Also, do you ask questions like: "what sort of game?", "how many points?", "want to play a mission?" before game of chess? Of course not. Then I don't know why do you expect thing like that in standard X-Wing play. And if you expect it go and organize your game group, but don't expect that strangers will bow down to your gaming preferences.

When you play chess. how often do you get asked "what's your list?".

I, for one, like the article by FFG. It needed to be said. Remembering that for some people X-Wing might be their first miniatures game, whether young or old, their first real efforts to learn the game would be checking to see what FFG posted about it. Therefore, I think an article about keeping it fun is a good reminder to the veteran, and comfortable welcome to the rookie.

The internet - on nearly every forum - seems to be far too populated by folks who wake up, log on, and start tearing down someone or something.

I have seen good and bad on these boards. FFG's article tried to make the point, though I wonder why, about limiting lists to, for example, no turrets to make the game fun. Nevertheless, they did try to make the point that this is, and should be, a game world for trying things, and enjoying the process with others. Nothing wrong with casual play. Nothing wrong with tournament power playing. Kudos to those who can combine them. Lots wrong with exclusivity, snobbery, and hate.

though I wonder why, about limiting lists to, for example, no turrets to make the game fun.

I think the article was written last year before Wave 7. They talk about there being only 3 big ships. Last year was a lot of large based turreted ships. It was a bit silly then. A lot of people hated it.

though I wonder why, about limiting lists to, for example, no turrets to make the game fun.

I think the article was written last year before Wave 7. They talk about there being only 3 big ships. Last year was a lot of large based turreted ships. It was a bit silly then. A lot of people hated it.

though I wonder why, about limiting lists to, for example, no turrets to make the game fun.

I think the article was written last year before Wave 7. They talk about there being only 3 big ships. Last year was a lot of large based turreted ships. It was a bit silly then. A lot of people hated it.

Then why release the article if it was written a year ago?

Besides the parts about only 3 epic ships and the discussion about no turrets, it's not like the info is not good now. Why not?

some players find turrets very thematic.

Turrets are thematic. 360° turrets are not.

Incorrect if you take the top and bottom turret together on the Falcon they represent a 360 degree arc set of cannons.

FFG should do Scenario based tournaments at the store level. And then alt prizes of often underused cards for fun.

Hear, hear.

One good thing about Games Workshop tournaments is that the corporation will not touch them with a ten foot pole. For the better, in my opinion. Tournament organizers have done a great job at fixing the game for competitive play... and we accept things like comp, creative missions that address balance issues, and creative formats of the game (well at least some of us do).

That being said I don't think the article was condescending, just ignorant of our needs and our feelings. Be more considerate of our needs and feelings, FFG.

FFG, you need to run down some of those herd of unpaid interns you have working, and set them to work 'playtesting' alternative tournament formats. Then release to the public that these formats are 'playtested'. That way the competitive crowd will all of a sudden love these events. And they will probably be just about as balanced as the 100 pt formats are anyway.

AND ANOTHER THING...

Hangar bay formats are NOT casual play!

I think this is an interesting point buried in the depths of the thread. Might be worth it's own topic. Is it good for the company to provide such detailed tournament guidance? I think there's pros and cons. It's definitely nice compared with GW to have comprehensive rules and FAQs. Some of the tournament rules are weird (NEVER liked their scoring system) and it's definitely the case that people don't seem to be willing to write their own. But on the other hand the tournament rules are pretty good and not the sort of slipshod mess GW would (and have) put out, although I'd love to see scenarios make it into tournament play in X-wing.

though I wonder why, about limiting lists to, for example, no turrets to make the game fun.

I think the article was written last year before Wave 7. They talk about there being only 3 big ships. Last year was a lot of large based turreted ships. It was a bit silly then. A lot of people hated it.

Then why release the article if it was written a year ago?

Besides the parts about only 3 epic ships and the discussion about no turrets, it's not like the info is not good now. Why not?

though I wonder why, about limiting lists to, for example, no turrets to make the game fun.

I think the article was written last year before Wave 7. They talk about there being only 3 big ships. Last year was a lot of large based turreted ships. It was a bit silly then. A lot of people hated it.

Then why release the article if it was written a year ago?

Besides the parts about only 3 epic ships and the discussion about no turrets, it's not like the info is not good now. Why not?

I think they put it away indefinitely, but they brought it back out when they saw how popular the Shuttle Tydirium Podcast is. That's my theory.

Haha! I have to say that the timing is impeccable. Two weeks to the day since we started our podcast. They even use the Shuttle Tydirium in the banner art. I mean, it's hysterical the boon for us. It's hard to get better recognition.

OK....I think everyone has to admit that FFG just endorsed us as THE Casual X-wing podcast. I wouldn't go so far as to say "official", but clearly, they favor us.

I think this is an interesting point buried in the depths of the thread. Might be worth it's own topic. Is it good for the company to provide such detailed tournament guidance? I think there's pros and cons. It's definitely nice compared with GW to have comprehensive rules and FAQs. Some of the tournament rules are weird (NEVER liked their scoring system) and it's definitely the case that people don't seem to be willing to write their own. But on the other hand the tournament rules are pretty good and not the sort of slipshod mess GW would (and have) put out, although I'd love to see scenarios make it into tournament play in X-wing.

Don't get me wrong, I like it when the company does things to support tournaments. like provide prize support, organize big campaigns or something like the Hoth Open Series. Let me put it this way, I haven't been playing 40k for a super long time but the Games Workshop supported 'Ard Boyz tournaments are notorious for their competitive gaming run amok. And I think the Nova Open, and the ITC format have really stepped up and made the game more interesting. I have played in many types of 40k tournament and appreciate the variety, although i don't appreciate what GW has done to the game. If GW's ruleset was actually tight, and the content well designed, the results would have been excellent.

The thing about a parent company (especially corporation) is, they will support tournaments only so far as is necessary to ensure their profits, and no more. They can do a good job, like FFG, or do a piss poor job, like GW. But it will only ever go so far. They can't say, 'hey guys, this would be super fun to do... lets do it'. Just to back myself up just check out the events at NOVA open this year. IMO they are doing what the fans want and you can see a lot of diversity there and there's something for everyone to be happy.

Independent TO's have the ability to address things that are impossible for the parent company to address. If one unit or meta style is OP, they can design tournament missions that subtly dial back that power level. They can also do things like comp if really necessary.

The problem with this thread and all the others like it... Is this us vs them mentality some people have, and to be clear that both casual and competitive players are guilty of this.

We all play the same game but some of us may prefer to play it one way vs a different way. Just like toppings on pizza there is really only one wrong answer.

The wrong answer is when you try to claim someone else's opinion is somehow wrong, or that your opinion is somehow superior.

Obv the answer is pineapple pizza!

I, for one, like the article by FFG. It needed to be said. Remembering that for some people X-Wing might be their first miniatures game, whether young or old, their first real efforts to learn the game would be checking to see what FFG posted about it. Therefore, I think an article about keeping it fun is a good reminder to the veteran, and comfortable welcome to the rookie.

The internet - on nearly every forum - seems to be far too populated by folks who wake up, log on, and start tearing down someone or something.

I have seen good and bad on these boards. FFG's article tried to make the point, though I wonder why, about limiting lists to, for example, no turrets to make the game fun. Nevertheless, they did try to make the point that this is, and should be, a game world for trying things, and enjoying the process with others. Nothing wrong with casual play. Nothing wrong with tournament power playing. Kudos to those who can combine them. Lots wrong with exclusivity, snobbery, and hate.

I did like that part where they suggested banning turrets in order to make the game fun.

I, for one, like the article by FFG. It needed to be said. Remembering that for some people X-Wing might be their first miniatures game, whether young or old, their first real efforts to learn the game would be checking to see what FFG posted about it. Therefore, I think an article about keeping it fun is a good reminder to the veteran, and comfortable welcome to the rookie.

The internet - on nearly every forum - seems to be far too populated by folks who wake up, log on, and start tearing down someone or something.

I have seen good and bad on these boards. FFG's article tried to make the point, though I wonder why, about limiting lists to, for example, no turrets to make the game fun. Nevertheless, they did try to make the point that this is, and should be, a game world for trying things, and enjoying the process with others. Nothing wrong with casual play. Nothing wrong with tournament power playing. Kudos to those who can combine them. Lots wrong with exclusivity, snobbery, and hate.

I did like that part where they suggested banning turrets in order to make the game fun.

i cant believe it took 137 posts on this topic for this to happen, but im glad i waited. thank you PGS for not letting me down.

Alright but I am not a fan of removing elements like turrets to change the experience. If they wanted to highlight other formats then they should have organized play have competitions in other formats like escalation or Epic. Or maybe throw out some more scenarios that are not so locked in a specific ship. Sure the title of the article says "Fly Casual" but the article doesn't casually direct players to other formats at all.

Went through this whole thread and the other one, I think I might be the target audience for this article but not the actual game. I play Imperial Assault, I love the campaign in it, I also own the RPG and have played that. I have recently started growing the skirmish game in my area casually and while I enjoy it, nothing beats a weekend night with my buddy's drinking beer, forgetting about responsibility and laughing over some dice rolls in the casual IA campaign while enjoying a very well done narrative story line. IF X-Wing had anything close to this (and I have recently discovered HotAC, but it seems to require a lot of ships off the hop) I would buy it. Their core box seems to be a great start, but it needs more.

I got to this point in your post and my brain connected X-Wing to the new Star Wars Battlefront game. People enjoy it for what it is, but it's missing something that would have made it feel whole. In Battlefront that thing is single player campaign. In X-Wing, it's also campaign mode, and mission/scenario play.

We need official content that has been balanced and play-tested outside of the 100point dogfight arena.

Went through this whole thread and the other one, I think I might be the target audience for this article but not the actual game. I play Imperial Assault, I love the campaign in it, I also own the RPG and have played that. I have recently started growing the skirmish game in my area casually and while I enjoy it, nothing beats a weekend night with my buddy's drinking beer, forgetting about responsibility and laughing over some dice rolls in the casual IA campaign while enjoying a very well done narrative story line. IF X-Wing had anything close to this (and I have recently discovered HotAC, but it seems to require a lot of ships off the hop) I would buy it. Their core box seems to be a great start, but it needs more.

I got to this point in your post and my brain connected X-Wing to the new Star Wars Battlefront game. People enjoy it for what it is, but it's missing something that would have made it feel whole. In Battlefront that thing is single player campaign. In X-Wing, it's also campaign mode, and mission/scenario play.

We need official content that has been balanced and play-tested outside of the 100point dogfight arena.

Who is we? Because I am quite happy with the 100 point set for tournament play. So we indeed do not need anything outside that arena. Now you can do as you please outside of tournament play. As long as the people who you play with agree on it.. but we need less we in your statements.

I like the article and love this thread.

It's a perfect proof that posting 'grey' on a website will always spawn angry 'No: black' and as many 'Come on! It's white!!'

It's interesting that it's the same approach taken by GW in their upcoming release for AoS

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2016/04/age-of-sigmar-how-the-points-system-works.html

Roughly "there are lots of ways folks like to play lets explicitly recognize that" play they way you and your opponent have the most fun, don't forget there are other options.

GW is only saying that because age of sigmar is a massive bomb and they are desperate to attract back players they lost by slapping on a points system.

At release they were all "points are the devil".

Games Workshop doesn't do competitive games any more, though. They don't do games at all, for that matter.

They should really rebrand themselves "Miniatures Workshop" for the sake of accuracy.

I actually believe thats changing. People who I keep in contact with say they have realized, to some extent, that they put themselves in the predicament. they realize its time to get back to what they were doing when the company was in growth.

But, I will never invest in them as a company again. Unfortunately Fantasy was my final straw.

I actually believe thats changing. People who I keep in contact with say they have realized, to some extent, that they put themselves in the predicament. they realize its time to get back to what they were doing when the company was in growth.

But, I will never invest in them as a company again. Unfortunately Fantasy was my final straw.

Yeah, I hear that. I still have 13 years of painted minis that I'm not going to sell, but I just moved all my WHFB to long term storage. I got fed up right before the whole AoS nonsense. It just kind of justified my exit.

I feel like the article was supposed to be something in the way of a nod to casuals like me, but I also feel like it was proof of their lack of caring about casual players, something that I totally understand. This game is the most competitive of all of their games. IA has campaigns, Conquest and Netrunner have cards printed that are mostly for fun and not meant to be strong, that sort of thing. X wing is strictly competitive though. FFG obviously wants more sales from casuals, but this article is rather insulting to me, and probably to many other casuals. It is so content-depleted (not quite a waste of time, but definitely content depleted). Maybe they could have put up an official variant, or updated the mission builder, but no, all they can say is "fly ships that you like" and "ban turrets", things that are obvious to a casual player. I've made a variant (using papercraft ships, cause I only have a few reals) where you can only have two ships, and they have to be small ones, or another variant where you build your opponents squad and try to make it as bad as possible. I know how to make variants, and so do other casuals. And you didn't even give us any, you just told us that we could make variants. Way to go FFG, way to go.

I loved this article... and appreciated that it acknowledged that there are other ways to play and enjoy the game other than competitive.

Would love to see FFG find ways to continue to find ways to cultivate/support some level of Organized Play for all of their games for "Casual Players". Casual players like cool tokens too ; )