The armada thread reminded me of this so i thought I'd post here, see what the community thinks

Would you like to see some sort of objective gameplay added to xwing?

Like in armada

Have a total of 12 different objectives, and have to pick 3, and build a squad around that.

Meanwhile keep in mind your opponent may have 1 of any other 12 to choose from

Then at start of a game you and your opponent put your 3 objectives together and randomly select 1

I think it be pretty cool

Thoughts?

Edit

Some examples could be protect a shuttle. Pts awarded at end of game if shuttle escape or destroyed

While still counting ships destroyed

Or gather Intel where one side is trying to gather probes and another trying to destroy.

Pts awarded at end of games based off how many destroyed or gathered, plus ships destroyed

it would!

but very difficult to include -now- into tournament play, as everything had to be re-balanced.

might be something for a 2nd-ed.

in casual play though: go wild!

No.

Would it be difficult?

I was wondering if it would be difficult or not to include

I don't know tbh.

I was thinking with objective gameplay could possibly make squads or ships that don't see the table more often more useful.

Such as bombers for example

Maybe some objectives would go with with a bomb squad

it would!

but very difficult to include -now- into tournament play, as everything had to be re-balanced.

How so? Just make the objectives fit the current balance.

And bring it on I say!

My friends and I already play this way.

100 point Deathmatch is pretty boring for us, we aren't overcompetitive, we all work and have families, we don't have the time to tweak super-synergistic lists, we don't like to simply and unimaginatively copy someone else's list, we like to play thematically, and we don't practice 24/7/365 so we aren't good enough for local store play... so we play scenarios.

We started using the ones provided by FFG with the core and each large ship, and now the new core.

"Protect the shuttle", "run the guantlet", "outnumbered and outgunned, but with mines", and things like that. Then we started creating our own - really just pumping up the ones from the book, or occasionally making up our own on-the-fly.

We'll replay scenarios a few times, trying different approaches and strategies throughout the night. It's great fun when we can actually get together and do it.

And that is one thing I never did, play any of the mission

But like in armada you have X amount of objective to choose from.

I can't see why really it couldn't be brought into xwing.

Would it throw the balance off?

I don't think so, no more than armada.

It'll probably never happen anyway, but I was just wondering if people would like this and would it work?

It's an idea that comes up every so often. I think objectives work much more naturally in armada than they do in X-wing. That said, I think objective-based play can work, even in competitive play.

That's not to say that I think we'll ever see an FFG-produced set of tournament missions, but there is a good number of player-designed missions for tournament play:

J Rhea's Missions:

Bombing Run

Squad Leader

Minefield

Divide and Conquer

Escort Duty

Recon Patrol

My Missions:

Satellite Control

The Jump Point

Dogfight

Junkyard

Fleet Engagement

Vendetta

I like some of these better than others, and there are probably more out there that are suitable for tournaments, but I think there's a good case to make for these.

it would!

but very difficult to include -now- into tournament play, as everything had to be re-balanced.

How so? Just make the objectives fit the current balance.

And bring it on I say!

depending on the mission, some ships are naturally better in situation A than B. in armada, these are considered in the pointcosts ( I guess..! ), in xwing, those are not (yet).

example: "kill ship X" to get y-points. naturally, pilots like corran, whisper, cobraaaaa etc are better here than in a normal game, whereas "can't touch this!" dark-curse won't play a role.

in a "select a ship that has to survive for y-points", dark-curse would be very good, cobraaaaaAAA not so.

the problem with an armada-like system (which I like in armada). with specific scenarios you build for, it's easier, obviously, as you do your list before the game.

The problem that I saw with Armada objectives is that the same couple of objectives are the ones that get played. Each player brings three objectives. Then the player without initiative (I might have this part backwards) picks one of the objectives from the three that his opponent brought. This meant that if you had a squad built to be tough to beat on a certain objective, you all but guaranteed that you'd never get to play that objective against an opponent that understood the game.

I would love a scenario book with a couple dozen different scenarios.

I doubt we would ever see objective based scenarios for tournaments, but that's OK, just a bunch of scenarios to liven up regular play would be great.

The problem that I saw with Armada objectives is that the same couple of objectives are the ones that get played. Each player brings three objectives. Then the player without initiative (I might have this part backwards) picks one of the objectives from the three that his opponent brought. This meant that if you had a squad built to be tough to beat on a certain objective, you all but guaranteed that you'd never get to play that objective against an opponent that understood the game.

Maybe, but that adds a challenge to list building to have a list that works with the three objectives you pick. The one Armada tournament I played in, I was the second player in all three rounds, so my opponents chose from my three objectives, and they each chose a different objective.

With the right objectives and scoring values, I think the same model could work very easily in X-wing as an addition to the 100-point dogfight model.

For example:

Method : Each player selects three objective cards as part of his or her list. The player with initiative is the first player, and selects an objective from the list of the player without initiative (the second player). That objective becomes the objective for the game. Possible objectives:

Bounty Hunter . Each player designates a ship on his squad to be the Bounty and informs the opponent; the opposing player scores +10 points for destroying that ship.

Minefield . All obstacles work as proximity mines -- if a ship overlaps the obstacle, the opposing player rolls three dice and the ship takes any damage indicated. The obstacle is then removed from play.

Graveyard . When a ship is destroyed, a debris field is placed in its last location.

Death Star Plans . Once obstacles are placed, the second player places an objective token face down on each obstacle, marking one as the location of the Death Star plans. Whenever the first player flies a ship which overlaps an obstacle, the objective token is flipped face up. When the Death Star plans are discovered, they are assigned to the discovering ship for the remainder of the game. Discovering the Death Star plans gains +5 points; retaining them on a ship which survives to the end of the game nets another +5 points. If the game concludes and the first player has not located the Death Star plans, the second player gains +10 points. If the game concludes and the ship carrying the Death Star plans has been destroyed, the second player gains +5 points.

Recon Mission . Once obstacles are placed, place an objective token on each obstacle to simulate a reconnaissance objective. Whenever a ship flies within range 1 of an obstacle and can fire on the obstacle, it may attack the objective, which has Agility 3, Hull 1. If the objective is destroyed, the player collects the corresponding token. At the end of the game, each objective token collected gains the player +2 points.

Station Defense . The second player selects one obstacle to represent a space station and places an objective token on it. The station has Agility 2, Hull 10. If the first player destroys the station, that player gains +10 points; if the station is not destroyed by the end of the game, the second player gains +10 points.

Hidden Jedi . Each player selects a ship on his or her squad to carry a hidden Jedi pilot, and secretly marks which ship it is. The opposing player gains +5 points if that ship is destroyed.

Capture the Flag . Each player selects a ship on his or her squad to be the flagship, and identifies it with an objective marker. The opposing player gains +20 points if the flagship exits the play area (simulating capture).

Bombing Run . All damage inflicted by bombs or mines during the game is doubled.

Torpedo Run . Missiles and torpedoes fired by either squad are not expended after firing.

Spice Run. Place two objective markers on each obstacle, one for each player. Each player selects one ship in his or her squad to be the spice runner. When the spice runner overlaps an obstacle, the player collects the allocated token from that obstacle. The spice runner does not suffer damage effects the first time it overlaps each obstacle. At the end of the game, each player receives +2 points for each objective token collected by the spice runner.

Rescue Mission . The first player selects a ship on his or her squad to be a prisoner transport. The second player's goal is to make contact with (via bumping or overlapping) the prisoner transport, rescuing the prisoners, for which the second player receives 5 points. If the prisoner transport is destroyed before the prisoners are rescued, the second player instead receives -5 points. If the game ends without the prisoners being rescued, the first player receives 5 points.

Escort Mission . The second player places a small base (or the shuttle token from the core set) flush with the edge of his or her side of the board. The shuttle has Agility 2, Hull 6. Each turn, the shuttle moves 1 straight or 1 bank (left or right) at Pilot Skill Zero. If the first player destroys the shuttle, he or she gains +10 points; if the shuttle exits from the opposing player's side of the board before the game ends, the second player gains +10 points.

Homing Beacon . Each player's goal is to place a homing beacon on each of the opposing ships. To place a homing beacon, the player must make a range 1 attack that results in at least 1 hit on the opponent's ship; cancel all hits to apply a homing beacon to that ship. Each ship marked with a homing beacon nets the opposing player +3 points.

Hyperspace Assault . After obstacles have been placed, the second player places three objective tokens in the play area no closer than range 2 to any edge; these are hyperspace assault points. The second player then selects one or more ships totaling fewer than 50 points in value to serve as the hyperspace assault force. On any turn after the first, the second player may introduce the hyperspace assault force by placing all ships within range 1 of a single assault point, placing them during the planning phase and moving them as normal during the activation phase. If all of the second player's ships on the board are destroyed before the hyperspace assault force is deployed, the first player wins and gains the value of the hyperspace assault force as if it had been destroyed.

The problem that I saw with Armada objectives is that the same couple of objectives are the ones that get played. Each player brings three objectives. Then the player without initiative (I might have this part backwards) picks one of the objectives from the three that his opponent brought. This meant that if you had a squad built to be tough to beat on a certain objective, you all but guaranteed that you'd never get to play that objective against an opponent that understood the game.

True, but a good reason that the objectives help with balance is that since you can't guarantee the objective you have to build a list that can handle several different ones. It encourages people to build all comer type of lists in Armada rather than hyper focused ones that will steamroll you in one objective but pretty much concede at the start in a different one. That's the idea anyway.

As for X-Wing, I would love to see more missions and objectives, but not necessarily in tournaments. Rather, it would awesome to just have more of them to use at home and such since they're a nice break from your typical death match game at xxx point value. I find them to be a great way to get people playing the game that aren't necessarily "gamers" and don't care much for list building or competitive play.

Would improve the game a lot in my book. The endless dog fights is the worst aspect of the game. It's boring.

No

The 100/6 format is boring. Scenarios/Objectives would do a lot to breath life and variety into the game.

In addition to Hawkstrike's post above, I'd love to see some terrain packs. It would be a great vehicle for delivering the scenarios. An example, some turrets, rules for using them and scenarios which utilise them. Containers for ID missions, ground targets / ION cannon / AT-AT for bombing run scenarios, etc.

I think a campaign and scenario book would be really good for x-wing. I hate that all the missions are on loose bits of paper that come with the models.

Please FFG can we just get all the missions in a pdf file?

A campaign pack would be awesome. A couple of ships that feature in the campaign could be included, as well as some upgrades. I would buy it in a heartbeat.

For my casual games objectives is the norm.

The objective may just be space superiority. it may be securing a transport. it may be escorts, but it makes it more interesting.

Corran with r2 is an absolutely TERRIBLE escort craft by the way.

And that is one thing I never did, play any of the mission

But like in armada you have X amount of objective to choose from.

I can't see why really it couldn't be brought into xwing.

Would it throw the balance off?

I don't think so, no more than armada.

It'll probably never happen anyway, but I was just wondering if people would like this and would it work?

The main difference is that in Armada, the objectives are what keeps the game balanced. Going first in a head-to-head fight is such a huge advantage in Armada that the objectives all give an advantage to the second player to balance it out.

Also, there's the simple nature of order activation between the two games. In Armada, each player takes turns going back and forth activating one ship at a time. It wouldn't work in X-Wing because of the pilot skill activation order.

I think X-Wing is fine the way it is: If you want to play with objective, there is a bunch of scenario already available that you can pick for your casual games. But for a competitive game, I think it is better to leave it as a deathmatch only.

Including secondary objectives into the game would only reinforce the rock/paper/scissor aspect of the game. When designing a team for a tournament, not only would you have to prepare in case you go against an Ace, a turret, a swarm, double IG, etc... but you would also have to take into account all the possible objectives. Bad match-up would be even more a thing and ultimately, I think it would kill the diversity in squadron we are seeing right now.

Anecdotal: Halo5. Warzone trumps arena. Objective can and does work, and can be awesome as long as it's balanced correctly . For a tournament setting currently 100v100 deathmatch works best.

It's WELL WORTH NOTING that a list that performs well in deathmatch may be useless in certain objectives. Again, 50point Corran don't have the DPS to stop 8 ties ripping apart a transport he's escorting.

I think X-Wing is fine the way it is: If you want to play with objective, there is a bunch of scenario already available that you can pick for your casual games. But for a competitive game, I think it is better to leave it as a deathmatch only.

Including secondary objectives into the game would only reinforce the rock/paper/scissor aspect of the game. When designing a team for a tournament, not only would you have to prepare in case you go against an Ace, a turret, a swarm, double IG, etc... but you would also have to take into account all the possible objectives. Bad match-up would be even more a thing and ultimately, I think it would kill the diversity in squadron we are seeing right now.

I think you have a good point about objective-based play. There is an inherent danger to skew meta trends in a bad way. I don't think we should advocate that the primary competitive system switch over to objective play, but I do think it would be an interesting sub-game, in the same sort of niche as epic play. Objectives change the way you think about the game, and that's a good thing to do every once in while. It can be fun to build your list with something other than straight-up kill, control & survive in mind.

But as far as pure competition goes, the most straightforward option is probably always going to be deathmatch.

Oh, another one of these threads. Yeah, I like to comment on them each time they pop up. There have been a lot of good things said in past threads.

I usually tell the story about how Warhammer Fantasy Battle used to have tournaments that were just straight up fights. An edition came out that forced you to play one of 6 scenarios and made all tournaments use them. There were a lot of people who complained and said there was no way to make it work in tournaments. Others said they would never play in such events. It came. It happened. It made the game better. People usually took more balanced lists. Oh, there was still OP lists and all that, but it was taken down a notch. It made people play to the objectives and let them play smarter. If you couldn't win an outright fight, you could play to the objectives and get some points out of it. It allowed clever players to do well, even if their lists weren't the most point efficient list.

I'm sure it could be done well in X-wing. I don't expect it to happen, though.