MBS Monthly Poll #16

[Ruckdog]

Wizkids has recently announced that they are planning on doing some card-only expansions for Star Trek Attack Wing:

http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/attack-wing-prototype-02-card-pack-preview-posted/

Is this a good thing? On one hand, it provides gamers with more variety for an existing game. On the other hand, it's not as robust of an expansion and a new miniature would be. Let us know what you think!

[Andrewchristlieb]

I think a card only expansion could have great merits for any kind of wargame, especially as expansions for naval games which don't have a great need for a large model line. So I'd say other, they would be good as a replacement for new models in lines which can be limited due to IP restrictions (star tek as seen here, but any property with a developed background and limited numbers of ships would apply). It can also apply to game company's properties as well though.

I can't help but throw SG out there on something like this. Imagine if they would have had the forethought to introduce expansions to their games as something similar. Instead of things like the planetary invasion fleets and task force which were pretty mich flops they could have instead released simple and cheap (both to acquire and produce) expansions consisting of ship cards to run the existing models as alternative types, updated TAC decks to support the alternative game types, even objective type cards possibly. Pair that with basic card terrain and a small rule book for a complete expansion. Suddenly instead of a bloated model line to support people can use the same ships for multiple purposes and the company can redirect people back to their main lines.

[voidstarsinger]

well that's kind of odd but it might help unused ships see the table without having to buy a new model when you already have one 

[Dakkar]

I like the idea of the ship packs for STAW so far, but a problem might quickly arise with getting the older models if you didn't already have them. WK needs to keep those options open.
Also, they're apparently "replacing" previous cards by making the new versions crazy cheaper. Elegant in its own way rather than simply reprinting from scratch. But it also means that those ships without updates become dust-collectors while awaiting their turn.

So proof will be in the pudding. I'll wait to see how it executes over coming months.

A few other oddities:
Locally, one LGS had already given up on STAW. So I only see the new product at the other LGS. This has hammered home the feeling that they've relaunched with little to no promotion - I barely knew it was happening.
If TREK DISCOVERY is a hit, WK has this one chance to make good on their system again - I hope they make the most of it.

[Jack Brown]

I'm in the maybe camp. Mostly as the naval games I like are more in the historical realm and the ship models I have will, generally, work with any rule set. I would view a card set as just another play aid.

[Wanjajoral]

I voted yes and can just support what Andrewchristlieb was saying. Just cards are, obviously, not enough to support a Miniatures game in the long run, but they can offer a lot of replayability and variability to mix things up and keep a game interesting.
Cards are so much quicker and cheaper to produce than models, and so much can be done with them.
Cards could offer:
- special player powers (e.g. faction specific admirals (like in FSA System Wars) or faction specific one-off events (like the TACs in FSA)).
- specific ship upgrades usuable in certain scenarios.
- ship stat cards including some new variants (e.g. ship refits or variations used in specific fleets) with slightly different stats without the need for new models (e.g. like in Fleet Commander).
- scenarios that could be randomly generated (e.g. like the scenario cards in Star Trek Attack Wing or the new mission/objective card deck for Warhammer 40K 8th edition).
- alternate ways for playing (e.g. card based activation like in Dropfleet Commander or card based deployment)
- a legacy game aspect for campaigns (imagine you start with a vanilla fleet and each squadron/ship is represented by a stat card with a lot of blank space on it. Based on the in game performance your fleet gains experience points which then can be spent on upgrades (MARs, Hardpoint upgrades) for your ships which could be marked on those stat cards (with a dry erase marker or with stickers like in Shadowrun Crossfire or Pandemic Legacy)
- ...

Of course, seeing new and shiny models for your favorite game is always the desired option, but if that is not possible, I would be happy to get some cards to keep things interesting.

[Easy E]

I honestly do not understand gamers obsession with expansions.  I understand why a company needs them, but not the gamers.  I prefer a finite set to acquire, use, and play instead of having constant upgrades or changes to the rules.  I want everyhtign I need to play a good game in one go.       

I have seen many gamers decide to stop playing a game or sell all their stuff because a game is no longer being supported/expanded.  To me, that is when a game gets really fun because now the community owns the game!  "Dead" games are fun games too! 

 

 

[Landlubber]

@Wanjajoral, agreed on all points. I especially like what you said about starting off a campaign with the "Mark I" model of your ships, and then progressing to more advanced designs as the campaign moves forward. Nothing like conflict to bring about advances in technology, right?

@Easy E, I can see both sides of the coin. Part of the issue of expansions might be cost. Take the Firefly board game, for example. The original game is great. The expansions add a lot of flavor and more stuff to do. But if GF9 had created the game originally as it sits now, with all the card, ship, and map expansions, it would have been a $200 board game. Not many people would have gone in for that.

I do agree however that "dead games" can be fun games.