Thanks! Now I can be sure that my set is representative.

I guess since these things are all legal, the mystery is more in what's going on in these sets.

With the 3 and the 2 turn, the TC templates travel nice round numbers on one axis, 100 and 75 mm., but that just makes it weird that the TC 1 turn only goes 48 instead of the 50 you'd expect, and the FFG one is a clear 45.

Judging from the FFG ones, the banks seem to be made so that with the slightly shorter distances on the TC, two of them put together will travel 90 and 140mm for the 1 and 2 along an axis.

So the one turn is what's going to stay a mystery. The biggest impact of this difference seems to be that we'll need to leave a small bit more lateral spacing between our ships if we want to turn in formations, since the inner side will come a little closer. I'll look at some other combinations later.

I love the game, but was pretty shocked that something so critical to the basic ability to play was made of.....cardboard. Seriously, something this important should be made of better material.

Just measured my templates from Applied Perspective, and they're all perfect

Why is it necessary to be as accurate possible?

Just because life or death comes down to mm, doesn't mean that having templates off by a few mm makes any predictable difference. If one can't anticipate or take advantage of any difference, then it's hardly unfair. If anyone can figure out how to consistently use a 1mm shorter template to their advantage, then they're probably a lot better at X-wing than their opponent anyway.

Actually, I have to disagree. Placement is critical in this game. I bought a set of acrylic maneuver templates that were off a lot more than any of my cardboard ones are. I think, especially for tournaments, one set should be used and it should be a stock set, not something unofficial. Some of the acrylic templates I got are way off. I have been very disappointed in them. Now ì have seen others that were very good. Mine are too inaccurate to use for anything. While bumps occur, I think we can all agree it is good to be as accurate as possible.

My LGS in my little backwater Australian town just had some templates made up with the store name etched into them. No idea of the company that made the templates, but they are spot on in every way to my Original print run cardboard templates (from two different starter boxes). Oh, and they're electric green, and look awesome.

Cheers

Yeah, for most of these shapes the amount of variation just in us placing our ships is going to be more. It's only the 1 turn that really seems different right now and departs also from the pattern of radii. Once I get a good answer to that one I'll feel pretty good about these, though it might just turn out to be that the FFG acrylics they went off of varied. That one turn though is what you use for getting around asteroids with a tie swarm, so I could see it having an impact for how close I can go. Also dbmeboy, that blue looks good. I really like the look of my green, but that might be the nicest color!

:-) thanks! I liked the color too. I'm considering getting a second copy so that I can keep a set with each of my boxes (I have one for Imperial and one for Rebel), but I think I'll wait until I hear back from them about the 1-turn (I sent them my pictures too). I really like TC as a group of people and a company and tend to support them when possible, so hopefully we can figure this out.

Of course, FFG's cardboard templates are all derived from the standard X-Wing movement template, which is made of platinum-iridium and housed at the International Bureau of Weights and Measures in Paris.

Oh, now why'd you have to bring that up? Now I want platinum-iridium templates...... and range ruler...... and tokens

has anyone tried contacting FFG and asking them for the arc dimensions? If they wont release this info to the public I say we send a small attack squad to Paris and get the standards ourselves......think Endor Moon ROTJ minus the Ewoks.

Yub yub, commander.

I did ask about all this under the rules questions heading, though for some reason didn't think to just directly ask for the exact dimensions. I'll post their reply when I get it.

I just thought of something....

there is an online computer X-Wing game that you can play.....Vastel, or something like that. Is it possible that they have the correct arcs and such so the mechanics of the game work properly?

I just thought of something....

there is an online computer X-Wing game that you can play.....Vastel, or something like that. Is it possible that they have the correct arcs and such so the mechanics of the game work properly?

It's Vassal , and a couple of X-wing players have been very careful to make sure that the templates and arcs are as accurate as they can be, given variation in the actual rulers, templates, and bases.

I have acrylics from Warsanal and Litko and both are right on. Accuracy is important, but any tool, and that is what these are, does have a tolerance for error. Is that tolerance 1mm only FFG knows at this time. I would guess that in the long run we have more user error in placement that would probably put us outside that tolerance. In reality if you don't feel comfortable with them don't use them, but if you can compare them before the game and they are accurate within tolerance and really 1mm is really good, use them and don't worry. I have seen much worse in other mini games.

I have acrylics from Warsanal and Litko and both are right on. Accuracy is important, but any tool, and that is what these are, does have a tolerance for error. Is that tolerance 1mm only FFG knows at this time. I would guess that in the long run we have more user error in placement that would probably put us outside that tolerance. In reality if you don't feel comfortable with them don't use them, but if you can compare them before the game and they are accurate within tolerance and really 1mm is really good, use them and don't worry. I have seen much worse in other mini games.

The latter part is easy to say, and I agree, but we did pay good money for them. It's too soon to tell if it will matter in some ways, but if it is enough of a difference (that official tourneys consider them invalid) and it is their responsibility, I think TC should probably consider redoing the one-turns and send them out to those of us that bought from them. If it's not a big deal, then no worries.

So I got a longer answer from Robert at TC, who seems like a really nice guy. It didn't include measurements, but I think I understand how it works out now:

" In order to get our dimensions, we started with 5 different cardboard sets, two from the original printing, and three from at least the second printing, if not second and third. From there, we looked at the exact dimensions of the acrylic template sets given out by FFG at Nationals. Given the variance in the former, the latter is where we sourced most of our original numbers. Then we took those numbers and compared them to the cardboard averages, and determined what the dimensions were intended to be.

The range ruler is pretty straightforward, and its intended dimensions are obvious.

For the turns, we knew the inner radius of the acrylic sets from Nationals, and also the width of each template, and could therefore plot a “perfect” curve. This is what we did to create the first draft of our templates. They’re as mathematically correct as possible, assuming that the Nationals sets are the intended dimensions. Those sets lined up very closely to our average across all five cardboard sets, so this is likely. The only judgement call to make was whether or not it was intended for the 90 degree turn templates to have a uniform distance between them. We decided that it was, as this would allow formation flying. I busted out a few of our current sets to demonstrate. The templates, when squared, are equidistant from each other, and so allow perfect formations on 90s, which we believe is the intent.

Our templates match almost perfectly with what was determined to be the proper dimensions on Vassal (which we found out after the fact), and they have been fully approved for competitive play. They will not be identical to a set of cardboard templates for the reasons that have been listed here. Also, punch pressing cardboard is just not going to give you the same result that you’ll get by plotting and cutting a perfect curve with a laser.

If the concern here is competitive play, both players should be playing with the same set of templates regardless of which you're using. If either player is using cardboard, this is especially true, as any two cardboard sets might be different. But at the same time, the X-Wing community has done a fantastic job of setting the tone for competitive play, and the "fly casual" mentality is worth promoting. There's a phenomenal community built around this game, and a few mms shouldn't get in the way of all the work that has been done to make X-Wing the beacon of sportsmanship and camaraderie in tabletop gaming. If anyone at a local event is yelling about 1mm, kindly direct them to the Top 4 and Finals from Worlds for an education.

All that said, production errors are unlikely, but possible, and if you truly believe this has happened, I'd love for you to let me know.

I got a nearly identical response. It's good enough for me, I'm perfectly willing to believe that there really is that much variation on the cardboard (and that the nature of the turn makes a small difference appear larger). Plus, I think both of my cardboard sets are likely from the first print run so that could explain why they match each other and not the acrylic template.

Yeah, so I suppose that having this bigger 1 turn might make it so that if you do multiple turns in formation that you don't have the ships slowly drift apart. I'm still pretty clueless about how the manufacturing of the cardboard makes this particular error, but now that there's a rationale for why the 1T is the size it is, I feel better about it. I'll edit the first page post so no one gets the wrong idea if they don't read all the way through the thread. My only quibble with the set now is that the range ruler is about 1mm too short.

Looks like if you do the following maneuver and always line the template up flush with the same nub you'll drift apart by 1-2mm. The nub drift shows another way in which the variation in the templates evens out and isn't enough to make a big difference in most cases.

I got a nearly identical response. It's good enough for me, I'm perfectly willing to believe that there really is that much variation on the cardboard (and that the nature of the turn makes a small difference appear larger). Plus, I think both of my cardboard sets are likely from the first print run so that could explain why they match each other and not the acrylic template.

Great information. Thanks.

Have about 5 coresets worth of standard templates, they have no noticeable differencebetween them. I have the Corsec acrylic templates, they are spot on with the standard templates. I also love theirsmall and large ship firing arc templates.

if one is looking that hard at the templates, I hope everyone also checked if the bases are absolutely identical (dimensions, pin placement), otherwise it's futile anyhow.

if one is looking that hard at the templates, I hope everyone also checked if the bases are absolutely identical (dimensions, pin placement), otherwise it's futile anyhow.

Never mind the fact that the PRINTING is often off on some of the cardboard by a slight margin. Sit all your ship templates side by side and I suspect you'll be surprised at how many of the fire arcs line up note quite perfectly with the corners.

If you take some fine sandpaper and carefully sand down each end of the "offending" templates, they will eventually match your cardboard ones. Seriously though, it shouldn't make much of a difference if both players use the same set of templates, no one gains any advantage or disadvantage. If I was playing someone quibbling over something so trivial, I would just pack up and go home. I play to have fun and when someone starts to suck the fun out of a game, I go play something else.

I'm also a Kiwi and I also agree :-)