From a personal pov I think this might be a good move.
I feel that it would be more tactically challenging to make a good all comers list when you have missions to factor into the equation.
Obviously the missions would need to be generic for all ships but having looked at the Mission Control forum I believe it would be easy to come up with 10 missions to use as a base for tournaments.
What are the thoughts on this?
They would have to be very well balanced for someone like myself to want to play them, without meta gaming them.
That is why I prefer the (now rather dull) standard format.
No. Tournaments should be the game in its purest form, just you and your squad against your opponent and his.
I like this idea, perhaps new deployment rules for different start positions and maybe a deck of objective cards that each player draws a number of cards from and reveals when they complete that objective.
Each objective could be worth bonus victory points, say 1 VP. That would make 5 for a win, 3 for a partial win, 0 for a loss plus up to 3 objective VP's.
If balanced correctly, this adds to the strategy of the game, not takes away from it and makes you need to consider what you are doing and how you fly even more that straight head to head.
Edited by EnglishpeteI wouldn't say it is definitively better or worse, but I do think a mission-based tournament is an interesting idea. A very interesting idea.
Skirmish is, as you say, the purest form of competition. But that doesn't mean that there is no space for different types of competition that are also interesting and balanced.
I've always had fun coming up with scenarios for x-wing and I'm a big fan of the mission control beta. One of my projects at the moment is making a small suite of missions that are suited to tournament play, meeting 4 main criteria:
So far I've got a few ideas that may work: Junkyard, Vendetta, Jump Point, and Fleet Engagement. Vendetta is already up, and the rest should be up on MC pretty quickly because they're also pretty easy to make up in the creator.
Nope in a mission based environment it is to easy for an unforseen exploit to completely hose someone.
Nope in a mission based environment it is to easy for an unforseen exploit to completely hose someone.
I think that depends on the mission. Skirmish is a mission too; the objective is to destroy the enemy ships. Half the tournament-usable ideas I'm working with are more environmental than objective-based changes to the game, and it's a lot harder to exploit the environment.
It also helps a lot if the missions are straightforward and simple. Complex systems with more moving parts are harder to balance and easier to exploit. Keeping things simple is really important for that reason, and also to avoid putting undue strain on players learning these missions on the fly.
Not saying that objective based tournaments would be a bad thing. In many warhammer tournaments there were objective holding.
The problem is in balance in tournament, right now swarm is still very powerful and in take and hold objective it would be even more powerful. Escort missions still favor the attacker over the defender as it is easy to destroy a single ship. So as of now the battle royal is still the most balanced format.
Based on what I've seen in Attack Wing, hell no. A mission based tournament is there to fix deficits in the game, which there are none in X-wing.
Do both skirmish and mission tournaments. Why pick one?
Based on what I've seen in Attack Wing, hell no. A mission based tournament is there to fix deficits in the game, which there are none in X-wing.
Come now. This is a bit hyperbolic, yea? X-Wing is a great game that is expertly balanced, but it has flaws. For one thing, numbers (swarms) generally prevail against elite pilots. Predator and Phantoms have helped this, but it's still usually in effect. Secondly, attack is always more valuable than defense. This neuters some ships (TIE-A, A-Wing). Turrets, while not inherently unbalanced, absolutely crush arc-dodgers. How many Alpha squadron or Prototype Pilots did we see at GenCon? Scenarios could, potentially, reinvigorate some of these less popular ships/pilots.
It's likely that this would just lead to other imbalances, but let's not pretend these real issues aren't here.
Alpha squadron Pilots were actually doing really, really well in Regionals before Wave 4. Just because there was a wide overreaction to Wave 4 (or the Phantom) does not inherently change the squads strength, imo.
I'm sorry, I'm not seeing such an issue with the game balance that scenarios are needed to bring out "lesser" ships. I mean, the A-wing is really about to explode back into relevance.
It is a very different kind of game though, I think it would be unfair to make everyone play missions. A parallel tournament would be better in my view.
What I think needs addressing is the rock-paper-scissors issue, where you can predict the winner of many matches just from the ships involved (and the resultant mass used identical squads). My thought is make every match a pair of matches, you play with your own squad and then swap with your opponent. Or perhaps you should be compelled to bring two squads, which can't contain x number of the same cards, and your opponent chooses which one you fly.
Furball never took off, so I doubt mission based tourneys would. I would imagine a straight 2v2 would be really popular, but I guess not.
This on the other hand means I have to play both sides of the mission. Twice the games in the same tournament sounds like a slog.
Furballs are awesome. What evidence do you have to say they "never took off"? Because I'd love to see some more furball tournaments, personally.
Furballs are awesome. What evidence do you have to say they "never took off"? Because I'd love to see some more furball tournaments, personally.
I second this. Furballs are hugely popular at every one of the 4 major FLGS's in my area.
Alpha squadron Pilots were actually doing really, really well in Regionals before Wave 4. Just because there was a wide overreaction to Wave 4 (or the Phantom) does not inherently change the squads strength, imo.
I'm sorry, I'm not seeing such an issue with the game balance that scenarios are needed to bring out "lesser" ships. I mean, the A-wing is really about to explode back into relevance.
I actually agree with you. Scenarios aren't needed at all. It's not a bad thing to consider though.
Missions can be fun when the balance is correct.
Nope in a mission based environment it is to easy for an unforseen exploit to completely hose someone.
Play test, play test, play test....
I think it would be awesome if FFG put out a set of Tournament missions that any list could play.
I just came up with a mission idea from reading this thread: "The End is Near" = Dogfighting in a nebula. At the end of every round, every ship suffers one damage. Asteroids are used as inert gas pockets and give a safe refuge for a ship to not suffer from the nebula gas.
How quick would that mission run?
I like the current format but I am intrigued about the potential. However, I can see a mission that ends up with some weird ability that really benefits from it and really screws a player.
Edited by BaronFelI just came up with a mission idea from reading this thread: "The End is Near" = Dogfighting in a nebula. At the end of every round, every ship suffers one damage. Asteroids are used as inert gas pockets and give a safe refuge for a ship to not suffer from the nebula gas.
How quick would that mission run?
I like the current format but I am intrigued about the potential. However, I can see a mission that ends up with some weird ability that really benefits from it and really screws a player.
Falcon lists (or other big ships) love that mission, but TIE (and Intercptor) squads are cringing at the thought.I just came up with a mission idea from reading this thread: "The End is Near" = Dogfighting in a nebula. At the end of every round, every ship suffers one damage. Asteroids are used as inert gas pockets and give a safe refuge for a ship to not suffer from the nebula gas.
How quick would that mission run?
I like the current format but I am intrigued about the potential. However, I can see a mission that ends up with some weird ability that really benefits from it and really screws a player.
The 100 pt squad would be built around knowing the mission, unless it was a secret before squads showed up. Then Empire players would have a reason to get upset.
How about doesn't start to affect a ship that still has shields? Maybe that would work. I'll have to playtest it. I took 5 mins and posted it up if anyone else want to give it a whirl.
I second this. Furballs are hugely popular at every one of the 4 major FLGS's in my area.
What are Furballs?
I have mixed feelings about missions in this game:
Pros:
- Change of pace.
- Different kind of playstyles maybe rewarded than the biggest margin of victory makers.
- Shake up the meta.
- Opens up to new possibilities (2 squads per tourney, you choose one in secret before playing depending on the mission, etc).
Cons:
- Requires a lot of playtesting for proper balance.
- Capture objectives and hold them are ussually staples, and yet manage to force listbuilding.
- Some mission games can feel more like a "minigame" itself than a dogfight with an interesting objective.
- Imaginative builds which can be really boring to play against based on holding ground (IE: imagine a mission CTF style, and your opponent playing 4 lambdas looking for the draw at minimum).
I just came up with a mission idea from reading this thread: "The End is Near" = Dogfighting in a nebula. At the end of every round, every ship suffers one damage. Asteroids are used as inert gas pockets and give a safe refuge for a ship to not suffer from the nebula gas.
How quick would that mission run?
I like the current format but I am intrigued about the potential. However, I can see a mission that ends up with some weird ability that really benefits from it and really screws a player.
I will be brutally honest, it is a horrible idea which would limit listbuilding by a lot. Like massively.
I second this. Furballs are hugely popular at every one of the 4 major FLGS's in my area.
What are Furballs?
Furballs are typically 8 players with one ship (normally ~30 points) in one giant dogfight.
I second this. Furballs are hugely popular at every one of the 4 major FLGS's in my area.
What are Furballs?
Team games. Each player gets one 30 point ship and you do multiplayer games like 4v4 matches. Actually we usually play 35 points, opens up some more named pilots.