Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
24 Posts

Star Wars: X-Wing Miniatures Game» Forums » Variants

Subject: A very simple rule to add a bit more strategy rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Lord Ashram
msg tools
Hi all!

Okay... was thinking a bit about how to add a bit more strategy to movement... right now it seems like it is a "run at the enemy, pass him, K turn" rinse and repeat.

So... here is my proposal.

First, all regular fighters have four "sides"; their front fire arc (as already defined) a rear arc (the reverse of the front fire arc) and two side arcs. You'd have to maybe draw the rear arc onto the card.

Then add this rule:

If you are attacking an enemy ship in its side arc, you may reroll one attack die.

If you are attacking an enemy ship in its rear arc, you may reroll one attack die AND you may force the enemy to reroll one agility die.

I have to sit and look at the ships to figure out how you determine exactly if you are in an arc, but I think a post-to-post line should help determine which fire arc you are in.


My hope is that this might make people more interested in things like attacking from the flank and even getting behind enemies.

I am not sure if it would work with the big ships, as they are rather large and I don't have any to look at.

Thoughts?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Wilder

Daly City
California
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Lord Ashram wrote:
Thoughts?

I gotta be honest: my thought is that this ...

Quote:
Okay... was thinking a bit about how to add a bit more strategy to movement... right now it seems like it is a "run at the enemy, pass him, K turn" rinse and repeat.

... is not my experience with the game. At all.

I think that the game simulates the disadvantage of being tailed very well, without making it so crippling that it ends the game. I think the game rewards attacking from side and rear by (in almost all cases) not letting your opponent shoot back.

I don't think your suggestions are bad in an absolute sense. I could see a modified version of the X-Wing engine using them, although it would need to be re-balanced from the ground up, but trying to retro-fit them into the game as it currently exists would result in significant imbalances between ships.
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Todd Warnken
United States
Harrison
Ohio
flag msg tools
I'm not crazy. My mother had me tested.
badge
Happy grandfather!!!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Attacking the side of a ship should make it harder to hit not easier. Let the defender reroll a defense die.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Udo W
Germany
flag msg tools
That's an interesting idea for sure. But I think this would lead to even more K-turns since nobody would want to show their sides or rears.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lord Ashram
msg tools
Hmm... while I understand that attacking from the side makes the enemy unable to fire back, that doesn't always matter. For example, let's say two TIE Fighters are attacking 1 X-Wing head on. There is no point for the TIE fighters to split up and try to attack from two sides, because the X-Wing can only target one of them anyway and they get no advantage doing so. If, however, you use this system, it suddenly becomes slightly better to have one ship go head on and try to work the other into the flank.

As for making more K turns, I'm not sure why that would happen. I also haven't played a lot; can you explain?

I'm not sure the game would need any rebalancing... if the same rule applies for all ships, the only issue I would see is the idea of larger fleets of cheaper ships having a slight advantage since they have enough to work onto a flank. But boths sides already deal with this and, in fact, take advantage of it. I don't think a rebalance would be needed at all, honestly.

As for being harder to hit an enemy by coming at them from the side... I don't think that is true. Through all of time in every type of warfare you ALWAYS want to flank your enemy, as they are often either unawares of you coming upon them (and so unable to pull effective evasive action) or so busy with an enemy to their front they cannot react ideally. Weapons often face front, which makes attackers on the side feel less threatened and calmer when attacking. Front facing armor is often the thickest, with side armor being weaker. In Star Wars itself most profiles of ships offer far more target space than a head on look (especially for those TIE ships!) All in all there is no reason to suggest that attacking from the flank is harder than than the front; in fact, it is almost always easier.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric
Canada
Gatineau
Quebec
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Just a quick question, do you use the asteroids? We never play without, but if you don't use them I could see it become a move forward-k turn loop.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Guido Gloor
Switzerland
Ostermundigen
Bern
flag msg tools
The statement below is false.
badge
The statement above is correct.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Lord Ashram wrote:
My hope is that this might make people more interested in things like attacking from the flank and even getting behind enemies.

I agree, that's most necessary. After all, "he can't shoot me at all" isn't much of an incentive.

I'll go back into my cave now and pretend to ignore the remainder of this thread.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Campos
United States
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Lord Ashram wrote:
Hmm... while I understand that attacking from the side makes the enemy unable to fire back, that doesn't always matter. For example, let's say two TIE Fighters are attacking 1 X-Wing head on. There is no point for the TIE fighters to split up and try to attack from two sides, because the X-Wing can only target one of them anyway and they get no advantage doing so. If, however, you use this system, it suddenly becomes slightly better to have one ship go head on and try to work the other into the flank.

As for making more K turns, I'm not sure why that would happen. I also haven't played a lot; can you explain?

I'm not sure the game would need any rebalancing... if the same rule applies for all ships, the only issue I would see is the idea of larger fleets of cheaper ships having a slight advantage since they have enough to work onto a flank. But boths sides already deal with this and, in fact, take advantage of it. I don't think a rebalance would be needed at all, honestly.

As for being harder to hit an enemy by coming at them from the side... I don't think that is true. Through all of time in every type of warfare you ALWAYS want to flank your enemy, as they are often either unawares of you coming upon them (and so unable to pull effective evasive action) or so busy with an enemy to their front they cannot react ideally. Weapons often face front, which makes attackers on the side feel less threatened and calmer when attacking. Front facing armor is often the thickest, with side armor being weaker. In Star Wars itself most profiles of ships offer far more target space than a head on look (especially for those TIE ships!) All in all there is no reason to suggest that attacking from the flank is harder than than the front; in fact, it is almost always easier.


"Flanking" the enemy is more of a ground warfare concept. Star Wars star fighter combat is basically modelled on WW2 dogfights, and the absolute hardest shot would be a "high deflection" shot at the side of a passing plane/ship. The second easiest shot would be head on, and the absolute easiest shot would be tailing. So if you were going to throw in deflection rules I also think shooting at the side should give a defensive bonus.

There has been some discussion around here about adding tailing rules to the game... and that would add just a smidge more thematicness in my opinion, since there are at least a couple of instances of tailing in the movies, but at the cost of complicating gameplay that is already very well balanced.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Xander Fulton
United States
Astoria
Oregon
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Aljovin wrote:
Just a quick question, do you use the asteroids? We never play without, but if you don't use them I could see it become a move forward-k turn loop.


That's the first thing I thought when I read the post, too. The game is designed and balanced (point-wise, specific scenarios may have differences) for play in a 3' x 3' area with the 6 asteroids that come with the base set laid out in that space.

Given the game requires asteroids for tournament play - for this very reason - and the idea of a miniature game NOT played with terrain seems so unnatural...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
kimchi fried rice
United States
Uptown
New York
flag msg tools
AKIMBO!
badge
반갑습니다!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
yeah, i couldn't imagine playing this game w/o asteroids.

pass, kturn, pass, kturn sounds like a lot of fun whistle
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
R. G.
United States
Bozeman
Montana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Udo77 wrote:
That's an interesting idea for sure. But I think this would lead to even more K-turns since nobody would want to show their sides or rears.


Exactly this. It's further inspiration to not let them be anywhere but directly in front of your ships.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lord Ashram
msg tools
Wow... you guys really pooh-poohed my idea

I do indeed play with asteroids (won't even talk about the rules I use for those! ) but I also play on a larger area, almost 4 x 4, so I suppose it is possible that is making a difference. Also, my friend and I are both very new, so maybe we just aren't quite as good as we should be... but so far it does seem to break down (maybe 70 percent of the time) into ships squaring off by zooming at each other, and then as soon as they are passing each other k-turning, eating one turn of forward motion in green (so you can still shoot... just no action) and then sort of repeat. You can try to do a quick right hand turn, but it will take you at least one turn to reach the enemy and in that turn they just bleed off their stress. Maybe we just need more practice

Anyway... I thought it wasn't a bad way to introduce a bit more importance of positioning than the game already has in a pretty low-impact/no need for extra mechanics sort of way I might give it a try and report back how it feels

Man. Tough crowd
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave Weiss
United States
South Dakota
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Positioning is already a huge deal. Getting into a position where you can attack and the enemy can't allows you to take offensive actions, attack without the enemy returning fire, etc...

Seriously though, like others stated, the only time I've seen the K-Turn/Strafe/repeat cycle is when playing without asteroids. When you have asteroids in play it's rare that you can get locked in such simplistic gameplay.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Fergus Hadley
United Kingdom
leeds
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Once you've played a bit more, you'll probably start seeing that in each pairing one side will benefit more from a heads on attack. And whoever won't benefit will then try to manoeuvre around their opponent instead of charging.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Guido Gloor
Switzerland
Ostermundigen
Bern
flag msg tools
The statement below is false.
badge
The statement above is correct.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Lord Ashram wrote:
I do indeed play with asteroids (won't even talk about the rules I use for those! ) but I also play on a larger area, almost 4 x 4, so I suppose it is possible that is making a difference.

I'd actually be interested in those asteroid rules A friend of mine suggested "insta-gibbage when touching one", I think that'd definitely work for scenarios but would unbalance the game by giving an advantage to swarms (as losing a single ship will hurt less for those).

The play area shouldn't make that much of a difference as long as you scale the number of asteroids, but it will have an impact. 4x4 is roughly 180% of the area of 3x3, so you'll need 10 or 11 asteroids to have as many per square foot. On top of that, 3x3 often makes you think about whether you have the space to move the way you'd like or not, which is definitely intended - while 4x4 is quite a bit more of "anything goes" already, which might well lead to less interesting maneuvers for everyone. I suggest playing with the smaller area, particularly if you feel you see too little maneuvering.

Generally, having fighters with boost and barrel roll and preferrably double actions (Soontir Fel and Turr Phennir in their TIE Interceptors, or Darth Vader with Engine Upgrade in TIE Advanced), or special combinations such as Tycho Celchu (A-Wing) with Push the Limit will lead to more maneuvering because they have more options, while on the other hand having a Falcon (or, to a lesser extent, an Y-Wing with Ion Cannon) on the board will make maneuvering less important due to its 360° firing arc.

What you describe is the most straightforward approach, but not always the best one. If you can split up the opposing formation, and get into their flanks, you'll be in a much better position to fire without return fire. It takes some setting up and you can't start the game moving straight towards your enemy if you want it to happen. Generally, the bigger your swarm, the better it is for you to move straight towards the enemy in one big clump with overlapping firing arcs, and the less ships you have the more you want to get into their flanks.

Lord Ashram wrote:
Man. Tough crowd

People on BGG are often nice, I guess it's the combination of the facts that many people are quite emotionally invested in this game combined with your experience not matching many others that leads to such harsh reactions. Don't let it get you down
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Fergus Hadley
United Kingdom
leeds
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
It just occurred to me that a simpler rule to stop players Koiogramming too much would be to make it cause 2 stress tokens.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joe Reil
United States
Barre
Vermont
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
kmanweiss wrote:
Positioning is already a huge deal. Getting into a position where you can attack and the enemy can't allows you to take offensive actions, attack without the enemy returning fire, etc...


Yeah, I think this is my main issue. I'm already elated when I manage to set things up so I have uncontested shots into my opponent's side or back and perturbed when they do it to me - I just don't think they need to be encouraged any more than that.

Quote:
Seriously though, like others stated, the only time I've seen the K-Turn/Strafe/repeat cycle is when playing without asteroids. When you have asteroids in play it's rare that you can get locked in such simplistic gameplay.


And this, too. He did say he's played with asteroids, but what I'd add on to that is this:

If your opponent is making moves that are predictable, that gives you an advantage. If you know he's going to K-turn after the initial pass that means you can predict with reasonable accuracy where he's going to end up and you should be using that to your advantage.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joe Reil
United States
Barre
Vermont
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
haslo wrote:
Lord Ashram wrote:
Man. Tough crowd

People on BGG are often nice, I guess it's the combination of the facts that many people are quite emotionally invested in this game combined with your experience not matching many others that leads to such harsh reactions. Don't let it get you down


I don't think anyone was out of line. There are quite a few folks who don't think this is necessary or a good addition, but it looks like everybody was polite in that disagreement.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lord Ashram
msg tools
No no, not tough as in rude. Just tough

I'll keep playing; maybe I'm just not far enough along in my play career to know advanced stuff yet
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen Foulk
Canada
Toronto
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I actually like the +1 attack die from behind and the +1 defence die from the side idea.... especially at close range.

I'm not sure the game actually needs it but I think it's a nice idea.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Art Bugorski
Canada
London
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
My thought: bonus for flank fire.

If attacking from the flank roll 2 dice. If both are critical hits it counts as one critical hit, otherwise, If both are hits (critical or regular) it counts as a regular hit. Roll before defender rolls evade dice. Slight bonus. The fact that the defending ship gets to roll full defence dice regardless the number of attacks is a little silly.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim Woehlke
msg tools
mb
It all seems quite unnecessary to me. There's no doubt that when I first started playing I did K-turns quite a bit, but as I've played more I rarely do them. When I do it's usually because I think I can assuredly get a good shot at an undefended or weakened opponent. This is what the A-Wing and Interceptors open up, you can attack with X-Wings and flee to try to get a better position, while that's happening bring your A's or Interceptors around from the back.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ed Raz
United States
Pittsburgh
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yeah, to me if you just running at each other head on and k turning your going to eventually realize that you can throw a wrench into your opponents plans by making unpredictable moves. In fact I'd suggest that movement and predicting movement is the core strategy in this game. I use k turns very sparingly, especially as the imperials who have all sorts of great manuvers and usually have a numbers advantage. I suspect that the OP is always trying to have every model shoot ever turn. Not a bad strategy but I often value a well placed move that might get me 2 great shots in the future over shooting every turn. And their is the whole aspect of moving to force your opponent into base to base contact, etc.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.