We regularly do sub-100 point tournaments with 12 asteroids/debris. Deployment rules are to keep them out of the player deployment zone, and then range 1 away from each other. It can get to be pretty close to a regular asteroid deployment if one person puts their 6 on the edges, and the regular 6 in the middle. It normally makes flying a lot more fun, I recommend everyone try it if they can!

Come to think of it, we should try this at 100 points and see what goes on...

I would be ok with the rules being changed so that you could deploy them close to the sides of the play area, but not within range 1 of each other and not within range 2 of the deployment play area edges.

Removing any more restrictions would cause problems, I think.

I'm perfectly happy with the current asteroid placement system but I think it would be entertaining to have a 'random' system as well: official play mats could come with a lightly marked 'grid' of numbers and asteroids could then be marked with letters. Players would take turns rolling a pair of dice to get letter and number combinations that would determine where the first six asteroids are placed.

I think the current system works just fine.

-If you allow to deploy inside range 2 of the sides, a clever player will create a zone where there is no obstacles: 6 obstacles anywhere on a 3x3 playing area is not that much.

-If you force players to put all asteroids in range 2+ of an other obstacles (instead of the current range 1+) to try and force the obstacles to cover every area, you are just creating a field too easy to navigate: A swarm or Brobots will just cry tears of joy (that's if a droid could actually cry) on a map so easy to navigate.

So, with those 2 points in mind, I think that the current rule work just fine.

there's no need to overcomplicate anything

if you want to stop TLTs or PWTs or leading you on a merry goose chase, purchase yourself a new core set and bring in the slivers

those asteroids are so laughably tiny that small ship swarms should have no problem darting around them, but if a fatass lands on them it's still no shots

then, if possible, take initiative and corner all your opponent's obstacles

laugh maniacally at the results

knowing which obstacles to bring and how to arrange the pre-game state of the table are both parts of knowing how to play your squadron

I don't see why they need to be so far apart from each other. I like the idea of making different formations due to having them touch, or at least be closer to touching.

Sure, it doesn't seem necessarily "natural," but would make more dynamic fields (and make pilot Dash MUCH more effective, I suppose).

I would like to see the restriction changed to allow them to be at range 1-2 of the sides of the board. The only issue with this is that someone could try to block off areas of an opponents deployment area by putting the asteroids right up at Range 1, thereby almost forcing them to avoid deploying in those sections. I can't see how that would break the game though.

May also need to up the asteroid count to 8 though to ensure decent coverage.

What you have is a player problem, not a problem with Asteroid placement.

I debated whether it would be constructive to say so, but I completely agree. If you have two players deploying close formations in a corner of the board, then flying around in circles in the obstacle-free band at the edge of the map waiting for the other player to break first... I mean, that does sound really boring, but either player could elect at any time not to do it.

The question becomes whether the game rewards that kind of play, and I don't think it does. A player who can find and use lanes through the obstacles is at a huge advantage when facing a player who can't or won't do the same: if I can maneuver using the entire board and you can only maneuver in a Range 2 band near an edge, I'm going to trap your ships and then kill them.

The question becomes whether the game rewards that kind of play, and I don't think it does. A player who can find and use lanes through the obstacles is at a huge advantage when facing a player who can't or won't do the same: if I can maneuver using the entire board and you can only maneuver in a Range 2 band near an edge, I'm going to trap your ships and then kill them.

Such aggressivity... maybe they are just cruising around, having a good time while the ship is avoiding the asteroids on autopilot and you just start shooting at them for no reason.... **** pirates!

^{I'd say each player getting two additional obstacles to deploy would likely solve the issue of players putting all of them on the sides. The side areas always being open are ok, but some more variability in the game would be good.}

Actually, I take it back. Looking at the debris tokens themselves, it's obvious that they are mostly starfighter remains.

Amount of guns does not equate firepower.

There I said it and meant it this time.

That's nice. But it doesn't change the fact that a space mine has perhaps the weakest and least threatening attack in all of the X-Wing games. Not only is a single gun, it's also low damage and slow firing as well. If anything in the entire game deserves a 1 attack, it's Space Mines.

They only represent a threat if you run into a dozen of them, and even then, only if you stupidly fly into the middle of them instead of taking them out from the edge.

As a Bomb upgrade, I could see it as an upgrade that automatically comes with several munitions tokens already installed on it, so that ships can use them the way they're supposed to, laying down, like, 5 of them(6 with extra munitions).

Of course, that's just Mine Type A. The others are potentially more of a threat.

It's just the Mine Type A you saw in X-wing. As much as I love the series, X-wing is not a codified bible on how ships/mines/space flight in star wars should be. I can see a lot of different munitions types used for space interdiction. Prox mines and connor nets are already a thing, cluster mines, why not autoturret mines.

1 Firepower just isn't enough of a threat to anything ,ever.

I agree that if you have trouble with players just staying in the range 2 band around the field, take a bomber and drop some mines: a Tie Bomber with Extra munition and Proximity mines is just 21 points. And with 2 Agi+6 Hull, they are very good cheap fighters against 2 ship build once they drop their mines.

How about moving obstacles?

Fun mission style rules: Asteroids and Debris tokens move randomly each round. They move first during activation phase using dice to determine direction using the "1" template.

Maybe someday FFG can organize/promote Mission Tournaments? Probably after they smooth out Epic organized play.

1 killed ship = 1 new debris token. would be good too.

I've done this before. Super fun, makes you think twice about blowing up that ship right in front of you lol

I agree that placement of obstacles can get stale, but I don't see the 'merry-go-round' very often. What really gets only is the clear lanes on the side edges that are almost always used for the initial approach.

Drop a cluster or proximity mine or two in the lanes, no more problem.

Use the middle of the board and take the right angle and I guarantee you you can catch anyone doing the merry go round.

If you let people put rocks on the edge it'll make them a lot less relevant tbqh. I could then play on a nigh-empty middle of the board- the emptiness of the edge is half the reason people skirt it anyway- now your pancakes could tool around in an empty middle of the board going anywhere they want.

What you have is a player problem, not a problem with Asteroid placement.

How about placing obstacles AFTER ships where placed?

That would throw off the part where players get to choose which side they want to deploy on after putting out obstacles.

Where do you EVER get to choose a side to deploy after obstacles are placed???

Ok you do that. I'll run a swarm, I'll place my 3 on the side edge were no one will be around them, ever. Then I can batter you in a no objects map where all we do is roll dice cause we don't have to worry about silly things as asteroids. Hell I'll even take the newest ones so I can uber tiny ones.

See where this gets you?

Not any different than a player using 3 debris tokens and super Dash.

The best obstacles are huge ships....

Even better if it's part of a custom mission.

Double even better if depending on the outcome it's followed up by imperial assault.

Triple better if you can replicate the deck plan.

How about placing obstacles AFTER ships where placed?

That would throw off the part where players get to choose which side they want to deploy on after putting out obstacles.

Where do you EVER get to choose a side to deploy after obstacles are placed???

It's in the rulebook. But it's not used for tournament play, and hardly anybody I know ever plays that way.

They could allow various asteroid deployment options. Roll a d3 before placement.

1) standard deployment

2) asteroid belt deployment- must be placed within 1 of each other

3) debris field- anywhere on the board and must use debris tokens

I don't see that many merry go rounds with asteroids. If you learn the dial placement you find that going between asteroids is not that hard. But then again I haven't been playing with 3+ big asteroids.

I'd be interested to see different 'missions' for X-Wing.

the 100 pt dog-fight is fine and all, but having different, but still balanced/competitively minded missions might spice things up a bit, and might have a subtle effect on the meta.