One of the big differences between Imperial Assault Skirmish, Armada and X-Wing is Armada and Imperial Assault have objective based gameplay. I've seen people.bring this up as a strength of Armada, and not once has it been described as a negative.

While I'm versed in Imperial Assault, I don't have Armada and won't in the foreseeable future.

So I got to thinking, what is it about Armada and IA that makes them suitable for objectives and X-Wing not? Yes, the first two had objectives planned from the get go but they've all got squad point based "make your team" squad, squadron or fleet design. The designers even said that the original plan was not to leave X-wing as 100pt dogfight: they'd wait for people to tire of it then design something new. The thing is people didn't.

Now, it's possible (YMMV on the probability) FFG may be intending to do this for X-Wing at some point. They may have some big reveal in store for Celebration: we don't know. They may never do it for X-wing. But it occured to me, why can't we?

We've got a whole forum of X-Wing players here and I get the impression at least a few'd be interested in designing, reviewing and playtesting an X-Wing objective deck or system. Coud even end up making a shiny deck of printable objective cards at the end.

So who'd be up for it?

One way to go about it would be to play asymmetric mission style skirmish where the same mission is played twice (switching sides for game two) with both players submitting their lists for both games before game 1 begins.

But agreed: A bit more thematic and varied to have objective based gameplay..

There are objectives that come in the instruction manual, I have played a few and did not like them

I really like this idea, but it will be difficult. A large emphasis in objective-based mini wargames is capture/control. That's not something that's easily done with A) starfighters, and B) units that have to continually move.

Bombing runs, escort missions, and recon missions... these things will work, and there are multiple scenarios for them already, both here and on Mission Control. Maybe we could focus on bringing these types of Missions together here, compiling a list, and collectively tweaking & streamlining them, balancing each against the other as best as possible to create a "mission pack" playable in a semi-competitive environment?

I'd certainly love to see something to break up the 100-point dogfight that forever takes place in an asteroid field.

There are objectives that come in the instruction manual, I have played a few and did not like them

That's one thing that bugs me -- FFG doesn't seem to be very good at writing Missions (to me, at least). It seems they always start off interesting, then fizzle out and turn to some silly dice game, rather than keeping the initial flavor.

There are objectives that come in the instruction manual, I have played a few and did not like them

Those are scenarios. I was thinking more in the vein of IA, where there are other things you can do to score points in addition to blowing up the enemy ships.

What sort of objectives could work? As jme said, capture and control's difficult given how ground isn't something you can hold very well in X-wing.

The classic High Value Target one they have in Armada potentially works, where you pick an enemy ship and it contributes double victory points.

I remember reading somewhere that the game designers never planned for the 100pt slug fest to ever last this long. They figured people would quickly become bored of such. But so far, it is lasting.

While some of the scenarios are quite enjoyable, most of which are not compatible with generic squads.

I REALLY like Armada's system for objectives. For those who don't know, the game starts with 2 objectives from a deck. The player with initiative gets to pick which one is used for the game.

I am about to reveal a very interesting concept about Objectives I came up with for the forum in about a week. Give me a few days to work out the kinks for you guys. I think you'll like it.

I REALLY like Armada's system for objectives. For those who don't know, the game starts with 2 objectives from a deck. The player with initiative gets to pick which one is used for the game.

I was thinking random assignment for X-wing, but Armada's system as I gathered it from the previews is pretty interesting. The initiative player chooses from the opponent's objective deck, right?

One thing I don't like about Armada's is how bizarrely arbitrary some are. There's one which is "fly into the asteroids". Why would an ISD commander do that for the sake of it?

I REALLY like Armada's system for objectives. For those who don't know, the game starts with 2 objectives from a deck. The player with initiative gets to pick which one is used for the game.

I was thinking random assignment for X-wing, but Armada's system as I gathered it from the previews is pretty interesting. The initiative player chooses from the opponent's objective deck, right?

One thing I don't like about Armada's is how bizarrely arbitrary some are. There's one which is "fly into the asteroids". Why would an ISD commander do that for the sake of it?

He was a dribbling idiot?

Capital ships don't like Asteroids.

I know. IA's objectives do make narrative sense, Armada's serve their mechanical function but a couple are a little grating.

What objectives do people reckon would work for X-wing?

Dogfight around the objective to secure the area is the easiest.

Using a YT1300 or shuttle (not the objective deathtrap from the core set) to board or escape board.

Blowing up huge ships!

Turns out there are 2 methods in Armada. I've only done the random method as I only own the starter: shuffle objective deck, draw 2, then pick 1.

The other way for non-starter games is: Each player selects 3 objectives. Each objective must be from a different category (assault, defense, navigation). The player with initiative picks the 1 objective from the opponent's 3. Then the rest of the cards are not used.

I don't like that as much as the random method, aside from some of the navigation objectives. So really, I like the concept of the player with initiative picking. It lets you gamble on tailoring a squad/fleet to a more specialized role in exchange for less points.

The initiative player chooses from the opponent's objective deck, right?

Yes, but it's only 3 cards, which IMO isn't a deck. As part of your list you pick 1 objective of each type and the player with init picks which of the 3 to use.

the types of objectives they have in IA wouldn't work well in X-Wing, because those tend to be things you stand and hold, then defend. Concepts that don't work well in X-Wing. In fact that's something Alex or Frank once said IIRC, that they'd like to do objectives but making ones that fit the game and theme of X-Wing is tricky.

That said the ones they have in Armada could work in X-Wing I think. Maybe not directly but the concepts seem like they could work.

Some examples, based on memory so I could have some details wrong...

One mission involves putting objective tokens on the table, and a ship can pick it up if it starts it's activation with in range 1 of the token. Another has you pick an objective ship and that one ship gets a combat bonus, but counts for double if destroyed. Another allows you to bring in ships and squadrons at some later point in the game as an ambush from hyperspace.

Since Armada and X-Wing involve ships that can't really sit still and defend territory I think many if not most of the Armada objectives could work in X-Wing.

But how do you integrate them into X-Wing at this point? Could be something they add in with an expansion pack, but then I'm not sure how you make them tournament legal.

There is a Hunger Games variant I want to play. Kind of objective based.

One difficulty with objective based play is that there can be a tendency to ignore the dogfighting aspect of the game, which is where the real fun of x wing is. If you make the objective the game deciding factor, players will get tunnel vision and ignore the enemy ships.

That said, I think it is possible to have fun and thematic objective based play. I try to make that happen in almost all of my scenarios on mission control.

I have a few that were designed for tournament play, but most of the time I'm changing the play environment, not the objectives for those missions.

That's why you'd do it the way both Armada and IA do it, where objectives grant points. Blowing up ships also grants points.

Each player selects 3 objectives. Each objective must be from a different category (assault, defense, navigation). The player with initiative picks the 1 objective from the opponent's 3. Then the rest of the cards are not used.

And then both players are playing for the same objective? So the player withOUT initiative is guaranteed that the objective will be one of the 3 he tailored his list to accomplish?

Each player selects 3 objectives. Each objective must be from a different category (assault, defense, navigation). The player with initiative picks the 1 objective from the opponent's 3. Then the rest of the cards are not used.

And then both players are playing for the same objective? So the player withOUT initiative is guaranteed that the objective will be one of the 3 he tailored his list to accomplish?

That's one way to think about it. The other way is that the player picking is going to be able to choose the objective that his list counters the enemy's best in. With three objectives, you could be able to find a reasonable objective.

Also, the armada objectives are sometimes not the same for both players, if I remember right. I forget which one gets the advantage, but the conditions aren't exactly the same. Also, initiative is a really big deal in Armada; more so than in X wing because there is no Pilot skill system to decide who gets the first shot - initiative gives first activation.

I think 100 point deathmatch hasn't gotten boring because in X-Wing, the main "objective" of that game type, which is to stay out of the enemy's front firing arcs while keeping them in your firing arcs, all while being forced to choose from a finite number of maneuvers each turn, is very very deep and leads to a very fun game.

Where deathmatch becomes boring is when you introduce 360 firing arcs like what you have in the YT-1300/VT-49, IA, WH40k, and SW:Armada. Then deathmatch just becomes a dice rolling and target priority game, and that "objective" I mentioned earlier is lost, because your opponent can never escape your attacks and vice versa.

Games like 40k and Armada where you can shoot at anything that's near your ship/unit, no matter how badly you maneuvered it, need objectives to stay interesting, because without objectives maneuvering wouldn't be that important and the game would just be about who can roll dice better. IA needs objectives because otherwise there's nothing stopping you from fortressing all your units into a death trap that your opponent can't enter, which would create a boring stalemate, objectives give you a reason to leave the safety of the deployment zone. X-Wing's use of blind spots prevents this from becoming an issue, at least until the Falcon and Decimator started dominating competitive play thanks to the Phantom, and of course that's when all this talk about objectives started, because deathmatches between standard ships are fun but between turrets they are boring.

Slight modifications of the current 100-point dogfight might work to start:

1. Decapitation. Designate one of your ships as the squad leader (or for those with a sense of humor, "The Snitch"). Killing the squad leader ends the game; victory points are totaled at the point the squad leader is killed.

2. Base defense. Each player marks one of the obstacles he or she places with an objective token; that obstacle is the "base" to be defended. The base has 5 shield and 5 hull. Play continues until one base is destroyed or all of a side's ships are destroyed; the destroyed base is worth 50 points.

3. "Capture the Flag." As base defense; mark one obstacle per player with two tokens. The goal is to be the first player to overfly the obstacle, "picking up" a token ("the flag"), and returning that token to your own base without being destroyed. Game ends when the flag is captured & returned or all on one side are destroyed; the flag is worth 20 points.

I think 100 point deathmatch hasn't gotten boring because in X-Wing, the main "objective" of that game type, which is to stay out of the enemy's front firing arcs while keeping them in your firing arcs, all while being forced to choose from a finite number of maneuvers each turn, is very very deep and leads to a very fun game.

I agree with Tvboy,about why the 100pnt6asteroidDeathMatch has remained popular, though I would add a significant caveat.

I think there are three elements which keeps us loving these game:

• The gameplay itself, which Tvboy covers,
• The community of players we play with, and
• The headcanon (story).

Different people crave these things to different degrees and in different ways. The gameplay itself is (IMO) superb. Nuff said. I also really enjoy my community. Your community may differ, but it's something over which FFG has little control, though the tournament kits help. It's mostly up to us and to the FLGSs to figure out.

Where I think objective-based play comes in, is in that latter category. While I like that FFG has toyed around with it with the missions that they have tried to promote, as well as the objectives as they exist in Armada, I'm not sure that FFG is really good at it. I think they're really at hear a boardgame company and not a roleplaying game manufacturer, even if they've dabbled in RPGs. That said, I'm also of the opinion that people's craving for headcanon or story is very diverse, and it is difficult for FFG to try to capture it or find a happy medium which will keep most people happy.

For myself, I get what I can by writing my blog (see sig, below). That allows me a creative freedom, which I crave, but there's also a part of me which really wants to share the story, which has (thus far) escaped me.

I think 100 point deathmatch hasn't gotten boring because in X-Wing, the main "objective" of that game type, which is to stay out of the enemy's front firing arcs while keeping them in your firing arcs, all while being forced to choose from a finite number of maneuvers each turn, is very very deep and leads to a very fun game.

Where deathmatch becomes boring is when you introduce 360 firing arcs like what you have in the YT-1300/VT-49, IA, WH40k, and SW:Armada. Then deathmatch just becomes a dice rolling and target priority game, and that "objective" I mentioned earlier is lost, because your opponent can never escape your attacks and vice versa.

Games like 40k and Armada where you can shoot at anything that's near your ship/unit, no matter how badly you maneuvered it, need objectives to stay interesting, because without objectives maneuvering wouldn't be that important and the game would just be about who can roll dice better. IA needs objectives because otherwise there's nothing stopping you from fortressing all your units into a death trap that your opponent can't enter, which would create a boring stalemate, objectives give you a reason to leave the safety of the deployment zone. X-Wing's use of blind spots prevents this from becoming an issue, at least until the Falcon and Decimator started dominating competitive play thanks to the Phantom, and of course that's when all this talk about objectives started, because deathmatches between standard ships are fun but between turrets they are boring.

But in Armada, it's not a pure "360* firing arc", because even though the ships can fire in any direction, they can't fire equally in every direction. E.g., the Victory Star Destroyer can throw 6 dice at an enemy ship in its front arc, but only 2 dice from the rear arc. And the VSD only has 1 shield in the rear arc (as opposed to 3 in the front), so there is every reason to keep enemy ships from outflanking you and it definitely keeps things from getting boring.

Where deathmatch becomes boring is when you introduce 360 firing arcs like what you have in the YT-1300/VT-49, IA, WH40k, and SW:Armada. Then deathmatch just becomes a dice rolling and target priority game, and that "objective" I mentioned earlier is lost, because your opponent can never escape your attacks and vice versa.

But in Armada, it's not a pure "360* firing arc", because even though the ships can fire in any direction, they can't fire equally in every direction. E.g., the Victory Star Destroyer can throw 6 dice at an enemy ship in its front arc, but only 2 dice from the rear arc. And the VSD only has 1 shield in the rear arc (as opposed to 3 in the front), so there is every reason to keep enemy ships from outflanking you and it definitely keeps things from getting boring.

I am aware of the difference between the firing arcs in Armada, it was a wise design decision by FFG to keep positioning from being completely irrelevant, but the point is that no matter where the enemy is, if they can shoot at you then you get to roll dice and possibly deal damage to them, that is not the case for most ships in X-Wing where skilled maneuvering can result in one ship shooting at another without that ship being able to shoot back at all. The difference between attacking and not attacking is significantly larger than the difference between 1 and 3 dice, from an emotional perspective, and that's what I'm talking about.

That being said, I think X-Wing definitely has room for objective play as long as it is well designed and works well with the game's unique design, but it doesn't need it as much as other games in which movement isn't nearly as critical without objectives as it is in X-Wing.

Edit: I realize after posting this that there are some versions of ships in Armada that lack the range 1-3 red dice, but from what I understand every ship in that game has a version that has red dice in all of its firing arcs, so if you give up those red dice it's because you purposefully handicapped your ships for a points discount.

I think Scenarios (or Objective Based Gaming) would be a welcome relief to the game. While many people are quite happy with the 100 pt Death Match, the game gets a bit monotonous with the same power lists being played over and over again. What I think Scenarios would bring is a change in what is a “good” list. To start off with, I can think of a few different scenarios templates:

1. Kill specific target on other team: Each side gets to nominate one of their ships. The other player gets bonus points for blowing it up. I would assume you can get points for all ships, but something large for the target ship.
2. Steal tokens off the board: Place odd number of tokens on the board and any ship that ends on top of it or their movement template over it can spend an action to grab it. Your side then needs to get it off the board (or live until the end with it in your possession). Points can be given for just objectives or also include destroyed ships.
3. Defend/Destroy stationary target: One side is defender and one is attacker. They place an odd number of objectives that are the targets (1 or 3 is what I’m thinking). Points are given to one side for blowing up or the other for saving them. Nothing given for destroyed ships.
4. Escort target ship off board: There is something like the Senatorial Shuttle that slowly limps its way across the board. One side needs to blow it up. The other needs to save it. Points given for ships destroyed and for escort ship.
5. Deathmatch: Standard game.

If you don’t know what type of a scenario you are going to get, then you are forced to take different lists than the current tournament standards. Something like a 2 ship build would work very well for some of these scenarios, but terrible at others. There isn’t one template that works for all of them. So, most people are going to build a generalist list…but aren’t required to.

There could be some ships that end up being superior in this type of a format than others. Think of the humble X-wing. One of its strengths over the B-wing is that it’s faster and more maneuverable (for things like 3 banks or turns). The X-wing could become a much more desired ship as it can react to the situation in the scenario much better than the B-wing. If your X-wing is the ship to zip in and steal a token, it might have a better chance than a B-wing of getting off the board. Or…if you have a X-wing defending the middle objective, but be able to peel off and zip over to help the other defenders.

I could even see ordnance being worthwhile. Scenarios 3 and 4 would be ideal for the attacker to have them. If it’s very helpful to have a way to inflict large amounts of damage with one hit, then it will be competitive to do so. Also, bombs can be placed near objectives to help defend them. Control methods become even more important. Ion Cannons and Ion Turrets become even more important. Same for Ion Pulse Missiles and Ion Torpedoes.

The standard Death Match is still out there, though, and keeps all lists honest. You can even increase the chance of that type of scenario happening. Let’s say you roll a die and 5 and 6 are Death Match. Any list you make will have to compete in a standard game, so those rules still apply.

When you have scenarios like this, there is a different level of strategy or tactics required. You might know your list and know that you can’t cover all 3 objectives and just go after 2 of them. Or maybe you look at the enemy list and see that you need to kill specific ships as fast as possible. Or maybe the longer you can hold the enemy off, the better. It might be more important to sacrifice most of your ships to prevent your opponent from succeeding. Suicidal charges are against the grain of current meta, but it could be just the right thing in the future.

Personally, I’d love to see this happen. I’ve played in other game systems where most of my forces are utterly destroyed, but I end up winning as I played to the objectives. That’s much more satisfying to me than just punching in someone’s face. Also, I’ve been able to look at an enemy force and know that I’m going to lose, but I can minimize my loses to a partial lose if I am able to complete objectives. That way, a lose perhaps isn’t a complete lose.

EDIT: One thing that I believe we would see is an increase in generics. It could overall help stop the PS war that is going on. PS will still be vitally important as there are some ships that can really help win the game for you. Other times, it might be better to have several mid level guys as opposed to one high PS guy. There are overall strategies to list building that can overall help you out in a more diverse environment.

I also look at the YT's and see good and bad in this type of game. Few ships are as fast and agile as these. They could zip in, grab tokens, and zip out. They have enough hull that it would be hard to stop them. It could also work against when trying to defend multiple objectives as you have fewer defenders.