One thing to note is that X-Wing is vastly different from Armada or Imperial Assault, games where you have slow moving grand capitol ships or a defined grid of spaces to move to. I'm sure warhammer doesn't force every one of your units to move forward at least one inch a turn.

It's easier to implement objectives in those games than it is for X-Wing. It wouldn't really work that well or make any sense thematically if capture the flag was tacked on to X-Wing for example. It wouldn't be that fun either, what would be good at the standard game mode would also likely be just as good at objectives.

Let me also add that one of the objectives in Armada- the one where you place all of your ships and then your opponent sets hyperspace spawn points behind all of your ships and spawns in whenever they want to in order to automatically win wasn't very fun. I'd rather just play deathmatch at that point.

It's just more fun generally to play the core game than to have a bunch of sprinkles and gummy bears and other crap on your ice cream. You can keep your stupid random items and stages where an Arwing strafes eveyone, I just want to play Final Destination because I'm playing the purest form of the game without any crap.

I have a strong suspicion that everyone who wants objectives in the game is bad at it and can't enjoy the game in its normal state, so in order for them to have fun they need their special snowflake game mode. Just like bad Smash Brothers players want to play with items and cuh-rayzee stages.

Let me also add that one of the objectives in Armada- the one where you place all of your ships and then your opponent sets hyperspace spawn points behind all of your ships and spawns in whenever they want to in order to automatically win wasn't very fun. I'd rather just play deathmatch at that point.

Its like you actually never read that objective at all.

Let me also add that one of the objectives in Armada- the one where you place all of your ships and then your opponent sets hyperspace spawn points behind all of your ships and spawns in whenever they want to in order to automatically win wasn't very fun. I'd rather just play deathmatch at that point.

Its like you actually never read that objective at all.

I'm sure I properly understood that objective at the time. I think the hyperspace points were set before you set up your ships and squadrons. Either way they were placed such that I if I pointed towards 2 of them I'd be screwed by the third.

Refresher please? I haven't played in months, sold my Armada stuff off a while ago.

Objectives are hard for this game because they force players to build specific teams.

A lot of Claim missions (have more guys in 1 area than the other) obviously favor swarm teams.

I feel that these kind of missions will have more traction in a casual tournament - perhaps over 4 rounds, you each have a shared Mission for that round, followed by a pool of secondary missions that you can pick 1 of (this is exactly how Malifaux works) , then at the end of the game you score those points. Running total is separate from tournament score and has a different prize pool.

If you want to read up on how Malifaux does theirs here is a good link:

https://pullmyfinger.wikispaces.com/Strategy+%26+Scheme+Tactica

But obviously some things have to be modified to fit into X-Wing rules.

It would be best I think - certainly in the short term - for FFG to begin releasing and supporting alternate ways to play the game rather than revamp the current tournament system.

The current 100 point, six rocks, death match style doesn't need to go away to make room for these other things. You can have your cake and leave other people's cake alone at the same time, so to speak.

That being said, I'd be all over a well done campaign or an alternate game mode with objectives. I'd play it for sure, and still happily play standard games as well.

One thing to note is that X-Wing is vastly different from Armada or Imperial Assault, games where you have slow moving grand capitol ships or a defined grid of spaces to move to. I'm sure warhammer doesn't force every one of your units to move forward at least one inch a turn.

It's easier to implement objectives in those games than it is for X-Wing. It wouldn't really work that well or make any sense thematically if capture the flag was tacked on to X-Wing for example. It wouldn't be that fun either, what would be good at the standard game mode would also likely be just as good at objectives.

Let me also add that one of the objectives in Armada- the one where you place all of your ships and then your opponent sets hyperspace spawn points behind all of your ships and spawns in whenever they want to in order to automatically win wasn't very fun. I'd rather just play deathmatch at that point.

It's just more fun generally to play the core game than to have a bunch of sprinkles and gummy bears and other crap on your ice cream. You can keep your stupid random items and stages where an Arwing strafes eveyone, I just want to play Final Destination because I'm playing the purest form of the game without any crap.

I have a strong suspicion that everyone who wants objectives in the game is bad at it and can't enjoy the game in its normal state, so in order for them to have fun they need their special snowflake game mode. Just like bad Smash Brothers players want to play with items and cuh-rayzee stages.

I disagree with almost everything this dude says but he get it right this time.

Beauty of X-Wing lies in pure deathmatch. Every game that was based on direct confrontation, where forced objectives, get worse - it destroyed Descent, it destroyed Battlelore, I have no doubt it would destroy X-Wing.

I say no to objectives in X-Wing - of course only in competitive play.

Did someone just say CoD was lazy? Maybe the mass releases are with only minor tweaks, but CoD4 defined a generation change in FPS that weren't named team fortress.

As someone who plays other competitive video games a majority of the time, I feel people are getting somethings confused. As some other people have pointed out, most games with objectives and no respawns usually turn straight to a TDM style match, with a hint of a possible threat of losing the game via objective. If people really wanted to start getting people to focus on objective game play, they would have to remove the permanent death. Meaning you would have to implement spawning after being destroyed. Which starts to make the game not feel like star wars, but some generic drivel.

Next thing, I know plenty of "miniature" gamers and "boardgamers/misc" that much prefer the removal of objectives due to them usually favoring builds that other factions don't have a strength in. So things like zone control would make aces near obsolete, and swarms kings again (I remember the days of people complaining that there was no reason to take aces... It's just as annoying as the generic pilot complaints).

While some believe objectives would be better, they should try a 6+ round format, where the squad they took never got a round they were favored in due to RNG, then see how they feel about it. The reason death match works so well for this game is because it helps remove outside variances.

Also PGS, the smash reference, while funny, has always struck me as incorrect. The purest form of that game is with items, on a plethora of stages. Why? Because that's how the game was marketed and made for from day one. It was a party game that was turned into a competitive game. If you wanted a straight up fighting game in purest form, I would suggest SF or soul Calibur. The same goes for all the people that are "bored" of the tournament scene. Maybe the game isn't meant for you, and are better served playing something that strikes your objective appeal more, because suggesting a orange make apple juice just isn't worth the fight. But much like smash brothers, there are more modes that dont see competive light, and people still enjoy them.

While some believe objectives would be better, they should try a 6+ round format, where the squad they took never got a round they were favored in due to RNG

If the scenarios used in each round were made known weeks prior to the list submission deadline, then surely a player would only have themselves to blame if their list didn't play to the strengths of any of the scenarios?

I mean, that's often how wargame tournaments are organised. The player pack is released, which contains the scenarios used in each round as well as the scoring breakdown and any event specific rules (and the wonderful thing is, many events are run TOTALLY differently from others!) and then the players build their lists, test them in the missions listed in the players pack, and then submit their lists to the TO for vetting (to make sure everyone can do their basic arithmetic). So no one is getting ripped off by RNG.

snip

Using the idea of random objectives as some have pointed out, or similar to imperial assault. The reason it works for Imperial assault, is much like those competitive games, it can be turned into a DM with only a minor threat of objective lose.

One thing to note is that X-Wing is vastly different from Armada or Imperial Assault, games where you have slow moving grand capitol ships or a defined grid of spaces to move to. I'm sure warhammer doesn't force every one of your units to move forward at least one inch a turn.

It's easier to implement objectives in those games than it is for X-Wing. It wouldn't really work that well or make any sense thematically if capture the flag was tacked on to X-Wing for example. It wouldn't be that fun either, what would be good at the standard game mode would also likely be just as good at objectives.

Let me also add that one of the objectives in Armada- the one where you place all of your ships and then your opponent sets hyperspace spawn points behind all of your ships and spawns in whenever they want to in order to automatically win wasn't very fun. I'd rather just play deathmatch at that point.

It's just more fun generally to play the core game than to have a bunch of sprinkles and gummy bears and other crap on your ice cream. You can keep your stupid random items and stages where an Arwing strafes eveyone, I just want to play Final Destination because I'm playing the purest form of the game without any crap.

I have a strong suspicion that everyone who wants objectives in the game is bad at it and can't enjoy the game in its normal state, so in order for them to have fun they need their special snowflake game mode. Just like bad Smash Brothers players want to play with items and cuh-rayzee stages.

And your statement of "people who want objectives just must not be good at the game" made me laugh this morning, but only because it was followed up by complaining about an element in another game that forces you out of your comfort zone with your team and makes you think outside the box. I guess some people just don't have it in them to think as they go and want the same thing every time, therefore railing against any concept of a change. Funny that this type of person calls others "special snowflake," especially in the subculture context of a tabletop game.

One thing to note is that X-Wing is vastly different from Armada or Imperial Assault, games where you have slow moving grand capitol ships or a defined grid of spaces to move to. I'm sure warhammer doesn't force every one of your units to move forward at least one inch a turn.

It's easier to implement objectives in those games than it is for X-Wing. It wouldn't really work that well or make any sense thematically if capture the flag was tacked on to X-Wing for example. It wouldn't be that fun either, what would be good at the standard game mode would also likely be just as good at objectives.

Let me also add that one of the objectives in Armada- the one where you place all of your ships and then your opponent sets hyperspace spawn points behind all of your ships and spawns in whenever they want to in order to automatically win wasn't very fun. I'd rather just play deathmatch at that point.

It's just more fun generally to play the core game than to have a bunch of sprinkles and gummy bears and other crap on your ice cream. You can keep your stupid random items and stages where an Arwing strafes eveyone, I just want to play Final Destination because I'm playing the purest form of the game without any crap.

I have a strong suspicion that everyone who wants objectives in the game is bad at it and can't enjoy the game in its normal state, so in order for them to have fun they need their special snowflake game mode. Just like bad Smash Brothers players want to play with items and cuh-rayzee stages.

I used to play tournaments for X-wing a lot. Mostly local ones, but sometimes work took me on the road and I'd try and find a venue to play at from time to time. I'd either finish well or win. But after a while it got boring, so now I'm on an X-wing hiatus. To me it just got stale because of people seeming to fly the same teams just with minor variations no matter where I went. It got very formulaic. The last few times I played before taking a break was for cinematic campaign play, and all of those games were a good time.

And your statement of "people who want objectives just must not be good at the game" made me laugh this morning, but only because it was followed up by complaining about an element in another game that forces you out of your comfort zone with your team and makes you think outside the box. I guess some people just don't have it in them to think as they go and want the same thing every time, therefore railing against any concept of a change. Funny that this type of person calls others "special snowflake," especially in the subculture context of a tabletop game.

I'm new to these forums so I'm sorry if I have to ask... is this paragoomba guy always so negative and presumptive? He seems to make a lot of assumptions about people or ideas... Is this a poster I'm going to have to ignore?

I'm sure warhammer doesn't force every one of your units to move forward at least one inch a turn.

If you base your argument on this, then clearly you don't actually play Armada, since your ships can't sit still in that game either.

is this paragoomba guy always so negative and presumptive? He seems to make a lot of assumptions about people or ideas...

Yes he is.

One thing to note is that X-Wing is vastly different from Armada or Imperial Assault, games where you have slow moving grand capitol ships or a defined grid of spaces to move to. I'm sure warhammer doesn't force every one of your units to move forward at least one inch a turn.

It's easier to implement objectives in those games than it is for X-Wing. It wouldn't really work that well or make any sense thematically if capture the flag was tacked on to X-Wing for example. It wouldn't be that fun either, what would be good at the standard game mode would also likely be just as good at objectives.

Let me also add that one of the objectives in Armada- the one where you place all of your ships and then your opponent sets hyperspace spawn points behind all of your ships and spawns in whenever they want to in order to automatically win wasn't very fun. I'd rather just play deathmatch at that point.

It's just more fun generally to play the core game than to have a bunch of sprinkles and gummy bears and other crap on your ice cream. You can keep your stupid random items and stages where an Arwing strafes eveyone, I just want to play Final Destination because I'm playing the purest form of the game without any crap.

I have a strong suspicion that everyone who wants objectives in the game is bad at it and can't enjoy the game in its normal state, so in order for them to have fun they need their special snowflake game mode. Just like bad Smash Brothers players want to play with items and cuh-rayzee stages.

I used to play tournaments for X-wing a lot. Mostly local ones, but sometimes work took me on the road and I'd try and find a venue to play at from time to time. I'd either finish well or win. But after a while it got boring, so now I'm on an X-wing hiatus. To me it just got stale because of people seeming to fly the same teams just with minor variations no matter where I went. It got very formulaic. The last few times I played before taking a break was for cinematic campaign play, and all of those games were a good time.

And your statement of "people who want objectives just must not be good at the game" made me laugh this morning, but only because it was followed up by complaining about an element in another game that forces you out of your comfort zone with your team and makes you think outside the box. I guess some people just don't have it in them to think as they go and want the same thing every time, therefore railing against any concept of a change. Funny that this type of person calls others "special snowflake," especially in the subculture context of a tabletop game.

I'm new to these forums so I'm sorry if I have to ask... is this paragoomba guy always so negative and presumptive? He seems to make a lot of assumptions about people or ideas... Is this a poster I'm going to have to ignore?

I am negative all the time, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.

If you want to ignore me and preserve your hugbox, fine with me. Lets me spread my poison with less opposition.

Phantom ruined the game. Vindication.

Fat Turrets ruined the game. Vindication.

Palp Aces ruins the game currently.

Objectives would be hard to implement in X-Wing well, and it seems to come from the casual crowd that scare quotes the word Meta who also seem not to be good at the game. It's a reasonable assumption to make.

Maybe if Palpatine was nerfed the game's standard game mode would be more friendly to casual players and we wouldn't need wonky objective game modes that would likely be D

Palp Aces dominated anyways.

The problem I have with this idea (based on Attack Wing doing the exact same thing) is that it is still far easier to just kill your opponent.

Attack Wing Organised Play forces to you play missions but 7/10 times it is simply easier to gun for your enemies two ships and blast them into oblivion. After all, it is far easier (and safer) to beam your captain down to the planet to search for resources when there are no enemy ships around.

Only time this doesn't happen is on the odd mission where it is a race to destroy/capture Deep Space Nine or the Borg Cube.

Objectives would be hard to implement in X-Wing well, and it seems to come from the casual crowd that scare quotes the word Meta who also seem not to be good at the game. It's a reasonable assumption to make.

Maybe if Palpatine was nerfed the game's standard game mode would be more friendly to casual players and we wouldn't need wonky objective game modes that would likely be D

Palp Aces dominated anyways.

Not really true. It's not just people who aren't good at the game that are looking for not the most competitive builds. There are plenty of people that just get sick of the game as it is. There is the opinion that if one used missions, that you would have a greater variety of builds that you faced against to make the game more interesting. Also, even if you faced only the same number of lists, at least the game would be different as it's not all based on just killing each other. If the game moves away from just the most efficient lists that kill each other, it will just move to efficient lists that win the missions. It's not like a bad player gets an advantage at all or a good player isn't good in this new style. People just get sick of flying against the same 3 lists around the same 6 rocks.

EDIT: I'd say that I would probably do tournaments more often than I do now if they had missions, but I might not. There is still that whole attitude of tournaments and the attitude people get. That's not going to go away. Just putting in missions doesn't make the game casual. There are a number of people who just prefer casual games no matter what.

The problem I have with this idea (based on Attack Wing doing the exact same thing) is that it is still far easier to just kill your opponent.

Attack Wing Organised Play forces to you play missions but 7/10 times it is simply easier to gun for your enemies two ships and blast them into oblivion. After all, it is far easier (and safer) to beam your captain down to the planet to search for resources when there are no enemy ships around.

A lot depends on how the missions are done. If they are designed so that just running around and blasting your opponent doesn't win you the game, then it's fine. If you design the missions poorly enough that all people do is just fly at each other and kill each other, then you haven't done a good job. I wouldn't take Attack Wing as a good example of anything....other than badly designing a game for a cash grab.

People just get sick of flying against the same 3 lists around the same 6 rocks.

May I ask what people?

Because my local X-Wing community grows wildly, despite us playing deathmatch all time, every time. What's more, overwhelming majority of local active players prefers 100 pts deathmatch format.

I understand that someone might be burned out on the game, but I wouldn't want to introduce objective based game as standard for X-Wing just to please this tiny group of players - you can organize games and tournaments on your own, without forcing your "proper vision" of X-Wing on others.

People just get sick of flying against the same 3 lists around the same 6 rocks.

May I ask what people?

Because my local X-Wing community grows wildly, despite us playing deathmatch all time, every time. What's more, overwhelming majority of local active players prefers 100 pts deathmatch format.

I understand that someone might be burned out on the game, but I wouldn't want to introduce objective based game as standard for X-Wing just to please this tiny group of players - you can organize games and tournaments on your own, without forcing your "proper vision" of X-Wing on others.

That's basically it in a nut shell. So many regular players lurk the boards or don't post at all. So only the vocal majority are heard most of the time. This is one of the times. Locally, only 1 group doesn't play standard tournament, and they don't like people joining in, outside of that, pretty much everyone is still mulling over what can beat the popular builds. We have a local guy that builds just bombs and does it to counter aces, he also has gotten good enough to take most other lists as well. There are many lists still yet to be played, and unless you are playing 10+ games a week, it's doubtful you've played a majority of them.

People just get sick of flying against the same 3 lists around the same 6 rocks.

May I ask what people?

Because my local X-Wing community grows wildly, despite us playing deathmatch all time, every time. What's more, overwhelming majority of local active players prefers 100 pts deathmatch format.

I understand that someone might be burned out on the game, but I wouldn't want to introduce objective based game as standard for X-Wing just to please this tiny group of players - you can organize games and tournaments on your own, without forcing your "proper vision" of X-Wing on others.

Sure. There will always be people that prefer death match and don't want to do other types. I'd say they are about 25%. The majority will play games that are what's played at the tournaments. If the tournaments went mission based, they would be happy to play mission based (as long as they were done alright and didn't suck). I'd say that this was about 50% of all the X-wing players. I've been playing for 4 years and built my local scene. I also see about 25% of players that get into the game and just end up quitting after a few months for a number of reasons. Sometimes it's that it gets boring. Other times it's that they just don't like the cut throat atmosphere of the game. That leaves 25% of players that play the game, but wish there were missions in the tournament scene. Or...they don't play the tournament scene.

From experience with other games systems and with X-wing specifically, I think the vast majority of players will play whatever format is the tournament standard....as long as is done well enough to be accepted. If FFG came out with some crappy system that wasn't thought of well, then most people would just go back to death match. If it was done well enough and became the tournament standard, then most people would switch to it because that's what the tournaments do.

I've talked to a lot of people about the game and gotten a lot of feed back from different types of players. There are those players that do get bored with tournaments and/or 100 pt death match. Oh, they might not be the largest block of players. I never said they were. They do exist and it is more than just a couple of guys.

Do I want FFG to change the format? Sure. Do I think they will? No. Do I think it would ruin the competitive scene if they did? No.

Most of the people I know who call for things like this IRL are pretty bad at the game and get frustrated, thinking that adding missions will save them, but honestly, there's really not a sane mission structure that would actually get anything new in the meta. The good ships are very mobile, throw good, modified red dice, and often throw good, modified green dice. It's hard to think of a reasonable mission that would suddenly make these bad.

I think everyone calling to change the rules to suit them are pretty much always going to be disappointed.

I would go so far as to say pretty much every mission i've seen would benefit one already-there archetype or the other, from escort missions to destroying something to getting to a spot on the map. You wouldn't see anything new.

While there may be bad players who are frustrated and expect missions to save their game play, it would be a disservice to just consider all people who feel this way into that category. I've known many good players who just want something different.

I think there are ways to develop missions that would not just have all the lists stay the same. Oh, I'm sure there would be some ships that stay in people's lists, but I expect the lists to change. These missions would have to be utterly new and not ones that have been released so far.

I'm positive that some people would be disappointed in the missions once they were released.

I also don't expect FFG to do any missions in tournaments any time soon, either. I'm fine with that as I just avoid tournaments these days.

While there may be bad players who are frustrated and expect missions to save their game play, it would be a disservice to just consider all people who feel this way into that category. I've known many good players who just want something different.

I think there are ways to develop missions that would not just have all the lists stay the same. Oh, I'm sure there would be some ships that stay in people's lists, but I expect the lists to change. These missions would have to be utterly new and not ones that have been released so far.

I'm positive that some people would be disappointed in the missions once they were released.

I also don't expect FFG to do any missions in tournaments any time soon, either. I'm fine with that as I just avoid tournaments these days.

Any examples of ways to design missions that change anything, though, without blatantly shutting something out of the game? I've actually thought this through, but making missions that reward things that are not in vogue(or even tournament good) without blatantly changing upgrade cards or ship cards is insane. The good ships in the tournament meta are really good at a bunch of things. Soontir can get around the map really quickly if he needs to- tie swarms can get to a bunch of different places on the map simultaneously while having good offense.

If you put a space station on the map that needs to be destroyed, that just benefits triple jumpmasters and other lists with strong alpha strikes. Defending something like that is very similar- more alpha strike lists to get rid of attackers before they get to shoot or shoot more than once, because in X-wing there are few effects that defend other ships directly, and those already show up in tournaments.

A lot of minis games were made with missions in mind and have functions for units that only really make sense in mission-based play, but X-wing isn't one of them. You'd have to redesign the game from the ground up to make missions really flow and be tight with the rest of the game.

Any examples of ways to design missions that change anything, though, without blatantly shutting something out of the game? I've actually thought this through, but making missions that reward things that are not in vogue(or even tournament good) without blatantly changing upgrade cards or ship cards is insane. The good ships in the tournament meta are really good at a bunch of things. Soontir can get around the map really quickly if he needs to- tie swarms can get to a bunch of different places on the map simultaneously while having good offense.

If you put a space station on the map that needs to be destroyed, that just benefits triple jumpmasters and other lists with strong alpha strikes. Defending something like that is very similar- more alpha strike lists to get rid of attackers before they get to shoot or shoot more than once, because in X-wing there are few effects that defend other ships directly, and those already show up in tournaments.

A lot of minis games were made with missions in mind and have functions for units that only really make sense in mission-based play, but X-wing isn't one of them. You'd have to redesign the game from the ground up to make missions really flow and be tight with the rest of the game.

There was a thread some time in the past year where people went and made a bunch of different missions and talked about it. I can't recall all the gory details of it.

I wouldn't say that you need to build a mission that goes to help non-meta ships. You just build missions that don't hurt or help one particular type of list one way or the other. Or...if you do have it lean towards one particular list type, you have a counter mission that hurts that list type. In other words, you want to have the net effect to be that most people want to take lists that are about 3-6 different ships that are a bit of a balanced lists. You don't want someone just taking swarms and winning all the time. You don't want someone taking 2 pancakes and winning all the time. It should be something with a nice mix of mission types that reward All Comers lists.

Any examples of ways to design missions that change anything, though, without blatantly shutting something out of the game? I've actually thought this through, but making missions that reward things that are not in vogue(or even tournament good) without blatantly changing upgrade cards or ship cards is insane. The good ships in the tournament meta are really good at a bunch of things. Soontir can get around the map really quickly if he needs to- tie swarms can get to a bunch of different places on the map simultaneously while having good offense.

If you put a space station on the map that needs to be destroyed, that just benefits triple jumpmasters and other lists with strong alpha strikes. Defending something like that is very similar- more alpha strike lists to get rid of attackers before they get to shoot or shoot more than once, because in X-wing there are few effects that defend other ships directly, and those already show up in tournaments.

A lot of minis games were made with missions in mind and have functions for units that only really make sense in mission-based play, but X-wing isn't one of them. You'd have to redesign the game from the ground up to make missions really flow and be tight with the rest of the game.

There was a thread some time in the past year where people went and made a bunch of different missions and talked about it. I can't recall all the gory details of it.

I wouldn't say that you need to build a mission that goes to help non-meta ships. You just build missions that don't hurt or help one particular type of list one way or the other. Or...if you do have it lean towards one particular list type, you have a counter mission that hurts that list type. In other words, you want to have the net effect to be that most people want to take lists that are about 3-6 different ships that are a bit of a balanced lists. You don't want someone just taking swarms and winning all the time. You don't want someone taking 2 pancakes and winning all the time. It should be something with a nice mix of mission types that reward All Comers lists.

Most of the good meta lists are multidimensional and can handle a lot of different things, even if they don't all do them the same way.

I'm sure I properly understood that objective at the time. I think the hyperspace points were set before you set up your ships and squadrons. Either way they were placed such that I if I pointed towards 2 of them I'd be screwed by the third.

Refresher please? I haven't played in months, sold my Armada stuff off a while ago.

Multiple Points for the oh-so-negative one, as you say

1) The person doing the Hyperspace assault has to place a single, solitary Ship there (and up to 3 squadrons - and it can only be a small or medium ship), and set the 3 points, before fleets are set up... This gives you plenty of opportunity to react to where they're placed with your own placements...

2) They can't arrive until the start of the Second Turn. They are also second player... So even if they arrive right behind you, you get a chance to move away before they get to do Squat. You can even proactively bomb the crap out of them, since, they're only a small or medium ship after all... its hardly an Imperial Star Destroyer landing there.

3) Depending on how long ago you played it, you may have been playing it at the 180 point level. The game was designed to be played at the 400pt level. Of course, a Medium ship is a fair chunk of 180 points, but not of 400... Judging it as an unfinished game is like saying that X-Wing is unbalanced if you play it at the 45pt Level. Of course it is.

4) You, as the first player, are the person chosing the objectives. Your opponent has to present you with a choice of three objectives... An Assault, a Navigation, and a Defensive (of which Hyperspace is)... If you don't like playing against that objective, you don't choose it . Choose and make your peace with one of the other two.

This is hardly "Roll a Dice on the Objective table and both parties are playing that one..." after all.

The Objectives deliberately benefit the Second player, because otherwise, First player has such an intrinsic advantage with the "Shoot_Then_Move" system.

I guess I've been looking at this all wrong.

Why have objectives in X-wing? This is a game of fighter combat. In real life, and even Star Wars, fighter craft do nothing other than establish air superiority so the actual troops can do their jobs. Even the shining X-wing moment in A New Hope had to be fabricated by a ridiculous piece of plot. "This moon sized death ray has a port we can cram a torpedo into and blow it away! Let's all fly down this trench to do it too! Never mind spacecraft can fly in three dimensions and we could just fly right at it!" How lame.

Even in other games fighter combat gets washed over. Look at Armada. It's boiled down to "those two entire SQUADRONS are close enough, roll some dice and be done with it." While it's important in the grand scheme of things, its goals (or objectives) are not detachable from the goals of other forces.

Since X-wing is a game about individual fighter combat and not connected to any other type of warfare like ground, there's no reason to have objectives. The game is too simple in concept.

And if you want to add more to it, just imagine that the last time you saw two squadrons go at it in Armada that's what is being played out in detail on an X-wing table. Otherwise it's a pointless game, attracting possibly pointless people. You know the type, the ones that just smashed their action figures together as children because one was bad and one was good without any other rhyme or reason.