Interesting the story of the BF acronym. You never stop ldearning!
Interesting the story of the BF acronym. You never stop ldearning!
Nice map well done. What is it made on?Originally Posted by TimeLapse
Thomas
I doubt that I`ll be bothering much about this one.
Trouble with most Star Wars related games is they tend to be all gloss and no substance anyway and judging by this one they`ve just added a bit of unnecessary complexity to the rules just to avoid a lawsuit.
If I do want to play a Star Wars dogfight game I`ll just go and dust off West End Games old `Star Warriors`.
Now that would be a great product! Can we have it pls. Pretty pls.......
More on thread. The copyright/legal issues in the US are ridiculous. A system where apple can gain billions from rounded squares, how infinity lens designer gets ruined even tough he created a truly revolutionary design just depresses me. Then when one of my favorite games is cloned is just annoying. I'm boycotting this ripoff! Even tough the models are nice. SO Wings of Galactica anyone?
One has been developed by the Battlestar Galactica Italian Club:
http://battlestargalactica.it/bsgic.php
Another by Nysalor, a BGG user.
Here a list of trethemes, some of them (including Star Wars ones) freely downloadable:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklis...glory-rethemed
Ah, the Executor, one of the most ineptly designed (apparently) starships in the history of SF film masking. They lose the (ridiculously positioned) bridge and the thing hurtles uncontrollably a bloody long way and crashes into the Death Star? Yeah, right
Bah -- if I want to play _BG_, I'll break out my copy of FASA's boardgame:
http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/6...star-galactica . :)
(Also have _Star Warriors_ on the shelf, so like I said: FFG's game is going to sell mainly for the minis.)
Another game. I have to restrict myself. Stay with wings since I just saw the Series 1 reprints/repaints out in Nov. Also only a few weeks until the WWII bombers. Can't wait.
Nightbomber, I was trying to avoid directly linking to four-letter language, this is after all a FAMILY site. However, I'm not averse to using Falcon Codes (which were ways to communicate off-color thoughts over the radio or in sensitive environments, Falcon 104 being "WTF?!" for example)...
I actually have most of a LEGO SSD (the big $400 kit) on top of my bookcase... the problem is, it's in major subassemblies since I don't have room to put it all together. I would assume that ANY sensible combat game combining massive and small vehicles into one system would use a split scale... for example, War at Sea uses 1/900 planes and 1/1800 ships, and with Executor being as long as like 11 ISD's stem-to-stern, I'd assume they'd need to go to at least a three-tier scale system.
Tactical, doctrine and staffing flaw--a ship that big would HAVE to have a secondary control center, what I want to know is why Piett didn't order it staffed and relocate to it as soon as he noticed that the entire Rebel fleet was gunning for HIS ship?Ah, the Executor, one of the most ineptly designed (apparently) starships in the history of SF film masking. They lose the (ridiculously positioned) bridge and the thing hurtles uncontrollably a bloody long way and crashes into the Death Star? Yeah, right
If Secondary Control had been staffed and taken charge, and if Vader had been able to hold out long enough to have Luke get him back over there and give a Stand Down order, the SW Expanded Universe would be a massively different place. I just really like the LOOK of the design... if I were actually having one built there'd be a total redesign of everything inside the hull plates and a "terrain-avoidance" system that would trigger an automatic pitch/yaw away and full engine power upon the slightest hint of drifting into a planetary-size magnetic field.
That said, I really doubt FFG's gonna get to Capital Scale on this... with their Institutional ADHD like how they dropped WOW rather than staying the course I'm gonna be real surprised if they make a significant dent in just the fighter- and freighter-size ships.
In closing: Falcon 221, FFG!
Please don't take this personally, but I really DON'T want you (or anyone else) to post any of this stuff on this site. Given the recent history of the development of X-wing, and interactions between the games' designers and publishers I don't think this is the appropriate site for it. There are plenty of other sites which don't have antagonistic associations to this game (like the one you found the tiles on), which I'm sure would appreciate this contribution to their community much more.
As for here, I think the less said about this game, the better for all concerned. But I would love to see any photos, scenarios, or rules you'd care to share with us pertaining to Wings of Glory, and I sincerely hope my response does not put you off from continuing an active membership over here.
Both games offer something different. (I hate the expression - same but different) I will say this, I tried to get the kids at the local game store into Wings of War, but not with much success, and at my great expense. I had the owner bring in all the X-wing items along with extras for me to buy. As I was opening them up I had more folks showing great interest and wanting to play. I did tell them I would be back in a couple days to demo.(Most of them thought it was like Hero Clix-Go figure.) I have to add that most of the kids at the store are in their 20's and maybe just do not get the greatness of what the Wings of War/Glory games and the time period have going for it. I hope after the "New-ness" of this wears off I can get them back on track with what all WoG have to offer. Will keep ya posted on how it goes. Mean while stay the course and keep up the great work.
One thing I really do like from the game are the rules for the barrel roll.
The comments thu far have been coming hard and fast on the star war game,(for it or against it,)but you all seem to be missing the point of all this. IT IS A GAME !!!!!!!!!!!! Have some fun playing one it doesn't matter,if the planes are ww1,ww2,or star wars.The idea is to enjoy the game that you are have fun playing with.I have both ww1,&ww2,and when i get some money together i will get the star wargame also.Might think up some solo missions that could work with all three games.Finally to Todd in maryland relax man.If some ome wants to post something about some other flight game i would like to read the post.After all, thats why we are here on this site,posting all kinds of stuff.Anybody disagree with this????? Let the debate go on.
Sad to say, I have a copy of that too!Bah -- if I want to play _BG_, I'll break out my copy of FASA's boardgame:
http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/6...star-galactica .
(Also have _Star Warriors_ on the shelf, so like I said: FFG's game is going to sell mainly for the minis.)
I think you missed the point of the thread. Clone (Copy!) Its a question of IP and IP abuse. Many of us think a line has been crossed. Using similar mechanisms is fine but taking the core concept re skinning it and selling without royalties is a concern...... MHO btw!
One assumes BDC was also fully functional -- and that they weren't trying to pull _Executor_ out of its lawn-dart impression; if one goes by the film, any secondary controller had maybe five seconds to rectify the situation*, and I somehow doubt _Executor_ handled very well.
[*: The same applies to Piett's decision to not relocate command; he had seconds to make the call, and relocation would have taken minutes due to the sheer size of the SSD.]
I dont know, The New Republic did eventually aquire Isards Lusyanka after all and managed to use the thing for quite a while until eventually loosing it to the Yuzan Vong invaders.
It seems to have been something of a `hanger queen` though for most of its service with the republic as they just didn`t have the resources to repair and crew it.
Last edited by Rabbit 3; 09-19-2012 at 13:28.
I see there is a great interest in SW universe among players here. Frankly I didn't expect that, starting this thread.
Game is a game of course. People may like to play it for their interest in attractive SW universe and the aspect of flying, that moves us all here.
But designers rights should be protected and FFG should take into account they could be sued. It could be a very interesting litigation, from a lawyer's point of view.
I checked a video tutorial of the game that can be found elswhere and must say there is the same concept of moving and firing as we have in WoG system. Some minor additions were implemented, like moving and firing queue, dice rolling, but they are just little mods. Andrea's brilliant idea was used and forms the core of the game.
It's up to every forumer here to decide "to buy or not to buy". I can fully understand these of us who said "I'll never buy that for violation of designers rights". But on the other hand it's a free forum, especially Officer's Club, where only religion and politics are banned.
Voltaire said (if memory serves well) "I do not agree what you say, but will fight to death to let you speak" (or sth like that). So everyone is free to put down here his/her opinions and exchange ideas.
Do not show the explosion card to anybody here chaps, please.
If I may throw my own hat into the ring, so to speak, I own a number of FFG products, but I stopped purchasing any of their games just over a year ago (right around the time they dropped their distribution of Wings of War). Bear in mind this is my opinion only, and I wouldn't presume to tell others whether they should or should not buy from FFG or support them, but I must say that I have found their business practices to be rather suspect.
Generally speaking, I find their products fall into two main categories: original games and re-themed games. Their original games tend to look pretty and have lots of decent quality components to play with, which maybe isn't surprising since most of their job postings seem to be for Graphic Designers. However, despite the abundance of style, the substance often suffers. All of their original games that I own have suffered from serious game balance and/or errata issues. Marvel Super Heroes and Doom were both games that I should have loved, and want to love, but the general consensus on boardgamegeek and the FFG forums was that they had major flaws that were never fixed--and subsequently both lines were dropped. Within days of purchasing Blood Bowl Team Manager, I had to download an official errata that told me to take out several cards because they were unbalanced. It genuinely seems like they skimp on playtesting in order to afford the higher production values.
Even more frustrating to me is their preference to re-theme existing games instead of designing their own. It's another shortcut to avoid having to pay actual game designers and/or playtesters. Instead, all they do is buy up a reasonably successful (or potentially successful) property, such as Talisman or Arkham Horror, and they put their Graphic Designers to work re-tooling the components (more cardboard than you can every possibly use or even fit on the average gaming table!) and artwork. Again, they look pretty, but they required very little effort to produce. A couple of minor rules tweaks here and there might be made, but that's about it. And, to make things worse, they like to buy up properties that are open to rampant expansion, like both of the aforementioned games, which just becomes a money pit.
For me, the straws that broke the camel's back were their blatant rip-off of Dune (now called Rex) and the new Star Wars game that this thread is about. Dune was a game that oozed theme--anyone who has read the books and played the game can see how great a job the original designer did of melding the two. However, Rex, despite being almost identical mechanically, isn't Dune and never will be. It just seems like a pale imitator. I just hope that they have properly credited and compensated the original designer (or designers), as it really was a clever game. And, of course, the new Star Wars game obviously "borrows" just about everything it has from Wings of War/Wings of Glory. I am a huge Star Wars fan (heck, I've got personally autographed pics of most of the cast just waiting to be framed and hung on the wall!), but as much as I love Star Wars, I see no reason to give FFG any more of my money. On the other hand, I'll gladly give Ares (and through them, Andrea and Pier) that same money because Wings of Glory is an excellent game and a worthwhile product (one that wasn't designed solely to make a profit, but rather one that makes a profit because it happens to be well-designed and supported).
Again, I am merely voicing my own opinion, and I'm sure there are lots of people who can and will get plenty of enjoyment out of some FFG products--I'm just not one of them. I do, however, believe that most of us are in agreement about how much we enjoy Wings of Glory!
You are correct sir.
You are correct,The question we should be asking is this total rip off of WOW,or it could be just another way to play the SW game.The example i will show you how this could be is as follows...In 196X(BOY did i jest date myself.) My dad bought a game called "DOGFIGHT".The game was made by Milton Bradley.(for the American Heritage History of Flight.) This game was played using WW1 fighters,(fokker DVII's & spad XIII.)The game.(Which i still have to this day.)Had you trying to shot you down your enemy plane.By using dice and a set of numbered cards that you added up the damage to your enemy's plane.The game if i recall also had firing arcs,just like WOW/WOG.The point of all this is that all boardgames are bulit on the works of older games,weather by design or by chance.And if that makes the next gen.of more fun,and involes less work to play so be it.So with that said MB could have a good case of saying that thier idea was re-skined.I do agree if FFG did that some one needs a good kick in the pants.(As a start.)The debate goes on.
There is, of course, another side to the debate. Have you considered that X wing will attract new players to WOW/G? I certainly fall in to that camp as do a couple of my gaming friends. I stumbled across X Wing when looking for somethng for my star wars mad son. That led me to the FFG site which led me to Wings of War, to Wings of Glory. From purchasing the X-Wing box set I have gone on to buy WoW: Dawn of War, Wings of Glory the WW2 starter set, wings of Glory WW1 everything but the models box set and I am now hunting down a copy of Wings of War WW1 deluxe set with the 4 planes in. On top of that are the 6 Pacific theatre [lanes I've bought and the Spitfires and ME109s. I don't think there is any doubt that FFG have pulled a fast one, but a popular liscence like Star Wars may attract other players with other interests. I would have been completely ignorant of this marvellous game if it wasn't for X-Wing.
Thanks so much! An encouraging post. And I appreciate that you trusted my game so much to look for all that. I really mean that.
On a little side note, maybe if they had acknowledged the source of their game on the box this effect could have been more direct and strong.
And MAYBE they might have kept a few more customers, to boot--if they hadn't pulled a Blue Falcon I woulda bought in.
"Well, it's not as tho' any--" [WHAP!] OW! [WHAP!] OW! [WHAP!] OW!...
Not quite correct. Dice were solely for movement -- one rolled 2d6, and could apply one die to each of two acft., or both to a single unit. Damage was inflicted by cards which showed "bursts" of fire, 1-5 inclusive. The target could then defend itself if it had the appropriate card in its hand -- if the attack was from the flank, a "roll" card would neutralize it; if from ahead, playing a "burst" card of higher value would shoot down the attacker "before he could fire"; if from behind, a "loop" card would place the target on the attacker's tail, where the former target could then play an attack to shoot down his would-be dispatcher. Cards could be restocked when the plane piece returned to its airfield; if it had a victory to its credit, it drew an extra card, and if it had two it received two extra cards.
Actually: No, it didn't -- firing was all straight ahead, and at one square away.
I suspect, given FFG's practice of "rebooting" old dead games, it assumed _WoW_ was about to join those ranks, and reacted accordingly; when _WoG_ came along, they had to do a fast reshuffle, or lose a pot of cash.
There is an ongoing discussion about the issue on BGG site. Frankly I put my 2 cents there.
You can check it out.
http://boardgamegeek.com/article/10098787#10098787
Thanks a lot.
I am amazed of how Wreckage can be quoted as a justification in that thread. FFG and other companies saw Wings of War prototype in Spring 2002, when Nexus proposed them an English edition to distribute. They published Wreckage at the end of 2003, something like one year and a half after - and the game they published was changed from Barry Stockinger's original version (without involving the designers himself, by the way, who did not get to see the final draft of the rulebook until after it was printed). To give an example, Stockinger tells that "In the original game I had the players use dice to determing hits, then draws of the cards would determine damage. The dice were eliminated and miss cards were added to take their place." So the similarities that the game could have with WoW in 2003 were not necessairly there before FFG saw WoW.
Besides, if X-Wing derives from Wreckage and not from WoW, why they did not acknowledge Stockinger instead?
Last edited by Angiolillo; 09-20-2012 at 14:18.
Hermes you are quite right it may be your personal view, but I belive that it is one shared by many
Andrzej
Here are a few shots form a game i saw last year!
Rich
Well it just ain't cricket chaps.
Kyte.
As they say in football."Apon futher review,"I did get of my last posting wrong.After serching for about 20 mintues i found the Dogfight game,and you are correct about how the game is played.So i say good job to you for catching my goof.
If this is FFG practice of "rebooting" games.They might have jumped the gun on the demise -WOW-for i to thought that it had hit a dead end to.After all you can count a large number of posts on this site.That show a large number of people were venting a lot of anger over the lack of support for-WOW-(Nice to see that this is changing now.)Its hard to keep up a interest in something like -WOW- if thier are no new planes,cards,or updates to the game,and if thier are going to be some kind of new stuff you can"t wait almost a year to say we got stuff coming soon.
I understand that -WOW-is it own reboot of-WOG-,but this schouldn't have happen is a little time was spent planning ahead,but sence that water under the bridge.Lets look to a bright new day.
By the way Chris that opening line was very funny.So i will tip my hat to you on that one
I played an X-Wing demo game yesterday. They've made some changes to make it different from WGF/WGS, and they aren't necessarily improvements.
For example; movement and firing are not simultaneous! Each ship has an initiative score, and you move in ascending order of initiative, and fire in descending order. With movement this means that if you were going to end with your ship overlapping another, you have to stop short - even if the other ship hasn't moved yet - and the ship that hasn't moved still gets its full movement. For firing, ships with higher initiative get to fire and resolve damage before the lower initiative get to shoot. Much of the elegance of WGF/S is that it simulates simultaneity so well, and some of that is lost in X-Wing.
But I enjoyed the game, as did the people I played with, and some folks who I could never get to try Wings are now (having been informed of the similarities) interested in giving it a shot.
The X-Wing game is out there, and Star Wars always has been and is still very popular, so I think the best thing we can do now is use the pop-culture-license game to help promote the historical one.
Been reading the replys and yes I can see how this is a CLONE of Wings. I might try it to have a go with a friend who is into Fantasy and Sci Fi games would give a reprive from my Wings gaming. Maybe a few minis but nothing compares to my Wings collection.
Can't remember anything I did in high school; can remember the movement and damage rules for a game out of print longer than I've been alive....
Large numbers of posts on a forum do not a Live Game make. :) And if one looks at most of FFG's production of late, they seem to be trying to lock up the "Necrogamicon" (Book Of Dead Games) market. So until I can see a properly-documented timeline, I'm going to assume FFG thought _WoW_ was done for, and were going to try to attach it to a "proven franchise", namely _SW_; and when it rose from the ashes, they had to do something to avoid losing a bundle on a lot of minis and such they couldn't otherwise use.
With all due respect to the very original strong design that is WoW i have a very hard time seeing that the SW game is plagiarism. I can fully understand the frustration and annoyance from Andrea given the proces and history of negotiating with FFG and i see that there is a clear inspiration from the simple format of WoW, but the SW game uses a set of very old and well known game mechanics that has been implemented in many, many variations since the 80ties.
The original and uniquepart of the WoW design as i see it is the combination of card driven action selection and using the same cards as move templates and using cards for combat resolution- Quick, easy and without reference sheets and you can have the game in a couple of pockets (not using minis).
the SW game uses this formula:
- Hidden simultaneous action selection (by turning a wheel) - This has been seen many times using cards, chits and log sheets.
- Movement templates - Used in all tabletop games since Kriegspiel in the 1860ties.
- Combat and damage resolution by using a combination of dice and tables.
This formula has been seen many, many times (on land, in the air, on the seas and in space) and does not in any ways infringe on the WoW system as far as i can see. Inspiration from other games is what drives the current board game design revolution ahead.
A possible history is that FFG wanted another "look and feel" for their gamesystem than the WoW design template could provide. Designing and balancing a new game system takes a lot of time and it would probably have been cheaper to implement the WoW design than building a new one from the ground up. But the WoW system has its own limitations and they probably wanted something else.
1980 - Car wars - Hidden simultaneous action selection, turning temeplates, firing templates, dice rolleing for hits and damage:
- Svend
While there is merit to your argument, the fact remains that FFG sought to develop a game of Star Wars fighter combat, had development discussions with Nexus and the WOW team, pulls out just before Nexus goes under (when there were already signs of trouble, possibly terminal), and brings out aNEW game design with suspiciously simillar mechanics to WOW.
Sorry; there's at least an ethics issue with this.
Karl
Thanks a lot for your post, Svend. And with all due respect to your opinions, I'll give mine on one of your assumptions.
In my personal opinion there are many signs that they just did so, actually. It is strange to find so many little details in the mechanics that are unnecessarly identical to WoW.
In X-Wing...
Curves are 45° and 90°, as in WW2 WoW. Besides them you have straighs and an Immelmann turn (go straight and turn 180°) as in WoW - I guess that in a game developed from scratch for the Star Wars setting we would find a Koiogran turn instead (don't advance and turn in a random direction).
You have a firing cone drawn on the rectangular base, going from the center of the base to the two front corners. A firing cone is not a new idea, but of all the ways it can be designed and visualized, this has been both designed and visualized as in WoW.
And you have a rigid ruler with 10 cm increments for ranges. Not cm, inches or whatever marked on them, just short/long range limits - nor a string or a tape. Again, of all possible solutions, the same of WoW. And why all ranges of the same lenght? And why 10 cm? In WoW this is explained by the story of the game (it was longer but the publisher made it as long as the standard box for the game collection where they planned to pack it - a 20 x 20 cm square), but in X-Wing I do not see any particular reason.
The standard scenario is on a 3' x 3' square table, with miniatures starting from opposite sides within short range (10 cm) from their side. Not so original choice for WoW to have that, but X-Wing is identical.
In wargames you usually decide if to fire and choose a target, and after that you measure ranges. If after this you discover that it was not the best target, or that it was out of range, bad for you. With an unusual choice I allowed measures before deciding if to fire, and against who - but forbidding measurements before moving, bombing, firing AA and so on. X-Wing does exactly the same.
In my game, you measure from the center of the firer's base to any part of the target base. Surprise: X-Wing is different, since at first you see if the enemy is in the firing cone, and after that you measure range from any point of the firer's base to the nearest part of the enemy base within the firing arc. That's a differemnce, you would say. Well, if you watch the GenCon 2012 demo made by the credited designer, you will find that he just play as in WoW - he puts the ruler as close as possible to the miniature center and measures cone and range at the same time, with the ruler starting within the cone and not at the edge of the base.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmMXetSD07g
Even the drawings on the rulebook and in the tutorial video have limits that are curved, as if the measure was taken from a single point (the center of the base?) and not from a flat front of the base - the arc should have a flat front instead:
Maybe a sign that X-Wing had initially the same rule as WoW, and the change has been somehow forced on the system - maybe at the last minute, when they saw that ID plates on the base prevent an easy measurement. No time for even the FFG staff to "digest" the difference.
All these are minor details, but all together give me a personal impression that they just took WoW overall and then started to introduce differences. As you say, making a new game from scratch would have needed a lot of time: while in February 2011 they sent the contract proposal, for several weeks more they discussed its details... And in the first days of August 2011 X-Wing has been demoed at GenCon. Not so much time from their change of strategy about the license.
But this is just my personal impression, I hope I have not bored you too much with that.
Last edited by Angiolillo; 09-27-2012 at 07:47.
Hi Andrea. Thank you for your detailed and interesting post.
I think the points you make puts things in a (for me) new light. While i still think that the overall mechanical design pattern differs from WoW dut to the lack of "cards as move templates" and use of dice. I can see why you think there is too many small details that are the same. While some of them could be coincidential or just logic (10 cm is a common distance for example) i think the amount adds up to support the theory that they worked from a WoW system and implemented changes from there. And as a gamedesigner (professionally and as a hobby) i can see how much faster you could design a game if you used a full existing and proven system as a "prototype" and added changes gradually from there. The mechanics are changed but the underlying interactional and procedural structure is still there.
If this thesis holds true (which i find probable based on your info) it is not illegal, but very morally flawed.
If they wanted a completely new flavour to the game they should have build it from the ground up. If they wanted it to taste of WoW they should have paid you license or made you do the redesign.
- Svend
On another note: Some of the people playing the game really knows how to make an epic AAR:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/...e-garven-dreis
Dear Svend, thanks to you. Pointing out my personal opinions on this matter, I am not saying anything new anyway. Strong similarities between the two games have been underlined by many unknown players from when the very first public demo of X-Wing has ben played at GenCon 2011 - some noticing it as as a matter of fact, some in a more passionate way because of the lack of any acknowledgement to WoW. So the matter has been already discussed elsewhere (especially on BGG) more than one year ago, and I had already occasion to express my point of view - arising my share of approvals and of criticisms. The matter was not discussed in detail on this site in the past, and this is why I repeated my opinions there when this thread has been opened - with some added details coming from the knowledge of the now published product. But of course my opinions will not change what happened, nor the future of both games.
As I already wrote, I am thankful for the sympathy that several of you expressed, but I also understand people who just decide to play X-Wing and enjoy the new game. Several former WoW players gave up my game for it, others are going on playing both games. Many more of the X-Wing players never tried WoW - happy that some, as Capn Blackhear, are joining our ranks. X-Wing players are growing steadly, and sometimes it is even very interesting to hear their opinions about some of the technical solutions for the game.
But it is not as interesting as being part of this very forum, Thanks again, everybody.
Last edited by Angiolillo; 09-27-2012 at 23:30.
Let me say amen to that.
Viva Andrea!
So I belong to the others.
I have an Angels 20 base set + expansion, too. (...and I'm still happy mith my growing, expensive Nexus/Ares airfleet)
I have to point out a big disadvantage of the Star Wars miniatures.
That is nothing I'll let kids or careless players fly with. (Tie Advance or Y-Wing maybe).
I like the more sturdier WoG/WoW minatures. Don't know what to do with someone that break of the thin X-Wing Laser Cannons or Tie-Fighter panels.
Too right Andrzej, and Andrea can take comfort from the fact that he has massively contributed to both historical & SF war gaming. Thankyou Andrea !
I also pick it up and I've with you Sven. The pegs are so small and the models look great but I can see them breaking very easily. I saw the Gen Con video and one of the Tie fighters was missing a panel.So I belong to the others.
I have an Angels 20 base set + expansion, too. (...and I'm still happy mith my growing, expensive Nexus/Ares airfleet)
I have to point out a big disadvantage of the Star Wars miniatures.
That is nothing I'll let kids or careless players fly with. (Tie Advance or Y-Wing maybe).
I like the more sturdier WoG/WoW minatures. Don't know what to do with someone that break of the thin X-Wing Laser Cannons or Tie-Fighter panels.
I want to thank Andrea for making this game possible. Even if they don't give you the credit I will.
I'm a Star Wars fan so I wanted to have it.
Thomas
Maybe we buy enough WoG planes and SoG Ships that you can start a court case.
Never say never in the US-Justice sytem. You'll need a few WOG gamers in the Jury.
Alright been playing X-wing for a bit and I got to say the differences between it and Wings of Glory are major and the rules or concepts both games share are really not unique and are common for games of their type. As you can see I waited a bit to post this after I got a lot of X wing games in and thought a lot about this subject hence the large post.
First off I love both games, and to me they fill different needs as a gamer, I love wings of glory because its simple and does not take a lot of thought beforehand to play. X wing is more complex and adds to my want for more tactic driven games, more custom squads and a more grounded feeling in the game but I will go into that more later.
First off I want to go over the major differences between the games and In my mind X-wing rules are really great rules. for X-wing and not something they added to make it different enough from WoG. I am assuming that most players here play wings of war so im not going to go into detail describing their rules.
1st the turn sequence in xwing, its completely different, in fact I never played a game that had something quite like it. Each ship has a pilot skill level, during the movement step ships with lower skill move first in order of their skills building up word. Then during the shooting turn they shoot going from the highest level to the lowest. This is quite an interesting way to handle turns and adds a lot of tactics to the game that are not in WoG.
2nd is the action phase, after each ship moves it gets to complete an action, there are 4 major actions that ships may or may not have access to. There is evade, barrel roll, lock on and focus. Each adds to something in the shooting step and making the right choice here can win you the game.
3rd Add on cards. Having add on cards really adds to the custom feel of your squadron you are flying (that’s right, the game is really made for each side to have 3 or more ships so you really have a squadron feel to your game) Each custom card adds something to your fleet and gives you more interesting rules to upgrade your ships with.
4th point costs. This adds a lot to a game, it makes the game more balanced and a gives it a more finished and grounded feel. In wings of war you can fly anything vs anything and there are no points to even out the sides, so you have to guess how meny albatross planes should take on a Felixstowe in a game, one on one there is a clear winner there. But in X-wing the points lend the game to a more balanced game and I really like that a lot.
5th combat, In WoG you hit and draw a card or token and take that damage, that is it in a nutshell. But in x-wing there is a lot more to it then that. First off the defender gets to defend him/her self with a roll, this is a key difference since in wings of war the defender does nothing to prevent itself for being shoot other than being out of range. Next the dice, the dice are cool, there is two sets on the attack dice there is blanks, an eye, a hit and a critical hit. They eyes can be made a hit if certain actions are taken and it adds to the tactics of the gameplay.
This is one of the ways the games fill different needs for me, Wings of war is a really simple game for me (I play a lot of bigger games like flames of war and warhammer 40k) so I like that you just grab a plane and play quick and simple games, I am not saying it does not have tactics or its own complexity but in its core it is a simple game, not really balance but it is okay. It is not something I would compete in tournaments with or anything, but is a fun game to play to play a game, more like a board game then a true miniature game (in the vanes of the classic miniature games like warhammer or Flames of war).
X-wing is more balanced fairness wise due to its points set up it lends it self to more even match ups and its combat is more tactical and have simply more options to diversify the game. It is also more of a ture miniature game, in the since that it feels more like the war hammer and flames of war games that you build a list at a set point limit, you customize what you will add to the ship and you balance your abilities to try to make an army that best suits your playing style. In WoG you pick a plane and play, there is not really any pre game prep work unless you decide to play a certain time period any you need to look up what planes you can use so in that respect it is more like a borad game that you can pick up and just start playing.
6th something I touched on before, X-wing is a squad based game and have abilities and add on cards to support the squade feel of having 3 or more ships per player. There are ships that give other ships bonus for keeping close when that ship does something in the game. In wings of war you can fly more than one plane but there are no real rules that make it interesting to do so other than just having another plane. The dial system also lends itself to this squad format, in wings of war when I fly 2 or more planes I get bog down in selecting my movement cards and such where the dial feels more conducive to managing more plans. Don’t get me wrong the card system in WoG is great it lends itself to more unique moves since each plane can have its own cards and are not limited to the maneuver sticks that X-wing ships are. Both games have really good ways to figure out movement but they are both unique to their games and the amount of fighters both games are geared to fly.
I could go on here but the differences really are there and they are not cosmetic at all and are important to the two different core playing styles. I really feel the underling and starting principles of both games are different due to the fact that one game is geared more to having one plane per person and the other is geared towards having 3+ fighters per player and the mechanics are built very well in both games to support this core difference between the games.
Let’s look at the similar things in both games that are real and there,
First off firing arcs, they both have the V firing arc, but really that is going to be the case for every miniature game that wants to deal with fighters, This is a mechanic that all these type of games must have for fighters. Also wings of war has more then then one firing arc due to what the planes could do historically, any other ww1 or ww2 plane games would have the same or vary similar firing arcs.
Next measuring sticks, I have played many games that had something like this in it, its not unique to either game so its not something that I see is important. Though the stick is not similar there is an added dice to short range combat and an added defence dice to long range combat, that is like drawing an extra card, but the combat system as stated above is so different. This bonus rule is another no brainer rule that a lot of games have, added bonus for shooting a close target and a penalty for shooting at your max range.
The only real mechanic that I feel that is in wings of glory that X-wing has is its damage card deck, even though they work differently between the games it is a deck of cards used for damage. This is also something that works differently in both games, wings of glory have numbers and some damage that have rules. All damage cards in X-wing do one damage unless a critical hit is scored then you do one damage and what ever the card effect is. So both decks are completely different in why the do damage but they both are damage decks.
So in summery
Wings of Glory/War
Is a game geared for each player to have one plane, its rules lend itself to that play format though you can have more then one but there are no real bonus to doing that other then having more then one plane. Wings of glory have more unique movement that is custom to what the planes can do giving each different maneuver deck a lot more options. Wings of glory turns happen at the same time, so everything is a continues flowing movement of plans moving and then shooting with no players having the own turn or turns. The game is not built to be balanced in the tradisanal miniature game format, and leaves a lot of balancing rules up to the players when it comes to how many planes should be fighting an single bomber and such, this lends itself to be a more free form board game feel then a normal miniature game format. Wings of glory also has altitude rules that really add to its game, it’s a rule that I love to use in my games and would be quite complicated to add to X-wing.
X-wing.
This game is more about squads and its rules and game effects really support that format of game play. The game has a more true miniature game format (Again I’m looking at the bigger names in miniature like 40k and flames of war) This is due to the fact that there is a list building stage and points to make the games even and lend themselves to a more fixed competitive format for tournaments and the like. The turns are a I go you go format that is similar to games like Malifaux but its not free form and is based on pilot skill making it a bit interesting, I have had games where I moved a rookie pilot in the wrong spot and Wedge a higher end pilot ran into him and had to forfeit his action step, so this format adds a key tactical edge to the game. The defense dice are a great mechanic I love it when games gives me an ability to defend myself over just being out of range.
I can see how you can say that games are alike, but the points where they are alike are mainly key mechanics that all miniature fighter games would have, or are so well used in other games like measuring sticks that its not really something to really point out. There are a lot of things that make both games different and less that make them the same and I feel that Flames of War has more in common to warhammer 40k then wings of glory has with X-wing.
Once you get passed the cosmetic things that make you think there the same game (bases, measuring sticks, miniature on a post.) and get into the game mechanics you will see that they games play very differently from each other.
Like I said I love both games, but there are different games at the core, and to say that X-wing is wings of glory with a few rules pasted over the top of the wings of glory mechanics to make it just different enough that they cannot be sued is not correct in my mind. I can see how wings of glory influenced the game but I can see how every game I have played has been influenced almost the same way if not more from other older games.
A example of this would be one of my favorite games flames of war VS a game Like warhammer 40k, I have worked with writing rules and such for flames of war and play both games, they are vary similar, more so in the core rules then Xwing and WoG. first off both games have a you go then I go turn sequence, both games of 3 main phases in each turn, move, shoot and assault. In assaults in .both games there is a rule that allows the defender to shoot its attackers The scales are different and some of the other rules are different but the core rules are very much alike, like I said more so then wings of glory and X-wing.
Anyways it is late and I think I’m starting to ramble but I wanted to add my thoughts on the mater. I love both games but its like comparing apple and oranges both are fruit and both are roundish but they taste completely different and I love them both.
-Andrew
Last edited by TimeLapse; 10-06-2012 at 01:32.
Well said, Andrew. Deep analysis is there. Thanks for sharing.
Last edited by Nightbomber; 10-07-2012 at 02:12.
Thank you Timelapse for your thorough analysis. I made the earlier analysis based only on what i had read about X-Wing and having played WoGF and i think that you have several important points and observations on the design on the two games.
Also younote that most of the mechanics has been seen before and that is true, but mashing together a lot of game mechanics does not make a good game - But deliberately selecting and balancing said mechanics is a skille between art and craft. The same arguments could be said about film making - I think that for example "3:10 to Yuma" is a fine Western movie, but it uses well known (and very solid) templates all the way.
And it sound like that the X-Wing design is very well crafted from known components (even the "move order based on skill level" mechanic has been used in many games before) and has aimed at providing much more tactical depth than WoW but at the expense of being more complex.
Also i think it is important to note that you cannot patent game mechanics, but only full game design patterns - That said i think there is a very blurred line between evolution, inspiration and copying. And we need the first two in order to develop the hobby. But that said i still think that the actions taken by EFG is clumsy, and i can understand the sentiments of Andreas based on this backstory.
- Svend
Just watched the Lego Darth Vadar. WOW that was so funny. Thanks.
This is very funny.In my extensive experience of SF starship and starfighter rules (including writing and publishing a few) MOST rules of this type do not include altitude. Mind you, neither does much of the source material. Spock might have commented on Khan's 2D thinking, but a lot of SF film and TV battles essentially pancake down into a 2D slugfest. Its usually when you get some terrain in there (like a Death Star perhaps) that things become more crinkly
On the subject of Death Stars:
It is.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks