I remember about 5-ish waves ago the designers said there was not much demand for other play formats than the standard 100 kill each other.

can we go ahead and start asking for other tournament or league play formats? a whole lot of math wing problems get solved when there are other objectives in play.

The "math wing problem" doesn't get resolved. It just expands. There are things that are better in epic or escalation just as much as there are things that are better in standard.

The more options for competitive play there are though, the better. Better support from FFG would be nice for other formats.

Depends on how it's resolved. I see "soft release" mmo's/ teamplay games try and do that regularly with the net result being the mentality that if there's nothing left on the table the objectives aren't getting completed and it plays just the same.

Missions and/or moving the point limit to 150/6.

At 150 points, more cards and crew and strategies become viable, while a lot of the current meta boogymen lose effectiveness due to the limitations of being unique. Empire for example have sort of a sub-theme of crew cards which buff multiple friendly ships, but at 100 points you can't get full use out of them because a shuttle with upgrades to get those buffs out there cost half your list. Leaving you with few ships to actually buff.

We need Armada style mission packs to make the game no longer be about raw damage output and durability. This would somewhat alleviate the problems of over/undercosted ships.

Side-boards or multiple list formats would also not be a bad idea as it could help with problem matchups. See a bunch of bombs? Swap out your fragile aces for some more durable ships.

I really don't understand this fascination with 150 pts. It will be good until the meta develops and then the exact same arguments will pop up again, with the solution being 200 pts.

2 minutes ago, Sithborg said:

I really don't understand this fascination with 150 pts. It will be good until the meta develops and then the exact same arguments will pop up again, with the solution being 200 pts.

not counting the extra's things like FSR 2.0 and triple jumps can do with that spare 50 points to become real monsters.

Well, its a bit silly that a game about dogfighting from a movie franchise which usually features space battles with dozens, if not hundreds, of ships per sides tends to cap out at 3 ships per player. 5-6 would be a little more interesting.

And sure, some of the big bad lists gain from moving up to 150. but not as much as the lists which don't do well in the meta, so overall it's better balanced.

4 minutes ago, BadMotivator said:

Well, its a bit silly that a game about dogfighting from a movie franchise which usually features space battles with dozens, if not hundreds, of ships per sides tends to cap out at 3 ships per player. 5-6 would be a little more interesting.

And sure, some of the big bad lists gain from moving up to 150. but not as much as the lists which don't do well in the meta, so overall it's better balanced.

You can't know that, until it is played by as many people play in the current formats. Unless your view is "better balanced" = "squads I prefer do better", then fine.

11 minutes ago, BadMotivator said:

Well, its a bit silly that a game about dogfighting from a movie franchise which usually features space battles with dozens, if not hundreds, of ships per sides tends to cap out at 3 ships per player. 5-6 would be a little more interesting.

And sure, some of the big bad lists gain from moving up to 150. but not as much as the lists which don't do well in the meta, so overall it's better balanced.

what adds? maybe a meta like 8 binyare pirates with stims/harpoons/chips throwing anywhere up to 32 reds + all the aoe and discard damage? and it'll be all double modified+ 1 auto hit per missile (cheers, stims and chips!!)?

all I mean by "math wing problem" is the game stops being about number of dice rolled or auto damage dealt when there are objectives in play.

Well there is that hangar bay format that is used in System Opens. That is very close to official, if not premier. Of course I prefer the variant that requires two different faction lists and you always fight against the other faction.

Thing about 100 it is an easy number. Raise it and not only do you make games run longer with more dials and dice and models to move, but you also make X-wing more expensive. However I don't believe X-wing will stay at 100 points for competitive standard for ever, I expect the point to be increased.

Anyways with alternative formats you could find ways to mix it up. Here is an idea that could be applied to either the 100 point limit or even more.

Limited time? My beloved and well tested "Turboscenarios".

2x2 game surface. 4 rocks. 40 pts. Small base only. You must field 2 ships. Works fine and ends in 10 minutes. Never more than 15 mins.

Interceptor + Tie. X Wing plus Z 95. First we played this a a "filer" prior to Epic Play. Then more and more popular. You can play 7 games in less than 120 min.

I honestly believe that you can achieve a lot of variance by simply adding or removing 5points. Many lists need those points. Another simple option would be another rock.

I'm not arguing that this should be standard but that tourneys could easily say 95p and 4 rocks to vary the experience.

IMHO more rocks the better. I love Seismic Torps but a densely populated mat rewards precise flying. 100/8 punish Large Ships and wirks fine too

1 hour ago, BadMotivator said:

Missions and/or moving the point limit to 150/6.

At 150 points, more cards and crew and strategies become viable, while a lot of the current meta boogymen lose effectiveness due to the limitations of being unique.

Maybe. Just as much though, Attanni Mindlink and Sytems Officer become insane, and lots of other things that scale with the number of ships they can affect will become overpowered.

Sure, it'll be different things, but at 150 points there'd be as much or more complaining about overpowered and "overpowered" stuff as there is at 100 points.

1 hour ago, BadMotivator said:

And sure, some of the big bad lists gain from moving up to 150. but not as much as the lists which don't do well in the meta, so overall it's better balanced.

I'm going to call BS on this, unless you can explain to me how other lists improve more than, say, FSR does by getting to toss in a fully-kitted Miri on top of its usual shenanigans. Or Dengar + Nym when it becomes Dengar + Nym + Fenn (with 15 or so points still to burn, at that). Or Dash + Miri when it becomes Dash + Miri + Nym.

9 minutes ago, DR4CO said:

I'm going to call BS on this, unless you can explain to me how other lists improve more than, say, FSR does by getting to toss in a fully-kitted Miri on top of its usual shenanigans. Or Dengar + Nym when it becomes Dengar + Nym + Fenn (with 15 or so points still to burn, at that). Or Dash + Miri when it becomes Dash + Miri + Nym.

i was thinking more kanan or kanan+shuttle/phantom 2 by dumping Rex. But that works

Why wait for an official alternative points limit? Run your own! There is a local tournament run twice a year that uses 125 points with missions. It's great fun, and those who are fixated on only the competitive 100/6 format don't come

We also have various doubles tournaments that crop up from time to time

how about 100/7

What does the number after 100 mean?

I want games like king of the hill or capture the flag, formats like that.

I feel like Hanger Bay is a better direction to move towards for tournaments. It's not exactly perfect imo (I'd rather have lists chosen in combined list initiative order, personally), but if there's a white whale list out there then I think it would deal with it better.

8 minutes ago, TylerTT said:

What does the number after 100 mean?

I want games like king of the hill or capture the flag, formats like that.

The number of asteroids in play. So 100/6 would mean 100 points game with 6 asteroids on the table.

Oh that makes sense. I was almost sure it was obsticals but I thought maybe it was a per card restriction like only 6 of any card.

What if they intoduced new kinds of obsticals or ships that let players score points in new ways. Like an obstical that scores points when you fly over it.

One of my favorite sets of victory conditions for a miniatures game was mechwarrior dark age. That was your typical enemy unit points killed, friendly unit points retained, but you also scored points for getting units to the enemy deployment zone. It was a great victory condition.

7 hours ago, Ralgon said:

Depends on how it's resolved. I see "soft release" mmo's/ teamplay games try and do that regularly with the net result being the mentality that if there's nothing left on the table the objectives aren't getting completed and it plays just the same.

The Grayskull campaign featured a scoring system that penalized you MORE for dying. Thus, you would score far better by completing the mission and bugging out than by getting shot down.

5 hours ago, Husum said:

I honestly believe that you can achieve a lot of variance by simply adding or removing 5points. Many lists need those points. Another simple option would be another rock.

I'm not arguing that this should be standard but that tourneys could easily say 95p and 4 rocks to vary the experience.

This could be so easily implemented. All they need is an Objective card that says "Place one more (or less) asteroid." 1 point. Let the player pay to change the conditions of the game.

4 hours ago, Rat of Vengence said:

Why wait for an official alternative points limit? Run your own!

Simply because if it is official, that means FFG is finally thinking out of the 3x3 box.