12 hours ago, heychadwick said:

Any idea where or how?

Sorry, I was referring to a specific website, makeplayingcards.com

it came to $8.80 or so plus shipping, which is probably variable to some degree. I spent $14ish to get three sets made (the website is treating it as one deck that happens to have three of every card). That isn’t too bad for all custom work.

Excited to see it and take it to my FLGS for an xwing afternoon sometime.

5 hours ago, Jarval said:

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.

I'm a little scared of trajectory simulator, but like you said, it's only a few where it's really scary. There's so many jousting lists out there here though, that a lot of lists will absolutely just eat the bomb and be fine with it which is... interesting. Please let us know if it starts feeling unfair, or maybe more importantly, unfun though!

I will be playing these. All of them. Will maybe write up some feedback and post if given time too. Really excited about it.

How would you recommend doing a tourney with these missions? Round 1 x mission, round 2 y mission, round 3 z mission? Or perhaps player with lowest MOV of each pairing picks the next mission? Lots of ways this could go.

1 hour ago, Gibbilo said:

I will be playing these. All of them. Will maybe write up some feedback and post if given time too. Really excited about it.

How would you recommend doing a tourney with these missions? Round 1 x mission, round 2 y mission, round 3 z mission? Or perhaps player with lowest MOV of each pairing picks the next mission? Lots of ways this could go.

Thanks! And the tournament structure format doc is in the OP, but basically you just take all the objectives and pick one for each round. Everyone plays the same objective every round. No MoV to track, games are just Win/Loss. Basically, run it as an imperial assault tournament. When you do pairings, also include what objective are doing for that round and you should be good to go!

Really looking forward to playing some of these! Any idea when the preview videos will go up?

On 2017-12-16 at 9:14 AM, Babaganoosh said:

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.

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.

I completely agree with Babaganoosh. The authors intention is to replace 100pt 6 asteroids because they were frustrated with specific problems. However, this new objective based format simply moves the goal posts and does not address the core problems as alluded to by Babaganoosh.

I won't be playing this format in any tournaments and I do not think it comes close to replacing our existing 100 pt 6 asteroid format. I think babaganoosh's drafting idea sounds like the best solution which could borrow from PC games like Dota 2 drafting. That would be very cool but as Babaganoosh says, that would be very challenging to implement.

Objectives such as capture the point simply don't work well in a game where all pieces have to move every turn. Its more suitable for infantry games where moving isn't required every turn.

I also believe that objective based formatting will introduce new problems (moving the goal post). Sure castling in a corner won't happen most likely but castling at the object might become the new castling.

Hanger Bay & Escalation are much more appealing than objective based to me. They attempt to address the drafting aspect which I think is one of the most critical aspects to doing well in x-wing.

50 minutes ago, Rexler Brath said:

I completely agree with Babaganoosh. The authors intention is to replace 100pt 6 asteroids because they were frustrated with specific problems. However, this new objective based format simply moves the goal posts and does not address the core problems as alluded to by Babaganoosh.

I won't be playing this format in any tournaments and I do not think it comes close to replacing our existing 100 pt 6 asteroid format. I think babaganoosh's drafting idea sounds like the best solution which could borrow from PC games like Dota 2 drafting. That would be very cool but as Babaganoosh says, that would be very challenging to implement.

Objectives such as capture the point simply don't work well in a game where all pieces have to move every turn. Its more suitable for infantry games where moving isn't required every turn.

I also believe that objective based formatting will introduce new problems (moving the goal post). Sure castling in a corner won't happen most likely but castling at the object might become the new castling.

Hanger Bay & Escalation are much more appealing than objective based to me. They attempt to address the drafting aspect which I think is one of the most critical aspects to doing well in x-wing.

I think you've misunderstood the point here that Babaganoosh was trying to make but I'm going to highlight something he said, in your own quote even. I've bolded it for you:

On ‎2017‎-‎12‎-‎15 at 3:14 PM, Babaganoosh said:

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.

The goal here is to make a much more open competitive environment without ruining the fine balance required for a tournament structure. It eliminates castling in the corner or running for time.

• Drafting can cause dramatic imbalances for tournament purposes . It's fun. Heck, I've thoroughly enjoyed the experience, but to run a fair and even tournament on a level playing field it's a nightmare. Somebody is going to be left with a very subpar list due to missed draft opportunities.
• Bans always hit somebody who has a favourite yanked out of their list. Putting things on the ban list is the absolute last option.
• Babaganoosh likes thematic scenarios, which better capture the flavour of the movies and stories . This is a good thing. These are fun and imaginative and are great for attracting new players and having a casual time. It's really a rough way to run a tournament though. I'd call their Narrative based run an 'event' rather than a tournament for that reason. It's fun, but it's not always an even playing field. Edit: I've even got a 6'x3' Death Star Trench in the basement I drag to the store so I'm not in anyway saying this is a bad way to play.
• Hanger Bays I've also tried. It's the same old metas, just with a coin flip of which big bad you face. I bring triple wookies as list one, and quad wookies as list two. Have fun. You still have the scenario where one side just castles in the corner and laughs at you if their list is better at final salvo.
• I haven't tried Escalation to be fair... I've very little interest in it. I won't say ill of it though since I don't have that experience.

Anyway, nobody is going to force you to play any particular style. I think it's worth a try though, which is why I will be offering it to my core players tomorrow night as an option for future tournaments.

3 hours ago, LagJanson said:

I think you've misunderstood the point here that Babaganoosh was trying to make but I'm going to highlight something he said, in your own quote even. I've bolded it for you:

The goal here is to make a much more open competitive environment without ruining the fine balance required for a tournament structure. It eliminates castling in the corner or running for time.

• Drafting can cause dramatic imbalances for tournament purposes . It's fun. Heck, I've thoroughly enjoyed the experience, but to run a fair and even tournament on a level playing field it's a nightmare. Somebody is going to be left with a very subpar list due to missed draft opportunities.
• Bans always hit somebody who has a favourite yanked out of their list. Putting things on the ban list is the absolute last option.
• Babaganoosh likes thematic scenarios, which better capture the flavour of the movies and stories . This is a good thing. These are fun and imaginative and are great for attracting new players and having a casual time. It's really a rough way to run a tournament though. I'd call their Narrative based run an 'event' rather than a tournament for that reason. It's fun, but it's not always an even playing field. Edit: I've even got a 6'x3' Death Star Trench in the basement I drag to the store so I'm not in anyway saying this is a bad way to play.
• Hanger Bays I've also tried. It's the same old metas, just with a coin flip of which big bad you face. I bring triple wookies as list one, and quad wookies as list two. Have fun. You still have the scenario where one side just castles in the corner and laughs at you if their list is better at final salvo.
• I haven't tried Escalation to be fair... I've very little interest in it. I won't say ill of it though since I don't have that experience.

Anyway, nobody is going to force you to play any particular style. I think it's worth a try though, which is why I will be offering it to my core players tomorrow night as an option for future tournaments.

I haven't misunderstood anything. Babaganoosh has criticised the format in as nice a way as he could. Its you that have misunderstood.

Have you ever played Dota 2? That is the style of drafting I am talking about. I admitted that this sort of game mechanic is going to be difficult in a tournament and so did Babaganoosh. Again, you have misunderstood or just didn't read.

No where have I mentioned using bans. However, the objective based format BANS cards. I bet you like that huh?

> nobody is going to force you to play any particular style.

Correct. I won't be playing this style as I do not think it adds anything to the tournament play. It shifts the goal posts. You claim triple wookies are tough in the official tournament format, good luck with them in objective based themes. This format doesn't change anything. It will only create new meta powerhouse lists especially since FFG (the professional game designers) won't be balancing the ships for this type of meta. I mean come on, banning cards b/c their format doesn't work is just sad.

4 hours ago, LagJanson said:

The goal here is to make a much more open competitive environment without ruining the fine balance required for a tournament structure. It eliminates castling in the corner or running for time.

• Drafting can cause dramatic imbalances for tournament purposes . It's fun. Heck, I've thoroughly enjoyed the experience, but to run a fair and even tournament on a level playing field it's a nightmare. Somebody is going to be left with a very subpar list due to missed draft opportunities.
• Bans always hit somebody who has a favourite yanked out of their list. Putting things on the ban list is the absolute last option.
• Babaganoosh likes thematic scenarios, which better capture the flavour of the movies and stories . This is a good thing. These are fun and imaginative and are great for attracting new players and having a casual time. It's really a rough way to run a tournament though. I'd call their Narrative based run an 'event' rather than a tournament for that reason. It's fun, but it's not always an even playing field. Edit: I've even got a 6'x3' Death Star Trench in the basement I drag to the store so I'm not in anyway saying this is a bad way to play.
• Hanger Bays I've also tried. It's the same old metas, just with a coin flip of which big bad you face. I bring triple wookies as list one, and quad wookies as list two. Have fun. You still have the scenario where one side just castles in the corner and laughs at you if their list is better at final salvo.
• I haven't tried Escalation to be fair... I've very little interest in it. I won't say ill of it though since I don't have that experience.

Anyway, nobody is going to force you to play any particular style. I think it's worth a try though, which is why I will be offering it to my core players tomorrow night as an option for future tournaments.

I agree with a lot of what you say, I made this post in another thread

i feel this brings a drafting element into the game but from your pool of ships and you have to change between rounds. Points per game vary from Swiss to cut and the final, also in the cut you permanently lose unique pilots if they die.

dont want to sidetrack this thread but would be interested in knowing if this idea would be favourable for a tournament setting or not.

47 minutes ago, Storgar said:

i feel this brings a drafting element into the game but from your pool of ships and you have to change between rounds. Points per game vary from Swiss to cut and the final, also in the cut you permanently lose unique pilots if they die.

Sounds like an interesting idea indeed. Good dota 2 players are great with many different heroes. If you are only good with 1 heroes or 1 'list', you will certainly lose as teams will counter pick you. I think its more competitive if x-wing were to have something similar. So you can't win 1 tournament because you brought the OP Netlist of the day. The draft sort of manages balance since it gives players an opportunity to ban/pick around OP combos for instance. Dota 2 is patched on nearly a daily basis. It has over 100 heroes. X-Wing is now getting up there with over 50 ships with at least quadruple of that many pilots.

Balance is really the issue that the 'objectives' format is trying to address. However, changing the objective of the game isn't going to fix balance. In fact, they even banned cards because their new format couldn't fix new balance issues it created.

So if the question is 'how do we better balance x-wing', changing the gameplay format isn't the answer. I think a drafting system is the answer as its proven to work in digital games like Dota 2. How do we do that for x-wing? I'm not really sure. The big difference between digital games and physical ones is that in digital games, you can access all heroes without any trouble (its built into the game). With Physical games, you will need to have the physical components (50+ ships and upgrade cards). Picking and banning based on that would be a nightmare.

I think there might be some options.

Pre-built list (hanger bay style)

- If you only bring 2 lists, doesn't address the OP factor that much. A player can just bring 2 OP lists. But at least his opponent gets to pick their poison. Its better than the existing where you have no control.

- Maybe expand it to 3 lists that don't have any common cards?

Draft w/ Pool for Pilot & Upgrade Cards

- The ships are pre-determined

- Players brings a pool of pilot cards which will be banned/picked

- Players bring a pool of upgrade cards which will be banned/picked

- There will need to be rules around how banning works and picking

- For instance, maybe you get to ban x-number of unique pilots and y-number of generics

- ^^ Same for upgrade cards ^^

The interesting bit about the Draft for Pilot & Upgrade cards is that each game is going to be different based on the draft phase. I think it will also give more variety to the ships flown as you won't be picking a ship for that 1 good pilot. Also, players won't need to cart around dozens of different ships. The players just bring ships like they normally would. They will need to carry more cards, but cards are easy to carry around and there will is a pool size to limit the number of cards someone needs.

4 hours ago, Rexler Brath said:

However, the objective based format BANS cards. I bet you like that huh?

> nobody is going to force you to play any particular style.

Correct. I won't be playing this style as I do not think it adds anything to the tournament play. It shifts the goal posts. You claim triple wookies are tough in the official tournament format, good luck with them in objective based themes. This format doesn't change anything. It will only create new meta powerhouse lists especially since FFG (the professional game designers) won't be balancing the ships for this type of meta. I mean come on, banning cards b/c their format doesn't work is just sad.

It bans cards that rarely see use, even in casual play, that would fundamentally break the objective based format. That’s it. I have seen new old Han used once, ever. I brought seismic torp once, when the game was 37 point scrum and I hadn’t points (and we were flying with 12 asteroids not 6). Minefield mapper I tried the day after it came out and never once saw it again. I have never seen these cards taken to any sort of 100 point match.

Most missions and thematic events also have ban lists. The Grayskull Narrative has ban lists. This is hardly a foreign concept.

Sure, ffg isn’t balancing for this format... or any other format but standard dogfights. That hasn’t stopped previous initiatives to play alternative formats. That doesn’t make this format bad.

I don’t hate casual play. I enjoy every format of xwing - ive played through multiple HotAC campaigns, done the croc included campaign, and am going to be hosting a Death Star trench run scenario for my work’s internal gaming community next month. But the reality is that folks who travel to a FLGS to play xwing when they don’t have a preplanned group aren’t going there to play a mission, or a narrative, etc. they’re going to play a 100 point list on a 3x3 and now this gives them more options. Explaining how these work is simple, and really does force more change than you’re giving it credit for. Triple Wookiee is probably really good at one or two of them, but is going to have some serious trouble on others. Which is somewhat the point - meta lists will either do well or crumble so you need to bring something more balanced or universal.

It’s fine if it’s not your cup of tea, but the objective format proposed is not a bad format, and unlike the formats that are difficult or impossible to adapt into a tournament, this could be a tournament easy enough.

1 hour ago, ScummyRebel said:

It bans cards that rarely see use, even in casual play, that would fundamentally break the objective based format. That’s it. I have seen new old Han used once, ever. I brought seismic torp once, when the game was 37 point scrum and I hadn’t points (and we were flying with 12 asteroids not 6). Minefield mapper I tried the day after it came out and never once saw it again. I have never seen these cards taken to any sort of 100 point match.

Most missions and thematic events also have ban lists. The Grayskull Narrative has ban lists. This is hardly a foreign concept.

Sure, ffg isn’t balancing for this format... or any other format but standard dogfights. That hasn’t stopped previous initiatives to play alternative formats. That doesn’t make this format bad.

I don’t hate casual play. I enjoy every format of xwing - ive played through multiple HotAC campaigns, done the croc included campaign, and am going to be hosting a Death Star trench run scenario for my work’s internal gaming community next month. But the reality is that folks who travel to a FLGS to play xwing when they don’t have a preplanned group aren’t going there to play a mission, or a narrative, etc. they’re going to play a 100 point list on a 3x3 and now this gives them more options. Explaining how these work is simple, and really does force more change than you’re giving it credit for. Triple Wookiee is probably really good at one or two of them, but is going to have some serious trouble on others. Which is somewhat the point - meta lists will either do well or crumble so you need to bring something more balanced or universal.

It’s fine if it’s not your cup of tea, but the objective format proposed is not a bad format, and unlike the formats that are difficult or impossible to adapt into a tournament, this could be a tournament easy enough.

Yo Seismic Torps on Worlds!

11 hours ago, Rexler Brath said:

I completely agree with Babaganoosh. The authors intention is to replace 100pt 6 asteroids because they were frustrated with specific problems. However, this new objective based format simply moves the goal posts and does not address the core problems as alluded to by Babaganoosh.

I won't be playing this format in any tournaments and I do not think it comes close to replacing our existing 100 pt 6 asteroid format. I think babaganoosh's drafting idea sounds like the best solution which could borrow from PC games like Dota 2 drafting. That would be very cool but as Babaganoosh says, that would be very challenging to implement.

Objectives such as capture the point simply don't work well in a game where all pieces have to move every turn. Its more suitable for infantry games where moving isn't required every turn.

I also believe that objective based formatting will introduce new problems (moving the goal post). Sure castling in a corner won't happen most likely but castling at the object might become the new castling.

Hanger Bay & Escalation are much more appealing than objective based to me. They attempt to address the drafting aspect which I think is one of the most critical aspects to doing well in x-wing.

I think you read my post as being more critical than it was meant to be. It's correct that I don't think that this objective format solves all problems with X-wing. But I do think it is a very positive move, both for tournament and casual play. It's very possible that, as you suggest, a problematic metagame will rise up around the format. That's a possibility for any widely played game format, really. We already know that annoying metagames tend to crop up in standard format, and I see no harm in trying objective based play and seeing what happens.

Addressing the core problems that make X-wing less fun is very difficult to do within tournament play. The requirements for standardization and fairness are often in direct conflict with strong theming, and combo-wing is a tough nut to crack without drafts (which introduce balance problems), or strong ban lists, both of which which deviate strongly from standard format (ruining your compatibility with standard play).

You're right in the sense that zone control is an odd format for X-wing. Ships that need to move each turn aren't well suited to controlling specific parts of a map, and it's a headache to justify such missions thematically. The trouble is that there are precious few other objective types available for a symmetric match. So it's not hard to give the authors a pass on that front.

I'd say that this format will make things better, but yeah, problems will probably persist. They've done their due diligence in terms of testing, but I'd not be surprised if something problematic slipped through. Playtesting isn't perfect! But I think the authors will be responsive and diligent in adjustments going forward. I also see it as a great way to de-stigmatize scenario play (which I feel is often regarded as being silly, unbalanced, and a sideshow next to standard play). Overall I'm pleased that this packet exists and is being promoted for competitive play.

2 hours ago, Babaganoosh said:

You're right in the sense that zone control is an odd format for X-wing. Ships that need to move each turn aren't well suited to controlling specific parts of a map...

Rocket propelled cars are an odd choice for playing football with, however it... is... friggin awesome so its certainly worth exploring gameplay with ships that can't stop attempting to do zone control.

13 hours ago, Rexler Brath said:

I completely agree with Babaganoosh. The authors intention is to replace 100pt 6 asteroids because they were frustrated with specific problems. However, this new objective based format simply moves the goal posts and does not address the core problems as alluded to by Babaganoosh.

...

I also believe that objective based formatting will introduce new problems (moving the goal post). Sure castling in a corner won't happen most likely but castling at the object might become the new castling.

7 hours ago, Rexler Brath said:

Balance is really the issue that the 'objectives' format is trying to address. However, changing the objective of the game isn't going to fix balance. In fact, they even banned cards because their new format couldn't fix new balance issues it created.

First, let me say that I am not against a Draft type game. I love it having worked on Assault on Greyskull Base. Having said that, I do think it's harder to implement and could push it into the "not possible now" category.

Now, I think there were a few issues that the creators have tried to address (having listened to the podcast with them talking about it). I think that this does address those issues, but I think it does a bit more than "pushing the goal post further". The main issues that I recall (but sure there could be more) were:

• fortressing in the corner and not moving.
• Running away to regen shields and coming back only when safe.
• fortressing your points in hard to kill ships that also have a tendency to run away.

I do see that these are addressed in this by making "not engaging" punish you. Your opponents can gain points if you don't bother to go after them. That's a good thing. It also tends to hurt 2 ship lists. Sure, not every mission does this, but enough of them that most people probably won't take 2 ship lists.

Now, by addressing these things, I think it opens up a lot more in the game. Generics or mid PS guys have more of a place in the game. When you don't have to defeat the utmost "uber" ships in the game, you can get by with "lesser" ships. So....this can really mean that a lot more ships can be considered "competitive" than normal. I think it can have more unexpected results than just the ones they intended to fix. I think this opens the game up to a wider possible meta. Yes, there will be net listing and some builds that become the new "normal", but they won't be flown by as many people and they won't be as "unbeatable" as the current trend. I think this goes pretty far to do well for X-wing.

For one, I think the Kihraxz Fighter will be a good consideration. The new title means you can pick up a bunch of upgrades for either free or at least cheap. Also, that 1 hard turn is really good when you are trying to deal with maneuvering around the table. When placement, facing, and opportunity is important, 1 hard turns will be highly valued.

In general I remain very optimistic about the missions.

The one thing that I see as a possible problem, is that several missions involve zone control and objective control, both things that would seem far easier to achieve with a PWT, or for that matter, anything with a turret, in that you can just keep circling at range 1 of something and firing away at an enemy. Meanwhile something like a tie fighter would have a hard time staying at range 1 for control AND also keeping arc on target.

tl;dr I'm a little worried that turrets are even more valuable many parts of this new format, something I personally don't want to see.

10 minutes ago, Gibbilo said:

In general I remain very optimistic about the missions.

The one thing that I see as a possible problem, is that several missions involve zone control and objective control, both things that would seem far easier to achieve with a PWT, or for that matter, anything with a turret, in that you can just keep circling at range 1 of something and firing away at an enemy. Meanwhile something like a tie fighter would have a hard time staying at range 1 for control AND also keeping arc on target.

tl;dr I'm a little worried that turrets are even more valuable many parts of this new format, something I personally don't want to see.

A turret that's not trying to arc dodge me is soon to be a dead turret. I'm fine with this. Turrets in general though are better at area control, so yeah... I'm curious about this one.

1 hour ago, Gibbilo said:

tl;dr I'm a little worried that turrets are even more valuable many parts of this new format, something I personally don't want to see.

This is exactly my point. X-Wing has many different architypes. Changing the objective of the game doesn't fix the real problem which is balance.

2 hours ago, heychadwick said:

• fortressing in the corner and not moving.
• Running away to regen shields and coming back only when safe.
• fortressing your points in hard to kill ships that also have a tendency to run away.

Fortressing is a symptom of balance, not the problem. Running away to regen shields is not a problem, its a sympton of balance. Putting points into hard to kill ships is not the problem, its the symptom of balance. Do you see why adding objectives doesn't solve the base problem?

I think there will be just as much imbalance to objective based games as standard; probably more since FFG balances their game around standard. The reason is that x-wing is so diverse (50+ ships, hundreds of pilots and hundreds of upgrade cards). Its impossible to balance a game by changing the format.

5 hours ago, Babaganoosh said:

I'd say that this format will make things better, but yeah, problems will probably persist. They've done their due diligence in terms of testing, but I'd not be surprised if something problematic slipped through. Playtesting isn't perfect! But I think the authors will be responsive and diligent in adjustments going forward. I also see it as a great way to de-stigmatize scenario play (which I feel is often regarded as being silly, unbalanced, and a sideshow next to standard play). Overall I'm pleased that this packet exists and is being promoted for competitive play.

I am all for alternative formats but am not pleased this is being promoted for competitive play. The authors believe that standard format is broken and this is their fix. But as I have described, its not a fix at all. One of the things that makes x-wing great is the standard format for competitive play. They are attempting to compete with standard format on the tournament level which I think is unhealthy for x-wing in general. Hypothetically, if this format dominates the competitive scene, we will be right back here 1 or 2 years later because the core problem was never addressed. I think this sort of effect will turn people off of playing competitive.

If a format is really good, there is no need to promote it competitively. It will naturally take over. But its the ego of the developers that is pushing this forward, not the love of the game. They have made it very clear that they dislike standard x-wing format, they think its broken beyond fixing. But they are not professional developers and fail to understand the real problem with ALL formats. And that is balance. They do not address balance in their format.

@Rexler Brath you know not what you speak of. Relax. If this is not for you there are other threads.

Wait... this thread was supposed to be about trolling Ryan Farmer.

What the heck is going on in here?

3 hours ago, Rexler Brath said:

This is exactly my point. X-Wing has many different architypes. Changing the objective of the game doesn't fix the real problem which is balance.

Fortressing is a symptom of balance, not the problem. Running away to regen shields is not a problem, its a sympton of balance. Putting points into hard to kill ships is not the problem, its the symptom of balance. Do you see why adding objectives doesn't solve the base problem?

I think there will be just as much imbalance to objective based games as standard; probably more since FFG balances their game around standard. The reason is that x-wing is so diverse (50+ ships, hundreds of pilots and hundreds of upgrade cards). Its impossible to balance a game by changing the format.

I am all for alternative formats but am not pleased this is being promoted for competitive play. The authors believe that standard format is broken and this is their fix. But as I have described, its not a fix at all. One of the things that makes x-wing great is the standard format for competitive play. They are attempting to compete with standard format on the tournament level which I think is unhealthy for x-wing in general. Hypothetically, if this format dominates the competitive scene, we will be right back here 1 or 2 years later because the core problem was never addressed. I think this sort of effect will turn people off of playing competitive.

If a format is really good, there is no need to promote it competitively. It will naturally take over. But its the ego of the developers that is pushing this forward, not the love of the game. They have made it very clear that they dislike standard x-wing format, they think its broken beyond fixing. But they are not professional developers and fail to understand the real problem with ALL formats. And that is balance. They do not address balance in their format.

Fortressing, regen, and tanks could all exist in a balanced game, if a player chooses to play that way. Balancing the game doesn't mean a player can't or won't use those options.

I'm glad to see that we obviously now have a professional developer in this thread to shoot down a free fix to a 5 year problem that is being addressed by 50+ members of the XWM community with in his first 32 posts.

Looks entertaining. I'm planning to try this out at home at least. Hopefully a local tournament adopts it.

Mildly amused that TFA Han is too OP for this

4 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

I'm glad to see that we obviously now have a professional developer in this thread to shoot down a free fix to a 5 year problem that is being addressed by 50+ members of the XWM community with in his first 32 posts.

Play testers are not the same as game developers. Do you have evidence that 50+ people all worked on the rules? Is there a github repo with all of the contributors commits for instance?

The new format doesn't fix the fotressing, regen, and tanky builds problem. These elements will all exist in the objective based game because they are inherent in the core game mechanics.

11 minutes ago, Rexler Brath said:

The new format doesn't fix the fotressing, regen, and tanky builds problem. These elements will all exist in the objective based game because they are inherent in the core game mechanics.

Yes, but those elements exist and are rendered irrelevant as the win condition no longer favors them, as it would in standard 100/6.

No one cares if you can still fortress if you can't win that way.

4 minutes ago, kris40k said:

No one cares if you can still fortress if you can't win that way.

Fortressing at objective points is a good way to win. Tanky builds will still rule the world here. Same for regen.