A unique base would be much more elegant for both the models looks and the games mechanics.

I see, so you're a game designer then? Please tell us what massively successful games you've marketed. Because clearly you are a much better designer then anyone at FFG if you can tell all that from a single image. You also must understand the ins and out of the manufacturing process involved.

A unique base would be much more elegant for both the models looks and the games mechanics.

I see, so you're a game designer then? Please tell us what massively successful games you've marketed. Because clearly you are a much better designer then anyone at FFG if you can tell all that from a single image. You also must understand the ins and out of the manufacturing process involved.

Yeah,

My mistake I forgot to add IMO to everything I post to keep the board trolls at bay!

Panic...

I like it, it seems practical.

It's hard to get a sense for how it'll work without having it in our hands, but I'm optimistic that it'll work out fine. I really liked reading this thread before looking to see that Panic was a name. With every other post ending in "Panic..." I thought someone was really really freaked out by this.

I'm guessing movement of one of these big ships is based on a front corner with the back corner on that same edge remaining on the same "straight" path. When a ship turns the rear corner slides up the template while the front corner on the turning directing is moves out to the template. Looking at the picture showing movement I want to say that is is NOT showing the template in the correct position to move the ship.

My mistake I forgot to add IMO to everything I post to keep the board trolls at bay!

Opinion has nothing to do with it. You're claiming that they could of done this better or in other ways, so you're a game designer and actually know what you're talking about... Because other wise it's pretty impressive that someone could come to the conclusions you did based on a single image.

I'm in the elegant and simple camp. I love how this movement template works with the ship. That's a smart design move.

yeah,
So I have to be a games designer to have an opinion?

But yes I think I could come up with a better more elegant solution than the hook template.

I also think most people would prefer to have a single base, instead of two joined by a cardboard bridge piece.

Panic...

OOoooooh i completely missed the notch.

I like the 2 large bases - simply for purposes of storage. They should stack easily with my other mediums.

yeah,

So I have to be a games designer to have an opinion?

But yes I think I could come up with a better more elegant solution than the hook template.

I also think most people would prefer to have a single base, instead of two joined by a cardboard bridge piece.

Panic...

I agree that there are probably much more elegant ways to do the base. But we aren't just talking about the 1 ship. What about the Tantive? Does that get its own base too? Does every ship they release of varying size from here on out require its own base? If FFG tells the chinese company they have making the bases that they need 40,000 large bases (2 per huge ship, numbers are random just for illustrative purposes), its no problem and they get their normal rate for the large base. Now if they tell them we need you to make 2 completely new bases, a huge and an extra huge and they have to have little notches cut out of the sides at these specific intervals and we only want 10,000 of each, then they don't get normal rates but may have to negotiate a whole new price for these products which may not be as favorable because of the extra requirements and smaller volume of product. Its a lot of money and work for something that, although it may be more elegant, does essentially the same thing as a piece of cardboard.

I agree that there are probably much more elegant ways to do the base.

We weren't involved in the design process, so we don't know what they tried and discarded for very good reasons, so we have no way of knowing such a thing. They may of tried a single base and for some reason or another decided it just wouldn't work as well as what they came up with.

Considering FFG's track record with X-Wing, I think it's pretty safe to say they didn't use the first idea that popped into someone's head and didn't bother seeing if there were other better ways of doing it. It's pretty arrogant of anyone to assume they could come up with a better idea, based on a single image, and have no idea what else was tried, and why those ideas were discarded.

FFG may of, and most likely did try any number of bases and decided that this is the most elegant design with the design and manufacturing parameters they had to work with.

I think this movement system makes sense and looks well-designed. The 4 movement might be a little too fast, though, I dunno. Unless the epic play format will be a 9-foot-by-9-foot table...

I think the 2 large bases over 1 huge base is primarily a $$ choice. Having to produce a 3rd type of base would cost more money. And while many people will buy multiple YT/Firespray/Lambda, very few will buy multiple transports. So to have a 3rd base type produced for a significantly smaller number of product would not be cost effective. That's my 2 cents anyway

I agree, that makes sense.

I agree that there are probably much more elegant ways to do the base.

We weren't involved in the design process, so we don't know what they tried and discarded for very good reasons, so we have no way of knowing such a thing. They may of tried a single base and for some reason or another decided it just wouldn't work as well as what they came up with.

Considering FFG's track record with X-Wing, I think it's pretty safe to say they didn't use the first idea that popped into someone's head and didn't bother seeing if there were other better ways of doing it. It's pretty arrogant of anyone to assume they could come up with a better idea, based on a single image, and have no idea what else was tried, and why those ideas were discarded.

FFG may of, and most likely did try any number of bases and decided that this is the most elegant design with the design and manufacturing parameters they had to work with.

I'm not trying to take sides between you and Panic. Just offering my own opinion. I was just acknowledging that one or more of the designs they probably tried may have been more elegant and "fancy" "streamlined" "efficient" "sexy" (pick your favorite), but also more expensive or harder to implement. Obviously I don't know that for a fact anymore than you know for a fact that this was absolutely the best design they could come up with. I'm saying that the"best design" may not always be cost effective so they have to make decisions that allow them to make a profit.

Guys I posted a diagram of how I believe this will work, here's the link.

http://imgur.com/K2B2Kkw

Obviously I don't know that for a fact anymore than you know for a fact that this was absolutely the best design they could come up with.

Of course not... But I guess my point is I'm not going to call the FFG designers lazy and tacking on a system as an afterthought, when I wasn't involved in the decision making process and have no way of knowing what all they tried. Anyone who does needs to called on the BS they're posting.

Given FFG's track record with X-Wing and other games, I feel pretty safe in giving them the benefit of the doubt that the base and template they came up with is the best one they do when you figure in things like manufacturing, profit and playablity.

the two-base setup makes sense because i believe you can attack either front or back section of the ship - so having a clear separation like this gives u two easy to line-up targets (front section and back section) using your firing arc.

imo the spilt base was a 'playablity' decision - wout the double base the ship would have moved too quickly?

Obviously I don't know that for a fact anymore than you know for a fact that this was absolutely the best design they could come up with.

Of course not... But I guess my point is I'm not going to call the FFG designers lazy and tacking on a system as an afterthought, when I wasn't involved in the decision making process and have no way of knowing what all they tried. Anyone who does needs to called on the BS they're posting.

Given FFG's track record with X-Wing and other games, I feel pretty safe in giving them the benefit of the doubt that the base and template they came up with is the best one they do when you figure in things like manufacturing, profit and playablity.

Ok that's all fine. But nowhere in my post did I say anything about the designers being lazy or say they tacked on a system as an afterthought. I merely acknowledged that there may have been other ways, possibly better ways, of doing it. So don't call BS on me. Your beef is with Panic

But nowhere in my post did I say anything about the designers being lazy or say they tacked on a system as an afterthought.

I know, that's why I said what I did... Because I was calling Panic on the BS he was posting. If you thought I was aiming that at you I apologize didn't mean to at all.

My issue isn't with someone saying "Well if they did X it might of been better then Y" because they may or may not be right. Especially when they're talking about a something they actually have in their hands, and not based on a single image.

But when someone calls a game designer lazy for doing X, because clearly Y is superior in every way, which is what Panic was doing... based on one image, and with no knowledge of what went into the design, then yes they need to be called on it.

Keep a few things in mind.

1. I'm sure they tested the hell out of a bunch of systems to come up with something that worked.

2. It's hard to get a very good sense of how it works in practice, based on a single screenshot.

3. They had to be able to come up with a system that worked within their current manufacturing capabilities.

4. The more they are forced to reinvent the wheel coming up with something radically different than anything else in the game, the more those added development and production costs get passed down to us, the customers, and people were already complaining about the cost of these huge ships.

But nowhere in my post did I say anything about the designers being lazy or say they tacked on a system as an afterthought.

I know, that's why I said what I did... Because I was calling Panic on the BS he was posting. If you thought I was aiming that at you I apologize didn't mean to at all.

Well good. I'm glad we sorted that out.

Keep a few things in mind.

1. I'm sure they tested the hell out of a bunch of systems to come up with something that worked.

2. It's hard to get a very good sense of how it works in practice, based on a single screenshot.

3. They had to be able to come up with a system that worked within their current manufacturing capabilities.

4. The more they are forced to reinvent the wheel coming up with something radically different than anything else in the game, the more those added development and production costs get passed down to us, the customers, and people were already complaining about the cost of these huge ships.

Yup

If you look at the Tantive and the Transport the Gap between the two bases isn't the same. So it makes sense, they can represent different length large ships with only one base size.

Guys I posted a diagram of how I believe this will work, here's the link.

http://imgur.com/K2B2Kkw

Interesting, from these though it would appear that the main 'movement from back of base' format isn't the way it works? That is, when you move existing ships the full length of the ship is also added to the movement number (1 becomes 2 for a small, and 3 for a large ship etc.), but in your pictures, the GR-75 literally moves only 1 forward.

Interesting, from these though it would appear that the main 'movement from back of base' format isn't the way it works?

That method would make it easier to use the same template for all of the Huge ships. Otherwise you have a CR-90 moving farther then a GR-75, because the ship itself is bigger with a longer base. Plus that... if you moved from front to back like normal, the GR-75 would move... Almost a foot with 1 forward.

Guys I posted a diagram of how I believe this will work, here's the link.

http://imgur.com/K2B2Kkw

The straights should work just fine but I really wonder about the turns. I mean how do you know the angle you end up at if you don't have two points of contact on the template? To me the L shape is saying that when you make your turn you're going to have one point on the long slide of the L and then the other touching a point on the cross leg of the L.