Played the Gonzanti campaign as empire and for the first mission I used this build: http://geordanr.github.io/xwing/?f=Galactic%20Empire&d=v4!c=110!150:168,-1,154,157,158,155:36:22:;49:126,-1,17,-1,-1:-1:25:;49:126,-1,17,-1,-1:-1:25:&sn=Unsaved%20Squadron

My opponent had a Ghost with EU and tried to run for the sattelites as fast as possible. On the first turn I moved towards him and deployed my Bombers, both with the 3 bank, the first one rolling away and then getting its TL coordinated. I killed the Ghost within two turns and I didn't even need the Ordnance Experts. We couldn't imagine a way for the game to take any other turn and I still haven't.

With so many missions being tied to the survival of one ship I have to ask, did FFG screw up mission play by introducing so huge damage spikes?

Missions is not main point of the game in my opinion and balancing should be for competitive normal play, not missions

So I don't see any problem with that as I don't bother with missions.

Missions is not main point of the game in my opinion and balancing should be for competitive normal play, not missions

So I don't see any problem with that as I don't bother with missions.

This attitude is part of what is wrong with this game.

Well, to be fair, he isn't wrong. But if you already know the issues with the missions, which really all follow the same logic, why did you build a squad to abuse it? It's not like the missions or the ships have changed that much, and that damage would still be quite possible without G Chips. Just more reliable now. So seems like the issue isn't as big as you might think, and if you are wanting more thematic missions, you might need to do a bit more leg work on your end to make them work.

Then why do so many missions ban Biggs if they are so insignificant that balance should be up to the players? I am not saying this is a reason why FFG shouldn't have created GCs, but I would welcome some erratas to missions that restrict spike damage somewhat, because otherwise any of them that is about the survival of a certain ship has an obvious best route to go, which kind of makes them obsolete.

How would such a restricition look reasonably?

With so many missions being tied to the survival of one ship I have to ask, did FFG screw up mission play by introducing so huge damage spikes?

Rushing to certain death is not a game design, but a mental issue.

Missions is not main point of the game in my opinion and balancing should be for competitive normal play, not missions

So I don't see any problem with that as I don't bother with missions.

This attitude is part of what is wrong with this game.

And why it's wrong? Because I don't like missions and state my opinion? Because I have different opinion that you?

You like missions, so play the missions, no one tells you not to.

But to be fair, do you see world championships of x-wing for missions? I did not.

Do you see store championships for missions, official ones? I did not.

Maybe there are some and I have nothing against them.

So that's the take on it. Missions are for fun and not for competitive game play. So that's why I don't see anything wrong with them. If you want to win at all cost, ok build that damage output list that you have and play with it, we don't say you not to.

Missions is not main point of the game in my opinion and balancing should be for competitive normal play, not missions

So I don't see any problem with that as I don't bother with missions.

This attitude is part of what is wrong with this game.

And why it's wrong? Because I don't like missions and state my opinion? Because I have different opinion that you?

You like missions, so play the missions, no one tells you not to.

But to be fair, do you see world championships of x-wing for missions? I did not.

Do you see store championships for missions, official ones? I did not.

Maybe there are some and I have nothing against them.

So that's the take on it. Missions are for fun and not for competitive game play. So that's why I don't see anything wrong with them. If you want to win at all cost, ok build that damage output list that you have and play with it, we don't say you not to.

Competitive play is not 'normal' play. It's just another way to play. Assuming that competitive play is the best, or normal way to play, and everything should be balanced for the 100 point, 6 rock snoozefest, and that missions or narrative play or alternate points values or campaigns or any other way of playing doesn't deserve a balanced game is not a very good attitude. X Wing is not just for tournament games.

FFG can't really afford to concern themselves with balancing the missions. For one, they seem to often have a hard enough time balancing this game as it is, and for another, they have no data to gather on which to make balance decisions. Mission play isn't recorded anywhere the way tournament results are. They can't judge if Ship A is underused or Ship B is overused. The same applies to Epic Play, to a somewhat lesser extent.

It is unfortunate for everyone who prefers those modes, but really all FFG can do is balance the game for what they can see and let everything else fall where it may. They simply don't have the information to do anything about it.

Also, speaking as someone who's played one of the missions once in my first week of playing 2 and a half years ago, if you're bringing cutting-edge competitive builds to mission play, you're probably doing it wrong.

Missions is not main point of the game in my opinion and balancing should be for competitive normal play, not missions

So I don't see any problem with that as I don't bother with missions.

This attitude is part of what is wrong with this game.

And why it's wrong? Because I don't like missions and state my opinion? Because I have different opinion that you?

You like missions, so play the missions, no one tells you not to.

But to be fair, do you see world championships of x-wing for missions? I did not.

Do you see store championships for missions, official ones? I did not.

Maybe there are some and I have nothing against them.

So that's the take on it. Missions are for fun and not for competitive game play. So that's why I don't see anything wrong with them. If you want to win at all cost, ok build that damage output list that you have and play with it, we don't say you not to.

Competitive play is not 'normal' play. It's just another way to play. Assuming that competitive play is the best, or normal way to play, and everything should be balanced for the 100 point, 6 rock snoozefest, and that missions or narrative play or alternate points values or campaigns or any other way of playing doesn't deserve a balanced game is not a very good attitude. X Wing is not just for tournament games.

Then why FFG promotes 100pts tournaments and not mission play? So i assume normal play is more for competitive play or simple friendly 100pts plays, not mission plays.

I don't assume competitive play is the best, but I see trend here, SC, Worlds and such are competitive events. Tournaments in general are competitive.

Maybe it should be balanced, but looking at reality, not dreams it's different. And X-Wing is not Mission play mainly. If it would be missions mainly, it would be different game, mission tournaments and such.

So in ideal world it would be best to have every aspect balanced, but know looks like more players play Competitive or friendly matches without missions, so that's the way it goes, missions go in background as not so popular.

Then why do so many missions ban Biggs if they are so insignificant that balance should be up to the players?

Which missions ban Biggs?

What about some builds that can mitigate the damage? Sensor Jammers is one system. Reinforced Deflectors is another. There are things you can do to mitigate the damage of Missiles. Also, you can not take the Ghost, but maybe the Outrider.

I think ordnance changes things and it might have to factor in to what you take for a Mission.

Then why FFG promotes 100pts tournaments and not mission play?

Why would the fact that official FFG tournaments exist mean that there is a normal way to play, and a not-normal way to play?

All ways of playing X Wing are equally valid. Thinking otherwise does the entire game a disservice and is not a good attitude to have.

Then why FFG promotes 100pts tournaments and not mission play? So i assume normal play is more for competitive play or simple friendly 100pts plays, not mission plays.

I don't assume competitive play is the best, but I see trend here, SC, Worlds and such are competitive events. Tournaments in general are competitive.

I appreciate your interest in feedback to the OP, however FFG promotes tournament play because it is invaluable to marketing its product. It spreads the knowledge of the game as well gives immediate coverage of its products. This, however, doesn't mean that it is intended as the "only" way to play the game, rather it is a fragment of the system. A good example of other things that do this is Call of Duty video games. The "Multiplayer" crowd is huge, and a "Tournament of Pros" system of multiplayer has been paid for and branded by the game producers in order to get a relatively cheap publicity tour for it going. Applying your logic to this, the game should be balanced for Multiplayer and ignore the campaign altogether.

However, when a competitor released a similar game, Battlefront, it was received with general derision for its lack of a Campaign mode. It attempted to do away with what in your opinion was "not the focus" of the game in an effort to cater to one aspect of it and it (generally) failed.

Maybe it should be balanced, but looking at reality, not dreams it's different.

This is confrontational and insulting.

There are a lot more players of the game than those that attends tournaments, and you have no more an idea of what happens on my table than you do at others. To assume that players play "tournament" style head to heads at home or with others outside of tournaments is precisely that, an assumption, founded on anecdotal evidence and without merit. Even using on-line play formats such as Vassal, you suffer bias in that Vassal is primarily used by tournament attendees to test lists, and so represents a bias subset of the community at large.

I personally see Missions and irregular games (such as 4 players head to heads) being played at my X-Wing game nights at the FLGS, and at my table we tend to anxiously await the campaign missions. The fact that one of our community members put together a PDF of all official missions for us shows that mission play is alive and well. Moreover, even FFG created an online resource for making your own missions. This shows an intentional support mindset for an aspect of the game.

Tournament play is dynamic and self-correcting. Virtually impossible to future proof static scenarios. I do find myself preferring missions to tournament play as I've found the latter growing rather stale.

I agree that just because tournament play is the high profile style doesn't reflect that it's the only style or that there isn't a significant segment of player base dedicated to it. Personally, I know about half the people that play X-wing that never want to play in a tournament.

As for the OP's post, I will say that Missions can be lost quite easily in a lot of different ways. I find that sometimes deployment can just cost you the game. Sometimes it's in list creation. What I mean with this is that you can tweak certain aspects of your list to work better for you, or perhaps your ship choice is just an overall bad option to take vs. what your opponent has taken. I find that this happens often enough, but if you just tweak things on your side and play the same mission again, it can work out.

I'm not going to get into the argument about scenarios and their importance. Regarding strategy, though, I'm unconvinced this was a garunteed loss- Running your most important ship ahead into danger seems like a poor strategy to me. I think eliminating several of the escorting Bombers before advancing would have been a superior strategy. Admittedly, I wasn't there, so I can't be sure, but rushing the mission critical ship into an alpha strike still seems like a poor plan to me.

I'm not going to get into the argument about scenarios and their importance. Regarding strategy, though, I'm unconvinced this was a garunteed loss- Running your most important ship ahead into danger seems like a poor strategy to me. I think eliminating several of the escorting Bombers before advancing would have been a superior strategy. Admittedly, I wasn't there, so I can't be sure, but rushing the mission critical ship into an alpha strike still seems like a poor plan to me.

I agree that sometimes playing the same lists a second time will deliver different results. That's kind of what makes Missions fun to me.

I was going to comment regarding TerTer's post indicating that he may be mistaken as to the "main point" or at least limited in his/her knowledge of the gaming crowd at large. But so many others have already said it better than I.

Thank you,

After a quick check, the good Admiral could have had 2 Bombers if he was using ordnance experts unless he really skimped on the Bombers. Hmm... With the Requiem title and a bit of luck, he might have been able to cripple the ghost in the first round of shooting, but it would have been a gamble since the Bombers could easily be knocked out next round, and the Gozanti would have had a very hard time catching a Ghost with EU.

Missions is not main point of the game in my opinion and balancing should be for competitive normal play, not missions

So I don't see any problem with that as I don't bother with missions.

This attitude is part of what is wrong with this game.

And why it's wrong? Because I don't like missions and state my opinion? Because I have different opinion that you?

You like missions, so play the missions, no one tells you not to.

But to be fair, do you see world championships of x-wing for missions? I did not.

Do you see store championships for missions, official ones? I did not.

Maybe there are some and I have nothing against them.

So that's the take on it. Missions are for fun and not for competitive game play. So that's why I don't see anything wrong with them. If you want to win at all cost, ok build that damage output list that you have and play with it, we don't say you not to.

Competitive play is not 'normal' play. It's just another way to play. Assuming that competitive play is the best, or normal way to play, and everything should be balanced for the 100 point, 6 rock snoozefest, and that missions or narrative play or alternate points values or campaigns or any other way of playing doesn't deserve a balanced game is not a very good attitude. X Wing is not just for tournament games.

Well competitive play IS 'normal' play, since competitive play is standardized (the meaning of normal). Alternative play is fine but really you can't balance around ?. Balances for alternative plays have be designated by that playstyle but they are niches and can't be considered in terms of global balance. That being said, most missions remain balanced since they are designed under roughly the same principles. However, as the balance changes older missions are likely to fall in and out of balance the exact same way that older ships do on the competitive scene.

Then why FFG promotes 100pts tournaments and not mission play?

Why would the fact that official FFG tournaments exist mean that there is a normal way to play, and a not-normal way to play?

All ways of playing X Wing are equally valid. Thinking otherwise does the entire game a disservice and is not a good attitude to have.

You have your opinion, I have my. I see nothing wrong with that.

What I said, is that game is Balanced toward tournaments and not missions. And still think it's true. If you like missions play them, I don't say to you don't play them.

Why your way of thinking is better that my? As you say, thinking otherwise is bad?

Then why FFG promotes 100pts tournaments and not mission play? So i assume normal play is more for competitive play or simple friendly 100pts plays, not mission plays.

I don't assume competitive play is the best, but I see trend here, SC, Worlds and such are competitive events. Tournaments in general are competitive.

I appreciate your interest in feedback to the OP, however FFG promotes tournament play because it is invaluable to marketing its product. It spreads the knowledge of the game as well gives immediate coverage of its products. This, however, doesn't mean that it is intended as the "only" way to play the game, rather it is a fragment of the system. A good example of other things that do this is Call of Duty video games. The "Multiplayer" crowd is huge, and a "Tournament of Pros" system of multiplayer has been paid for and branded by the game producers in order to get a relatively cheap publicity tour for it going. Applying your logic to this, the game should be balanced for Multiplayer and ignore the campaign altogether.

However, when a competitor released a similar game, Battlefront, it was received with general derision for its lack of a Campaign mode. It attempted to do away with what in your opinion was "not the focus" of the game in an effort to cater to one aspect of it and it (generally) failed.

Maybe it should be balanced, but looking at reality, not dreams it's different.

This is confrontational and insulting.

There are a lot more players of the game than those that attends tournaments, and you have no more an idea of what happens on my table than you do at others. To assume that players play "tournament" style head to heads at home or with others outside of tournaments is precisely that, an assumption, founded on anecdotal evidence and without merit. Even using on-line play formats such as Vassal, you suffer bias in that Vassal is primarily used by tournament attendees to test lists, and so represents a bias subset of the community at large.

I personally see Missions and irregular games (such as 4 players head to heads) being played at my X-Wing game nights at the FLGS, and at my table we tend to anxiously await the campaign missions. The fact that one of our community members put together a PDF of all official missions for us shows that mission play is alive and well. Moreover, even FFG created an online resource for making your own missions. This shows an intentional support mindset for an aspect of the game.

Hm... You wanted your post to be seen or why different color?

Like mentioned above, I have my opinion, you have your. It's fine. Yes tournaments are marketing, but do you see Mission tournaments? That's the same marketing that can be?

Yes I don't see other tables, like what you play and such. But I talk about what I see, it's simple. I see most tournaments that are no mission based. I see most games played non mission ones. Maybe there are a lot players that enjoy missions and that's fine. If you like it you play it.

But reference is competitive tournaments, what we see. And say what you want, competitive players tend to spend more money on ships, cards and such. See new Triple Scout build. People buy 3 same ships to run in tournaments. I did not see any post that went, "I Bought 3 scouts to play missions". Maybe there are people that done it, ok. So FFG promotes X-Wing for marketing, yes.

Maybe I'm wrong and there more people that play missions and it can be. But from most threads, battle reports and such, what can we see? We see that those who write here, mostly play not missions.

That's were the view come in.

PS. If I insulted someone with "Maybe it should be balanced, but looking at reality, not dreams it's different." I'm sorry for that. Apologies.

I can say that the majority of the people on these forums and the majority of podcasts are focused on tournament play. That doesn't mean that the majority of X-wing gamers do high level tournament play. There is a lot of excitement from the die hard fans around this type of game. You see the Worlds and high level play. There is support for it. Still, it's not the only way. Also, if it were the only way and all others were "alternative" types of play, you would not see any more missions in new products. I see more casual players are the ones for Missions. There are a lot more casual players than there are die hard players. It's just those that are focused on X-wing as their main game tend to be the ones who are focused so much on tournament level.

FFG did state that they expected people to get bored of tournament play all the time and were going to do something about that, but that it seems people are not getting bored. Well, that the tournament scene is growing. I, personally, know of quite a few people that have either quit the game or seriously cut back due to the absence of people not playing other types of game forms. I'm hoping this changes because I quit the tournament scene this SC season as I am tired of it. I want to see something more interesting come out.

The people who like missions and campaigns might be the minority on these forums, but that doesn't mean they are the minority of people who play X-wing. Yes, FFG doesn't support this type of play with extra stuff like they do for tournament play, but that doesn't mean it's "alternative" or not "regular" X-wing. It's all just a matter of what you play in your home area. Saying that it is this way can be seen as a snub to those of us who like it. Just because it's not how you play in your area, please don't disparage that type of game play.

Competitive play is not 'normal' play. It's just another way to play. Assuming that competitive play is the best, or normal way to play, and everything should be balanced for the 100 point, 6 rock snoozefest, and that missions or narrative play or alternate points values or campaigns or any other way of playing doesn't deserve a balanced game is not a very good attitude. X Wing is not just for tournament games.

To take this very good point another step forward, I would be willing to wager that less than 15% of all X-Wing players have actually played in a competitive tournament. I would expect that the majority of players world wide play among friends, family, etc. ... you know ... casually.

Therefore, helping the game be balanced in all of its facets serves the greatest good. I also wouldn't mind if FFG would give some thought to errat-ing missions and any other facet of play that may be impacted by changes that have occurred in later waves.

Just my two cents ...

As above I know that tournament is popular but so are scenarios/missions.

I for one prefer casual play with scenarios and missions.