Hi all, I was browsing Mission Control to find some fun scenarios, and I've noticed a lot of those missions require specific squads. I was looking for something a bit more free-form, where certain objectives need to be met, but where the players have more freedom to choose what squads they'll run based on a point maximum.

For example: a mission where the Rebels have to rescue someone, but the only squad requirement is that they field a 75 point list with one empty crew slot, and the imperials have 125 to spend... As opposed to "Rebels fly 3 Y-wings and a HWK, Imperials have 6 Interceptors"

Do you know of anywhere I can find missions like that?

Thank you!

Totally agree! I have asked for FFG to create a filter to track just those missions. When you can build your own squad. I don't want to play someone else's ships or list.

But I also don't want to look through 500 missions to identify those missions. So until they create that filter for Mission Control. I cannot use it.

Here are some missions I created.

https://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/89973/my-stores-star-wars-x-wing-campaign

We use them as campaign for the store, but also as one offs for fun.

Exactly! I want to be allowed to assemble my own task force for the mission at hand, rather than just be handed a team.

When I brought this up before. I wish you guys were here to back me. Because almost no one did.

As a general rule, I leave squad building to the players in my scenarios; only in a few circumstances do I lay down requirements (when necessary for the mission).

You can find all of my missions by just running a search with my name as the author. I've got more complex, epic scale missions like Raid on Fondor and Gamma Base, and also 100-point level missions like Satellite Control and Recon Run

Totally agree! I have asked for FFG to create a filter to track just those missions. When you can build your own squad. I don't want to play someone else's ships or list.

But I also don't want to look through 500 missions to identify those missions. So until they create that filter for Mission Control. I cannot use it.

Here are some missions I created.

https://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/89973/my-stores-star-wars-x-wing-campaign

We use them as campaign for the store, but also as one offs for fun.

Totally agree about the poor search-ability of Mission Control. It's really stifling when trying to find anything in particular. I'll take a look at your campaign, also.

Thanks,

Actually it's my stores campaign. We have 3 groups playing it now! It's fun. We use the Automated online tool for moving enemy ships, but we also split up and allow one side to control their rebels and the other to control empire. Then play the same mission, but switch players to each side. That way all players get experience for the games.

Thanks for the help!

As a general rule, I leave squad building to the players in my scenarios; only in a few circumstances do I lay down requirements (when necessary for the mission).

You can find all of my missions by just running a search with my name as the author. I've got more complex, epic scale missions like Raid on Fondor and Gamma Base, and also 100-point level missions like Satellite Control and Recon Run

I love the rules for those two missions but Fondor requires 4 CR90s and two GR75s and Gamma needs three Core Sets.

As a general rule, I leave squad building to the players in my scenarios; only in a few circumstances do I lay down requirements (when necessary for the mission).

You can find all of my missions by just running a search with my name as the author. I've got more complex, epic scale missions like Raid on Fondor and Gamma Base, and also 100-point level missions like Satellite Control and Recon Run

I love the rules for those two missions but Fondor requires 4 CR90s and two GR75s and Gamma needs three Core Sets.

True; you need a lot of asteroids for Gamma Base, but I think a lot of players get two core sets anyway, so I don't think that's a huge hurdle there. You could also throw in debris fields, etc if you need to fill in a little more space. The large container requirement for Raid on Fondor is maybe something I should change, but you can always just swap out the big containers for little ones and just give them the same stats. It changes things a little bit, but won't screw things up, I think.

Ive been fooling about with missions where you choose random ships to your points value. Each player shuffles all their pilot cards, of whichever faction they are playing, together and randomly draws one card at a time. Players do not reveal cards, but must show how many cards they have drawn. You can choose to stick or draw. If you stick, whatever points remain from your build total are left for upgrades. If you go bust (over your points limit) you discard the ships you have in your hand and redraw from the beginning. Each player gets one mulligan (or none if you want to make things harder). You can choose upgrades normally to give you some freedom of build and to take advantage of strengths.

It creates interesting squad combos and forces you to consider alternate builds. Its a complete surprise to discover what you will be facing.

You could give it backstory by saying your ships were scattered in hyperspace on-route to an objective. You are forced to cobble together a force from whatever arrived and attempt the objective.

just use the mission but delete the part about squad builds and make your own. It is not an exact science, just people sharing ideas. Feel free to use them and modify as you see fit.

Ive been fooling about with missions where you choose random ships to your points value. Each player shuffles all their pilot cards, of whichever faction they are playing, together and randomly draws one card at a time. Players do not reveal cards, but must show how many cards they have drawn. You can choose to stick or draw. If you stick, whatever points remain from your build total are left for upgrades. If you go bust (over your points limit) you discard the ships you have in your hand and redraw from the beginning. Each player gets one mulligan (or none if you want to make things harder). You can choose upgrades normally to give you some freedom of build and to take advantage of strengths.

It creates interesting squad combos and forces you to consider alternate builds. Its a complete surprise to discover what you will be facing.

You could give it backstory by saying your ships were scattered in hyperspace on-route to an objective. You are forced to cobble together a force from whatever arrived and attempt the objective.

Sounds nice for a fun casual game! I pity the guy who pulls Fel's Wrath or Arvel Crynd... I would draw myself right over the points limit on purpose.

I did pull one list with Fels Wrath, Fel, a Gamma and a couple of assorted TIE fighters. Wouldn't have been the worst squad build ever.

It's just a fun way of making you use different stuff which perhaps you wouldn't choose otherwise. Like you said, who uses Fels Wrath normally?

As a general rule, I leave squad building to the players in my scenarios; only in a few circumstances do I lay down requirements (when necessary for the mission).

You can find all of my missions by just running a search with my name as the author. I've got more complex, epic scale missions like Raid on Fondor and Gamma Base, and also 100-point level missions like Satellite Control and Recon Run

I love the rules for those two missions but Fondor requires 4 CR90s and two GR75s and Gamma needs three Core Sets.

True; you need a lot of asteroids for Gamma Base, but I think a lot of players get two core sets anyway, so I don't think that's a huge hurdle there. You could also throw in debris fields, etc if you need to fill in a little more space. The large container requirement for Raid on Fondor is maybe something I should change, but you can always just swap out the big containers for little ones and just give them the same stats. It changes things a little bit, but won't screw things up, I think.

Two cores gives you twelve (which is what the map example shows) but the rules say 16. Two cores is fairly likely and is pretty much needed for Epic. Three cores is somewhat less likely.

Raid on Fondor also uses eight GR-75 mine tokens where the Transport comes with six.

They're great missions, I just think they'd benefit from using tokens people are likely to have and ideally ones from the expansions you need anyway.

Yeah; it's a good point. Raid on Fondor is relatively old and I wasn't taking availability of tokens into account at all when I wrote it. I do keep that more in mind nowadays, and it would probably be good to go back and rework older scenarios to be more token friendly.

I do think Gamma Base is fine; two players serious enough to want to play that scenario are more likely than not to have 3+ core sets between them. RoF probably needs work.

Instead of drawing cards, why don't you use one of the online list builders that has RANDOM SQUADS in it? You can build your collection up in the web app with all that you own. You set the points and hit BUILD RANDOM SQUAD. It gives you a truly random squad based on what you own. It looks like a lot of fun to try to fight each other that way.

Also, my Erasmus Campaign uses almost all generics, but doesn't limit you in which ships you can take.

Meh. Partly because I often play outside of useable Internet coverage on my phone, partly because I don't tend to use online builders or apps much beyond Geordan's (best one I think) - I prefer looking at the cards, partly because I like the feel of two players having a poker-esque draw off at the start. It ups the suspense and adds an element of bluff, making it more fun. Plus random squad builders often add pretty random, non-useful upgrades. This way you get to customise your upgrades at least. To take advantage of whatever fate draws for you.

Yeah; it's a good point. Raid on Fondor is relatively old and I wasn't taking availability of tokens into account at all when I wrote it. I do keep that more in mind nowadays, and it would probably be good to go back and rework older scenarios to be more token friendly.

I do think Gamma Base is fine; two players serious enough to want to play that scenario are more likely than not to have 3+ core sets between them. RoF probably needs work.

Gamma Base does still have that contradiction between the map and rules: 16 (2.66 core) versus 12. (2 core)

Yeah; it's a good point. Raid on Fondor is relatively old and I wasn't taking availability of tokens into account at all when I wrote it. I do keep that more in mind nowadays, and it would probably be good to go back and rework older scenarios to be more token friendly.

I do think Gamma Base is fine; two players serious enough to want to play that scenario are more likely than not to have 3+ core sets between them. RoF probably needs work.

Gamma Base does still have that contradiction between the map and rules: 16 (2.66 core) versus 12. (2 core)

Oops-my-daisies! I'd better fix that map.

So it is 16 then?

16 is the correct number of asteroids for the current version. The text and map should agree now, also.

[i also just spent a bunch of time working around a bug on Mission Control that was keeping a bunch of rules text from appearing on the preview. I think I figured it out now, but **** that was annoying.]