My go-to objectives are MW, HSA, and SC. I get more dice, or my dice are in better positions. No other objectives come close to the effectiveness of these so I don't see a reason to use anything else.

Nav Hazards is my favorite objective, but I often don't take it because I have a medium ship in my fleet.

I remember when The Corellien Campaign came out the IFF guys discussing a hope that they would move organized play to a system where only certain objectives were legal for each kit. I guess it would be something like they do with IA when only certain maps can be played? I thought it was an interesting idea then and it would be an interesting way to have a greater variety of objectives being taken.

Of course it would put newer players or people who haven't purchased the campaign box at somewhat of a disadvantage, but it would be interesting and could cause even more list diversity.

I couldn't agree more with this entire thread, except that I do see Precision Strike pop up on occasion for heavy Bomber fleets. Regardless, I don't think I've used a red other than Most Wanted for months at this point. I love Navigational Hazards, but only when I'm running an MSU fleet with either Jerry or a bunch of CR90s.

Worst part is that even if you try to play some of the lesser played objectives, they often get ruled out immediately after. I put together an objective strong Ackbar fleet the other day, and my opponent picked Sensor Net. Joy, I've never played that objective before! He conceded at the end of round 3, at which point I had a 90 point objective advantage. I'm fairly confident he'll never pick that objective again...

1 minute ago, IronNerd said:

I couldn't agree more with this entire thread, except that I do see Precision Strike pop up on occasion for heavy Bomber fleets. Regardless, I don't think I've used a red other than Most Wanted for months at this point. I love Navigational Hazards, but only when I'm running an MSU fleet with either Jerry or a bunch of CR90s.

Worst part is that even if you try to play some of the lesser played objectives, they often get ruled out immediately after. I put together an objective strong Ackbar fleet the other day, and my opponent picked Sensor Net. Joy, I've never played that objective before! He conceded at the end of round 3, at which point I had a 90 point objective advantage. I'm fairly confident he'll never pick that objective again...

This is a problem in and of itself. If an objective is too strong (and therefore never picked) it is just as bad as an objective that is too weak (and therefore never in a list).

Because I see this thread derailing faster than my beloved underpowered Falcon flies, I throw in this piece:

Why taking Salvage Run, if you can have Intel Sweep? Both seem to me to need strategic. But with already one strategic squad Intel sweep is pretty save (if the first place doesn't have it as well), whereas Salvage run makes my navigation much more predictable and success much less save.

1 hour ago, Democratus said:

That's it! The Rieekan nerf was an inside job!

Oh no, no. The Rieekan nerf was a community stoning to death job.

10 minutes ago, xerpo said:

Oh no, no. The Rieekan nerf was a community stoning to death job.

Nah it was an end to an obvious power creep. Look at it this way, have you ever wondered why tie defenders did not get escort/bomber like they should? Because of rhymer.

1 hour ago, mcworrell said:

I remember when The Corellien Campaign came out the IFF guys discussing a hope that they would move organized play to a system where only certain objectives were legal for each kit. I guess it would be something like they do with IA when only certain maps can be played? I thought it was an interesting idea then and it would be an interesting way to have a greater variety of objectives being taken.

Of course it would put newer players or people who haven't purchased the campaign box at somewhat of a disadvantage, but it would be interesting and could cause even more list diversity.

Reading through this thread I was thinking the same thing... What if a specific event randomly chose 2 of each type of Objective before lists were submitted (you can argue timing of that decision between in advanced, vs. after registration, whatever). 2 Objectives so each player still has a choice of which 3 they want for their objectives. Heck - FFG could even make their system opens, Nationals and Worlds have unique objectives that were never before released (I'd argue that they would be announced then at registration, or 24hrs beforehand or something. The downside being that people would have to bring more fleets, but the upside that no one has played that objective before). You would no longer need the objective cards themselves since they are just a set of rules - they could be printed onto the back of the squad sheets for reference or something.

19 minutes ago, Darth Veggie said:

Because I see the tea derailing faster than my beloved underpowered Falcon, I throw in this piece:

Why taking Salvage Run, if you can have Intel Sweep? Both seem to me to need strategic. But with already one strategic squad Intel sweep is pretty save (if the first place doesn't have it as well), whereas Salvage run makes my navigation much more predictable and success much less save.

I prefer Salvage Run to Intel Sweep because I don't have to work as hard to get points. I can easily grab 20, rather than make sure my objective ship stays alive to get 3 tokens. And if we tie, I don't get any points. Sure, my opponent can take a token on Salvage Run, but it also means they are moving their ships toward me in some fashion. I also like the dust fields, which strongly benefit close range ships. Imagine being able to attack Demo only when it is attacking you as well. You don't get to take long and medium shots on it, or try to set up arcs to catch Demo.

Having actually talked to FFG guys about this (as I name drop Jimmy) at Adepticon last year about something similar:

Paraphasing, the objectives are designed so that if you run up against someone who's been practicing stuff like Blockade Run, Nav Hazards, and something like Fleet Ambush, it's to give them and their build an option slash a chance to win/see something you haven't seen before.

What this means, in my opinion, is that, yeah, you're seeing a lot of Most Wanted and Contested Outpost or whatever. Try building something new (Blockade Run is SUUUUUPER fun, as is Nav Hazards) and see if you can get something crazy fun out of it. In fact, I have crazy Leia ideas with those objectives.....

42 minutes ago, mintek917 said:

Nah it was an end to an obvious power creep. Look at it this way, have you ever wondered why tie defenders did not get escort/bomber like they should? Because of rhymer.

Why they should have escort? Points would be around 18pt/u then.

31 minutes ago, geek19 said:

Having actually talked to FFG guys about this (as I name drop Jimmy) at Adepticon last year about something similar:

Paraphasing, the objectives are designed so that if you run up against someone who's been practicing stuff like Blockade Run, Nav Hazards, and something like Fleet Ambush, it's to give them and their build an option slash a chance to win/see something you haven't seen before.

What this means, in my opinion, is that, yeah, you're seeing a lot of Most Wanted and Contested Outpost or whatever. Try building something new (Blockade Run is SUUUUUPER fun, as is Nav Hazards) and see if you can get something crazy fun out of it. In fact, I have crazy Leia ideas with those objectives.....

That's just...sad

12 minutes ago, xerpo said:

Why they should have escort? Points would be around 18pt/u then.

And further, why would I want a debuff on my fighter.

I think one issue with objectives is the clear' strategic 'benefit v negligible and point value.

Objectives that give you a point gradient are always best, as second player is hurting and needs points badly to keep up.

Personally I've only ever seen 1 person manage intel sweep shenanigans, and I didn't get to play against them, but find intel sweep the better of the two (almost guaranteed 75 pt gradient, but I wrote diatribe on that previously).

38 minutes ago, geek19 said:

Having actually talked to FFG guys about this (as I name drop Jimmy) at Adepticon last year about something similar:

Paraphasing, the objectives are designed so that if you run up against someone who's been practicing stuff like Blockade Run, Nav Hazards, and something like Fleet Ambush, it's to give them and their build an option slash a chance to win/see something you haven't seen before.

What this means, in my opinion, is that, yeah, you're seeing a lot of Most Wanted and Contested Outpost or whatever. Try building something new (Blockade Run is SUUUUUPER fun, as is Nav Hazards) and see if you can get something crazy fun out of it. In fact, I have crazy Leia ideas with those objectives.....

It hurts my soul to say this, because all of us are in this for the fun of it... right? While creating objectives that have the opportunity to be "crazy fun" is all well and good, it is not a good way to move a game forward. Games such as these will always be looking toward the newest and most effective combinations. You may get a few interesting games with some of the crazier objectives, but I expect it will always settle back down to those that are consistently the most powerful. Until someone comes up with a fleet that is consistently good with something like Blockade Run, Nav Hazards, and... I don't know what yellow you'd use with that. Capture the VIP? Regardless, until someone sorts that out, you're going to see the same objectives popping up, because they are better than the other ones (in terms of consistently winning games).

1 hour ago, IronNerd said:

It hurts my soul to say this, because all of us are in this for the fun of it... right? While creating objectives that have the opportunity to be "crazy fun" is all well and good, it is not a good way to move a game forward. Games such as these will always be looking toward the newest and most effective combinations. You may get a few interesting games with some of the crazier objectives, but I expect it will always settle back down to those that are consistently the most powerful. Until someone comes up with a fleet that is consistently good with something like Blockade Run, Nav Hazards, and... I don't know what yellow you'd use with that. Capture the VIP? Regardless, until someone sorts that out, you're going to see the same objectives popping up, because they are better than the other ones (in terms of consistently winning games).

I don't think you'll ever get a fleet that runs all the off objectives consistently well. Blockade Run is at odds with Nav Hazards. One you want to go straight, the other you want to maneuver hard. Both favor different fleet builds.

I think Strategic killed objective play, which was the opposite of what people expected. You're better off taking HSA or CO instead of Fire Lanes, which was my go-to, because you run the risk of matching someone with Strategic and losing your game. The best objectives are the ones where your opponent has little control over them, which is why MW, CO/HSA, and SC is so good.

The best you will get is someone taking 2 strong objectives for standard play, and 1 off objective for niche play. For example, I play a lot of JJ Glads. My objectives are MW, HSA, and Nav Hazards. MW is obvious with Demo and Insidious. I pick my flotilla and their most expensive ship. HSA is obvious with Demo and Insidious. Both get the best position possible with the longest reach of black dice in the game. Demo attacks after moving, Insidious has medium range into rear. Nav Hazards is my niche objective because I have JJ and I want to force large ship fleets to pick MW or HSA. It's my anti-large/medium ship objective where I only get a huge benefit against those fleets. Madine or JJ would likely pick that one, and then I don't get a huge pay off. It also works well against squads.

@Undeadguy I dunno about strategic. To me that's the dichotemy between powerful specialised lists and general purpose lists; if you are so optimised you can't win Fire Lanes if your opponent brings strategic - then to me you're gambling on the state of your meta and maybe objectives are serving their purpose?

of course my meta doesn't seem to emphasise objectives as much, which means I'm gambling against the meta when I bring strategic and a list with a purpose

1 hour ago, Green Knight said:

That's just...sad

I interpret it more as "we understand there are some cornerstone objectives, but given the specifics of your meta, other objectives can be more competitive and fleets that are more practiced at some of those objectives can score upsets against players who have mostly kept themselves to the 'regular' objectives."

I don't think it's really possible to make a large number of top-tier objectives, honestly. Some are going to rise to the top of the pile until you have a top 3 for each color, which is basically what we currently have. The trend has been exacerbated by flotillas, in my opinion, as objectives like Most Wanted become substantially more appealing when the downside can be minimized by targeting your cheapo flotilla. Similarly, objectives that require grabbing tokens (Intel Sweep, Capture the VIP) are more appealing when a cheapo ship can do that for you without having to give up much, like you used to need to before flotillas were available (does my ship prioritize combat or continuing to grab tokens/getting away with the token?).

I'm torn on Strategic. On one hand, Strategic has made second player fleets much more threatening, which is good. On the other, Strategic has also made objective suite choice for a fleet without Strategic even less diverse due to the risk of opposing Strategic squadrons turning your own objective against you; thus a fleet that lacks Strategic squadrons tends to gravitate towards objectives without objective tokens.

I'm not opposed to some kind of objective rebalancing, but I think you're always going to have more cornerstone and more niche objectives. You can try to reduce the "sameyness" between some objectives, streamline others, etc., but I don't think you're ever going to get to a paradise of all equally viable objectives if only because the meta changes, and objectives are best utilized by different fleet archetypes.

Example 1: Fleet Ambush.

On the 1st round, the 1st player must pass his first 1 activation.

AND/OR some squadron deployment restriction.

10 minutes ago, OgRib said:

@Undeadguy I dunno about strategic. To me that's the dichotemy between powerful specialised lists and general purpose lists; if you are so optimised you can't win Fire Lanes if your opponent brings strategic - then to me you're gambling on the state of your meta and maybe objectives are serving their purpose?

of course my meta doesn't seem to emphasise objectives as much, which means I'm gambling against the meta when I bring strategic and a list with a purpose

I'll clarify my point.

Strategic has negated the usage of a lot of objectives. If I want to run a token based objective list, I need to take Strategic. Chances are you take AG/MW, FL, and SR/IS. That's a strong objective line up with Strategic. But I'd never take those post wave 5 because if I'm at a tournament, I can't afford to run into that one guy that brings 2 Strategic squads. There is a lot of risk involved in taking token based objectives.

Essentially, if you don't want to use Strategic, you have a small selection to pick from. Would you risk running Fire Lanes with no Strategic squads? For me, the answer is no. 15 points is a lot to invest into a squad where I want to play my objectives, so I might want to have a bid to go second.

If you decide to take Strategic, this still applies to you because you are now the player that people are picking objectives around. It can backfire and give you a massive advantage in your game. Not only do you have first player, but you can control the objectives. This is the same reason people don't take Fleet Ambush. It might be really good 75% of the time, but is it worth the risk to run into the player who has a GT ISD II going first at medium range on round 1?

I think Strategic is very powerful, and a lot of players have respect for that. But I do think it killed the objective game. You could take 1 Strategic squad, but then you need to keep it alive, so it puts you on the path to play squads. And if you don't take any token objectives, than you are looking to mess with someone else's objectives. If you play in a tournament and no one has token objectives, you're essentially wasted 15 points. You can Relay through it, but I'm not sure the value in that if you take it for Strategic.

It's an interesting dilemma. I don't think it is necessarily bad for the game because it promotes 2 very different types of play, but I don't think it had the positive impact that FFG was looking for.

6 minutes ago, Green Knight said:

Example 1: Fleet Ambush.

On the 1st round, the 1st player must pass his first 1 activation.

AND/OR some squadron deployment restriction.

Rather, the first player cannot place large ships in the ambush zone.

Prevents ISDs and MC80s from killing you first round.

And to continue on its not just strategic that limits your selection also the chance you might play someone with grav shift who moves asteroids is another problem that limits objective selection. When I'm preparing for a tournament I know that if I'm not planning on running lists with strategic or tractor beams then those objectives are already lost. If I go light on my squads there's no chance I'll take SP to give my opponent a chance at 15 points. If you want a more open tournament field, then scenarios should be drawn at the beginning of each round where everyone plays the same one. The fewer points person still has the option of being first or second, but must choose prior to objective announcement or by default become first player. This would open list building imo.

4 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

I'll clarify my point.

Strategic has negated the usage of a lot of objectives. If I want to run a token based objective list, I need to take Strategic. Chances are you take AG/MW, FL, and SR/IS. That's a strong objective line up with Strategic. But I'd never take those post wave 5 because if I'm at a tournament, I can't afford to run into that one guy that brings 2 Strategic squads. There is a lot of risk involved in taking token based objectives.

Essentially, if you don't want to use Strategic, you have a small selection to pick from. Would you risk running Fire Lanes with no Strategic squads? For me, the answer is no. 15 points is a lot to invest into a squad where I want to play my objectives, so I might want to have a bid to go second.

If you decide to take Strategic, this still applies to you because you are now the player that people are picking objectives around. It can backfire and give you a massive advantage in your game. Not only do you have first player, but you can control the objectives. This is the same reason people don't take Fleet Ambush. It might be really good 75% of the time, but is it worth the risk to run into the player who has a GT ISD II going first at medium range on round 1?

I think Strategic is very powerful, and a lot of players have respect for that. But I do think it killed the objective game. You could take 1 Strategic squad, but then you need to keep it alive, so it puts you on the path to play squads. And if you don't take any token objectives, than you are looking to mess with someone else's objectives. If you play in a tournament and no one has token objectives, you're essentially wasted 15 points. You can Relay through it, but I'm not sure the value in that if you take it for Strategic.

It's an interesting dilemma. I don't think it is necessarily bad for the game because it promotes 2 very different types of play, but I don't think it had the positive impact that FFG was looking for.

I've been dwelling on this exactly the last few days, I almost feel having relay and strategic on the same fighter was a bit of a mistake in that respect.

I also agree it segmented heavily to token and non token lists, and reverted any non strategic list back to wave 3-4 near omnipresent MW/CO/DT type layouts.

6 minutes ago, Palanthas said:

And to continue on its not just strategic that limits your selection also the chance you might play someone with tractor beams who moves asteroids is another problem that limits objective selection. When I'm preparing for a tournament I know that if I'm not planning on running lists with strategic or tractor beams then those objectives are already lost. If I go light on my squads there's no chance I'll take SP to give my opponent a chance at 15 points. If you want a more open tournament field, then scenarios should be drawn at the beginning of each round where everyone plays the same one. The fewer points person still has the option of being first or second, but must choose prior to objective announcement or by default become first player. This would open list building imo.

How do you move asteroids with Tractor Beams? Did you mean Grav Shift Reroute?

Just now, Megatronrex said:

How do you move asteroids with Tractor Beams? Did you mean Grav Shift Reroute?

Yep, I'll fix that.

Just now, Palanthas said:

Yep, I'll fix that.

I so wish you could use Tractor Beams that way.