Just wondering for people that have played both in other games.

Which to you think is better.

Squad requirements: so many of this or that max, so many or this or that min.

Points: Anything up to 100 points.

On one hand with points as we've been playing most everything needs a point adjustment here or there. Too much, too little some by 1/2 a point. You also tend to see limited diversity as everyone tries to mathwing the best squad for tournaments. It does tilt the game more toward deck building but it's nice to know how things compare. It helps putting together a 100 point squad and can even keep a 400 point game some-what competitive.

But, will you actually game more diversity with Squad requirements? People will continue to find what is optimal regardless. You may see more ships used but still see the same squads at tournaments. However squad requirements allows ships to fill niche's better; some things are for getting across the board, some or for long range, some for recon, etc. Now not all ships are required, even bombers, to be competitive compared to a fighter because you would take them for a purpose. More room for casual diversity. Also could this encourage more Epic?

There are advantages and disadvantages to both sides, but

Which is better for tournaments compared to casual play?

Which is better for death matches compared to missions?

Which is better for single squads (not 100 point games) compared to Epic?

Just a question.

It seems to me that adding defined "squads" like in other games would ultimately just hurt diversity, no? People will still ultimately just identify what's "best" under the new constraints and it'll become the thing.

Sure, similar happens now, but by leaving it open you also leave open the chance for unique, out-of-the-blue squads that are both amusing and surprising.

Sure, similar happens now, but by leaving it open you also leave open the chance for unique, out-of-the-blue squads that are both amusing and surprising.

Good point.

I'm not entirely sure. What I can say, though is I wouldn't like it as much. I feel diversity may suffer because if you have to always bring specific ship types, for some types, there are few options.

Also, the MAJOR problem with squad requirements in terms of X-Wing is that in a 100 point list, your ship count is so low that having ship type requirements wouldn't really work. In order to get it to work, everyone would be running miniswarms with lots of generics, or running a 2-3 ship list like they already do.

And something to think about, X-Wing ships can be put into loose categories, but you can't definitively say they fit in a specific category. Take the E-Wing for example. And building on this, having categories limit the design of new ships in the game doesn't sound like a good idea to me. If you did that, something like the new Ghost expansion might not have been designed like it currently is.

I wouldn't mind seeing some sort of upgrade that gives a squad bonus for taking multiples of certain ships but lists in this game are too small to have squad requirements.

Yes it does seem that for 100 point games squad requirements kind of limits rather than helps.

But what about missions and Epic games?

I wouldn't mind seeing some sort of upgrade that gives a squad bonus for taking multiples of certain ships but lists in this game are too small to have squad requirements.

On that note though, what would it be like if that squad upgrade was actually negative points? Something like: fly 3 x-wings, get 6 points free.

By the time you get your squad definitions down to create a 'balanced' game you're going to basically be at the same thing that just using points does for you.

Using points is simple. Everything costs X and you have Y points total to spend.

With Squads as I see them proposed here you'll need tomes to describe all possible combinations and then when something new is introduced you'll be throwing all of those out and creating new volumes.

Now if you have missions then creating squadrons specific to THAT mission may be appropriate but that is really just building the mission's value into a squadron to start out with.

By the time you get your squad definitions down to create a 'balanced' game you're going to basically be at the same thing that just using points does for you.

Using points is simple. Everything costs X and you have Y points total to spend.

With Squads as I see them proposed here you'll need tomes to describe all possible combinations and then when something new is introduced you'll be throwing all of those out and creating new volumes.

Now if you have missions then creating squadrons specific to THAT mission may be appropriate but that is really just building the mission's value into a squadron to start out with.

No not tomes of all possible combinations I think we agree that would not work.

But yes I think this may be best even good for missions, scenarios and Epic.

Points allows greater creativity.

Squads create arbitrary restrictions.

I could see squad limitations being a good thing for a campaign.

Missions shouldn't have restrictions imo because a good mission would naturally drive a player to pick certain ships over others instead of just taking the usual 100 point tournament meta or swarms.

I don't really care about Epic much, but I feel some light restrictions could help with the problem of more small/large ships being typically better than taking an Epic ship (if that really is a problem and people aren't b****ing about nothing here on the forums)

I wouldn't mind seeing some sort of upgrade that gives a squad bonus for taking multiples of certain ships but lists in this game are too small to have squad requirements.

On that note though, what would it be like if that squad upgrade was actually negative points? Something like: fly 3 x-wings, get 6 points free.

And again the TIE swarm reigns the meta

Points allows greater creativity.

Squads create arbitrary restrictions.

Points kill immersion, though. For example, it's unlikely you would ever see a squad of four B-Wings and a Z-95 in any Star Wars story. There are a lot of squad lists I could use that I simply avoid and never consider because they just don't "feel" right.

Points allows greater creativity.

Squads create arbitrary restrictions.

Points kill immersion, though. For example, it's unlikely you would ever see a squad of four B-Wings and a Z-95 in any Star Wars story. There are a lot of squad lists I could use that I simply avoid and never consider because they just don't "feel" right.

Frankly immersion has no place in tournament rule sets. That's why the flavorful requirement in the core rules that one person play empire and one play rebel is not actually enforced. Since the rules are written for tournament play on the whole (since you can't ever force casual play to follow the rules, it's casual), it's not feasible to make the rules appeal to flavor over gameplay. Casually or in missions people can make the points limit whatever they want or do away with it for squads or any other of a million things, but you can't design a (good) rules system based on that principle.

Points allows greater creativity.

Squads create arbitrary restrictions.

Points kill immersion, though. For example, it's unlikely you would ever see a squad of four B-Wings and a Z-95 in any Star Wars story. There are a lot of squad lists I could use that I simply avoid and never consider because they just don't "feel" right.

Are you sure about that? I could see a flight of four B-Wings working with a Z-95 where the Z-95 is used primarily as a spotter, recon, or even bait for the powerful B-Wings. In real life this would be a little scout helicopter guiding four gunships through an area.

Now I do like to build squadrons that make sense in some way but then you run into those question about "is it balanced" when you fight another squadron.

Points allows greater creativity.

Squads create arbitrary restrictions.

Points kill immersion, though. For example, it's unlikely you would ever see a squad of four B-Wings and a Z-95 in any Star Wars story. There are a lot of squad lists I could use that I simply avoid and never consider because they just don't "feel" right.

If you want immersion, fly scenarios. Immersion doesn't have much of a place in 100 point dogfights.

There are all sorts of things in this game that break immersion, but we shouldn't abandon the pursuit of greater immersion simply to honor the 100-point standard dogfight. It might be possible to achieve both.

Points allows greater creativity.

Squads create arbitrary restrictions.

The standard dogfight format allows a certain degree of flexibility in squad building, but additional restrictions can actually spur creativity. But maybe that's what you meant. Flexibility is good, but it can also be good to have some unusual restrictions that require novel solutions (which is where creativity comes in) even if it means reduced flexibility.

All restrictions in games are arbitrary. Factions, unique and limited cards, inability to use proxies, and squad point caps are all arbitrary restrictions. There's nothing inherently wrong with arbitrary restrictions.

But I'd like to make a case for the value of some additional arbitrary restrictions, which would be that they can add to the setting's theme and player immersion, such as they are in this game. While you may not like the following squad building rules, and they may need to be more carefully considered in the interests of fairness, and while they certainly place additional limits on flexibility, they reinforce the "look and feel" of the game in a way that I appreciate, at least in casual play.

Rebels: You must have at least 1 unique pilot for each ship type represented in your squad. (This enforces the idea of colorful heroes.)

Imperials: Your squad may not contain more than 2 different ship types. (Somewhat lumbering military machine with logistical limitations.)

Scum: Your squad may not contain more than 2 ships per type. (Ragtag band of individualists.)

But I'd like to make a case for the value of some additional arbitrary restrictions, which would be that they can add to the setting's theme and player immersion, such as they are in this game. While you may not like the following squad building rules, and they may need to be more carefully considered in the interests of fairness, and while they certainly place additional limits on flexibility, they reinforce the "look and feel" of the game in a way that I appreciate, at least in casual play.

Rebels: You must have at least 1 unique pilot for each ship type represented in your squad. (This enforces the idea of colorful heroes.)

Imperials: Your squad may not contain more than 2 different ship types. (Somewhat lumbering military machine with logistical limitations.)

Scum: Your squad may not contain more than 2 ships per type. (Ragtag band of individualists.)

Sounds interesting for 100 point games. For Epic and missions you would have to allow multiple squads of course.

Rebels: You must have at least 1 unique pilot for each ship type represented in your squad. (This enforces the idea of colorful heroes.)

Imperials: Your squad may not contain more than 2 different ship types. (Somewhat lumbering military machine with logistical limitations.)

Scum: Your squad may not contain more than 2 ships per type. (Ragtag band of individualists.)

Rebels: So you're saying you couldn't see Han Solo leading a bunch of green pilots (Bandits) in some kind of training exercise and accidentally running into hostile forces? I guess it also means you wouldn't see a couple ORS with a pair of basic escorts either.

Imperials: You mean you don't think you might see Vader, Fel, and Whisper out for a friendly game of "let's see who can cause the most disruption?" It is also penalizing to people who may not own the hordes of ships needed to field so many multiples. Oddly, that does NOTHING to inhibit the two ship squadrons that people seem to want to get rid of now.

Scum: No pirate swarms?

If you want immersion, fly scenarios. Immersion doesn't have much of a place in 100 point dogfights.

There are all sorts of things in this game that break immersion, but we shouldn't abandon the pursuit of greater immersion simply to honor the 100-point standard dogfight. It might be possible to achieve both.

100 point dogfights break immersion so thoroughly that having a wonky squad composition is one of smallest immersion problems that the format has. I can't think of many examples in the movies, novels, or comic books that a handful of ships on each side just show up in an asteroid belt and have the sole objective of destroying all of the enemy ships before the enemy can do the same.

Points allows greater creativity.

Squads create arbitrary restrictions.

Points kill immersion, though. For example, it's unlikely you would ever see a squad of four B-Wings and a Z-95 in any Star Wars story. There are a lot of squad lists I could use that I simply avoid and never consider because they just don't "feel" right.

A squadron made of an A-Wing and 6 Y-Wings to disable and capture imperial frigate Priam. The A-Wing takes care of escorts and minefield while the Y-Wings disable the frigate.

Later on, in the historical missions, this mission is recreated by replacing the Y-Wings with 6 B-Wings (that is close to your example of something that would be unlikely to see in any Star Wars story).

Why is it unlikely?