Fighting EVERY game in an asteroid field is lame. And worst of all, boring. I dont understand how anyone can have allthe sscope that this game provides, and still be happy replaying the same mission, at the same points size, over and over on and endless loop.

I guess its one of those wargame vs board game things.

I guess you've never played chess? Or is this sarcasm?

Wargame vs board game. Wargamers tend to want a simulationist game, with a range of scenarios and different sized battles, campaigns, narrative driven gaming, etc. Theres a whole galaxy out there to explore, why limit ourselves to tiny little skirmishes that ALWAYS take place in asteroid fields?

In my experience, board gamers are more interested in what's under the hood, in the competitive longevity of a game and how well balanced it is. More interested in the mechanical competition, as opposed to the visuals and the lore. Adding rocks to the 100 point deathmatch makes it more interesting, but IMO replaying the same mission over and over is still dull. This is STAR WARS! There's so much more we could be doing!

Although most of my games usually involve asteroids, I could happily do without them. And it's rare that I'll play a game of 100 points. Normally it's 150-200 which makes for some more interesting combat.

But then I've been wargaming for over 35 years.

Wargame vs board game. Wargamers tend to want a simulationist game, with a range of scenarios and different sized battles, campaigns, narrative driven gaming, etc. Theres a whole galaxy out there to explore, why limit ourselves to tiny little skirmishes that ALWAYS take place in asteroid fields?

In my experience, board gamers are more interested in what's under the hood, in the competitive longevity of a game and how well balanced it is. More interested in the mechanical competition, as opposed to the visuals and the lore. Adding rocks to the 100 point deathmatch makes it more interesting, but IMO replaying the same mission over and over is still dull. This is STAR WARS! There's so much more we could be doing!

I don't understand why you can't like both and have both. I'm also not seeing how asteroids are holding back or negatively impacting 'different sized battles, campaigns, narrative driven gaming, etc'

Wargame vs board game. Wargamers tend to want a simulationist game, with a range of scenarios and different sized battles, campaigns, narrative driven gaming, etc. Theres a whole galaxy out there to explore, why limit ourselves to tiny little skirmishes that ALWAYS take place in asteroid fields?

In my experience, board gamers are more interested in what's under the hood, in the competitive longevity of a game and how well balanced it is. More interested in the mechanical competition, as opposed to the visuals and the lore. Adding rocks to the 100 point deathmatch makes it more interesting, but IMO replaying the same mission over and over is still dull. This is STAR WARS! There's so much more we could be doing!

I don't understand why you can't like both and have both. I'm also not seeing how asteroids are holding back or negatively impacting 'different sized battles, campaigns, narrative driven gaming, etc'

It does not, exactly... but I think you are missing Chucknuckle's point. To ALWAYS do anything (other than have FUN) is not very imaginative and thus limiting. His point speaks more to one's philosophical approach to the game (or any game) than anything specific and is very legitimate, IMO

The better at the game you get, the more important debris is.

If you can't see the benefits of debris you need a bit more practice.

This isn't a knock btw, it's just that this is the kind of thing you appreciate hell of a lot more when you are better at the game.

It adds an entire new dimension to the game in terms of strategy. Tbh, I'm not sure the game would be as great without it.

This is exactly how I felt when I started. I hated the asteroids. I found them extremely frustrating to maneuver around, often because my maneuvers didn't actually get me around the darned things but landed me right on top of them instead. I remember so many games in the beginning where both players would try so hard to avoid asteroids that we couldn't even shoot each other. Took all our wits just not hit the rocks.

It's been a few years now and I've come to appreciate the importance of asteroid placement. I've only done it once so far, but there was one game where I set up the rocks, predicted where my opponent would set up his Agressors, then set my ships to lure one of his Aggressors through the rocks while my 5 ships jousted with the other Aggressor. I lost, but my plan worked and it felt so good!

People aren't lying when they say that the asteroids and other debris tokens add a whole new layer of tactics to the game.

I don't understand why you can't like both and have both. I'm also not seeing how asteroids are holding back or negatively impacting 'different sized battles, campaigns, narrative driven gaming, etc'

The conversation sort of went like this:

Always fighting in an asteroid field is silly.

But without asteroids the game is boring!

The implication there is that the game becomes boring without asteroids because people only play 100 point deathmatches. The asteroids are used to keep that 100/6 format spicy. You absolutely can use asteroids in other types of missions, and I'm not saying the 100/6 format is bad, it's just so vanilla. I can't imagine playing any other game and just using the same scenario and the same points limit over and over. Heck, I can't imagine playing this game like that either!

Does any one else not use debrie and astrodes

i prefer open space to do my battles in

Whatever blows your hair back. I sometimes take them out for Epic play, sometimes I swap them out for the CR-90 and/or Transport as obstacles in 100 point matches. I personally don't play 100 point matches without some type of obstacle(s), but I didn't pay for your minis. If you and your friends prefer the game without them, don't use them.

I actually find that using asteroids or debris can turn into a strategy of terrain placement, and it's this I find slightly annoying. Terrain should be used in conjunction with your chosen strategy, but I don't think it should be placed with that strategy in mind. But that's the wargamer in me.

Long ago when I used to play World War II micro, in the rules there was a system for placing the terrain on the table where each player had 5-6 choices and placed it down one at a time. One of the choices was a coastline. We were normally playing on a 8' x 4' table and most games would go across the table as opposed to down the length. However, if one player decided to take a coastline and placed it on the long table edge, no player could enter the table from that edge unless they had amphibious vehicles. So you were forced to play down the length of the table. Now with the victory conditions depending on how far up the table you managed to advance, the game was won by the fastest army up the table, not the most offensive or aggressive army that inflicted the most casualties. We had one guy that loved taking lots of jeeps and would just rip up the table at full speed, while his opponent with tanks and half tracks crawled on from the other end. Many a game ended when the time limit was reached and there hadn't been a shot fired.

It didn't seem to matter to the rules author when it was brought up that his terrain choice system was flawed. You would get Germans fighting Soviets down a coastline, Americans fighting Germans down a coastline, British fighting Germans down a coastline. Suddenly every land battle in World War II was by the beach. Seemed unrealistic to me in a game that was supposedly striving for realism.

Anyway, back to X-wing... I find it more than a little odd that the devs here have dictated (at tournament level) that every dogfight takes place in an asteroid field. It may have sounded like a good idea originally, but I think it should be optional or at least a random chance of asteroids or no asteroids. I could try and claim "realism" in that there's not that many asteroids floating around in space, but then some wag will point out that it's all just fantasy science fiction anyway so there is no "realism" to worry about.

Like I said, I play with them and I can competently fly around them, but I could just as easily do without them. I prefer open space.

It didn't seem to matter to the rules author when it was brought up that his terrain choice system was flawed. You would get Germans fighting Soviets down a coastline, Americans fighting Germans down a coastline, British fighting Germans down a coastline. Suddenly every land battle in World War II was by the beach. Seemed unrealistic to me in a game that was supposedly striving for realism.

I'd argue that the fault was in the application of the game rule rather than the rules themselves. If your scenario doesn't make sense, don't blame the rules author. Likewise, if the game rules don't make sense, don't slavishly subject yourself to their tyranny. In short, do what makes sense, is fun and makes for a better game.

... Which is basically, what you were saying.

I don't understand why you can't like both and have both. I'm also not seeing how asteroids are holding back or negatively impacting 'different sized battles, campaigns, narrative driven gaming, etc'

The conversation sort of went like this:

Always fighting in an asteroid field is silly.

But without asteroids the game is boring!

The implication there is that the game becomes boring without asteroids because people only play 100 point deathmatches. The asteroids are used to keep that 100/6 format spicy. You absolutely can use asteroids in other types of missions, and I'm not saying the 100/6 format is bad, it's just so vanilla. I can't imagine playing any other game and just using the same scenario and the same points limit over and over. Heck, I can't imagine playing this game like that either!

Alright I see what track your on. I agree that just playing the 100/6 format all the time and nothing else can get dry. But, I don't know anyone who just plays the standard 100 pt game all the time (most of the time perhaps, but not all). Its the default game mode, so its going to see more play time than anything else, and I honestly don't find it boring, but that doesn't mean its all I want to play. I love the fact that I can go to the LGS and play competitively, or hook up with a friend and practice new lists (for tourneys), or just not care and make up some **** and have some fun. There's all kinds of formats that work with this game no matter what you're looking for (campaigns, epic, mish-mash with other star wars games like RPGs, LCGs, and even other minis games).

The coolest game I've ever played was when some buddies and I decided to spend a couple weekends re-enacting the battle of endor. We had a mini-RPG to sneak onto the moon, a skirmish miniatures game to disable the shield generator and then an epic x-wing space battle to destroy the deathstar (Imperials won, btw---the rebels just couldn't bring down the death star...). In that game we didn't use obstacles because it didn't make sense.

However, campaigns of that sort take time and effort to set up and even more time to play out----they're great for once in a while, but let's face it, the standard 100 pt format has the virtue of being fast, easy and you can play it with anybody familiar with the game, so its great for 'pick-up' games. While I can see other types of games doing without obstacles, I would not be interested in playing the 100 pt standard game without them not only because it makes that particular format less interesting, but because it also gives unfair advantage to certain types of lists (which can lead to un-fun).

I avoid using them whenever I can get my opponent to agree with it. Since there's none in TIE Fighter.

It didn't seem to matter to the rules author when it was brought up that his terrain choice system was flawed. You would get Germans fighting Soviets down a coastline, Americans fighting Germans down a coastline, British fighting Germans down a coastline. Suddenly every land battle in World War II was by the beach. Seemed unrealistic to me in a game that was supposedly striving for realism.

I'd argue that the fault was in the application of the game rule rather than the rules themselves. If your scenario doesn't make sense, don't blame the rules author. Likewise, if the game rules don't make sense, don't slavishly subject yourself to their tyranny. In short, do what makes sense, is fun and makes for a better game.

... Which is basically, what you were saying.

The fault was in the application of the rule and loop hole that it had created, which was exploited by the 'win-at-all-costs' type of players. The ruleset was designed around competition games playing either a 'meeting engagement' where both sides had an equal number of points, or an 'attack/defence' game where the points were 3:1 in favour of the attacker. There were no scenarios. It was precisely this ridiculous loophole that made me give up on it, and start playing Modern micro instead.

The problem was that 25-30 years ago, this ruleset was the only accepted rules by many competition organisers as the 'standard set', so everyone had to use them. The previous edition was far superior, and the alternatives were just lame. I was gutted when the same author brought out a Modern set that was basically a re-write of his World War II set. Which again became the national standard at competitions. A lot of gamers didn't like the rules, and it didn't take too many years before World War II micro and Modern micro were no longer played at gaming conventions. When you host a national competition and you can't get 6 players, then something is wrong.

Thankfully I found another set for Modern and the 1,300 odd models I've still got are still getting some combat.

I avoid using them whenever I can get my opponent to agree with it. Since there's none in TIE Fighter.

Nothing is stopping you from modifying the base game, in this regard Xwing players seem to be very reserved. In addition to modifying the amount/what obstacles you use I highly recommend that you make 3D obstacles (paint them too!) and place them on top of the obstacle chits. It will make you feel much more wary of how scary an obstacle would actually be and it will change the gameplay. Nothing says don't tread on me like a large rock looming into your viewport*.

*This does not apply if you are Darth Vader

We mix it up a lot.

Some times we use asteroids, sometimes debris fields , sometimes a mix, sometimes nothing , just open space.

A fun variant suggested that we use is to put a debris field down each time a ship gets destroyed but only for one turn for certain then roll a red die, on a hit or crit it stays, if its blank or focus it disperses. That can really screw people up when they are tailgating a ship, blow it to bits and then have to fly through the debris.

One of my favourites is to use a huge ship instead of asteroids, usually pretty centrally as a 'block' in the middle of the table, not only does it change play to a degree (but less so than 6 rocks) but it gives a cool narrative purpose to the game... for example the rebels are trying to protect a disabled transport from an imperial attack as it desperately tries to fire up its systems

Of course the game is still in reality a 100 point deathmatch but the *idea* that there is a *reason* for a battle gives it that little bit more depth.

I have...zero memory of that...

I have to say, while it appears to clearly have happened i dont recall asteroid fields in any of the xwing/tie fighter games of the time either.

I have to say, while it appears to clearly have happened i dont recall asteroid fields in any of the xwing/tie fighter games of the time either.

There were lots of asteroid battles, people!

Cannot you remember the missions in the first X-Wing game where you needed to protect a rendezvous in the Cron Drift of ships carrying the Death Star plans to Princess Leia?

Or Missions about recovering weapon supplies from asteroid fields in TIE-Fighter and X-Wing versus TIE-Fighter?

Like i say, it clearly happened, they just did not leave a lasting impression on me. I seem to just remember the actual dogfighting.

I *totally* forgot there were asteroids which is odd because i've recently replayed TIE FIGHTER after buying it from GoG.