In a way, they're dropping the ball from a marketing standpoint. An X-Wing campaign system ought to be an Epic format. In which case, it could help drive sales of the Huge ships, if done properly.

That said, I've said before I wouldn't mind a special mission pack that collected a series of connected missions, and included some new pilots and upgrade cards.

To the best of my knowledge, all the Huge ships some with a campaign. I've only played the ones in the Rebel ships though.

Armada's campaign is a very different beast. To really get the experience FFG is aiming for, you need at least 2-3 players per team, each playing a 1v1 match each round, and it will take several game nights to complete the campaign.

I'm really hoping for it to come to X-wing. It would be a really great addition to my LSG's game nights.

I've been working on a PvP campaign for a while now. It's certainly possible to have an engaging campaign in the context of the X-wing miniatures game, but it is not easy to put together. Others have also made PvP campaigns; Rekkon, for example runs a pretty good campaign system.

I think to make a PvP X wing campaign worth your while, you want a combination of these elements: pilot progression, an organic or pre-set campaign arc, scenarios and objective based play (at least some of the time) and some elements of an economy.

The scale of X wing doesn't easily lend itself to a campaign; that's true. Real in-universe battles tend to be bigger than the scale we play at. But it's not impossible

The Rebels were known for their hit and fade attacks, often enough with just a bunch of fighters.

It's not about the battles but about the story after all.

Alex Davy also said that X-Wing just wasn't suitable for campaign play.

Then he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Even without the fan made campaigns, there are enough examples of similar dogfighting campaigns that are built within a narrative. Wing Commander and X-Wing video games for one, with especially the former and its branching structure.

That may be so, and I'm inclined to agree with you. I don't mention Davy's statement as being the truth, but it being the 'Truth' - the reality according to someone in a decision-making capacity.

I'm not sure what his reasoning was. I'm guessing that it has more to do with their assessment of the community and its willingness to try things other than 100-point-6-asteroid-death-match.

Personally, I think that people will be much more likely to play alternate styles if it has FFG's stamp of approval, but maybe their market research is correct.

Personally, I think that people will be much more likely to play alternate styles if it has FFG's stamp of approval, but maybe their market research is correct.

Maybe. The basic game mechanics and rules are easily accessible but provide tactical depth, that can't be said about all games of this kind. At least, that is my personal impression. But that doesn't mean that casual gamers will buy lots of single-ship expansions, necessarily. Beyond starter packs, they are essentially given the advice of 'buy and play what you like'. Yes - but I guess many would appreciate some guidance by the designers, such as stand-alone scenario packs or themed game modes. Ideally, those would be open to upgrades and improvements so they also appeal to experienced players and have replayability. I guess that currently the designers are (still) happy with the response to their new stuff, so expanding in that direction is low priority.

But in general, you're still mostly just moving ships and somebody is trying to blow the other guys up. Assuming you're not using a HotAC-style AI system, this means you'd be playing a lot of missions where one side could easily be just having to shoot down all the enemy fighters over and over again. You have to think about and work on all the scenarios to keep it fresh, otherwise you're just playing regular X-Wing only now you have to add some random junk to the table, why not just play regular 100/6?

Because I got bored of 100/6 after I played enough games to learn the system. Even with the addition of new ships, it's just too simplistic of a goal (strategically) to be attractive for very long, IMHO. I realize I am very much in the minority here, but 60 Minute Sandbox Kill 'Em is not what I'm looking for. In fact, my favorite play style is team Epic, where you not only have opposing forces, but also have an ally to coordinate with.

X-Wing is too squad based [snick]

It's not even squad based. It's pilot based. There's no synergy for playing only Red Squadron Veterans.

In a way, they're dropping the ball from a marketing standpoint. An X-Wing campaign system ought to be an Epic format. In which case, it could help drive sales of the Huge ships, if done properly.

Agreed. The whole point would be that it is not 100/6 play, so Epic format makes the most sense. Of course, elements of it may port over to "regular" play.

To the best of my knowledge, all the Huge ships some with a campaign.

Yeah, but more as an after thought, and specifically designed around the ship in the box (obviously). X-Wing needs something bigger and more generic.

The Rebels were known for their hit and fade attacks, often enough with just a bunch of fighters.

It's not about the battles but about the story after all.

And by a bunch, hopefully you mean more than 2-4. They only time I can think that a dogfight was that small in the movies was Han getting chased through the asteroid field by 4 TIEs.

OTOH, the Battle of Endor, the Battle of Yavin, and the Battle of Naboo all featured plenty of starfighters. And in the EU, there are the adventures of Wraith Squadron. Sure there are capital ships present, but a lot of the narrative happens with the starfighter pilots.

I've done a few home-brew campaigns, and in a couple of them, the capital ship is assumed to be present, but "off-screen." Their influence could easily be created by Condition Cards (permanent or discardable) that are not affiliated with any one pilot on the board.

Rumor has it that new stuff isn't selling as well. (I'm not buying much, as I only do Real* Empire, and it's been slim pickin's for Empire lately.)

So maybe there's an incentive for them to do something different to boost interest.

I think a well-crafted campaign would be awesome, but it requires solid groups of players, rather than ad hoc matching at the weekly game night at the FLGS.

*Not the First Order. (I loved TFA, but am too persnicketty when it comes to timeline.)

I think a well-crafted campaign would be awesome, but it requires solid groups of players, rather than ad hoc matching at the weekly game night at the FLGS.

Well, I would tend to think that the FLGS offers a solid group of players, where some would play together as a team rather than 1v1.

The big hitch would be time commitment. . .you can't just bop in for a 60-minute death match, then bop out.

I think a campaign for X-wing is utterly feasible. I seem to recall hearing something about how the Armada campaign is a test bed for the X-wing version of it. Who knows? I'd love to see it.

That's one of the reasons why my podcast is going to run a narrative campaign at GenCon this year. It should be quite cool! Four rounds of linked missions that culminate in a final battle for supremacy! We are even going to only allow 1 of each unique in the whole game. If that one dies....final death. We will have to do a draft pick before the first round starts so that people can know who they will get. It should be a lot of fun. Missions that will be thoroughly play tested and be more than just kill fests. If your team wins in one round, it impacts the rest of the campaign. I can't wait!

I think a well-crafted campaign would be awesome, but it requires solid groups of players, rather than ad hoc matching at the weekly game night at the FLGS.

Well, I would tend to think that the FLGS offers a solid group of players, where some would play together as a team rather than 1v1.

The big hitch would be time commitment. . .you can't just bop in for a 60-minute death match, then bop out.

Depends on the particular FLGS community, I would imagine. Some FLGS-going communities are more solid and regular than others.

GW went through the same issues, campaigns vs. battles. Especially for FWHB, from a 40k aspect, bringing the Universe story into the game is only a new thing, with some of the current expansions and re-invigorated starter boxes.

Bringing it back to X-Wing. I could easily see a campaign setting akin to the Soulstorm campaign of 40k (circa 2005). With its own campaign map, respurce points and a few rules for gaining milestones. Sounds a lot similar to the Corellian Campaign, but without any real reference point on CC I can't make the comparison.

I think the narrative is more important than a campaign, which is why mission cards would be a huge first step.

eventually, lining up on opposite sides of a board and playing to annhilation gets a bit stale; increase the size of a game to 175 or even 225 and give the attackers something to do and the defenders some reason for being there.

Thinking Episode 4, the mision was the exhaust pipe. That's it. If every ship was lost to accomplish that mission, so be it. Even Luke lost his oldest friend in the fight. Imagine a mission like this: Onslaught! the attacker is able to select 50% of points worth of non-unique ships, then as they are destroyed, they arrive at the board edge of the attacker's deployment zone next turn. The Defender wins if after 8 turns, there is at least one defending ship left on the board.

I would like to see something, but a 'Campaign Box' is not necessary.

There WILL be new stuff for the regular game, though. That is just how they are going to sell it. Yes, there may be stuff that can only be used in the campaign, but there will be stuff that affects the regular game as well.

Hmm... We know the Correlian Campaign includes new objectives and squadrons for Armada, but does anyone know if the Terminal Directive cards are usable in normal Netrunner Games? I didn't see anything concrete in the announcement article, but I don't follow Netrunner closely.

Yes. Its like 4 new IDs, and then something like 55 new cards that are completely for tournament play. They do mention other cards, that are separate "packs" that follows the Legacy format of changing things.

A campaign box for X-Wing would be nice. I see the issue with the scale and usual formats making it less accessible than Armada for most players, but i know i would like to see something more elaborate than the 4-5 missions of the Epic ships. Anyways we'll see. Maybe FFG shall see the light, and give us an official campaign and the Gunboat. In the same box.

If enough people are interested in playing a PvP campaign over vassal, I can put my campaign project on the front burner and probably have it ready by January.

Rogue squadron (and Wraith squadron after it) were known for flying solo missions into enemy or neutral space, as were certain imperial squadrons (Chiss clawcraft and TIE defenders, especially). Both Rebel and Imperial capital ships weren't flexible enough to go on such adventures, leading to squadron deployments. Assuming that capital battles are going on in the background (perhaps as some sort of 'event card' on campaign turns), the campaign could be focused on two or three squadrons of fighters on each side of the battle attempting to complete missions. Here's how I think it would work:

You have a map of the 'eastern' side of the galaxy (empire + outer rim), with the Imperials, Scum and Rebels vying for control over, say, 12 key planets - Coruscant, Corellia, Nal Hutta, Duros etc. Each planet has a series of several missions for both sides that allow them to gain influence over the planet. Control of a planet is in a faction's favour if it has x more influence than the other factions over it. Each planet has a unique ability (e.g. whomever controls Corellia has access to TIE Defenders/E-wings/Kihraxz fighters as a reflection of the shipyards there), with the planets that require higher influence having better abilities.

A campaign win is awarded if a faction has all the worlds listed on its victory card. The imperials would start at an advantage (all the core worlds in its possession), but would require complete domination of the galaxy to win. The Rebels would need the Imperials best worlds (Coruscant, Duros, Corellia, etc). Scum would want points of influence (Coruscant, Tattooine, Mandalore). This would lead to a situation between Rebel and Alliance players where they team up against the stronger empire for the first half of the game, then turn against each other as they weaken the empire.

I'd imagine that each faction would have access to three squads or so of ships that they could send on missions each campaign turn. Each squadron's losses are real, and must be payed for with resources generated by the planets under each faction's control. Unique pilots tat die stay dead, etc, etc. However, pilots can be cross-trained into other craft, opening up new game options.

I believe the best format for most missions would be team epic, giving four to six (for two or three faction games), and allowing full squadrons to play at once. The smaller, more numerous missions could be 100 pt objective missions.

It may not be great but 40 ships on a table - where precision is critical - will bog down regardless.

Thinking Episode 4, the mision was the exhaust pipe. That's it. If every ship was lost to accomplish that mission, so be it. Even Luke lost his oldest friend in the fight. Imagine a mission like this: Onslaught! the attacker is able to select 50% of points worth of non-unique ships, then as they are destroyed, they arrive at the board edge of the attacker's deployment zone next turn. The Defender wins if after 8 turns, there is at least one defending ship left on the board.

I would like to see something, but a 'Campaign Box' is not necessary.

Do you mean you want to see something like this? http://www.outworld-studio.com/pdf/Dagobah-Daves-Death-Star-Trench-Run-v3.pdf

That wast talked about in this thread: https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/219166-dagobah-daves-trench-run-strategy/page-1

Because Campaigns lead to fear, fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.

I think a well-crafted campaign would be awesome, but it requires solid groups of players, rather than ad hoc matching at the weekly game night at the FLGS.

Well, I would tend to think that the FLGS offers a solid group of players, where some would play together as a team rather than 1v1.

The big hitch would be time commitment. . .you can't just bop in for a 60-minute death match, then bop out.

Depends on the particular FLGS community, I would imagine. Some FLGS-going communities are more solid and regular than others.

Dietary fiber is the main variable in those cases. . .

I think a well-crafted campaign would be awesome, but it requires solid groups of players, rather than ad hoc matching at the weekly game night at the FLGS.

Well, I would tend to think that the FLGS offers a solid group of players, where some would play together as a team rather than 1v1.

The big hitch would be time commitment. . .you can't just bop in for a 60-minute death match, then bop out.

Depends on the particular FLGS community, I would imagine. Some FLGS-going communities are more solid and regular than others.

Dietary fiber is the main variable in those cases. . .

So, you're saying that a campaign is the laxative they're looking for?

Well if I look at my gaming group(s), I could not name any who is willing to play the available missions. They are all focussed on the 100pt 1 vs. 1 games and tournaments.

I would like to play more missions and even a campaign, but from my (very) personal perspective, if FFG would remove the missions from the ship expansions, not many people would even notice.

Well if I look at my gaming group(s), I could not name any who is willing to play the available missions. They are all focussed on the 100pt 1 vs. 1 games and tournaments.

I would like to play more missions and even a campaign, but from my (very) personal perspective, if FFG would remove the missions from the ship expansions, not many people would even notice.

A successful campaign/scenario might be targeted at new players and family play, etc. Not requiring a lot of ships, but with a distinctive RPG feel. The missions in the boxes appear somewhat generic and uninspired, probably because they can't introduce pilots or cards that would be OP in standard duel play.

Well if I look at my gaming group(s), I could not name any who is willing to play the available missions. They are all focussed on the 100pt 1 vs. 1 games and tournaments.

I would like to play more missions and even a campaign, but from my (very) personal perspective, if FFG would remove the missions from the ship expansions, not many people would even notice.

A successful campaign/scenario might be targeted at new players and family play, etc. Not requiring a lot of ships, but with a distinctive RPG feel. The missions in the boxes appear somewhat generic and uninspired, probably because they can't introduce pilots or cards that would be OP in standard duel play.

Agreed with both of you.

By-and-large, I think it's the shape of the X-Wing community that makes it harder.

At least what I can see in my area, Armada players - because they are a smaller group of people - have developed more of a community, because they tend to see the same faces across the table from them more than X-Wing players do. That makes campaign play easier.

In terms of those missions, I agree that they're generic, but I do think they're fun. I would just like them to be tied to a bigger story, like a campaign. Even the ones from the Huge ships do that a bit better, but it's still a little harder to get together with certain X-Wing players more consistently to play them.