View Poll Results: History - how important is it for you?

Voters
301. You may not vote on this poll
  • Innocent - just want to fly, shoot, and have fun

    52 17.28%
  • Interested - contrahents should be of same time and/or theatre

    185 61.46%
  • Addicted - I do my repaints to original units

    30 9.97%
  • Incurable - I´ve painted or intend historical correct units of both sides

    46 15.28%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 101 to 128 of 128

Thread: Poll - Is history important?

  1. #101

    strontiumdog's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Dan
    Location
    Gloucestershire
    Sorties Flown
    55
    Join Date
    Jun 2014

    Default

    Historical time period is important for me but i dont worry about theatre too much - each to their own though!

  2. #102

    Default

    I'm of two minds.

    I like the history when I'm not playing. I like learning about the different pilots and what they did. I think it nice knowing that this plane and pilot did whatever.

    When I'm playing ease and fun come first. So I prefer balance over history also. I have no interested in an historically accurate 60 planes against 2 regardless of how valiantly they died. But a fight against Richthofen and Hawker is easy to setup if you have the planes and even though the DH.2 is out classed it can still be fun.


    Fun first, history later unless you're mussing just to impress your friends with you knowledge of World War I aces.

    Besides with I went on about Star Wars: X-Wing aces people just roll their eyes.

  3. #103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wargamer View Post
    Historical is nice. But the priority is fun.
    I'm in this boat. I like to look at the history and backstory, then get inspired to fly the planes.

    Look at my campaign posts - I took a historical event, then warped it to work for me.

  4. #104

    Default

    The history captured my attention and has fueled my interest from Day 1... something which just might explain the steady growth of my library. Watch out, Tim... I've another couple of books in the pipeline. In my opinion they're extremely well-done and on my list of "must-haves." Reviews forthcoming.

    Though this is the case, the beautiful game pieces, ease of play, and comradeship are second to none.

  5. #105

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fast.git View Post
    Watch out, Tim... I've another couple of books in the pipeline. In my opinion they're extremely well-done and on my list of "must-haves." Reviews forthcoming.
    That's it, then....I'm off to rob a bank!

  6. #106

    Default

    This is why I'm reluctant to get into a campaign... too much trouble "making something up" when there's a treasure trove of historical stories to tell.

    Some day I'd like to write a trio of Career Campaigns for the Red Baron, Rene Fonck and Billy Bishop... not sure whether to jump straight to Rickenbacker if I do for #4, or work down the scoreboard in turn.

    Come to think of it, this could be a cool Ares "paper product" accessory... but it's so much work I won't take it on without a paycheck of some kind. They've "gotten a lot of the milk for free" even though I treat them the same as I would a top-tier paying client, but between the market for freelance historians and aging relatives to support I need to start looking for more and better opportunities to monetize my time and labor. It's to the point that I've even considered asking my favorite gun shop if they might consider hiring an intern... and when a freelancer starts considering giving up some of their treasured Independent Contractor status that tells you something.
    Wings of Glory WWI Checklist | WGF Nexus Ser. 1-4 and Ares Ser. 1-2 + 5-9 COMPLETE, RDS 4/4, Specials COMPLETE
    Wings of Glory WWII Checklist | WGS Nexus Ser. 1-2 and Ares Ser. 3-6 COMPLETE, DS 4/4, SS 4/4, Specials COMPLETE

  7. #107

    Default

    This may be off topic but here I go and........... Please, please no one take this wrong, no one take offense. It isn't meant mean or anything like that; it is just an observation. This is one of a couple of things that bother me just a bit.

    I'm in the corner of fun first and history is okay if the person is interested (see my post above). I know to many history is one of, if not the, reason they got into this game. But it seems that occasionally the way players give advice to new players makes the history seem a bit heavy handed. Almost a turn off. Perhaps I'm being a bit thin skinned, but I've seen this happen a few times here and at BGG. If someone says that want a balanced game they often get a lot of comments about how terrible balance is, history first, etc. and few that help. Not that combining a fun game and history isn't a good thing, it is a great thing. That's why my wife prefers this over X-Wing. But a little more balance (hehe) in how we talk to new players who may not share your love of history (or shapeways) as others. Just a thought, hope I didn't upset anyone.

    P.S. Sharing the love of history is fantastic. I do want to say that I agree with that. Sharing a game with someone who doesn't care about the details of history only the theme of the era is also great.
    Last edited by Ken at Sunrise; 01-18-2018 at 06:37. Reason: Added P.S. an spell'in n gramner

  8. #108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken at Sunrise View Post
    This may be off topic but here I go and........... Please, please no one take this wrong, no on take offensive. It isn't meant mean or anything like that; it is just an observation. This is one of a couple of things that bother me just a bit.

    I'm in the corner of fun first and history is okay if the person is interested (see my post above). I know to many history is one of, if not the, reason they got into this game. But it seems that occasionally the way players give advice to new players makes the history seem a bit heavy handed. Almost a turn off. Perhaps I'm being a bit thin skinned, but I've seen this happen a few times here and at BGG. If someone says that want a balanced game they often get a lot of comments about how terrible balance is, history first, etc. and few that help. Not that combining a fun game and history isn't a good thing, it is a great thing. That's why my wife prefers this over X-Wing. But a little more balance (hehe) in how we talk to new players who may not share your love of history (or shapeways) as others. Just a thought, hope I didn't upset anyone.

    P.S. Sharing the love of history is fantastic. I do want to say that I agree with that. Sharing a game with someone who doesn't care about the details of history only the theme of the era is also great.
    Hmmm... Are we being heavy handed? I have a hard time understanding why there are people who absolutely have to have a balanced game, and attempt to put some type of value system in place in a game that was never intended to be a tournament-style game. The contortions that the game designer has gone through trying to fit a value system on Wings of Glory to satisfy that "balance" need is depressing. It isn't really possible, as the planes that flew in WWI and WWII were created to imbalance things in favor of the people building the planes. When they succeeded, the other side paid a very heavy price. This says nothing about what a game might be like if we had several aces in a Jasta (with all their ace skill cards in full play) jumping a patrol of RAF two-seater BE2cs with Albatros D.Vas. There is a challenge!

    So, for those that want balanced games, for whatever reason, they should be looking at very structured and artificial abstractions of combat, like Chess. Do I want to play on the loosing side of a scenario? Not really. However, I don't mind the challenge of taking inferior equipment and attempting to survive. Besting an opponent in that situation is icing on the cake.

    I am strongly opinionated in this regard, so your message is probably directed specifically at people like me. And my answer to you is, "Go play X-Wing, or Chess." Yeah. Pretty heavy handed.

    PS: I'm presently attempting to run a campaign for Wings of Glory, and after our first session, even though I won two of three scenarios, I was down all of my planes and all but one of my pilots (and he was a wounded rookie!). The campaign isn't looking very good for having pilots make it through a full month of flying, let alone the four years that WWI lasted. Each of the scenarios are supposed to be reasonably close, using a point system for planes and skills. However, damage decks don't seem to be scaled to favour aces, if anyone. That was only one session, and we only used single-skill aces. What would von Richthofen be like with all his ace skills? Will I ever get a pilot to anywhere close to that level? What happens in the campaign when one of the squadrons develops a Super-Ace, and the opposite side doesn't? We'll get to see that, I suspect. Those darn Boom Cards!
    Mike
    "Flying is learning to throw yourself at the ground and miss" Douglas Adams
    "Wings of Glory won't skin your elbows and knees while practicing." OldGuy59

  9. #109

    Default

    I think whatever brings you to this game is good, be that historical accuracy, interest in modeling historical planes, the coolness of little planes ready to fly out of the box, or whatever...

    My WWI interest goes back to my childhood (55 years ago or so) - historical paint schemes and modeling fueled it then, and abstract gaming added to the mix (MB's Dogfight). Fast-forward to my late teens and early twenties, and I was in West Berlin, ' surrounded' by history and militaria dealers peddling WWI antigues, which also piqued my interest. Jump ahead again to the early 21st century - I spotted a yellow balloon with a Nieuport sitting in a box in a gaming store and did not pounce on it.

    And here I am today. I love the history surrounding this game. I love the little planes straight out of the box onto the playing mat. I love repainting planes to make them more historically accurate or to replicate actual pilots' mounts. But I also painted a King Kong miniature to run games with WWI pilots flying against The Eighth Wonder of the World. And I'm currently working on a scenario for Origins pitting Cthulhu against pilots in 1918 Flanders. So the pilots will be historically accurate, but their 'enemy' won't be.

    So for me, the key is having fun with the game - and that also involves knowing what those you're playing with value. Some of the guys I play with really like historical accuracy, and balance and fairness be damned - like Mike suggests. Others are just involved to get out of the house for a few hours and have fun with like-minded folks. According to the poll above, approximately one-fourth of the respondents value historical aspects a lot. Does that stop them from playing a King Kong scenario? It hasn't with my gaming group, but for others it might! But if it does, that's okay - it's not 'their thing'. Three-quarters of the folks responding to the poll either don't care or feel some sense of historical perspective is appropriate - I would think 75% of the games folks play (at least) would fall into that category.

    I guess the bottom line is knowing why you are interested in the game and how your interest meshes with those you game with or want to attract to the game. At the end of the day, you need to feel like you haven't wasted your time, and that goes for simply being a participant in a game or for being the one who came up with the scenario and ran the game. Most of us would like others to share our enthusiasm and/or excitement, and I would bet that more than 75% of the time that happens when we're playing Wings of War/Glory.

    All the best,
    Matt
    Last edited by matt56; 01-18-2018 at 12:27.

  10. #110

    Default

    I love the history and will read up before putting together a scenario for a show. You can set up close to what was there (or at least a portion of) but thats where it ends. Once we start flying history is out the window. We are of course trying to do better than what actually happened if on the historical winning side, or change history if on the losing side. I no longer try to balance scenarios between the two sides. With planes/pilots re-spawning it would be almost impossible. If you have a set # of planes you can but then people will be knocked out of the game and I prefer to keep everyone flying. So nowI pit each side against their own for the honor of being the best pilot per side. This way one sided scenarios are still competitive as Allies are competing against all the other Allies, Axis vs Axis. At least this is how I do it at shows. At home with friends I can be a bit more historical if thats what they want. Above all is everyone must be having fun.

  11. #111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OldGuy59 View Post
    I am strongly opinionated in this regard, so your message is probably directed specifically at people like me. And my answer to you is, "Go play X-Wing, or Chess." Yeah. Pretty heavy handed.
    I've been struggling with responding or not, so here goes...

    I'm really surprised that you're suggesting if I don't play the game your way I shouldn't play? Wow, is that what you meant? I hope I'm not stirring up a hornets nest so I've leave it go after this post. I prefer good will and intentions and was just trying (poorly) to share ideas for being more inclusive.

  12. #112

    Default

    IMO a point system for WGS is necessary to correct initial inaccuracies in overall airplane power levels. I like having formal rules that moderate the amount of skills or extra planes to make up for that gap. The slippery slope of x-wing comes into effect when those skills are gamed to min/max power rather than to paint a more accurate picture. I recognize the need to throw most of the point system rules out when designing more complex scenarios. However, I have found success in creating snapshot scenarios that do work with points and preserve more of the dogfight intent of the original game. For more involved and extended air war experiences I prefer the DVG B-17 Leader or GMT Enemy Coast Ahead formats because there is more deep planning involved. If I am going the route of logistic simulation I would rather deploy from an HQ perspective than as a pilot.

    If we should have to fight, we should be prepared to do so from the neck up instead of from the neck down. -Jimmy Doolittle

  13. #113

    Default

    Unlike X-Wing where there is only one ruleset and, for all intents and purposes, pretty much only one scenario (100pt dogfight with six asteroids), in Wings of Glory you’ve got three different rule sets, optional a la carts rules on top of that, and a huge array of potential scenarios with head-to-head dogfight between fighters being just one of them.

    As such, the points values in each system are being asked to do very different jobs, and it should be obvious that WoG’s points have a much harder task as there are so many more variables in play.

  14. #114

    Default

    I'm in the interested category I think, in that while I read up on planes and the history of WWI air combat I only repaint duplicates (e.g. A second Barker Camel into a differently marked Camel) and will eventually paint the Shapeways planes I have. I try to keep planes in feasible months and theatres.

    Regards

    Edward

  15. #115

    Default

    Steve, I agree about the rulesets and think any point system should focus on the advanced game because the other rule levels are more casual anyway.

    If we should have to fight, we should be prepared to do so from the neck up instead of from the neck down. -Jimmy Doolittle

  16. #116

    Default

    Another thing about the points system: as much as I appreciate the effort it took to create, and the mere fact that it exists at all, I am not sure that “all points are created equal.”

    My game group has found, with the WWI system, that having having more “cheap” (in points cost) planes is almost always going to win against having fewer “expensive” planes. (Full disclosure: we were playing with the Standard Rules, with the Split S added as well as Aim bonuses, but no Disruption).

    Consider a very realistic, historical scenario: the Albatros D.III vs the Nieuport 17 or Airco DH.2 armed with a single gun. From memory, the Alb costs around 82 points while the Nieuport and Airco are around 56. You can very easily wind up in a situation, in a multiplayer game, where the Albatros players will be outnumbered by the Nieuports, even though the points are equal. In our experience across a month long Bloody April campaign, the Allies having more B Deck shots trumped the Central Powers’ “better” A Deck shots.

    The net result was very ahistorical in the sense that the Central Powers were pretty easily swept from the skies more often than not, despite having qualitatively better planes. In the end, we set aside points and focused on making sure it was one player per plane, and sprinkling in Ace abilities and careful scenario planning to make for a fun and mostly balanced campaign experience.

    At a certain level, there's a lot of merit in "balancing" a game simply by matching (as closely as possible) the hitpoints of the planes and as well as their damage output between the two teams. And, most importantly, playing only one plane per player while keeping the teams equally populated, as much as possible. That, along with the Basic or Standard rules, will usually always yield a fun dogfight encounter, especially if the explosion cards or chits are removed from the deck or pool.
    Last edited by surfimp; 01-18-2018 at 13:55.

  17. #117

    Default

    FYI, all my comments are solely pertaining to WGS.

    I agree that even with the current point system there needs to be moderation to make it work. Looking at series #6 the P-51 should get a bump versus other airplanes in that set, but we have always limited those choices to skills that provide movement or handling, such as Acrobat Pilot or Golden Touch, but never any that enhance firepower.

    Since the point systems will not stand up to any granular scrutiny sensible meddling is needed. To create a completely fleshed out point balanced option Ares would need to release Second Edition rules. They should probably do this at some point anyway just to update and freshen things up. For starters, I would like them to do something I have already done... get rid of the explosion counters. No explosion counters is a "tournament" rule but it really should be integrated into the main-line Advanced Rules.

    If we should have to fight, we should be prepared to do so from the neck up instead of from the neck down. -Jimmy Doolittle

  18. #118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OldGuy59 View Post
    ...

    I am strongly opinionated in this regard, so your message is probably directed specifically at people like me. And my answer to you is, "Go play X-Wing, or Chess." Yeah. Pretty heavy handed.

    ...
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken at Sunrise View Post
    I've been struggling with responding or not, so here goes...

    I'm really surprised that you're suggesting if I don't play the game your way I shouldn't play? Wow, is that what you meant? I hope I'm not stirring up a hornets nest so I've leave it go after this post. I prefer good will and intentions and was just trying (poorly) to share ideas for being more inclusive.
    Ken,
    If you ever met me at a Con, or even at the local gaming store, I'm not, quite, that hard-nosed. Also this from a guy that is pumping Tripods, that has no historical basis. It is the balance thing that people look for at which I will always poke a finger.

    Comments from Steve [surfimp] about air superiority are interesting in the 'balance' discussion. Bloody April 1917 also showed some interesting stories about balance in the air war. More German planes had double guns, and because they were flying in Jastas, with local air superiority, with more experienced pilots (for the most part), they appeared to be clearing the skies. Along came the RNAS in May 1917, with some more experienced pilots, flying in tighter teams, and even with single-gunned planes, started to rack up victory tallies. Looking at the point system, flying Sopwith Triplanes against Albatros D.IIs and D.IIIs is not a balanced game. But, that was what the RNAS took against the Luftstreitkraft, and was beating them up. I have no idea if this would be borne out by the game, unless there is a way to sort out the skills differences for the individual pilots involved.

    Yes, I want to play, pretty much, historical battles, and not necessarily balanced scenarios. Do I set up Convention Demos that way? Not often. I would like people to enjoy their first foray into the hobby. And I don't insist that every game played is lop-sided, depending on the year of the war. Because, there is always room for a scenario that goes against historical averages, as squadrons and Jastas contested for local air superiority.

    There is always a way to game a system, though, and I detest people that use point systems to "balance" the game to their advantage. Not that I have extensive experience in this, but I have seen the swarm of cheap planes clear the skies against a few top planes.

    And then, that darned Boom card! Because, that was historical, too. Just ask the Red Baron.
    Mike
    "Flying is learning to throw yourself at the ground and miss" Douglas Adams
    "Wings of Glory won't skin your elbows and knees while practicing." OldGuy59

  19. #119

    Default

    Unlike X-Wing where there is only one ruleset and, for all intents and purposes, pretty much only one scenario (100pt dogfight with six asteroids).....
    That's a pretty blinkered view. I've been playing it since it was released and probably played that scenario once. X wing is as varied in its scope of scenarios as any game

  20. #120

    Dawn Patrol's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Bruce
    Location
    California
    Sorties Flown
    108
    Join Date
    Feb 2017

    Default

    Just about ready to make my Shapeways order...my plans for painting:

    Airco DH.2 - Properly British, don’t you know!
    Sopwith Pup - Tradition! Accuracy! Harrumph and fie to those who would do otherwise!
    Fokker E.III - Oh, those fabulous wings! So broad, so bold, so laden with opportunity! The first will be styling with a modern framing of a knight, comic book style with black line drawing on an all white plane, appropriately enough, The White Knight. None of this staid, full picture in a tiny space, the drawing will violate the borders, working both the positive and negative space. The second will anachronistically be The Blue Max! Not anachronistic at all, you say? The Blue *Peter* Max! Color! Winged Man adorning the wings! Running Man adorning the sides! Stars! Air brushed sun rays! Other pilots can’t take their eyes off it! Other pilot’s eyes are blinded by it!

    Hey, I painted Groucho Marx on a Firefly Mech (the gun made a perfect cigar). Another time, after painting up a whole army of 15mm Ancient Britons with checked everything, I looked at the chariots and couldn’t find anything saying that they didn’t paint those with checks, too. Every now and then you gotta color outside the lines...

    What can I say, I always liked that the German Pilots got to make a personal statement with their whole, flipping plane! ;-)

  21. #121

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Manley View Post
    That's a pretty blinkered view. I've been playing it since it was released and probably played that scenario once. X wing is as varied in its scope of scenarios as any game
    If I was being cheeky, I'd say you were the exception that proved the rule

    But, of course, people play in a wide variety of ways. Like anyone, I can only report on what I have personally experienced, and what I perceive from reading of others' experiences online.

  22. #122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by surfimp View Post
    If I was being cheeky, I'd say you were the exception that proved the rule

    Well I have been described as exceptional more than once

  23. #123

    Default

    I am definitely addicted. I have thoroughly enjoyed researching various units and repainting planes to fill out my six plane "units". I feel these groups give a historically correct look. If you are having a fun little beer and pretzel game with friends I think it is fun to fly what is brought. When at a game convention like Origins I think it adds so much with a larger number of players going at each other in matching units.

    Jim O'Neil
    rhodie80

  24. #124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by surfimp View Post
    Unlike X-Wing where there is only one ruleset and, for all intents and purposes, pretty much only one scenario (100pt dogfight with six asteroids), in Wings of Glory you’ve got three different rule sets, ...
    Quote Originally Posted by David Manley View Post
    That's a pretty blinkered view. I've been playing it since it was released and probably played that scenario once. X wing is as varied in its scope of scenarios as any game
    Quote Originally Posted by surfimp View Post
    If I was being cheeky, I'd say you were the exception that proved the rule

    But, of course, people play in a wide variety of ways. Like anyone, I can only report on what I have personally experienced, and what I perceive from reading of others' experiences online.
    Interestingly, most of the X-Wing skirmish games I have played, and seen played, locally, have been this six asteroid set-up. And I don't play enough to avoid crippling, or even destroying, my ships running into them. Makes it too easy for my opponents. Based on my limited experience playing X-Wing, space isn't empty, it is full of junk.

    I think the equivalent for WGF or WGS would to be dogfighting in the Grand Canyon for most of your games.
    Mike
    "Flying is learning to throw yourself at the ground and miss" Douglas Adams
    "Wings of Glory won't skin your elbows and knees while practicing." OldGuy59

  25. #125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Manley View Post
    Well I have been described as exceptional more than once
    And I've been described as cheeky... well, I think I'm actually only described as being cheeky!

    We've actually been talking about playing X-Wing "like WoG" for a while now, with more expansive scenarios and whatnot. I think it's just a tendency to gravitate toward the "balance" and "fair competition" that many seem to have, with the implicit assumption that the "official tournament rules" embody that, or at least provide a good chance of achieving it with little effort or forethought.

    Personally, I prefer to save the effort and forethought for WoG. I just find the airplanes and setting more engaging, though I of course enjoy Star Wars as much as anyone. But, IMHO, "history has the best fluff." (hope that's not an offensive statment, it's meant in a "truth is stranger than fiction" way).

  26. #126

    Default

    I never let history get in the way of a good game... if its fun its right.

    If it can be historically accurate as well then that is a real bonus

    Never knowingly under gunned !

  27. #127

    Default

    Hi, I was thinking about what you said. I realize that I was I wouldn't comment any more; but I do believe you didn't understand what I was actually trying to say. Okay, so this is my last comment on this topic. Well I do hope so because I think people are tired of my soapbox.

    When you said:
    Quote Originally Posted by OldGuy59 View Post
    Ken,
    If you ever met me at a Con, or even at the local gaming store, I'm not, quite, that hard-nosed. Also this from a guy that is pumping Tripods, that has no historical basis. It is the balance thing that people look for at which I will always poke a finger.
    I don't think we're on the same page on this. You also had said:
    Quote Originally Posted by OldGuy59 View Post
    I am strongly opinionated in this regard, so your message is probably directed specifically at people like me. And my answer to you is, "Go play X-Wing, or Chess." Yeah. Pretty heavy handed.

    That was more than sticking a finger in it. You were telling me to get out of Wings of Glory and go play something else. Then followed it up with:
    Quote Originally Posted by OldGuy59 View Post
    There is always a way to game a system, though, and I detest people that use point systems to "balance" the game to their advantage. Not that I have extensive experience in this, but I have seen the swarm of cheap planes clear the skies against a few top planes.
    I wasn't debating your gaming preferences. We all have games or gaming styles we prefer. I was only pointing out that by telling other players to go play something else, if their not fond of your gaming preference, may not be the best way to attract new players.



    Some additional thougths:
    - I don't think this type of response or thinking is isolated in threads here.

    - X-Wing is far from a balanced game. Even with the points there are so many over powered squads that other equally pointed squads have no chance.

    - Most people, when they play a game, play to their strength and advantage. Such as most do not play just to loose. In games like X-Wing, a big part of the game is the skill of squad building. That is not gaming the system; it is part of the game. Finding synergistic squads is a big part of the X-Wing scene. That's one of the reasons I prefer Wings of Glory. I prefer sitting and playing to squad building and designing.

    - Not everyone who likes point balance is trying to 'game the system' as you say. I, for one, like the points because it makes it easier to find and assemble a more balanced game. I like games where both sides are similarly balanced but each has unique forces with their own strengths. Each side has the flavor of they squad while knowing they have just as much a chance to win as their opponent. I use points for finding planes and squads that, while not prefect, are reasonably balanced. I know your thoughts on balance and points, as you've said above, and am not trying to dissuade you from how your preferences. I'm only saying others, such as myself, can enjoy the game while having different gaming preferences. I wouldn't think you'd want to shun them.

    - In my group I tend to make the squads for both sides; I'm trying to game anything. Using either a point system or pre-made scenario makes it so much easier to put these games together and get them to the table. I don't have the time, patience or skill to design battles so I rely on points and pre-made scenarios. Without both the points or scenarios, Wings of Glory would see far less table time in our group. I know some hate the idea, but at the same time it is a way into the game; and for me and our group almost needed. Maybe this isn't a large group of people. But until people learn the planes and how they differ, discover historical or created battles and scenarios, game to experience or even rediscover history. Points may be there only easy way into a quick pickup game.

    - Finally I'm fine playing a reasonably point balanced Wings of Glory and theme based (ignoring most points) X-Wing and really don't think I need to choose or give either.


    Okay, setting the mic down, I'm packing up my soap box and using it for the bonfire this weekend. As they often say over at the X-Wing forum 'Fly Casual'.

  28. #128

    Default

    I think one of the big misunderstandings is about what X-Wing really is. Yes, there are miniatures, but in reality it follows the Living Card Game (LCG) model of game design that Fantasy Flight is most famous for. I could write pages on this but for now consider the following. Models are released with support materials that are intended to interact heavily with previous content. The new releases constantly warp the competitive meta, requiring ongoing adjustments to squad lists based on power levels and combos. X-Wing is functionally a competitive LCG with toys.

    I do not want this for WGS. However, point systems alone to not turn your models into LCG fodder.

    If we should have to fight, we should be prepared to do so from the neck up instead of from the neck down. -Jimmy Doolittle

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


Similar Missions

  1. This Day in History Poll
    By sparty in forum General Discussions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-19-2010, 17:25

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •