So yeah, this is more about stringing together narrative campaigns.

How balanced would you say the existing missions are (not mission control) on a mission by mission basis?

The FFG ones that come in the booklets are good. The ones that I've done are balanced.

As for Mission Control.....there is no play testing or quality control there. Just look at what people LIKE them.

I've done a 4 game narrative campaign that I put in Mission Control. Look for my handle or the "Erasumus Campaign". The one thing that would probably make one benefit better would be allowing the X1 title for Maarek Steele automatically. I've had a good amount of feedback for them and tried to incorporate my changes. I think it's a good setup.

Very good question! I just opened my Falcon today and was pleasantly surprised to see another mission. My small group really enjoys them and have found them reasonably balanced.

Haven't played enough to be certain but it seems like missions slightly favor the ship that they accompany.

Haven't played enough to be certain but it seems like missions slightly favor the ship that they accompany.

Yeah I was afraid of that.

Basically I'm doing a roster based narrative campaign.

Completing objectives needs to give a bonus, but I am really wary of SRS. (suicide run syndrome).

What do you guys think 10? 20? 30 points for winning?

I'd make it 0/3/5 for lose/partial win/ win.

Oh, I also did some missions that were very generic. I called them OBG for "Objective Based Gaming". They were designed for a discussion on general missions and including them in tournaments. Trying to be balanced and fair, but knowing that you would have to take the same list to play in several different scenarios. So, not any tournament list would do well in it, but a well balanced list would have a shot at winning. Designed to be fair and balanced and avoid SRS.

035 is good.

with 2/200 point rosters (2 rebel or scum players, 2 imp). I am kind of worried that sides will get too much attrition that 3/5 points back won't help too much.

035 is good.

with 2/200 point rosters (2 rebel or scum players, 2 imp). I am kind of worried that sides will get too much attrition that 3/5 points back won't help too much.

Wait....not sure what you mean. Are you asking about victory points? Or about points for reinforcements?

If it's VP, then 0/3/5 is good and give points for a Partial Lose at 2. So, each match is worth 5 pts and you divvy up who gets the points. Partial win means you get more (3) while partial lose means you only get 2. That way, partial lose still gives you points. That way you don't get shut out.

Honestly it's kinda both. You know what. Let's ignore reinforcement points.

Overall victory points is a good point, but what are victory points if your forces are battered beyond the point of combat effectiveness?

Would having a force under... say 66 points out of your 200 point roster commit to an overall -5 victory points at end of campaign? or if before end of campaign an auto forfeiture?

I would like to see missions used in competitive play similar to how IA is set up. Not exclusively of course, dogfights are great competitively, but I would love to see a tourney that uses 5-6 different missions. FFG has stated that the game could evolve to enable competitive missions etc, if the community wants it. It's just that dogfighting took off first. I may put together a mission tourney in the near future that uses preset or random 100 point missions, with the scenarios announced up front.

Of course, I would rewrite the wording of the missions so that mirror matches work. Standard initiative would determine who plays which side. Not sure if I would let the initiative player decide or say that the player with initiative is also the side with initiative in the book. I would clearly avoid any missions that require other than 100 points per side and missions that are clearly one sided like the shuttle mission, where the defending player just bumps the shuttle until time expires and wins by default.

Honestly it's kinda both. You know what. Let's ignore reinforcement points.

Overall victory points is a good point, but what are victory points if your forces are battered beyond the point of combat effectiveness?

Would having a force under... say 66 points out of your 200 point roster commit to an overall -5 victory points at end of campaign? or if before end of campaign an auto forfeiture?

Look at my OBG missions. Part of the victory points you get are based on ships destroyed. So, for "destroy the objective", you lose points for ships that die. It's quite possible to destroy the objective, but still only get a Partial Win due to losing too many ships. It's even possible to destroy the objective and lose! Of course, depends on the number of ships you have.

I'd rather it not be arbitary though.

Overall VP vs combat effectiveness seems to be where I want to go.

If that's the case, then you would have to do it via %'s, which is just awkward. 1 pt per 10% of enemy list destroyed? Turn that into per 10 pts destroyed. That makes me feel like it would just encourage big ships. Or maybe you can even include damaged ships that way. He zips in and his Fat Han loses half hull points, then that's half of what that ship is worth. So....Fat Han worth 60 pts loses half his hull then that's 3pts for the Defender's total in the scenario.

I do mean VP totals to see who won and by how much. Not how much the winner gets.

Yeah.. I am thinking as you said 5VP win, 3 VP partial, 2 VP draw.

-5 VP if their 200 point squadron is reduced to 50 points or less.

6 missions total, so probably 3 per player on team.

also. Rosters.

200 points + 15 points of filler where required.(spent to fit, and once it's spent it's spent).

I think you should still give some points to the loser in a Partial Win. That way they aren't just behind in everything.

Possibly even just 1 pt.

So yeah, this is more about stringing together narrative campaigns.

How balanced would you say the existing missions are (not mission control) on a mission by mission basis?

Our group made sure to play them all before we moved to skirmish play and found them all to be pretty balanced.

Shout out to the later missions (Rebel Aces, Decimator, YT-2400) for releasing missions with specific squad lists because it saved our group plenty of time setting up!

The only mission that was a blowout was the cutting the cord mission and that was because the Imperial player wanted to use the phantom as the prototype.

Phantom’s with extra attack, agility and hull isn’t very fun to fly up against

Eh I actively want to avoid specific squad set ups, as we kind of have our own squadrons as we imagine them.

Example. My friend has eclipse squadron, which is just about entirely interceptors. I have Black Omega, which is Defender/Advanced.

I just ran a tournament using four scenarios. It's totally feasible.

My approach was to create optional objectives or conditions that provided up to 30 bonus kill points, so the main objective was still to wipe out your opponent's squad.

It was only an 8-player tournament, and I was concerned that everyone would ignore the optional objectives, but it turned out that some players did and some didn't, and their preferences varied from one round to the next.

I wouldn't run scenario tournaments all the time, but X-Wing can totally handle scenarios in competitive play. I hope FFG gets more creative about that sort of thing.

The only way I have thought of to make missions fair in a competitive setting is to have each player run both sides of the mission. Collect points based on ships destroyed and mission objectives. Most points moves on after 2 rounds.

example: mission is to destroy 5 satellite tokens. attacker gets 3 point for each token destroyed. Defender gets 2 pts for each token remaining. Each player gets 1 point for each 10pts of enemy ships destroyed more than he lost.

It does not matter if the mission is balanced, because you have to play both sides. It matters how you do in relation to the other players with the same advantages/disadvantages.

That's a great idea. I'll jumble up attack and defense.

Importantly in this campaign it is scum vs imperial.

If you want to keep the flavor of scum vs. empire. You could just have them play one side, and end up with 2 winners. One for scum and one for empire based on how well they did.

Also note....some missions you could run might have a problem with one side or the other gaining a big advantage by stalling. Consider running missions that have a round limit rather than a time limit.

I don't play to time limits. battles over when it's over.

MVP award is good.

Also for reinforcements each side as 12 of the 12 point ship for that faction, they are used for missions where reinforcements are stated. These are never replaced.

each squadron gets.. 25-50 points i'm not set yet every 2 missions flown. capping at 200+15.

Awards: 2 VP for killing enemy designated squadron leader (designated pre game and set, squadron leader maybe auto gets squad leader EPT?)

2 VP for wiping out 50% of enemy force.

a further 1 VP for defeating 100%