The TIEs collided at the end of the trench run. I think there were more but drawing a blank at the moment.

my 40 or so asteroids wouldnt be much use without collisions . . . .

If they were to release capital ship expansion packs, I, for one, would want it to be capital ship v. capital ship.  If FFG was to combine the scales -- "snub" fighters v. capital ships, I would want it as a scenario with fighters v. turret emplacements (like the asteroid markers, but with stat cards), with the game mat as the surface of the capital ship in question .  That could also work for a "Trench Run" scenario.

ironman said:

This reminds me:

"The tournament will be run as a head-to-head Dogfight, with asteroids."

So I guess those asteroids at least need some justification.

SteveSpikes said:

I have wanted a capital ship game for Star Wars for a long time.  Unlike Star Wars Starship Battles (from WOTC) they need to keep the scale of the ships better and run the fighters as squadrons.  The X-Wing game should never have anything larger than the Falcon in it unless it is the play surface.  Now I could see setting up a Star Destroyer sized play surface however.  That might be pretty need.

Hmm, 1/270 scale right?  so a 1.2 km Star Destroyer would be about 14.5' to scale.  This assumes I did the math right.  ;)

I would want I real crunchy capital ship minis game, but that is probably unlikely.

Thanks,

Duncan

it would probably play a bit like GW's battleship gothic

vadersson said:

I have wanted a game like that forever.  It would be awsome.  I don't know of FFG has any plans for it, but I would buy it.  

As for capital ships like Star Destroyers and MC80's, I would like to see fighter opperate the way they do in Axis and Allies War At Sea.  It really captures the fact that fighter don't opperate on the same scale at all.

ironman said:

I totally get that. It's a valid point. [For those of you have heard the following before, forgive my repetition.] I think the 3D element is exactly why there should be no cover in this game. You should be able to shoot at any fighter as long as they are in range. None of this, "You can't shoot him 'cause this guy's closer" nonsense (except for Biggs, but that's a different story). However, the fact remains that we are playing in 2D, so if you move and your movement would place you on top of another fighter's base, you still have to put you fighter somewhere and justify why it's not ending where the movement guide says it should. I think declaring that a collision takes place adds more tactics because you want to close range to get attack bonuses, but you don't want to get so close that you crash.

So, I guess even if they chose not to do collisions, I'd still like to see some solid rules on how to place a fighter that is about to overlap another fighter's base. You can't just say, "Oh, I'll shift him this way a bit," because like I said above, it's too subjective. They need hard and fast rules for how to deal with that situation.