Hey guys,

This is for the more experienced, tournament-going players mainly, but all opinions are welcomed.

How do you think the game will change if the tournament points limit changed from 100 to 150? What would change for some lists? Would triple Falcons be unstoppable? What happens if Tie Swarm receives 4 more ties? What kind of power builds will arise from this points increase?

I'm interested to hearing your responses!

5 Blue Squadron with Heavy Laser Cannons.

5 Blue Squadron with Heavy Laser Cannons.

Would this be unstoppable at this point range? What would be some counter builds to this?

Mostly, you get a lot more kills, and can build much more interesting fleets.

For example, at 150, I could do 3 Bounty Hunters with HLC and Seismic Charges alongside a Captain Jonus with Swarm Tactics, which would do trrbl things to Triple Falcons.

Moreover, I could replace each of those Bounty Hunters with an Omicron Group Pilot, with HLC, Advanced Sensors, Engine Upgrade, Gunner, and Saboteur.

Alternatively, I could go insane, and play Roark Garnett with an Ion Turret and Nien Numb, alongside 5 Green Squaddies with Swarm Tactics and Concussion Missiles.(Everyone would attack as a Level 12 pilot until Roark is killed, which is well after the 5-missile Alpha Strike). Trading in the 5 missiles and Nien Nunb gets me a 6th Green Squaddie, though the Alpha Strike is the better option.

Support ships would get a lot more usage, because you don't feel like they're holding back your fleet building. A three X-wing squad is great. A three X-wing squad supported by a Y-wing with a turret or Kyle Katarn/Moldy Crow is even better.

With 150 points I would field the complete "Black 8" squad, which of course IS unstoppable

The game is very well balanced pointwise. Going from 100 to 150 doesn't really change anything. Any additional options you get can be matched by the other guy so in a way it's a wash.

Basically, it's the difference between doing 60 point squads and 100 point squads. Things change around

The game is very well balanced pointwise. Going from 100 to 150 doesn't really change anything. Any additional options you get can be matched by the other guy so in a way it's a wash.

So if nothing changes, why not play 150 over 100?

So if nothing changes, why not play 150 over 100?

Because 150 takes longer.

I find that to be a poor excuse since 150 adds more player choices and list variation.

Fifty extra points doesn't take that much longer to play but opens up a plethora of different lists.

My main question isn't about whether or not 150 points play slower than 100 points, that's just common sense. It's about whether or not the game becomes imbalanced or if gameplay itself is affected negatively.

I've found 150 is a lot better since you can add in more dedicated support ships without feeling like you are putting all your eggs in one basket. As far as time, it doesnt take that much longer, but me and my friends used to be able to pound out 2,000 point 40k games in about an hour. I do think you should increase the table size to 4x3 or 4x4. Things can get cluttered really fast.

My son and I have started taking 100-point squads, then adding upgrades and increasing pilots to reach 120. That seems to work pretty nicely.

The biggest difference is that FFG gets to sell 50% more models to all the tournament players.

Not a tournament player, which means that time limits mean nothing to me unless one player has somewhere else to be, but I personally prefer larger games, the extra variety is just fun and you can legitimatly do things like have a dedicated flanking formation of A-wings to back up an x and y-wing backbone. For official play, where they need to get as many games in as they can it's not optimal of course.

Personally I think the sweet spot is somewhere around 120-125, it's one more ship or potentially two ties or enough upgrades to really kit out your ships more than you normally could.

I play with a group and we usually play on a 6' by 4' table. We'll often do matches of two against two, with anywhere from 75 to 150 points for each player. Generally we don't field more than one falcon, BECAUSE THERE IS ONLY 1. Honestly, even though there are other yt 1300s in the universe, it is sinful that so many people would put out Han and Chewie in separate ships at the same time.

Sorry for the mini rant. If I offended you, don't use two falcons anymore and you won't be offended.

Anyway, 300 points to each side on such a large table is a good game, although it can take several hours to get through. I tend to agree with vonpenguin above. 120ish is a sweet spot per player. You get another ship or some extra upgrades without finding yourself overwhelmed with ships. Although if you like the prospect of flying 11 tie fighters at the same time, why not?

The downside is support ships that scale with larger fleet sizes. A guy that gives bonuses to all ships at 150 points is 50% better than the same ship at 100 points, but costs the same.

Also, with larger fleets, you can put out more firepower in a single turn, so named characters get killed off before you can see much of their benefits.

Not a tournament player, which means that time limits mean nothing to me unless one player has somewhere else to be, but I personally prefer larger games, the extra variety is just fun and you can legitimatly do things like have a dedicated flanking formation of A-wings to back up an x and y-wing backbone. For official play, where they need to get as many games in as they can it's not optimal of course.

Time limit is less of an issue to me. My issue is putting the strategy back into larger games. Smaller games are really Tactical small skirmishes. Large games should be both strategic and Tactical. In other words should just be a big furball in the middle of the field, but should have strategic decisions as well.

I'm considering starting a little project where you have maybe a deck of 5-10 objectives. Each objective is either mirrored or has an attacked and defender (rolls to see which side is the attacker) and a variable point value for achieving objectives up to 3 points. Each large game you deal one card per 100 points, and the game is won when one side has a certain threshold of victory points and one side is ahead.

For example, a 300pt game I deal out

• Destroy their moral: Mark each players most expensive ship, if the ship is below half it's hull score 1 point in the end phase, if it's destroyed score 3 points.
• Bombing Raid: Place a Space Station between range 2 and 3 of the defenders board edge. It has 6 shield and 6 hull. Each turn in planning the planning phase place token on the space station, If it has 6 tokens on it in the End phase remove them the defender scores 1 point (The Defender may gain no more than 3 points this way). The Attacker receives 1 pt if it's hull is reduced to half and 3 if it is destroyed.
• Nexus of Power: Place a Energy Cloud in the center of the board, players take it in turns to place 4 additional asteroids within range 3 of the Energy Cloud and outside of range 1 of each other. In the planning phase if it has 5 tokens on it the Nexus becomes active otherwise place a token on the Nexus. In the End phase if the Nexus is active the side with the most ships within range 3 scores 1 point, if it has double the number of ships of the opponent it scores 3 points.

The idea is these split large battles into multiple smaller objectives, this means you have to make strategic decisions on which of the objectives you devote resources to securing. Whether you need to move a ship from defending the Nexus to try and finish off Han Solo etc. It also limits the length of the game so it doesn't go to the last ship standing. I find everyone trying to stop the opponent getting the last point, or sprinting to pull ahead far more climatic than getting to a point and going, I don't think I can win because you outnumber me I resign, or a huge battle ending up with a TIE chasing a HWK-290 round an asteroid.

The downside is support ships that scale with larger fleet sizes. A guy that gives bonuses to all ships at 150 points is 50% better than the same ship at 100 points, but costs the same.

This also helps balance this. As you have 1 objective per 100 points you end up with the fleet having to split up into smaller groups so they don't get exponentially better at more points.

150 pt games make Lambdas playable, whereas in 100 pt games they are almost liabilities.

i feel it allows more divercity

I feel it's just an excuse to field larger TIE swarms.

I feel it's just an excuse to field larger TIE swarms.

Or you could swarm with Interceptors instead of just normal TIE Fighters. You can get in six Alpha Pilots to go with Howlrunner and a pair of a Acadamies for nine ships instead of running 13 Acadamy Pilots with Howlrunner.

would see them going to 125 pnts before 150 pnts. doubt they would jump the 100 pnt to 150, but 125 pnt does seem quite reasonable.

Make no mistake, you can play how ever you want. No one is going to show up to your house and tell you you're doing it wrong.

But the game was designed around 100 point games, not 125, not 150, not 300. As such, even if those sizes do work, they are not what the game was designed around so you may run into issues running them at those sizes.

Make no mistake, you can play how ever you want. No one is going to show up to your house and tell you you're doing it wrong.

But the game was designed around 100 point games, not 125, not 150, not 300. As such, even if those sizes do work, they are not what the game was designed around so you may run into issues running them at those sizes.

Hence the point of the thread.

What issues do they run into?