9 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

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.

You missed my point. I meant the mentality that playing the kill game on your opponent and not playing the objectives was easier, net result being not much changed besides some objectives appearing on the table/map, and a lot of extra rage.

24 minutes ago, Ralgon said:

You missed my point. I meant the mentality that playing the kill game on your opponent and not playing the objectives was easier, net result being not much changed besides some objectives appearing on the table/map, and a lot of extra rage.

Not entirely true... Some of those objectives nailed you if you focused on kills and your opponent avoided you. The first round satellites easily did and it almost cost me as my opponent was much faster getting to the objectives. I lucked out and tied it up before the signal came. There are ways to balance things, but it does take extra effort compared to "just take 100 points and fly" which is probably why FFG doesn't do much else.

1 hour ago, Ralgon said:

You missed my point. I meant the mentality that playing the kill game on your opponent and not playing the objectives was easier, net result being not much changed besides some objectives appearing on the table/map, and a lot of extra rage.

Unless, as LagJanson points out, that mentality begins to cause you to lose games for not fulfilling the objectives. Then, you can play "Kill! Kill!! Kill!!!" but come in last.

18 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

Unless, as LagJanson points out, that mentality begins to cause you to lose games for not fulfilling the objectives. Then, you can play "Kill! Kill!! Kill!!!" but come in last.

Except he didn't.........

Already have : Escalation (60/90/120/150), Epic tournament, Epic team and 77+ (the one from open series)

Unofficial : Furball

Just find some people who were ready to play others than the classical !

10 minutes ago, Ralgon said:

Except he didn't.........

What I said was that objectives can be made so that target fixation will cost you the match. If more points are awarded for achieving objectives than are awarded for kills, which was the case in the match I noted, killing your opponent may not be enough. When each objective is worth 30 points, and there are 6 of them, it adds up faster than shooting down fighters.

23 minutes ago, Ralgon said:

Except he didn't.........

Do you want to have a conversation, or be a weiner about sentence structure??

What the game needs is a second edition refresh that adds objectives to the game... Like EVERY OTHER STAR WARS MINIS GAME THEY MAKE.

Like seriously. After playing all these other games for awhile I look back at X-wing like, what's the point? How is this strategy? It's math and then guessing, and the fusion doesn't matter anymore half the time with the random factor of dice being so mitigated. So yeah, coming back into the game every once in a while it's like well, this is boring.

6 hours ago, Arkanta974 said:

Already have : Escalation (60/90/120/150), Epic tournament, Epic team and 77+ (the one from open series)

Unofficial : Furball

Just find some people who were ready to play others than the classical !

I absolutely love the Furball format. There's a lot of fun to be had around that table with a good group of players! It'd love to see some official Furball tournaments.

15 hours 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.

Yeah, as you and others have pointed out, it's not like Dengar, Nym, Miranda, Dash, and the like get any worse just because the point limit went up. You just end up with situations where Dash+Miranda becomes Dash+Miranda+Corran/Nym. If anything it probably weakens arc dodgers even more(more ships on the table = more arcs to dodge) and increases the power of alpha strike, bombs, Attani...

14 hours ago, TylerTT said:

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.

If your opponent is dead they can't score any objectives.

13 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.

add in those satellite obstacle tokens that are in both core sets. Maybe even have a date for a random satellite token effect.

6 minutes ago, Otacon said:

If your opponent is dead they can't score any objectives

Only works if the objectives sit around and wait for the end of the game. Not all do. That said, math doesn't go away and balance is not magically fixed either so I am not exactly agreeing with the post you quoted. Objectives could help the game but it's not going to be the ultimate solution.

150pts devalues some glass cannon type pilots but i find it really wonky to list build for. I seem to always have a bareboned, dont give a crap about it ship or i have numerous upgrades i normally wouldnt want to avoid the massive point gap.

Still, it wouldnt do much. The meta would just shift a bit but otherwise it would be the same mentality. Objectives, alternate obstacles, or a reinforcement mechanic could shake things up (start with up to 100pts, have up to 50pts in reserves. The 50pts can come in at the start of any turn you have enough missing points to bring it in from your board edge)

7 and a half.

Cartel.

Marauders.

I like 150 for some home, casual games; it lets you put out large ships like the Falcon, the Decimator, and the Upsilon with decent upgrades and more than a couple of escorts. (Rey + Poe just doesn't interest me as much as Rey, Poe, Red Squadron Veteran and an A-wing.) I don't see how 150 would help at all in the competitive arena, however. It just offers more points for hyper-efficient use. 150 is great when you want to open the game up for more thematic builds, but at tournaments, you'll see very few players who consider the extra 50 points to be a "theme cushion"; more likely, they'll see it as a 50% increase in what they can bring, while still making absolutely every point carry its weight toward victory.

When we build for theme, we end up using upgrades that might end up helping once or twice in the game, but for the most part, they're on the ship because we thought it would be fun to have them there and see what they do. When we build for competition, we use upgrades with proven value, where +1/-1 point cost on an upgrade is all the difference necessary to see it as gamebreaking or trash.

If that mentality remains intact, no adjustment to points will change how the tournaments are played. Increased squad points will only open the door to new list archetypes, or modifications of the ones that already exist. (Imagine a 150 point Attani squad.... That's a lot of efficiency to pull from one upgrade.)

Yes

150 points = 12 Academy Pilots... yes!

Objectives... Even w40k run away from simply kill the enemy perhaps 25 years ago. Building a deck to fit any 100/6 can be hellish task. Need to take into account 8 Ties or Yt 1300 plus Yt 2400... Fiuuuu.

But flying cinematic with objectives is simply superb. Running over a 6 feet mat with Super Dash carrying a VIP Passenger, Modified to load two Countermeasures upgrades and with some of the fighters loaded with ECM pods to give Dash extra Green if within R1. X Wings going down in flames to protect the VIP. And whem Dash reaches Exit point with 2 Hulls left...or is finished 6 inches away from it... Nothing compares to this.

I've always wanted to organise a Tournament where you switch lists between rounds:

Swiss and top cut are arranged as normal.

Round 1: You play with your list against your opponent playing his list.
Round 1 End: Switch lists with your opponent.
Round 2: You play with your first round opponents list against your opponent playing his first round opponents list.
Round 2 End: Switch lists with your opponent.
Round 3: You play with your second round opponents list against your opponent playing his second round opponents list.
Et cetera

You play with your list once, then it becomes a game of Chinese whispers. You're trying to learn how your opponent flies his list, and then emulate it in the next game. I imagine it would be quite fun. The people who do well will be those that know the game well and can adapt to multiple archetypes relatively easily.

3 minutes ago, CRCL said:

I've always wanted to organise a Tournament where you switch lists between rounds:

Swiss and top cut are arranged as normal.

Round 1: You play with your list against your opponent playing his list.
Round 1 End: Switch lists with your opponent.
Round 2: You play with your first round opponents list against your opponent playing his first round opponents list.
Round 2 End: Switch lists with your opponent.
Round 3: You play with your second round opponents list against your opponent playing his second round opponents list.
Et cetera

You play with your list once, then it becomes a game of Chinese whispers. You're trying to learn how your opponent flies his list, and then emulate it in the next game. I imagine it would be quite fun.

Maybe the loser gets to choose lists? Could be fun, too

In it's current form, X-Wing does not support objective-based competitive play. It would break apart if they just tried to inject them into the game. If they decide to make a 2nd edition they probably will add missions.

The best we can get is Hangar Bay format for the larger events, and I'd love to see that. Escalation is extremely unbalanced and pretty boring in the long run. 30 point increments are pretty restrictive.

3 minutes ago, Elavion said:

In it's current form, X-Wing does not support objective-based competitive play. It would break apart if they just tried to inject them into the game. If they decide to make a 2nd edition they probably will add missions.

The best we can get is Hangar Bay format for the larger events, and I'd love to see that. Escalation is extremely unbalanced and pretty boring in the long run. 30 point increments are pretty restrictive.

Why?

You can't just crush all hopes and dreams without giving some good reasons for your claim.

Counterpoint is for example the thematic play by Shuttle Tydirium or the missions. Also HotAC.

2 minutes ago, Elavion said:

In it's current form, X-Wing does not support objective-based competitive play. It would break apart if they just tried to inject them into the game. If they decide to make a 2nd edition they probably will add missions.

The best we can get is Hangar Bay format for the larger events, and I'd love to see that. Escalation is extremely unbalanced and pretty boring in the long run. 30 point increments are pretty restrictive.

Not true. You can totally support objectives, and it's been done. The problem is merely level of effort in creation and testing.

I'd also argue that Hangar Bay is not the best already existing alternate format. Different focused timeline events exist, such as Original Trilogy events, which are becoming more popular and seem to draw positive responses from those attending... Of course, this is more a personal opinion type response.

1 minute ago, GreenDragoon said:

Why?

You can't just crush all hopes and dreams without giving some good reasons for your claim.

Counterpoint is for example the thematic play by Shuttle Tydirium or the missions. Also HotAC.

1 minute ago, LagJanson said:

Not true. You can totally support objectives, and it's been done. The problem is merely level of effort in creation and testing.

I'd also argue that Hangar Bay is not the best already existing alternate format. Different focused timeline events exist, such as Original Trilogy events, which are becoming more popular and seem to draw positive responses from those attending... Of course, this is more a personal opinion type response.

There is a pretty big difference between playing missions for fun with friends (which kinda works) and having actual highly competitive players figure them out. Not only is it borderline impossible to predict all the interactions (think Dengaroo), It'd completely redefine what is good and what is bad. A lot of ships would be left in the dust- for a very, very, very basic example, if you're supposed to go around the map and fly over objectives, all versions of SLAM become god tier (and severely underpriced), while slow ships like the quadjumper become completely useless. And just think about minefield mapper...

Events such as OT tournaments are pretty cool as a novelity, but they'd get repetitive after some time and would drastically limit design space. The cool thing about hangar bay is that it doesn't change the game itself in any way, it just reduces the risk of terrible matchups.

7 hours ago, CRCL said:

I've always wanted to organise a Tournament where you switch lists between rounds:

Swiss and top cut are arranged as normal.

Round 1: You play with your list against your opponent playing his list.
Round 1 End: Switch lists with your opponent.
Round 2: You play with your first round opponents list against your opponent playing his first round opponents list.
Round 2 End: Switch lists with your opponent.
Round 3: You play with your second round opponents list against your opponent playing his second round opponents list.
Et cetera

You play with your list once, then it becomes a game of Chinese whispers. You're trying to learn how your opponent flies his list, and then emulate it in the next game. I imagine it would be quite fun. The people who do well will be those that know the game well and can adapt to multiple archetypes relatively easily.

That is our Spy vs Spy League. I love it.

But...... Many people don't like variance in the list they fly. Tournament setting would be very difficult. Some day even like others touching their stuff. Weird to me but so true.

Personally love it.