yeah,
I'm not a materials or production engineer.
But that's not really relevant to my opinion that a large single piece base would look better.
Although using the existing bases to save the effort of making a new base would strengthen my argument that it's a lazy solution.

As vandor points out I'm not a games designer.
But ten minutes in paint and I think I have a solution that doesn't require hooking templates around bases.

It is used by having marked points on the card insert and lining up a bank template against the side of the ship, then simply moving the ship along the template to the end.

A bank templates like this would be easier to use.


Having the straight ruler separate from the bank templates will mean less tablespace is taken up while measuring moves.

Also separate move and bank templates would have more game similarity with the collection of individual bank move templates in the core game. Instead of the clumsy mega all in one hook template that we are getting.

This solution would also be compatible with a single piece base, providing an all round better experience.

Panic...

If you want to be upset with someone, be upset with FFG for NOT providing a video on how the Template works. Instead they give us a vary vague picture; so of course now it's left to Speculation...

Personally, I'd rather they spent time on designing, rather than producing videos for people that don't even have the ship yet. Do the details about the movement template really matter that much? I'm thinking FFG might be regretting the press release. They might have been better off just keeping us in the dark rather than fueling endless speculation. And no, don't waste time making a video because I doubt it would prevent ongoing speculation anyway.

Upon looking at Panic's idea, a thought occurred to me. That is: how will these huge ships handle being bumped? (Panic's method could potentially handle this more than the FFG template.) The FFG template is more difficult to establish where in process of moving are the ship is located as it moves. All previous templates outline the "path" along which the ships would follow, and would be aligned, if they got bumped.

Now, of course, we have established huge ships will not be bumped by TIE Fighters, nor presumably any small base ship, but possibly - though unlikely - by large base ships.) But specifically I am thinking of collisions with other "huge" ships. I am left to assume huge ships just "are not bumped" and that a new mechanic or rule is already in place to handle this when the ship hits the shelves.

I.E. in Episode V, two Star Destroyers come uncomfortably close whist trying to pin down the Falcon, and end up taking "evasive maneuvers" (pre much just rolling along their longitudinal axis to yield a few hundred meters of clearance from the "edges".) But a T-Bone situation is inevitable once both factions have multiple huge ships and players attempt whatever passes for a "broadside" with armed vessels.

RogueMorgan

Upon looking at Panic's idea, a thought occurred to me. That is: how will these huge ships handle being bumped? (Panic's method could potentially handle this more than the FFG template.) The FFG template is more difficult to establish where in process of moving are the ship is located as it moves. All previous templates outline the "path" along which the ships would follow, and would be aligned, if they got bumped.

Now, of course, we have established huge ships will not be bumped by TIE Fighters, nor presumably any small base ship, but possibly - though unlikely - by large base ships.) But specifically I am thinking of collisions with other "huge" ships. I am left to assume huge ships just "are not bumped" and that a new mechanic or rule is already in place to handle this when the ship hits the shelves.

I.E. in Episode V, two Star Destroyers come uncomfortably close whist trying to pin down the Falcon, and end up taking "evasive maneuvers" (pre much just rolling along their longitudinal axis to yield a few hundred meters of clearance from the "edges".) But a T-Bone situation is inevitable once both factions have multiple huge ships and players attempt whatever passes for a "broadside" with armed vessels.

RogueMorgan

Bumping wise I would have thought, bump small ships, small ships go Bye-bye! (Which we already know)

Bump asteroids? 1 damage and destroy the roid? Bump the roid out of the way?

Other epic ships - goodness knows....

I don't understand the kerfluffle about "hooking" movement templates. It's literally just got a notch cut into it the same size as the corner of the base. It's not rocket science. And I suspect with months before this will actually see release, and the fact they already announced there would be many more previews to come, we'll find out more about how movement works, complete with detailed previews or a video, before we have our hands on it.

And Panic just designed a 'solution' that would require them to design and print at least THREE new movement templates and looks a lot less precise to boot. I'm sure one of the reasons they designed the 'all in one' template for the huge ships was to save money and keep costs down. More templates means more cardboard punch sheets, more pieces to keep track of, more things that can go wrong. Figure at LEAST one more cardboard punch sheet per ship to make room for three new templates - probably two, since Panic has two big hooked ones and a straight one. You've got the cost of materials, the cost of designing everything to fit on there, the cost of printing and then punching the sheets, with one or two extra sheets in every single Transport they produce. You're looking at millions in additional costs they need to recoup, more than likely.

I don't understand the kerfluffle about "hooking" movement templates. It's literally just got a notch cut into it the same size as the corner of the base. It's not rocket science. And I suspect with months before this will actually see release, and the fact they already announced there would be many more previews to come, we'll find out more about how movement works, complete with detailed previews or a video, before we have our hands on it.

And Panic just designed a 'solution' that would require them to design and print at least THREE new movement templates and looks a lot less precise to boot. I'm sure one of the reasons they designed the 'all in one' template for the huge ships was to save money and keep costs down. More templates means more cardboard punch sheets, more pieces to keep track of, more things that can go wrong. Figure at LEAST one more cardboard punch sheet per ship to make room for three new templates - probably two, since Panic has two big hooked ones and a straight one. You've got the cost of materials, the cost of designing everything to fit on there, the cost of printing and then punching the sheets, with one or two extra sheets in every single Transport they produce. You're looking at millions in additional costs they need to recoup, more than likely.

I don't think the cost of a couple of extra card templates (each one being smaller and simpler than FFG's design) would be a significant portion of the cost of these epic ships, far less than it was with the core set (and you'll need fewer of them), so I don't think that's an issue, whether the cost is paid by FFG or customers.

I rather like Panic...'s solution, you could add little nubs at the front and back of the movement templatate so it hugs the corner of the base to aleviate any possible loss of precision. Most significantly, it resolves the problem that I think we can all see coming of these templates taking up a lot of space on the table that could be occupied by other ships.

Obviously we don't know quite how well FFG's solution will play out, and it would be surprising if they haven't already considered seperate templates and the drawbacks of unified ones, but as we know from a certain gaming tile set they do sometimes reconsider idea that don't work out as well as they want. This might change before release.

If it doesn't, I can see a market for smaller, unofficial templates.

Nice diagram on the previous page.

So it looks like its movement dial will have eight options on it. Although I wonder if it'll have a 0 (stop) option, too.

Ooh, good call. It almost has to doesn't it? Keeping this thing moving could be next to impossible. Wouldn't be surised if it's a white 0. We might even get rolls where you move sideways but not forwards! Maybe not though.

First, I apologize for the length of this post. I just have little patience for simpletons . . .

And FYI, my definition of simpleton is not someone who is "a little slow", it's people who think that anything they can imagine must be simple to do. Flip a light switch? It's just a simple little on/off thing, right? Wrong. There are many, many things involved in designing everything from the simplest of SPST switches to aircraft carriers, so I get irritated at people who call decisions like this lazy simply because they don't like them.

But that's not what "simepleton" mean, so why use a phrase that's clearly likely to cause offence and then qualify it by making up a definition? We all need to remember that this is written communication, thigns that might sound amiable in the flesh can sound arsey written cos there's no tone.

I also somewhat disagree with your whole premise which appears to be "experts are right, everone else is wrong". Experts can be wrong, they can even be lazy, and people in manufacturing are certainly guilty of that sometimes. The fact that something's a lot of effort is moot - it's kinda legimate to call somebody lazy because they've picked the easier option if it was still hard. I'd say "cheapness" is often more evident that "laziness" though.

it's kinda legimate to call somebody lazy because they've picked the easier option if it was still hard.

No actually it's not. The only time you should call someone lazy is when, you know that there are better options that may or may not require more effort, but the people involved just don't want to bother putting forth the effort.

Harder != Better, Easy != Worse

In this case no one can actually know that there's a better answer out. Also no one can know if they found a better answer but just didn't bother because it was too hard. Anytime someone starts throwing around insults like Lazy with no proof, no involvement in the project, and based on a single image... That person needs to be called on it.

If someone says "I'm not sure I care for that, and think this could be a better way." that's one thing. Of course at this point that's pure speculation on their part. We don't have the ship in our hand and can't know how good or bad this system is. We also can't know what other options they tried and discarded. But when you start being rude and demeaning, even a good idea is not going to be well received.

But he didn't say "oh, they're so lazy", he said something like "seems like this could have been a lazy option", which is a theory/guess, which I think he's entitled to, and he had reasoning, it wasn't just a random insult. I think it was probably wrong, as I don't get the impression FFG are lazy, but it could have been right. That's how I see it anyway.

But he didn't say "oh, they're so lazy"

Here's what he said..

This tiny notch at the end of the template just screams Lazy at me... like an after thought.

Which is not at all the same thing as a "could of been a lazy option."

But he didn't say "oh, they're so lazy"

Here's what he said..

This tiny notch at the end of the template just screams Lazy at me... like an after thought.

Which is not at all the same thing as a "could of been a lazy option."

Meh, well we interpret that different ways I suppose.

I find the notched template to be a bit more elegant than the 3 separate templates. The amount of overlap in the proposed change won't be much different as the 2 bank is significantly longer than the current solution.

I think introducing three new templates into my template pile is just asking for trouble, especially if they aren't significantly different from the small ship ones. The one very distinguishable huge ship template will be hard to get mixed up. Simplicity at its best.

I agree with Rookie and Pern. I'm also not sure how notches that stick out would be/work any better than the notch cut into the template itself. The all-in-one looks like a pretty simple, elegant solution. Turning that into 3+ additional templates would have required a lot of additional materials and production cost, and I would like to think they didn't land upon this design by accident. Not sure why everyone is losing their minds before even seeing a more thorough explanation of the ship movement, let alone getting their hands on it. And yes, given that there are third party movement templates out there I have no doubt we'll see some third party cracks at it down the road.

Although not all of those are winners:
http://www.litko.net/products/Space-Fighter%2C-Maneuver-Gauge-Set-%284%29.html#.UvAgw_ldXfI

Yeah it's not like Cog'O'Two won't have a version out the moment I get my grubby lil' paws on a set.

I agree with Rookie and Pern. I'm also not sure how notches that stick out would be/work any better than the notch cut into the template itself. The all-in-one looks like a pretty simple, elegant solution. Turning that into 3+ additional templates would have required a lot of additional materials and production cost, and I would like to think they didn't land upon this design by accident. Not sure why everyone is losing their minds before even seeing a more thorough explanation of the ship movement, let alone getting their hands on it. And yes, given that there are third party movement templates out there I have no doubt we'll see some third party cracks at it down the road.

Although not all of those are winners:

http://www.litko.net/products/Space-Fighter%2C-Maneuver-Gauge-Set-(4).html#.UvAgw_ldXfI

I also don't buy the argument that three templates would be particularly complicated or expensive - it's less to manufacture than the standard templates and it's part of a more expensive set so would be less noticeable. I'm not saying it's a big deal, I'm certainly buying one and probably won't be buying a third party solution unless it turns out to be a lot worse than I expect it to be, but I still see a flaw and I don't see how the alternative wouldn't have been better.

I'm talking more about the all in one nature of the template of course. I don't really like the notch, seems ugly and ungraceful to me, but in practical terms not really an issue, although I think a template that slips along the whole side of the front base with a num to catch on the back would be easier to place.

I think introducing three new templates into my template pile is just asking for trouble, especially if they aren't significantly different from the small ship ones. The one very distinguishable huge ship template will be hard to get mixed up. Simplicity at its best.

Could use a different colour. Also, in Panic...s idea they were angular rather than curved, I quite like that.

How exactly is a notch, cut to fit the dimensions of the ship base, to sit flush at the precise angle you need to turn the ship, "ugly and ungraceful?"

I find the notched template to be a bit more elegant than the 3 separate templates. The amount of overlap in the proposed change won't be much different as the 2 bank is significantly longer than the current solution.

That's a thing about game design right there, if you're going to use multiple templates then there's not much reason for the straight distances to be any different (they only look slightly off to me as it is) than the basic ones so really it would only be 2 templates. Come to think of it if you wanted to "simplify" in that direction I would just make one template with a couple ranges on it instead of 3 new separate templates. I have enough fun keeping 11 templates ready to go in a game.

The only thing I don't like about that corner shape is that anything around the back half of the ship could cause an issue. Whereas right now only things along the front half of the ship's sides or near it's path would cause issues. If the rules kill things that get run over though I think you'd want to not chance being an offender anyway.

How exactly is a notch, cut to fit the dimensions of the ship base, to sit flush at the precise angle you need to turn the ship, "ugly and ungraceful?"

You know, all asymmetrical and looks cut out of, rather than integral to, the design. Just aesthetically, really. Practically, though, it doesn't give you a long surface area to line up against. Compare the action of putting Panic...'s idea next to the base (easy) and sliding it until a nub at the back (like I suggested) touches the base, easy. To line this up though you basically need to hook it around, I think, which will make it easier to accidentally knock the ship. It'll probably be fine though.

I don't want anyone getting the wrong idea - I'm well excited for this. The model looks fantastic, and I'm really looking forward to the new cards for the X-Wing too.

yeah,
Hexis Wins!

I'm definitely gonna get some of these big ships... no big hurry thou.
I will wait untill they are sitting on shelves before I get my wallet out this time.
I've been burned too many times by x-wing waves, paying up front and then waiting months and months for my toys.

Panic...

My FLGS reserves them for no charge Got two sets of Imp Aces reserved. Won't yours do that?

If not, surely Amazon does? This payment to preorder thing seems weird to me, but I have only ever used one toy shop.

But that's not what "simepleton" mean, so why use a phrase that's clearly likely to cause offence and then qualify it by making up a definition? We all need to remember that this is written communication, thigns that might sound amiable in the flesh can sound arsey written cos there's no tone.

I also somewhat disagree with your whole premise which appears to be "experts are right, everone else is wrong". Experts can be wrong, they can even be lazy, and people in manufacturing are certainly guilty of that sometimes. The fact that something's a lot of effort is moot - it's kinda legimate to call somebody lazy because they've picked the easier option if it was still hard. I'd say "cheapness" is often more evident that "laziness" though.

Mainly because that's what the definition is . A simpleton is someone who is ignorant, and in this case specifically ignorant of manufacturing processes. I defined it the way I did because I knew people would take issue with it due to the lack of tone in the written word and because I tend to use the denotative definition rather than the connotative one.

That's not my premise at all.

My premise was that it's not nearly as easy or cheap to design a plastic part than it is a cardboard one. You really need to go back and read what I wrote, because it's plain you stopped at the first sentence. I happen to have some limited experience with industrial practices, so my insight is valuable to this conversation, especially when someone is calling FFG "lazy" when their premise is based on a false assumption about how expensive or involved it is to create new products.

Manufacture is an inherently expensive process, but some processes are more involved - and therefore more expensive - than others. Time is money in industry, and that money has to be made back somehow.

When you're talking about a limited-production part, like the Rebel Transport and the Blockade Runner, you have two options: either make the item more expensive and limit the amount of people who will buy it even further, or cut back on the premiums and use functional parts instead. FFG chose the latter, and made a system which looks like it will work just as well as a new base. I see no harm in that, because from the looks of things the new system works well for what it's designed to do.

Also, the more difficult a piece is to manufacture, the more expensive it is to produce, but this expense is roughly an exponential scale, not a linear one. A plastic piece is orders of magnitude more expensive than a cardboard one, not only because the process is more involved, but because a lot more can go wrong.

Would you rather pay $20 more per miniature to have a new plastic base, or would you rather they use cardboard and make it less expensive?

How exactly is a notch, cut to fit the dimensions of the ship base, to sit flush at the precise angle you need to turn the ship, "ugly and ungraceful?"

You know, all asymmetrical and looks cut out of, rather than integral to, the design. Just aesthetically, really. Practically, though, it doesn't give you a long surface area to line up against. Compare the action of putting Panic...'s idea next to the base (easy) and sliding it until a nub at the back (like I suggested) touches the base, easy. To line this up though you basically need to hook it around, I think, which will make it easier to accidentally knock the ship. It'll probably be fine though.

I don't want anyone getting the wrong idea - I'm well excited for this. The model looks fantastic, and I'm really looking forward to the new cards for the X-Wing too.

I think there will be enough mass to the Transport and Blockade Runner to mitigate bumping. The Falcon, so far the most massive unit in the game, doesn't move much when knocked (unless it's on a smooth, low-friction surface), and with the mass of the two huge ships being at least twice that of the Falcon, you're probably going to have to actively knock it hard before it will move much.

Also, most people are aware of how sensitive this game is to movement, so they're naturally very careful around the miniatures when moving them. I think this will be less of a concern than you think. At least, I hope so.