To break up the 100 point game we came up with some mini games. We have done obstacle races. Where you set up like 12-15 asteroids on a table and you take one auto hit for each on you run into. See who can make it across first, with other penalties for hitting obstacles. See who can make is across first. And capture the flag type of games, where you have to land on the flag to pick it up and fly it back.

I still play 100 point games, but we also play 60 point, 75 point and 150 point games fairly regularly. Surprisingly the smaller point games tend to be the most fun and the most tense.

Yeah i mean 40k Grand tournaments used to at one point have you roll a die to decide which mission you were playing IIRC which was great as it meant you had to take a list capable of taking on multiple tasks rather than one trick ponies.

Im sure they used to do that, its been a very very long time since i ran a GT for GW.

There are no GTs any more, GW ceased all support for them> A good thing, IMO, since it gives TOs free reign to run events how they want, and there's no longer any restrictions about using GW stuff.

Anyway, trying to stay on topic:

A couple of things that were/are common features of wargames scenarios that could be included in space combat:

1 - Escorts. Shuttles and transports need to be proctected. Randomly determine one side to be the escorting player, this player gets three 'free' shuttles with a movement matrix and stats to be determined, and must try to get these shuttles off the opposite board edge.

2 - Reserves. Some of your ships start off the table, and move on from a table edge during the game. During a patrol, some of your ships encounter the enemy and call for back up. Each player starts with half his forces (rounding up) on the table and the rest move on from a random board edge on the start of the second turn.

3 - Capture the flag. Randomly choose one side to be attacking. This side must move to range one of an objective in the centre of the board and then escape. This could be the ship collecting valuable information or a passenger/droid.

4 - Objectives. One side is the defender, and starts with three objectives (which could be satellites, cargo, munitions, etc). The attacker must destroy these three objectives.

5 - Kingslayer. One ship contains a high-value pilot, some experimental tech, or information which is important. Each side nominates one of their ships to be the 'king' and that ship is worth double points.

6 - And of course, the classic straight-up slugfest, a boring old dogfight.

Now, these are all just conjecture, and the point is to encourage players to want to take ships that have strengths that lie outside of the close-range dogfight, so someone who knows X Wing better than me would have to take the time to really get these working. And it might increase the workload for TOs since there exists the potential for two 'rosters' of players, one attacking and one defending, who could then swap from round to round so they play the same scenario from different sides. All just ideas, of course. I'd just really like to see the game move away from the standard 100 point dogfight.

If you're trying to come up with objective-based play that is compatible with the tournament format (inherently balanced, using the same 100 point list for all scenarios being played), let me tell you: it is hard.

Yeah i mean 40k Grand tournaments used to at one point have you roll a die to decide which mission you were playing IIRC which was great as it meant you had to take a list capable of taking on multiple tasks rather than one trick ponies.

Im sure they used to do that, its been a very very long time since i ran a GT for GW.

There are no GTs any more, GW ceased all support for them> A good thing, IMO, since it gives TOs free reign to run events how they want, and there's no longer any restrictions about using GW stuff.

Anyway, trying to stay on topic:

A couple of things that were/are common features of wargames scenarios that could be included in space combat:

1 - Escorts. Shuttles and transports need to be proctected. Randomly determine one side to be the escorting player, this player gets three 'free' shuttles with a movement matrix and stats to be determined, and must try to get these shuttles off the opposite board edge.

2 - Reserves. Some of your ships start off the table, and move on from a table edge during the game. During a patrol, some of your ships encounter the enemy and call for back up. Each player starts with half his forces (rounding up) on the table and the rest move on from a random board edge on the start of the second turn.

3 - Capture the flag. Randomly choose one side to be attacking. This side must move to range one of an objective in the centre of the board and then escape. This could be the ship collecting valuable information or a passenger/droid.

4 - Objectives. One side is the defender, and starts with three objectives (which could be satellites, cargo, munitions, etc). The attacker must destroy these three objectives.

5 - Kingslayer. One ship contains a high-value pilot, some experimental tech, or information which is important. Each side nominates one of their ships to be the 'king' and that ship is worth double points.

6 - And of course, the classic straight-up slugfest, a boring old dogfight.

Now, these are all just conjecture, and the point is to encourage players to want to take ships that have strengths that lie outside of the close-range dogfight, so someone who knows X Wing better than me would have to take the time to really get these working. And it might increase the workload for TOs since there exists the potential for two 'rosters' of players, one attacking and one defending, who could then swap from round to round so they play the same scenario from different sides. All just ideas, of course. I'd just really like to see the game move away from the standard 100 point dogfight.

Me and a few others have published tournament-compatible scenarios on Mission Control, but building fun, balanced, and (ideally) thematic missions that meet the tournament criteria is pretty difficult.

Escort and destroy-the-target missions are pretty much dead on arrival for tournaments. You can balance them easily enough by making the target difficult to kill, but it turns the game into a dice-throwing contest - not very fun for either side, and a waste of time frankly. You need to add layers to make this kind of mission interesting, which makes balance tricky and makes playing the mission too complicated for tournaments.

Reserves are interesting, but could be super-tricky to engineer when you have so many varieties of list out there. 2-ship lists, 3-ship lists, 5-ship lists, etc. Sounds tough to balance.

Kingslayer is something that might work. I probably wasn't the first to have that idea, but I did post a scenario to MC with pretty much that exact idea (also designed for tournaments) last year.

Capture the flag-style games are another possibility. Balance could be tricky with things like phantoms and fat pancakes flying around, but I think balance may be possible.

Area control missions are also possible with a little creativity. Using actions to claim points on the table is a way of implementing a form of zone control. Look up 'satellite control' for my take on that. I think it works fine in terms of balance and fun, but it's on shaky thematic ground.

Anyway, I wouldn't sweat the question of objective-based tournament play too much. It's a hard nut to crack, but I don't think there is a ton of demand for objective-based tournament play at the moment. There is some demand for well-written scenarios that can be played at a high skill level, but it's not necessary that they be playable in a tournament.

I think that FFG inserting objectives into the competitive format could be tricky. I think the best place to try it is in epic games, where objectives could work a little easier, but even then... tricky.

Anyway, I wouldn't sweat the question of objective-based tournament play too much. It's a hard nut to crack, but I don't think there is a ton of demand for objective-based tournament play at the moment. There is some demand for well-written scenarios that can be played at a high skill level, but it's not necessary that they be playable in a tournament.

I think that FFG inserting objectives into the competitive format could be tricky. I think the best place to try it is in epic games, where objectives could work a little easier, but even then... tricky.

A lot of people play with tournaments in mind. They play 100 point matches, with no scenario, on a 3x3 board because it's seen as the 'standard' way to play.

I dearly want to change that, by making the 'standard' of play include a range of scenarios that push the focus for list building beyond the simple question of what is good in a dogfight. For instance, if tournament players had to consider that their fat turret might not start on the table, or that their opponent might be able to score a win without actually killing the turret, then maybe they might change their list building habits.

At the end of the day, you want the scenarios to be balanced only between two identical sides. If both players have the same forces, then the scenario should be balanced. If players choose to build their force a different way, then that changes their ability to handle the scenario and that's part of the point. Not just to give players a different way to play the game, but to encourage variety in list-building by making certain choices more attractive. If players know that their 2 ship build won't handle certain missions very well, then they might be encouraged to try a different list.

Anyway, I wouldn't sweat the question of objective-based tournament play too much. It's a hard nut to crack, but I don't think there is a ton of demand for objective-based tournament play at the moment. There is some demand for well-written scenarios that can be played at a high skill level, but it's not necessary that they be playable in a tournament.

I think that FFG inserting objectives into the competitive format could be tricky. I think the best place to try it is in epic games, where objectives could work a little easier, but even then... tricky.

A lot of people play with tournaments in mind. They play 100 point matches, with no scenario, on a 3x3 board because it's seen as the 'standard' way to play.

I dearly want to change that, by making the 'standard' of play include a range of scenarios that push the focus for list building beyond the simple question of what is good in a dogfight. For instance, if tournament players had to consider that their fat turret might not start on the table, or that their opponent might be able to score a win without actually killing the turret, then maybe they might change their list building habits.

At the end of the day, you want the scenarios to be balanced only between two identical sides. If both players have the same forces, then the scenario should be balanced. If players choose to build their force a different way, then that changes their ability to handle the scenario and that's part of the point. Not just to give players a different way to play the game, but to encourage variety in list-building by making certain choices more attractive. If players know that their 2 ship build won't handle certain missions very well, then they might be encouraged to try a different list.

People do play with tournaments in mind; but I think that part of the wild success that x-wing has seen is due to the simplicity of this basic matchup. It has a nice chess dynamic, offering simple, easy-to-predict board conditions, while offering custom squad building and the resultant metagame.

Balancing scenarios is not as easy as you make it sound. Equal squad points is a good starting point for finding balance, but fails immediately with any sort of asymmetric scenario such as any kill/defend the target missions. You can balance them by making the scenario symmetrical, for example by giving each side one container to protect, but not only does that make no sense thematically, it is probably going to devolve into a simple race to kill each other's targets - essentially a dice-rolling contest, modulated by how well you wrote your list for that scenario. Both of those things are normal, healthy elements of X-wing competition, but you need the additional layer of player skill to make the game interesting. If a scenario does not require interesting, challenging decision making for victory, it is not fun or competitive.

Anyway, I don't think its impossible to create reasonably balanced, competitive, and maybe even thematic tournament-compatible missions. Just really difficult, and not necessarily a good idea to make them the game's standard.

Also, I believe that scenarios should not be used to promote our personal beliefs about the worthiness of specific game elements, such as Fat Han, Super Dash, BBBBZ, Chirpy/Fel, etc. Designing scenarios to promote or punish specific lists is a good way to alienate players, and probably leads to future problems as the metagame shifts. Scenarios should be as metagame-neutral as possible.

Also, I believe that scenarios should not be used to promote our personal beliefs about the worthiness of specific game elements, such as Fat Han, Super Dash, BBBBZ, Chirpy/Fel, etc. Designing scenarios to promote or punish specific lists is a good way to alienate players, and probably leads to future problems as the metagame shifts. Scenarios should be as metagame-neutral as possible.

In my experience, most games build units to represent real-world (or fictional world) counterparts. And part of that is that real world (or fictional world) units have abilities and features that aren't represented on the tabletop. Like, they might be easy to repair or manufacture, or they might be easy to deploy or provide benefits that are otherwise not immediately apparent. This becomes a problem when units that would otherwise form the mainstay of a force are relegated to a back seat because the rules don't allow them to shine like they should.

This problem is exacerbated when games focus on one aspect of their chosen theatre of war. For instance, in 40K and WHFB, if the only goal was destruction of the enemy then many armies would default into a single build that is deemed to be optimal, since there is only one way to win and therefore only one win condition for players to worry about. However, the fact that the 'standard' games for these systems revolved around several different scenarios, and you never know exactly why scenario you're going to play, means players are forced to take more varied and interesting lists and play more dynamically. The same is true of every other game I've played, and while X Wing arguably has more in common with board games than wargames, it still suffers from the same problem. Players only have a single win condition to worry about and so they build the same lists, over and over. Players don't have to consider that part of their squad might start of the table, or that players might be able to win against them without destroying their fat turret, and that makes bothers me. I want players to worry about a range of conditions that they might have to accommodate, and build their lists accordingly because that encourages players to take ships that would otherwise not see play.

I think you could definitely impact the metagame, but would the introduction of objectives change it in a positive way? It depends on the suite of missions you use, and introduces another set of problems into the management of the metagame.

For example, let's say that the mission suite favors builds with higher ship counts (which is a distinct possibility). Then you may see a dominance of swarm builds; is that what we want? More importantly, can you be sure that the suite of missions is not going to favor any specific build to the point that it becomes dominant?

Those are real issues, but let's assume you produce a suite of missions that does not favor any specific build; but how about the individual missions - (setting aside the fact that you do want certain missions to discourage certain builds), can you engineer them not to favor other builds? If not, you could be looking at creating situations where the game is effectively decided before the ships are placed on the table.

For example, let's consider one of your ideas; the 'Kingslayer' mission where one ship on each side is worth double points. A TIE swarm loves this kind of mission; the archetypal Howlrunner+ swarm's most expensive ship is usually just 18 points, and is usually the first target anyway. Compare that to just about any other non-swarm list, and the most expensive ship is usually well over 25 points. Unless the ship in question is incredibly defensive and can survive the full attention of the TIE swarm, the swarm is going to be playing at a considerable advantage in this scenario. (And frankly, the TIE swarm is scary in a lot of scenarios; it has capability for good speed, board coverage, and attacking power. It could easily become dominant in a scenario-based environment)

Assuming that the player fighting the swarm has a list that works fine in other scenarios, they may just be looking at a virtual auto-loss here, but one they can absorb. Is that fun, or fair? It doesn't seem so to me. I understand that X-wing has a metagame that has operated in a rocks-paper-scissor fashion recently (phantom-turret-jouster), and I wasn't a great fan of that dynamic either. I don't like games that are decided before the ships are on the table, and we should be working to eliminate that dynamic, not introduce it. The problem is that objective based play could easily re-create that dynamic.

Like I said before, I don't think it's impossible to have a healthy, competitive environment that uses objectives in games. But it would by no means be easy to engineer, not to mention maintain with new releases. In my opinion that kind of play fits better in a more casual environment.

I will say this I am glad FFG focuses on the 100 point match for all their competitive matches for X-wing when they introduce new ships and upgrades. I really don't care for point creep however I do not deny that one day 150 or 200 points may become the new standard.

Take a look at Armada. Now there is a game already with point creep before the 1st real expansion. At wave 1 standard is set at 300 points. Now the model count for Armada game is higher than a standard game of X-wing however it is tourniquetted to a turn 6 limit and supplemented with objectives which is good because the high amount of damage reduction can ensure that no capital ship is removed. However with Wave 2 coming up it has already been announced that standard may be moved to 400 points a match. IMHO allowing for point creep that soon is a mistake.

So as I say before do not rush the point creep, it will come so enough, with more ships and upgrades and in an effort to break the standing meta of such as 2 ship builds I would not be surprised if within the next 2 years an FAQ comes out that expands competitive play to 150 points.

Take a look at Armada. Now there is a game already with point creep before the 1st real expansion.

I'm not sure that's really a fair comparison. Armada is a brand new game and the 3 levels of points seem more a result of what is actually possible to field. With just the core set you CANT field a 300 point list. With 2 it is possible but the list variety is extremely limited. I suspect they felt they had to provide guidelines for smaller point game because for these first few months it simply wasn't practical to expect people to play the point level they actually intended for the game (which I assume is 400). The same with wave 1, but to a lesser extent. I do believe the armada tournament document states that once wave 2 is out the "standard" size game will be 400 points indefinitely. They just needed a couple of stop gap levels until enough product was released for players to be able to hit those levels.

Of course, all that in itself says something about the game design, but I don't think it is fair to accuse it if point creep because if it.

Take a look at Armada. Now there is a game already with point creep before the 1st real expansion.

I'm not sure that's really a fair comparison. Armada is a brand new game and the 3 levels of points seem more a result of what is actually possible to field. With just the core set you CANT field a 300 point list. With 2 it is possible but the list variety is extremely limited. I suspect they felt they had to provide guidelines for smaller point game because for these first few months it simply wasn't practical to expect people to play the point level they actually intended for the game (which I assume is 400). The same with wave 1, but to a lesser extent. I do believe the armada tournament document states that once wave 2 is out the "standard" size game will be 400 points indefinitely. They just needed a couple of stop gap levels until enough product was released for players to be able to hit those levels.

Of course, all that in itself says something about the game design, but I don't think it is fair to accuse it if point creep because if it.

True Armada might not be a good comparison, However I could always go with Warhammer 40,000. Remember back in the days when 1,000 points were standard. Then it was 1,500 points. Now it is 2,000 points for a non-apocalypse game.

Now I'm a firm believer in play what ever type of game you want. If you want to play 150 points go ahead, or play 200 points. Even go for an epic game if you so desire. The thing I want to add caution against is making 150 the new standard sooner rather than later.

Right now the game and upcoming waves is designed for 100 point game in mind. Evidence is that in the the Raider box comes with 4 copies of the TIE advance and that 2 boxes of Rebel Aces give you enough chardaan refits for 6 A-wings even though they only come 1 A-wing a pack. Moving standard to 150 will make 1 raider expansion of upgrades will no longer be enough to refit a squadron of TIE advances.

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that I've been playing so much Armada lately, but I really think X-Wing would be so much more fun to just line up a TON of ships and do 300, 400, even 500 point battles with the only rule being that you should try to play quickly.

I'm sure once the Raider hits it will allow alot more fun types of epic play, but to me, I'm really gravitating more towards huge battles lately and less towards a small 100 point battles. I mean dang, I've got 2-4 of every ship they've ever released... why not field them ALL!?!?! Anyone else feel similar?

I just started playing with a new group of five players, including myself, and they usually do games with all four (or now five) people. Last time we played, it was 200 points of Scum versus 200 points of Empire, with two players on the Scum (they had never seen my Scum ships) and 3 on the Imperial side. I really enjoy the tight, competitive 100 point deathmatch, but this bigger team game was a blast. It gives you some leeway to use ships that you think are cool but aren't the most competitive (the StarViper saw play, as did Vader, a Scum HWK and a TIE Bomber).

I've been introducing the game to people at work, and am going to start bringing pre built, 60 point squads (I'm the only one who has ships... FOR NOW), no big or named ships/crew

So far, it's made for an interesting change.