"Star Trek meets X-Wing" Topic

link

WizKids has licensed the game engine from Star Wars X-Wing from FFG and is coming out with a Star Trek variant. Not much info yet, but still an interesting development.

Wow. Interesting concept, though I'm not really certain how well the dogfight approach fits Star Trek.

I'll keep an open mind, not sure how a restrictive firing arc will work for the larger ships in Trek…

But the figures will be easier to repurpose from those flight stands.

I see the word "collectible" – that sounds like "blind purchase" – time to walk away…

The more I think about it, the more I wonder how they will handle the differences in size between something like a Galaxy class ship and a Bird of Prey.

Wow. Interesting concept, though I'm not really certain how well the dogfight approach fits Star Trek.

Isn't Star Trek more or less dogfighting with capital ships?

Making this Old School would have been so much better. Also would be interesting if they made a deal with ADB to include SFB ships.

A gateway SFB style game that was fun to play would be great.

The ship in the picture as a rear firing arc, hopefully some ships will have 360 degree fire arcs…

Mick

"Collectible" makes my ever-shrinking game budget go elsewhere.

Al | ravenfeastsmeadhall.blogspot.com

The ship in the picture as a rear firing arc, hopefully some ships will have 360 degree fire arcs…

You're assuming that they don't on little evidence – the fore-and-aft arcs might very well mark photon torpedo arcs, with phasers being 360 degress (both of which would fit the Galaxy-class hull pretty well). The game might include multiple weapon systems (with different resolution mechanics) on ships as a basic ability, rather than making them seperate upgrades like X-Wing's proton torps. I imagine we'll see as they release more teasers. Right now everything is speculation.

And yes, "collectible" is ominous.

Having just bought a few Wizkids ST ships for $2 USD apiece (no shippage), and it seems I can do better buying bulk on eBay, I find I'm okay with collectable, as long as I can scarf the spares. ;->=

I do NOT have to have uber ships; I seek NOT the rares.

I can ignore some scale issues, and re-purpose the rest. And, I've a metric b***load of micromachines, Galoob through Konami, Johnny Lightning, garage resins, to cover the weirdest scales.

AND CorSec bases…

It's a glorious time to be a vacchead!

Doug

It's also possible (probable?) that, like X-Wing, it will playable "on the cheap" by making your own templates and bases, using homemade maneuver charts or dials for the movement plotting, and using pre-existing figure collections. No one really has to pay actual X-Wing minis to play the game outside of tourneys, after all. The rules and cards are easily found on the internet, and the components are easily duplicated or replaced.

Any step away from the Clix engine is a good thing. But we can safely assume they will have many of the best/most popular ships as 'super rares' (which then plummet in value after the next set/new hotness is released).

Been there, done that with Micro-Machines, SFB, Star-trek 'clix' and then 3D printed 'non-cannon'…and now I'm NOT into them or any of the models etc anymore. Too much to keep up with!

Good luck to those who do though!

Sgt DWW-btod
(now 'trekless' in Paden City)

I do not see the market or interest in it. Star Trek jumped the shark years ago. There is no market with the new (young Star Trek) movies and I do not see the concept of W-wing working with capital ships. Just does not pass the smell test if one knows the gaming market.

VR
James Mattes

There is no market with the new (young Star Trek) movies…

I'm currently trying to find images of TOS characters to cover the 'new' Kirk et all on Star Trek: Expeditions.

I've a friend for whom it might be a perfect game, but he's a bigger curmudgeon about this re-imagination than I was about the 'new' BSG, and that's going a ways. ;->=

Not that I didn't have fun with it in places…

Temporal mechanics; meh!

and I do not see the concept of W-wing working with capital ships. Just does not pass the smell test if one knows the gaming market.

Only looked at X-Wing (gave my copy to my son-in-law before I got a chance to play; he's LOVING it), but it seemed proper 'cinematic' as long as you didn't do bootleggers' turns.

Oh, wait, Cochrane Deceleration Maneuver…

Still, have to stop saying 'adapted from Star Wars'.

Doug

I do not see the market or interest in it.

Your profile image is a wookie, and you're clearly a Trek hater by your post. You are not their target audience. Neither am I, really, but I'm willing to keep an open mind about it after being pleasantly surprised by X-Wing.

Star Trek jumped the shark years ago.

Sure did. And Lucas tainted the SW franchise with those horrid prequel movie travesties. Hasn't stopped either from keeping a large a devout fan base that's willing to forgive almost anything. Plenty of money to be had from Trek yet, as the reboot films prove.

There is no market with the new (young Star Trek) movies and I do not see the concept of W-wing working with capital ships.

Maybe not, but we'll see what they do with the design. Most of the canon Trek starship combat occurs in DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise, and the ships there mostly maneuver and shoot much like a turreted Y-Wing. I doubt we'll see many ships that can pull 180 degree turns, but I'm not convinced that X-Wing/WoW can't work with less agile ships. Not like Slave 1 and the Falcon aren't pretty sluggish already.

Just does not pass the smell test if one knows the gaming market.

Maybe. The collectable aspect worries me more than franchise or rules issues do. WizKids has gotten more ambitious about game design in the last few years, and they're licensed a solid game engine from FFG, so screwing that part up isn't likely. Random packaging, OTOH, is getting to be a very old and very tired schtick. Looking at how well various Living Card Games that used to be CCGS are doing, it's clear that nonrandom is preferred by a large percentage of the community – but WizKids has had bad experiences with fixed packaging in the past (Shadowrun, Crimson Skies) which makes them gunshy about changing the "booster" formula.

Collectible miniatures are great! ….for buying cheap extra figures from collectors….

But I'm still bitter that long after Monsterpocalypse has died out, i still haven't been able to find the cthulu-ey figures at prices I'm willing to pay. Grr.

Happy though that I just got a WoTC Delta-7 Jedi Fighter super cheap and it's the perfect scale size to use for X-Wing ^,^

Two words…Kobayashi Maru…

I think it'll work fine, and with some firing and defensive arcs being better than others, for many ships, it should work fine.

No doubt, they're probably counting on a tie in to the new prequel movie releases, and that in turn will bring back an interest in the original series TV show.

My concern is wizkids, not the x Wing Engine.

If it's a blind purchase I'm not interested
If it's the same crappy sculpts from their Clix I'm not interested.

Every time I'm in the game store and I see their Enterprise with Warp engines sagging to the level of the secondary hull I am disappointed.

Arcs of fire? In the Example that Galaxy class has the same firing arcs as an X Wing. doesn't work for me.

Give me some high quality ships, built in good material that are somewhat scaled to one another then I will be interested!

This could be a very good development for X-Wing actually -- we might get a cheap source of usable dials to redo for custom ships ^,^

"The ship in the picture as a rear firing arc, hopefully some ships will have 360 degree fire arcs…"

What, nobody ever played the Star Fleet Battle manual minatures game? Limited field of fire was what that game was all about.

Then again it was TOS, and you always saw the Enterprise having to come about to fire phasers at eneamies that were flankning them in TOS.

Arcs of fire? In the Example that Galaxy class has the same firing arcs as an X Wing. doesn't work for me.

Not that I disagree with your concerns about the general quality of WizKids figs or the collectable aspect of it, but that's incorrect. Look closer – it has the same fore-and-aft arc markings as Slave-1. I'd bet those are indicating photon torpedo arcs, and the phasers are a default 360.

Like others, not sure how SW dogfighting fighter rules will transfer well to ST capital ships.

Also nervious about size/scale issues after WoTC SW Space Combat game.

Apprehensive of the words collectable. I want to know what I am buying.

Finally have more than enough ST ships from Micro Machines, Furuta and other fan produced resin ships to meet my TNG/DS9 gaming needs.

I'll pass…..

Never been a fan of the soft plastic type of mini`s,so they would have to be hard plastic like the FFG stuff,also if they go down the random route with the expansions that would be a turn off,i want to choose what i buy,
Looking at the example ship, it looks to me like it has 4 firing arcs,the colored fore arc could imply that you can fire heavy weapons through it.
On the upside,Everything at the moment is rumor and speculation and so until i know more i`ll reserve my opinion of it

I'd rather see the ability to rotate the ship and change headings and firing arcs, while still "drifting" along a previous "vector." Not certain that's doable with the movement template approach. (It certainly wouldn't allow for a Newtonian "momentum" system).

Ah, well. It might be fun anyway, if they can avoid the "collectible" aspect. I won't buy in at all if I can't pick and choose my forces.

I'd rather see the ability to rotate the ship and change headings and firing arcs, while still "drifting" along a previous "vector."

That's not my core movement mechanic of the game I'm working on. No-siree bob, and I didn't just put up a list for one of the fleets we're using in the playtest. No, sir.

Well, maybe …

purplefuzzymonster.com

Wizkids Star Trek ship game has been wildly successful and a new set is due any day. TMP is not the Target audience. The Target audience hangs out at Heroclix Realms, which is super busy again. I've been there for 10 years. Wizkids is back stronger and more popular than before.

As for blind buying, I buy complete sets off guys at HC Realms fairly cheap. They buy cases and then sell off their extras. I also buy singles there or online. Many of the ST ships go for $1 USD – $5 USD each. The Defiant goes for $10 USD but think how much it would cost in metal? Some versions of the Enterprise go for a lot more due to rarity, but I don't care if I have them or not.

My main concern with the WK ships was broken pieces on some models. :-(

Really guys, if you don't know about the topic you shouldn't spout off as if you do. Harsh but the truth.

Mongoose Publishings "Star Fleet" looks to have a great selection of models. Has anyone bought these? Do they come prepainted?

I haven't bought them myself, but there have been reviews on TMP. Basically, they're unassembled and unpainted, and some of them are a bit fiddly to put together.

Thanks, they are pretty expensive if bought separately but the small box sets look good. I like the "cloaked" versions!

I'm not certain what you're going on about, CPBelt. People are expressing their preferences not to pursue a "blind collectible" gaming option. As the proposed game is not a Heroclix version, and is based on an open-model game (X-wing), it's relevant to discuss here on TMP whether or not the game will be open-model or blind-box in nature. As you point out, this isn't HC Realms, so we're not stuck discussing that marketing model. Not that we have to be.

But I also don't understand how you could be so certain what WizKid's target market is for this game. I might point out that if their market is the Heroclix buyer, why in the world would they want to offer a game that's not in the Heroclix line— much less pay to license the movement system? They already have Heroclix Star Trek. To me that's a rather clear sign that WizKids is looking to move into a different market from the Heroclix model, and since they're making a big deal about using the FFG X-Wing system (down to the look and feel), they're clearly intending that market to be the boardgame and miniatures gaming market, and in particular fans of X-Wing/WoW/WoG. Which implies they might not pursue the blind-box approach at all, but offer open-model releases in the same vein as X-Wing and Wings of War/Glory.

So maybe you shouldn't spout off as you do.

I'd rather see the ability to rotate the ship and change headings and firing arcs, while still "drifting" along a previous "vector."

Full Thrust has offered that since Fleet Book 1 came out back in the 90s. The mechanics for vector movement are easily stolen for use in other games as well.

Oh, I know vector mechanics— I have them as an option in G.O.B.S.!, and developed a similar version for another game of my own back in the '90s. (I also own Triplanetary, the granddaddy of vector gaming.)

I just happen to like the X-Wing movement system, and wish there was a way to do a simplified vector version, or at least something that allowed for a "drift, spin and shoot" mechanic.

Otherwise, for Trek I'll just stick with G.O.B.S.!

Which implies they might not pursue the blind-box approach

Mea culpa. The information currently available does imply a "collectible" game approach, which typically implies "blind-box."

*Sigh*.

Oh well. I'll stick with G.O.B.S.!, which is more what I want from a Starfleet setting anyway.

Full Thrust has offered that since Fleet Book 1 came out back in the 90s. The mechanics for vector movement are easily stolen for use in other games as well.

I took a look at my copy of Full Thrust, and if I'm reading it right, it's not really what I'd call vectored movement. More like frictionless.

It's an improvement over wet navy analogs, but not really a 2-d representation of the real thing. (I'm working on that.)

As for Trek, I'm not sure a vectored movement is the right way to go, anyway. One of the possible real-world theories behind the warp drive is that the space-time in front of the vessel is warped "down" and the space-time behind is warped "up", so the ship is essentially surfing a space-time "wave". The theory for Trek is that the nacelles are key for establishing the wave, which is generated perpendicular to the direction of the nacelles.

(Apologies for the horrible explanation. I'm a rocket scientist, not a quantum physicist.)

Which means to turn in Trek, the ship disengages the warp drive long enough to change facing in real space (where it's not really moving all that fast), and then re-engages the drive once the turn is made. To an outside observer, a starship stops and turns on a dime.

Star Trek has always been a little inconsistent (to say the least) about how maneuvering at warp works…

In Voyager, Tom Paris says the first lesson in warp flight is 'Faster than light, no left or right'…

…but…

In the very first episode of TNG, the Enterprise-D does a 180 at warp 9.8

I took a look at my copy of Full Thrust, and if I'm reading it right, it's not really what I'd call vectored movement. More like frictionless.

Keep in mind, there were two different modes of movement in Full Thrust – Cinematic, which came from the original rules and Vector, which was in FB1 (if the previous poster was correct – I am not 100% sure).

No, there's a re-write in the third volume that is supposedly vector. Not even a rocket scientist, and never cared for the fiddly 'improvement', but you can download FB1 at groundzerogames.

V1 Full Thrust 2nd Edition
V2 More Thrust
V3 Full Thrust Fleet Book 1
V4 Full Thrust Fleet Book 2

Also, check out Power Projection. Sort of combination Full Thrust 'vector' and Mayday.

Doug

Edit: If I'd been two minutes faster, I could have saved Ghostrunner his uncertainty. ;->=

Edit Part Deux: I've played with an air table, and while the 'velocity change applied to complete move instead of half' is glaring, cinematic does feel very vector to me, if VERY simplified.

The following was found on HCRealms.

Not sure if this has been stated, but solicitations are up and are as follows:

Star Trek Attack Wing: Miniatures Game Starter Set
Star Trek Attack Wing: Federation U.S.S Reliant Expansion Pack
Star Trek Attack Wing: Federation U.S.S. Enterprise Expansion Pack
Star Trek Attack Wing: Romulan I.R.W. Valdore Expansion Pack
Star Trek Attack Wing: Romulan R.I.S. Apnex Expansion Pack
Star Trek Attack Wing: Klingon I.K.S. Gr''oth Expansion Pack
Star Trek Attack Wing: Klingon I.K.S. Negh''var Expansion Pack
Star Trek Attack Wing: Dominion Kraxon Expansion Pack
Star Trek Attack Wing: Dominion Gor Portas Expansion Pack

The price structure is identical to X-Wing.

No, there's a re-write in the third volume that is supposedly vector. Not even a rocket scientist, and never cared for the fiddly 'improvement', but you can download FB1 at groundzerogames.

I'll keep that in mind.

Truth be told, Full Thrust is a little fiddly for my group anyway: they're not a big fan of the SFB-style ship charts.

Which is a weird thing to say -- they love my movement system, but object to move-plotting and record-keeping. There's no accounting for taste, is there?

Keep in mind, there were two different modes of movement in Full Thrust – Cinematic, which came from the original rules and Vector, which was in FB1 (if the previous poster was correct – I am not 100% sure).

That's what I said, yes. Vector movement was introduced in FB1, and slightly tweaked again in FB2, both of which are free downloads, and easily adapted for use as movement rules attached to other combat systems. It's not perfectly realistic about acceleration effects, but it's close enough for gaming.

Truth be told, Full Thrust is a little fiddly for my group anyway: they're not a big fan of the SFB-style ship charts.

A hull checkbox track and maybe a dozen or twenty system icons is too fiddly? I know some people get hung up on the icons, but that's easily fixed by changing to Ogre-style record sheets with the systems written out, eg "Beam-3 (F/FS/FP) OO" would indicate a pair of class 3 beams with front 180 degree arc of fire.

You can also shortcut/accelerate any plotted movement system by only having one side (preferably the more experienced players) pre-plot. Once that side is ready, the other side can just move freeform, following the movement rules and simply recording their final speed. After that the rest of the ships move following their plot. The end result is the same, and it tends to be faster – much faster if you can identify the habitual slow plotters and stick them all on the "freeform movement" team.

As for Trek, I'm not sure a vectored movement is the right way to go, anyway. One of the possible real-world theories behind the warp drive…

But that's warp, not impulse propulsion. Combat doesn't occur at warp speed (aside from stern chases); it can't, at least not for long. One little variation of a tenth of a degree in your warp vector and you're ten lightyears from your opponent. You're both travelling faster than light. Get off a shot, and that's about it— if you can even shoot a light-speed weapon at a target outside of your warp bubble.

So realistically (ha!), combat in Star Trek only occurs at "impulse speed," powered by the "impulse engine" which is supposed to be a strictly Newtonian action-reaction drive, albeit one with an incredibly high specific impulse (matter-antimatter as the source, but not sure what they ever indicated the reaction mass or exhaust velocity were— presumably very low mass and a significant fraction of C ejection velocity). So at impulse speeds a Newtonian vector system is spot on with Star Trek— especially since the ships are said to have "maneuvering thrusters", which are even depicted from time to time. Surely those must be Newtonian action-reaction devices?
Of course, once they got away from TOS the movement became increasingly cinematic— banking turns, etc. (and TOS had those physics errors, too).
And invariably the script had somebody order "full stop," which is about the silliest command one can give on a spaceship. But I digress…

The point is, that if you want a "realistic" Trek, vector movement is the way to go. If you want a "TV show" Trek, some form of cinematic movement is the way to go— just not the same as Star Wars, which is even sillier than Trek.

Worth mentioning that there's no "random packing" nonsense going on with the game. Makes me cautiously optimistic. X-Wing was at least a very pleasant surprise after the rather sad WotC effort.

When I said I did not see the market for Star Trek I was referring to in relationship to the Market (Target, Barnes and Noble and such) as I do for Star Wars. Sure their are toys in both series but Trek appeals much more to a more older target market than Star Wars (Clone Wars from Cartoon Channel for example). I have kids that would be in the target market and Star Wars video games far outsell Trek. Sure their are some circles where Star Trek is as relevant today as it was 40 some odd years ago but outside of some conventions not so much.

And yes I have worked in the field of game marketing in the past.

VR
James Mattes

The random, blind purchase nonsense is gone, so that's a good sign. They might even get some of my money if they release TOS ships.