pace. Sadly, it would not surprise me if we get the TIE next Monday and the rules the last Monday before GenCon. Then the next two expansion packs after GenCon for those of us that can't make it this year. (Hmm, wonder if they will be at Celebration VI, they really should be…)

Still I would like to see the rules earlier so the masses can grind them up and get some questions posted before the big GenCon tournament.

Thanks,

Duncan

Looks like they took vadersson's suggestion.

yeah, you gotta give it to ffg when they are on the ball they are really on the ball. then again after nearly 9 months of silence since they got my hopes up and i pre-ordered this they need to deliver something.

I am impressed that they are picking up the pace. They indicate 3 to 4 more updates before GenCon. That would be Monday, Thursday, and Monday. I can't imagine the last preview would be Thursday of GenCon. Hmm.

Does FFG normally put up spoiler lists for all the parts of a game? Will we see a complete list of cards and pilots? (If not I have already started a spreadsheet.)

Thanks,

Duncan

vadersson said:

Not in my experience. I've also started something of a list: javascript:void(0);/*1343957349015*/

When I started this thread, there was one other topic I wanted to read about that I knew I left off the list and I only just now remember what it was: collisions. Starship collisions were perhaps the biggest issue with the demo game at GenCon Indy 2011. While I know that we'll learn all about collisions when the rules are released. I would love to see an update that not only discusses how collisions are dealt with in the game, but some designer insight on how they arrived at that mechanic and other mechanics they investigated along the way. To me, that would be a very interesting update.

That would be awesome, yeah. I wondered about collisions, too.

How were they handled (or not) at last year's GenCon?

haslo said:

From the video on youtube collisions seemed to be a big whole in the prototype rule set. Since ships only fire out of their front arcs and movement is at least decided simultainusly, I think ships landing on top of each other is a pretty common occurance.

Wings of War had a mechanic for collisions. Essentially each aircraft took a damage card if they were the same alltitude, if i remember right. The difference there is that the cards dictated how much damage you took. In X-Wing each card is one damage.

In that case, just make it a 'special damage' (bah, the term eludes me at the moment).

Baphomet69 said:

Heh, that opens entirely new strategies for the imperial player: build a fleet of tons of weak academy pilot TIEs, and then don't actually shoot - but Kamikaze all of them into the X-Wings

The problem at the first demo wasn't damage. In fact, I don't think either ship took damage. The problem was figuring out where a ship moved to if it collided. After all, two bases cannot occupy the same space at the same time. The problem was that the guys running the table were saying, "Oh, it just moves over this way because it's the closest," but it all seemed very subjective.

For my part, I think they should take damage when a collision happens, but if there isn't I'm okay with that too.

i would be happy with no collisions, as the game is representing a 3d area of space on the flat plane of a table. i would imagine that if a ship moves onto another ship after all movement is finished then they should move over the top of that ship, if they stopped when they hit the ship that would give the collision causer a very easy shot, whereas moving them over penalises them for bad flying.

Then again, there are clear examples of collisions throughout the movies.

Baphomet69 said:

I can think of collisions with asteroids, capital ships and even collisions with the Death Star (both actuallty) but I can't remember a figher v fighter collision.

The TIEs collided at the end of the trench run. I think there were more but drawing a blank at the moment.

my 40 or so asteroids wouldnt be much use without collisions . . . .

If they were to release capital ship expansion packs, I, for one, would want it to be capital ship v. capital ship. If FFG was to combine the scales -- "snub" fighters v. capital ships, I would want it as a scenario with fighters v. turret emplacements (like the asteroid markers, but with stat cards), with the game mat as the surface of the capital ship in question . That could also work for a "Trench Run" scenario.

ironman said:

This reminds me:

"The tournament will be run as a head-to-head Dogfight, with asteroids."

So I guess those asteroids at least need some justification.

SteveSpikes said:

I have wanted a capital ship game for Star Wars for a long time. Unlike Star Wars Starship Battles (from WOTC) they need to keep the scale of the ships better and run the fighters as squadrons. The X-Wing game should never have anything larger than the Falcon in it unless it is the play surface. Now I could see setting up a Star Destroyer sized play surface however. That might be pretty need.

Hmm, 1/270 scale right? so a 1.2 km Star Destroyer would be about 14.5' to scale. This assumes I did the math right.

I would want I real crunchy capital ship minis game, but that is probably unlikely.

Thanks,

Duncan

it would probably play a bit like GW's battleship gothic

vadersson said:

I have wanted a game like that forever. It would be awsome. I don't know of FFG has any plans for it, but I would buy it.

As for capital ships like Star Destroyers and MC80's, I would like to see fighter opperate the way they do in Axis and Allies War At Sea. It really captures the fact that fighter don't opperate on the same scale at all.

ironman said:

I totally get that. It's a valid point. [For those of you have heard the following before, forgive my repetition.] I think the 3D element is exactly why there should be no cover in this game. You should be able to shoot at any fighter as long as they are in range. None of this, "You can't shoot him 'cause this guy's closer" nonsense (except for Biggs, but that's a different story). However, the fact remains that we are playing in 2D, so if you move and your movement would place you on top of another fighter's base, you still have to put you fighter somewhere and justify why it's not ending where the movement guide says it should. I think declaring that a collision takes place adds more tactics because you want to close range to get attack bonuses, but you don't want to get so close that you crash.

So, I guess even if they chose not to do collisions, I'd still like to see some solid rules on how to place a fighter that is about to overlap another fighter's base. You can't just say, "Oh, I'll shift him this way a bit," because like I said above, it's too subjective. They need hard and fast rules for how to deal with that situation.