Dont know about you, but I am just running indestructable MC80 assault cruisers.

Dont know about you, but I am just running indestructable MC80 assault cruisers.

I am no where near ballsy enough to refer to anything I run as "indestructible".....

From the article:

"Either way, you'll need to keep an eye to the long-term throughout the Strategy Phase, because The Corellian Conflict aligns perfectly with your standard Armada battles by making you plan your conquest of the Corellia system multiple turns in advance."

Anyone else pick up on this? How will this work?

I also claim full responsibility for the article - getting bored with waiting I wrote up my own campaign rules last week for me and my Armada buddy, and played the first game on Monday, thereby invoking Sod's Law...

Yeah, I can see people running more tanky fleets and playing more conservatively.

Like, an actual military campaign.

No mad all-in strikes unless it actually matters.

I can imagine that a small/medium only fleet would be dead in the conflict simply because there will be times when part of your fleet will be tied up elsewhere and the opponent brings in the big gun...

I think it would be interesting to have 3 fleets among both teams that anyone can choose to play. So you are not tied to your fleet. When your team declares your assault, you and your opponent will not know what fleet you are bringing up until your deployment so you can't bring your "Counter Demo/Rhymer/Yavaris/Ackbar/etc" fleet. I don't like the idea of spending a lot of points to get your Rhymer ball and then the Rebels build a fleet that only counters squadrons. Sounds fun for only 1 player...

I'd like it even more if you don't reveal what fleet you have until after deployment, as that would be more thematic and allow for more strategic deployment.

I sharply disagree. I don't mind players not being tied to fleets, but I want fleets tied to locations. If I know the fleet defending Starbase 12 is home of Major Rhymer, I'm gonna plan accordingly when I attack. This will, IMO, overall reduce the utility of gimmick or specialized fleets in the campaign. After all, it will work once, but now the enemy knows what you have there.

I would prefer this as well, but the article makes it appear the fleets are not stationed anywhere, hence you can have a specialized fleet that is not tied down anywhere so you will not be able to attack it, unless the defending team allows it. If fleets are tied to a system, then players are likely also tied to that fleet, which would give me more ownership in my contribution to my team. I don't think we know enough at this point to draw a conclusion.

Yeah, I can see people running more tanky fleets and playing more conservatively.

Like, an actual military campaign.

No mad all-in strikes unless it actually matters.

I think this will be the biggest change in how people play. If you are really hurting you may choose to break off the attack to preserve your ships, at the cost of losing the battle. And that would be OK.

Good point. I wonder if they will have rules for jumping to lightspeed and simply leaving a battle.

Yeah, I can see people running more tanky fleets and playing more conservatively.

Like, an actual military campaign.

No mad all-in strikes unless it actually matters.

I think this will be the biggest change in how people play. If you are really hurting you may choose to break off the attack to preserve your ships, at the cost of losing the battle. And that would be OK.

Exactly. Winning a battle versus winning the war campaign.

I wish it was a bit more asymmetric. I get why it can't be, but maybe in the future either FFG or us the fans could make some type of long game 'Rebellion' type campaign.

Balanced fleets are great for a game of tactical miniatures combat. From a story point of view though, I think it could be much more thematic if the Rebels can only say, start with small ships with few, if any, upgrades and work their way up from there.

I wish it was a bit more asymmetric. I get why it can't be, but maybe in the future either FFG or us the fans could make some type of long game 'Rebellion' type campaign.

Balanced fleets are great for a game of tactical miniatures combat. From a story point of view though, I think it could be much more thematic if the Rebels can only say, start with small ships with few, if any, upgrades and work their way up from there.

That one's easy.

Rebel Fleets start at 200pts.

Imperial Fleets start at 400 points.

Multiply all Rebel Rewards by the difference in fleet size, until they reach 400 fleet points, but resources must be "spent" immediately and cannot be stockpiled beyond a certain amount until they reach 400 fleet point.

Quick. Simple. In-Theme. Probably able to be dropped straight into the ruleset without much fanangling.

Puts a big bonus on a Small, Fast Rebel Hit-and-Run fleet doing their Special Assault and getting away with it.

When trying to design my own campaign one of the first inclusions was a mechanism for jumping to light speed.

I worked it out as having to activate, do nothing, declare you are jumping to light speed with the ship and then spending the entire round at speed zero. Optionally adding in that you have to be at least at distance 5 of an edge and I guess now, also, you can't do it if an interdictor is in the enemy fleet.

Also, I did not see anywhere where we start with any particular number of points. I think it would be coolest if you start with limited points per fleet and have to build up gradually.

A lot of people seem nervous about the threat of a slippery slope. Once one battle goes bad, can the losing side reasonably recoup their losses and remain competitive through strategic choices and some tactical wins down the line?

I trust that FFG has made it so that the slope is too slippery.

Since 'first player' is presently deemed preferable to 'second player', and the side that's down on points gets to decide the first assault, in which they will be 'first player', that gives some mitigating advantage to the losing side.

An interesting mechanic here I think is the opponent matching. If you play together reasonably frequently, I think that you'll probably have a sense of who's generally better than whom at the game, and you can appoint your defenders accordingly. That, on the other hand, is an advantage to the winning team, I think.

Dont know about you, but I am just running indestructable MC80 assault cruisers.

I am no where near ballsy enough to refer to anything I run as "indestructible".....

The Jinx is strong in this one.

I wish it was a bit more asymmetric. I get why it can't be, but maybe in the future either FFG or us the fans could make some type of long game 'Rebellion' type campaign.

Balanced fleets are great for a game of tactical miniatures combat. From a story point of view though, I think it could be much more thematic if the Rebels can only say, start with small ships with few, if any, upgrades and work their way up from there.

That one's easy.

Rebel Fleets start at 200pts.

Imperial Fleets start at 400 points.

Multiply all Rebel Rewards by the difference in fleet size, until they reach 400 fleet points, but resources must be "spent" immediately and cannot be stockpiled beyond a certain amount until they reach 400 fleet point.

Quick. Simple. In-Theme. Probably able to be dropped straight into the ruleset without much fanangling.

Puts a big bonus on a Small, Fast Rebel Hit-and-Run fleet doing their Special Assault and getting away with it.

Huh, I think that's certainly worth consideration.

Right? this box is positively ripe for homebrew of all sorts!

I mean, imagine if you want to start the rebels on a weaker footing BUT they have a hyperspace mechanic until imps "unlock" an interdictor. Imagine getting your early-game VSDs jumped by a CR90 swarm, they down one of your ships and then bugger off! Brilliant!

You can also play a hidden information variant where rebels start way weaker but can have hidden support from apparently neutral systems, this would mean a fractional contribution and only until the rebel player declares openly (call it an "extended" campaign)

I would hope, that if you lost 14 games like that.. that basically the campaign would be over and the other side would have won with points or something. Id even hope it ended sooner than that so a new one could be started.

You don't have to lose the match to have your flagship destroyed.

Huh, I think that's certain worth consideration.

Its not easy to do a lot of homebrew in what we know, because really, we don't know a lot....

It does make some fundamental assumptions that I can't confirm:

- that Opening fleets are normally at 400pts

- That you can stockpile resources

And some others...

But I feel, at least with what is shown, it fulfills the 'general critera' of what is intended:

It is simple. It doesn't add or subtract too much.

Its asymmetric, in the fact both sides are different now.

It doesn't penalise anyone, in the restrictions on one are fixed with bonuses, and the other side has no penalty.

So, yeah, it passes me own Pub Test, and I'm really stoked it passed your initial consideration barrier, because that says a lot

You must be able to stockpile to some degree, otherwise you could probably only feasible add Raiders, Glads, Corvettes, and Nebs to your fleet. I imagine it wind be hard to control enough to drop an ISD from one turn.

You must be able to stockpile to some degree, otherwise you could probably only feasible add Raiders, Glads, Corvettes, and Nebs to your fleet. I imagine it wind be hard to control enough to drop an ISD from one turn.

Like I said, it was an assumption I made, that I could not confirm.

Huh, I think that's certain worth consideration.

So, yeah, it passes me own Pub Test, and I'm really stoked it passed your initial consideration barrier, because that says a lot

Well, I think it's worth consideration, because I'm a loremonger much more than I am a level-playing-field player. So, take that into consideration when you read my endorsement.

Ultimately, whatever homebrew rules you play with would be agreed to by all sides, and there would be some closer consideration of the precise mechanic used to compensate for the fewer points.

Well, I think it's worth consideration, because I'm a loremonger much more than I am a level-playing-field player. So, take that into consideration when you read my endorsement.

We have discussed that in the past, and that is exactly why I am happy with your endorsement

When trying to design my own campaign one of the first inclusions was a mechanism for jumping to light speed.

I worked it out as having to activate, do nothing, declare you are jumping to light speed with the ship and then spending the entire round at speed zero. Optionally adding in that you have to be at least at distance 5 of an edge and I guess now, also, you can't do it if an interdictor is in the enemy fleet.

Also, I did not see anywhere where we start with any particular number of points. I think it would be coolest if you start with limited points per fleet and have to build up gradually.

We had the Hyperspace Jump mechanic be "in order to jump into Hyperspace, you must spend one navigate token and one navigate command simultaneously." It allowed Tractor Beams to help prevent jumping away.

Well, I think it's worth consideration, because I'm a loremonger much more than I am a level-playing-field player. So, take that into consideration when you read my endorsement.

We have discussed that in the past, and that is exactly why I am happy with your endorsement

I think the Corellian Conflict is a pretty big buck-up for loremonger players. With the whole tournament scene (in which I've participated and TO'd) there's already a lot for the purely competitive players to enjoy (and, if X-Wing is a guide, is probably the lifeblood of the community).

Just looking at explosion of new ideas on the forum, it seems like this is a foundation on which people can build a lot more. I'm really curious to see what people will be coming up with, just like I'm curious what this foundation will look like.

When trying to design my own campaign one of the first inclusions was a mechanism for jumping to light speed.

I worked it out as having to activate, do nothing, declare you are jumping to light speed with the ship and then spending the entire round at speed zero. Optionally adding in that you have to be at least at distance 5 of an edge and I guess now, also, you can't do it if an interdictor is in the enemy fleet.

Also, I did not see anywhere where we start with any particular number of points. I think it would be coolest if you start with limited points per fleet and have to build up gradually.

We had the Hyperspace Jump mechanic be "in order to jump into Hyperspace, you must spend one navigate token and one navigate command simultaneously." It allowed Tractor Beams to help prevent jumping away.

Oh, that's awesome!

I'm hoping the conquest map can be mounted on a magnetic board. then use it like a wall chart to save floor/table space.

I love these campaign story styles games with decisions requiring the 'big picture' element.

It also allowed Admirals like Tarkin and Iblis really shine. Garm flies in, hits a few big targets, then scarpers in turn 5. Tarkin can do it at will, and any upgrade that allows you to change your dials (or your opponents' dials) gets a lot of traction. Little things like that is why I love campaigns: certain upgrades and commanders see different levels of use when you know who your enemy is or when you have to make do over many successive games with persistent results.

More interested in squadrons or C refits.

Can Tagge bring back a token discarded via scar?