7 hours ago, Brunas said:

We proudly present to the X-wing community a new alternative format for the game we all love:

X-wing Objectives
In 2012 Fantasy Flight Games created the Star Wars X-Wing Miniatures Game. Its strong and unique mechanics coupled with the power of childhood nostalgia has made it one the most popular miniatures game in the world. However, after 5 years and over 12 Waves worth of ships, the “Standard” competitive format has begun to show some weaknesses. The primary win condition for years was to destroy all of your opponent’s ships, but now with so many cards and combinations available there are more win conditions that make the game less enjoyable. These include having a single, expensive, and unkillable ship win when time is up or staying in your corner the entire game and winning on a Final Salvo tie breaker.

The X-Wing Objective Format was created by a large number of members from the X-Wing Community in a massive collaborative effort. Months of testing went into creating six objectives that have alternative win conditions. The hope was to eliminate some of the negative play experiences and get us back to the kinds of dogfights that leave us cheering and excited. We also sought out to create a format that would not only appeal to casual players but also be viable as a tournament format.

Please download & print all the materials as needed and enjoy this new format. Please feel free to contact us with any questions you may have.


Enjoy!

You can view all the objectives in an imgur album here: https://imgur.com/a/Ox7T9 , or you can see the splash page for everything at http://nationaltabletopgaming.org/tournament-resources .

If you're just looking for the printable version of everything, the link is on the site or just here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/clott5ozs0upf6f/AAA3E7lrpB8-CJAq6f1AiOWea?dl=0

To learn more about X-wing Objectives listen to the “Intro to Objectives” episode on the Carolina Krayts, Gold Squadron, or Mynock Squadron Podcasts.
Video Tutorials will be made available on the Gold Squadron Podcast Youtube Channel soon™

Lastly, if you're running or participating in a tournament with this format, you'll want to use the rules here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/17egf6ZX0CEyJjyyKaPvL9ukLVXkYJ1RIt85iFF9F-EM . The short story is that you can run it as an Imperial Assault tournament in Tome or Cryodex, and you should be fine!

Here's an example page, if you want to save a click:

Where is “control” defined?

Quote

Where is “control” defined?

On page 2 in the Objectives Guide.

At first glance it seems that area denial effects (Bombs, Snapshot, Tractor Beam, Ion, Auto-blaster) are going to be very strong. Am I missing something?

8 minutes ago, Imperial Rookie said:

At first glance it seems that area denial effects (Bombs, Snapshot, Tractor Beam, Ion, Auto-blaster) are going to be very strong. Am I missing something?

It depends on what you're facing, I'd imagine... There's still points to be gained by wrecking your ships.

1 hour ago, Mighty said:

On page 2 in the Objectives Guide.

All I can find from the links are the scenarios. Where is link to the guide?

nevermind. Found it!

25 minutes ago, LagJanson said:

33 minutes ago, Imperial Rookie said:

At first glance it seems that area denial effects (Bombs, Snapshot, Tractor Beam, Ion, Auto-blaster) are going to be very strong. Am I missing something?

It depends on what you're facing, I'd imagine... There's still points to be gained by wrecking your ships.

I just don't want to fly against bombs in this format, as the format is encouraging you to swarm your ships into a predictable, clustered, area. Also, turrets will have a strong advantage as they can fly close to the objective and still have consistent shots, something that a regular ship will struggle with. Anything with multiple turrets and bombs will likely be a strong choice for most of the objectives.

47 minutes ago, Imperial Rookie said:

I just don't want to fly against bombs in this format, as the format is encouraging you to swarm your ships into a predictable, clustered, area. Also, turrets will have a strong advantage as they can fly close to the objective and still have consistent shots, something that a regular ship will struggle with. Anything with multiple turrets and bombs will likely be a strong choice for most of the objectives.

Any turret that can keep pace with the objective is liable to be a sitting duck to the opponents list. At least in the escort shuttle mission. This would be bread and butter for jousters. And coming in from any other angle besides rear keeps bombs out of the question (deathrain/ trajectory simulator are exceptions. )

This is super cool.

I know this is a bit strange but I can't figure out a star-wars-themed re-fluffing for the last 2 missions.

Capture a VIP, the rocks contain information relays, shielded satelite, VIP again, that all works.

For the Crate and Cargo one, i'm struggling to ratoionalize how it makes sense- it justs seems overly game-y. Any ideas?

1 hour ago, FlyingAnchors said:

Any turret that can keep pace with the objective is liable to be a sitting duck to the opponents list. At least in the escort shuttle mission. This would be bread and butter for jousters. And coming in from any other angle besides rear keeps bombs out of the question (deathrain/ trajectory simulator are exceptions. )

Depends. If you can block your opponent from getting into range of the shuttle for instance, you can deny them the VP (while youg et them yourself) and at the same time, deny some of their shots at the blocker

Very polished looking and the missions look like a blast.

Coming from another mini game that really benefits from having objective play, Infinity, I can't wait to give this a whirl.

Has the option to bring a second list has been considered for tournaments?

What about Lt. Dormitz? His ability, similar to TFA Han would give a huge advantage in this format. Or did that not prove to be the case?

I'm 70% of my way through the podcast on this and I'm really impressed. I definitely hope to give this a go.

Only two (very minor) negatives from me:

1) I don't like the idea of banning any official cards. To my mind a rule that stops any player objects (i.e. mines from mappers, new old Han) from being placed within range 1 of an objective, or something similar might work, maybe. However I fully concede that you guys have tested all this stuff and there's probably a good reason for it, it's just one of those things that I wished could be fixed to make this a pure bold-on to the main game.

2) Having something called end of the end phase makes me giggle for some reason. Should've called it a Scoring phase to make me feel less like a toddler.

...and those were the two biggest issues I could think of! Good going.

Awesome stuff! Can't wait to try these out as a side tournament for our next Regional.

Question: These objectives were developed for 100-6 in mind, yes? What if I want to alter it, is it safe to adjust the VP:s from the objectives accordingly?

Regarding control:

You use the word "within" to define controlling an objective. This would make controlling an objective with a large base ship more difficult. Is this intentional?

Within does not mean completly within, I think.

It does. "At" range 1 means part of your base is touching that range band. "Within" means your entire base is inside that range band. Autoblaster means your target must be "at" range 1. Deployment must be "within" range 1. Not sure what the intention is for the objectives.

9 hours ago, Imperial Rookie said:

I just don't want to fly against bombs in this format, as the format is encouraging you to swarm your ships into a predictable, clustered, area. Also, turrets will have a strong advantage as they can fly close to the objective and still have consistent shots, something that a regular ship will struggle with. Anything with multiple turrets and bombs will likely be a strong choice for most of the objectives.

Most bombing ships melt under focus fire. They win in normal X-Wing by flying around the battle and picking off health a turret shot at a time while leaving bombs in the way.

Even Miranda melts if she isn’t getting a chance to regen or if she isn’t flying away (removing her from the objective space)

It might be situationally good for one or two objectives, but you can’t even guarantee that objective comes up without a full 6 rounds of play.

I really think this was needed! I've been on the objectives based bandwagon for a long time. I'll admit that this would probably get me going to more tournaments. I'd go to the K. Kup if I didn't have previous plans. This could help X-wing a lot!

18 hours ago, Tbetts94 said:

Did @Babaganoosh help with any of the missions? If he did, then I’m all in!

No, unless he kept it from me. I was pretty surprised they didn't ask for his opinions on it as he's pretty brilliant at the whole mission balance thing.

2 minutes ago, heychadwick said:

I was pretty surprised they didn't ask for his opinions on it as he's pretty brilliant at the whole mission balance thing.

It sounds like from the podcast they largely based it off IA more than X-Wing missions. Could be they were just using a different model for the objectives because they were more familiar with that in a competitive setting?

2 minutes ago, heychadwick said:

No, unless he kept it from me. I was pretty surprised they didn't ask for his opinions on it as he's pretty brilliant at the whole mission balance thing.

I will say the style of objectives isn't to Phil's usual style. He likes thematic scenarios, these are more like 'gaming objective with a twist' as there are some things that happen that cannot be explained in a 'fluff' way.

I've gone through them and they do look pretty fun though, so definitely worth a try. I'll see how the K-Kup goes before I decide to pitch it locally. My next tournament setup isn't till January and the players are demanding another Original Trilogy format, so it'll be February before I get a chance anyway.

Just now, LagJanson said:

I will say the style of objectives isn't to Phil's usual style. He likes thematic scenarios, these are more like 'gaming objective with a twist' as there are some things that happen that cannot be explained in a 'fluff' way.

I've gone through them and they do look pretty fun though, so definitely worth a try. I'll see how the K-Kup goes before I decide to pitch it locally. My next tournament setup isn't till January and the players are demanding another Original Trilogy format, so it'll be February before I get a chance anyway.

I wish I hadn't scheduled getting together with a bunch of old friends. It took us 3 months of planning to get 6-8 people together from across the state. I can't cancel that for the K-Kup. I hope I can stop by though and check it out. Wait....it should still be at my local store in Charlotte, right? We won it the past 2 years. I should put Shuttle Tydirium stickers all over the place!

4 hours ago, __underscore__ said:

I'm 70% of my way through the podcast on this and I'm really impressed. I definitely hope to give this a go.

Only two (very minor) negatives from me:

1) I don't like the idea of banning any official cards. To my mind a rule that stops any player objects (i.e. mines from mappers, new old Han) from being placed within range 1 of an objective, or something similar might work, maybe. However I fully concede that you guys have tested all this stuff and there's probably a good reason for it, it's just one of those things that I wished could be fixed to make this a pure bold-on to the main game.

2) Having something called end of the end phase makes me giggle for some reason. Should've called it a Scoring phase to make me feel less like a toddler.

...and those were the two biggest issues I could think of! Good going.

1) 100% agree. It's very much a last resort thing. At some point, we can probably go back and unban seismic torpedoes, but it's going to take a lot of thought and testing basically.

2) I know, stupid timing windows! If we add a new one

6 hours ago, Sekac said:

What about Lt. Dormitz? His ability, similar to TFA Han would give a huge advantage in this format. Or did that not prove to be the case?

He's on the "Have our eye on it" list, but (pre gunboats) it was hard to meaningfully abuse his ability because... you're bringing dormitz, basically.

2 hours ago, gamblertuba said:

Regarding control:

You use the word "within" to define controlling an objective. This would make controlling an objective with a large base ship more difficult. Is this intentional?

This is not intentional - my last second editing screwed it up there. We'll go correct it soon™, hopefully in a couple of days. The short story is only the deployment ranges specified in scenarios should be "within", everything else should be "at". Sorry about that!

56 minutes ago, ScummyRebel said:

It sounds like from the podcast they largely based it off IA more than X-Wing missions. Could be they were just using a different model for the objectives because they were more familiar with that in a competitive setting?

Basically this, yeah. Gotta worth with what you know after all!

Oh, I did have a question. It's about Tractor Beams. Can you target objectives with Tractor Beams? For example, the Quadjumper has Space Tug Tractor Array that it can use as an action. The thing is built to move all sorts of bundles around. I would think that it should be able to target objectives and move them around. Can it? It might find a bigger place in these games if it can.

10 minutes ago, heychadwick said:

Oh, I did have a question. It's about Tractor Beams. Can you target objectives with Tractor Beams? For example, the Quadjumper has Space Tug Tractor Array that it can use as an action. The thing is built to move all sorts of bundles around. I would think that it should be able to target objectives and move them around. Can it? It might find a bigger place in these games if it can.

Give this man a gold star.