"X-Wing Originally Designed for Square Grid?" Topic

Playing around with the maneuver templates last night I couldn't help but notice that they seem to imply movement on a square grid. Take any maneuver template, add one to the value, and you get what appears to be a count of square grid spaces with ships being able to face square sides and corners.

For example, take the three speed two templates and place them at the front of a fighter per normal rules. Then place a fighter at the end of each template per the rules.

Effectively you've moved the fighters three squares each: on straight three squares, one fighter two sq forward with a 45 degree turn and then one more sq., and the last fighter one sq forward with a 90 degree turn and then two more squares.

And it appears the minimum move is two squares with the speed one template…either straight or to the side per barrel roll.

Does anyone know the history of the design? Seems perfect for a grid.

And since the templates are "fixed" so that distance and angles are fixed in many ways you don't lose any flexibility with a grid beyond the absolute starting positions of the ships.

Maybe FFG felt that a grid map would be too expensive to include with the game?

"Fixed"?! You have obviously never gamed with us. Too many inadvertent nudges to count, ships can end up facing anywhere! :)

Yeah, that's why I'm a huge fan of grids! :-D Raising two little boys as gamers made me see the utility of grids over rulers and templates.

Looks like each square was intended to be 2" x 2" based on the range stick and base sizes (turning a base 45 degrees lets it fit a 2" x 2" square comfortably with a little overlap.)

Too many inadvertent nudges to count, ships can end up facing anywhere! :)

Well now… You just let out the secret of my strategy…

That's actually good to hear. I'm a big fan of grids these days (personally hate the nudge-nudge method of adjusting ranges). This at least gives the option to go either direction.

I'm digitizing the templates so I have exact measurements of them.

First off. The bases are 40mm squares.

All the straight movement templates are derivatives of this.

1 = 40mm
2= 80mm
3= 120mm
4 = 160mm
5=200mm

Each one effectively doubles the movement because you going back to front on the base.

Range band stick is 100mm per range and 300mm total

I have yet to find a reason for the turn lengths. I had to cut a lot of prototypes and match them piece by piece. I've even tried to account for measuring from various points on the base. Like center peg or middle of the front or back.

I gave up and just took measurements and copied them based on my set. I don't like doing that because their will be some tolerance issues and I'd rather be able to attest to the fact that I found their formula instead of measuring one sample set of the templates.

I did however find some interesting tid bits along the way.

If you use the 45 degree turns in an S curve you gain some lateral movement and a bit more extra forward movement for that speed category.

1-45 will give you 40mm extra movement so in 2 moves you have actually gone 3 1-straights.

2-45 gives you an extra 30mm

3-45 gives you an extra 20mm.

Obviously the next level up straight is a better option but sometimes that is a red move. For instance, 4-straight is a red for the y-wing. You can get a bit further down the table on turn 1 and 2 by using two 3-45s. This also allows you to deploy closer to the center and shift over to the table edge. You opponent might not see it coming and over commit his Ties in a straight move and have to compensate more to get his first shot. A quick Ion strike and you can either send him off the edge or tie him up as he sharp turns to get back around instead of the korrigan(sp?) turn.

Oh and how do you account for the 80mm bases that the larger ships are on?

All the straight movement templates are derivatives of this.

1 = 40mm
2= 80mm
3= 120mm
4 = 160mm
5=200mm

Each one effectively doubles the movement because you going back to front on the base.

Only for a ship moving at speed 1 (or 2 for the larger bases).

As for the curves, I admit they're puzzling; I had thought at first that a speed-1 45degree turn would be exactly half the speed-2 90degree turn, but it isn't. What are the arc lengths and radii of the mid points of the curved templates?

As for playing on a square grid, the same suggestion was made for Wizkids' Crimosn Skies when they released that, with the little paths of octagons to plot out moves. The rebuttal to that was that I'm not forced to deploy my ships parallel or orthogonal to the other guy – I can have them set up at any angle, just for the heck of it.

As for playing on a square grid, the same suggestion was made for Wizkids' Crimosn Skies when they released that, with the little paths of octagons to plot out moves. The rebuttal to that was that I'm not forced to deploy my ships parallel or orthogonal to the other guy – I can have them set up at any angle, just for the heck of it.

True, but that only applies at setup. Given the way the X-Wing templates work everything beyond setup is strictly "digital" as far as angles and distances are concerned. No shades of gray, fractions of a maneuver template, or rotation "up to a given angle".

CorSecEng is right about the base size and maneuver templates. But the range stick is about 12" long and divided into three 4" bands. If truly designed originally for squares I believe they would have used 2" squares rather than 40mm squares since 40mm stands at a 45 degree angle would be too snug on 40mm squares.

I also believe that the odd nature of the curves might be a legacy of the transition from grid to templates. Some attempt at a compromise?

In any case we'll play rules as written at first but I imagine we'll also have a go at translation to a grid. 36" x 36" at 2" per square would give a 18x18 grid. Set up would be 2 squares per the range band, etc.

Well, this is interesting…

Take the Speed 3 Templates. Place all three templates at the base of one fighter. Place three additonal fighters, one at the end of each template.

Measure the area occupied by the templates.

You get a roughly 6" wide by 8" long box including the fighters. The positions of the fighters clearly fit roughly in 3 x 4 grid.

Effectively the straight maneuver moved the model three 2" squares.

The 45 degree speed three maneuver moved the ship two squares straight and then one square at 45 degrees.

The 90 degree speed three maneuver moved the ship one square ahead, one square 45 degrees, and then a third square at an additional 45 degrees for a total of 90 degrees and three squares.

So in this case a speed 3 maneuver is a move of 3 squares assuming 2" squares.

Of course it's not 100% precise because of the diagonals but with just a few squares involved the distortion is minimal.

Also…

The speed 4 template moves a ship four 2" squares.

And a speed 5 template moves a ship about five 2" squares.

Squares would certainly make things less fiddly.

Yes, but you couldn't fly where ever you wanted, only within the squares allocated. It would make the game far less free flowing.

The arc lengths are even more confusing.

1-45 radius from center of the template is 85mm.

Arc length is 65.44mm

Here is where it gets odd… If you rotate out a 45 degree arc then it's to long. So I did a 44 degree arc and that was really close. It looks like they did a 44 degree arc with a 45 degree facing change.

I did this for both the 1-45 and the 2-45. Same result on both sets.

I went back and introduced the bases to the equation. Placing a base at both ends of the template and drawing checking the arc radius and it makes less sense. I have 1 and 2 done so I'll do 3 next.

I'm thinking I need to make the sets in bright florescent green acrylic…

nazrat, that's not true. In the current game you can setup anywhere you want but after that maneuvers are as restricted as with a grid.

You can't move a fraction of a template nor can you move at any angle other than straight/0 degrees, 45 degrees, or 90 degrees.

In other words, the templates are precisely as restrictive as a grid from turn one.

The only free flowing part of the game currently is relative start position. It's as if each ship is maneuvering on its own grid as defined by its start position and the maneuver templates.

It must have been the board size and potential for battles beyond the official 3' x 3' area that led them to use the templates.

Your point actually begs the question, why not have minimum and maximum distances on each template for a more free flowing game? As it stands now it really is as restrictive as a grid.

CorSec…I noticed the same thing and it appears that speed 3 is the baseline for their possible conversion from squares to templates. From there distances and angles get a little more warped.

A key reason for that warping at speed 1 and 2 is their "front to back" measuring approach. It makes it easier for new gamers as many noobs make that mistake in miniature gaming. Thus at speeds 3-5 the front to back approach approximates movement on a 2" grid.

At speed 1-2 the front to back distance reference point warps movement more.

I will say this. Next game I'll be setting up at an odd angle from the table edge. As long as I can keep my head in the game it should confuse my opponent a bit.

The last few games I have played really turn into circling matches. not sure if starting at a slightly off angle will affect that but it should at least offset my angle enough to force him to barrel roll (and waste an action) to line up when things get close.

The plot thickens…

Two speed 5 ships closing from the official closest start positions of 1 range band in (4") on a 36" x 36" area are at range band 3 after both move on turn one.

Take the same situation on a 2" grid and after moving 5 squares each the ships are 5 squares apart or the same as using the range template as each range band is two squares.

Same goes for a speed 4 ship closing with a speed 5 ship (range band 3 or 6 squares apart.)

Your point actually begs the question, why not have minimum and maximum distances on each template for a more free flowing game? As it stands now it really is as restrictive as a grid.

A good reason I can think of is to simplify bookkeeping. The intent is to have all ships plan their movement, then execute together.

If you allowed variable ranges, you would have to resort to writing down values during the planning phase.

It would work, but would slow things down a bit.

Well, when it all boils down to it, it's basically a board game with no board included.

Yes, starting at an angle does change things a good bit and if we were playing on a grid set up and where you might move would be more rigid which would make the game far more like chess. Also, remember there are partial moves throughout the game whenever one ship's base overlaps another's. Perhaps the frequency of this will diminish with experience, but in our games it has happened a lot.

I was wondering about the overlap issue. I saw a battle report online that looked really messy with lots of ships obviously having overlapped and then separated per the rules.. It looked like they were trying to board one another! :-D

I think the overlap thing speaks to another advantage of a grid. The grid is less messy and actually quicker to execute. For example, if your final square is already occupied simply stop one square short.

OTOH, the templates are more convenient if you're fighting on large surfaces and don't want to make or buy a large mat with 2" squares.

Ghostrunner…good point and another reason I like grids. Makes things clear and fast.

36" wide table is 914.4mm wide.

Each ship starts at 100mm in. 200mm total for both ships.

714.4mm range at start of game.

speed 5 template is 200mm long. Plus 40mm for the base. 480mm total for both ships.

End of turn 1 ships are

234.4mm apart.

36" wide table has 18 2" squares across it.

2 squares in for each ships leaves us at 14.
Each moves 5 squares. total of 10.

Puts us at 4 squares apart.

That would be range band 2…

I guess it's 5 if you count the target square but that seems contrary to the game. Everything is measured base to base.

I'm thinking I need to make the sets in bright florescent green acrylic…

I suspect I'd buy a set or two.

First thing I have planned when my starter set comes is to scan and make scratch copies of the move templates to keep the originals preserved. I suspect, though, that at some point I'll be getting a second started set.

Yes CoreSec, I was double counting the base since they use the front to back method. Using your approach you're also correctamungo!