1 hour ago, heychadwick said:

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!

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.

Yeah it’s odd to not have the best mission creator for X-Wing on a project like this. Even if it’s not his style of missions/objectives, he can see if somethings balanced or not and can figure out how to break a mission better than any top competive player.

35 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.

You can target an objective with tractor beam - but because they can't be assigned tokens, basically nothing happens. I agree it is cool, but we don't really want people building for specific objectives - as someone said earlier, you don't get to plan or pick what you're playing, so you need a well rounded list to handle "the field". That quadjumper needs to be able to justify it's existence when it isn't doing what it was actually made for (toot toot!)

When is a vassal tournament using this starting? @Theorist Jeff Any chance we can convince you to run it?

16 minutes ago, Brunas said:

You can target an objective with tractor beam - but because they can't be assigned tokens, basically nothing happens. I agree it is cool, but we don't really want people building for specific objectives - as someone said earlier, you don't get to plan or pick what you're playing, so you need a well rounded list to handle "the field". That quadjumper needs to be able to justify it's existence when it isn't doing what it was actually made for (toot toot!)

So.....because you can't assign a TB token, you can't move them? Is that what you are saying?

Even if you could move objectives with the Tug, I don't think it would make something "broken". It could just add challenges. I mean, you can just blow the Quadjumper up and it's gone! Also, not every list will have something you can tractor beam in it, so it has to justify itself in those missions, too.

If you can't move objectives around, the Tug shouldn't be dismissed, though. You mentioned zone of control and how important it is to have people within the proper range for....well....everything. If you are able to Tractor Beam someone away from an objective, they can be screwed! So....let's say you are disputing control of an objective... ...someone comes along and Barrel Rolls you out of R1 of the objective! It's now the enemy's. Or mission 3 (Shield Sensor), you can Barrel Roll someone into or out of the Shield! So, that Y-wing with TLT just pops in to fire on the far side? Boop! It's now out of the bubble. Or maybe Fenn Rau gets in your grill while you are near the edge to fire R1. Boop! You can BR him (possibly) out of the bubble and he can't hit you! In other words, there are lots of ways that being close or far from an objective matter. The Space Tug can really help out in these situations, even if it can't move the objective (which would be really cool). While it can be pretty powerful, it is still just a Quadjumper and not too hard to blow up. You just have to spend the effort.

7 minutes ago, heychadwick said:

So.....because you can't assign a TB token, you can't move them? Is that what you are saying?

Even if you could move objectives with the Tug, I don't think it would make something "broken". It could just add challenges. I mean, you can just blow the Quadjumper up and it's gone! Also, not every list will have something you can tractor beam in it, so it has to justify itself in those missions, too.

If you can't move objectives around, the Tug shouldn't be dismissed, though. You mentioned zone of control and how important it is to have people within the proper range for....well....everything. If you are able to Tractor Beam someone away from an objective, they can be screwed! So....let's say you are disputing control of an objective... ...someone comes along and Barrel Rolls you out of R1 of the objective! It's now the enemy's. Or mission 3 (Shield Sensor), you can Barrel Roll someone into or out of the Shield! So, that Y-wing with TLT just pops in to fire on the far side? Boop! It's now out of the bubble. Or maybe Fenn Rau gets in your grill while you are near the edge to fire R1. Boop! You can BR him (possibly) out of the bubble and he can't hit you! In other words, there are lots of ways that being close or far from an objective matter. The Space Tug can really help out in these situations, even if it can't move the objective (which would be really cool). While it can be pretty powerful, it is still just a Quadjumper and not too hard to blow up. You just have to spend the effort.

Yeah, the tractor beam effect of b-roll/boost only applies when you put the first tractor beam token down. So if no token, no moving the target.

Yes, it would add challenges, but it does mean more room for somebody to find a way to break things... That said, I'd also argue that while somebody is playing catch with an objective, their opponent is likely lining up to blind side them with something that hits harder than a tractor beam.

I doubt the tug is totally dismissed. Somebody is going to get creative (such as the tactic you yourself just described!) It's a valid option still. The tricky bit is that if you setup a tug play for that kind of control for that mission... it's likely to be dead weight when the objectives change. These scenarios were balanced to be played together with the same list in play through them all - which gives rise to more 'toolbox' and less 'over specialized' which gives a very different feel from standard play. They can be played individually, but of course then you can specialize a list for it. It'll still be fun, just I'd expect very different types of lists.

10 hours ago, Kaptin Krunch said:

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?

So our focus was on game design 1st and fluff 2nd. Honestly those 2 are my favorite out of the set!

8 hours ago, Octarine-08 said:

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?

We decided early on that in a tournament setting that a player can only play one list. Each of the objectives is a "check" against a certain archetype that has an advantage. This should cheat a rich and diverse objectives meta.

35 minutes ago, Danath said:

When is a vassal tournament using this starting? @Theorist Jeff Any chance we can convince you to run it?

The objectives team will be putting one early in the new year. We want to let this be in the wild for a bit first. This allows some time for any issue to come up and to make any adjuststs, faq's, etc.

27 minutes ago, Musical Xeno said:

cheat

Of all people, you had to use that word...

You guys did a good job on this. I'm really hoping it catches on. I expect the type of lists to be much more interesting than 'standard play.'

20 hours ago, Boba Rick said:

That's right Paul Heaver is everybody's dad and he's especially proud of you.

14 hours ago, Kaptin Krunch said:

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

Think of them not as crates but as unarmed, unarmored cargo shuttles that will comply with all orders to prevent being destroyed. In fact, since they are using small ship bases to represent them, toss a ship model on the peg. Disbelief suspended!!

You will not deviate from your present course. . .

23 hours ago, Tbetts94 said:

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

Haha, no I wasn't consulted... But that doesn't mean the missions aren't good! They look very well-constructed to me. I think I only really had specific issues with Shuttle Scuffle - the initial release version of these rules has some loopholes I'm concerned with concerning the shuttle. I already raised those points on facebook and I'm sure they'll be addressed.

The approach to balance is solid; all the missions are symmetric designs (both players have identical setup and objectives). Symmetry ensures the best achievable balance for missions. Hopefully a new, more interesting metagame will evolve around this format; but in the worst case scenario, at least you'll be playing a variety of missions (if not encountering a nice variety of enemy squads/strategies).

One other critique is that there may be too many area-control type scenarios in the packet (4/5 by my count). Those types of scenarios tend to favor powerful jousting/alpha strike lists, since ship movement is more predictable (ships are more likely to move to control objectives). That said, there are only a few fundamental objective archetypes to play around with in X-wing: area control, destroy/protect objective/VIP, move to waypoint, and deathmatch. The other main variables to play with are terrain and setup, which I think could have been experimented with a little more here.

As much more general concerns, I worry that some of the elements of competitive X-wing that make games less fun than they ought to be might not be affected by simply adopting this objective format. I'm thinking mainly about combo-wing and the lack of a thematic feel to the game. It's important to remember that a big part of the appeal of X-wing is the star wars theme. The authors of this packet do a good job making sure there is star wars theming in each mission but it's tough to convincingly theme symmetrically designed missions, and unfortunately I think that shows here. Symmetric designs are still the way to go for what the authors are trying to do (create a packet of scenarios designed for tournament play), though, because their inherent balance is vital to maintaining fairness.

Combo-wing is best addressed by limiting card access by drafts and ban lists, which are troublesome to implement in a mass-market format, and to get better star wars theming you usually have to use asymmetric mission design, which is difficult to balance and implement in tournaments. So, I think the right choices were made to achieve the authors goal of making a viable objective-based format for X-wing tournament play. I'm sure it will make games more interesting, I'm just not sure how much more.

One thing's for sure; a lot of hard work and careful thought went into this, everyone who worked on it deserves a hearty congratulations, and that we should make sure to give it a lot of play in the coming months!

I'm pushing my local community to start running events using this format.

12 hours ago, ScummyRebel said:

21 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 agree about expensive point-fortress bombers like Miranda and Nym, I am more worried about something like a resistance bomber or bombing Y-Wing because of their lower cost and durability. I could imagine a build with 1-2 TLT or Autoblaster Y-wings with control bombs flown next to a cheap crew carrier for Sabine and other jousters to taste. It would be a different breed of bombers, one that could survive a joust and still have your turret for consistent damage and bombs for area denial and the occasional damage + control.

I just placed my order at the make playing cards site they mention in the podcast using the tarot sized cards at the Dropbox list.... guys the price is the same whether you make one or 3-4 so make some extras to give your friends this season (disclaimer it’ll arrive after Christmas but that’s ok).

I had two spares made so I could give them away and spread the love of flying another way to play.

48 minutes ago, ScummyRebel said:

I just placed my order at the make playing cards site they mention in the podcast using the tarot sized cards at the Dropbox list.... guys the price is the same whether you make one or 3-4 so make some extras to give your friends this season (disclaimer it’ll arrive after Christmas but that’s ok).

I had two spares made so I could give them away and spread the love of flying another way to play.

Let me know how’s they come out! I have yet to order mine. Did you have any issues ordering? Like did the sizes match up?

3 hours ago, Rytackle said:

Let me know how’s they come out! I have yet to order mine. Did you have any issues ordering? Like did the sizes match up?

Sizes matched the tarot cards no issue at all. Ordering went smooth once I figured out that buying a deck meant that I could get up to 30 cards done for the same cost as 7... go figure. So I made multiple card sets and called them a deck :-)

I will post photos once they come in.

49 minutes ago, ScummyRebel said:

Sizes matched the tarot cards no issue at all. Ordering went smooth once I figured out that buying a deck meant that I could get up to 30 cards done for the same cost as 7... go figure. So I made multiple card sets and called them a deck :-)

I will post photos once they come in.

MakePlayingCards will probably send them sooner, they tend to overestimate to give themselves more time.

Does anyone know an affordable place to get those cards printed?

2 hours ago, heychadwick said:

Does anyone know an affordable place to get those cards printed?

Make playing cards was pretty reasonable, as long as you’re getting a few sets in one “deck”.

4 hours ago, ScummyRebel said:

Make playing cards was pretty reasonable, as long as you’re getting a few sets in one “deck”.

Any idea where or how?

53 minutes ago, heychadwick said:

Any idea where or how?

MakePlayingCards.com

11 hours ago, Fek'lhr said:

This looks so Awesome!

Thanks you all so much for all the hard work

I was just watching a review of the Upsilon-class Shuttle on The Cardboard Dungeon and it had me wondering about Lieutenant Dormitz and if he was play-tested in addition to the other banned cards:

-Minefield Mapper

-Seismic Torpedos

-Han Solo (Pilot) (Heroes of the Resistance)

Since he allows ships to be placed closer to the objectives during setup as well it could be broken (or maybe that was factored in to his point cost or something.)

His card text for reference:

"During setup, friendly ships may be placed anywhere in the play area at Range 1-2 of you."

Thanks can't wait to play with these new objectives!

"Diablo"

http://xwing-miniatures.wikia.com/wiki/Lieutenant_Dormitz#

Originally posted on Mynock Squadron Podcast and also cross posted Gold Squadron Podcast and Carolina KRAYTS Community

Hey, yep! Dormitz is on the "concerned about" list. Basically we couldn't do anything that felt super dumb with him, but it might be out there. Han is banned because you can set him up with courier droid at ps0 where your opponent can't get the objective at all, because he's in the way. It's not even a particularly good strategy, just feels bad to play against.

That's significantly harder to achieve with Dormitz, but please let us know if you find anything that feels unfair or unfun with him!

I've only played one mission so far (Objective 4: VIP Assist), but really enjoyed it. We were just playing with lists we'd brought along for standard dogfight, but it really changed how we were flying. My FLGS is looking at the possibility of running an event using the objectives at some point in the spring.

One thing we did note is that Trajectory Simulator might be an issue in this format. Being able to throw bombs into and across a central objective seemed very strong, but it may well be less of an issue in a different objective.