Why should you be sad about old BSG steve? In some ways it's superior to the remake, and closer in performance to Star Wars and the Flight Path system.

Gunstars would also be awesome!

I will give Star Trek: Attack Wing a chance. The only thing that will put the kabash on getting the game is the sculpts -- knowing the quality of WizKids is, in my opinion, sub-par, compared to (FFG) X-wing. I just hope I do get a chance to demo it next weekend at Gen Con, with everything that is going on.

I will say this, it was Star Wars: X-wing . . . of course, that made me a fan of the "FlightPath" System. Again, there are so many untapped properties that could utilize the FlightPath System. I could see FFG, or another license put the system on Battlestar. Sadly, I prefer the "Orginal", but the FlightPath System would work better with the "reimagined" BSG.

I have been playing Heroclix, which is a Wizkids product, for the last ten or so years. Wizkids is notorious for subpar sculpts, creating overly unballanced game pieces, and forcing sales through an approved play system that will be the only way to get certain pieces of the game. They already have a convention exclusive captain (Khan) and are going to have limited edition ships and a special improved attack die that can only be gotten through tournament participation. They also have the worst customer service of any company I have known. That being said I love Star Trek and will be buying into Attack Wing with Wave 1, hoping for the best, but not expecting too much.

Flight Path would work for either BSG 1 or 2. But I prefer the remake over the original. I was a kid when the first series was on and watched faithfully. But the new one has so much better scripting and acting. Green vs Almos? No contest!

The quality of the models and the lack of scale are real turn-offs. If I did play this -- and that's a huge if -- I could only see myself picking one faction and going with it, rather than trying to collect everything.

Frankly I liked the nobility and ancient astronaut aspect of the original over the soapy depress fest of the new series but *shrug* to each their own.

nBSG likes to use a lot of relativistic physics, right? How well would FlightPath represent that kind of system without being unfair? It works for Star Wars because Star Wars is purely cinematic and X-Wing isn't a simulator. If that isn't a concern though, a BSG copy (from either 'verse) could be interesting to see. What would they do differently though?

I don't see myself going rampant with this one. If I do get into Attack Wing I'd probably just be collecting classic ships/TOS/TMP vessels, as I have no interest in the dominion war participants or much else of the TNG era. That might have changed if TNG ships were represented beautifully on large-bases, alas...

The problem I have with this (and I LOVE Star Trek as much as I love Star Wars) is that Trek ships don't do the same things that Star Wars ships do. At all. You're taking dogfighting mechanics and using them for ship to ship encounters. The only Federation ships that would make sense are shuttles, runabouts, and the Defiant. Also, it wouldn't make sense for the Enterprise to maneuver on the same field with a Klingon Bird of Prey. The to-scale ships are what really make X-Wing work.

I like star trek, I don't plan to buy into this. FFG is sucking down most of my free cash for X-wing and EotE, so I just don't have enough to spare for another system. Plus, I hardly believe they'll do a decent job with it. I think components won't be of the same quality as X-wing, and I'm sure we'll see ugly ugly issues like power-creep and such.

That being said, I hate this movement arguement. It's baseless.

First off, go back and watch the various series. Watch the movies. The ships don't just stand off in the distance lobbing shots at each other like 17th century sailing vessels. They move, they flank, they manuever. Sure, they don't do a lot of barrel rolls, but thats about it. Seriously, go back and watch, especially the fights against the borg when you can see a lot of ships interacting.

Yes, an X-wing is going to outmanuever the Enterprise, but on the Enterprises scale, fighting other Enterprise scale ships, they are going to make the same types of manuevers. They will position for attacks on critical systems. If anything, the manuever system is more compatible with capital ships than fighters. Long slow arcs, relatively short travel distances. This isn't the dogfighting I see in star wars or any top-gun style fighter movies.

I really question anyone who claims to be a star trek fan and then questions the manueverability of the ships.

The problem I have with this (and I LOVE Star Trek as much as I love Star Wars) is that Trek ships don't do the same things that Star Wars ships do. At all. You're taking dogfighting mechanics and using them for ship to ship encounters. The only Federation ships that would make sense are shuttles, runabouts, and the Defiant. Also, it wouldn't make sense for the Enterprise to maneuver on the same field with a Klingon Bird of Prey. The to-scale ships are what really make X-Wing work.

I like star trek, I don't plan to buy into this. FFG is sucking down most of my free cash for X-wing and EotE, so I just don't have enough to spare for another system. Plus, I hardly believe they'll do a decent job with it. I think components won't be of the same quality as X-wing, and I'm sure we'll see ugly ugly issues like power-creep and such.

That being said, I hate this movement arguement. It's baseless.

First off, go back and watch the various series. Watch the movies. The ships don't just stand off in the distance lobbing shots at each other like 17th century sailing vessels. They move, they flank, they manuever. Sure, they don't do a lot of barrel rolls, but thats about it. Seriously, go back and watch, especially the fights against the borg when you can see a lot of ships interacting.

Yes, an X-wing is going to outmanuever the Enterprise, but on the Enterprises scale, fighting other Enterprise scale ships, they are going to make the same types of manuevers. They will position for attacks on critical systems. If anything, the manuever system is more compatible with capital ships than fighters. Long slow arcs, relatively short travel distances. This isn't the dogfighting I see in star wars or any top-gun style fighter movies.

I really question anyone who claims to be a star trek fan and then questions the manueverability of the ships.

I agree completely.

In TOS, you had maneuvers between the Enterprise and both Romulans, Klingons, Tholians, and even other Federation ships. Due to budget constraints and limitations with special effects, you didn't see a lot of exterior movement, but it was always strongly implied.

In the movies, you have the awesome science between Enterprise and Reliant trying to out maneuver the other in the Mutara Nebula.

TNG had not only the Borg, but lots of battles with maneuvers with Klingons. There was an episode where the Federation was running a blockade to stop the Romulans from interfering with h Klingon civil war. Even though we didn't see it on screen, the resolution of he episode came as a result of tactical maneuvers.

DS9 set the standard for what massive space battles in the Trek universe look like.

Voyager had a lot of ships maneuvering and battling it out with the Kazon, Borg, Species 8472, and a host of others.

So, yeah, I think the Flight Path system, as modified for Star Trek, is going to be fantastic.

The designers linked a vid of Trek space combat as their ideal of what they wanted to represent. The biggest impression I got out of it was noticing how much of the background ships were just flying in straight lines, not shooting, and generally taking up filler space.

My ideal vision of Trek space combat is The Wrath of Khan. I feel like ships need to show off their mass when they move about in space combat. The little combat display at Wolf 359 in DS9 didn't really follow that and treated starships like space fighters.

Then again maybe the Flight Path maneuver system will help combat feel like it did in

It's not the movement that lack excitement for me in Star Trek Attack Wing. It's reducing capital ships to a few hull and shield points. SFB, Full Thrust etc... captured the idea that individual systems can be hit repeatedly, damaged, repaired, damaged again. Starboard phasers, port torpedo, crew allocations, etc...

Otherwise, and I haven't played the game, it seems like X-Wing with different pilots and ships. So really you're picking your genre, but capital ship combat???

It's not the movement that lack excitement for me in Star Trek Attack Wing. It's reducing capital ships to a few hull and shield points. SFB, Full Thrust etc... captured the idea that individual systems can be hit repeatedly, damaged, repaired, damaged again. Starboard phasers, port torpedo, crew allocations, etc...

Otherwise, and I haven't played the game, it seems like X-Wing with different pilots and ships. So really you're picking your genre, but capital ship combat???

From everything I have read it will be a lot different from X-Wing in that regard. You will have the capabilities to repair ship systems, or reload secondary weapons, etc. It looks like the game is going to center more around building your crew along with putting together the ship.

This is a good thing for gaming.

People have been waiting for this.

A good thing is a good thing. They'll tweak it to fit the IP and we'll all be happy for it.

I could see the star trek system being an advanced version of gaming compared to X-wing, due to repairing systems, damaging, crew customization etc.

Glad to see someone running with it.

The question is what you see as advanced gaming. In most space combat I feel it's about maneuvering your ships to get the best lines of fire. And this is where the complexity needs to be. Taking a game and adding a whole lot of junk on top of a fast fluid system seems a great way to move away tactics and into record keeping.... Which means your spending much less time actually playing what I feel is the core of the game.

Being a diehard Star Wars fan and just acknowledging Star Trek as being there I really hope the Star Trek game isnt better. I would hate for the Star Wars fans to lose the players to a game they dont or arent intereted in. And my question is how the hell did they make the game so similar. Even the cards are **** near the same. Thats kinda fishy.

Being a diehard Star Wars fan and just acknowledging Star Trek as being there I really hope the Star Trek game isnt better. I would hate for the Star Wars fans to lose the players to a game they dont or arent intereted in. And my question is how the hell did they make the game so similar. Even the cards are **** near the same. Thats kinda fishy.

Did you read the thread? The game system is licensed from FFG.

TBH, would have prefered to see Babylon 5, the space combat in that was a breath of fresh air after Star Trek. I noticed that Star Trek shifted from being very static to more fluid after Babylon 5 came on the scene, but I don't think any battle really compared with some of the major battles in Babylon 5... OH and because I want Starfury, they are awesome and I believe NASA own a license on them because they would actually work.

This is kind of out there but it would also be interesting to see a Star Control version of the game. All of the different ships are quite unique and could give you some very interesting lists.

I seem to remember he Earth ship with all of its missiles and the flying jack ship. Why not? The ships certainly would be colorful.