So you think - there is no evidence just assumption.

I just want to say you've done the same thing you criticize others for. Your speculating that if the game had 150 pt scenarios instead of the current standard that XWing would not have taken off.

From reading your posts your going off your local area, which I'm afraid does not count for the rest of the world. You do ndt know for certain if the game would be more or less or just equally as popular

I think at this point we are just at a difference of opinion. You have your assumptions and I have mine. There is no way to prove either of us right at the moment. I think the only way would be to have FFG force a new mission based tournament standard instead of death match and see what happens.

I used to run a HOTAC game and mostly found that the people scared out of tourneys got discouraged by more competitive lists blitzing them and then staying out.

This would still happen with missions. The powerful lists are varied and multifaceted, far from what people percieve.

I agree with this. There are a lot of people that don't play in tournaments because they don't like to play in tournaments....no matter what the format is. I think there are some that would probably play tournaments if there were missions, but it's a small percentage of those. Then again, I don't think anyone has argued that adding missions would bring these people back into tournaments. I think the OP was stating that he thinks all the current "meta" issues would be gone if there were missions. Wait....let me grab a quote form him:

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!

There is no way to prove either of us right at the moment.

Which is what I take exception with in Embir82's posts. He's either not reading or ignoring the point you're trying to make.

Because he's making statements of fact about things which can never really be proven as fact. We have no way of knowing what might of happened if FFG had 4-6 missions and made those missions the tournament standard format for play.

It's possible that tournaments would of never taken off like they had, and everyone would of stuck to the DM format... Or those missions may have become the standard game played at LGS's and DM's a seldom seen format. The simple fact is that we just don't know what would've happened, we can't know in fact.

So trying to pass off 'DM is the standard format because it's the most popular' as a fact is a huge logical fallacy. You on the other hand aren't trying to make statements of facts you're posting a what if.

There is no way to prove either of us right at the moment.

Which is what I take exception with in Embir82's posts. He's either not reading or ignoring the point you're trying to make.

Because he's making statements of fact about things which can never really be proven as fact. We have no way of knowing what might of happened if FFG had 4-6 missions and made those missions the tournament standard format for play.

It's possible that tournaments would of never taken off like they had, and everyone would of stuck to the DM format... Or those missions may have become the standard game played at LGS's and DM's a seldom seen format. The simple fact is that we just don't know what would've happened, we can't know in fact.

So trying to pass off 'DM is the standard format because it's the most popular' as a fact is a huge logical fallacy. You on the other hand aren't trying to make statements of facts you're posting a what if.

I think trying to throw numbers at each other is pointless, but I do think there are advantages to a design space around deathmatches of 100 points, and FFG has taken advantage of that considerably. The standard tournament scenario is simple, doesn't require any extra rules overhead, and is consistent.

More than that, the game is made with that scenario in mind. There aren't any upgrades that would interact with missions in any meaningful way. You pretty much have to bolt on missions in a way you never have to in Flames of War. If you were going to make missions a standard thing, I think you'd pretty much have to rebuild a lot of the game, which makes the idea of the OP rather moot. You can see this in HotAC where a lot of things have to be changed and mechanics added on to make these missions work.

To be fair, there are some upgrades that are obviously intended for epic play only, even if they could theoretically go on standard ships, but those tend to be really obvious, and I don't think there was any small or large ship made with epic clearly in mind, and few ships really become better in that environment(E'tahn is one of them, though, because his bonus does scale up whereas most other buff ships do not).

The standard tournament scenario is simple, doesn't require any extra rules overhead, and is consistent.

Sure, but that doesn't mean it's the best way to play or that there's no room for other formats, or making those formats part of the standard tournament.

Every other tabletop miniature game that I know of makes use of some sort of mission or objective system even for it's tournament play.

You can see this in HotAC where a lot of things have to be changed and mechanics added on to make these missions work.

Sorry but that's a lot of apples trying to be oranges. You can't really compare what was done in a persistent, RPG'ish co-op campaign to a mission based format.

The standard tournament scenario is simple, doesn't require any extra rules overhead, and is consistent.

Sure, but that doesn't mean it's the best way to play or that there's no room for other formats, or making those formats part of the standard tournament.

Every other tabletop miniature game that I know of makes use of some sort of mission or objective system even for it's tournament play.

They do, but they're also designed with those in mind. With X-wing, they'd be very tacked on.

Infantry, for example, in Flames of War, makes absolutely zero sense unless you have a place to sit them on to dig in, and it makes no sense to run infantry companies if they don't get the benefit of defending against armored forces. A lot of units in flames don't really make sense in a "deathmatch".

I think trying to throw numbers at each other is pointless, but I do think there are advantages to a design space around deathmatches of 100 points, and FFG has taken advantage of that considerably. The standard tournament scenario is simple, doesn't require any extra rules overhead, and is consistent.

This is true, but it also boils the game down to some hard math and efficiencies. You end up with only a few lists as the best of the best. The game becomes a bit monotonous as it's mostly the same lists used again and again. It's the result of the raw simplicity and efficiency.

More than that, the game is made with that scenario in mind. There aren't any upgrades that would interact with missions in any meaningful way. You pretty much have to bolt on missions in a way you never have to in Flames of War. If you were going to make missions a standard thing, I think you'd pretty much have to rebuild a lot of the game, which makes the idea of the OP rather moot. You can see this in HotAC where a lot of things have to be changed and mechanics added on to make these missions work.

I don't get this part at all. OK...the first part is the bit about upgrades not interacting with missions in any meaningful way. I don't understand how you think so. Why wouldn't upgrades not interact with the missions. I think the very opposite, in fact. I think there are a lot of upgrades that might not do much in regular death match that can shine in missions.

I also don't get the bit about how you can't use missions like you can in FoW. Why not? FoW is a base set of rules that dictate the game and there are missions to play the game. Why can't you use missions for X-wing in a similar fashion? You state you would have to rebuild the game? You wouldn't have to change a thing, other than designing the missions.

You state that HotAC changes some of the game mechanics, but that can be a case for case basis for each particular mission. It doesn't have to change the core rules. Look at the Senator's Shuttle mission and the Protect action. Just make it an action in that mission and no where else. It's not like you need to change the core rules.

More than that, the game is made with that scenario in mind. There aren't any upgrades that would interact with missions in any meaningful way. You pretty much have to bolt on missions in a way you never have to in Flames of War. If you were going to make missions a standard thing, I think you'd pretty much have to rebuild a lot of the game, which makes the idea of the OP rather moot. You can see this in HotAC where a lot of things have to be changed and mechanics added on to make these missions work.

To be fair, there are some upgrades that are obviously intended for epic play only, even if they could theoretically go on standard ships, but those tend to be really obvious, and I don't think there was any small or large ship made with epic clearly in mind, and few ships really become better in that environment(E'tahn is one of them, though, because his bonus does scale up whereas most other buff ships do not).

What upgrades do you think would suddenly become viable in missions as currently printed?

All you've done is twist things to suit your argument and committed a number of logical fallacies.

Oh, the irony! This is exactly what YOU have done, quoting you about deathmatch popularity:

Which doesn't actually prove that people prefer it over all other viable options, it only proves that people prefer what is seen as the official method to play .

In no way you are able to prove that popularity of deathmatch format means that people prefer official method of play instead of good method of play. It is only your wishful thinking. If anyone commits logical fallacies it is you.

Also, because you are clearly unable to grasp my argument (or you don't want to) I will resort to argumentum ad absurdum . Maybe then you will understand:

Let's assume that FFG decides that official X-Wing tournament format will be based around throwing ships at each other or having all ships from all factions - Do you think people would prefer official method of play then?

What I found absurd is that some people reject idea that current tournament format had impact on success of X-Wing. Also because it doesn't suit their narrative they have a hard time to accept that people play tournament deathmatch because they like it.

"Of course they hate this format! They are coming to tournaments and are put to sleep by those games but they are doing this because it is official format!" (I hope you will detect sarcasm here).

What I found absurd is that some people reject idea that current tournament format had impact on success of X-Wing. Also because it doesn't suit their narrative they have a hard time to accept that people play tournament deathmatch because they like it.

It's my personal opinion that X-wing's success has little to do with the tournament format. It would do well if it started with missions from the beginning. No way to prove it and it's just my opinion. Just like there is no way to prove that the format is the reason for the success.

I don't argue that people like the game of X-wing...and the death match format. I do argue that people would prefer it if there were official mission options available.

What upgrades do you think would suddenly become viable in missions as currently printed?

Wow...almost any card, depending on the mission. I'll just toss out Expose for one. If you have a mission that requires you blowing up a target rather quickly, you could need more dice on that target as soon as possible. Maybe you have FCS or some other synergy for dice modification and the extra red die could really do it.

Bodyguard can be another. Is there someone you have to protect no matter what? Throw your action out to give them a higher green die. If it's do or die based on a particular mission, those upgrades could do it.

That's just pulling two out fast.

All you've done is twist things to suit your argument and committed a number of logical fallacies.

Oh, the irony! This is exactly what YOU have done, quoting you about deathmatch popularity:

Which doesn't actually prove that people prefer it over all other viable options, it only proves that people prefer what is seen as the official method to play .

In no way you are able to prove that popularity of deathmatch format means that people prefer official method of play instead of good method of play. It is only your wishful thinking. If anyone commits logical fallacies it is you.

Also, because you are clearly unable to grasp my argument (or you don't want to) I will resort to argumentum ad absurdum . Maybe then you will understand:

Let's assume that FFG decides that official X-Wing tournament format will be based around throwing ships at each other or having all ships from all factions - Do you think people would prefer official method of play then?

What I found absurd is that some people reject idea that current tournament format had impact on success of X-Wing. Also because it doesn't suit their narrative they have a hard time to accept that people play tournament deathmatch because they like it.

"Of course they hate this format! They are coming to tournaments and are put to sleep by those games but they are doing this because it is official format!" (I hope you will detect sarcasm here).

The same thing your saying can be said right back at you.

There is no way to say for sure that if XWing was mission based would it not be as popular. You've came right out and said that on the previous page.

Vanor made excellent points. You come out and say people are speculating, but you are doing the exact same thing.

At least those who are speculating don't come right out and say it would or wouldn't be popular. As it stands nobody knows, and unless you have some sort of magic crystal ball to look into, you don't know as well.

I believe you said people in your area love death match. Well good for them. It seems your putting everyone in the same demographic as your local area, which is a poor way to conduct any sort of argument/debate. I know people in my area would enjoy mission base objectives. Does that speak for everyone else? Why not? Isn't that exactly what your saying on the last page?

For all you know if XWing started out with mission base objectives for standard tournament everyone would probably be playing it that way, rather than death match. You don't know. Neither do any of us. Nobody except for you as saying so with such certainty.

People tend to flock like sheep. It's human nature and simple phycology. Ffg made premier events standard 100 pt death match, so everyone just follows because that's what's set. If you want to go to worlds you need to play with 100 pts 6 Rocks and kill all ships.

If ffg had 6-12 missions to choose from and that was how they conducted from wave 1, then chances are when you go to a game store that is what people would be playing.

Would it be as popular? Nobody knows. You, myself, nor anyone here can say for sure. I speculate it probably would do just as well, because XWing miniature still has 4 things which draws in a lot of people. 1) simple rules. 2) it's star wars. 3) no painting or glueing required, and 4) cheap when compared to other miniature games.

Protect would almost always be better than bodyguard and you wouldnt need to find an ept ship with lower PS than the target to do it. If expose were that good with fcs it would see use in standard play to kill other ships. It does not.

Protect would almost always be better than bodyguard and you wouldnt need to find an ept ship with lower PS than the target to do it. If expose were that good with fcs it would see use in standard play to kill other ships. It does not.

Protect isn't always an option and it isn't always better. If what you needed to protect faced more than one shot, it would be better to use Bodyguard. Also, things like Homing Missiles would flat out ignore the Evade tokens. There are other ways to boost the extra green dice with things like Esege or Fleet Officer for extra Focus.

Expose is mostly good when you need to kill something and not care about if you get destroyed or not. This only really matters in missions. I do say that it's pretty expensive at 4 pts, but you can't say that current use shows that it isn't worth while in a mission.

Protect would almost always be better than bodyguard and you wouldnt need to find an ept ship with lower PS than the target to do it. If expose were that good with fcs it would see use in standard play to kill other ships. It does not.

Protect isn't always an option and it isn't always better. If what you needed to protect faced more than one shot, it would be better to use Bodyguard. Also, things like Homing Missiles would flat out ignore the Evade tokens. There are other ways to boost the extra green dice with things like Esege or Fleet Officer for extra Focus.

Expose is mostly good when you need to kill something and not care about if you get destroyed or not. This only really matters in missions. I do say that it's pretty expensive at 4 pts, but you can't say that current use shows that it isn't worth while in a mission.

But Expose would be still bad - mission doesn't matter. Because from statistical point of view it is better to have Predator and use focus action - also it is 1 point cheaper and doesn't causes stress,

Protect would almost always be better than bodyguard and you wouldnt need to find an ept ship with lower PS than the target to do it. If expose were that good with fcs it would see use in standard play to kill other ships. It does not.

Protect isn't always an option and it isn't always better. If what you needed to protect faced more than one shot, it would be better to use Bodyguard. Also, things like Homing Missiles would flat out ignore the Evade tokens. There are other ways to boost the extra green dice with things like Esege or Fleet Officer for extra Focus.

Expose is mostly good when you need to kill something and not care about if you get destroyed or not. This only really matters in missions. I do say that it's pretty expensive at 4 pts, but you can't say that current use shows that it isn't worth while in a mission.

But Expose would be still bad - mission doesn't matter. Because from statistical point of view it is better to have Predator and use focus action - also it is 1 point cheaper and doesn't causes stress,

I agree that Expose isn't the best option, but it can be superior if you need to pump as much red dice as possible at one target in a short amount of time. Expose with some other form of dice modification adds more dice than predator.

Also, Expose doesn't cause stress.

Also, Expose doesn't cause stress.

Yeah, my bad, it is Opportunists - but my point still stands.

All you've done is twist things to suit your argument and committed a number of logical fallacies.

Oh, the irony! This is exactly what YOU have done, quoting you about deathmatch popularity:

Which doesn't actually prove that people prefer it over all other viable options, it only proves that people prefer what is seen as the official method to play .

In no way you are able to prove that popularity of deathmatch format means that people prefer official method of play instead of good method of play. It is only your wishful thinking. If anyone commits logical fallacies it is you.

Also, because you are clearly unable to grasp my argument (or you don't want to) I will resort to argumentum ad absurdum . Maybe then you will understand:

Let's assume that FFG decides that official X-Wing tournament format will be based around throwing ships at each other or having all ships from all factions - Do you think people would prefer official method of play then?

What I found absurd is that some people reject idea that current tournament format had impact on success of X-Wing. Also because it doesn't suit their narrative they have a hard time to accept that people play tournament deathmatch because they like it.

"Of course they hate this format! They are coming to tournaments and are put to sleep by those games but they are doing this because it is official format!" (I hope you will detect sarcasm here).

ya talk about irony.

The same thing your saying can be said right back at you.

There is no way to say for sure that if XWing was mission based would it not be as popular. You've came right out and said that on the previous page.

Vanor made excellent points. You come out and say people are speculating, but you are doing the exact same thing.

At least those who are speculating don't come right out and say it would or wouldn't be popular. As it stands nobody knows, and unless you have some sort of magic crystal ball to look into, you don't know as well.

I believe you said people in your area love death match. Well good for them. It seems your putting everyone in the same demographic as your local area, which is a poor way to conduct any sort of argument/debate. I know people in my area would enjoy mission base objectives. Does that speak for everyone else? Why not? Isn't that exactly what your saying on the last page?

For all you know if XWing started out with mission base objectives for standard tournament everyone would probably be playing it that way, rather than death match. You don't know. Neither do any of us. Nobody except for you as saying so with such certainty.

I can only repeat myself here and ask you a question:

Do you really think that FFG just pulled this format out of nowhere? Without playtesting or consulting gamers?

Because onle reasonable explanation is that 100 pts format was picked because it worked the best during beta tests - FFG didn't change anything in those 4 years, and believe me, if it wouldn't work they would change it.

It is exactly as I said - you just can't accept that people really like deathmatch format so you use completely unprovable arguments to promote idea of objectives in X-Wing.

Oh, the irony! This is exactly what YOU have done, quoting you about deathmatch popularity:

You either don't understand irony or more likely simply aren't reading what anyone is saying... I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are actually capable of understanding the point other people are making, something I'm becoming less inclined to do with each post you make...

In no way you are able to prove that popularity of deathmatch format means that people prefer official method of play instead of good method of play.

As I read more, the more I'm convinced you are either unwilling or simply unable to get the point.

The point I was making, that you completely ignored, is that there is really no way to prove either contention. You can't prove your assertion any more than Haychadwick and prove his. Yet you are the one who's trying to pass off subjective opinion as fact.

Also, Expose doesn't cause stress.

Yeah, my bad, it is Opportunists - but my point still stands.

Yeah, I agree that Expose isn't the best example, but Bodyguard holds up.

It's a bit hard to come up with examples when we don't even have the missions. Still, there are possibilities of it working well.

All you've done is twist things to suit your argument and committed a number of logical fallacies.

Oh, the irony! This is exactly what YOU have done, quoting you about deathmatch popularity:

Which doesn't actually prove that people prefer it over all other viable options, it only proves that people prefer what is seen as the official method to play .

In no way you are able to prove that popularity of deathmatch format means that people prefer official method of play instead of good method of play. It is only your wishful thinking. If anyone commits logical fallacies it is you.

Also, because you are clearly unable to grasp my argument (or you don't want to) I will resort to argumentum ad absurdum . Maybe then you will understand: Let's assume that FFG decides that official X-Wing tournament format will be based around throwing ships at each other or having all ships from all factions - Do you think people would prefer official method of play then?

What I found absurd is that some people reject idea that current tournament format had impact on success of X-Wing. Also because it doesn't suit their narrative they have a hard time to accept that people play tournament deathmatch because they like it. "Of course they hate this format! They are coming to tournaments and are put to sleep by those games but they are doing this because it is official format!" (I hope you will detect sarcasm here).

ya talk about irony.

The same thing your saying can be said right back at you.

There is no way to say for sure that if XWing was mission based would it not be as popular. You've came right out and said that on the previous page.

Vanor made excellent points. You come out and say people are speculating, but you are doing the exact same thing.

At least those who are speculating don't come right out and say it would or wouldn't be popular. As it stands nobody knows, and unless you have some sort of magic crystal ball to look into, you don't know as well.

I believe you said people in your area love death match. Well good for them. It seems your putting everyone in the same demographic as your local area, which is a poor way to conduct any sort of argument/debate. I know people in my area would enjoy mission base objectives. Does that speak for everyone else? Why not? Isn't that exactly what your saying on the last page?

For all you know if XWing started out with mission base objectives for standard tournament everyone would probably be playing it that way, rather than death match. You don't know. Neither do any of us. Nobody except for you as saying so with such certainty.

I can only repeat myself here and ask you a question:

Do you really think that FFG just pulled this format out of nowhere? Without playtesting or consulting gamers?

Because onle reasonable explanation is that 100 pts format was picked because it worked the best during beta tests - FFG didn't change anything in those 4 years, and believe me, if it wouldn't work they would change it.

It is exactly as I said - you just can't accept that people really like deathmatch format so you use completely unprovable arguments to promote idea of objectives in X-Wing.

You don't know on what basis ffg used to choose the given format, so your just grasping as straws.

At least people here are not bone headed enough to say it's my opinion and that's it.

Look you could be right, but you could also be just as wrong. You too are doing the exact same thing. Just making up b.s and saying your right and everyone else is wrong.

For all we know ffg wanted to keep it simple. That doesn't mean play testers said no to missions play. They probably wanted to keep it simple.

Does that mean the game would have been less popular? Who knows. I know you sure as hell don't. Just as much as myself or the next t guy.

I swear I can have an easier conversation with that squirrel I ran over earlier today lol

..

As I read more, the more I'm convinced you are either unwilling or simply unable to get the point.

The point I was making, that you completely ignored, is that there is really no way to prove either contention. You can't prove your assertion any more than Haychadwick and prove his. Yet you are the one who's trying to pass off subjective opinion as fact.

Maybe instead of attacking ad personam and small passive-agressive talk you should focus on proper way of expressing your thoughts - because you are clumsy in this regard, at best.

This is what you posted earlier, I exactly quote, word for word:

Which doesn't actually prove that people prefer it over all other viable options, it only proves that people prefer what is seen as the official method to play.

How does it make a point, as you claims, that I cannot prove my assertion any more than other poster his assertion?

Because this quote, yours quote, literally says that popularity of given format proves that people prefer what is seen as the official way to play.

Because this quote, yours quote, literally says that popularity of given format proves that people prefer what is seen as the official way to play.

Wow... There just is no point. Because if you think that, you just aren't worth the effort. The amount of hypocrisy and circular logic in your posts are more than I will bother to put up with.

Because this quote, yours quote, literally says that popularity of given format proves that people prefer what is seen as the official way to play.

Wow... There just is no point. Because if you think that you just aren't worth the effort.

No, you aren't worth the effort. It is not my fault that you are unable to deliver your thoughts in coherent way.

The way X-wing is designed there's no point in trying to add in objectives at the tournament level. Again, this game only represents a view into a microcosm of what else is going on in warfare, so basically it lacks the scale to have objectives without them feeling forced and shoehorned into the game.

If you really think about it, even a boxed campaign similar to what they're doing with Armada is the best folks could hope for with regards to objectives, and even then if the design isn't creative enough they'll feel artificial. Fighter combat by itself is just not a concept that lends itself to anything other than "shoot the other guy down." And yeah, there's bombers in X-wing, but there's very little to actually "bomb," and everytime I've used them it feels a little silly and forced.

Now, if they introduced a game with AT-STs, AT-ATs, ground troops, and T-47s I'd expect to be able to call in air support a-la methods similar to Flames of War, which is the game that inspired this thread in the first place.

Man, now that's a game I want to play.

The way X-wing is designed there's no point in trying to add in objectives at the tournament level.

The point is that it may be fun. It may not be, but until it's actually tried in a format that works for a tournament we don't actually know. This is all coming from someone who really enjoys the DM format.

Again, this game only represents a view into a microcosm of what else is going on in warfare

There are a number of games using the same 'scale' of combat that X-Wing does, that makes good use of objects. Malifaux, Infinity, Bolt Action, all are skirmish sized games with only a few units on the table. Even Armada can really be seen as a skirmish sized game when you look at model count.

So the idea that objects can't work in X-Wing really doesn't follow, not when other games make effective use of them. Which isn't to say you can just pick a random mission for X-Wing or plop the FoW mission set into the game.

But that also doesn't mean it can't be done.

Edit: I don't know that I'd actually like to see objectives in X-Wing tournaments, but unlike some people here I'm at least willing to see what could be done before I declare the idea bad.