Using FFG's X-Wing to simulate starfighter-scale combat

[Mikael Hasselstein]

I'm about to start running a game - for the first time in a long time - and I'd like to use my collection of X-Wing Miniatures from Fantasy Flight Games to simulate (and stimulate) my starfighter-scale space combat scenes. I want to use this thread to ask the hive mind to help me think about this. Also, writing it down coherently means that I have to think about it coherently to begin with.

X-Wing is clearly simpler than the RPG (which is also simple), which is something I like. However, X-Wing is also more strategic, in the sense that out-thinking one another's moves is much more a feature of X-Wing than it is in WEG. While some might find that more intriguing, I'm not sure it adds to the flavor of a fast-paced RPG. The big thing is that X-Wing has separate steps for deciding how to move, moving, and then shooting, each phase of which all the ships do these things, while WEG has each ship do all those things in their turn. The former captures more of a realistic simultaneousness (to a degree anyway), while the latter is more cinematic, like a camera following slightly longer moments of story. While it is a little less realistic, I think Star Wars has just gotta be more cinematic, given its origins as a movie.

Another significant thing is that X-Wing has a different sense of different ships' capabilities. For example, A-Wings and TIE-fighters do much less damage than X-Wings and TIE Interceptors do. You should determine for yourself what feels more true to SW, but my sense is that X-Wing is meant to create a balanced tournament-style game, rather than 'live' the SW galaxy.

So, what to keep from X-Wing? I like the miniatures, of course, and the range of maneuvers for movement. The shooting and damage parts are not too well suited for the RPG, though. Yet, there are a number of (non-move/shoot) actions that I think make things interesting. These I deal with right here, but with more extensive treatment of the movement and shooting below.


Actions
The way in which WEG does actions is still somewhat complementary with X-Wing. In your turn for actions, you state the number of actions you are going to make. Everybody then goes through their first actions in order of Perception. After both sides have gone through their first actions, the two sides go through with their second actions, presuming they decided on any or did not use those for reactions. (That's all WEG RAW, no surprises for any of you.)

X-Wing also has "actions", that are more than just moving and shooting, which are interesting:

Focus: is like preparing, but in WEG preparing happens in a previous round. I guess you can use the token as a reminder.

Evade: is like having an action ready for a dodge. Again, having the token is not a bad thing to have, but the idea is already adopted into the RPG rules.

Target Lock: Some ships have a targeting computer. In the game it allows you to re-roll any number of your attack dice. In the RPG, it seems more related to the fire control of the weapons. Maybe if you have a target lock, you can use the fire control, and if you don't you can't. In X-Wing you have to 'spend' your target lock to make use of it. In the RPG, that just doesn't make sense to me. A target lock could also be a way for one character to give bonuses to another, by having one do the targeting, and another get the bonuses while shooting.

A lot of 'secondary weapons' in X-Wing (think proton torpedoes and concussion missiles) require a target lock to fire. I actually really like that idea, and think it should be adopted into the RPG. Not having a target lock would mean to me that you don't have the fire control modifier, and maybe you have to override a safety (an action - Starship Gunnery: 'Easy') to fire them off manually.

Barrel Roll and Boost: In X-Wing, these are reserved for maneuverable and fast ships. I think that in WEG terms it can represent a form of 'movement' and take the place of the disallowed second movement action (see below). However, this might be something that is harder to do with ships not natively capable of it, because they're too sluggish (re:barrel roll) or do not have afterburners (re:boost). Also, barrel roll strikes me as more difficult than boosting. In X-Wing, these are also possible upgrades, such as the Expert Handling skill and the Engine Upgrade modification.


Boost should be allowed for the sorts of ships that have afterburners (ie. an Engine Upgrade), but may be jawa-rigged by someone working the engines - with a difficulty roll between difficult-to-heroic depending on the circumstances of the engine. (Can it be accessed?, for example.) For the pilot, if/once the engine allows it, it would be another white move, using the appropriate forward/bank maneuver from the game, and a second action with appropriate penalties.

Barrel Roll might be a moderate roll for ships that are sufficiently maneuverable to have the barrel roll action in the X-Wing game, but difficult for those without, and one level of difficulty higher for large ships, and another still for huge ships (ie. barrel rolling your Corellian Corvette would be a heroic action).

Movement
Movement is essentially a compulsory action for the pilot, but if the pilot chooses not to do anything (or is prevented), then the ship/pilot become increasingly 'stressed' (see below). Also, the ship goes a straight move at the same speed as the most-recent maneuver (suggesting that the flight stick reverts to center). Having an autopilot would avoid this, but the autopilot essentially means that a very dumb droid with a given piloting skill is doing the movement actions, doing little more than attempting to maintain course and avoid obstacles. Autopilots probably have piloting skills of their own.
I think that there can be a scheme that makes the maneuvering color (green, white, red, black - where black is not on the dial, but still among the templates) connect to difficulty. Piloting (be that Starfighter piloting or Space Transports) is still a skill that not just anyone can do, and so the scale starts at Easy, rather than Very Easy. It represents that in addition to the flight stick, there are other things in the cockpit that you need to keep track of. Also, this represents combat maneuvers, not just 'flying straight without distractions'.

Green - Easy ( 5-8 )
White - Moderate ( 10-13 )
Red - Difficult ( 15-18 )
Black - Very Difficult ( 20-23 )
No Template - Very Difficult+ ( 25-28 ) or Heroic ( 30-33+ ) depending on how bizarre the maneuver proposal is.

The second number in each of the ranges is the real target number for complete success. The lower number means that you can complete the maneuver, but it leaves you 'stressed'. Being stressed means that you complete the next maneuver at the next-highest level of difficulty.

Failure means that another maneuver is used, with the Wild die determining in what way the failure happened (1-4 = understeering, ie. the maneuver is less tight than it would have been; 5-5 = oversteering, ie. tighter than intended. Tighter means that a stronger template (turn is tighter than bank, small turn is tighter than wide turn) is used, less tight that a weaker template is used (reverse of stronger). For straight/K-turn

Excessive success (if the maneuver was successful by 10 or more), then the player gets to place the ship where desired, within 25cm/1 inch of where the template placed the ship.

I do think that it's necessary for such piloting to be just possible one in a round, and not possible to be done twice, though still in combination with other actions. (This is similar to a rule in X-Wing regarding actions.)


Shooting
In X-Wing, shooting is represented by a single roll of a number of red dice, with a series of modifiers (added/subtracted rolls or values, or altered facings, including re-rolls). It essentially combines a pilot or gunner's shooting ability with the power of the weapons in question. That's easy to do because the pilot/gunner and the ship they're shooting from are constant combinations. But that just doesn't fly for the RPG. What still matters, however, is range, since the use of models implies where different ships are in relation to one another.

As such, it's good IMO for shooting to be done as it is done in WEG, with gunnery rolls against targets. However, there is a range and arc-of-fire aspect that can now be done with the miniatures offering representation. In X-Wing there are also three ranges, but all those ranges are the same for each ship, though there are some weapons on 'huge' ships that are longer than long-range. In WEG, by contrast, each weapon has its own range definitions, depending on how accurate/powerful it is. That, I think, should be preserved, meaning that range measurement needs to happen with a tape measure (or ruler) rather than X-Wing's range tool. It also means that range needs to be defined in terms of those units. I'll be using metric, below, but feel free to divide cm by 2.5 to get your inches - or figure out your own scale.

Range
For my sense of scale, using the standard starfighter laser cannon range (1-3/10/25) as the gold standard, and making use of the standard small-base (40mm) as 'the thing' to base things on, short range is good as 3 base-lengths, 10(40cm) base lengths is the end of medium range, and 25(1m) as the end of long range feels right to me - more right than X-Wing's native sense of range-scale. While inches don't quite measure the same way, I would be adjusting it to make things easy - and just translating straight from 'space' units to inches. None of it is perfect, but making things quick and easy is preferable to perfection, I think.

Firing arcs
Since the X-Wing game is fundamentally about maneuvering and arc-dodging - getting others into your arc of fire, while keeping yourself out of theirs. In this respect, the miniatures game really shines in helping this come to life before the players' eyes. If a ship is out of another ship's arc of fire, then it cannot be shot at by the other. For partial arcs, cover rules can be used to complicate the chance to hit.

A difference with this aspect of the miniatures game is still the fact that pilots act in sequence with one another, reacting to one another's movements, rather than deciding those movements based on anticipation. Maybe X-Wing is a little more realistic in that respect, but - again - this is about being cinematic, IMO, YMMV.

Damage
Regarding damage, in WEG, hull and shield values help you diminish or nullify damage, whereas in X-Wing they are hit points. Personally, I do like the shield tokens, and it might be an interesting idea to use those shield tokens to represent how many shield dice are available, and/or on which arcs the shields are raised. However, other than that, I don't think X-Wing has much added value for the RPG.

So, all that written, what sort of thoughts - criticism, suggestions, applause - might you all have for me?

[CRMcNeill]

Welcome back. I don't know enough about the X-Wing system to offer a meaningful critique, but I'm interested to see where this goes. Have you looked at the Star Warriors system at all? I bought a copy, but haven't really sat down and groked the system yet.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index

[Mikael Hasselstein]

[CRMcNeill]

[Mikael Hasselstein]

[garhkal]

How would you say break down the multiple stations on a freighter.. Someone in engineering, 2-3 people on the bridge (one on the pilot, one co-pilot/shields and 1 on sensors)?
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!

[Mikael Hasselstein]

[Pel]

That could get cumbersome as pilots are presumably always dodging and gunners are likewise trying to atomize the opposition. Plus, X-wing is limited to 2 dimensions so there's that.

Pilots could try to announce their intentions, e.g. 'Turning to 147 mark 8' but that could get tedious. I'd only have maneuvers throw off own-ship gunnery if the pilot does something really wild and unexpected.
_________________
Aha!

[Mikael Hasselstein]

[CRMcNeill]

[Mikael Hasselstein]

[garhkal]

That is an interesting suggestion. Sort of like the RAW for SWd6 already has it where you can increase or decrease a ship's speed by 1 category from slow to normal to fast to very fast, or visa versa..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!

[Mikael Hasselstein]