I was thinking of a way for X-Wing to be more inclusive with more players with ships on the table, so I came up with an idea for a 4-Player format...

Format: Skirmish - 4 players, each player is allowed 75 points in a list, 50 points if you want smaller matches. Played on a 3x3 or 4x4 area.

Deployment: Each player is assigned a table edge and all ships that player controls is deployed within range two along the angle of their side of the board. Each player then places 1 asteroid and 1 debris cloud as if they would for 100 point standard matches. Debris clouds should be fun!

Deathmatch: Like your standard 100, last man standing wins

OR

Multiple Objectives that can be played over the course of 1, 2 or 3 rounds:

Merciless: Most points destroyed = 4 victory points

Last Man Standing: Be the last player with ships/a single ship on the field = 3 victory points

Nemesis: Single handedly destroy all of a players ships = 2 victory points

Solidarity: All of your ships survived until the end of the round = 2 victory points

First Blood: Destroy an enemy ship before any one else = 1 victory point

Big Game Hunter: Destroy the most expensive (points-wise) ship on the table. = 1 victory point

Take A Walk: Destroy a ship with a hit from an Ion Cannon or by causing an enemy ship to be destroyed because of the Ion maneuver (off the table, hitting an asteroid) = 1 victory point

*Feel free to add more objectives and VP rewards!

The reason why I came up with this was mainly because I wanted more people to play at once and have them play differently and accordingly to the objectives. I got the idea from playing EDH/Commander, a multiplayer format in Magic: The Gathering.

Skirmish can always be played in as a simple deathmatch, but I think strategies would become pretty interesting in a multiplayer format where politics, trust and tactics all mesh together or break apart for the sole purpose of victory.

What do you guys think?

I think it's funny.

You could add mission cards, such that every player gets one mission to complete to win the game, like in risk. The other players would not no which mission the others have.

For instance: Destroy player 1. If you are player 1, destroy 50 points worth of enemy ships.

Or: Destroy one ship from each opposing player.

That would mean you have to guess what the aim of your opponents are. You could then form alliances to prevent one other player to win, all the while trying to get your mission through.

Or just "destroy the player to your left" if you don't want to mess around with assigning numbers & if statements on objective cards

i like the objectives idea. i'm going to have to try that out sometime

i'm sad i never thought about it when I played 4 player games before

Or just "destroy the player to your left" if you don't want to mess around with assigning numbers & if statements on objective cards

Yes, that's easier. Just don't add "Destroy the player to your left" and "Destroy the player to your right" in the mix, that gets nasty if two players have to kill the same opponent.

The VP idea is what sells me here. There was a thread a while ago about scenarios kinda getting shafted, but these are a great way to implement an objective system that I don't think anyone's really thought of yet.

I think objectives are more realistic in a multiplayer environment because there are so many more factors to take into consideration. Is the guy to my right after me? Is the guy to my left on my "team"? Political and strategic alliances could be made, or there can be a mutual agreement to blow up the Fat Han on the table first, which in turn adds the competitiveness of objectives for First Blood and Big Game Hunter. But can you trust the other player or players enough to turn your firing arc away from them?

Also, with objectives, you can screw other players out of victory points by flying your own ship off the board to deny them Nemesis victory points. And there are other things to consider while list building, such as the person who brings the most expensive ship doesn't qualify for Big Game Hunter, which paints a target on them. And since these games should be played over the course of 1-3 rounds, victory points add up. So the person who slaughtered everyone and won the most points last round might be focused down by the other players to deny him more overall victory points.

There's just a lot of ways to interact with players and the game while there are multiple objectives available. The overall goal is still to destroy the enemy and survive, but with a points system implemented over a series of rounds, it gives the underdogs a chance, it makes players think carefully about copy-pasting a meta list (which they can't, because the point cap is 50-75). Players need to be more creative and may even use their social skills to be victorious.

I'm just trying to combine the elements of several games, such as the VP/objective-based system in Warhammer and the likes of multiplayer interaction that we see in the EDH/Commander format of Magic: The Gathering. It would add a lot of fun to X-Wing for players familiar with those systems and experiences, as well as for the players who aren't familiar with them, by breaking up the monotonous, single objective-based deathmatch we see for standard tournaments.

the destroy everything on your left is fun but makes for odd play. As you are attacking what is NOT attacking you however that beats 3 on one..lol.. what about a simple team format? or to make it interesting randomly assign the team members AFTER they have set up...

the destroy everything on your left is fun but makes for odd play. As you are attacking what is NOT attacking you however that beats 3 on one..lol.. what about a simple team format? or to make it interesting randomly assign the team members AFTER they have set up...

You may not get VP for destroying the Player to Your Right but you sure as hell will want to prevent him from 1) destroying your ships and 2) gaining victory points as, eventually, you will have to face him/her in the endgame (unless #1 above happens).