While it's common for tournament X-Wing to see all ships destroyed in a match - this isn't required . The Ghost and all Rebel fighters have hyperdrives - they could just leave the battlefield. Indeed, presumably, that's what "going off the map edge" represents - for purpose of a making a viable game balance out of it, you'd probably need instructions that the Rebels can only disengage off one side of the map (else are considered 'captured'), while the Imperial forces can only disengage off the other side of the map (to return to their ship) in games where their ship isn't already present (we've got the Gozanti, after all).

It's doable!

It would be really interesting to see MOV reflected in the amount of points you can safely salvage by hypering out, rather than just surviving. The rules for hypering would need to be written with great care, of course.

Funny, the white people on Fox get all atwitter about the use of 'cracker' and they get defensive when I call out a 'weeaboo' (who are universally white).

Using language that denigrates a protected class is never warranted or acceptable.

Oh, the irony! Tae, you crack me up.

All I know about slurs is that the only way they have impact is if you personally let them get to you, raising a fuss simply perpetuates the negativity of a term.

I think it would be awesome. I think I heard someone somewhere say that one like that for X-wing is probably in the wind.

I think it would be awesome. I think I heard someone somewhere say that one like that for X-wing is probably in the wind.

Whereas the Designers at GenCon said there were "no plans" for one for X-Wing, or even a Second Armada one, at this stage - the Corellian Conflict itself is kind of a 'test bed' for the idea.

While it's common for tournament X-Wing to see all ships destroyed in a match - this isn't required . The Ghost and all Rebel fighters have hyperdrives - they could just leave the battlefield. Indeed, presumably, that's what "going off the map edge" represents - for purpose of a making a viable game balance out of it, you'd probably need instructions that the Rebels can only disengage off one side of the map (else are considered 'captured'), while the Imperial forces can only disengage off the other side of the map (to return to their ship) in games where their ship isn't already present (we've got the Gozanti, after all).

It's doable!

It would be really interesting to see MOV reflected in the amount of points you can safely salvage by hypering out, rather than just surviving. The rules for hypering would need to be written with great care, of course.

I don't think you'd really factor MoV into it.

Really, I don't even know that you'd strictly need to assign a 'winner' or 'loser' to the battle based on destruction, either.

After all, the entire point of a campaign like that would be to provide some context to the battles OTHER than 'just another deathmatch' - my assumption would be you'd want the result of the mission to be some positive or negative thing the players are trying to get to happen, and it either happens or doesn't. Say - knocking out a series of sensor satellites or something...if the Rebels knock them out, the Imperials stop getting intel on surrounding sectors. If the Rebels don't, the Imperials keep getting intel on Rebel movement they otherwise wouldn't have. So the game isn't "won" or "lost", per se, and MoV doesn't matter...the Rebels either knocked out the satellites or didn't.

etc

The missions aren't really the same as what Armada is doing. Having each skirmish, regardless of whether it's a mission or simple dogfight, count iteratively towards a larger goal is the crux of the the expansion. Fight a war via multiple battles instead of determining a winner after a single altercation.

If an expansion like this comes to X-wing, I sure hope it has models or deluxe tokens.. not just a big beautiful box with a stack of cards, a rule-book and.... air in it.

I really don't what comes in the new Armada box, but I bet it's just card-stock and cardboard.

im not sure i'd be a fan of a permadeath xwing match unless there was a way to prevent them from dying as well.

Its a deathmatch. Unless you win, you lost that entire list.

Though it would be interesting to do a fleet management campaign, where the named guys are actually rare and hard to get and you have to actually obtain the ships/upgrades in the game rather than from your collection. Would be a rather lengthy campaign but might be interesting.

The solution is very simple - create missions instead of a series of dogfights.

So, back to the topic at hand, this is what I am talking about. This isn't Armada, so a "control the sector" campaign is not the idea, but a "manage your squadron/unit assets through multiple engagements" concept could be cool.

Well consider the 'Rebels' TV series. They are doing a pretty good job reflecting what could be a campaign for X-Wing easily enough. Deciding what sectors to hit, trying to interfere with Imperial operations, stealing supplies, etc.

And while the Empire certainly has far more capital ships and fighters than could possibly fit in one game - they have to spread them out so very far and thin that the per-battle ship count is well within a game of X-Wing (I meant, you have the Ghost, Phantom, and sometimes a few A-Wings against a half dozen TIE Fighters or so...that's easily within the scale of X-Wing).

While it's common for tournament X-Wing to see all ships destroyed in a match - this isn't required . The Ghost and all Rebel fighters have hyperdrives - they could just leave the battlefield. Indeed, presumably, that's what "going off the map edge" represents - for purpose of a making a viable game balance out of it, you'd probably need instructions that the Rebels can only disengage off one side of the map (else are considered 'captured'), while the Imperial forces can only disengage off the other side of the map (to return to their ship) in games where their ship isn't already present (we've got the Gozanti, after all).

It's doable!

I like the idea of thematic "escape" vectors. Would be a way for a player to salvage their unique cards and maybe salvage some points for damage. Would create more strategy than simple deathmath, as you can have ships built to be rearguards...

I'd want to play X-Wing on an Epic-sized field, though. And have some objective that causes players to leave their safety net.

Yeah, I like this a lot.

Thats why i think the campaign idea would be better where you have a set number of ships/upgrades, but you can only bring them in standard 100pt matches and they are perma-loss. That way you can do the "missions" that are connected to each other in chunks rather than dump several hours on it like we do in Epic Xwing

I'm kinda offended right now.

You know, I could be mistaken but I could have sworn there was a sort of campaign thing already out for X-Wing. I don't think FFG made it though.

I can't be sure, but I think it had something to do with Heroes. And they were in some sort of Atari Cluster? I might have to browse really far back in the forums to find a topic that mentions it though.

im not sure i'd be a fan of a permadeath xwing match unless there was a way to prevent them from dying as well.

Its a deathmatch. Unless you win, you lost that entire list.

Though it would be interesting to do a fleet management campaign, where the named guys are actually rare and hard to get and you have to actually obtain the ships/upgrades in the game rather than from your collection. Would be a rather lengthy campaign but might be interesting.

The solution is very simple - create missions instead of a series of dogfights.

So, back to the topic at hand, this is what I am talking about. This isn't Armada, so a "control the sector" campaign is not the idea, but a "manage your squadron/unit assets through multiple engagements" concept could be cool.

Well consider the 'Rebels' TV series. They are doing a pretty good job reflecting what could be a campaign for X-Wing easily enough. Deciding what sectors to hit, trying to interfere with Imperial operations, stealing supplies, etc.

And while the Empire certainly has far more capital ships and fighters than could possibly fit in one game - they have to spread them out so very far and thin that the per-battle ship count is well within a game of X-Wing (I meant, you have the Ghost, Phantom, and sometimes a few A-Wings against a half dozen TIE Fighters or so...that's easily within the scale of X-Wing).

While it's common for tournament X-Wing to see all ships destroyed in a match - this isn't required . The Ghost and all Rebel fighters have hyperdrives - they could just leave the battlefield. Indeed, presumably, that's what "going off the map edge" represents - for purpose of a making a viable game balance out of it, you'd probably need instructions that the Rebels can only disengage off one side of the map (else are considered 'captured'), while the Imperial forces can only disengage off the other side of the map (to return to their ship) in games where their ship isn't already present (we've got the Gozanti, after all).

It's doable!

I like the idea of thematic "escape" vectors. Would be a way for a player to salvage their unique cards and maybe salvage some points for damage. Would create more strategy than simple deathmath, as you can have ships built to be rearguards...

I'd want to play X-Wing on an Epic-sized field, though. And have some objective that causes players to leave their safety net.

Yeah, I like this a lot.

Yup, you'd definitely want the map epic-sized.

As to the objectives - that's really the goal, in having a set of missions that are "types" more than anything, based on the objective, with varied (asymmetrical) forces being the norm at the tactical level.

I've kicked around various rulesets for it, and it's trickier than it looks to get working. Certainly, it's "easy" to set up a series of linked missions that tell a story - I think HotAC does that brilliantly...no point in trying to improve on that. It's even relatively simple to set up a 'scenario generator' sort of thing that gives one side or the other dynamic missions to play...but that's also much thinner than the possibilities that are present, here.

The trick is trying to figure out what decisions both sides are making at the operational level...what resource allocation decisions they need to make, how and when they are resupplied, etc.

As the saying goes - 'amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics'. That's where the real potential for a game like this could be, and it would suddenly make those tactical battles a LOT more interesting - and open up tons of possibilities.

Whereas the Designers at GenCon said there were "no plans" for one for X-Wing, or even a Second Armada one, at this stage

That is quite likely CYA talk... If they said they had plans, or even that they'd consider doing it if this one does well, then that quickly becomes posts here wanting to know why it's not out yet.

but I bet it's just card-stock and cardboard.

Considering the cost I'm fine with just cardboard. In fact I per that they don't include models to keep the cost down.

i havnt looked into hotac but isnt that more of an RPG-style format using the Xwing ships for the board instead of the grid pos stuff? thought the point of it was YOU are flying that ship, not commanding a squad.

i havnt looked into hotac but isnt that more of an RPG-style format

Yeah it's a RPG lite with your ship being your character, and each player has his/her own ship

I want a scenario expansion but i want it to have plastic model replacements for the flat tokens and have updated or revised versions of all the scenario's in the expansion packs. that way i don't have to carry around a stack of loose leaf sheets with me and they get a chance to make better scenarios.

As for "Jipped" just say "cheated" or in this case "envious".

There is no reason to be offended that other people may or may not be offended. you are just defensive when no one is really blaming you for not knowing the origin of the word.

thats what i thought.

thats not the same as a campaign where you are commanding a force, which is what i was thinking of. I might have to try and cook something up, though ive never finished any custom rules for any game ive tried to write lol

There are campaigns in the Epic ships that include rules that prevent you using a unique pilot who has been shot down on a previous mission. The Rebel Transport campaign is the only one I've had a chance to play through but given how brilliant it is I'm itching to give the others a go.

It would be really interesting to see MOV reflected in the amount of points you can safely salvage by hypering out, rather than just surviving. The rules for hypering would need to be written with great care, of course.

Like, for example, does this apply to TIE/lns that do not have a hyperdrive. Suddenly, some ships may be more important than other just based on that ability.

The missions aren't really the same as what Armada is doing. Having each skirmish, regardless of whether it's a mission or simple dogfight, count iteratively towards a larger goal is the crux of the the expansion. Fight a war via multiple battles instead of determining a winner after a single altercation.

Exactly. With another possibility of even choosing the battles fought. . .do I engage the Imperials at Endor or at Sullust? More risk for more reward, for example.

If an expansion like this comes to X-wing, I sure hope it has models or deluxe tokens.. not just a big beautiful box with a stack of cards, a rule-book and.... air in it.

I really don't what comes in the new Armada box, but I bet it's just card-stock and cardboard.

Like that Magic The Gathering game. Just air and cardboard. . what a waste.

Thats why i think the campaign idea would be better where you have a set number of ships/upgrades, but you can only bring them in standard 100pt matches and they are perma-loss. That way you can do the "missions" that are connected to each other in chunks rather than dump several hours on it like we do in Epic Xwing

Which is how I would see it, too. OTOH, what if the campaign involved a number of different point levels. . .some are at 100 points, some are 300 point Epic, and others are maybe even in-between.

You know, I could be mistaken but I could have sworn there was a sort of campaign thing already out for X-Wing. I don't think FFG made it though.

I can't be sure, but I think it had something to do with Heroes. And they were in some sort of Aturi Cluster? I might have to browse really far back in the forums to find a topic that mentions it though.

Not the same thing. HotAC bends the game into team play vs. an AI. This would be a campaign that stuck with the premise of player vs. player.

You know, I could be mistaken but I could have sworn there was a sort of campaign thing already out for X-Wing. I don't think FFG made it though.

I can't be sure, but I think it had something to do with Heroes. And they were in some sort of Aturi Cluster? I might have to browse really far back in the forums to find a topic that mentions it though.

Actually, it's the Atari Cluster. It's based off all the old ET games that someone found buried in the desert. It's not the same thing.

Seriously, though, there are more than 1 way to do a campaign. HotAC is great, but I'd love to see a FFG product. It could be good to see limited ships and ones that get destroyed not being replaced. It makes me think of the current season of Rebels and how they are scrapping to get pilots and even ships.

i still cant believe they actually dug that up...

that was such a massive myth that spurred so much controversy about "Theres no way they did that!" type stuff over that ET game lol.

Some myths are best never busted....

We'll accept people of any race, heritage, or cultural identity and show them love and friendship. Unless they don't agree with our ideas. Then we'll call them names and use hurtful language against them.

We didn't use the specific hurtful words we told them not to use, or swear: which makes it better than what they were doing.

It's only good to be kind and understanding to people who are kind and understanding. Those other people don't deserve it.

I see a lot of hypocrisy that turns me off of this PC stuff. It seems like they want to make the world a kinder place; that they want racism and sexism and all the divisions that keep us apart to go away.

But they way they try to do this is by dredging up old meanings for words and telling people to conform to a new set of language rules. By finding offense where none was meant. By calling prejudice racism and equating equality of opportunity with equality of outcome.

If there's a kid in your neighborhood, and your parents tell you that you can't joke about him, or call him names like the rest of the kids: does that make him similar to you? Does that make you want to be friends with him above your other choices?

"You can tell any one of your friends that they jipped you in the lunch line; except that Romanian kid. You can't say "jipped" around him."

"In fact it's better that you just don't say "jipped" at all."

It doesn't help the Romanian kid fit in, and it doesn't make sense to me.

Hopefully it's just a matter of time.

I've been toying with ideas for perma-death across connected games for awhile now... It may not be unreasonable to try and just adjust what they've done here TO X-Wing. At least, as a framework.

I'm a fan.

Perma death is already part of the epic campaigns. Poor Dash, died after a successful R1 mission while on the run. Miranda left him to die in the last turn, changed the whole rest of the campaign. ;-)