Yeah. That! Exactly. LMAO.
And, I have an audit on the credit card at the end of the month, when the Financial Advisor balances the books.
Printable View
That's brilliant, Andy. :lol: The Christmas-time arrival of the BSG box is the only thing that kept that evil contraption from sounding off in my home. :thankyou:
I think mine just arrived. Of course I'm at work and now anxious to get it home for a look see.
My family played BSG for the first time over the New Year's holiday. We stuck to the Quick Start rules, but we all had a lot of fun. Quick Start broadly feels similar to Wings of Glory WWII, but having extra maneuver options like full stops and reverses opens up some interesting choices during dogfights. I'm very eager to try out more of the Complete Rules with rotating your ship and inertial movement added.
The miniatures are absolutely beautiful. In my opinion, I've never seen better pre-painted figures. I could not believe the level of detail on them, include the pilot names and call signs etched under the cockpits, individual serial numbers on the tails, weathering, etc. The components are quite nice also.
While Wings of Glory WWI still remains my family's overall favorite air combat game, I think BSG-Starship Battles has become my all-time favorite space combat game, definitely surpassing X-wing and even my long-ago favorite Renegade Legion from my school days. If Oberst Hajj plans to add the individual ships coming this year to the Aerodrome Accessories shop, I'd definitely be interested in picking up more Vipers and Raiders. Especially from the Classic series.
Could you please put down some more remarks why you think so and present any important (to you) comparisons of both systems just from your point of view. I know X/W system very well, but has no idea (shame on me) how BSG works.
Just watching the 2nd season of BSG series now;).
I am especially interested in the problem of handling more than one ship per player, which is (for me) a real trouble in WGS and solved nicely in X/W.
Interesting that you have a problem piloting more than one plane in WGS, Andy. Perhaps it is because you can see where the firing arcs will end up, if you plan well, where most of us just hope for the best. In WGS, I fly formation up to contact, and then it gets confusing. Pretty much what I suspect real dogfighting was like.
With the existing starter set, BGS is a two-on-two set-up, mostly. I think the Cylon Raider is a better ship, with higher Acceleration and Structure, plus the FTL jumps. There are differences in the two manevuer decks that even a few things out, but from my "realism in SciFi" universe picture, the toasters should be able to do up to 6G maneuvers, and fly harder than humans (not necessarily better). IMHO. IE: the Cylon 'Change Direction' card is a 2G maneuver, but 'zero G' for humans? WTF! And, why would a machine care? Oh. The ship wasn't constructed to handle the G forces? I don't think so. But, what do I know of the BSG universe?
My experience with X-Wing is that all the pre-game set-up wins the game. Actually playing is just working through the exceptions to the rules, and the gimmicks and tricks you can do having all the right upgrades on your fleet/ships. It is one of the reasons I heard that FFG went to the 2.0 version. I haven't played that version, as none of my local players are willing to fork over all the money to "upgrage" their ships, not getting any new models in the process.
X-Wing: Ships are nice, but there are lots of variants and some are not balanced against previous releases (upgrades and pilots?) There are limited templates to use, and the players can memorize those limited options, planning well against them. Outside of tournaments, you can have any upgrades you want, but proxies are not allowed in tournaments. This marketing is what drove FFG to put great upgrades in poor ships, making poor ships artificially desirable, but never flown in any tournaments. X-Wing as a game may be fun and straight forward for a casual gamer, but the 'expensive' upgrades and competition play were a turn-off for me.
BSG: Ships are nice, but not a lot of variants (yet). There are up to 20 maneuver cards, and combinations of them (three speed maneuver cards and Overboosts) that make memorizing them fairly difficult for the average player. The firing arcs are very tight, making the maneuvering very important, and very small miscalculations costly in lost firing opportunities (X-Wing has broad arcs, and if a low initiative pilot can bump a higher pilot, they can both loose their shots. Correct me if I'm wrong, X-Wing is a bit fuzzy).
Tactically, with the Inertial Movement, BSG is a space combat game. X-Wing is a moving space ships around game with special rules deciding the victor.
No problem, happy to offer my thoughts!
Let me just add this caveat first, though: I do still think that X-wing is a fine game, and I enjoy playing it on a casual level. But BSG provides for me a play experience that appeals even more strongly to what I like best about sci-fi games. Also, I have only played X-wing version 1.0--I haven't played 2.0 yet, so I don't know what things have changed with the newer edition.
1st comparison: Constructed forces.
One big difference between X-wing and BSG is that with X-wing, you have to construct your force using set points for your ships, pilots and equipment. This is very good for keeping a match balanced, but one of the things I found when I played X-wing was that as more time progressed and more ships and cards were released, players in the area seemed less interested in casual games and concentrated a lot more on "list-building" to win tournaments and create rules combos with pilots and equipment to shut down the opponent and make matches as one-sided as possible. People seemed to care more about finding whichever ships gave the most benefit or powerful special rules. For me personally, I prefer casual games where I can play a ship I think is cool or that I loved in a film or TV episode, or use to re-enact a favorite scene from a fictional universe regardless of the ship's "power level."
BSG is far more casual with more freedom to set up the fights you want, and less guidance for "balancing" forces. Right now most of our games have been along the lines of, "2 ships on this side, 2 ships on that side: Fight!" :) However, there is a scenario book included to re-enact specific battles from the TV series. While BSG has options for adding pilots with special abilities (and disadvantages!), it's an optional part of the system and doesn't have to be used unless you are playing a scenario that uses pilots or want to try the optional campaign rules where pilots can grow in experience. The emphasis in BSG strongly leans toward maneuvering and tactics as opposed to card and rules combos, which I personally prefer. But! If you prefer having a structured way to balance each player's forces or like to play in a formal tournament scene, I think X-wing lends itself more readily to that. There are no point values for pilots, special abilities or ships in BSG, though the starter set ships seemed very well matched against each other in our first games. Again, if you prefer something like 40K or other wargames that use points and list-building, X-wing is far more suitable. If you prefer the more free-form campaign and scenario building like in Wings of Glory, BSG is a better choice, in my opinion.
2nd comparison: Rules complexity/options.
My impression is that X-wing and BSG have different challenges when teaching the game to new players. X-wing was easier for me to learn the basics...but started to confuse me badly when it came to keeping track of all the pilot and special rules interactions, and understanding all the confusing squadron builds referenced on social media such as HSF, PalpAces, etc.
BSG comes with two levels of rules-Quick Start (which I found to play in a similar way to Wings of Glory) and Complete Rules, which introduces some extra information to keep track of, but gives your ship some very impressive movement options that add a lot of depth to a dogfight. You can rotate in one direction while drifting in another, use drift to change direction and affect your position and maneuver in ways that just aren't possible in X-wing. It does mean there is a bit of a steep learning curve when first starting the game, but once you get the rules down, dogfighting is incredibly interesting! Also, I strongly prefer how BSG has modeled asteroids as opposed to X-wing. In X-wing, asteroids are simply obstacles that cause damage and block LOS. In BSG, they are obstacles, but it's also possible to enter an asteroid field without damage if you move carefully and you can use them as cover against enemy fire. Again, I really like having the extra tactical options.
3rd comparison: Starter boxes and components.
I'll be honest, I feel that the BSG starter is a much better value then either of the two X-wing 1.0 starters I own (original and Force Awakens). The X-wing starters to me felt short on enough ships to play a full game (1 X-wing, 2 TIE fighters). BSG comes with 4 ships (2 Vipers, 2 Cylon Raiders). I feel that really only 2 people can play comfortably with an X-wing starter, while with BSG's box you can have 2-4 playing easily.
Another big difference between X-wing and BSG are the maneuver templates. With X-wing, you must use the maneuver dial and the long turn template/ruler/curved path cardboard things (I apologize, I can't remember their proper name, lol!). BSG using decks of hexagonal-shaped maneuver cards for each ship, and a plastic control panel to track speed, heading and velocity (called "kinetic energy"). While the X-wing components work perfectly fine, I personally found them a bit of a nuisance to assemble and very awkward to store in the box due to their shape and size. The BSG cards and control panels are fully assembled and store very neatly in the starter box. Though it's a good idea to put a rubber band around each card deck to keep them from coming loose when carrying the box, definitely!
4th comparison: Miniature quality.
Now don't get me wrong...all the X-wing miniatures I own are VERY nice looking figures. But I can't emphasize enough how blown away I was by the astonishing quality of the BSG miniatures. The color, tiny meticulous details, the warning signs, personal insignia and serial numbers...I'd rate X-wing's minis at around a 9 on a scale of 10, but for me the BSG minis are an 11 or 12! Seriously, I know I sound like I'm overhyping them but they totally blew me away when I had the box opened and ships in hand.
5th comparison: Managing single ships vs. multiple ships.
This was a good question! As a Wings of Glory fan myself, I am the sort of player who prefers to fly a single ship in air/space combat games and gets invested in a particular fighter/pilot. After playing a couple of 1-on-1 games, and then a game where I ran 2 Vipers vs 2 other players, I think X-wing does lend itself more easily to a single player managing multiple ships. As with Wings of Glory, I think it's much simpler flying just 1 ship per player in BSG. But opinions may differ on that, because it depends on how good you are at multitasking and managing multiple BSG control panels. Others may differ on this. But since X-wing is designed for multi-ship squadrons, I think it has a bit of an advantage there (though I also think it's not nearly as fun to fly 1 ship vs. 1 ship in X-wing, in my personal experience.)
So I hope that gives some of my impressions and why BSG won me over so strongly. Again, I'm not trying to diss X-wing or X-wing fans in any way...it's a very good game that I think provides the flavor of the Star Wars universe very well, and it's inherently designed to be used for tournament and organized play, so I think if you prefer tournaments it may be a better game for you. But BSG's fascinating maneuvering system, more flexible options for campaign play and pilot experience, and especially the beautiful ships and components are what really hooked me on the Galactica game.
This post was a bit stream of consciousness feedback from playing the game for the first time over the weekend, so I apologize if it's a bit rambling. Feel free to ask more questions and again, if there are any X-wing fans reading, I hope you don't take offense--X-wing has a lot of good points also! I just think the two games provide a very different experience, and I REALLY like what BSG brings to the table and its feel of space combat tremendously.
I've played a lot of X-Wing before coming to Wing of Glory: WWI and I was say that absolutely X-Wing is easier to fly multiple ships. But after getting a decent collection of X-Wing (1.0 and 2.0 upgrades) I still tend toward Wings of Glory: WWI. If you prefer playing a squad of ships* then I might say X-Wing is a good choice; if you prefer aerial combat and a good sense of maneuvering then Wings of Glory.
* The reasons I moved from X-Wing wasn't just controlling one or many ships.
NOTE: I haven't even opened my Battlestar Galactica game yet, so I'm hoping this fills my Sci-Fi space itch for me. I can always go back to X-Wing for the Star Wars universe.
Interesting and detailed comparision. Much better than mine.
However:
Attachment 259961
BoardGameGeek.com - BSG Starter Set Deck Strips (Note: there is now a strip on the BBG PDF for the Talent cards, as well.)
PS: Turn Summary PDF, too. BoardGameGeek.com - Battlestar Galactica Turn Summary V3.4
Ken, before this game came out, I had only a mild interest in the reimagined Galactica TV series. I found it a bit too grim for my taste, so I'd only watched a handful of episodes, though even then I thought the space combat sequences were first rate.
But I won a copy of the new game from Ares in a Facebook contest...and when it arrived and I played it, I just fell in love with the system and minis. So much that I've re-started the TV series on Amazon Prime to watch as much Viper vs. Cylon combat as possible. The BSG game is just that much fun for me. Recent weekend conversation with my wife about TV:
WIFE: "What are you watching?"
ME: (/sinks down on sofa as BSG opening plays) "Umm...the usual?"
WIFE: (Laughs)
:)
@OldGuy: I put rubberbands around my cards before discovering your printed bands on BoardGameGeek. Yours do look very nice!
Having played a few games of BSG, I'm now considering removing all the '0's from the 'Shooting' damage chits. I mean, we are rolling to hit, in this game. Doesn't that take into consideration that some hits are non-effective?
Other opinions?
Thanks for the comparison David!
Like you, I didn't care much for the tournament play and squad builds that seemed to predominate in X-Wing... I also wasn't all that pleased that the game-changing X- Wing of my youth was trash in the game that took its name.
These thoughts, like yours, are based solely on experience with the first edition of X-Wing.
I did not make myself clear enough, Mike. I meant it is much less fun to fly multiple planes and it gives me a headache which should not be a part of a fun game. I did it several times, but it's easy then to mix cards and decks. Fun is when one pilots one plane:), so when I call my group I always carefully plan a battle and try to balance it not to force anybody to fly more then 1 kite.:D
LOL. Much the same with me and my wife. I started to watch the series on Showmax (with the preseries) for I knew nothing about this universe and now watch the 2nd season. My wife does not share my fun;).
The problem is the Showmax closes it's business here by the end of January, so I must speed up watching after hours...:eek:
It is a good point and it could work, if you try let us know.
In any case, this game we separated effects that were threated together in Wings of Glory and Sails of Glory as a single card/chit draw with 0s and damage points. One is the effort to aim and hit the enemy, and the other is the fact that vital part of the target are hit instead than just doing damages to non-vital parts of the target, without harming it. In combat, planes could take a lot of punishment without losing efficiency and getting back to their base, with bullets just going across wings and fuselage. In Wings and Sails of Glory, 0s could mean that you did not hit the target or that you hit it without causing relevant damages - no difference among these, they are 0 chits/cards anyway.
A third effect, hitting a specific part of the plane/spaceship that has vital functions (engine, directions, pilot...) was already separated - it was simulated with icons.
In this game we introduced dice, that were not in Wings nor in Sails but that some players (not you!) regretted.
So, first of all you see if you hit. For this, you use dice with modifiers. If you get a good score, you actually manage to hit the target or at least to fire very, very close to it. Good maneuvring and skills can influence that. Getting good modifiers is useful even if you already have a good chance of hitting, because the higher is the modifier the better are the chances of a double hit with same number on both dice (if you use the optional rule). Getting double dice is normally a matter of luck, but some abilities can be used for that too.
Even if you miss, if you manage to get a target in your field you gain a bonus for next turn agains it, so it is not a total waste (if you use the optional aiming rule, that I strongly advice).
If you hit, then you draw damages. They can be 0s, if you hit non-vital parts of the frame, but having hit is useful anyway since you get anyway a better bonus for next turn than just aiming and missing (if you use the optional rule, that I strongly advice).
So a missed rool means that you were not able to aim correctly at the target, a 0 on a chit means that you did not cause any relevant damage. Consequences are on to hit chances next turn, on difficulty for opponents to really assess the damage sustained, on how different abilities can change these results, on suspense (even an ace with a great to hit score and wonderful abilities can miss in the end).
Of course playing without 0s is an option, as a hoiuse rule. Playing without dice is maybe another... don't ask me exactly how. But overall, after a few years of playtesting, we are pretty convinced of the game as we released it. ;)
Just so you know, Cylons are not machines in the BSG universe. They are, at a minimum, bio-mechanical, and in some cases only the exoskeleton is a metal or composite. Specifically the interior of the Cylon Raiders are, except for a few systems, completely biological.
I heard that many people got the Star Buck promo with their game. My game came in last night and I didn't see one? Is there a way to still get the card?
It will be included in the "Starbuck" Viper model when that is released.
The Promo card was in the first batch of box sets, those being sold at Essen.
If you manage to get a card separately, then later buy the "Starbuck" mini, you will end up with a duplicate/spare card.
Thanks for the explanations, Andrea. It's helpful to get a look "behind the curtain" (so to speak) and into the minds of the developers. Intent isn't always easy to interpret.
:)
:pint::singin::thankyou:all, teasers, you Cylons;). The Starter is on the way to my door.
Based on the "Flaw" on the card I received, I'm thinking you'll get the Essen pre-release card in the 'Starbuck' Cylon Raider pack, not the Viper.
Also, there are Talents, as well as the above Flaw, that are not in the starter set. So, even had one received the Starbuck Pilot card in advance, it isn't fully usable, yet.
Yeah, and you will end up with a back-up spare card when you buy the ship pack.
Ken,
From the very limited exposure I have with BSG -SB, there will be cards in some releases that you don't get elsewhere. It remains to be seen what that does. For the "Flaw" on the Starbuck card, it doesn't matter what it is, if you don't fly against it. It should only apply to Starbuck, when she is flying the Cylon Raider. So, no effect on any normal game/scenario, and not one anybody will miss. Unless, of course, you are a Cylon infiltrator flying a Viper, not wanting to get shot up by Cylon Raiders. But we all know, the Cylons didn't care if there were infiltrators on their targets.
Or did they pick and choose targets based on some ability to know which ships had infiltrators? Hmmm...
Suitably chagrined... I've added a SPOILER buffer to this response. Thanks to David (Wolfbiter) for the idea...
If I remember correctly (it's been a while since I viewed the series), the Cylons certainly had some awareness of others, but not certain as to the extent of this power (i.e. there were some remarkable examples of awareness and lapses in such).
IMHO: One of the biggest disconnects in the re-imagined BSG series was the introduction of bio-machines. It allowed for the infiltration of the Human side, but it was a big question mark in my mind. It allowed for lots of species introspection and drama in the series, but never worked well for me, as I felt the entire premise was flawed. In the original series, Cylons were all machine, IIRC. The Raider Starbuck found, being bio-mechanical on the inside, was a nice tie-in for the infiltrators, but still didn't fit with my original "universe-picture" of the Cylons. It was a tack-on way to make the idea of the infiltrators seem plausible.
The series was good, but I had to suspend a lot of disbelief to watch it at all. Loved the graphics, loved the acting and production values, but it lost me on the entire core premise.
Really like the space combat game, and the more I get a grip on the rules, the more I like it as a combat/maneuver game.
That's interesting, Mike. I guess I saw the bio-mechanical/infiltrator component differently, though I'm not sure why. It might have been because I knew the writers were trying to tap into fears of enemies within society you couldn't identify (post-9/11), or it might have been that I wasn't all that invested in the idea of the Cylons as machines from TOS. I knew the Cylons were originally supposed to be saurians, but that the idea had to be scrapped in development... or it might have been that I found the most compelling enemy of humanity in TOS was the original Baltar character.
Not really sure, though you've given me some food for thought.
This I like to hear!
Hmmm... Mixing cards between planes. That is still going to be a problem in BSG. I have already fell victim to this issue, in the limited time and ships I have been exposed to the game. X-Wing totally beats this issue, using individual maneuver dials. You have to distinguish dials and ships (IE: Tie Swarms), but you can't loose maneuvers in another ship's dial.
I always fly a minimum of two planes in WGS, though. For my Spitfires and Me.109s, I had used the Flying Legends (three A maneuver decks: water, snow, and desert) and still use the Eagles of the Reich (three B maneuver decks: water, snow and desert) booster packs. The Ares reprinting of the Spitfire shelved the Flying Legends option, as the decks are no longer the same, though.
In WGF, I colour-dotted my Sopwith Triplane decks, as I would fly five of them together in scenarios with the Black Flight. This is where I used four different colours, and put a dot on each card, matching it to the adhesive dot on the plane stand. It is the only way to keep them separate, and I still get cards mixed together, when flying more than one.
I don't know what else to do, unless I sleeve the cards and put a colour panel on the back side, so it is EXTREMELY OBVIOUS that the card belongs to a specific deck, when moving a bunch of planes in a particular phase/turn. The colour dot thing is still a bit too discrete, to date.
Colour Dot on BSG - SB cards: will have to be more obvious, and marks the cards.
Sleeving BSG - SB cards: going to be an issue, as they will have to go into a modified card sleeve, and even then, will have issues in use (square sleeve, hexagon card).
(POSSIBLE SPOILERS FOR THOSE WHO HAVE NOT WATCHED SEASON 2 OF THE REIMAGINED SERIES)
(more effort to avoid spoilers)
(a bit more....)
My guess would be that early in the series, the Cylons wouldn't care who they blew up since any infiltrators aboard destroyed Colonial Ships would automatically download to new bodies aboard the Resurrection Ships when killed.
Later, when the Colonials learned about the Resurrection Ships and started targeting them, they may have had to re-think this approach a bit...
The shape of the maneuver cards, thought being awesomely thematic, is odd making them (and the others as well) somewhat difficult to sleeve.
This is certainly a problem... I don't know that I've played a game where at least one card didn't get mixed in with another deck. It's happened both in solo play, and at cons. I managed to walk off with a Camel maneuver card (and I wasn't even flying a Camel!) because of an overlap on the game table.
This would be solved by marking sleeves, though I can't imagine how we're going to sleeve the hexagonal cards in BSG.
I've not had much luck with laminating rectangular maneuver cards, but that might be more of a me problem than a laminating problem. The additional sides associated with the BSG cards would, I believe, make laminating them even more difficult.
So conflicted with all this.
There are two issues here: Hitting and Damaging.
I love the simplicity of Wings of War/Glory. Hitting and Damaging are all-in-one. Draw cards, and you got damage, or not. It could signify a total miss, or that nothing vital was hit. It all worked for me. There was so much plane in early aircraft, but also much more non-vital area to hit, that the zeros made sense. Just as the maneuver decks worked as a concept. The simplicity of the game, and the options to add in more complexity or 'realism' as desired. Beautifully designed, IMHO. The only issue I had/have with Wings of War/Glory is that of Aces who knew how to hit, and where to hit. The Perfect Aim +1 damage is sort-of OK, and the Sniper take-two-pick-the-best is a nice hack, but neither really works for me. Game balance, I suppose.
Hitting in BSG:
For BSG, we are rolling to hit. So, if you make the roll, you should HIT! If you have an aim bonus, you should HIT HARD! If you are an ace, you should be hitting most of the time. Game balance should go out the window, if aces meet standard pilots. The Ace levels should reflect this, and with more time playing the game, I should see it. My local players and I haven't gotten into using the Expert and Ace pilots much, so we aren't seeing the advantages clearly yet. And the Double Roll isn't coming up where it makes a difference much, yet. I need more ships, and more players.
Double hits are a nice mechanic, but is too random for an experienced pilot. A 16.7% probability of rolling doubles with 2 fair six-sided dice. But to hit, each split roll has to be above 6, so only on double 6s, not counting additional modifiers for an average pilot. An average pilot can Double Attack on 11% of his attacks at short and 5% of his attacks at medium range (long range is -1, so even double sixes aren't enough). It actually hasn't worked out even that often, yet, with my group. Where does range fit into this? How does closing to short range and aiming better fit in, on a random chance of rolling doubles? Don't like it as a mechanic for Aces. Perhaps rolling within one or two of the same numbers? Hmmm... This leads to: Nuggets can't break up a Double Roll into two attacks, ever (this is close to the way the game works now. With a -1 to hit, Rookies only get to hit with Double 6's at short range, without additional modifiers) . Rookies can at Short Range, only (5% of the time at short range). Average pilots can at short and medium ranges (11% of the time at short range, 5% at medium and none at long range) Expert pilots can double attack at short range if rolls are +-1 (IE: 6,5 or 5,4), working out to 22% of attacks, but can double attack at medium and long range on natural double 5s and 6s. Aces can always double attack on rolls that are +-1 (27% at all ranges). Add in Aim Modifiers and any +s for Kinetic Energy, and the odds go up.
Damage in BSG:
How did you come up with the "+" adds damage, and how do you rationalize this with zeros in the mix? The Lethal Talent attempts to make an Ace more dangerous, but is not as good as it could/should be. With the zeros out of the mix, it would make the Lethal Talent very lethal. So, where you say that the zeros in the chits takes into consideration that there are hits that are non-effective makes sense, but it doesn't if you are rolling to hit, as well. Misses on the 'To Hit" rolls should also mean that you could have hit, but nothing important got damaged. It is a matter of perspective, I suppose. But, reading pilot biographies from WWII, and even WWI, the aces were already aiming for engines in multi-engine planes, or vital points. Albert Ball was said to fly up under an unsuspecting enemy plane, and run a trace of bullets from tail to engine. The plane would depart controlled flight, as the pilot would almost always be fatally hit, usually without ever seeing his opponent. No play balance, at all. Franz Stigler describes diving on B-17 bombers with an Me.262 and shooting for the spine (the area in the fuselage where the main wing spars ran through). A good hit there with a short burst from four 30mm cannons was enough to have the bomber fold up like a wet newspaper. So, when flying with the Ace Franz Stigler in a WGS scenario, a hit should be enough to take out a B-17 in most instances. One hit. WGS can't emulate Franz Stigler, nor can WGF emulate Albert Ball, without the Boom Card/Chit, and it is too random in a large deck/bin of damage cards/chits. The '+' makes you draw another chit makes sense with Expert and Ace pilots, but perhaps not with Nuggets and Rookies?
All the above needs more playing time with the Complete Rules, I suppose. But the probabilities above are not encouraging. It will take "combat experience" to show if the additional Aim bonuses, and Kinetic Energy issues, and/or Asteriod obstructions, make the Aces that much more lethal. I suspect it will.
Starbuck (+3 to Hit) can split almost any double roll, even 2s at short range! Add any Aim bonus, and all double rolls hit (36%). Throw in the +-1 and 44% of her "double rolls" can potentially do damage. Pull all the zeros, and Starbuck will go through Toasters like a car crusher! No game balance for the Cylons.
PS: Standard Damage Chit mix for Nugget to Average pilots, Non-Zero Damage Chit mix for Expert and Ace pilots? Now where is that Additional Counters Set accessory mentioned in the Rule Book?
PPS: Starbuck's Pilot card has the following: Talents: Daredevil (M,SS), Nimble Pilot (M,SS), Quick Reactions (M,SS), Towing (M,?), Marksman (F,SS), Troubleshooter (A,SS), Inspiring (O,?), Religious (O,?); Flaws: Alien Spacecraft (Fl,?).
Legend for above: M = Maneuver; F = Firing; A = Activity; O = Other; SS = Starter Set; Fl = Flaw; ? = Unknown
I am looking forward to playing my first game. My offsider is in possession of a set of rules so when I come back from my vacation in a couple of weeks ..... :guns:
For those of you who had difficulty with the re-imagined TV series, try watching the Bird Box. :erk:
I liked the BSG series but there again I liked Pearl Harbor as well so each to their own I guess.
That value has been called G after much discussion, but do not take it 100% literally. It is a measure of the agility of the ship, so we used it to model the different way that ships moves in the TV series. The Raider accelerates better, but the agility of the Viper Mk.II to turn on the spot is definitely superior - as far as we saw on the screen. This is why the Mk.II has the possibility to turn 60° while going backward, a thing that the Raider can not do. And this is why its change direction card costs 0 G: so that you can play really any maneuvre after a change direction card, no matter how curved, while the Raider is restricted to less extreme maneuvres.
This is why I think that, in the hands of a player that can exploit that maneuvrability, the Mk.II is quite balanced compared to the Raider even if it has a worse acceleration and if it sustains one damage point less.
OldGuy59:
However, what about the Drift Ruler in photo four? It is not a maneuver card. But, at the end of the First Movement Step, my ship is definitely in the Sparse field, and has moved. My Control Panel is, at this point, set at a Kinetic Energy of three, and I will, in the Second Movement Step, move out of the field. As I don't cross the field on the way out, nor am I on the field at the end, I don't think a Collision occurs in step two. So, at least one collision draw should be taken in the first Movement Step. But how much?
I will have moved more than the three on the single 'movement' maneuver card, having drifted as I changed direction, first. The point is, I think I should draw on the 4+ range, not just the planned kinetic energy of three, as my ship moves more than the single three speed maneuver card.
Somehow things must be simplified. So let's stick to the written rule. You change Kinetic energy as soon as you show planned maneuvres. So after the drift you moved and you are at Kinetic energy of 3. Take damage accordingly.
To see what you simulated: since part of the energy was spent to contrast inertia, you moved less and at a lower speed than you would have done zooming with an energy of 6, so chances to bump into an asteroid are lower.