Not only in this game, but also other games that I've enjoyed, it seems like there are several breeds of gamer. For the sake of argument, I'll divide the population into two types. One type lusts for the win, and the other wants to be transported to a Long Time Ago in a Galaxy Far Far Away. I imagine that there's a spectrum, rather than two discrete groups, but I do think the divide clarifies.

I think these two types of gamer can certainly have fun together on the 'fly casual' side of things, but I imagine that there's always going to be some disconnect. The former type looks at builds and tactics, the latter type might think what sorts of missions might be dramatically interesting. By and large, it seems to me that this game is more geared towards the former type who may have come to the game from a computer gaming background, whereas roleplaying games are more geared to the latter type, which is where they first got into the Star Wars universe, aside from the movies.

I'm certainly of the latter type (though I also have a competitive edge), and I'm wondering how many here are longing for a more narrative side to this game.

I would enjoy seeing missions and/or campaigns for this game. I was drawn to this game because its star wars and its similar to Wings of War. I could see that it was designed with tournament style play in mind, but I stay interested because I enjoy and appreciate how balanced the factions are. I also play Star War RPG, but sometimes a few quick games of X-Wing is just what I need. That being said, I think X-Wing would benefit from having more interesting missions instead of straight up 'deathmatch' style. Even if each player had a 'secret objective' during a regular match might spice things up.

I have to confess that I haven't really looked at the missions yet. My reasons for not doing so are A) haven't really had the time yet, B) my local scene hasn't really seemed open to it, and C) I'm trying to maintain the unknown-ness of them 'till I can really enjoy them.

But what do you think about the missions that are included in the game?

Well, there's more than one type who wants the win, apart from the min/maxers. There's the tinkerers/designers who want to build a list that's unique, particularly suited to a meta or playstyle. I'd rather lose gloriously in a hard fought battle with a list that's my own than win with netlist 1138.

You can of course build your own missions, design different setups, what have you. I'm fleshing out a couple myself for casual play.

This is a table top game and not a role playing game. I think winning is always going to be important. But one (of the many) things I love about this game is how well it can satisfy both the desire to be immersed in Star Wars and to play a fun game.

With the exception of Boba Fett all the super cool iconic characters from the movies turn into super cool iconic ships to fly.

Compare this to for example Star Trek Attack Wing where competitive play leads people to put Picard in command of a Romulan Warbird equipped with a Breen special weapon.

Or a Borg cube supported by a cloaked Romulan science vessel.

Sure you exorcize you love for the Klingons or the Federation and build fleets that fit with the world you are trying to play in, but you are handicapping yourself if you do.

I have to confess that I haven't really looked at the missions yet. My reasons for not doing so are A) haven't really had the time yet, B) my local scene hasn't really seemed open to it, and C) I'm trying to maintain the unknown-ness of them 'till I can really enjoy them.

But what do you think about the missions that are included in the game?

Most of the published missions are rather "meh". The exceptions to that are the most recent missions published in the Transport and Corvette expansions. Look on-line at the various X-wing forums and you will find some good stuff. The early stuff FFG published was rather simple, lacking in any real context or tactical challenge. To me, they seemed more like a (feeble?) effort to get the "Tourney" players to go for something more than just "fly at your opponent (whose force is roughly equal to your own- i.e. "balanced") and shoot'em till their dead! Just my opinion.

Well, there's more than one type who wants the win, apart from the min/maxers.

Yes, you're right. I'm not suggesting that my two categories are the only typologies available.

I take it that you mean min/maxing in the sense of building squads with unrealistic combinations, of the sort that Hrathen in mentioning, more than the specialization into one style of combat to the exclusion of another. Do I have that correct?

This is a table top game and not a role playing game. I think winning is always going to be important. But one (of the many) things I love about this game is how well it can satisfy both the desire to be immersed in Star Wars and to play a fun game.

Yes, you're right. It is a tabletop game about tactical combat. I guess what I'm looking for to add to it is a sense of what the stakes of winning and losing are, beyond bragging rights or whatever prizes the tournament has.

Maybe the stakes are simply narrative, but I also like the idea of the tactical encounters being a part of a campaign where the wins/losses from one tactical battle have implications for future tactical battles. However, I'm wondering how one might have an operational level of war above the tactical level without making the tactical level less fun. After all, the goal of the operational level of war is to make the tactical level unfair.

Not only in this game, but also other games that I've enjoyed, it seems like there are several breeds of gamer. For the sake of argument, I'll divide the population into two types. One type lusts for the win, and the other wants to be transported to a Long Time Ago in a Galaxy Far Far Away. I imagine that there's a spectrum, rather than two discrete groups, but I do think the divide clarifies.

I think these two types of gamer can certainly have fun together on the 'fly casual' side of things, but I imagine that there's always going to be some disconnect. The former type looks at builds and tactics, the latter type might think what sorts of missions might be dramatically interesting. By and large, it seems to me that this game is more geared towards the former type who may have come to the game from a computer gaming background, whereas roleplaying games are more geared to the latter type, which is where they first got into the Star Wars universe, aside from the movies.

I'm certainly of the latter type (though I also have a competitive edge), and I'm wondering how many here are longing for a more narrative side to this game.

You're talking Psychographs. In Magic: the Gathering, they discuss this as a Trio.

Spikes are the guys who want cards that are just Solid. The best card (pilot/ship/upgrade) for its cost in the current metagame is their favorite find.

Timmies are the guys who want the Cool factor. They like Luke Skywalker's Upgrade ability more than his Pilot ability, and are all about some Ten Nunb Autoblaster action.

Johnnies are the Combo Players. Think SableGryphon. Or me.

You're talking Psychographs. In Magic: the Gathering, they discuss this as a Trio.

Spikes are the guys who want cards that are just Solid. The best card (pilot/ship/upgrade) for its cost in the current metagame is their favorite find.

Timmies are the guys who want the Cool factor. They like Luke Skywalker's Upgrade ability more than his Pilot ability, and are all about some Ten Nunb Autoblaster action.

Johnnies are the Combo Players. Think SableGryphon. Or me.

Interesting. I looked up some more on the term 'psychograph', but found a bunch of tangentially related stuff on 'the Google'. It seems like they could have come up with a better word for the concept. However, I take your meaning.

Regarding the three types you mention, I think I understand the Spikes category, but the other two are a little elusive. Maybe it's because I haven't played much MtG, and what I did play was ... erm... nearly 20 years ago.

But yes, it's about the mental pleasure centers being different. I'm wondering how much of a place my pleasure centers have in this game. I think the ships are awesome, I love the SWU, and I definitely like the tactical modeling. However, the 100pnt six asteroid death match is starting to bore me, and I haven't been playing all that long. Also, it's not because I've been losing. I've been able to win more matches than I thought probable, given my newness to the game. So, it ain't sour grapes on my part.

I've always played with with all the available space on the table (no 3x3 limits), no time limits, the presence of the 12 (not 6) asteroids depend on whether we want them that game, and they're always placed mutually to make the game more interesting rather than taking turns to place them advantageously. Asteroid gets knocked? That's asteroid drift. One game they'll be a proper field, another we had two fields with a large open space between them.

Ran a TIE swarm once, a named one. I got a sixth TIE specifically so I could fly all the named ones. It splits within two rounds. Every seasoned TIE swarm player knows that's one of the worst things you can do as you reduce fire concentration and you lose the Howlrunner benefit. Why did I do it? It was more fun to fly two flights of three than a block of six.

Win or lose, I don't actually care that much. I play it for the gameplay. Part of the reason I hated the Falcon for quite a while: it felt like it took a load of the gameplay away.

As for the MTG "psychographs" that were mentioned:

Timmy likes the high PS pilots and ships like the E-wing and TIE defender. He likes stuff that's good rather than cost-efficient. Johnny's the combo person. He likes synergy, but it usually has to be a combo he made himself. Dagonet (post 4) is an excellent example of a Johnny mentality.
Spike is the netdecker, the one in it to win it and not much else. Spike's the main one who looks at the TIE defender and thinks "overcosted". This is the main trio. Take the first impression of Maarek Steele. Timmy looks at Maarek Steele's card and thinks he has better stats than a TIE fighter. Johnny looks at Maarek Steele's card and thinks Marksmanship and Cluster Missiles. Spike looks at Maarek Steele's card and thinks overcosted.

MTG has two more, Vorthos and Melvin. Melvin's the one who likes rules and mechanics and likes to understand the game at a basic level. I can't get into Melvin's head very well so I can't give examples of his mentality. Vorthos is the one who likes lore. MTGwise, Vorthos makes a deck that's all elves not because synergy but because his deck is an elven warband. Yes, Random Beast 1442 is good in that deck but it doesn't fit with the elves In Character. Spike flies Wedge, Luke and Biggs because they're a good build. Vorthos runs Wedge, Luke and Biggs because they're the trench run team.

Vorthos is the one who likes lore. MTGwise, Vorthos makes a deck that's all elves not because synergy but because his deck is an elven warband. Yes, Random Beast 1442 is good in that deck but it doesn't fit with the elves In Character. Spike flies Wedge, Luke and Biggs because they're a good build. Vorthos runs Wedge, Luke and Biggs because they're the trench run team.

Aha, I get it. I'm Vorthos! I want a story.

I wonder if these archetypes also give us strategic insight. (In this case, I mean strategic in being able to anticipate your opponent by knowing their mental Achilles' heels, as opposed to tactical, by which I mean matching capabilities to your favor.) As an example, someone who likes synergies might be vulnerable to having their ships forced out of close proximity, thus losing the synergy that they get from being close to one another.

But that's an aside. Did they do any polling with this typology in MtG to see what archetypes are more prevalent than others? I imagine that it's different for each game, depending on the type of game it is.

No, but they design the game to cater to all of them and the head designer put up profiles for them all in his design column. Always liked reading that design column. Maybe that's what a Melvin is... (They also design the game to maximise profits and take full advantage of the cashcow that's the CCG model, so don't give 'em too much credit.)

But yeah, most of the missions are just variations on the normal game (cough "Preystalker" cough), but some are pretty interesting. Cutting The Cord from Imperial Aces I like a lot, even if the Phantom and Defender are gonna break it hard.

You're talking Psychographs. In Magic: the Gathering, they discuss this as a Trio.

Spikes are the guys who want cards that are just Solid. The best card (pilot/ship/upgrade) for its cost in the current metagame is their favorite find.

Timmies are the guys who want the Cool factor. They like Luke Skywalker's Upgrade ability more than his Pilot ability, and are all about some Ten Nunb Autoblaster action.

Johnnies are the Combo Players. Think SableGryphon. Or me.

Interesting. I looked up some more on the term 'psychograph', but found a bunch of tangentially related stuff on 'the Google'. It seems like they could have come up with a better word for the concept. However, I take your meaning.

Regarding the three types you mention, I think I understand the Spikes category, but the other two are a little elusive. Maybe it's because I haven't played much MtG, and what I did play was ... erm... nearly 20 years ago.

But yes, it's about the mental pleasure centers being different. I'm wondering how much of a place my pleasure centers have in this game. I think the ships are awesome, I love the SWU, and I definitely like the tactical modeling. However, the 100pnt six asteroid death match is starting to bore me, and I haven't been playing all that long. Also, it's not because I've been losing. I've been able to win more matches than I thought probable, given my newness to the game. So, it ain't sour grapes on my part.

In X_Wing terms:

Johnnies are the guys who look at ships/pilots/upgrades like puzzle pieces, trying to find a super powerful combo. We don't particularly care about what people think is "Good". SableGryphon and I are both are very strong Johnnies (though he is admittedly quicker on the draw than I am).

We'll take that Lambda Shuttle that dies so easily when people get behind it, and we'll give it a Fire Control System, Gunner, and Engine Upgrade, run it in triplicate, and watch the confusion on our opponents' faces when they somehow lose to us.

We'll take that Outer Rim Smuggler that no-one uses, give it an Intelligence Agent, Navigator, and Anti-Pursuit Laser, run it in triplicate, and watch as our opponent runs-into-us to death.

We'll take that Advanced Sensors, and put it on Ibtisam, and then give the girl Engine Upgrades and Daredevil, and notice that you can turn what's supposed to be a penalty for forgetfulness into an occasional asset.

We'll take that Han Solo and add a Gunner to it, or take that Garven Dreis and fly him with "Dutch", or notice that Garven + Kyle in the Moldy Crow never actually has to discard a token...

The TIE Phantom made our brains explode in a good way. We're still working on the generic E-Wing.

"I don't even care if I win anymore. I did the thing! Woo!"

Timmies are the guys who like ships/pilots/upgrades because they think that thing is potent in a vacuum. Wedge Antilles is a very Timmy card, as are Anti-Pursuit lasers and R2-D2. This is the part of the trio that I am the most distant from, so I can't write a full love-letter like I did with the Johnnies. You'll see Timmies running multiples of the same ship, as they like that ship, or see them flying a mish-mash, because they like each of the individual pilots they're flying. You'll almost never see them flying Generic ships, unless it means fitting in extras of a ship whose most generic version is still really cool.

You might see them flying ABXY, or 3BH, or dual Falcons, et cetera.

II understand the desire to play missions and thematic games rather than competetive games. What I don't understand is the complaint. Missions and campaigns both official and unofficial are available. Is the complaint that competetive tournaments should use them? That's when I'll disagree, because many go to tournaments to test their skill, and missions can really break that. If you want to play a casual tournament with missions, run one. No one is stopping you and i would def. play if it were in my area. Is the complaint that not enough other players want to play missions? I can understand that, too, but to each their own. I like having the option of both a competition and a thematic, casual game.

What complaint? Mikael Hasselstein's only saying that the standard deathmatch is losing its appeal to him and that he likes more thematic games, and was wondering if anyone else felt the same way. He's not suggesting forcibly changing the game for anyone else, just looking for likeminded people and the opinions of others.

What complaint? Mikael Hasselstein's only saying that the standard deathmatch is losing its appeal to him and that he likes more thematic games, and was wondering if anyone else felt the same way. He's not suggesting forcibly changing the game for anyone else, just looking for likeminded people and the opinions of others.

Hmm, ok, true. I may have been conflating this post with others I've seen that do want to change up the mainstream scene. I'm all for adding another scene for narrative play.

II understand the desire to play missions and thematic games rather than competetive games. What I don't understand is the complaint. Missions and campaigns both official and unofficial are available. Is the complaint that competetive tournaments should use them? That's when I'll disagree, because many go to tournaments to test their skill, and missions can really break that. If you want to play a casual tournament with missions, run one. No one is stopping you and i would def. play if it were in my area. Is the complaint that not enough other players want to play missions? I can understand that, too, but to each their own. I like having the option of both a competition and a thematic, casual game.

I suppose that a complaint is implied in my original posting, though I'm not trying to whine; I'm trying to find like-minded souls.

Look, I'm not saying that tournaments should be changed. At all. They clearly are something that people get a lot of fun out of, and I don't want to undermine anyone's fun. I'm just trying to see if there's room for the sort of thing that I'd really like.

So - agreed - there's nothing stopping me from running something, except from a (current) lack of people to play with. I'm trying to develop my thoughts on the matter here, so that I have a fully-fledged idea when I post the notion to my local X-Wing Facebook group. Also, I might be just too weird for anyone to play with, in which case, I need to figure out something else.

EDIT: Ah, I see Lagomorphia already said what I wanted to say more efficiently.

Interesting concepts.

I would also argue there is a sub-category: The modellers. It is much more prevalent in a game like 40K but you see it here in X-wing too. The lads and lasses who want to make stuff for the game, who rebuild and repaint their models, who hear of a mission and immediately think "I could make a .... "

I don't see a lot of hard-core competitive gamers in this side of the hobby.

I ordered my core set and a handful of expansions .. and had a double sided board (death star and space), complete with 6 plasticard auto turrets and 6 asteroids made and painted before the package arrived.

Vorthos is the one who likes lore. MTGwise, Vorthos makes a deck that's all elves not because synergy but because his deck is an elven warband. Yes, Random Beast 1442 is good in that deck but it doesn't fit with the elves In Character. Spike flies Wedge, Luke and Biggs because they're a good build. Vorthos runs Wedge, Luke and Biggs because they're the trench run team.

Aha, I get it. I'm Vorthos! I want a story.

I wonder if these archetypes also give us strategic insight. (In this case, I mean strategic in being able to anticipate your opponent by knowing their mental Achilles' heels, as opposed to tactical, by which I mean matching capabilities to your favor.) As an example, someone who likes synergies might be vulnerable to having their ships forced out of close proximity, thus losing the synergy that they get from being close to one another.

But that's an aside. Did they do any polling with this typology in MtG to see what archetypes are more prevalent than others? I imagine that it's different for each game, depending on the type of game it is.

Vorthos vs Melvin is actually another plane of psychography.

Vorthos plays X-Wing because, dude, Star Wars!

Again, Vorthos plays Luke Biggs Wedge for the reasons you mentioned, and can STILL be a Spike (Its a tournament-worthy fleet, in certain metagames), Timmy (I like these guys!) or Johnny (So, you HAVE to shoot at Biggs, but Luke has Draw Their FIre and R2-D2, so some of your damage is hitting my shields, which will then regenerate).

Melvin plays X-Wing because it is a brilliantly crafted game with novel design elements.

He doesn't care that the ships are from a beloved Science Fantasy mythos. He loves the Dial/Maneuver template mechanics, and how balanced the point costs are to each other, and how you can make a Tournament-ready fleet with very few expansions, and how none of the expansions are actively worse than others.

Now, to answer your second question:

They tried, but realized that their polling-base was mostly Spikes. The guys who care most about the metagame are going to be the ones reading the Battle Reports and attending Tournaments. They also tend to read the forums a lot, but not necessarily comment.

Johnnies are going to be posting the most fleet-builds, as spotting the combos and showing them off is a huge part of the fun of the game for us. We're as interested as the Spikes are in pre-release info, but we're looking at different criteria : "What can I do with this?", as opposed to "What is this good against?"

Timmies ... don't get into the online presence much, but when they do, it's usually in defense of one of their favorites. See any "TIE Advanced deserves more play" posts recently?

I would also argue there is a sub-category: The modellers. It is much more prevalent in a game like 40K but you see it here in X-wing too. The lads and lasses who want to make stuff for the game, who rebuild and repaint their models, who hear of a mission and immediately think "I could make a .... "

Yes! I've also felt that itch. Unfortunately, I'm not enough of a modeler with too much time on my hands.

Sure you exorcize you love for the Klingons or the Federation and build fleets that fit with the world you are trying to play in, but you are handicapping yourself if you do.

I guess that's one way to put it. I didn't realize it was so harsh.

Now, to answer your second question:

They tried, but realized that their polling-base was mostly Spikes. The guys who care most about the metagame are going to be the ones reading the Battle Reports and attending Tournaments. They also tend to read the forums a lot, but not necessarily comment.

Johnnies are going to be posting the most fleet-builds, as spotting the combos and showing them off is a huge part of the fun of the game for us. We're as interested as the Spikes are in pre-release info, but we're looking at different criteria : "What can I do with this?", as opposed to "What is this good against?"

Timmies ... don't get into the online presence much, but when they do, it's usually in defense of one of their favorites. See any "TIE Advanced deserves more play" posts recently?

Yes, it would be a VERY difficult thing to poll, and if Timmies and Vorthoses are not drawn to forums as much as the others are, they would be underrepresented in any forum-drawn sample.

By the way, the admin at the Rancor Pit, a forum devoted to the old D6 RPG by West End Games, just opened up a board for X-Wing Miniatures players. It's not seen any real traffic yet, but if you're more of a Vorthos kind of person, it might be a place to discuss this sort of thing with like-minded people. I've got the same name over there are I have over here.

I'd love to see a scenario book packed with missions, plus some 'advanced' rules which give 'heroes' an edge so that they aren't vaporised along with everyone else 'Luck points' or some such.

Ok, you're right about strategy often making the tactical game less fun. It's definitely a challenge when developing campaigns.

I think, because of that, individual matches should still be points balanced, though there may be map elements that have a points value for one side or the other.

The strategy, then, may be about what to deploy in what match. Map campaign, each team (rebels vs imps) gets 1000 points, treated as a single fleet (in regards to unique cards, excepting squad leader). Then, in deploying to the campaign map, the fleet must be divided amongst the players on a team, though trading is fine when fleets are in the same zone. Now, when you meet an enemy fleet, you play the mission for that zone, including points limits, but the squad for the match must be built from what is available in your fleet. Ships that survive or flee a match rejoin their fleet and repair/rearm. If a fleet is reduced below the points requirements for a zone, it cannot invade that zone until it reinforces from another fleet. In this way, it may be worth it to lose a battle or zone in order to finally kill Soontir, so that next time your opponent no longer has him available. It may be worth fleeing to preserve your force and attack a different zone. Provide zones with some sort of benefit, or make a map victory condition. Win through map condition or through attrition (event total fleet strength below 100 points)

Make some zone missions clearly favor certain ship types, so asset denial or lures become a thing. This isn't strictly narrative, just another layer of game, but it does provide stakes, ability to design more mission based play, and possibly emergent narrative. (Aw man, i can't believe Han died in the second battle for Bespin, but he managed to blow up the Imps Tibanna reserves, making their zone worthless)