Obviously #2 is easier. It may be "harder to build" because more options requires more consideration of how those options might mix, but it's absolutely easier to win with a build that pulls from more options. More options equate to more opportunities to mask a particular faction's built-in limitations by bringing in elements of another faction.

Which way of playing is "better" is up to the majority. You can't say "I don't like telling people how they should play" and also say "everyone should be able to play everything". Those two statements conflict in a game where each player builds his own force and the pairings are random. By not limiting cross-faction builds, you ARE forcing every faction-pure player to play a cross-faction game when he draws a cross-faction player as an opponent. You are forcing him to play a certain way. Your way.

Of course the cross-faction player doesn't mind that the opponent is playing a pure faction force...the only impact to him is that he faces a sub-optimal build. OTOH, the faction-pure player is forced to play against a build that was created with more options, AND likely flies in the face of the background for him.

FWIW, my venue doesn't enforce faction-specific rules. It is how I play, but I've never requested any change to the way the venue is run. That might change if cross-faction builds become an issue, but so far the game seems pretty balanced. Having said that, I'm not going to tell a venue that wants to run faction-specific that they are "doing it wrong" or "telling someone to play their way". As long as the venue is playing the way most of their players want to play, they are playing it right.

This is not dictating to a player a certain type of build format he must follow. He is free to play faction pure if he wants. Faction pure builds can be very competitive and win mixed faction events. I have seen some very bad faction pure builds that I don't think are very competitive. I have seen some very bad mixed faction builds I don't think are competitive. One group of folks wants you to build your list using their rules, not the games rules. The game allows for mixed faction builds. The designers could have gone the route of FFG in this regards but they chose not to. How is allowing me to play mixed factions forcing faction purist to play "my way"? They are free to build their fleet anyway they want.

Because if someone plays a Faction pure build, playing against your cross Faction build means that they are now playing a game with cross Factions.

Building the force is just one small part of "playing". If you force him to play against mixed-faction builds, you are very much forcing him to play a mixed-faction game.

WK creates these games in an open fashion, letting venues decide what they want to do with them from there. Implying that the designers "want" players to use mixed builds just because they allow them in the game is a skewed perspective...the designers include rules for mixing to give players (and venues) freedom to choose how they want to play the game. I'm sure the designers don't care one way or the other about whether individual venues choose to play pure faction or mixed faction.

Don't believe me? Rulebook page 21:

"Advanced Rules
This section explains advanced rules that enhance the Attack Wing experience. Before starting a game, players must agree which advanced rules they would like to use during a game (if any)."

Within the Advanced Rules section is "Squad Building". The rules a group of players will be using for Squad Building is MEANT to be agreed upon by the players. According to the rules.

Then within this section on Squad Building, there is further emphasis placed on agreement regarding mixing factions:

"If all players agree, then each player may play with ships from multiple factions. Players may even combine Captains and Upgrades from multiple factions on the same ship if they are willing to pay the Faction penalty..."

So within a section of rules that are supposed to be agreed on by the players, it is emphasized that all players must agree to mixing factions before anyone does it. This is what the rules tell us. Not that we should all be mixing factions, but that we should mix factions if all players agree.

The OP tells us that in his situation, 85% (17/20) of the players do NOT agree to mixing factions. Therefore, the rules tell us that in this situation mixing of factions should NOT be used.

The rules are designed to give us options, and the group of players at your venue needs to decide which options they will use.

Respect for the bolded part. In HeroClix, I am the exact same way. I know a few players who play the game more 'comic accurate' than 'min/max'. As a veteran player, I feel its my duty to demonstrate a different way to play - rather than following the herd.

What I mean is, if the guy who's been playing for a decade has to min/max, what hope is there for the new guy who doesn't want to?


You mention multiple cheat deaths and I think to myself, given the cost of the game pieces and the lack of print and play, Attack Wing can favor the person who spends the most money.

I buy a single version of each ship. Half because I'm 'cheap' and half because I want to push my gameplay. The other elements become pointless if I have a min/max option always available.

Rules Question: When cards are discarded, they don't score points for the opponent (a la Protected did in HeroClix). Is this correct?

Correct when cards are discarded they are put underneath the ship and only scored when that ship is destroyed.

As far as the original topic, I'm still going back and forth on this.

I personally enjoy going for just faction now that we have more options, but when the game was first out, we did have little options, so building pure faction was almost impossible for even a chance to win.

Some of the Captains (Donatra, Picard, etc etc etc) are quite powerful and I myself do tire of seeing Donatra on every team but if that's what someone wants to run, I'm not going to say no to them, but I will make a stink if she's not on a Romulan Ship.

I do wish Donatra and Clark T said Other Friendly "Romulan" or "Federation" but honestly as more items come out, it becomes easier and easier to take down these offenders.

so what is your suggested fix that doesn't force other players to play the way you want them to?


That particular rule designated tournaments, but rather friendly matches. The game designer himself said that there is no set rule for how a tournament has to be played. That doesn't mean that in your scenario the venues can't impose a faction pure build rule, but you can't walk into an event with your little rulebook in hand and demand every play faction pure.


Personally I like playing faction pure, but where I play the majority of players play open build, so sometimes I stay pure and others I mix it up. The fact that this particular game is very balanced means that it shouldn't matter to anyone how their opponent builds their fleet. Just because you choose to limit yourself to a faction pure build does not mean you don't have access to the exact same cards every other player does, it simply means that you have made the personal choice not to use all of them. How can anyone sit there and demand that because they want to play a certain way that everyone else has to do what they want to do?

I more or less agree with a lot of this post. The rules you quote govern casual games. The TO/venue may set the OP event rules has they see fit. If they want to run it like a democracy and vote on faction purity that's ok, as is dictating it one way or the other.

What I want to know is what is so horrible about mixing factions that you can't enjoy yourself if your opponent does it? Why can't you both just build your fleets the way you each want and then just enjoy playing the game? I personally prefer faction pure builds, but I don't give a damn what my opponent brings to the table. I want him to play what gives him the most enjoyment. Why is this a problem for some people?

Thought so. Thanks.

I read so much about "Donatra" here and on the Dakka site that I don't use her and I run pure Romulans!

Another reason is I don't run a tight formation. My style is to break off and swarm and Donatra's "within 1" doesn't come into effect very often.

I prefer Voldare (I am always sweeping in behind or flanking other ships), Tomalak (He plays a nice sniper) and Toreth (many a critical has crippled a ship).

Letant look interesting to try out for these scenario builds.

RE: Faction Pure - I've only played that way. I do think, once I've watched some Dominion War episodes, that I could run a Romulan ship & crew with Federation ship and crew.

I think it would be fine to stick Kirk and company onto a Br'el bird-of-prey.

I admit, I like the idea of each faction having its pros and cons and feeling like the universe they exist in has these individual species who are battling it out.

In tournament play, I've played in 8 games. Of those games, 2 were faction pure - my son ran an all Klingon team and another player used an all Federation team (and Picard was ON the Enterprise!!!).

The rest were Dominion + Klingon or Federation + Klingon as far as ships go. Most had Picard, Donatra and a Klingon Captain somewhere on the team.

When you figure that one out you will probably know the answer to solving all the worlds problems. Some people, for whatever reason, think that the world revolves around them and if they want something a certain way, every one needs to do it that way or they are doing it wrong and will get fun label like Min/Maxer, Neckbeard, etc.

Naturally! I generally assume that "you" and "I" aren't intended as personal, unless it is contextually apparent that they are meant to refer to specific individuals. Just a more colloquial replacement for "one" and "one's opponent," or whatever.

Well, I think the answer to why one person's enjoyment could be contingent on the other person's force depends on what kind of game you're playing.

In a casual game:

We're only there to sit down and play a fun game. If the fun of the game for me is recreating battles from the show (or plausible "what-if?" scenarios), then that only works if you're also building to the theme. I can't very well defend Earth from the Dominion invasion fleet if there is no Dominion invasion fleet. Therefore, in a casual environment, I don't have much incentive to play against a player with a min-maxed fleet build, even in a casual pick-up game.

Conversely, suppose I prefer to run a min-maxed fleet. I'm probably not going to have all that much fun playing against a less competitive build, although I'd probably still have some fun playing against it.

In casual games between friends who have different approaches, why not trade off?

In an OP game:

We're partly there just to have a good time, but also partly there for the chance to win a prize (presumably). Now, suppose again that I prefer themed fleets. I can go ahead and build a (probably) less competitive fleet that I'll enjoy running, but reducing my shot at the LE ship, or I can run a fleet that isn't particularly fun for me, but have a better shot at the LE. Add to that that I'm probably paying ~$10 to play at all, and I might start wondering why I'm bothering, if my choices are to play a fleet I like, but probably not win an LE ship or to play a fleet that I find less enjoyable, and still have a shot at the LE ship, when I could just forgo paying the entrance fee at all and play casual games instead. That would then bring us right back to the casual play scenario above.
_________________________________________________________

In neither scenario am I saying it's the no-holds barred player's fault that the theme-y player doesn't enjoy playing against him, though, just outlining why a theme-y player might decide it wasn't worthwhile to continue playing against other non-theme-y players. You can't reasonably blame someone for not really wanting to play a game that they don't enjoy, even if it's outside of your control.

@csi: When did I say that I demand others to play the way I like to play?

If someone wants to play cross-faction stuff, so be it. I think it takes less skill.

If 14-15 out of 17 want Faction pure, that's the way the venue should run things.

Just for a few laffs I'd run an "All Mixed Up" event. None of your ships can be of the same faction, and none of your captains or upgrades can match the faction of the ship that they are on, and you can't have any cards from the same faction on a ship (zero point skill 1 captains excluded from any faction penalty). Just say that Q went bonkers and shuffled the universe.

I find it a little annoying that someone's choice to limit their own options in the face of having all options available gains favor as some sort of moral high ground, ESPECIALLY when simply mixing factions is no guarantee for victory. I've spent 10 points mixing it up and lost my tail because I could have spent that 10 points more wisely. I think adding faction purity to the adaptive strategy of any crowd would result in the players bringing any one of the same wide variety of 4 fleets, 6 if you have a dedicated hard-nosed Dominion player. Why limit the total flavor of the game?

In the interest of diplomacy maybe you could mix up the formats a bit, maybe allow talents and weapons to mix but crew captains and tech are proprietary per affiliation, etc., whatever you do keep the variety and flavor alive and changing. As the Vulcans say "Infinite diversity in infinite combinations".

This is a post I understand. Compromise is good. I just have hard time understanding the animosity and aggression that is sometimes shown towards people that don't play faction pure. Not to mention the claims regarding faction purity requiring greater skill. The person with the greater skill has the advantage whether you're mixing factions or faction pure. Your preference has nothing to do with your skill as a player. That's determined by a combination of your natural talent and experience.

This post seems to imply that team building doesn't matter. I disagree wholeheartedly.

Each faction has something they are strong at and something they are weaker at. By mixing, you eliminate / alleviate the weakness that design currently has put into place.

A lessening of a weakness makes for a stronger team - just on building it alone. Does a strong team trump a vastly superior player? No. It can close the gap - and if the players are close in skill it can definitely give one player an advantage which has nothing to do with in-game tactics.

My point: Does skill matter? Yes. Does experience matter? Yes. Does team-building matter? Yes.

Mixing makes for an easier team to field than a faction pure team since you have more options and can counter every weakness your ships may have.