If the Six Asteroid Death Match is growing boring, I suggest you try my new idea: The Seven Asteroid Death match!
We need new OP missions other than six-asteroid death match!
If the Six Asteroid Death Match is growing boring, I suggest you try my new idea: The Seven Asteroid Death match!
Preposterous!
I don't understand this thread at all... Every big box item comes with cool stuff to play missions. There is more than just 6 asteroids to play with. The mine is H1 is an amazing new twist, and the Prototype Interceptor mission is a blast! I'm also a big fan of the missions that came with the Falcon.
We loved the mines so much, I think it would be a cool new way to play friendly death matches. The idea I'm kicking around is to place the mines on the asteroids (so they become obstacles too) and they all start out as neutral. They are activated, detonated, and control can be changed the same way as in the H1 mission (with the only exception that the Rebels can detonate one they control at the end of the round now too). Might have to try this tonight...
6 rocks in space is definitely old. But making the comparison to STAW will just rile the nerd wagon. You CAN play scenarios in tournaments and have them fair, it's been done for years over a multitude of games. Even if you find a scenario unfair for you one round, just means that all forces are not suited for all purposes. Is that not when the adapt and overcome motto comes into effect? I find many in the xwing community are avid card players and a scenario in a competitive format is just foreign to them. I would not expect to see too much support for this endeavor but I would like to see it.
Honestly, the worse facet of the tournament play is now that it is a full day long event from dusk to dawn and beyond. There is no reason at all you need to run 5+ rounds then switch over to finals.
I think FFG will definitely be making adjustments to give more options than just the 6 asteroid 100-point format. It's already apparent that they're doing that: Escalation is the most obvious example, but they also mentioned that Huge ships can be used as an obstacle in lieu of asteroids. (The latter is not openly tournament-legal yet, and as far as I read still pends the other player's approval. However, the point remains that there are options, and I suggest that this means more variations are coming.)
But, the real key thing for there to be balance (which is what's essential if it's gonna be for Organized Play) is that i) the objectives have to remain symmetrical (if they change at all) and ii) the new elements' effects must also be symmetrical.
Satisfying the above requirements is why asteroids are so good: they affect both players equally on paper, and they don't change the objectives.
Original poster's comment about adjusting the Kessel Run was a good idea, though: if you had in addition to 6 asteroids 6 cargo containers that each provided +X points for either player who overlaps the container during the match (and then remove the container from the field), with a few more rules about where and how they could be placed at the beginning of the match, it would have remained balanced while adding a twist that made sense with the setting.
Again, not a tournament format, but I was trying to come up with ways to make flying the Falcon more fun and was thinking moving asteroids. That would let you do something like in ESB or just have to fly more defensively, not just plan out a simple turn lane and go. Anyone have rules ideas for that? My initial thought would be to notch a set of asteroids for templates in cardinal directions (not that they'd have to orient along them) and then roll a die to determine their movement each turn. And treat the edge of the board like a kiddie bowling bumper.
I haven't actually played all the missions we've got, but can't recommend the shuttle one enough. That was a lot of fun! Just from how great the first two missions of the transport campaign are, I'm super excited for the corvette. Not that I anticipate lots of epic games, just to play through that stuff.
Edited by PenguinBonaparte...
But, the real key thing for there to be balance (which is what's essential if it's gonna be for Organized Play) is that i) the objectives have to remain symmetrical (if they change at all) and ii) the new elements' effects must also be symmetrical.
...
that's the usual, easy way to balance things, it also limits what level of diversification you get out of scenarios.
it's not the only way, it's just faster and less work for the designers - ok, you also avoid hysterical screaming about unbalanced scenarios causing wins/losses. 
the game itself demonstrated that balance doesn't necessarily need symmetry (abilities limited to factions, 1:2 ship ratio in the core set)
from a fluff perspective, while there are pure space dogfights in the Star Wars universe, most encounters are story/narrative driven, which would make scenarios a natural extension also in the tournament setting.
Flames of War uses various missions for it's tournaments, and it works well there. It is possible to build missions that are balanced regardless of the forces each side uses. Of course in FoW part of it is you roll for the mission so you never know which one you'll get.
If you need that for Tournaments here or not... I don't think you do really. I can see the 6 rock DM getting old, but people don't typically go to Tourney's with the same mindset they do when they go to their LGS to play a few games.
Can we create our own missions? Sure a number of people have. I wrote up my own version of a campaign system for X-Wing, and some day I'll actually get a chance to try it...
But having FFG who does such good work release a mission book would be very welcome too.
So why do you have to wait for FFG do do everything? They created the game. It's not like they are saying you can only do dog fights and if you set up something's else they will never let you buy product again. They leave it open. If you want a new way to play, then do it! Our group does. We have done multi week campaigns, pirate events, random squad tournaments and more. We don't wait for FFG to do anything, they did all I want them to do, Create the game and support it, which I think they do fine. The more you complain about the game the more resentment you will have towards it.
Final thoughts, if you want scenario play, do it, and stop comparing Attack Wing and X-Wing. Completely different games.
He's talking sanctioned tournaments.
I wouldn't mind other objects besides asteroids. Maybe like old blown up ships or a mine field.
I'm not against more scenarios, but I'm not a fan of more scenarios for tournament play.
Comparisons to Attack Wing is terrible. I have read so much that the balance in that game comes from scenarios. And that the balance changes from scenario to scenario. That's fine for casual play, but NOT for a tournament format. Any new scenario would need to be playtested, which I believe Escalation has been. A tournament should be friendly to someone coming off the street, which is why I'm not a fan of house rules. If the standard way of playing is boring you, there's not much I can say. I would rather have the more boring, but balanced ways of play, rather than rushing out new scenarios every month that someone might not be able to win unless they built in a way they did not enjoy.
In fairness, since large ships count as obstacles (more or less), nothing stops you having a stationary-relative-to-the-fighters 'transport convoy' in the middle of the board, or a load more asteroids, or similar.
It'd be interesting to try a game with lots of terrain - Imps should be better at avoiding it, but Rebels can crash into them with less risk... I'm not sure it specifically favours one side or the other, just the better pilot.
Yeah, gonna say I do not want scenario tournaments. Maybe list building challneges, Pirate tournaments, and things to shake up the game.(Different obstacles like The Maw, that pulls every ship 1 forward towards the edge of the map every turn, or similar ideas. Ether-storms that roll a red die every turn for every ship to see if they do damage. Scenarios like that are fine. But they should come at the expense of the Asteroids, and possibly points out of a players team.
If the Six Asteroid Death Match is growing boring, I suggest you try my new idea: The Seven Asteroid Death match!
That's a good idea and I think it would sell but... what if someone come around with a way to make it work with 8 Asteroid?
Why not instead of 6 asteroids, we place 1 gas giant each, and you have to maintain a fair distance from them or else incur a red stress token? Then the ships would have to accelerate away and once free of the gravitational pull, perform a white move? That would be a real test of piloting skill. You could use the gas Giants as ways to lure your adversary in for what seems an easy kill, but leads to a possible loss of speed and movement?
Why not instead of 6 asteroids, we place 1 gas giant each, and you have to maintain a fair distance from them or else incur a red stress token? Then the ships would have to accelerate away and once free of the gravitational pull, perform a white move? That would be a real test of piloting skill. You could use the gas Giants as ways to lure your adversary in for what seems an easy kill, but leads to a possible loss of speed and movement?
Largely size. But what I wouldn't give to gravity slingshot in this game. 
Ok so mini black holes, if size is the issue lol,
If the Six Asteroid Death Match is growing boring, I suggest you try my new idea: The Seven Asteroid Death match!
No one expects The Seven Asteroid Death Match! Or The Spanish Inquisition!
Ok so mini black holes, if size is the issue lol,
Size matters...just sayin'
So why do you have to wait for FFG do do everything? They created the game. It's not like they are saying you can only do dog fights and if you set up something's else they will never let you buy product again. They leave it open. If you want a new way to play, then do it! Our group does. We have done multi week campaigns, pirate events, random squad tournaments and more. We don't wait for FFG to do anything, they did all I want them to do, Create the game and support it, which I think they do fine. The more you complain about the game the more resentment you will have towards it.
He's talking sanctioned tournaments.
Yes he is, and I get what many of his detractors are saying. They want a starwarsy chess game, while Stormtrooper721 is looking for a different experience.
I totally get that, but I also think that Pitsch has a great suggestion. If you want something in organized play, organize it yourself. Once I get a bit more integrated into my local group, I plan to suggest something, if it seems like the group is open to it.
But maybe Stormtrooper's local group is not there and he's hoping that FFG will step into that breach. I'm not sure that's a workable suggestion. There's only so much you can do to change your locals' minds, and if they want to play starwarsy chess, then that's what they'll do.
Why not instead of 6 asteroids, we place 1 gas giant each, and you have to maintain a fair distance from them or else incur a red stress token? Then the ships would have to accelerate away and once free of the gravitational pull, perform a white move? That would be a real test of piloting skill. You could use the gas Giants as ways to lure your adversary in for what seems an easy kill, but leads to a possible loss of speed and movement?
Scale. Gas Giants are several times the size of the Death Star.
It is hard to have a bunch of armies and then create scenarios that don't favor one or the other.
Also, if a tournament has multiple scenarios and which one you get is a matter of luck then some people may have chosen an army that by chance or design has great synergy with one scenario.
HOWEVER, as Star Wars only has two factions, I'd think it would be easier to come up with scenarios were both sides have a fair shot. ALSO I think FFG could come up with a handful of tournament scenarios, and then the organizer chooses which scenario to run and announces it at the same time as the tournament, then everyone shows up with a list that is designed to work best for that scenario.
Heck, you could have a tournament where it is announced in advance that round 1 is scenario A, round 2 is scenario B, etc. and that only one fleet can be used so you have to build something that works for all of them
The 'only 2 factions' and pre-announced scenarios I think would provide more variety in tournaments yet sidestep the problem many other games have with scenarios
I was playing the updated version of Faster Than Light and they had it were a Pulsar or something was in the background firing off an ion type effect every so often.
Then when I was looking for a free hubble image to make a playmat I came across this
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2011/39/results/100/
I thought it would be fun to slice out the planet and leave the star with the rules of treating it like an obstacle but if you touch it you finish your maneuver and then are treated like you are ionized the next round.
This made me think. Imagine a tournament where there is a $20 entry fee but all participants get a special play mat that has some sort of special rules which is used in the tourney the taken home. Stores would have the rights to run multiple tournaments if they had significant numbers of mats left, or possibly send them back for credit, or maybe allow stores to sell excess mats but only after X amount of months post tournament.
I think maybe what should be done is look into further asteroid exchange abilities.
3 Asteroids.
2 proximity mines.
1 Huge ship.
1 Gravity well.
Etc... I would love to see FFG allow thes types of decisions for each game. I would play 2 proximity mines every time. Would be great. Or a huge ship, as I like how they alter the map.
Edited by Aminar