Shuttle Tydirium Episode 8: Asteroid runs do not concern me

I was really glad to be able to talk about reinforcements in this episode. They are misused so much in scenarios, but they can work really well if done right.

Really liking what you guys are doing, keep it up!

On the missions and objectives discussion ... Back in the episode 1 thread I posted some mechancs for an Armada-like mission objective system for X-wing that could be used in casual or tournament play. It allows selection of multiple objectives, so you can somewhat tailor you list to them, but your opponent chooses the final objective, so you're unlikely to be fully optmized. I encourage you to check them out.

(I'd repost them here, but I'm traveling and don't have access to the file.)

First off.....glad you guys like it and I appreciate you posting that you do!

I went and dug up what Hawkstrike posted back in the original post and found:

Enjoying the podcast so far. I'm looking forward to hearing episodes on the missions (the Senator's shuttle escort is my favorite), Heroes of the Aturi Cluster, Epic, campaigns and alternate game formats.

I like the idea of objective play, even in a tournament format -- so much so I borrowed an idea from Armada for X-wing objective play that works for casual and tournament formats:

In OBJECTIVE PLAY, each player selects objectives for his squad that could alter the conditions of the game. These objectives become part of the player’s squad list, and shift the goals of the game to include other objectives in addition to scoring points by destroying ships.

Objectives in Play. Each player selects three objective cards to be part of his or her squad list. When play begins, 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 and its conditions apply. Points scored as a result of objective play are added to the points scored by destroying opposing ships (and in tournament play are applied toward Margin of Victory just as in standard 100-point dogfight tournaments).

Objective Cards

Bounty Hunter. Each player designates a ship on his squad to be the Bounty and informs the opponent, marking the ship with an objective token; 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 +12 points; if the station is not destroyed by the end of the game, the second player gains +12 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.

I have not had time to try this out, but it does look cool.

Did I miss this yesterday something else to listen too WOOT WOOT.

You guys are excellent.

Captain's Question:

One obvious answer would be the Rookie Pilot, -1 squad point. However, being a loyal servant of the Empire at heart, I'll choose instead the Firespray, +1 attack.

Objective based play in a tournament style setting is so tricky, though. My main issue is that there is often a good chance that the mission choice screws over one of the players.

Splitting the choice, using a system like that in Armada, could be a good way to mitigate that effect. The way armada does it is that one player has to pick from three missions that the other one brings as part of their list. So the player choosing the mission can have some say, while at the same time the player bringing the missions also has some say in what mission is played when they choose which three to bring with their list. That's a pretty good way of integrating missions into competitive play.

You could also have asymmetrical missions in a scheme like that, which makes it easier to use thematically appropriate scenarios

Knowing all the options in advance can also help not screw someone.

Knowing all the options in advance can also help not screw someone.

True, but the no-win scenarios can sometimes still happen. It depends on the scenarios, really

Great post, and a great discussion about scenarios, especially with respect to reinforcements. I have some thoughts about scenarios that I want to share with you.

First, what if scenarios aren't meant to be completely balanced? You could kind of think of them as Nightmare decks are Challenge decks in some card games, like Lord of the Rings. You play, then switch factions, and try again. You can see who can beat the challenge. For the first two missions in the Core Set, it seems that the challenge is to play as Rebels and beat the Imperials. I don't think there's anything wrong with that unless people are trying to implement scenarios in a tournament system, which is probably not the best.

Second, I think you guys almost nailed it, but skirted by the issue of reinforcements. The designers knew full well that the standard game mode was going to be 100 point death match. To that end, they introduced reinforcements to discourage the kill 'em all mentality. Now, I do agree that in Mission 1 the TIEs should not enter on the side the shuttle is fleeing towards. I mean, I could kind of see it like a blockade, and they've made it through the first wave and have to weather the second wave before the jump to hyperspace. But I totally agree with Babaganoosh that it's no good to punish Rebels for destroying ships.

Finally, I started writing this before finishing the podcast, and now that I've heard more while writing this up, I agree that reinforcements coming in at a timing or event trigger is the more elegant way to do it.

I agree that there is a place for unbalanced scenarios, and that they do make sense as a sort of challenge. Sort of like a survival challenge mode where you face off against endless waves of enemies and the challenge is to see how long you survive. But in x-wing it probably makes more sense to run thematic unbalanced scenarios, like for example a rebel attack on an imperial space station, star destroyer, etc. And of course, the fairest way to run these missions is to do it twice, switching sides after the first run.

I think the reinforcements in M1 and M2 are both unnecessary, and detract from the play experience in those missions. One of the defender's only defense mechanisms in M2 is destroying enemy ships (the defender's ships have no protect action and limited maneuvering). They really need a way to fight back. If Biggs didn't exist, the situation would be hopeless almost every time.

if they approach the mission with a deathmatch mentality, they're at a severe disadvantage, since they lose the mission if just one of their ships (the disabled one) is destroyed, while the imperials can lose almost all their ships, as long as they kill the target. It's a huge advantage. If the defender played like that, they would almost definitely lose, and would deserve to do so for making such a blunder. It's the scenario equivalent of flying whisper onto a rock in front of the enemy squad.

Good points. I'm just afraid that if we keep saying the missions are bad, nobody will want to fly them

I posted something in squad lists asking advice on builds to bring a new player in and this discussion got me thinking should I introduce the basic death match game to the new guy first so he gets a grasp of the basics or do you think a scenario might be easier because they don't revolve around a kill em all mentality usually? I don't want to confuse him using tinkered rules but death match is boring to me personally and he tends to think like I do. We can always go scenario after a crash course in modern avionics I guess, thoughts?

Good points. I'm just afraid that if we keep saying the missions are bad, nobody will want to fly them

Fair point, but talking them up could also be bad. If people hear good things about a mission, play it and don't have fun, then that seems worse to me than hearing that a mission is bad. As long as there are some good scenarios out there, and there are, then we should be fine being honest.

I posted something in squad lists asking advice on builds to bring a new player in and this discussion got me thinking should I introduce the basic death match game to the new guy first so he gets a grasp of the basics or do you think a scenario might be easier because they don't revolve around a kill em all mentality usually? I don't want to confuse him using tinkered rules but death match is boring to me personally and he tends to think like I do. We can always go scenario after a crash course in modern avionics I guess, thoughts?

I think the standard format is easier to grasp than just about any scenario, unless the scenario is just altered points, like say, 150 vs 150 points. Extra layers of rules will be adding a little more to keep track of for a new player. I recommend the standard format to start out.

I think the standard format is easier to grasp than just about any scenario, unless the scenario is just altered points, like say, 150 vs 150 points. Extra layers of rules will be adding a little more to keep track of for a new player. I recommend the standard format to start out.

That is pretty much what I was thinking, he wants to play imperial and my first thought was palp mobile and standard ties. Should give him a few manuevering options to dink with and palp is mighty in the forgiveness of the force.

I think the standard format is easier to grasp than just about any scenario, unless the scenario is just altered points, like say, 150 vs 150 points. Extra layers of rules will be adding a little more to keep track of for a new player. I recommend the standard format to start out.

That is pretty much what I was thinking, he wants to play imperial and my first thought was palp mobile and standard ties. Should give him a few manuevering options to dink with and palp is mighty in the forgiveness of the force.

I would actually recommend something else for a starter list; palp aces is actually relatively unforgiving of mistakes, such as bumping or flying over asteroids and losing actions. I like to start people out on turreted ships, personally. Aim for forgiving lists to start someone out, and then let them graduate to the more skill-dependent lists.

Well, notice he said Palpatine and TIE fighters, not aces. You could have a Palp Shuttle with Howlrunner and 4 Obsidians for 99 points. Still, Palpatine will be tough to remember for a new player, so you'd have to remind him.

Great post, and a great discussion about scenarios, especially with respect to reinforcements. I have some thoughts about scenarios that I want to share with you.

First, what if scenarios aren't meant to be completely balanced? You could kind of think of them as Nightmare decks are Challenge decks in some card games, like Lord of the Rings. You play, then switch factions, and try again. You can see who can beat the challenge. For the first two missions in the Core Set, it seems that the challenge is to play as Rebels and beat the Imperials. I don't think there's anything wrong with that unless people are trying to implement scenarios in a tournament system, which is probably not the best.

Actually, I like this idea and we should probably bring it up sometime. I do like the idea of unbalanced missions. I keep mentioning a few ideas I have. One is the idea for 4 x Tie Punishers attacking a pirate base. The idea is for them to win, but make it a challenge. I'll be more than happy to play the pirates and have my friend blow me up. The other is the Bounty Hunter Rodeo. I want to have each person play one Bounty Hunter and myself and others do the Rebels. The Rebels will never win and aren't supposed to. It's all about the Bounty Hunters trying to see who is best. I think there is a place for uneven missions.

I do think that there is also a place for even missions, though. Some of the ones that might not be all that might be made even if you had a gentleman's agreement ahead of time to not take certain things. That would work out best. It can ensure that some of these missions aren't terrible.

I posted something in squad lists asking advice on builds to bring a new player in and this discussion got me thinking should I introduce the basic death match game to the new guy first so he gets a grasp of the basics or do you think a scenario might be easier because they don't revolve around a kill em all mentality usually? I don't want to confuse him using tinkered rules but death match is boring to me personally and he tends to think like I do. We can always go scenario after a crash course in modern avionics I guess, thoughts?

I'll disagree with Babaganoosh. I think the early missions are perfect to get someone into the game. I totally agree that death match gets boring and especially when you are new. You tend to just fly in circles and shoot at each other. I think the missions put a certain amount of focus on things. I would not optimize the lists. Make them general lists with a mission so he just gets the hang of the game. One or two special guys or special rules is best. Learn the basics of the game....then introduce all the funky guys. That's what I say.

I also think learning with Wave 1 vs Wave 1 ships is best. Tie Fighters against X-wings and Y-wings. Oh, you can throw in a couple of other ships, too, but I'd say stick to the basics. The game was very balanced early on and it's good to learn the core concepts and ships. Learn to appreciate an X-wing and you will be better at other ships. Learn to appreciate a Tie Fighter and you will fly your Interceptors better.

Good discussion on reinforcements!