Revisiting X Wing Part 2

Style 2

Classic

Last time we looked at a (my) preferred way of playing 1e X Wing, especially for a beginner or casual player. Next we will look at the polar opposite, “Classic” squad building.

Classic is basically full tournament squad construction, but limited to 60 points. It is slower to build, but fast and deadly to play. The limit of usually one good ship with an ace pilot and a side kick allows even new players to get their head around all of the upgrade options available and develop tactics to suit, but it avoids the much deeper, more complicated and powerful multi ship synergies that 100pt squads have.

It even allows the player a small swarm of 3-5 very basic light ships, all the way up to a single Large ship, but that is a riskier proposition. The “Fat Han” and similar Decimator option are still brutal, but have no support.

All options are on the table, meaning a single Ace pilot can easily top out at 45-50 points, with the assumption that you will use the best build possible. Squad building is fun, accessing all of the layers of synergy available, and all the work FFG put in to the later upgrades shows through. As Bare Bones highlights player piloting skill and basic ship character, Classic does the same differently by offering all of the options.

Some “Ace” repaints. These ships get the full treatment, but not all do.

A “Vaksai” Talonbane Cobra can Boost, Roll, increase Shields, discharge an EMP and Cloak, while firing Missiles with Deadeye or use Outmanoeuvre, but at 40 odd points, he only gets a low end “Blocker” wingman (Cartel Spacer Kihraxz or pimped out Z95).

60 points still allows for some cool synergies, especially with two middle of the road pilots teamed, a small swarm or a brute and a decoy.

All upgrades are relevant, but by limiting the number of points, super squads of 3 or 4 very tough ships (U-Boats* for example) are not possible. Do not get too attached to your killer squad, because one wrong move, a well thought out or luckily built opposition or even a poor string of rolls and it is all over. It helps defuse the over-competitiveness of some players, by just being too twitchy to trust.

Soontir being Soontir and unlucky Y Wing (unless they sport a twin laser turret). He only gets a single wing man once “fully loaded”.

Each player can try several combos a night, with some games being very short. The squad “pulled from the hat”, with each player playing both squads format, a great option.

Many of the builds are either based on known tournament winning combo’s or variations on a theme. No point in wasting time with bad set-ups, so research, research, research. Unlike Bare Bones, that is trying to capture the beautiful simplicity of the original core game, Classic lets you explore the full tournament squad building dynamic “lite”.

Not a likely situation in late 1e X Wing. The X Wing gained some good upgrade options in the last wave, but had little chance to prove itself.

Revisiting X Wing A Little Later On.

So, after a little while list building and playing from those lists, there are now two main play styles that seem settled on and a third we are working on.

Bare Bones

Squads of 100 or 200 points (or as near as you can get with an initiative bid).

No Elite Pilot Talents, no ship “class” Titles, no Modifications.

The ships are “Bare Bones” as the title suggests offering only two or occasionally three layers of upgrade synergy. Even a new player can build a list with a little guidance. Without the deeper layers of EPT’s and the “bandaid” fixes of the later title mods, (like Vaksai and Starviper Mk2) that over balance some ships and rob many of their uniqueness. Named titles on the other hand are intrinsic to many ship’s uniqueness.

Who are these guys without their titles?

The ships are all from the three original movies or early expanded universe, which also removes “Tech” upgrades with no TFA ships. They are also the more straight forward ships.

Empire; Tie: Fighter/Interceptor/Bomber/Punisher/Prototype/Phantom/Advanced/Aggressor/Defender, the Decimator and Lambda.

Rebel; X/A/B/Y and E wings, Z95, ARC-170, HWK-290*, VCX-100*, and Attack Shuttle and the two YT’s*.

Scum; Jump Master* (pre-nerf), GA-1, Scurrg Bomber, Aggressor*, Kihraxz, Z95 Head Hunter, M3 Scyk, HWK-290*, YV-666*, Fire Spray-31*, Star Viper*, Lancer* and Fang Fighter.

*Named out title ship options.

*

Lets look at some of these stripped down ships compared.

The work horse, or front line fighters for each faction, capable of making a 3 to 4 ship squad, are the X Wing, the Kihraxz and the much maligned Tie Advanced. The Tie Fighter is synonymous with the Empire, but game wise these three are head to head.

The solid but boring Kihraxz. A Scum version of the X Wing, losing the signature droid, but gaining an Illicit slot (sneaky buggers).

All come in at 10 primary stats. The Advanced has the worst attack, but the best evade, the Kihraxz the lowest shields, but highest Hull, otherwise they are quite even.

In upgrades, the character of the ships comes out a little more. The Kihraxz has Illicit + Missiles, the X Wing offers Droid + Torpedoes, the Advanced only Missiles.

Action bars are a balancer here with all three having Target Lock, but the Advanced adding Evade and Barrel Roll, making up for others having slightly stronger upgrade options.

So far, factional character and balance.

Manoeuvres are also a point of departure. The X Wing and Kihraxz are both pretty solid, but predictable. Without many repositioning options (Pilot, Droid and Illicit options aside), squad tactics and good flying are vital. They all have a K4 turn and the slower two, a top speed of white 4, but the Kihraxz has a tricky K5. The Advanced shows it’s Tie roots here with a top speed of white 5.

Pilot wise, they all have stars and duds, but a 3 to 4 ship list can be made from each that is balanced and quite different. The X wing has the most pilot options, The Advanced arguably the strongest pilot in Vader and the Kihraxz a mix of elite, tricky and solid base line pilots.

I can see that problems were looming in the future for these ships with better builds, synergies and upgrades, but as is, they offer flavourful and different (enough) character. I strongly feel, this is the dynamic the designers were aiming for, before it all got out of hand.

Moving on.

Now, comparing the light “swarmy” fighters that make up the 5+ ship squads, The A-Wing, Tie Fighter and M3 Scyk. The Rebel ship is the dearest here, so it should punch a little higher and can just make a 5 ship list (in this form of the game). The Z95 technically also fits here for both the Rebel and Scum factions, but tends to play the role of a blocker or light missile platform.

Here come the “A” Boys. Fast(est) but not the most furious, they are fun to fly, when they get a go.

Stats wise they all offer 2 attack and 3 agility, but the Tie is weakest with 3 hull/0 shields, the Scyk a little better with 2 hull/1 shield and the A Wing stronger again at 2 and 2.

To upgrades and the A Wing shows again why it has the higher base points cost offering the only one, a Missile slot. The Tie is the only ship without a Target Lock.

The A wing is fastest ship in this game, with a green 5 + Boost, the Tie a white 5 and the Scyk only a white 4 (it got faster in 2e).

In other manoeuvres, the A Wing offers Boost and K3 and 5-turns, the Tie a Barrel Roll and K3/4-turns, The Scyk a Barrel Roll and K3/5-turn.

The A wing is clearly in a slightly higher class, but is also dearer.

*

Now, my favourites, the true Interceptors.

Rebels offer the A Wing that was covered above, which is now at a lower cost than it’s peers. The Empire offers the Tie Interceptor and Scum have the Fang Fighter. We will look at the latter two.

Stats wise, (ignoring the A Wing) we have two similar ships. The 3-3-3-0 and 3-3-4-0 stat lines of the Tie and Fang are very close. The A Wing offers a point of difference at 2-3-2-2.

An unlucky Jump Master 5000 suffering the wrath of three Fang Fighters.

Upgrades tell a different story. The Tie’s offer nothing, the Fang has Torps to match the A Wing’s Missiles. The Fang is probably the only ship in this form of the game suited to Advanced Proton Torps, which can be hard to deploy without speed and good re-positioning options, but offer some of the most devastating attacks available with the right pilots.

The Interceptor is the only ship on the roster that sports the Boost, Barrel Roll and Evade actions (this uniqueness goes away when most ships can add an Engine Upgrade or Vectored Thrusters. I love that Bare Bones lets ships keep the uniqueness the designers created for them). The Fang lacks an Evade option natively, but most of it’s better pilots have a “head to head, close range” Evade variant, which again helps with Adv Protons. With EPT’s and other Mods the Interceptor can be untouchable, as can the Fang if flown well, but without them, they are good arc dodgers, that can be brittle.

*

One rung higher up are the E Wing, the Star-viper and Tie Defender, which are the “Superiority” Fighters or interceptors with bells on. These ships are in some way technologically superior to the mainstream front line fighters and more powerful than interceptors, but cost more for it. They are all considered too expensive in their original form to be competitive, but maybe in this form they will show their true value.

The Defender is a 3-3-3-3 ship and very well balanced. The 3-3-2-3 of the E wing offers a slightly more fragile option and the 3-3-4-1 Star Viper (like the Kihraxz) has the highest Hull at the expense of Shields, which is a 1e Scum pattern.

the E wings offers System, Torp and Droid slots allowing for a pretty powerful package and the only Droid + System combo. The Defender has an interesting Cannon and Missile combination allowing it to be fielded as a fast interceptor (3 can just fit a 100 pt list) or a fully tricked out gunboat. Both can push 50 points with a good pilot. The cheaper Viper only has a Torpedo option. The Viper is the only one in this form of the game with a Title option, giving it Illicit and Systems.

Manoeuvre wise the Defender has a Green 5, a Barrel Roll and the only white K-turn in the game. The E Wing sports a straight white 5, K3/4 turns and the only Evade action of the three (making up some for the lower hull), The Viper has a slower white 4 maximum speed, but has the slippery 3 S-Loop and Boost, effectively giving it speed 5 with options. In later 1e and 2e ships the S-Loop has becomes pretty run of the mill, but in 1e “Bare Bones” it is rare and edgy.

So, looking at the core fighters of the game, they seem to be, and to play, true to their original design concepts in a balanced and nuanced way. The character of each faction is intact. Games, especially competitive ones, tend to grow (or die) and with this growth comes change, which in turn brings balance issues.

Boost, Cloak and Evade actions, S-loops and Talon Rolls are rare, which makes them relevant and powerful. If you go “full noise” with upgrades, most of these unique features are nullified by upgrade options. Excluding Pilot, Title and Modification upgrades makes for a simple, but nuanced fleet, each ship with their place. Even ships considered poor in 1e like the Punisher might still have their role to play, offering System+ Boost and Payload options in a tough bruiser.

Pilots with inherent abilities become proportionately stronger by excluding EPT’s and they stick closer to their true character. Again, excluding EPT’s stops the “all pilots can do the same special thing cos’ they picket the same upgrade over and over” syndrome.

*

Overall the numbers do tell a story of faction variance.

The Empire has 11 ship options, with all but two offering a Lock, 7 with Barrel Roll, 2 with Boost and 4 with Evade. Most have a K turn (the Defender has the only white one in the game) and only 4 have any red base moves. Their ace in the hole is the Phantom with Cloaking. Oddly, they average a little higher in Hull than the others, thanks to the Lambda, Punisher, Bomber and Decimator. The Empire has some excellent Pilots and Crew and only the Empire can use Unguided Rockets, giving them the “heartless barrage” vibe. They have no title ships, making them feel more “rigid” and conformist. Ships like the Interceptor are to be feared and the Punisher no longer scoffed at (as much). Even the Aggressor is looking pretty solid.

The Rebels are generally higher in shields, lower in agility and fire power. Their main weakness is that they only have 4 Barrel Roll, 1 Boost and 3 Evade manoeuvres spread over 12 ships (the E Wing is a standout with 2 of them), although all but 1 have a K-turn.

Pilots, Crew, Titles and Droids are their the biggest advantage here, as in the stories. X, B and Y Wings are strong, if predictable, the E and A wings are manoeuvre standouts and the teamwork heavy nature of a Rebel squad comes to the fore and the heavies are very strong.

The Scum faction are really flavourful and varied, with full Target Lock cover over all 14 ships, and rocking 6 Barrel Rolls, 2 Boosts an 5 Evades. On the whole, they have higher Hull, but lower shields, consistent fire power and mixed agility. In move options, there are the only (3) S-loop and (2) Talon Roll options, which make the slippery Scum, well, slippery.

Illicit and the often forgotten Salvaged Droid upgrades also add a level of unpredictability and Harpoon Missiles and Bomblet Generator are limited to Scum. Lots of Scum ships have useful titles, often making the generic pilot the odd one out and effectively adding several variations of the same ship.The Scum faction does what it should, offering a mix Empire and Rebel-like options with a villainous, unpredictable twist.

The gorgeous simplicity of the ships and their key options really starts to shine through.

*

The more upgrade options that are added, the more diluted this becomes. Add Engine Upgrade and anyone can Boost, which became pretty standard for many ships. The same can be said for most mods, that give any ship the opportunity to steal another’s one unique thing, thus levelling the playing field and removing the subtle advantages. This is often the major cause of a mediocre or even solid ships falling away as their designed-in edge becomes less relevant.

In a nutshell;

Layer 1, all ships have their inherent and canon strengths and weaknesses.

Layer 2, (add Mods/EPT’s) all ships can effectively become other ships,

Layer 3, (add Titles for ship classes) ships effectively become better ships.

A good example of this is the Tie Aggressor, launched with Unguided Rockets and Twin Laser Turret which make this combo pretty strong, but in the meta are usually employed elsewhere. The Tie Punisher is similar. This thing has Boost (and Barrel Roll with one pilot), which is cool, until everyone else is equipped with Engine Upgrade.

The only real issue is the difficulty you will face making exactly 100 point lists with some ships without upgrades to fill the holes. Many ships, like the Tie Fighter and Interceptor, have no upgrades at all. Initiative bids become part of the squad building process.

Next up we will look at the Classic play style.

A Mechanic-less RPG Idea

Table Top Role Playing is a long time passion of mine. I cannot say I am a regular or even overly serious player, but my interest in the core principles of the hobby have never wavered since first encountering them in high school. To be able to share a social “adventure” story telling experience with selected friends is a precious thing, in the same vein as the even longer tradition of tribal or village story telling.

Recently, social barriers to playing different forms of games have reduced, introducing more and more players, so I would like to offer a new way of introducing these new players to the hobby.

*

Table top role playing games have been around for a long enough to have developed “habits” that seem to be hard-baked in. This is natural, but not necessary and can both create stereotypes for detractors to latch onto and coral players into slavish processes (D & D as played on Stranger Things should not be the only standard bearer for a massive and diverse industry).

Sometimes looking at something from it’s roots up can change these habits, break long adhered to routines and re-invent the norm.

For those of us who play sport, we start out by setting our own commitment level. Want to go all in, then you commit and take the injuries, pain and knocks that come with that. Want to exercise for the fun of it or to stave of mother time, then different processes are used.

RPG’s ask similar, if slightly more complicated questions concerning how much we “pay into” the hobby, how embedded we want to become and whether we or not we put story telling above simple game play. Some want to sprint, some run a Marathon, some just jog occasionally and within their comfort envelope.

This is usually decided just by playing. One of the skills a Game Master develops is to adapt to their players style and desires, while policing the basic standards that good gaming needs.

There is an idea I have been kicking around for a while now, that comes from an occasional dissatisfaction with the current RPG process and a desire to increase player immersion without a commensurate bloat of mechanical complication.

First “myth” to bust is that we all need to have a character sheet in front of us, laden with stats and figures and little checks against things we intend to develop.

This is after all the core of a role playing character isn’t it?

The question is, does reducing a “character” to mere statistics reduce our immersion in the other side of Role-playing, which is the story telling? To put it another way, is the game a game, or a story telling device and where do the lines blur. Sometimes, for me, the “game” or mechanical side dominates the story telling side and leaves me feeling short changed. Something I have always battled with, depending on the game, is the mechanical nature of the processes.

Isn’t a role playing character, solely a creation of our imagination. One that we placed into a setting to face puzzles, dangers and other interactions as our on the spot persona. If so, mechanical constraints are only in place to give us limits and provide a logical level of unpredictability and randomness. Without this our character’s actions cannot be in balance with other forces in the world and “what if” turns into “what ever”.

Is it realistic or even desirable to know your own capabilities in defined mathematical values?

Is this how we live our own lives?

If pressed, I would describe myself in terms of generalisations. I would not assign myself, especially with any surety, specific numerical values or give my skills, experiences and knowledge better than vague qualities. My assessment of self may be way off, but regardless, I attempt what is in my reality envelope and avoid (usually) what is not.

The habit of using highly specific characteristics and rigid systems is a reality for most role-playing games, but it can also be a chain around our imagination and an unrealistic insight into the very workings of our gaming universe.

There are many RPG’s that are reducing or even eliminating our reliance on more mechanical processes, but many still fall victim to this same (as I see it) short fall. They allow the player to see their characters systemic “bones”. This is inherently unrealistic and forces a game oriented perspective.

How do we change this?

By placing a wall between the player’s imaginations and the mechanics of the game.

This works really well with new players or even experienced players trying out an unfamiliar game system, but you, as the GM need to do some prep*. Ironically, the best systems for this tend to be the most mechanical by nature!

Step One

Vet your players. Explain your intentions with this new way of playing and express your desires as a GM to increase their enjoyment and reduce their game playing burdens. This is especially effective for new players put off by increasingly thick gaming tomes and a feeling of being out of the games insiders loop*.

Be ready for some resistance from older players who may feel disempowered by this, but they hopefully will come around, if they see value in this style of play. Min-maxers will be the hardest, especially those with an intimate knowledge of the system used.

Step Two

Character creation. I will assume the use of a D&D style game, especially one like Adventures in Middle Earth, where character choices are logical and concepts are clear, but moderate.

The players talk to you, the GM, about their character concept as normal. This is the key point now, so listen and offer sound advice. The characters are not led by dice rolls or character descriptions in the game so they only have their concept to go from and it is your job to guide them forward, without revealing any mechanical results.

For example ask then the following;

“Tell me the order of importance you would place the following character traits in the context of your character” using generalisations that suit the games needs (for example Strong, Fast/Nimble, Tough, Smart, Wise/Level headed, Charismatic/Commanding - taken from D&D’s STR, DEX, CON, INT, WIS and CHR).

Three very different games mechanically, but all candidates for this style of play. The Witcher is one of the most detailed and mechanically in-depth RPG’s out there. Ironically, this form of mechanically immersive play is ideal for a change in style. Adventures In Middle-Earth is based on D&D 5e and it’s sister product The One Ring, uses it’s own system that works fine. Achtung Cthulhu can be played as Savage Worlds (not a good fit) or as D100 game, which is better.

Generate the base characteristics either randomly or by using points to suit the player’s wishes, again without revealing any mechanical values. It is probably best to use some randomness here to assure player confidence that you are not taking too much control of their character, maybe even letting them roll 1-2d and assign them as above and then you roll the balance.

Another way is to have three pre-set, points based characteristic sets made up. One can be a moderate or averaged, without any true extremes (max 15, min 9), the second can have a couple of stand out characteristics and a couple of lower than average (max 17, min 8) and the last can have a “hero” characteristic, a couple of strong ones and the rest lower than average (Max 18, min 6-7).

Now describe their character back to the player, using terms such as “you are tall healthy and powerfully built and tend assume you are the strongest person in the room” for STR 17, Con 13, and “prone to always accepting the friendship and compliments of others who are drawn to your wit and warmth” WIS 9, CHR 15 and so on. This is again a two way street. The players need to describe their character concept, you supply the details with general descriptions of their actual characteristic values, then the players flesh out the resulting “feel” they get from you.

It is possible here, depending on player and GM interaction, for the GM to even deliberately mislead the player, to suit a concept, such as an over inflated sense of self worth, subsequently not lived up to or great potential hidden by humble beginnings, such as the player’s desire to have a great warrior and acting like it, but not being supported by rolls.

The player’s character then becomes very much a case of “know thy self” through game play and experience.

Notice the subtle difference here. Instead of having hard, fixed numbers to base their expectations on, the characters will develop a “feel” for their character’s abilities by playing. If they fail, they will not have a spread of chances to review, but simply a life lesson learned.

The next steps of character generation, like skills and class, are then worked through as above. The GM needs again to use non-game terms here, applying the systems requirements as appropriate. This an ideal time for the GM to apply some more reality from their world and for the player’s to tell more character story and effectively the reverse of the norm, with experienced games topping off a character with some personality after the numbers have been crunched. 13th Age is ideal here, as it has no skill system, just backgrounds, helping to develop character back-story and supporting this play style.

As the character is developed mechanically by you, the player’s add “described” traits to their resume.

Step Three

Game play.

Ok. So what is different at the table?

First up, the players still roll their own dice. Without this, they will truly feel powerless and rolling represents the reality that they can see their own arm swing a sword and see if it hits their target, but do not know the odds of success before hand.

They must also be aware of the dice mechanic (a high roll is good etc.), but little else. There may be some mechanics here that can work in your favour as a GM. The 5e “advantage/disadvantage” dice for example can be used for player confusion. You could describe a trap saying “it looks easy enough”, giving the players a second dice (they assume for advantage), that is actually a dis-advantage dice, representing the hidden trigger that the players missed. The GM describes what happens, but does not say which dice was responsible.

They will get to see how well they think they have gone, but they do not get to post or pre-analyse the factors at play. It is unlikely that a character totally outclassed would take on an enemy if the math were known to them, but without that mathematical probability laid plain, would they take a chance? Maybe if they strike an opponent solidly and do no damage, they will re-think their next action, again realistically assessing the situation. This is also where a good GM can award clever thinking and bravery, without the players feeling that the world is their play thing.

I feel this adds both realistic vagueness to the game world and tons of room for the GM to “fudge” as needed*. In The The One Ring RPG, fatigued players ignore some dice values. The GM could conceal the mechanical reality of fatigue (hinting at the characters state), but apply the effect as needed.

Oft used descriptive talk like “your sword hits home, but glances off the huge warrior’s armour doing little harm” is a commonly used at a good RPG table, but is now it is the norm and indeed the only way the player gets any feed back. The player knows only what their character can see. Their roll to strike was good, but unsuccessful. Why?

The players can only interact with the world you create in terms of their projected, but relatively unquantified self.

One of my favourite RPG’s, The Mouse Guard is already strong in story over mechanic style, but a little more emphasis in that direction does not hurt.

Without numbers to qualify their statements, they cannot “play the system” only their character.

You as GM will have to do some more preparatory book keeping (simple spread sheets are good here**), but you also have complete control of the wheels that make your world turn. Lots of systems have been created to promote better mechanical two-way flow, or attempt to “hide the dice” but could it be as simple as this?

The players should now be unconcerned with the game’s systemic needs. They will describe their characters actions is normal terms, applying their skills and abilities as they see fit. They will drop game terms like Dice Mods, Levels, and Armour Class in favour of normal conversational descriptions like “I am considered a true warrior in my tribe, handy enough with a sword, but more comfortable with my trusty bow”.

Will the players have nothing to do, or more to the point will the GM have too much on their plate?

There will likely be more cases of you, the GM having to play through circumstances not covered by the rules, which is actually ideal, so stay in control and set the pace.

All of the pressures of the mechanical game system are under the control of the GM. The system becomes irrelevant to the players (I guess it would even be possible to change systems mid campaign, as long as player expectations and their game reality still line up or even keep the actual game system used, a secret!).

Nothing is used that is counter to the story and nothing happens that is contrary to story driven enjoyment. The GM may fudge anything as needed without having to produce “proof” of their logic so “Games Lawyers” are excluded from the rules interpretation process. An inexperienced GM or one not fully conversant with every aspect of a new system can hide behind the far superior dynamic of story telling while acclimatising to the rules. One situation most GM’s have faced is the “rules lawyer” more conversant in the rules than they are, challenging every call.

Do not abuse this. Embrace it for what it is.

The GM’s character sheet(s) can be as ugly and workman-like as required (and probably need to be) and will often take the form of a spread sheet, but the players are the opposite. They should look like a page lifted straight from their saga**.

Step Four

As the characters gain experience, they should grow in the direction the player wishes. If they have some success in fights, but not as often as they would like, then they should practice those skills. In a levels based system, targeted, incremental increases are ideal, in skill based systems the GM can be more precise and incremental.

What do you think? Worth a try?

Maybe the perfect fix for jaded players and GM’s.

*Don’t worry, your job as DM may get easier, not harder from here on.

** The character sheet should be a labour of love. The character’s physical and personal descriptions can be as deep as desired, and their skills and background not just a set of numbers and a few notes, but fully fleshed out story lines. Who knows, this could lead to a stronger player to character connection.

Attack Wing Or X Wing

I will put my head into the bears mouth by tackling one of the more contentious comparisons in modern gaming.

Which is better, Attack Wing or X Wing?

Lets look at my take on the good and bad from both.

Components

Attack Wing

The physical ships in Attack Wing are probably the most contentious issue. They suffer badly from both inconsistent scale, and paint jobs. For example the Enterprise D class has at least three different paint jobs. I have had to re-paint several ships, mostly Federation and this has taken away some of the buy and play advantage of these games.

Personally, I struggle with some scale compromises like the Enterprise E next to a Dominion patrol ship or Romulan Scout or the Scimitar along side the Delta class shuttle.

If game play matters more to you than ascetics, then you are all good as the ships are generally differ a little in relative size on the table (i.e. smaller ships are a bit smaller), just don’t go looking at any official size charts.

The Scimitar on the left is actually the size of a modern air craft carrier (it dwarfed even the Enterprise E), the Delta flyer, was more the size of a school bus, so a little gamers fudging is needed.

I do not doubt that the huge variety of ships make it impossible to fix this to some extent. Some ships would be the size of an X Wing epic scale and some smaller than they are now. For my games, my fleets are split into acceptable size groupings, which generally adhere to their relevant TV series also. This is not as anal as it sounds, because there are only a few groups if you also keep the ships to their relevant timeline*.

Same ship? I have even seen another variant and none are to my liking. The colour we are all used to seeing is “space ship grey”,, but the company seems torn between the original light blue used by the modellers and a silver proxy. Just grey would do.

The cards are thick linen stock, but can look a little dull, based on printed screen shots from the series and movies, which look a lot like they were shot from an actual TV in a dimly lit room. These are the only cards I have not sleeved, because the sheer volume of them, their dullness and thickness do not compel me to. Each ship has separate Captain cards (rather than pilot/ship specific cards that X Wing uses), meaning you can collect multiples of the same ship and get plenty of spare “Kirk” or “Picard” cards and even assign them to other ships (1 only of course).

The counters, bases and other components are nearly identical to X Wing, some even interchangeable.

X Wing

X Wing ships are sublime if a little fragile (a recent drop of a container broke 8!). I have even started to buy “spare ships” of some types, when I found them cheap as 1st edition clearances.

The paint jobs however are so good, I hesitate to re-paint them unless they need it for faction accuracy. Several Z95’s have seen changes, some as Binayre Pirates, one as Suhlak and two of my Starvipers (a Guri & Thweek/Dalan), One Kihraxz (Viktor Hel/Graz) and the Slave 1 (just better).

Very good and consistent. Some of the ragged ships vary in their raggedness, but that suits them. Re-painting them for me is an issue of doing as well, not better.

The cards are bright and compelling, using consistent and original art. Each ship/pilot combination is hard-baked in, which keeps the right pilots on the right ships (yay!), but misses an opportunity for in-faction variation (why not have Han Solo fly the “Outrider” or Luke fly a Y Wing or E Wing?).

Second edition has added factions separating First Order from Empire and Rebel from Resistance, which fixes one Bug-Bear of mine, unrealistic timeline overlap.

I have noticed that the early movie/game ships are “grungy” and the later ones “cleaner”, that fits with the feel of the two editions and the movies. The Scum faction are good for cross-overs here to.

In a recent survey, Daisy and Lucy voted Attack Wing ships “Most satisfying chew”, saying that X Wing had more variety, but they were “altogether too spiky and brittle”.

Game Play

Attack Wing

This is where I feel Attack Wing generally beats X Wing, in two key areas.

First up you can do more with less with Attack Wing. To have an interesting series of games in AW, you only need a couple a ships, as each represents a capitol ship and can fit a wide variety of upgrades and these upgrades are generally less varied. Even unnamed ships have plenty of upgrade slots allowing you to try various combinations of the “perfect” crew. Very Trek.

There are (were) more factions, which adds natural variety, (although the Scum faction in XW adds a lot here and second edition expands from three to seven factions although again if timelines are important these are spread over three time periods). The ability to use different captains on different ships adds hugely also, which is equivalent to swapping pilots to different ships in XW, which you cannot do.

The nature of the ships (mostly capitol ships of the line), makes them more robust on the table, so their table presence is stronger and play is a little less brutal. You actually get the feeling of a big ship taking a few hits, then mitigating their effects with crew options, before real trouble sets in. Upgrades are also less aggressive and universally more consistently available, making squad building more forgiving.

AW also feels to me to be a better fit for the mechanics of the game. This is ironic as XW came first, but the manoeuvring system just feels better with bigger ships. That is personal so YMMV.

X Wing

It gets tricky here, because X Wing has two editions and three or more official play styles.

First edition, where it all started, is a great, straight forward game and fits it’s skin well enough as long as you don’t get too caught up in the obsessive later squad building antics. As the game grew (and AW is guilty here to), the sheer variety of options forced changes which met with mixed acceptance, so use them, modify them or don’t as makes you happy. My preference for 1e is “Bare Bones”, where Elite Pilot, Title and Modifications are removed, leaving you with the base Pilot, Ship as it should be and Ordnance, Illicit, Droid and Systems or variety.

This led to second edition which is a refinement of the game, but quite different to the original and as it turns out, quite similar to Bare Bones as it has dropped many upgrades and absorbed others.

Added to that are the Huge ship rules in 1e (I like them as they make big ships clumsy but daunting, but many struggle with them). Much improved in 2e, along with the Epic rules (also usable with 1e).

The potential for variety is greater in XW, but AW has managed to stay fairly true to itself due to fudged scaling differences and limited upgrade paths.

Something to be aware of with 2e. You have an option of pre-made quick builds or the more precise App based squad building (or download the points costs and do it manually) or to make your own system up (I use a 1/5th point cost with 1 point per upgrade to make 30/40/50 point forces that actually works fine for casual games). This can be off putting, but really isn’t.

I am a late comer to X Wing and can confess to being addicted. Both editions find play and along with AW, Wings of War and Sails of Glory make for a good variety of experiences. Favourite? Depends on mood and inspiration.

How Well Do They Simulate Their Roots

An odd thing is, I play the two games very differently.

Attack Wing

Attack wing feels like it needs a scenario. They crew, upgrades and enemy need to have a reason to be used. Each pack comes with a scenario, usually lifted from a relevant episode, which makes you feel like a problem solver, not a fire team leader.

If played competitively, this goes completely out the window. Odd mixes and a win at all costs attitude make for a game that bares little resemblance to it’s roots, but take that out, place some restrictions on factions and limit timeline cross-overs and it makes you think Star Trek. Go “full noise” and it really just feels like a min-max game.

There are a lot of Trek games out there. I have or have tried FASA’s, Star Fleet Battles, Fed Commander, Full Thrust and ACTA Star Trek variations. All have their place, but for a playable “Kirk on the Bridge” feel, Attack Wing is the one to go with.

X Wing

XW tends to fall into squad building dynamic easily which does not detract from it’s Star Wars feel unless you let it. My preferred take on X Wing, which is a heavily upgrade reduced, Rebel/Scum/Empire only game feels like the Star Wars of the original movies. With Elite Pilot, Modification and Title upgrades removed, you get a balanced, simplified, but still challenging game that is more about piloting than squad building. It also simulates the films well, where full upgrade X Wing can drift away from that quickly. Realistically, my take on the game would not suit the vast horde of competitive players out there, but there are many who game in a more simulation-ist sense and that is where faction specific, upgrade reduced play comes in. We may explore the rest of the upgrade options later, but will likely just switch to the better balanced 2e*.

Second edition with all of its options, feels more like the newer movies to me. The newer, slicker, but deeper mechanics and better range of options for the later period factions ties together well. They had a tacked on feel to the earlier edition, but feel tailor-made for the new.

This suits me, my fleets and the way I want the game to feel, but obviously your take may vary.

Which To Get?

To be honest, there is only one answer to this. Get the one you like. No point in getting X Wing for the ships if you are a Trekkie, nor jumping onto Attack Wing for the cheaper entry point if all things Star Wars will nag at you. Although a Trekkie at heart, X Wing 1e clearances finally got me.

If torn, probably go Attack Wing for the easy entry point and lower learning curve. It also helps that most people are familiar with the characters from non stop TV re-runs, where Star Wars, especially the extended universe can trip up many (FFG really go looking for some obscure characters to fill gaps in their line).

What to Get?

If you do jump, do your research first. X Wing and AW have the same entry point (core set), but think through your next steps first.

X Wing

For X Wing, a fleet of 3-5 ships, with one of Large or medium size will do per faction. Variety is the spice of life for tournament play, but if you are a stickler for story lines, a core and one or two of the same ships (lots of pilots) and a “Hero” ship like the Millenium Falcon” works well. Usually 3 ships a side makes a good game with a squad ranging from 7 to 2 ships. If you do go small squad then all upgrades are good.

If you want to go 1e X Wing, maybe look at the clearance of the less popular but slightly better “Force Awakens” core sets (I got 5 for $100 au which started this madness). This will give you the basics of a Resistance vs First Order fleet, which can lack ship variety, but the individual ships are stronger than the earlier period ones and they have the Tech Upgrade slot, adding upgrade variety. Throw in some Scum and you can cover most options. The 2e upgrade packs for these are also cheaper (because they are smaller) and this opens the door for the new ships for these factions. This will also give you multiples of the damage decks etc.

For 2e X Wing, maybe one or two matched factions (First Order vs Resistance or Separatist vs Republic). The problem being the starter set as it is Empire vs Rebel focussed, but it is possible to download the rules, buy the separate move gauges, damage decks and ships without getting the boxed game (most ships come with enough counters). If there is a large player base in your area, maybe one faction or two from the same side but different periods.

I would strongly recommend buying what you like. If you want to add upgrades that are only available in certain ship packs, look around for stores that sell them separately like Big Orbit Cards. This is especially relevant for 1e with massed dumping of cards. This was a lesson I learned too late.

Attack Wing

Attack Wing is playable with a single core set, but two or one and 2-3 more ships adds lots of variety. You only need 1-3 ships in AW for a game and each comes with a scenario to play.

AW has a few different starters, with a Federation vs “X” dynamic and they have several fleet sets. It is very possible to get a good fleet up with two boxed sets, then a few ships from 2 or three factions or even a couple of core sets (Fed, Romulan, Klingon) with the odd Borg or others for variety. Everyone fights everyone in Star Trek so buy what you like. Remember all upgrade cards are interchangeable, even captains, so a few ships gives huge variety.

It is certainly not impossible to get matching fleets that do not need repainting or scale fudging, especially with the Voyager or Enterprise series. If I had my time over, I would buy the Voyager, Original and Enterprise series only.

*I do have the Rebel and Imperial upgrade sets for 2e, but I am happy for the moment playing modified 1e.

Happy Gaming.

More Thoughts on Old School X Wing

Having both editions of X Wing game has allowed me to look at each on a strengths and weaknesses platform.

I fully intend to use first edition (1e) as a separate game and an good introduction for new players. This gives me a sound and simple platform to work with, uses recently purchased components and allows 2e to be a new experience after 1e has been played through.

The problems with 1e have been covered by many before, but still need dressing. I thought in my naivety that I would be immune, playing on a casual basis but I have three issues that need dealing with.

1) I have too much knowledge. This gives me an unfair edge over my player base. I can guarantee you I am not the best player I know, but a little knowledge goes a long way. I want to be able to squad build without always hampering my own, better researched choices

2) The choices are mind boggling for the newbie, with only the a little knowledge giving the more experienced player a huge edge (see point one).

3) Some ships just do not see any table time due to balance issues or because they are just not fun to play (compared to other ships).

So, simplify and balance.

Seldom seen on gaming tables, let alone at tournaments, some ships were simply purchased for their upgrade cards. What a waste. Without EPT’s the targets of these ships may prove to be a little “action economy” lacking (less slippery) and their original ship concepts may show through.

In an attempt to dumb down first edition X Wing (simplify and clarify options - much like the reinvented 2e), so that a newbie can feel connected to it, I have made the following changes, maybe just for the near future until players become more conversant with the system, or maybe not.

No Elite Pilot Talent upgrades (gasp!).

Each named pilot has their own defining pilot talent as is and they are usually true to the nature of the pilot (the little medal upgrade symbol can denote this only for the time being). EPT’s are the most powerful upgrades, meshing with pilot skills and other upgrades to make for multi layered super combinations, especially in “action economy”, where games are won or lost. The reason for their power is their variety and with that comes the huge depth that puts new players off.

With ship built in Pilot skills, Mods, Titles, System* and various weapon upgrades, there is plenty to keep a new player busy. It looks like there are only a couple of pilot abilities that are contingent on EPT’s (Major Rhymer at PS8), so house ruling may be needed. Or not.

No class specific Title upgrades (excepting specific big name ships).

These are mostly the more recently introduced bandaid fixes that were welcomed by the tournament community as they made poor ships better, but to me just seem contrived, especially when the ships are now never taken without them. The cracks in the game were showing, with some cards simply reducing points values under a thinly veiled “Mk2” or special refit. Proof of this comes in the wholesale dumping of these “titles” in 2e, and their integration as standard.

Titles (Named ships, not classes) made the cut for the same reason as intrinsic pilot talents are used. The combination of title and the correct pilot makes sense at it suits the legendary ships.

If you strip these away, most ships balance up with each other. If there is a lack of direct balance from ship to ship, then that will come out as we explore the game from fresh and is to be considered a reality of life. By removing EPT’s, layers of complication and interconnection have been shed. Is the game less for this? Most seasoned players will say yes, but for those new to the game, I doubt they will miss what they have never known.

My hunch is the base line used when designing ships has remained much the same, but the meta-game beyond that has grown out of control. By shedding some layers of choice, the strong core may yet show through.

*

Otherwise all other upgrades are kept as is. Long time players will likely be put off by the lack of their favourite combinations (especially A-Wing players). That is fine, because they are not playing in my group.

Pilot Core Ability + Ship Mod + rare Title + Weapon choice + Droid, System or Illicit options if available are plenty for now.

Remember, the expectation is for a new player to have choices from the start, but not to be overwhelmed. EPT’s are often at odds with, or are much the same as the pilot’s actual inherent ability and the cascade of options, often contradicting or multiplying these effects can be counter productive.

The vast majority of EPT’s are offensive in nature, which makes them very powerful. Many others are mimicked closely by other upgrades (Expert Handling = Vectored Thrusters or Flight Assist Mech effects). Anyway, how many upgrades do you need to play the game and have fun?

With the exception of twin laser turrets, EPT’s were most responsible for breaking the game, unless they became relegated to the bin as useless (Soontir Fel with PTL and other upgrades is almost untouchable). It is no coincidence that EPT’s (and the TLT) were removed in 2e.

I have thought of limiting some upgrades to some ships, especially keeping to canon, but I will let it play itself out, offering suggestions in ship lists and hoping that the points values are pretty balanced as is*. Twin Laser Turrets or massed turret ships are a good example of game controlling squad builds. Limiting the quantity naturally by just not having too many of them will mostly address this.

The removal of EPT’s has also made pre-made “quick” squad building a lot easier. I have over 50 ships, so the combinations are already almost endless for casual players.

*I believe that the designers and developers have made some effort to stick to canon when designing their products and the base point values (I assume based on the early ships) are stable in their own right. It is the synergy of multiple layers of upgrades that have broken the game. Lets see how that theory holds out.

*

So what do we have left?

Looking at the Scum and Villainy faction as an example, we can see a pattern emerging.

Some ships become limited again;

Non Vaksai Kihraxz, is solid and boring (see X Wing, Y Wing, B Wing etc). The Scum equivalent of the X Wing, this ship does have a couple of good pilots and room for some added punch and manoeuvre options. This ship is the tough filler for a squad, or the slightly better ride for a bounty hunter with their own tricks. Vaksai title makes them much stronger, effectively changing their role.

The non Mk2, or original Star Viper. This one has moves that are slippery enough as is (“S” Turns are rare in 1e, making them special), retains some punch, but generally feels brittle. This fits the original concept of a floating death butterfly. The pilots are good to ok and the “Virago” Title gives Xisor an edge.

Not as exciting as Star Viper Mk2’s and “Vaksai” Kihraxz, but their opposition is similarly ham-strung.

M3. A poor swarm ship, likened to a poor man’s Tie. That is exactly what it will be. Without the heavy or Light titles, this one is again a swarm/filler. Their role is a budget scum ship relegated to rim stations and escort duty, so that is exactly what they will be. There a few pilots with tricks up their sleeves and lots of variety, so they may surprise.

These three are the ships I first think of when I ponder of FFG’s “weakness mitigation” path of the last few years.

Some ships will hardly change;

Fang Fighter. Little will change here. The basic pilot abilities are similar to the title and most popular EPT’s so they will lose some punch (like most others), but no character. Removing the Protectorate title allows the Fang Fighter to be a mercenary ship, much like it’s 2e direction. As Protectorate ships, I struggle to find a logical place for them.

Fenn Rau Advanced Proton Torps Munitions Failsafe (35), Old Treloch Advanced Proton Torps Munitions Failsafe (33) and Kad Solus Ion Torpedoes Autothrusters (32) = 100 pts Kad is used at range to stun or as a late game blocker, the other two to wait for a massive strike at close range.

or

Mandalorian Mercenary (Slave 1) (35), Concord Dawn Ace (23), Concord Dawn veteran (22), Zealous Recruit (20) = 100 pts. Bare bones fire power. Not competitive on the circuit, but without EPT’s, quite versatile. The Starfire acts as a blocker and arc guard, the Fang’s swoop in for the kill.

The Z95 Headhunter & Y Wing. These will be liked more than the M3, but my lists are slightly faction based, so there will be a place for all.

The Quad Jumper. This one has a frustrating and illogical tech slot (which it retained in 2e??), that will be house ruled as an “anything you want” slot, making this quirky little ship a true surprise packet.

ML-12. Not my favourite ship, but maybe a little stronger again, now it is against reduced opponents.

C-Roc. With no EPT anyway (Huge Ship), this one will likely benefit from a slight levelling of the field.

Scurrg/Aggressor/Lancer/GA-1/YV-666/HWK/Starfire. These will all be much as designed. Choices in pilot and mods will have some effect so there is room for a trick or two.

Some will get tougher (again);

The Jump Master. At original card face-value, this is a tough if expensive ship (especially with the Title). I have only one and will not get any others, so the triple U boat threat is out. It will be feared, but not unbeatable. It will likely be played a lot more than the heavily nerfed 2e version!

*

An added advantage of fewer upgrades is more ships on the table. This is the 2e direction (better pilots and ships, weaker upgrades), so it seems sound and desirable practice.

Generally, the ships become simpler and more in keeping with the feel of the original game. Some ships stand out, some for the wrong reasons, but the super strong synergies are gone, making for a fairer and simpler playing field. There is already more variation in the base game than Chess, so the question could be asked “how much complication makes a good game?”.

Later, we will (may) re-introduce EPT’s, but that is when we have tapped the available options (or when one of my players gets hooked and starts researching better builds). Maybe we never will as 2e is calling.

A good place to start for beginners, or maybe anyone wanting to take the analysis paralysis out of their game?

*Tech upgrades are also gone, as I am only doing Rebel, Scum and Empire in 1e.

Going Old School With Classic X Wing

As a new comer to X Wing, I feel like I have missed out on something great, something seminal. A gaming high-tide mark that others had the privilege to enjoy before it became too serious and obsessed with it’s own flaws (which lead to 2e).

Thinking along those lines and with a need to simplify X Wing for my very occasional players, but without sacrificing the enjoyment of squad building, I have decided to wind the clock back to the beginning and re visit my collection from it’s beginnings, then re-build to a point I feel represents the game before it was thematically “broken” to balance tournament play. Looking at a lot of blogs and forums while researching the game, it became clear pretty quickly that the tournament circuit drifted from one good thing to the next, with FFG devoting as much time to balance issues with older ships as they did to making new content.

Some of the big names of the game, under or over played due to their balance issues.

The intent;

To create a play space similar to what FFG have done with 2e, using core or “quick” builds for each ship type (not pilot). I will be using this as an opportunity to assign the right (thematic and mechanically balanced) upgrades to the intended ships, but with plenty of scope for variation with mods, pilot talents, weapons etc. There will be some strong cards in the game, but I will place no emphasis on them, letting the players decide (the lists then make me play nice). Basically to revisit the Rock-Paper-Scissors feel of the games roots.

To allow for the original game dynamic to return, with it’s subtle variations bought to the fore. Revisit a time before the “balancing” elements that forced power creep and inconsistencies. Simpler times.

To have some fun.

Pew Pew. The good ol’ days.

What is In

1) All Rebel, Imperial and Scum ships. “Classic” X Wing is Luke and Darth, Biggs and Boba slugging it out with a handful of dynamic upgrades.

2) I have also decided to take the ship and upgrade cards at face value. Errata and other complications are not in the spirit of what I am working towards. The Jumpmaster 5000 as printed is a really powerful (and expensive) ship, but with a soft limit placed on it’s weapon choices and only a single ship to pick from, it will likely become a game favourite, but not a game breaker, so no 3x U-boat squads. Imbalance is natural, creating legends and heroes. The game is robust enough to offer checks and balances, certainly for novice players.

What is out

1) All of the competition balancing, ship specific, upgrade or title cards like Vaksai, Star Viper mk2, A wing test pilot , B Wing E2 etc. This has been expanded to include specific ship title cards, leaving the pilots to make them special. These were used to make old ships better or balance short-comings revealed in later squad building. They tend to create super squads and make ships balanced to death. They strip away the simple little advantages ships have, which is where the power creep starts. It actually took until waves 14 at the end of 1e before the game’s name sake became competitive again. These advantages have been fully integrated into 2e where they will be used there**, but were tacked-on to 1e.

The Star Viper for example has an S3 turn, which is one of only a few in the 1e game (and all “S” turn and Talon roll ships are Scum faction in my collection, which suits their slippery faction better). This is it’s point of difference. Upgrade selection becomes critical here. You can add a barrel roll, boost or shield upgrade to an X Wing, but not all of these. Some ships will have native advantages such as Flight Assist Astro-mech (limited free boost and barrel roll) or Illicit upgrades.

I see the upgrades as a selection of tactical choices, taken after the ship is chosen, not balance patches or rights of birth. Balance is pretty good in the early game.

2) Odd or unrealistic upgrade combinations. This is not a free for all, so certain ships and upgrades will be locked in, keeping to theme and common sense. This will also reduce, with the general reduction of available upgrades, the multi layered synergy available to deep players of the game*.

3) Tech upgrades are automatically out without the later factions. The only ship left that could have them is the Quad Jumper, which can have a house rule of another Systems or Illicit slot (or maybe just an open slot).

4) Resistance and First order. Leaving out the First Order and Resistance, making them the back bone of 2e (with Scum as a variant faction) just makes sense. They are improved and expanded in 2e and seem to fit that game’s feel better for me. They are also redundant squad competition for the Rebels and Empire, offering similar, but more powerful ships. I would also prefer a game that does not cross timeline boundaries. The thought of Darth Vader and Kylo Ren flying together (or against each other), just jars, but I will “fudge” some of the Scum factions as needed.

The Resistance fleet for 2e. The big transport gets a dedicated card and smoother play experience, the little transport/pod and A Wings are new to 2e and the bombers have crew! Add to this, the quantity of ships is catered for with the Epic expansion (yes, you can play them all at once!). I may even add the Fireball later.

Cross-over

The Scum and Villainy faction add variety to both games and are very different creatures in each game space. They have the dynamic in 2e of the ships that are new and improved, as thirty years of so of development would do.

*I am not so worried about my player’s power squad building, but as I am starting to learn the strengths and advantages of the upgrades and where to find them, this brings me back to just playing also.

**In 2e, set a little later with TFA themes, the better/later versions of the ships make more sense.

Another Solution To Dungeons And Dragons.

In the last post we looked at Adventures in Middle Earth or AIME as a better take (for me) on D&D 5e. In this post we will look at a game that surprises me still as an equal, but very different alternative.

Between 3e, and 3.5e D&D and Pathfinder, I purchased the 13th Age RPG. The designers openly taut it as their own “Home Rules” version of D&D. Who are they to publish what most of us do regularly, as if anyone cares? They are Jonathon Tweet and Rob Heinsoo, each lead designers of previous D&D editions.

My very small hold over from 4e. One of it’s many problems was rules redundancy. Not long after coming out, the original three core books were effectively out of date. In the 11th hour, these little, weighty travel books came out with a much clearer presentation of the concepts, but too little too late. The game was likened by some to a video game. Others said all of the character classes were the same, just dressed up differently. If you had issues with it, you were not alone, but it kept the game going. Some even liked it.

Just another D&D clone would probably have worked in the low point that was D&D 4e, but to survive in the future, 13A needed something more. Pathfinder for example took the cast aside 3/3.5e and kept running with it. Still effectively recognisable as D&D 3e, Pathfinder let the grumbling, persevering 3e gamers stick with a trusted friend, and the presentation was awesome. You could even take most 3e content and squish it into the Pathfinder world, so minimal waste of those massed volumes.

Some useful bits left over from my Pathfinder days. 3e done better, but still the book bloat and creeping rules redundancy. Second edition has come out, which would have annoyed me if I had stayed.

13th Age spent a year or two lost on a crowded book case, waiting patiently for me to see the light. I had browsed and what I saw was not to my liking. It was more D&D than D&D. It had fast track levelling (I thought), tiny monster stats blocks that just looked like combat stats and the art was not my taste (too much awesome Wayne Reynolds in Pathfinder spoiled me). I almost sold it a couple of times, heck, I almost threw it in with another clear-out for nothing!

I cannot remember the exact day, but one day I sat down with it and it clicked. I think the Icon section at the front left me cold and I have read that in other reviews. The Icon relationships are an optional pivot point for the game (everything is optional, which is made very clear when you read it). Being the first rather dense chapter made them a mild obstruction for me to moving forward, but once I got into the text proper, the game started to sing.

What did 13th Age do differently?

Lots of stuff, but lets look at the core mechanics first;

Levels. There are 10, they are meaning-full, you can/should improve incrementally and being world changers, each marks a stage in your saga. If you are going to have levels, this is how to do it. The designers even shun experience points in favour of DM driven turning points. If the DM thinks you have earned a reward through adventuring or role playing success, they are encouraged to dole out bits of level improvement, getting rid of hard level jumps.

Combat. Is cleaned up and simplified and the mechanics have returned to the “Theatre of the Mind” style that 4e replaced with war-game like figures and grids. Yes there are hit points, but this is epic stuff. This is D&D high power, just as the originators would have liked. These characters, like Conan or John Carter do get hurt and fight on tomorrow. They are destined, they are not going to be held up by trivialities like broken bones or twisted ankles. It also borrows from the best of 3e and 4e editions, without any stodginess or rigidness.

Magic. Magic is also simplified, logically and epically. Less spells, that grow with the magic user and the characters are playing big time heroes, not piddling mages who may or may not make it to next week. The core concept that you need to get your head around in 13th Age is, your characters are going to be world changers. They are starting out as minor legends in their own circles, moving in to the big time. This is the other extreme of the D&D spectrum from AIME. Instead of ordinary people doing extra ordinary things, this is about extraordinary, fated beings taking the express road to high danger.

Classes. This is the big one for me. As stated in magic above, the player characters are special, not just fillers in an artificial class based structure. You are not a thief, you are “Xxxxx” The Thief of Shadow Port. Your class is as flexible as any in the D&D world, but it is also a definition of you as a mover and shaker. That just makes sense to me. If you are going to have prescribed classes, then make them special, points of difference. Make class a pedestal not a cage. One of the classes, The Oracle can only be represented by one character in the world at a time.

Skills are also handled in a broad background/career form, so class abilities are specific specialist abilities, with general stuff like swimming, boating, rope handling being handled by your past life as a fisherman for example.

Ok, that is the core four mechanics addressed, now for some other stuff that makes 13A unique, not just in D&D, but in RPG’s generally.

The “One Unique Thing” or OUT concept allows you to add in a story element that really promotes player ownership. The OUT is a non game breaking anything that only your character has or does. It can be anything really, so expect to be surprised*. This, along with the writing style that openly promotes player driven world building, encouraged GM modifications and embedded story driving elements wake my imagination up.

The Bestiaries, adventures, core and add-on books all stir up ideas with plain speak and gentle humour. The authors even talk about their differing opinions in the text. The side bars are enlightening, welcoming and hilarious. I find the openness of the writing refreshing. Sometimes I just pick up a book at random and read for the pleasure of it. No other game does that for me!

There are other aspects to 13A that I will leave for you to discover, but I am hooked. If I am in the mood for D&D done right or want to introduce new characters to the hobby, it is my go to. There are just too many story creating aspects built in and as pure D&D it is clean, fast, approachable and relatively easy. A good night can be had, just coming up with character concepts.

Ironically, there is a 13A take on Glorantha (D100 Rune Quest), that I find much more appealing than the original. Wheels within wheels :)

*While reading the Bestiary 2, I thought of a character concept based on a white Dragon-born Necromancer, who is the last surviving custodian tasked with the sacred duty of ushering the recently departed faithful into the after world. He can see/speak with the dead within the confines of his cemetery. The problem is, his cemetery has been swallowed by a living dungeon without him (The Stone Thief pictured above), leaving him with a quest, with a sacred mission and unfinished business. He is also hated by the Necromancer, one of the world’s Icons, who sees him as a competitor.

Another character idea is a living Dwarf-forged who spent an age guarding a chamber in a lost Dwarven city in silence, listening and watching until a seal was broken to a vault he is bonded to. He now travels the world seeking those who broke the seal to put things right. He has a complicated relationship with the Dwarf Lord (another Icon) as he is seen as property, not an independent being.

An Option To Dungeons And Dragons

So, after lambasting D&D, why have I had a mild change of heart, a softening of rhetoric?

After selling most of my huge Pathfinder collection and reasonable clutch 4th edition of D&D, I swore never to fo down that path again. I did keep another D20 game called 13th Age, but that was more out of book bloat hiding it from culling eyes than design. More on this later.

So, in a moment of open minded weakness, I bought D&D 5e!

Lots of positive press about the improvements in play, clarity and application of needed fixes sucked me in. Also came the promise that they would not bloat the landscape with countless-useless tomes as the past editions had done. Three core books, all done. No Harm.

The books were a good if slightly dry read, addressing a lot of the more obvious problems with 3rd and 4th editions and promising a play style more in keeping with earlier editions, without their system clunkiness and pitfalls. Their main focus seemed to be on curving out of hand magic and making any character of any level always vulnerable.

This prompted me to get the Adventures in Middle Earth (AIME) books by Cubicle Seven. I love their take on Tolkien’s work in The One Ring RPG, but found the system suffered from an “evolving as it comes”, syndrome and some slightly too rigid processes that force players down some strict systemic pathways. I still like the system for all of the right reasons and was disappointed to hear the cleaner and more complete second edition, indeed the whole line, has been canned*.

Beautiful art, good to great writing and a successful capturing of the feel of genuine Tolkien.

AIME is for me the perfect combination of original D&D concepts as refined in fifth edition, blended with the low magic, low power world of Tolkien. Even at high levels, characters feel lower powered.

I am a strong supporter of the D&D 3e “E6” movement, which places a strong limit on character power, usually 6th level, but sometimes higher or lower. It came from an article arguing that Gandalf was only a 6th level Wizard (and he used a sword!) and that a Dragon, any Dragon should be at least region shaping event and frikkin’ scary, not just a “speed bump” for high level characters on their way to demigod status. This led to my own “E10” Pathfinder re-boot and more time wasted, when D100 games were set up this way anyway.

The beauty of AIME is it’s successful combining of the better concepts of The One Ring seamlessly and some say more efficiently, into the well trod mechanics of D&D for a coherent and complete game (the benefit of coming second after TOR is no catch-up). The game is so complete, that it only needs twenty pages from the free 5e intro rules (“Playing the Game”) to work. I traded my 5e books for some X Wing ships and moved into full AIME mode quickly.

Straddling the fence between main stream D&D and The One Ring look, the books are more cohently organised, even if most of the story lines and art are identical to TOR, but who cares. There is enough content to play both without crossing over, but I will be sticking to AIME.

Why does it work for me? Lets look at my main complaints about D&D.

Levels. It does use levels, but the 5e take on levelling up is less powerful than previous versions and AIME feels even gentler, due in part to it’s inherent mechanics. The 5e designers intent was to make even high level characters vulnerable to hordes of low level “mooks”, but magic is still an unbalancing element (see below). Ironically, levels in AIME line up perfectly with the “adventuring year” concept and the decades long campaigns that the designers have created. One year of adventure, an off season of retrospection and contemplation, leading to more preparedness, equals levelling up, then off on another adventure year stronger, better prepared and wiser. This forms decades long stories and it fits the Tolkien ethos perfectly. I have two long campaigns and dozens of filler adventures to fatten up the years of character challenges as well as countless adventure hooks in their region guides. Elven Characters for example could even adventure with multiple generations of the same family.

Magic. Magic is, just like the books, out of the hands of the characters. Some races may have access to magical items and the world has many powerful magical elements, but there are no magic using classes and few powerful magical artefacts or weapons, again just like in the books. Remember a clutch of magic rings and a handful of magic swords changed the fate of the entire world. You may meet a Mage, maybe even Gandalf, but you will not be one.

Classes. There are classes in the game, but they are in keeping with the character types common to the world and heavily influenced by race, region and personal choice. Without magic using classes they are limited to six robust types, with lots of customisation. I cannot find fault with the designers choices. Early trepidation at having only six classes was replaced with much excitement after making up three very different characters from just one class. The classes are D&D equivalents, but fit the genre better.

Combat. Combat is what it is. I have to admit, 5e has addressed a lot of the hit point bloat and un-touchableness of 3e, high level characters and I can accept that long earned experience works as an abstract hit point pool in this game. Hypocritical of me I know, but maybe the original concept has found a harmonious home (for me). I like the story first, old school feel of this world and the mechanics as is.

So, this is one way of liking D&D from a D&D critic’s perspective, but there is yet another.

*Cubicle 7 has relinquished the licence for any Tolkien based work. Fear not though! There is plenty around still and the PDF’s are still available cheaply.

The Problem With Dungeons and Dragons

A long time ago, there was One.

It was first called Chainmail, then Dungeons and Dragons and it created an entire hobby, a genre of gaming in a form never seen before.

Soon after there were three others, Tunnels and Trolls, Rune Quest and Traveller. The last two are where I came in.

D&D has a certain style, but one that I did not personally like. In fairness it has carried the game through good times and bad to a point where it is still standing strong, even dominantly over seemingly countless competitors. My dislike has not stopped me from buying into all five editions and some mirror games like Pathfinder, but that is what being number one can do to a person (I currently have only selected bits left of these systems).

My problem with the game comes from the very limiting and specific core mechanics it uses. These are needed to control what would otherwise be totally open, ad hoc play action, which is the secret of table top RPG’s, constraining otherwise no-holds-barred play with regulated game mechanics, but that does not stop me from having an almost allergic reaction to them.

The four offenders are;

Levels. An artificial feeling mechanism for character reward and advancement.

Class. Another artificial control of character capability and in the field performance.

Magic. Vancian magic as it was called, just plain annoyed me and still does to this day.

Combat. Combat in D&D was abstract in the extreme and way too unrealistic.

There are other ways of controlling these four game elements and the methods tried are pretty varied, some are even brilliant. It is interesting to note that almost all other RPG’s developed since D&D have moved away from these basic concepts.

What is even harder to argue against though is the basic play paradigm of go down a hole, kill stuff, get treasure and cash that in for experience to become a better person. This is just fundamentally unrealistic and unlike any fantasy book I have read.

Many defend D&D’s choices simply on the basis of being “the first”, others just play the game and ignore the abstractness. This is the privilege allowed to the foundation stone of the medium, but the reality is, two of the genres earlier titles strayed from the path right from the get go.

Rune Quest, which became the corner stone for countless off-chute D100 games such as Call of Cthulhu, which is still the longest running “true form” RPG, staying much the same for 6 editions. RQ used a more logical and straight forward percentile system for it’s mechanics and this allowed the game to use single percentile advancement of individual character skills usually advanced through use under pressure. These skills were in turn not limited to a single class (upbringing, race, background and career usually, but this varies) , allowing the player to pursue any likely and logical road of development. You may go dungeoneering and get rich from it, but that is you get, a rich character in a make believe world.

A small part of the D100 inventory. Classic Fantasy on the right is Mythras crossed with D&D - old school.

Want a barbarian-rogue, foot-pad type who dabbles in a few minor spells, can whip up a herbal healing salve, use a boat, climb a mountain all while worshipping their chosen god(s)? No problem. D&D at the time made you choose a Thief or Cleric or Druid, with little workable cross-over. It is telling that 50 years later, most D100 games are using this same basic system, effectively unchanged (and it is surprisingly flexible** when change is made), where D&D has been fundamentally reinvented at least three times in this space and in countless minor ways by copies and off-chutes.

Combat in D100 games has a reputation for being brutal and short lived (i.e. realistic and scary and more fun for it). In D&D players have a tendency to feel like actions do not have consequences. In D100 games they surely do.

D&D uses a highly abstract system of “Hit Points” that have become a catch-all for defences and wound effects. Hit points in D&D raise with level, simulating the characters increased survivability, which has never been properly explained to my satisfaction, especially when Joe the fighter has more than an ancient Dragon. These hit points also tend to come back far too quickly and don’t even get me started on full magical healing and resurrection.

D100 games use either a similar hit point pool, but with very real critical hit effects, or actual body location hit points that are linked to the character’s physical characteristics (only) and seldom increase artificially (levels). You can lose a limb! As the character increases in skill and their opposition stiffens, they must get better at not being hit, not just increase their vague and “squishy” hit point pools.

Rune Quest and it’s successors also handled magic more logically. It often used a power point pool, much like magical endurance that allowed you to potentially cast the same spell over and over until your reserve was tapped, rather than limit the character to one-off spell use per day/fight or rest period. Alternately, the spell could be a skill learned like any other. Tunnels and Trolls, did the same thing, becoming D&D’s main competitor back in the early days.

Ironically, most people that dislike D100 systems say they are too “swingy”, referring to it’s linear dice curve, but D&D uses basically the same system with less granularity (5% jumps).

*

Second, and my true favourite, was first edition Traveller, not the actual original edition with varied weapon damage that a friend owned, but the one after (original 1.1). Coming at the same time I discovered the Stainless Steel Rat books, Star Wars movies and 2000 AD comics in the early 80’s, Traveller allowed me to play Sci Fi in a sandbox environment, using just three slim black books in a little black box (which also held d6 dice and pens etc). The systems were logical, realistic and sublimely succinct.

Again, Traveller managed to avoid the trap of levels, experience points and class, using skills alone. It used one of the best, and most lethal character generation systems ever devised (a mini game in it’s own right).

Combat in Traveller had the brilliant idea of applying wounds to the character’s physical characteristics, directly reducing a wounded person’s capabilities. So simple, so realistic.

Traveller also gave us (after T&T) a dice curve, using two six sided dice added together. This removed the linear chance spread that D100 and D20 D&D had, providing an average. This was more logically sound and predictable.

Mongoose, among others has carried Traveller through to now. The book on the left copies the look and feel of the original, jamming a fully workable game into this slim volume. The slicker book on the right has added colour and smoother mechanics, but both still resemble the original, over forty years old now.

The biggest problem with all of the others is profile.

Most people have heard of D&D, using the term to describe all Role Playing like we use “Hoover” (or maybe Dyson now) for vacuum, but few can name many other table top RPG’s. Even “The Big Bang” and “Stranger Things” reference it directly (though the characters in TTB do not play it correctly-there are no it locations in D&D, for shame), ignoring the hundreds of other options in the hobby.

I have owned enough D&D, Pathfinder etc to sink a barge. I have given it a go, always coming back to different systems for the above reasons.

Until now.

I will explore my (mild) change of heart and the two systems that are at it’s core in the next posts.

*In early versions of D&D, you needed a representative from each major class for your party to survive, which I suppose was the point and promoted team work, but it felt very contrived. In later versions, many tasks and abilities went the way of the Dodo, but some did not. A Cleric that could only kill with non edged weapons, to avoid blood shed (but could still kill by pounding something to pulp with a mace!), Wizards could not use armour because of an ever changing excuse and only thieves were able to pick a lock? How about a big ass axe dude!

It is true that later versions softened these rigid limitations, but the fundamentals have stayed the same.

** It is entirely possible, with minimal effort to interchange core rules from D100 games from any period or genre. The Big Gold Book, a generic RPG tome of great standing, can be cherry picked for ideas for any D100 game from 1980 to now and any genre from fantasy to super heroes with little harm done. It is even possible to play around with the core rules to suit. My own system for rolling D100 is different to most, but works fine. It is not possible, for example, to use a monster stat sheet from any editions of D&D interchangeably.

Confessions Of An X Wing Tragic (Part 2)

Part two of my X Wing retrospective looks at the less pleasurable side of being a “completist” collector placed under time and financial constraints.

It occurred to me about mid March that I was not that far away from completing a full collection of X Wing ships and upgrades, from the original movies through to the latest (the prequels were not at that time covered). The problem was, they were quickly drying up.

Kicking into full scrounger mode, which I had to compromise a little with a couple of near full priced, hard to get ships, I started to fill out the missing ranks of rebel and Imperial fleets.

I was nearly completely successful, missing out on the “Ghost” expansion ironically and a couple of obscure Tie fighters. The Ghost is a big ship, not to my liking and the Tie fighters were just more of the same. The biggest miss for me was the Imperial Veterans set, that I could not seem to track down. It made the Tie Defender and Tie Bombers better, much as many of the later expansions did for B, X, A and Y wings, Scum ships and Tie interceptors. As luck would and often did go, I found a source locally, that I missed first time around due to their naff search engine (entering “X wing” apparently found little. You had to put in exactly “Star Wars X-Wing” to see all listings). This filled in most of the important gaps.

Next hurdle/windfall came in the form of a true bargain. I found a source of Scum C-Roc cruisers from the Huge ship range for $50 au, including an M3 Interceptor and plenty of upgrades effectively for free. I bought two. Oddly the supplier had few other cheap ships. In fact, the secret of my success really was shopping around. One place sold Tie/ln fighters for $9.99 locally, with free freight over $50 and time payment options, another wanted $29.99 for the same, but had the C Roc for little more! I think the average price of my fleet is about half RRP, even with a near full price Raider.

So, this opened up the Huge ship can of worms. What to do. The C Roc was a relatively points cheap, single card ship and a great table presence. The reality is I liked having the bigger ship option, it completed the X Wing story. There was also the enticement of lots of great upgrade cards in the packs that usually improved their included small craft options (Tie Advanced, M3, X Wing).

I missed a CR-90 by a day, the Imperial Gozanti was long gone and the GR-75 transport was very scarce (but luckily I found one). The only one that was readily available was the recently released Imperial Raider. The Raider appealed as the “Big Bad” I felt the Imperials needed (the Decimator pictured above is a notch above the Millenium Falcon, but not the mini Death Star I desired). Lets face it, most Star Wars stories boil down to the cobbled together few vs the mighty darkness. The Raider is also one of the two card ships.

One Raider, One GR-75 and 2 C-Roc ‘s later and the Huge ship thing was fixed. The missing upgrade cards such as the very popular C-3PO crew card were sourced through Big Orbit Cards in the UK, so no need to hunt down impossible to get Huge ships that I did not need. I have no desire for massed big ship battles (Attack Wing can do that), I just wanted scenario drivers (SD’s).

All done. All factions had comprehensive options, all upgrade cards were represented and a new Deep Cut Dunes Planet mat (in the pictures) finished the set.

So…..

Chasing up a second original “Red” core set, just for depth of some cards like R2-D2 and Luke, the distributor emailed to say they were out, but did I want the second edition one for the same price?

I promptly said no, but curiosity had me checking the full price, just to see if I was offered a bargain. Turned out, the core set was already cheap, as were the second edition conversion packs.

A day or two later, I put in an order for the First Order and Resistance ones. For less than $60au I had two factions effectively covered for the future. With free 2e rules online and most other accessories near enough for casual play I was set.

Why these two factions?

Same logic as the first time around, but more logical still. The 2e game is more balanced, the factions all stand up relatively evenly and upgrades do not rule all. The Resistance and First Order are even more robust than the early (and now prequel) ships and FFG has already added several new ships. This is exactly what these factions needed. More depth, more logical stats (Bombers with crew!) and more options. 2e seemed made for TFA period ships. Add a Resistance Transport/pod combo, 3 A Wings, 2 Interceptors.

Upgrading the older period ships is of course likely in the future, or maybe not.

Second edition is less about upgrade card hoarding and more about good piloting. Two factions can represent this well enough (each conversion set comes with over 100 cards), giving hundreds of games of balanced combinations without the need to collect all factions.

I actually don’t want to do a comprehensive change over. 2e has saved my first purchases from oblivion, keeping the two games/periods relevant and different.

Part of the fun of 1e is list building. It can break if not handled carefully, but points on upgrade cards and upgrades on ship cards makes it fun to do and a mini hobby in it’s own right. After all this game was the top dog for the better part of 10 years, warts and all.

Getting back to casual gaming, especially scenario drive friendly games, 1e is fine for the older period ships. It has a charm that suits these ships. Older game-older movies. It fits. How do I get around the meta gaming and broken list building? I stick to semi fixed lists designed as squads with suitable, cannon accurate and logical upgrades. That way “super” builds are avoided and the games feel right. Again, my players are not die-hard tourney gamers. They are friends and family, out for fun not to win at all costs, so if I tell them they can have Ion Turrets only on their Rebel Y Wings, not the recently popular and unstoppable Twin Laser Turret option, then they will not know or care.

2e does not offer points or upgrades on cards , but it does offer “Quick Builds” and an App for points based competitions. The QB option is perfect for fast pick up games (or my own simple system of dividing the ship’s pilot points by 5 and making all upgrades 1 point. It works for fun games of 30-50 points and allows more choices and subtlety than the quick builds without the math- I made a chart as the card have no upgrades on them).

The icing on the cake came from two upgrades purchased today. The Huge ship upgrade streamlines Huge ship* play and the Epic expansion allows massed ship combats. This again just adds to the relevance of the TFA period ships in 2e as it maximises my large numbers of identical ships. The Huge ship expansion provides upgrades specific to the later period (lacking in the 1e ship packs) and Epic allows me to field all 12 Tie/fo and 9 T-70 X wings in one game. The Epic set even accounts for ground defences, so Endor scenario here I come.

*In 1e huge ships are lumbering giants with donut defences and known weak spots, ideal for my mini Death Star scenario. In 2e they play more like smaller ships, allowing me to fatten up the still slightly thin FO and Resistance fleets (FO for example lacks ships with crew options). Perfect synergy and maximum bang from my most expensive ships.

There you have it. Four months from nothing to something - x2.

X Wing “Classic” focussing on the original ships, expanded universe and 1e rules and;

X Wing “New Age”, prioritising the new movies, with the new rules, including the improved Huge and Epic rules options.

I love it when a plan comes together.

Confessions Of An X Wing Tragic (Part 1)

“Pew Pew” games as my wife would say, have been a staple of mine for the last few years. I started with WW1 biplanes (Wings of War, then Canvas Eagles), then WW2 planes (Wings again then Check Your Six and others) and finally Star Trek Attack Wing, which I still feel is better value than my latest addiction, but not without it’s issues*.

Star Wars X Wing was always the one that got away.

A confirmed Star Trek tragic, I had lost the Star Wars magic that struck me after seeing the first movie first hand as a ten year old. I cannot over state my love of the early movies at the time, but the following three broke my waning interest, even without seeing them. Something changed, leaving a hole that Star Trek and other sci fi themes filled to some degree, but the worn looking droids, star ships and ridiculous, but ridiculously cool laser swords, fighters and barely disguised WW1 & 2 guns as blasters had a lasting effect.

Recently (January), at an opportune time it seems, I opened an email from a favoured distributor, revealing their Star Wars X Wing 1st edition specials. The new edition had been out for a year or so and was starting to divide the buying public as the tournament players, who had become increasingly unhappy with the state of the game after 10 years, started to switch. Too many rules, too many exceptions to those rules and far too much meta-gaming had created a friendly, but frustrated tournament circuit. This led to most playing a select handful of winning squads over and over until FFG released a “nerfing” update, which forced them to shift to the next big thing. Squads such as the “U boats” (3 Jump Master 5000’s) went from striking terror into their foes hearts, to being just a pain to use.

Second edition was/is a breath of fresh air for the serious players, who will travel continents to play for state of national titles, but for casual players, the choice is less straight forward.

In a moment of weakness I pounced.

Five “The Force Awakens” core sets (for $100 au total!), netted me 15 ships, and a near endless supply of the collateral needed for play. First edition secure for now and the future! The TFA sets are an improvement in rules and components over the original “Red” core set, but the ships are less popular.

In stage one, I was determined to stick to the two factions represented in the sets; The First Order and Resistance from episodes VII to IX. The logic was sound. These ships are more robust and forgiving than the earlier period ships and they are considered well balanced, if a little “soft” for the tournament circuit. After all, I was just a casual player with only a few opportunities to play. I also liked the new movie.

I fleshed out the two factions as I could making the most of some excellent specials, picking up some expansions of the same ships (different cards), getting lucky with 3 Tie/sf’s, the last three in captivity that I could find, an Upsilon shuttle (dead scary to look at, but a bit flat to play), the Silencer, Heroes of the Resistance and two Bombers. I had depth and enough variety to fill most roles, but I kept researching and looking for bargains.

To clarify my needs as I saw them at the time;

To be able to design often asymmetrical scenarios for casual play and simple head to head, pick up games with players that may not be familiar with the game, while representing the complete “X Wing” experience as the forces available allowed.

At some point, the even better specials available in Scum and Villainy, a faction that I could just justify time line wise, (mostly through ignorance of the Expanded Universe), became too good to resist. This faction is nothing if not varied, offering bounty hunters, cartels, pirates, villains and mercenaries. Scooping up as many cheap buys as I could, this faction soon outnumbered the other two. Even better, they can fight amongst themselves. I have even done some re-paints in this faction (Star Vipers).

Then I felt it was ok to add the odd Renegade ship (2x Saws sets), that allowed me to field older vessels with the latest upgrades, then some Imperials as logical older ships for the First Order (Lambda shuttles, some Interceptors etc) and even some later period Rebels as a New Republic “Rogue Squadron”.

Ok so far. The collection was growing, but there was a vague feeling of controlled chaos.

Then the panic set in.

*Attack Wing gives a good game with less. It offers more factions and variety and the ships are capitol ships, which are naturally more robust and versatile on the table, meaning a core set and a few expansions can make for a good and varied set (I probably should have taken my own advice there). The problems are; varied scale, with some very weird inconsistencies, such as a properly scaled Enterprise A, but over sized Klingon Bird of prey, all of the Dominion ships similarly scaled, when the actual ships are hugely different in size etc. The paint jobs also leave a bit to be desired. The standard is not terrible, but the colours are inconsistent within the same fleets with some identical ships sharing up to three different paint colours or finishes.

My major gripe with it though is the blatant swapping and sharing of non cannon periods and factions. It not unlikely at a tournament (something I would never attend, but..) to find a Borg cube captained by Kirk, crewed by later period Romulans with Klingon weapons. This is extreme but not uncommon. I can get around most of these issues by controlling the scenarios I put up and imposing realistic limits of period and faction adherence, but that is only when I provide all of the game. It is odd that the Star Wars game is pretty clean, where the Star Trek one is a free for all. Not playing Cannon Star wars is on the nose, while playing Star Trek to the faction or even time line makes you a stiff.

On Other Hobbies.

My photography is at a low point at the moment, both in inspiration and practical accessibility. I have not given up on it for the moment, but the spark is missing.

What is not floating languidly on the lake apathy are my other hobbies, nor my desire to write and share.

I feel sharing is important, because my own frustration at not finding what i need to know about something that is important to me must be shared by others.

Ironically, what little photography i am doing tends to be related to these other hobbies, so what goes around…

My other hobbies fall solidly into the mild but not unsalvageable “nerdy” end of the spectrum, but with more people stuck at home and the massive growth and acceptance of things that were, to be frank, pretty fringe when I was growing up in the 80’s (and still working on it), allows me to share my thoughts, with some sense of relevance.

Lets see how we go.