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.

What does X-wing represent? Space fighter combat, which is based upon the concepts of air fighter combat in real life. Air superiority, while important, is only needed to support other forms of warfare, like ground. I mean look at the one shining moment for fightercraft in Star Wars: when they blew up the Death Star. Do you know how fabricated and full of holes that whole concept was, even for a space opera?

"Sure, let's blow up this moon sized space ray by hitting a tiny tube with a torpedo, but rather than flying right at it and using a third dimension, we'll run down a trench for miles and all get blown away in the process."

*fart noise

It's all shoehorned in to make fightercraft (and Luke) seem more important. They have their roles in warfare, but it's really just support to other things not represented in X-wing.

Don't get me wrong here, if they do objectives and they're well done I'm all about it. But the game has been out for a while, and I know they've been brainstorming about how to keep it fresh (everyone remember when they "were never going to add a third faction"?) If they had a really solid idea on how to add objectives and narrative to X-wing at the tournament level they would have done it. All their other Star Wars miniature games do it, so you know they've thought about it.

..

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.

Nobody can prove anything. We are all just speculating, but from what I gather from reading your posts is that you are saying it's how it is.

Nobody knows for sure. Would missions work well in XWing? Would the game be popular? You know just as much as myself and everyone else around here.

Vanor had made some excellent points. He like the rest of us, don't disagree that maybe it wouldn't be as popular, but given that all we've been given is death match there is no way of certain to know for sure.

We don't know what process ffg used to determine how the 100 pt games we have now. Maybe they tried 50 different ways and found this was best. Maybe they had a deadline and had to come to some sort of agreement, and found this to be the easiest solution.

You seem to say with such certainty that if XWing tournaments were mission based that it wouldn't be as popular, but with no actual facts or numbers to base any of your claims off of. So I ask. How are you so certain? Have you taken a poll if the thousands of players that play? There is no way at the moment for any of us to know.

I stand by with what I said earlier. My opinion (which is just as equal as yours) is that regardless what type of tournament's XWing has, the initial points I made earlier would still be the reason why a lot got into XWing. Cost, no assembly or painting, it's star wars, and its easy. I got into the game as a collector who liked the look of the models. Not knowing anything about tournament play, as I'm sure goes for many others (maybe not collectors but the design catchers their eyes, and its star wars). I'd probably keep doing tournaments just as I have been regardless of missions or death match. So long as it was well balanced, which I'm sure if ffg put the time in would be

I'm not against the idea of missions entirely, either, but I don't think they'd do what a lot of people think because the principles that make upgrades/pilots/ships good are always going to be there and you're not going to be able to make an objective that turns a scyk good.

I think it's important to understand what you want the meta to be in any case before you suggest that something change it.

I'm not against the idea of missions entirely, either, but I don't think they'd do what a lot of people think because the principles that make upgrades/pilots/ships good are always going to be there and you're not going to be able to make an objective that turns a scyk good.

I think you are missing the point. It's not that missions will make bad ships good. It's just that we will see more than just 3 different list types again and again and again when you go to a tournament.

No, you just deny the basic facts.

The 100/6 format is supported to the exclusion of all else. Other tournament formats are an afterthought.

This is not an assumption, it's a fact. The reason it's relevant to the discussion is because diversity in the tournament scene is healthy and good, and FFGs involvement actively hurts diversity.

You just speculate and presents opinion...

Mate, that's all either of us are doing. If you don't like speculation and the comparison of opinion instead of facts, then just walk away from the keyboard now because this entire discussion is just opinion and guess work.

Why do you assume that solid official support wouldn't be better for this game than what ETC Commitee did? It is completely baseless.

I'm glad you asked.

People love to play what is official, regardless of whether or not it's good. And for events this is fine, because if you don't like the way a game is played then you simply don't go to those events, right?

Wrong. Because there is only one way to play tournaments (excluding the afterthought events like escalation) and because people love to play the official format to the exclusion of all else, the result is that at regular games nights the ONLY games being played are 100/6.

This is a problem because it forcibly splits the community into competitive (100/6 format) communities, and communities that like to play everything else. To the extent where you appear to not be aware that those 'other' players even exist.

supporting competitive play in given system is one of the best ways for this system to achieve commercial success. GW ignored competitive aspect of their games for many years - meanwhile all other publishers of miniature games officialy supported their products - as you can see WFB is long dead, yet Warmachine/Hordes and Infinity are in good shape.

As you are so fond of saying, this is just baseless speculation.

I will repeat my question:

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

You've got a very adversarial tone.

EDIT: I'll use an analogy to try and cut through the bull.

If we all lived in a camp where our meals were provided, and all we were provided was mac-and-cheese for every meal, with the occasional issue of vegemite sandwiches and random times, then you'd be right in saying that A) Mac and cheese is the most popular meal and the B) it is the officially provided meal.

But if you then want to say that mac and cheese would continue to be the most popular meal if we had a full menu to choose from, or if that full menu had been provided from the start that mac and cheese would have emerged as the clear favourite it is now, then you're wrong. That is (and these words sound familiar) baseless assumption .

Blind Freddy can see that 100/6 is the most popular format for games nights and tournaments at the moment. No one is collecting stats on casual games groups so no one knows what's the most popular there, but logic dictates it's not 100/6.

But no one knows WHY 100/6 is the most popular. I (and others) insist that it's simply because it was pushed as the official and standard way to play, while you appear to think it is inherently the best way to play and that it appeals to the most players purely because of merit.

But despite your insistence otherwise, no one knows. I'm happy with not knowing, I realise all I've got is a hunch and an opinion, but you seem deluded into thinking your opinion is fact.

So I'm giving you a last chance to respond. If all I get is another post of circular logic, faulty interpretation of data, and adversarial attitude then I'm not going to bother responding, I'm just going to put you on my ignore list and go about my day.

but you seem deluded into thinking your opinion is fact.

Which is as I said the problem with is posts and why I've started to come to a conclusion. What I, you and others have been saying is that an objective based game might be better, and we have no way of knowing how popular it could be until it's made the official format for tournaments. I'm not saying they should replace the DM format or even that an objective based format would a) work, or b) be popular. But I like others don't try to pass our opinions off as facts and use circular logic and aggressive posting as the basis of our argument.

I think you might be confusing how I used scale. I meant it in relation to warfare, not in size.

I see, but I still don't believe that means that means objective based missions are inherently wrong for this game.

L O L this thread has blown up a bit.

Let's take something that is working extremely well. Arguably better than any hobby at this time except for magic.

Now lets f*** it up fam.

Put in missions. While we're at it, throw in magic phase ....the force does exist, why is it only represented through dice manipulation? There should be a magic phase. Also, let's go deeper. Turn 0 should be a 'leave the hangar phase ', we can give ships advanced deployment or something. That's some s***. Are we goofed yet? No. Not quite . 100 points is too limiting to casual players because it is. Make it 115 points 234 points minimum , but with like 30 points of sideboard cards depending on faction (of course rebels get more because they suckkkkkkkkkkkkk). Oh and true, asteroids aren't actually close in space. Plus, I always hit them. Optional obstacle s.

Fix the meta without changing a single card. Gimme love team, ^{I did it} .

edit: some formatting errors, 115 pts too low.

Arguably better than any hobby at this time except for magic.

Based on what exactly? Sales? That doesn't prove it works better only that it sells better. Also the chart we like to point to doesn't actually tell the whole story.

I disagree with the basic premise of the OP. Missions may change the meta, but there will still be 3-5 lists that work best in the given environment, so that really doesn't change. The only that changes is what ships make up those lists.

But that doesn't mean objective based tournaments couldn't work or wouldn't be popular.

Arguably better than any hobby at this time except for magic.

Based on what exactly? Sales? That doesn't prove it works better only that it sells better. Also the chart we like to point to doesn't actually tell the whole story.

I disagree with the basic premise of the OP. Missions may change the meta, but there will still be 3-5 lists that work best in the given environment, so that really doesn't change. The only that changes is what ships make up those lists.

But that doesn't mean objective based tournaments couldn't work or wouldn't be popular.

Sales and tournament turn-out (If that is even a word? You get what I mean).

Sales and tournament turn-out (If that is even a word? You get what I mean).

I get what you mean, but is there any objective data that shows that X-Wing has a better tournament turnout than 40k or Warmachine?

More to the point, do we have any objective data to support that an objective based format would make for a lower turnout at tournaments or hurt sales?

The answer is of course no, because it's never really been tried. I don't care for change for the sake of change. But I'm willing to consider that objective based play may be a better game, it is at least worth putting a little time and effort into to and see if something worthwhile could be created.

Sales and tournament turn-out (If that is even a word? You get what I mean).

I get what you mean, but is there any objective data that shows that X-Wing has a better tournament turnout than 40k or Warmachine?

More to the point, do we have any objective data to support that an objective based format would make for a lower turnout at tournaments or hurt sales?

The answer is of course no, because it's never really been tried. I don't care for change for the sake of change. But I'm willing to consider that objective based play may be a better game, it is at least worth putting a little time and effort into to and see if something worthwhile could be created.

Yeah I said arguably because the biggest once a year warhammer 40k tourney gets like 200-300 people (las vegas open)... x has had multiple of those size events this year. And sales wise, I read something posted on these forums a few months ago. I could be wrong, and if I am, that's cool too.

Really wasn't the point of my post L O L. But sure, why not.

I disagree with the basic premise of the OP. Missions may change the meta, but there will still be 3-5 lists that work best in the given environment, so that really doesn't change. The only that changes is what ships make up those lists.

Wow! An actual discussion about something instead of stupid back and forth.

I disagree with the idea that there will only be 3-5 lists that work. I think there will be a new meta and there will be favorites, but I also think that there will be a greater variety than 3-5 lists. I understand that most gamers are mindless drones who will just download the latest internet list, but I think there is room for list variety for players that prefer things to be a certain way to pull it off. There will be better variety in the types of cheaper ships that will be required in the list building. This is where I think mosts lists will have to have some generics or mid PS pilots and there are a lot of different ones out there that can work. Of course....this is speculation.

I disagree with the idea that there will only be 3-5 lists that work.

I'm not sure there would be more than that. Unless the objective set had a ton of variety you'd still see a small number of lists rise to the top.

It's not about people downloading the latest netlist, it's that in a game where you can have 3-6 units on avg there just isn't a ton of room for things like pure support options or even a lot of variety. It is in fact the biggest obstacle to overcome with objectives.

I was thinking about this and the scale of X-Wing and X-Wing actually suffers a bit with it's extremely low model count. Even other skirmish games like Malifaux or Infinity have more models on the table. In Malifaux you'll have 6-8 typically, in 40k Kill Team you could have anywhere between 6 and 12-15+

Armada is actually a great system to look at for this because it uses objectives and has a fair amount in common with X-Wing. It has a fairly low model count if you don't include Fighters and none of the ships can just sit still and camp an objective.

But again, while this may make the game better over all, I don't think it's going to put an end to having 3-5 lists that are best suited for the objectives we have and everyone will play those just like they play the top few lists now.

Edit: You mention more cheap ships, but the thing is more cheap ships may not actually be useful depending on what the objectives are. They may be effective if the objective involves static locations... Like say you get a VP for each ship that has a satellite in it's arc at the end of the turn.

But if the objective involves killing a given ship or perhaps protecting one, Z-95's or Tie Fighters may be a poor choice. Then there's always the issue of simply killing the other guys ship is almost always an effective way to win.

I believe part of the mission listings would have at least one mission that would not be favorable for lists that had 3 or less ships and leaned towards having more ships. Just like I think there would be missions that would work against swarm lists. So, the optimal list would be somewhere between 4-7 ships. When you get into that range, you need to have non-aces in your list. Once you start adding in generics and mid PS guys, then you open a world of possibilities.

It depends. If you're trying to build varied missions, there should be genuinely varied missions; there should be missions which favour swarms, as well as missions which favour aces, and so on, and - critically - the mission should be one that you can win even if all you've got left is one TIE fighter on fire.

What those missions need to be, I'm less sure.

I believe part of the mission listings would have at least one mission that would not be favorable for lists that had 3 or less ships and leaned towards having more ships. Just like I think there would be missions that would work against swarm lists. So, the optimal list would be somewhere between 4-7 ships. When you get into that range, you need to have non-aces in your list. Once you start adding in generics and mid PS guys, then you open a world of possibilities.

So basically we should just go back to tie swarms vs BBBBZ. Or more appropriately the wave 1-3 meta of tie swarm dominance vs some biggs jank.

First off thanks to everyone who has contributed to the thread, either for, or against the original premise. Also I'd like to give a big shout out to Heychadwick, love the podcast!

So last night I figured it would be a good idea to put my money where my mouth is and do some testing so we ran the first mission I suggested in the original post (modified mission #1, can only give the shuttle 1 evade (protect) per turn, no attacker reinforcements).

Both of us built our lists knowing that this was the mission we were playing. Granted this means that we didn't need to consider one of the four other scenarios, however, we both knew we had to take a list that could act as either attacker or defender. So we built our lists I took

Garven Dreis, with R5 and IA

Tarn Mison, with R7 & IA

Red Squadron Pilot, with Targeting Astro & IA

Rookie, with Targeting Astro & IA

Gary Took

Backstabber

Sienar Test pilot, Prockets, Tie/V1

Sigma Squadron, Fire Control, Stygium Particle Accelerator, Agent Kallus

Scimitar Squadron, Conner Nets, Extra Munitions, Homing Missiles, Thread Tracers.

I'm not going to bore you with a blow by blow. I pulled out a win, but finished the game with my entire squad destroyed. Gary only lost the transport shuttle.

First, observation I won but my MOV was 0. This kind of result or similar could become common in mission based scenarios.

Secondly, Backstabbers pilot ability was almost god like in a situation where I couldn't afford to turn and face the escorts because the shuttle would slip off the opposite table corner before I could turn back and engage. Opportunist would have been as good in this situation and suggests that in at least some mission scenarios these oddball EPTs or pilot abilities would really shine.

Thirdly, The Sigma Squadron pilot, we all know how badly they suck in standard deathmatch right? In this scenario it tied with Backstabber for MVP! Gary was smart enough to keep it cloaked as we merged knowing again I couldn't afford to turn and face it with Garven or the Red (trying to PS kill it before it cloaked again). It used it's stealth to get behind all of my x-wings and tore them up. Again we see pilot which usually is so bad it never sees play, really shine in this mode of play. Would that same ship be as valuable if we flipped sides? Maybe not? Maybe yes? Five dice range one on that Shuttle would likely tear it apart in two turns, given the help of only one other ship.

So here we have one data point all by it's self, by it's self it only suggests that in mission tournament play, our squads would look very different. Would it change things and mean that there wouldn't be 2-3 squad types that dominate? I can't say. What I can say is, if that happened you would simply need to introduce 4 new missions to freshen the tournament scene without changing a single card. It's much easier to change a tournament mission than errata printed cards.

Cheers all

Have a happy weekend

I believe part of the mission listings would have at least one mission that would not be favorable for lists that had 3 or less ships and leaned towards having more ships. Just like I think there would be missions that would work against swarm lists. So, the optimal list would be somewhere between 4-7 ships. When you get into that range, you need to have non-aces in your list. Once you start adding in generics and mid PS guys, then you open a world of possibilities.

So basically we should just go back to tie swarms vs BBBBZ. Or more appropriately the wave 1-3 meta of tie swarm dominance vs some biggs jank.

Nahhh BBBBZ would suck in most missions that rely on getting to from point A to B to achieve an objective. And Biggs don't help you much if you have to kill something in a mission where your opponent can't afford shoot at your squad, i.e a recon scenario.

First, observation I won but my MOV was 0. This kind of result or similar could become common in mission based scenarios.

Secondly, Backstabbers pilot ability was almost god like in a situation where I couldn't afford to turn and face the escorts because the shuttle would slip off the opposite table corner before I could turn back and engage. Opportunist would have been as good in this situation and suggests that in at least some mission scenarios these oddball EPTs or pilot abilities would really shine.

Thirdly, The Sigma Squadron pilot, we all know how badly they suck in standard deathmatch right? In this scenario it tied with Backstabber for MVP! Gary was smart enough to keep it cloaked as we merged knowing again I couldn't afford to turn and face it with Garven or the Red (trying to PS kill it before it cloaked again). It used it's stealth to get behind all of my x-wings and tore them up. Again we see pilot which usually is so bad it never sees play, really shine in this mode of play. Would that same ship be as valuable if we flipped sides? Maybe not? Maybe yes? Five dice range one on that Shuttle would likely tear it apart in two turns, given the help of only one other ship.

Glad you enjoyed it! The most important thing - if you enjoy missions, no one is stopping you playing them, and - with luck - you can lure the tournament deathmatch players to try them.

And yes, scenarios - like Epic Play - dramatically change which ships are good. As noted earlier, Preystalker (the bounty hunter one) is great for those mid-PS aces with no elite pilot talent. Dark Curse is annoying. Dark Curse with Push The Limit, Cool Hand and a Stealth Device for no extra cost is just mean - especially when you've got to kill him to win.

I'm not - I don't think anyone is - saying that deathmatches are wrong and should be gotten rid of. They're simple and popular for a reason. But scenarios - done well - give you a very different game, but without the massive time investment of epic or escalation games.

Nahhh BBBBZ would suck in most missions that rely on getting to from point A to B to achieve an objective. And Biggs don't help you much if you have to kill something in a mission where your opponent can't afford shoot at your squad, i.e a recon scenario.

Again, it depends on the scenario you write.

BBBBZ and Biggs love defending a shuttle. They don't especially like attacking a shuttle (because it's nearly as fast as they are) but aren't bad at it. Cutting The Cord is nigh impossible without taking out the various ground stations - which given how slow the ships are means splitting up.....and an Uplinked Prototype TIE Defender will kill a lone B-wing without breaking a sweat....

First off thanks to everyone who has contributed to the thread, either for, or against the original premise. Also I'd like to give a big shout out to Heychadwick, love the podcast!

So last night I figured it would be a good idea to put my money where my mouth is and do some testing so we ran the first mission I suggested in the original post (modified mission #1, can only give the shuttle 1 evade (protect) per turn, no attacker reinforcements).

Both of us built our lists knowing that this was the mission we were playing. Granted this means that we didn't need to consider one of the four other scenarios, however, we both knew we had to take a list that could act as either attacker or defender. So we built our lists I took

Garven Dreis, with R5 and IA

Tarn Mison, with R7 & IA

Red Squadron Pilot, with Targeting Astro & IA

Rookie, with Targeting Astro & IA

Gary Took

Backstabber

Sienar Test pilot, Prockets, Tie/V1

Sigma Squadron, Fire Control, Stygium Particle Accelerator, Agent Kallus

Scimitar Squadron, Conner Nets, Extra Munitions, Homing Missiles, Thread Tracers.

I'm not going to bore you with a blow by blow. I pulled out a win, but finished the game with my entire squad destroyed. Gary only lost the transport shuttle.

First, observation I won but my MOV was 0. This kind of result or similar could become common in mission based scenarios.

Secondly, Backstabbers pilot ability was almost god like in a situation where I couldn't afford to turn and face the escorts because the shuttle would slip off the opposite table corner before I could turn back and engage. Opportunist would have been as good in this situation and suggests that in at least some mission scenarios these oddball EPTs or pilot abilities would really shine.

Thirdly, The Sigma Squadron pilot, we all know how badly they suck in standard deathmatch right? In this scenario it tied with Backstabber for MVP! Gary was smart enough to keep it cloaked as we merged knowing again I couldn't afford to turn and face it with Garven or the Red (trying to PS kill it before it cloaked again). It used it's stealth to get behind all of my x-wings and tore them up. Again we see pilot which usually is so bad it never sees play, really shine in this mode of play. Would that same ship be as valuable if we flipped sides? Maybe not? Maybe yes? Five dice range one on that Shuttle would likely tear it apart in two turns, given the help of only one other ship.

So here we have one data point all by it's self, by it's self it only suggests that in mission tournament play, our squads would look very different. Would it change things and mean that there wouldn't be 2-3 squad types that dominate? I can't say. What I can say is, if that happened you would simply need to introduce 4 new missions to freshen the tournament scene without changing a single card. It's much easier to change a tournament mission than errata printed cards.

Cheers all

Have a happy weekend

This was awesome !!! I would also like to point out, the instance of your MOV of 0 put still pulling out a win by fulfilling mission criteria....I personally wouldn't be bothered by this situation so much because that's the point of the missions to begin with...

When the blockade runner got captured in the beginning of episode 4 and everyone on board captured, killed, or interrogated except r2 or c3po who escaped with the plans... you could argue that the rebels won that particular mission with a MOV of 0 ;D

....but if it bothers others who cannot get out of the deathmatch mind-set (and again there is no reason one of the missions couldn't be pure deathmatch), I'm sure with a little creativity there is no reason the ranking system couldn't be changed to account for opponents who lose with minimal vs. maximal margins of victory and which could be used as a tie breaker in ranking just as seen in tournaments currently.

I love the senator's shuttle mission. I think you just need to remove the reinforcements rule for it and it's good. I've also won the game before with the only ship dead being the shuttle...on both sides! I think it can be a good mission to use competitively.

I do know that this mission can make a lot of competitive duds really effective. Esege, the K-wing that gives out Focus tokens is really good in this mission. The Tie Punisher was also really good on the offensive, too! It lasts a lot longer than a Tie Bomber and can dish out the hurt with ordnance. It's especially true with Homing Missiles that ignore Evade tokens. Also, anything Ion related is very good for this mission. If you Ionize the shuttle, you can slow it down for another turn. If you ionize an escort ship, you can get them out of R1 for support.

I believe part of the mission listings would have at least one mission that would not be favorable for lists that had 3 or less ships and leaned towards having more ships. Just like I think there would be missions that would work against swarm lists. So, the optimal list would be somewhere between 4-7 ships. When you get into that range, you need to have non-aces in your list. Once you start adding in generics and mid PS guys, then you open a world of possibilities.

So basically we should just go back to tie swarms vs BBBBZ. Or more appropriately the wave 1-3 meta of tie swarm dominance vs some biggs jank.

No....I'm trying to think of perhaps the best way to explain it. Let's say there are some missions that each one favors one of these things:

• Having more ships than not
• Having at least one ship that's hard to kill
• Having at least one fast ship
• Having a support ship
• Having ships that can work well when split into two parts
• Being able to do a lot of damage fast

So, if you are trying to build a list that has aspects of all of these, you end up not having ships that are all the same. The reason to make your entire list the same for combat efficiency is gone. You most likely want to have a mix of different types of ships....or have ships that are more all purpose.

It won't be like Soontir Fel won't be a good card to use, but Imp Aces might not be a good list in the same way. Then again, maybe it will. It could be that you take the standard Soontir Fel, but then have a mini swarm. Or a mid-PS ship and some cheap Academies. Or...maybe all named Tie Fighters. Then again, maybe Palp Shuttle is a decent list to take and will become one of the standards. I will say, though, that it won't be the ONLY Imperial option, though. That's what's cool.

U-boats would be good for some of those missions, but then again, it might not do well for others. It might end up being a little too hard to complete the mission with U-boats. Maybe one or two U-boats with other things in the list will be good. Let's look at the Shuttle mission. You have 3 U-boats that can pump out a lot of firepower....but once their torpedoes are gone, they can't do much damage. So, the defenders can do things like have 6 ships that all give Evade tokens every round to the shuttle so that it can survive 6 Torpedoes.

As it stands with death match....the game is really boiled down to efficiencies. It's pure kill or be killed. As it is at any static point in the game, there are certain builds that dominate. Yes, the meta shifts with new products, but overall, there are only a few lists that are the best. When you boil it straight down to just killing each other, it's just straight forward in this. If you change that to having multiple ways to win, then the formulas change. You can actually find and build numerous different combos that work. I absolutely believe that there will become some lists that will be popular and rise to the top, but I think there will be more of them than as it stands now. Also, I think that there is more room for a new or not-as-popular list to edge it's way into the winner's circle by someone who knows how to play that specific list.

That's super cool how the objective play turned out.

But here's an honest question: how would you go about picking objectives?

Since the goal here is to get ships into the mix that normally get left at home, wouldn't "picking" your objectives in a method similar to Armada still create an unfair build advantage?

Would it be better to just have a set number of objective types on cards, shuffle said cards and draw one randomly to be the objective?

Also for something like shuttle escort, who escorts the shuttle? How is that determined?

That's super cool how the objective play turned out.

But here's an honest question: how would you go about picking objectives?

Since the goal here is to get ships into the mix that normally get left at home, wouldn't "picking" your objectives in a method similar to Armada still create an unfair build advantage?

Would it be better to just have a set number of objective types on cards, shuffle said cards and draw one randomly to be the objective?

Also for something like shuttle escort, who escorts the shuttle? How is that determined?

You pick 3 and design you list around those 3, but keep in mind you may end up using your opponent missions, so you can't tailer 100% to yours. May leave you weak against your opponent, it'll come down to lists that work for all, but stronger against others.

Imo probably would see certain lists that'll do well, and become net lists, but I feel in this sort of environment it'll be hard to do. When compared to death matches.

Some missions may require fast ships, others tanky, or have numbers. No matter what if you have 12 missions let's say, it'll be very hard to have 1 list that'll tailor to all

No, you just deny the basic facts.

The 100/6 format is supported to the exclusion of all else. Other tournament formats are an afterthought.

This is not an assumption, it's a fact. The reason it's relevant to the discussion is because diversity in the tournament scene is healthy and good, and FFGs involvement actively hurts diversity.

It is not fact, it is your baseless speculation.

supporting competitive play in given system is one of the best ways for this system to achieve commercial success. GW ignored competitive aspect of their games for many years - meanwhile all other publishers of miniature games officialy supported their products - as you can see WFB is long dead, yet Warmachine/Hordes and Infinity are in good shape.

As you are so fond of saying, this is just baseless speculation.

Yeah? So what was the cause of WFB downfall in your opinion? Also, explain to me why publishers of countless systems bother with supporting offical competitve play?

You can disregard anything by claiming it as a "baseless speculation". By doing this you look like a child who covers its ears and screams "I am right and you are wrong!"

I will repeat my question:

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

You've got a very adversarial tone.

No, I just asked you a question - I assume you are grown up person and you should be able to deal with the fact that opinions of other people may be different and those people may challenge your assumptions, ideas or opinions - this is what forums are about, after all. It is not adversarial tone, it is normal discussion and confronting of arguments.

So I'm giving you a last chance to respond . If all I get is another post of circular logic, faulty interpretation of data, and adversarial attitude then I'm not going to bother responding, I'm just going to put you on my ignore list and go about my day .

Oh, how generously from you (sarcasm off).

I always find it funny that people feel the need to announce to given person how they put her on ignore list. If you do not care about me why do you even bother? You look small-minded by doing this.

Also, I don't care if you ignore me or not. There is no reason to talk with you on forums - because clearly you are unable to deal with other's people opinions - as long as they are not sharing your point of view they are "adversarial" and not worth the talking.

Also - you are saying I state my opinions as a fact. No it is not a fact, it is not a science - you can't claim everything with 100% certainity when discussing about X-Wing. But in my earlier posts I brought arguments why I think my point of view is correct and yours isn't.

But here's an honest question: how would you go about picking objectives?

Since the goal here is to get ships into the mix that normally get left at home, wouldn't "picking" your objectives in a method similar to Armada still create an unfair build advantage?

Also for something like shuttle escort, who escorts the shuttle? How is that determined?

I'll admit that I have no idea how Armada does it. I still worry that if you are allowed to pick your objectives, that you can tailor your list too much. Personally, I like the idea of there being x many and somehow randomizing them. Roll a die or something. Pick a card.

As for who is the defender in various missions....I think it should be randomized, too. Or maybe initiative bid gets to pick.