Ladies and Gentlemen,
I would like to thank you all for your continued support as this blog enters its third year, having already busted my original 10,000 view target and being well on the way to 12,000! Without your continued support, this blog would be kinda pointless, but it’s really nice to know people read my inane ramblings!🙂
Sappy stuff over, I think it’s time to get to business!
In August this year, WizKids games released Star Trek: Attack Wing. Simply put, it is the Star Trek counterpart to X-Wing by Fantasy Flight Games – using the same FlightPath move system, an almost-identical rule set and even the same D8 dice (albeit with different symbols). This game has been eagerly anticipated by Star Trek fans since the release of X-Wing.
So, how have they done? I will be comparing bits from X-Wing and Attack Wing, as they retail for the same price, which will give an indication of quality and value for money.
The models used in Attack Wing are from the same line as the Star Trek Heroclix system. They are not bad, but they do lack detail in their basic form – scaling a large vessel down that much does not do a lot in terms of quality, obviously! For example, here is a comparison between a Galaxy-class Starship and a TIE Interceptor:
As you can see, the model quality isn’t terrible, but the Interceptor DOES look better!
Sadly, scaling doesn’t seem to have been a priority for WizKids, as his photo comparing a Constitution-class and a Miranda-class:
Now, the cards are obviously important as they detail the class of ship, the captain, upgrades and damage. The card stock used in X-Wing is of very high quality, but the stock used in Attack Wing is somewhat less. It’s not as thick, and feels very gritty. The difference is easily visible in this photo:
This is where Attack Wing comes into it’s own. Where X-Wing is very simple with very little in the way of upgrades or actions beside the usual ‘Move, Attack, Move, Attack’, Attack Wing is a lot more complex – each vessel requiring a Captain (much like pilot cards in X-Wing) but also eligible to take weapon upgrades and crew cards with their own abilities (something only recently introduced by FFG with the larger vessels).
These upgrades are also not instantly discarded when used, but instead ‘disabled’, meaning that they can be re-enabled and used again. For weapons such as Torpedoes, this means that a vessel has never truly “shot its load”, and retains it’s killing potential. This adds another tactical aspect to the game, do you fire-and-forget, or do you reload for another try?
It is this added depth that I think makes Attack Wing ever-so-slightly superior as a game. Yes, the model quality is a little lower, and the cards feel strange, but when it comes down to it, most players put their cards in sleeves and repaint their vessels to some degree (even a simple wash brings the quality WAY up!) so these shortcomings are easily (and forgivably) overlooked.
I really enjoy this game, it’s fun, it’s simple and above all it’s cheap! Yes, in terms of cost-to-quality X-Wing is superior, but the gameplay more than makes up for it! Most of my ships have already been repainted, and will be featured in a later article.
I enjoy both X-Wing and Attack Wing equally, and will continue to play both so long as they remain supported!
As always, thanks for reading! University life makes my blogging schedule slightly erratic, but hopefully I will have another article up soon. What that article is on, who knows?!