The competitive scene is a lot of fun. Tournaments are great. I love playing tournaments and trying my best to build lists and win as efficiently as possible. If a different opinion of gaming offends you, please stop and don't worry about the rest of this post as it will only upset you.

I love Star Wars. More than is reasonable, and probably no more than most of you on this forum. That said, competitive games, while fun, do not satisfy the Star Wars nerd in me. Seeing an optimal build of four assault frigates without any cool named characters and no heroes flying around in snub fighters doesn't hit my nerd gspot. I read this recently and couldn't help but think it was awesome.

I've played a handful of games where an outmatched and scrappy band of rebels are trying to knock out a space station before that Star Destroyer can close on their Assault Frigate mothership and eat it for lunch. Or a desperate assault on a Victory Star Destroyer that has been damaged with the Rebels trying to capture or destroy it before the Imperial enforcement's can obliterate the ragtag fleet.

Who else does this? Would we care to collect some of our better ideas here?

For example, I plan on using the rules in the link above (possibly without point costs to start. All heroic pilots receive the Rogue trait and each time one is activated, it is able to give two non unique squadrons within range one the Rogue trait for the rest of the turn) to try a mission where the Rebels try to take on an Imperial station with a Star Destroyer moving in to wipe out their poor little fleet. Obviously this mission won't work until I get ahold of the Star Destroyer.

Rebel Fleet:

200 points. Should be split between squadrons and capital ships. Probably either one Assault Frigate or a mix of Corvettes and/or a Nebulon B Frigate plus an escort of heroic fighters with awesome pilots.

Imperial Station:

The station, the token with the starter set can be used unless you have a model that you really like, has the following stats:

8 Hull Points and 3 Shields on each facing.

Two redirect and one brace token.

Command 2

Squadron 3

Engineering 4

Each arc has two red and two blue dice.

It cannot maneuver, and cannot perform a navigate command.

One blue anti squadron die.

Maybe it should get some upgrades, but not until we do a playtest.

The station is protected by up to 40 points in non unique squadrons.

Imperial Reinforcements:

Up to 250 points to spend on a fully kitted out Star Destroyer and one other capital ship to escort it which must be a medium or small capital ship.

100 points of fighters to escort these two capital ships.

Setup:

Divide the table into two 3' by 3' halves. The station starts at the center of one with its fighters within range 1. The Star Destroyer starts on the other half of the board, four feet away from the station at whatever speed the Imperial player desires. (The maneuver tool is almost exactly a foot long) All of the Star Destroyers escorts must be placed within range two of the Star Destroyer.

The Imperial player places 6 obstacles on the table in whatever formation he or she desires, following the normal rules for obstacle placement.

The Rebel player then divides his or her fleet into as many as three groups, then places up to four objective tokens on the table no closer than range one to any obstacle, the station, or a capital ship. At the beginning of any turn, the Rebel player may jump in from hyperspace with any or all portions of his or her fleet by placing that group or groups within range one of the objective token. If a capital ship jumps in on top of an obstacle, then it takes damage as normal.

The Jump to Hyperspace:

Rebel ships may try to escape at any point. When the Rebel player activates a Rebel ship or squadron, he or she must declare that the ship or squadron is going to make the jump to hyperspace. The unit may perform its turn as normal, except for the following restrictions:

1. It may not attack.
2. If it is a capital ship, it must make a straight maneuver (no ticks on the maneuver tool) at speed two.
3. If it is a capital ship, it must perform a navigate command or discard a navigate command token.

Objective:
The Rebel player must destroy the Station and then escape. A complete victory is achieved if the station is destroyed and all Rebel capital ships escape.

The Imperial player must protect the station and destroy as many Rebel assets as possible. A complete victory is achieved if the station survives and no Rebel capital ships escape.

Let me know what you think, or if you have other missions you would like to run!

Have you had a look at my campaign? https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/192534-star-wars-armada-grand-campaign/

It stemmed from the same reasoning that you mention, wanting to break free of the traditional limitations of the tournament game and create something that feels more in flavour with the Star Wars films. Of course it is still a work in progress

It includes the point you raised about hyperspacing, both out of, and into battles (yay for reinformements!) and also has carrier rules for non-hyperdrive squadrons.

I've looked at them briefly. It looks awesome, and I'm definitely going to use some of the rules you have introduced for specific matches. My group and I don't have the patience for a huge map campaign though. We typically get three or four weekends of one game in before we move on to another. Between Armada, X-Wing, Dropzone Commander, and a handful of RPGs, I'm afraid that something of the scope you have would fall aside and be forgotten for my group.

I feel the nerd in the same way that you do. Unfortunately, I find that it requires more organization and too much meeting of the like-minded in order to pull off, either for a campaign or for scenario missions.

As a result, I've decided to build the story around the competitive games. That's the point of my "news" blog (see sig) as well as my campaign website on which I create the story flesh around the tournament and casual-game ligaments. It's fairly unilateral on my part, though Lyraeus does provide a counterpoint with his blog, AFN.

Now that I'm also a regular TO and Facebook Group manager, I get to give names and descriptions to tournaments ahead of time. Last tournament I ran, I put placards with system names on the tables, indicating which table represented the battle for which system.

It's my hope that people will catch onto it, and then work with me to create something a bit more rules-based and campaigny, but until then, I get to slap my headcanon onto the internet and table placards, and that's kind of fun too.

I feel the nerd in the same way that you do. Unfortunately, I find that it requires more organization and too much meeting of the like-minded in order to pull off, either for a campaign or for scenario missions.

As a result, I've decided to build the story around the competitive games. That's the point of my "news" blog (see sig) as well as my campaign website on which I create the story flesh around the tournament and casual-game ligaments. It's fairly unilateral on my part, though Lyraeus does provide a counterpoint with his blog, AFN.

Now that I'm also a regular TO and Facebook Group manager, I get to give names and descriptions to tournaments ahead of time. Last tournament I ran, I put placards with system names on the tables, indicating which table represented the battle for which system.

It's my hope that people will catch onto it, and then work with me to create something a bit more rules-based and campaigny, but until then, I get to slap my headcanon onto the internet and table placards, and that's kind of fun too.

You might want to look into something like this for a campaign. It creates a solid base for getting people interested and engaged without being as expansive and encompassing as a map campaign.

just played a game yesterday.

where the Reb player had to drop the shields on the space platform and then get a Blue crit to take out the guns they started at long range. then land a transport and take off techs and data/ the Emps started 3 ft out and they had to stop them and get their commander off the platform.

and don't ask about points on this game because I did not use them

I feel the nerd in the same way that you do. Unfortunately, I find that it requires more organization and too much meeting of the like-minded in order to pull off, either for a campaign or for scenario missions.

[...]

You might want to look into something like this for a campaign. It creates a solid base for getting people interested and engaged without being as expansive and encompassing as a map campaign.

It's certainly an elegant and interesting concept. I'll have to cogitate on it.

The thing about map campaigns is that I love maps.

One of the things that really disappoints me about FFG is the way all their games are tailored for a competitive format. When I read game manuals from Warlord Games, Games Workshop, or even Privateer Press, their rules are used in a range of scenarios. Instead of every battle being a random clash of equally pointed forces, there were games with lopsided objectives, lopsided forces, games with a narrative structure, linked games, etc. There's none of that in X Wing and Armada. You just take your 400 points and 3 objectives, or your 100 points and your six rocks, and play.

Given the scope and scale of the Star Wars universe, it's a very missed opportunity.

Imagine how cool a campaign supplement could be. A box containing some new upgrade cards, a book with new scenarios, rules, roster sheets, obstacles, maps etc, as well as a couple of new models or just models featured in the campaign. Us nerds love that stuff.

One of the things that really disappoints me about FFG is the way all their games are tailored for a competitive format. When I read game manuals from Warlord Games, Games Workshop, or even Privateer Press, their rules are used in a range of scenarios. Instead of every battle being a random clash of equally pointed forces, there were games with lopsided objectives, lopsided forces, games with a narrative structure, linked games, etc. There's none of that in X Wing and Armada. You just take your 400 points and 3 objectives, or your 100 points and your six rocks, and play.

Given the scope and scale of the Star Wars universe, it's a very missed opportunity.

Imagine how cool a campaign supplement could be. A box containing some new upgrade cards, a book with new scenarios, rules, roster sheets, obstacles, maps etc, as well as a couple of new models or just models featured in the campaign. Us nerds love that stuff.

From my own sense of what is fun, I'd be inclined to agree. But at the same time, are people like you and I (and the others in this thread) perhaps in a minority? I don't think there's any arguing with FFG's success in making a popular game. If you want something more story-based, they have RPGs for you to play. I think most people who play this game like it as a competitive game that looks like Star Wars, and let's them imagine the starships battling it out, but are otherwise not generally too interested in a deeper strategic narrative.

This is true, but it's so easy to cater to both crowds.

It just feels like they are ignoring something that could be extremely good for the community, as well as being lucrative for them.

This is true, but it's so easy to cater to both crowds.

It just feels like they are ignoring something that could be extremely good for the community, as well as being lucrative for them.

The thing with the crowd that you and I are identifying with is that we're probably too creative for FFG to create something for. We'd probably find fault with it and house-rule it into oblivion. At that point we'd be better off doing our own thing anyway.

You (and others) may have had better luck with stuff like this than I have, which might make me unnecessarily jaded. I have spent long, LONG hours (days, weeks, etc) in the past coming up with interesting and intriguing ways to flesh out an existing game, only to have the people around me shrug it off and not even bother giving it a try.

But maybe you're better at convincing your fellow players than I am. If so, more strength to you!

The thing with the crowd that you and I are identifying with is that we're probably too creative for FFG to create something for. We'd probably find fault with it and house-rule it into oblivion. At that point we'd be better off doing our own thing anyway.

I couldn't agree more with that sentiment. While I do agree that FFG has missed an opportunity, there's nothing stopping us from creating our own scenarios and rules to go along with them. FFG has given us the framework and we can build whatever we want around it (as long as we don't leave our exhaust port exposed). I've incorporated Armada into Risk, and while I've only had one short session to play test with, it was a lot of fun. It's not too different from the grand campaign idea listed above. It has less of a narrative, but has the potential to be more epic.

I'm sure at least a few people her played Star Trek: Attack Wing.

Setting aside the Romulan Warbirds, the thing that got me to stop playing X-Wing, and start playing Attack Wing was that each ship came with a scenerio. Most of the time, the scenerio was actualy theamatic for the ship. they usualy wern't perfectly balanced, but they were FUN. The tournaments, as well, were more involved then just shooting at eachother. For the tournaments, it became troublesome. Unbalanced scenerios are not acceptable there, and some people found ways to break the tournaments. Badly.

But the idea was great. Objectives are a good start, but they have stagnated. (Opening Shot, anyone?)

Please, FFG. Scenerios.

I only got to play Opening Salvo for the first time yesterday, and its because I took 4 Nebulon Bs to a tournament on a whim at the last minute

Of course, it backfired on me spectacularily (Salvation rolling 3 Reds (Hit, Hit, Hit) and 3 Blacks (Hit, Hit, Hit) with not a critical in sight and no accuracy, watching it go down to 3 damage and be redirected to a side arc...

The thing with the crowd that you and I are identifying with is that we're probably too creative for FFG to create something for. We'd probably find fault with it and house-rule it into oblivion. At that point we'd be better off doing our own thing anyway.

You (and others) may have had better luck with stuff like this than I have, which might make me unnecessarily jaded. I have spent long, LONG hours (days, weeks, etc) in the past coming up with interesting and intriguing ways to flesh out an existing game, only to have the people around me shrug it off and not even bother giving it a try.

It's true that we're all free to come up with our own house rules for campaigns and scenarios.

And it's also true that most of the time, these house rules remain purely hypothetical. Often the crowd simply isn't interested.

But I reckon part of the reason the crowd isn't interested is because they are told by FFG that the 400 point, tournament style game is (effectively) the only way to play. Now of course FFG doesn't actually say that. They use words like 'standard' instead of 'only' but they give literally NO air time to other ways of playing the game, which colours a gamers perspective of how the game should be played. If they are presented (by the game developers, no less) with lots of cool different ways to use their Star Wars ships, then they will be more open to the idea of playing narrative games and campaigns. If all they see are 400 pts tournament style matches, then that is all they will want to play.

I still think it would be great for ALL players, and great for FFG to consider campaign supplements as part of future waves, instead of constantly dredging up more and more obscure EU ships to fill enough waves until their licence expires. We'd all win, IMO.

I do have to say that I am lucky that I have a gaming group that is pretty open to a more narrative, Star Wars way of playing the game

Heroes of Aturi Cluster did exactly that for X-Wing, and brilliantly so.

I'd be all over an Armada version. Maybe I should get in touch with those folks...

Heroes of Aturi Cluster did exactly that for X-Wing, and brilliantly so.

I'd be all over an Armada version. Maybe I should get in touch with those folks...

Heroes of the Aturi cluster is exactly the sort of product FFG should have created. I'd much rather have a re-release of the X Wing model with some new upgrade cards and a Heroes of Aturi style product than say, the K Wing or TIE Punisher, both of which are silly ships.

FFG's use of the objective styles are to try getting the attention of the scenario and the arena fanbases... doing part of both instead of one or another. It's something I appreciate, because I seem to lean more on the arena side of the coin than the scenario side.

At least one point for the Arena fans is that they can build for an expected match with no special rules and frills to be concerned about. If you come into a scenario with a list you know works competitively but for whatever reason is forbidden or unworkable in a scenario (for instance, being the Imperial player but denied medium and large ships), I know I wouldn't really care for that, and just opt for a quicker and more straightforward arena battle. Similarly there may be rules nerfing certain builds that some are comfortable flying with. Sure you'd agree to play a different scenario, but the one everyone agrees on is the Arena and you're back to square one.

As it is we have a campaign going on in my local meta. The organizer means well, but under his force organization it means I can only take my Imperial without an escort, relying (perhaps!) on a teammate to cover me, and I really don't like the idea of campaign/scenario necessities dropping me down to one ship while facing a swarm. In this case I'd almost drop the campaign and play a standard match because then I'm comfortable with my force selection. It's the same with the persistent damage rules, and other extraneous things added on to standard play that is required to be true "Scenarios".

It is enough for me to magnify the selected objective into a grand narrative, because I suppose for me I don't need much to let my imagination fly. I've already named some of my models, they already have histories, and I don't need special missions to spell out specifics.

As far as I know, X-Wing scenarios are still not being popular (at least when I ended the game around wave 6?). Sure Attack Wing had more thematic missions but some of them were also almost impossible for one player or the other (Balance of Terror was unbeatable for the Feds when I last tried that)... at least without relying on the increasingly overpowered cards. Alas...

The thing with the crowd that you and I are identifying with is that we're probably too creative for FFG to create something for. We'd probably find fault with it and house-rule it into oblivion. At that point we'd be better off doing our own thing anyway.

You (and others) may have had better luck with stuff like this than I have, which might make me unnecessarily jaded. I have spent long, LONG hours (days, weeks, etc) in the past coming up with interesting and intriguing ways to flesh out an existing game, only to have the people around me shrug it off and not even bother giving it a try.

It's true that we're all free to come up with our own house rules for campaigns and scenarios.

And it's also true that most of the time, these house rules remain purely hypothetical. Often the crowd simply isn't interested.

But I reckon part of the reason the crowd isn't interested is because they are told by FFG that the 400 point, tournament style game is (effectively) the only way to play. [...]

I might have been with you, if I didn't have X-Wing experience. To me, it seems that FFG really tried with X-Wing to introduce alternative styles of play. They put scenarios in a number of the large and huge ships and even created an online mission database where people could share their missions. But it just didn't take, at least not in my locale. (YMMV) People just wanted the 100-point-6-asteroid-death-match for the competitive aspect of the game. Anything else was just an act of swimming upstream.

[...]

As it is we have a campaign going on in my local meta. The organizer means well, but under his force organization it means I can only take my Imperial without an escort, relying (perhaps!) on a teammate to cover me, and I really don't like the idea of campaign/scenario necessities dropping me down to one ship while facing a swarm. In this case I'd almost drop the campaign and play a standard match because then I'm comfortable with my force selection. It's the same with the persistent damage rules, and other extraneous things added on to standard play that is required to be true "Scenarios".

[...]

Here I think we have a part of the problem. People really like to have a level playing field - a fair chance to win. With the standard match-up, they tend to have faith in the balance of the system that the playing field is level. (Of course, there are a minority of people who will convince themselves that the deck was stacked against them after they have lost a game, but let's not talk about them.)

In a narrative mission, many people won't have much faith in the balance, and will be hesitant to play because the odds might be against them. Part of that is also that if they fear that the opponent (who might also be the scenario designer) will have greater insight into the balances of the scenario, and therefore also have the upper hand. The standard game is more intellectually comfortable, because it's known.

For some of us, the opportunity to play in something with more narrative depth outweighs the chance that there's an imbalance, but for others that narrative just raises the stakes and makes an loss that much more crushing.

I've never played any game in a tournament, nor have I focused on building the most efficient lists for any game. To me, that's the fun of casual gaming. I use points to help guide the scale of games, but my opponents and I tend to build our lists on the basis of what looks narratively interesting, then just do the best we can with whatever we've put together. If it proves thematically satisfying and fun, then everyone wins in the sense that everyone has a good experience. (Obviously, in respect to the game, only one player actually wins...)

From a (speculative) tournament perspective, such free form play also encourages us to try new ships, new combos, and find synergies that may not be so obvious until you actually play with them.

I do crazy things before tournaments.

An hour before it starts, going "Hey, can you fit 4 Nebs in a 300 list? You can! With 50pts of Squadrons! Awesome! Lets see how it goes..."

Even Competitively, I'm Casual

I do crazy things before tournaments.

An hour before it starts, going "Hey, can you fit 4 Nebs in a 300 list? You can! With 50pts of Squadrons! Awesome! Lets see how it goes..."

Even Competitively, I'm Casual

This is why I ran the Attack Wing tournaments. My favored faction was WOEFULLY underpowered, and I nearly refused to play any other. Playing me wouldn't have been a chalange, and I wouldn't have gotten any prizes.

I got 6th of 14 with it this weekend... But 3rd to 6th was separated by 2 points, and 4th-to-6th by SoS... So I was happy, given the consideration

Heroes of Aturi Cluster did exactly that for X-Wing, and brilliantly so. I'd be all over an Armada version. Maybe I should get in touch with those folks...

Heroes of the Aturi cluster is exactly the sort of product FFG should have created. I'd much rather have a re-release of the X Wing model with some new upgrade cards and a Heroes of Aturi style product than say, the K Wing or TIE Punisher, both of which are silly ships.

Yes! and yes! I love the aturi cluster set up. My group has been doing a string of missions we created in which a raider destroyed the refueling station we captured and now we are trying to get revenge.

Armada presents a number of problems because the maneuvers, commands, and even shooting are more complicated and making an ai would be a lot more finicky in armada than in xwing.