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.

Armada handles it that both players choose three missions that they want (kind of like the rocks in X wing). However, who ever has initiative becomes "player 1" and can choose which of "player 2" missions to play.

From that point on, whenever a mission card refers to first or second player, it is obvious who they are referring. Additionally, mission choosing is actually part of your list building.

Its quite a good system but there really are certain missions which heavily favour one side.

Its quite a good system but there really are certain missions which heavily favour one side.

I worry that it could be gamed too much. I would probably prefer just a randomized picking of missions.

I worry that it could be gamed too much. I would probably prefer just a randomized picking of missions.

There is some gaming in the system. You typically pick your missions based on your fleet, and one of the tricks is the least bad choice. You try to pick 2 missions the other guy will really not want to play so they're forced to take the least bad choice which suits your fleet.

I worry that it could be gamed too much. I would probably prefer just a randomized picking of missions.

There is some gaming in the system. You typically pick your missions based on your fleet, and one of the tricks is the least bad choice. You try to pick 2 missions the other guy will really not want to play so they're forced to take the least bad choice which suits your fleet.

...and that's where I think it would fail in X-wing. I could be wrong, because maybe you won't get your mission and you have to go a bit generalist. Otherwise, you might just lose every match you don't get as your own. Still....I think it could be abused. I'd rather see something like 6 missions and roll a 6 sided die to see which one it is.

Maybe I'm wrong, though, and it would be fine, but I just see people always taking a particular mission type and it's the same 3-5 ones out of 20 that always get used.

Picking missions just become part of your build really.

That's why you must consider. Well if you don't get your missions you still want to be able to have a chance with the others. Tailoring your entire squad around your lists would be no different than tailoring around a couple in xwing.

Either way armada or XWing. If you were to build a squad you want to keep everything. In mind. Granted you won't be a le to contend to everything.

Personally I like the idea.

I think with this method you wouldnt see the same world champion x number of years in a row. Why? Because it'll be impossible to design your list around every mission, so if x player wins worlds this year, and next year maybe he wasn't so lucky may not get to use his missions, therefore may knock him out, since his opponent had used a mission his squad was least designed for.

Otherwise, you might just lose every match you don't get as your own.

It doesn't happen in Armada. I mean picking missions is important, but it's not like you will lose just because you pick the other guys mission.

Part of the whole idea is that the first player has a huge advantage in Armada, due in part to how activations work there. There is no PS so you just pick which ship you want to move first. Part of the goal of missions is to help overcome that advantage.

I'd rather see something like 6 missions and roll a 6 sided die to see which one it is.

That would work as well, it's the way most games do it. The only thing is that everyone should be flying the same mission.

I don't want it to be that you make an initiative build to pick the mission. Then, we will just see people with init bid lists that will always get to pick their lists. That would be abuse-able. Just make it random as to who gets to pick the mission....or what mission it is.

Honestly I think it could go either way,

D6 to pick mission randomly, or select one of your opponents pre-selected missions. If you select a few missions and then your opponent has the ultimate say on which to pick, assuming the missions are well balanced and highly variable, I think this might actually create the widest type build/meta/lists. Especially as you could each always try and choose a mission where you think your list might fly it better than your opponents list, but ultimately there would still, by design, be too many options to be able to tailor a squad to every mission. In a way, using this method we might actually get back to basics of who can fly their ships the best.

If missions were picked randomly with like a D6, I could see how an ultimate generalist list might somehow emerge as "meta," which would defeat the point.

Chess is a bland "same old same old" deathmatch and it's done fine over the last several hundred years.

X wing is fine like it is. Two people duking it out with ever changing variations of 100 point squads.

The biggest issue with missions is it is going to add another level of complexity to the competative game that FFG has to balance. While a lot of the missions are fun I haven't played one yet that I would call balanced. Its not impossible but it is probably more of a headache than they want to deal with.

If they did an Armada style mission and scoring system it could be pretty baller though. Im just not sure what type of missions you could use to really make it work. Keep in mind completing objectives in Armada does not necessarily translate to winning a game.

Also adding missions is not really going to fix anything. It will just add a different set problems. There will still be choices that are clearly just better than others and a new meta will form.

Except chess is an entirely different thing, with no list variance and no random factor it's a game of pure skill and wits.

I have never played Flames but I played Bolt Action and other games where this is the standard for games and tournaments. I think this is exactly the type of thing that the Epic format needs to put more life into it. It would differentiate the game enough that it would be a unique experience from standard x-wing or Armada. It would also streamline play, as it would no longer, necessarily, be a 300 point slugfest to the bitter end.

Of course Scum not having any Epic ships is a bit if a problem, but you could allow them to take, GR-75's or Gozanti's. However, this leaves you with 1 epic point, but you could give them a special rule. Like say, one large base ship that counts as a 1 point Epic. This would be quite thematic, as it would make them more capable at "****** and grab" type scenarios.

As for the scenarios themselves, I don't think a dozen are necessary. Maybe 3-4 would work if they were broad enough.

1.) Blockade

2.) Recovery Op

3.) Something Else

4.) Assault (blow each other up).

There is a trend I think. I'm not sure this follows 100% of the time, but it certainly seems to be more often than not:...

Most of the games that utilise objectives/missions in their standard play seem to be governed by the number of turns that they run to, rather than by the complete annihilation of the opponent.

For example, Armada, 40k... in both of these games it's fairly common to reach the end of the game with both players still having forces alive on the table. In fact I'd go so far as to say that it's quite uncommon for a player to get wiped out.

By contrast in x-wing it's unusual (although certainly not unheard of) for the game to end without the annihilation of one player's forces.

Which makes it a little difficult to do objectives in x-wing because let's be honest; most/all objectives are kinda superceded by the overriding objective of "wipe them out, all of them."

In a game where you expect forces to survive to the end, missions and objectives are a lot more relevant than in game where you don't expect forces to survive to the end.

Except chess is an entirely different thing, with no list variance and no random factor it's a game of pure skill and wits.

This

There is a trend I think. I'm not sure this follows 100% of the time, but it certainly seems to be more often than not:...

Most of the games that utilise objectives/missions in their standard play seem to be governed by the number of turns that they run to, rather than by the complete annihilation of the opponent.

For example, Armada, 40k... in both of these games it's fairly common to reach the end of the game with both players still having forces alive on the table. In fact I'd go so far as to say that it's quite uncommon for a player to get wiped out.

By contrast in x-wing it's unusual (although certainly not unheard of) for the game to end without the annihilation of one player's forces.

Which makes it a little difficult to do objectives in x-wing because let's be honest; most/all objectives are kinda superceded by the overriding objective of "wipe them out, all of them."

In a game where you expect forces to survive to the end, missions and objectives are a lot more relevant than in game where you don't expect forces to survive to the end.

I agree with what you are saying to an extent, but I think careful design could create missions where the strategy of wiping out your opponents force first before accomplishing the mission objective would actually hurt you

There is a trend I think. I'm not sure this follows 100% of the time, but it certainly seems to be more often than not:...

Most of the games that utilise objectives/missions in their standard play seem to be governed by the number of turns that they run to, rather than by the complete annihilation of the opponent.

For example, Armada, 40k... in both of these games it's fairly common to reach the end of the game with both players still having forces alive on the table. In fact I'd go so far as to say that it's quite uncommon for a player to get wiped out.

By contrast in x-wing it's unusual (although certainly not unheard of) for the game to end without the annihilation of one player's forces.

Which makes it a little difficult to do objectives in x-wing because let's be honest; most/all objectives are kinda superceded by the overriding objective of "wipe them out, all of them."

In a game where you expect forces to survive to the end, missions and objectives are a lot more relevant than in game where you don't expect forces to survive to the end.

I agree with what you are saying to an extent, but I think careful design could create missions where the strategy of wiping out your opponents force first before accomplishing the mission objective would actually hurt you

I do disagree with the first statement. For me there are two parts. The first is that some missions basically set a turn limit. It could be it goes until one side is done. It's not always blow up something. sometimes you have to get off the edge of the board or do something for so many turns to make it happen. There are only so many turns before the Senator's Shuttle flies off the board. Yes, it's not a hard set of 6 rounds, but it is a stop.

Next, there are some missions where you can just kill your opponent and you win, but not all of them. There are many missions where if you focus on just shooting down your opponent in the most efficient way you will lose horribly.