We have a lot of narrative / objective based play.

We like to give every game a backstory, even if its a standard 100 point game. For example if one of us has 'rebel captive' on a firespray the mission is that a group of rebels are trying to stop a bounty hunter and escort from getting a spy to a detenton centre, destorying the firespray counts as 'disabling' it so a shuttle can jump in and board it.

Its sitll a 100 point game but it just feels a lot more 'star wars' that a 6 rock 100 point death match to us.

On the other side of the coin we do more in depth scenarios. a recent one was the empire had put 'gravity well generators' along a convoy route which dragged ships out of hypespace (we used the card sattlite markers, four of them with 2 HP each and 0AG spread out by the imperial player). each generator still in play slowed down the build up to hyperspace (using the card from the huge ships scenarios).

The rebels had 150 points of huge and large ships (only transports and freighters) the imperials had three phantoms as a 'wolf pack' waiting for the ships to drop out of HS. Then on later turns there was a chance of waves of academy pilots coming in, responding to the phantoms 'we've got them' radio call.

The 'wolf pack' scenario took a while to play but was really good fun and very close.

Another very simple 'scenario' to add depth to a stock game was an 'end of the empire' setting in which ship choice was restircted to 'late war' ships. So for the rebels it was A wings, B wings and E wings, for the Imperials, defenders and interceptors etc

I think narrative play is so much more fun, it just requires a little more effort to set up

I have avoided playing Fat Falcon builds like the plague, but if an objective-based Capture and Hold style game was possible, it's all I'd play. I wouldn't concern myself with fast ships to dash in and grab objectives early. I'd build a hyperdurable list that can sit on a single point and hold it near indefinitely. The Falcon's high durability and its ability to perform 1-turn maneuvers means that it could basically sit within range of the objective and fly-swat any fast, fragile ships that fly in to fight it.

Obviously this approach has its weaknesses, IE Swarms, Autothrusters, etc, but in a Capture and Hold gametype I feel like you could get ahead easily because the Falcon and even the Decimator (even though it lacks the 1-turn) can take quite a hammering and limp away at full combat potential.

I've got a few ideas about what kind of objectives could be introduced. Many favor a large number of small ships rather than one big one, but I wouldn't get caught up too much in the current meta while thinking about objective-based play. The metagame will change, as it always has. Objective-based play can exacerbate or ameliorate the rough edges of the metagame, depending on what the objectives are. It's hard to say with absolute certainty exactly how things would play out, but I am confident that a variety of missions could be introduced that promote a variety of lists, rather than reinforce the dominance of one or two list archetypes.

One such objective would be something like the rule I based my 'Vendetta' scenario on in Mission Control. Essentially, the highest PS pilot on each team is worth double the points for MOV. This highly discourages players to spend a lot of their points in one ship, as they often do in the current meta. (This is a little amusing to me since I wrote that mission before the current super-dash v. phantom meta emerged, and maybe before Fat Han was a really big thing).

Another cheap small ship - favorable mission might be one where the objective is to control several satellites spread across the board, which can be captured and re-captured via an action from a nearby ship. I'm cooking up a tournament-compatible scenario involving just this mechanic right now.

I really think the best way to implement objective-based play is in the Epic play format. It really can make use of the extra space of an Epic table, and break the gameplay up into several manageable engagements across the board instead of one big mess.

Don't look to WH40K... (well... for anything... IMO). Don't look to Flames of War... Look to aerial combat games like CheckYour Six or Wings of Glory or Richthofen War or Dauntless. Controlling territory is an in appropriate goal/objective for dogfight games without a very specific scenario based reason and specific mechanics for determining such control.

That said, I think what X-wing needs is more... Reason. More Reasons that the combat is taking place other than the typical no reason at all tournament game. More reason-able objectives. More thought about "Why" things are in the SW universe and how to translate that into a game. A little more thought about this game as a simulation (although a very loose one) of the SW universe and less about XWM as a GAME played with ships from the SW universe. Treat it more as a traditional wargame and less of a competitive boardgame.

Well, that is the way I feel, at any rate... many of you will probably disagree.

Babaganoosh (love the name), keep working on it, I think you are on to something important.

Any insight from those game systems? I've never played a flight-path style game before X-wing and I didn't know they had objectives in other similar games. I'll look into it on my own if you don't know/ can't remember.

One thing I am not clear on is your/our definitions of...

1. Scenarios

2. Missions

3. Objectives

Excellent and erudite post Chris, couldnt agree more.

I come from a 'trad' wargames background.

I played WWII (tacitcal commander, quite complex rules) and napoleonics (to the sound of the guns III, likewise not 'easy') and a lot of avalon hill box games after dabbling with GW first as a kid (WFB 3rd edition and rogue trader).

I like 'beer and pretzels' games but xwing can be so much more. epic games and campaigns would really see more ships really 'come alive'

I agree that generals take what they have in real way (i've been a proffessional soldier but never a general but i understand the concept )

One way you could possibly replicate this would be an option on any form of 'squad builder' in which it can track your collection to be able to give you a 'random force'.

I believe Xwing builder can do this.

That would really be a true test of 'command', both sides having a random force which which to fight.

One thing I am not clear on is your/our definitions of...

1. Scenarios

2. Missions

3. Objectives

Now, I come to XWM from decades as a "traditional" wargamer and that colors all my perceptions and opinions of the game. What does "traditional wargamer" mean? Well, traditional wargames, especially historical wargames, rarely use point systems (well, some have... and the number has definitely grown) and the concept of a "fair fight" based on such points is rather foreign. Nothing in life is "fair"... War is certainly NOT "fair"... if it is, you are doing it wrong! Historical military geniuses (and of course, all of us wargame geniuses) demonstrate superior generalship by minimizing the weaknesses and maximizing the strengths of their force by proper application of the Principles of War. Good Generals look at what they need to do (or not do) and plan/fight accordingly. Also, every battle has a context- rarely do two opposing forces meet to just go at each other until one side is dead (Note: air battles can be an exception to this but they usually serve a greater, strategic, purpose). Battles happen for a reason and victory conditions are usually determined by factors both on and beyond the field of battle. Furthermore, commanders rarely go into battle with the force they want... they go into battle with the force they HAVE. I play XWM as a wargame set in the SW universe, not as a stand alone board/parlour/card game (like Chess, Checkers, Monopoly, Poker, etc...) with no context and no connection to the greater universe.

So, what does that have to do with XWM? Well, for one, I don't give a **** about the meta. The meta is not Star Wars, the meta is XWM (and only at the hyper competitive level). I play XWM because it is a FUN way for me to experience (in wargame form) the Star Wars universe/saga. * I also play tournaments (and have done reasonably well) but that is not what motivates me and feels like a cheap second to playing a real wargame... even XWM* In a nutshell, I treat XWM as a "historical" wargame set in the fictional history of the Star Wars universe. I cannot get away from that, no matter how hard I try, and it affects how I approach list building, scenario/mission design, game play, etc... But that is just me. That is also why I get PO'd when I see all kinds of posts about how to fix Ordnance by making it cheaper/more effective in tournament play (need to make ordnance make sense and be effective against the specific types of target each munition was designed to defeat, they need to be effective in Epic play first and foremost because they will become OP if not) or "my favorite ship does not perform the way I want it to/the way it does in my favorite video game" (who says that the prior treatment of the ship was realistic for the SW universe?) but MOST, the "everything needs to be unique/balanced" arguments (that is not the way the "real" world works, why should a wargame of the SW Galactic Civil War?), in other words, when people see this as nothing more than a GAME.

Ok, off my soapbox now...

I use "mission" and "scenario" pretty interchangeably, and I use "objective" in a very broad sense: pretty much any victory condition. I hope that clear things up a little for you.

I can definitely understand where you're coming from in terms of fairness and historical 'accuracy' for X-wing. Deathmatches in asteroid fields are not 'realistic', on many levels. (Let's not dwell on Vader's suicidal tendencies, for example). And in war, there are few fair fights. But for a tabletop game, I think starting both players off with a reasonably equal opportunity to win is vital to good games. Now, that doesn't always mean equal points for both sides - but that is a very reliable way to introduce fairness. Asymmetric balance is a lot more tricky, but can also be a lot more interesting.

What I personally always try to do is strike a balance between in-universe realism and in-game balance. That way you can play both competitively and thematically. It would be easier to just do one or the other, but it's more satisfying to produce something that feels right in-universe and can be played as aggressively as a competitive tournament game.

Some ideas from an old starship combat game by a now defunct publisher...

Attacker Missions:

1. Command of the Spaceways

Mission: Crush the opposing forces as a prelude for further advances. All enemy ships must be destroyed. If any enemy escapes, you lose.

Points: 500 (or any reasonable number)

2. Invade and Secure

Mission: your squad must include at least one large (or huge) ship and at least one ship with ordnance to be used in an attack on a (off board) target. You win if both ships exit the enemy's base edge with some ordnance and at least 50% hull points remaining.

Points: 450

3. Probing Attack

Mission: You are to test the strength of the enemy defenses and, if a weakness is found, press the attack. If you have more points than the enemy, you win by controlling the map (all enemy destroyed, disabled or escaped). If you have twice the points of your enemy, you only win by destroying/disabling all enemy ships (if even one escapes, you lose). If you have 3/4 (or less) as many points as the enemy, you win by destroying/disabling more enemy ships than you lose.

Points: 300

4. Hit and Run

Mission: Your forces have been task with conducting a diversionary raid to divert enemy attention (and reserves) from the real major offensive elsewhere. If you have equal or fewer points than the enemy, you must destroy at least one enemy ship and then withdraw off any edge. If you have more points than the enemy, you must destroy more ships than you lose and then withdraw off any edge.

Points: 200

5. Propaganda Raid

Mission: Recent enemy operations have been very successful and they have achieved total dominance of this region of space. For diplomatic and propaganda purposes, you must strike a blow at enemy morale, demonstrating that even their best forces are not safe. Regardless of friendly losses, you must destroy the most expensive (base cost plus all upgrades, etc...) ship in the enemy's force. If your point total is less than the enemy's, you win if you inflict at least one point of Critical Hit on the enemy's most expensive ship. If you have more points than the enemy, you win if you destroy the enemy's most expensive ship. You may escape off any map edge.

Points: 150

6. Transit

Mission: Your squad is needed to reinforce friendly forces in a neighboring system. Before conducting the long journey, your ships must refuel. Choose one of the asteroids to be the refueling station. To refuel, each ship must begin a turn within Range 1 of that asteroid. On the turn of refueling, that ship remains stationary (even if it is not normally capable of doing so). On the turn of refueling, the ship skips the Action phase of the turn. Once refueled, your ships may escape off any map edge. If you have points equal to or greater than the enemy, you win if 3/4 of your ships (by point value) escape. If you have fewer points than the enemy, you win if half your ships (by point value) escape. If you have 1/2 or less the points of your opponent, you win if any of your ships escape.

Points: 150

7. Deep Black

Mission: A clandestine intelligence-gathering station has been at work in the enemy system for several months. Your mission is to extract the personnel and intelligence data from the secret base. Select one asteroid to be the secret base. To extract the team, you must must begin a turn within Range 1 of that asteroid. On the turn of extraction, that ship remains stationary (even if it is not normally capable of doing so). On the turn of extraction, the ship skips the Action phase of the turn. Note: the ship extracting the personnel and data must have an empty Crew slot. Once the personnel and data have been recovered, your ships may escape off any map edge. If the ship carrying the personnel and data escapes, you win.

Points:100

Interesting; When you/if you could firm them up and post them to Mission Control that would be awesome.

Personally I way prefer scenario-based games, I'd be well pleased if ffg start legitimising missions because Mission Control is crazy hitandmiss in terms of balance and quality (and spelling).

I don't get the logic that XWM is a purely dogfighting game just because you can't have capture the flag with constantly moving pieces. There's a ton of differing objectives, escort/escape, destroy target, scan the satellite, etc, and some awesome inventive scenarios like Papers Please or Prisoners from Kessel that take advantage of the game mechanic whilst feeling really Star Warsy.

I guess it'd be hard to run such things in official tournies cos its harder to balance than a straight up equal point fight, but it's not impossible and it'd be a cool and thematic way to shake up the meta and the current rockpaperscissors depression that all you competitive guys are complaining about.