This idea has been bounced around every now and again on the forums. I like the idea and have seen it done to WHFB at a time when all the tournament people said it would kill the tournament scene. It actually grew after that, so I don't believe those nay-sayers. I've played FoW, as well, and I like the missions.

For those that don't know how missions would change things, it would be based on the missions themselves. They would have to have a number of balancing factors that would hurt certain play style lists. Some missions would play better if you have several ships instead of just 2 or 3. Other missions would hurt you if you take a swarm. The missions wouldn't be auto lose if you went this way, but the lists that would end up being most viable to all missions would probably be around 4-7 ships of different types and skill levels. So, you take more of an All Purpose list. If the game moves beyond just "kill each other" than lists like Palp Aces don't become the most efficient for the task at hand.

I'm all for it, but I don't think it will happen any time soon. I was kind of excited when they talked about shaking up the tournament scene this year and I thought this could be it. No, they just introduced more world wide tournaments that were same old.

It was a while ago, but a bunch of people even started coming up with mission types and all that. Yeah, it's an idea that gets bounced around. You have the bunch that really want to see it happen and you have a bunch that really don't want to see it happen. People talk about and debate it, but FFG doesn't change anything and the subject dies for 6-8 months.

100 pt squads 6 rocks is becoming quite boring and after tomorrow regional I'm probably calling it quits on the whole tournament scene.

You nailed it right on the head in comparison with call of duty. I can't help feel those are the type of people who only want death match in XWing. This is what this games needs is some sort of objective play.

Many are getting tired of only seeing 3-4 of the same build types in top spots. Having objective would actually be healthy for the game. Would maybe give you a reason to put a punisher, or a couple of rookie XWing. So many are bitching about fixes for XWing and other ships. This could easily make those ships more appealing.

They already have a system in place with armada rules. Have 12 missions players choose from. You pick 3 to take with you. Now you build your squad around that, but take into consideration you may be playing your opponent missions, so don't tailor too much to just a couple of missions. This is exactly what this game NEEDS!!

If you lack imagination, can't think outside the box, and enjoy all those terrible Hollywood movies like war of the world's and independence day(which are some of the worst), and games like cod (again a very lazy type of game), then ya your not going to like anything but the boring old 6rock 100 pt death match

Ffg should do this, but your beating a dead horse I'm afraid

I look forward to XWing after this weekend when I can sit down and play some missions and play more epic, and armada, and rebellion

I played 100 point matches about a half-dozen times to learn the game. Then I wanted to play X-Wing for real, so I changed to Epic play.

i can't believe we are comparing X-wing to FOW, i mean FOW can't even make a decent VP system. no way a Machine-gun platoon should be worth the same as a Tiger tank.

Do i think the tournament system in X-wing is a bit bland, sure. Do i think it should be more like FLames of War, not a chance in hell.

As noted multiple times... you just developed Armada.

Yes, but instead of saying "that's just Armada", seeing it done in Armada should be a signal to how it can be done in X-wing. Yes, Armada does it and it works. It can be done with X-wing, too.

Simple killing gets very old very fast...

I'll be playing in a skirmish tournament tomorrow it's a custom format where everybody flies one ship at a time, starting with weak ships, and gets to fly the next stronger ship from their list when it dies, getting points for shooting things. Lots of fun. Though I suck at it.

I'll be playing in a skirmish tournament tomorrow it's a custom format where everybody flies one ship at a time, starting with weak ships, and gets to fly the next stronger ship from their list when it dies, getting points for shooting things. Lots of fun. Though I suck at it.

This sounds like fun. might have to try with my group. Are you each running 100 point lists? how many per table? 3x3 or 3x6?

When you say "weak ships" do you mean you deploy based on point cost per ship? So you lowest costed ship deploys first?

Cool Idea.

As noted multiple times... you just developed Armada.

Yes, but instead of saying "that's just Armada", seeing it done in Armada should be a signal to how it can be done in X-wing. Yes, Armada does it and it works. It can be done with X-wing, too.

Everybody does it and it works: 40k, Flames of War, Infinity (their official tournament system has over 20 missions to choose from), Armada, even the X-Wing spinoff Tanks.

Simple killing gets very old very fast...

It took 40k a good 25 years to use missions.

I think having the different games would draw more to tournament scenes. Think of it like the World Series of Poker. You have limit Omaha, pot-limit Omaha, no-limit Omaha, limit Hold Em, pot limit Hold Em, etc. and then you have the main event no limit Hold Em. Xwing could be the same. Have different games, a champ for each one, and the main event is the 100pt Deathmatch standard tourney.

I'll be playing in a skirmish tournament tomorrow it's a custom format where everybody flies one ship at a time, starting with weak ships, and gets to fly the next stronger ship from their list when it dies, getting points for shooting things. Lots of fun. Though I suck at it.

This sounds like fun. might have to try with my group. Are you each running 100 point lists? how many per table? 3x3 or 3x6?

When you say "weak ships" do you mean you deploy based on point cost per ship? So you lowest costed ship deploys first?

Cool Idea.

Everybody brings ships that cost 20, 25, 30, 35, 40 points - for a total of 150. 4-6 players fit on a table easily, the playing area can be expanded a bit for 8 or so. Everybody starts with their 20 points ship. Initiative is rolled off before the game, people place according to pilot skill. If a ship is killed, the player's next ship starts beyond distance 3 of all ships on the table.

Shooting things gives points - currently, things that involve the defender rolling give as many points per damage as the target has agility, things like bombs that pass right through give just one point per point of damage.

It's a lot of fun.

It would be reallly hard to make an objective where a **** ship is good and a good ship sucks.

The rookie pilot is not going to be improved in a situation where you shoot at a 0 agi space station or whatever because that is a pure dice situation and in pure dice the rookie pilot sucks.

If tournaments had missions that you could win the match if you finish then it would allow for ALL the ships to potentially be used depending are the missions.

D&D attack wing had missions which were fun and added a great deal to the tournament. Of course total kill of other side is a win as well so its not 100% just focus on mission.

Armada and Imperial Assault both have objectives, so I'd like X-wing to remain purely dogfighting. The missions exist in boxed expansions, and are fun in their own right, but aren't designed for competitive play. And I think it should stay that way, because some of them are quite unique and quite fun, but not suitable for competition because they often deliberately involve one side at a disadvantage, such as lower squad points. This makes them creative and fun, albeit typically unbalanced.

In Armada, the objectives are chosen by players in the list building phase. Interesting approach, but I'm not hugely familiar with that system. Imperial Assault uses a rotation of current maps and missions. 3 maps, each with 2 missions are legal at any time, and all players play the same mission in each round of a tournament. The mission for each round is selected by the TO, usually at random. I like this approach for that game, because it gives you other things to consider in addition to kill points and area control and that it informs the meta. However, most of them have very simple objectives and don't change the fact that clearing the enemy squad is always a very viable approach. Basically, there's generally a simple objective to complete, like hold an area, eliminate a figure, or gather a token. Most of the missions tend to feel similar, in that regard.

As far as X-wing, like I said, I'd like it to remain different and stay in the dogfight for official play. The missions as they exist are fun and creative, and if they were to be changed for competition, the things that make them unique would have to go away. And the dogfight is, in my opinion, the purest form of them game, which makes it perfect for competition. I'm good with it the way it is. The Dogfight is my favorite way to play.

I think tourneys should be you bring 3 lists, one from each faction. You fly them all. You pick the order, 1 imps, 2 rebels, 3 scum or whatever. Play them in order. In match 4, start over with list 1 and continue the cycle.

I think tourneys should be you bring 3 lists, one from each faction. You fly them all. You pick the order, 1 imps, 2 rebels, 3 scum or whatever. Play them in order. In match 4, start over with list 1 and continue the cycle.

Ya tripple the investment needed for players to play in tournaments that will be great for the game!

Clearly they should have three missions: Purge the enemy, which is what it is now, Capture the Droid, where you have to take control of a droid token at the centre of the map, but you can take it with the ship that picks it up, and Emperors Will, where each player has an objective in their deployment half that they have to defend, while trying to take the opponents!

<,<

Armada and Imperial Assault both have objectives, so I'd like X-wing to remain purely dogfighting. The missions exist in boxed expansions, and are fun in their own right, but aren't designed for competitive play. And I think it should stay that way, because some of them are quite unique and quite fun, but not suitable for competition because they often deliberately involve one side at a disadvantage, such as lower squad points. This makes them creative and fun, albeit typically unbalanced.

In Armada, the objectives are chosen by players in the list building phase. Interesting approach, but I'm not hugely familiar with that system. Imperial Assault uses a rotation of current maps and missions. 3 maps, each with 2 missions are legal at any time, and all players play the same mission in each round of a tournament. The mission for each round is selected by the TO, usually at random. I like this approach for that game, because it gives you other things to consider in addition to kill points and area control and that it informs the meta. However, most of them have very simple objectives and don't change the fact that clearing the enemy squad is always a very viable approach. Basically, there's generally a simple objective to complete, like hold an area, eliminate a figure, or gather a token. Most of the missions tend to feel similar, in that regard.

As far as X-wing, like I said, I'd like it to remain different and stay in the dogfight for official play. The missions as they exist are fun and creative, and if they were to be changed for competition, the things that make them unique would have to go away. And the dogfight is, in my opinion, the purest form of them game, which makes it perfect for competition. I'm good with it the way it is. The Dogfight is my favorite way to play.

The problem is how you presented the argument and your frame of reference. There is NOT a problem, just that there can be more..

X-Wing is successful because of the DogFight. Simple rules. Simple set up. Pickup a game immediately. No more than 15 minutes to build a list and set up and get to it. Now with 8 Waves and several intermediate boxes, the nuances have drastically increased. But the beauty is the simplicity of the framework.

There are other formats. I have ran a few and participated in a couple. Epic being one of them. With official support along with prize support, you can only hope the format grows. But also with Epic experience, a lot of players like the idea of playing but it is mentally intensive and time consuming. Therein lies the problem. Whatever format that could later be developed, it still needs to be fairly short, clear, and concise and not have drastic impact on current purchases model.

Some other tournament types but not quite objective include Highlander (different factions), Hunger Games, Furball, etc. Many of us have played/hosted different variations and types and usually players enjoy them....but to do that on a global scale would be another matter

For non-tournament play try Heroes of the Aturi Cluster.

Finally, ask yourself why is X-Wing so popular and you will have your answer.

For clarification, I do not fly the Lambda Palp, nor the BBBBZ, nor the Dengaroo, or any other efficient "meta" builds. I am my own person. If you don't like the meta, find something that works for you that you can compete and have fun (like the Party Bus type of concept). Would/Could I see an objective based format, yes I can. But rather see Epic grow first with official support and then an objective based type.

OP, you've basically described the Imperial Assault tournament structure. It's a good idea, I'd like to see it implemented and have it exist along side the standard dogfight format. Other games have several tournament & events, so it could work, but we already have tournament rules for Epic and Escalation and I almost never hear about any of those formats getting played.

Hi All

Looking about I've seen a lot of posts about how the meta is broken and how there are only two viable factions etc etc.

To me who has come from a Flames of War background, I was amazed that the competitive tournament format is the 100pt death match. Most other game systems have a set of missions which you have to take into account when you build a list. Not every mission can be won by simply killing the opposing squad ASAP. And herein I feel lies the source of most of the frustration out there with our current "meta".

Currently a player simply has to build a list which efficiently dispatches the opposing list in the shortest possible time. As a community we make it very easy to define what these efficient lists are. Games are streamed and dissected move by move. Podcasts theorize about the most efficient builds and combos. Forums users post lists and other users suggest tweaks and enhancements. So now we are in a position where many people that if you are not flying a Palp ace list, a Dengaroo, a Crack Swarm or a U-boat list, don't bother turning up to your local event.

Ok so it may not be that bad...... but it's getting close.

So I've been looking back at these other game systems with their various mission formats. For example Flames of War where you have to build a tournament army list which has to be able to be competitive when playing any of the ~12 standard missions. This poses the player some interesting challenges during the list building phase, "how many points do I invest in defensive assets, knowing that in at least 50% of games I could be forced to attack?".

We don't have this conundrum in X-wing, one mission, one objective "kill em all and let (insert favorite deity here) sort them out"

What if we did?

What if there were 4 missions.

1) Defend the shuttle (yep that thing we got in the 1st core set...)

Players set up in opposite corners. A shuttle token is setup in a third corner and has to make its way to the opposite corner safely under the control of one player while the other tries to kill it.

2) Recon

A satellite token is set up in one players deployment zone. The other player must get a ship into range 1 of the token, spend 2 actions to download the data, then get the ship that downloaded it off the board through the friendly deployment zone.

3) Destroy

A space station token is set up in the defenders deployment zone. The attacker must destroy it. It could even have a turbo laser etc if balance is needed?

4) Capture and board

Like mission 1 but the defender doesn't have control, the shuttle must be ioned, boarded and the attacker must get the cargo off the friendly board edge.

Now you have created a "meta" where a squadron must do all of these things well. No squad list will be perfectly suited to doing every mission well and better yet we don't need to use the nerf bat on a single card. Meta getting stale? oh that's easy make up a new mission for the new tournament season. Got a card that's too OP? oh that's easy make up a new mission that removes that card's advantages.

The way I see it the "meta" is in the state it's in due to tournament missions being 1D. If we add new missions to the tournament format we will see the meta becoming a multi dimensional multi faceted beautiful thing!

Can it be explained to me how Palp Aces or Dengaroo or U-Boats or any of the other top tier squads wouldn't just dominate these alt formats anyways?

You still have invincible ships (that are also good offensively), what is essentially a one ship build with great offense and good defense too, and pure alpha.

You're not going to be able to kill a Palp acewing trying to kill the shuttle. A Palp acewing would be great at spending 2 actions and running away. The #3 option is the same as the shuttle mission, no way to kill a Palp Acewing that wants to kill off the shuttle. I suppose the #4 option forces you to use ion weaponry which would be a problem for Palp Aces, might have to go with ion cannon TIE/D vessery instead of Juke x7 Vessery in your palp aces squad, although since my opponent also had to waste points on garbage ion weapons, I could not use ion weapons and beat his list in a staright fight since it would be so inefficient. *shrugs*

You're completely wrong, as evidenced by you scare quoting the word Meta. Another one of those aggressive optimism casuals that doesn't know what they're talking about. Other classics include, "Not EVERY ship is balanced for competetive 100 point dogfight, Punishers SHINE in epic where you have 300 points to blow which I chose to spend on Punishers instead of spamming something actually efficient", or "I'm playing a FUN list. Win or lose, I still had FUN, I conveniently don't consider winning to be fun because I'm bad at the game and always lose."

Just make Palpatine cost 1 epic point. That would fix the game.

This is one of those topics that highlights the differences between the two major player groups in X Wing: Those who came to X Wing from Wargames, and those who came to it from Board/Card games.

Wargamers get into X Wing and immediately think "Where are the scenarios and alternate points values? Why is every game the same scenario, the same terrain and the same point size? What is this madness?"

Card/Board gamers are relieved at the lack of RNG scenarios and the consistency of the single competitive format. They have little to n interest in the 'art' of the game and are instead drawn by a tightly written and highly balanced ruleset.

And frankly I don't think there will ever be a reconciliation between us and them. But my little group and I will continue to play our wide range of points values, scenarios, campaigns and so on and not care one iota about the 'official' way to play

I think all of this could be "solved" by an extended campaign box, similar to what they're doing in Armada. I've gone through the cinematic play included with the CR-90 and it was a good time, but occasionally felt as if it lacked diversity. A campaign could fix that.

But personally I'd love to see objectives come into play for X-wing. I like for my games to have strategic direction and importance as a nod to real life situations. Here in the real world when a force has to respond to a threat quickly they don't always have their ideal force at hand, but they're forced to make-do with what they have. Now I don't want to heavy handedly force too much reality into a game, but I think it would open up a lot of options.

FFG does a great job of reaching back and pulling ships from older waves and making them viable via upgrades and new pilots, but this could be another way of doing that as well. Suddenly bombers become highly relevant when you might have to take out a space station as an objective. Shuttles might be needed to rescue a floating pilot, or transport ships could be used to snag more cargo.

Basically, I think this is a better idea to make the old seem new and viable again rather than forcing it to happen with upgrades. And it adds so much more to the narrative of it all. As it is now when you sit down and discuss shop with fellow X-wing players and talk about a game you just had it's a matter of "this was their squad this was mine" with one or two highlighted moments. Imagine how much that increases when you add objectives. If done right, it feels more like you're accomplishing something, and it could mean last minute comebacks as well.

This needs to happen. I've played a miniatures game that centered around only the objective of obliterating the other team and ignoring the narrative possibilites of its source material (heroclix). After you experience a few releases you start to realize very little of what you have in your collection can be utilized, so what's the point of getting more? X-wing is dangerously close to going that route.

I could see a campaign system (look at HotAC, it is awesome). I cant see objectives at the tournament level. Part of the problem is how static the objectives would be in your given scenarios or their vulnerabilities compared to how fluid an X-Wing match is. At the current 100 point dogfight system the game would still be quickly ( and in some cases best) won through killing off the other squad.

As a side note, if you look at Warmachine it has objective based and win from killing the Caster/Warlock. The assassination style list was still a legitimate tournament thing last time I checked.

I could see a campaign system (look at HotAC, it is awesome). I cant see objectives at the tournament level. Part of the problem is how static the objectives would be in your given scenarios or their vulnerabilities compared to how fluid an X-Wing match is. At the current 100 point dogfight system the game would still be quickly ( and in some cases best) won through killing off the other squad.

As a side note, if you look at Warmachine it has objective based and win from killing the Caster/Warlock. The assassination style list was still a legitimate tournament thing last time I checked.

I think the biggest thing this idea has against it is it wasn't implemented from the start. If it were to happen, I'm 100% sure FFG would not damage in any way the feel and flow of this game through the type of objectives created. That would be a huge disservice.

I also don't think that comparing the concept of other objectives to other games is realistic. X-wing is a different game than FoW and Warmachine. Therefore scenarios like "king of the hill" won't apply because it's different. It's even different from games within its own license that at first glance look similar. I'm big into Armada, which has objectives, and sometimes despite those objectives, players make it a deathmatch, and that's fine. It could happen if they did objectives in X-wing. In all likelihood, it could be one of the objectives. But with a system as fast and fluid as X-wing I wholeheartedly believe it's possible to keep the flow of the game and introduce options in the tournament scene for winning and/or scoring points other than "kill all."

Also, I looked at HotAC. Thank you for that. It does look incredible and is about to be what my gaming table is doing once I get it all printed out.

so in other words do what they have been doing in Star trek attack wing..lol which is why I like that game just as much as X-wing even-though the game mechanics are not as good with those kinds of ships. And they got better prizes too which helps when you have to drive 50 miles one way to play! new ships beats plastic tokens every time. Even the resource cards are useful while the X-wing cards are just alternate versions of stuff you all ready have!!

so in other words do what they have been doing in Star trek attack wing..lol which is why I like that game just as much as X-wing even-though the game mechanics are not as good with those kinds of ships. And they got better prizes too which helps when you have to drive 50 miles one way to play! new ships beats plastic tokens every time. Even the resource cards are useful while the X-wing cards are just alternate versions of stuff you all ready have!!

Star Trek Attack Wing, while similar to X-wing, is designed by a company notorious for using its licenses as nothing but cash grabs and/or cash cows. There's little to no heart in their games designs, and rather than to have a game continue to succeed on its playability, they'd rather attract players by providing "nifties" through hard to get methods (conventions or sometimes tough to find venues).

I like that FFG rewards players by designing fun games you want to play rather than fancy (and sometimes game breaking) exclusives prize support.