Despite a handful of notable exceptions, it seems pretty obvious to me that more ships is almost always better than upgrades or taking unique pilots. Does anyone else think we might see a wider variety and more interesting squadron builds if people were challenged by some simple squad building requirements? I'm thinking like in a club or tournament environment.

Some ideas for requirements that I had that I think are pretty straight forward are:

- at least 2 kinds of ships

- at least 1 unique pilot

- at least 10 points spent on upgrades of any kind

Any thoughts on these, or other ideas, that would encourage more diverse competition?

If it can carry a Heavy Laser Cannon, it should.

This is why you'll so often see fleet-building challenges on this forum.

In Magic: the Gathering, they speak of 3 different types of deck-builders. They've given names to these "Psychographics", and it goes as follows:

Timmy: This is the player who likes the really cool [ships] in a vacuum.
Johnny: This is the player who likes interesting interactions in their [fleet].
Spike: This is the player who likes finding why one [ship] is better than most think in their local metagame.

Typically, Spikes are the ones who go to tournaments and dominate. Spikes will fly Rookie Pilots and Academy Ties more than any other ship, because they've realized they have excellent amounts of versatility for their costs.


Personally, I am a Johnny:


I delight in the Garven/"Dutch"/Kyle trio.

I delight in the Hypermobile B-Wing (Adv. Sensors + Engine Upgrades = 20 possible flightpaths for any given maneuver. +PTL and it becomes 92!)

I delight in thinking of blended fleets of Empire and Rebellion flying in harmony, and other absurdities.

I revel in others' posts that describe the Anti-Pursuit Laser fleet (3x Outer Rim Smuggler + Intel Agent + Navigator + APL, designed to see where you're moving, land there first, and pew-pew laser-beams as you run into me).

I revel in others' posts that describe the Chainsaw Shuttle (+ Fire-Control Systems + Gunner, in which the first shot gives you a free Target Lock that you may use on your second. You ought to, as you'll get a new Target Lock after the second attack anyway)

I revel in others' posts that describe the Immovable Object (3x Shuttles, including Yorr and Jendon, who through a minor movement routine manage to all 3 stay immobile and actioned while the opponent comes into their triple heavy-laser cannons)


You, my friend, sound like you are also a Johnny, surrounded by Spikes.

Increasing the squad points will probably do a lot to encourage more diverse squads.

Increasing the squad points will probably do a lot to encourage more diverse squads.

it would for me! just 5 more points seems to make a huge difference and opens up a whole new world in squad building.

so I guess I'm a spike. but with that said, the Johnny's of the world wouldn't change with a few extra pts to play with...

btw, where did you find that analogy? it's really interesting.

Increasing the squad points will probably do a lot to encourage more diverse squads.

QFT, the problem i see with the game atm is that the official squad pt is cap at 100pt.

imo although it's not under-cost but it really doesn't leave much room for diversity in squad building, this is something that irritates me off especially when half of wave 3 ships are design as purely support ships that actually works the way it's intended in games 150pt or higher.

here's wishing that FFG increase the limit to 130pt or 150pt

i like the idea of squad limitations that encourage diversity. imo increasing the pts will just allow ppl to add an extra tie fighter or more upgrades rather than promote diversity.

btw, where did you find that analogy? it's really interesting.

it's a terminology coin by Mark Rosewater quite some time back when WotC were doing research on player demographic for MtG which basically split the player/fan base of the games into the 3 groups as stated before

1) players that are into the big flashy stuff (which doesn't necessary means best stuff) (eg: falcon, wedge, marksmanship)

2) players that love complicated interactions / wacky strategy (eg: kyle+crow, fettigator)

3) the tournament players (basically those that play to win) (you know who you are)

and a few years later a fourth demographic was found out coined vorthos which basically a fan of the games lore/artwork etc. rather then the core gameplay.

basically they are the players that would not let an ors fly a title falcon, or will only field his 3 X-wings squad with luke, wedge and biggs

That said, I'd like to put in a counter-argument. This isn't meant to be provocative (if it sounds it, I apologise):

Some players enjoy using relatively (or completely) 'basic' fighters, and would take 'basic' ships whether they were acknowledeged as 'better' or 'worse', especially relatively few 'unnamed-but-competent' guys rather than either a swarm of as many academy eyeballs as normal or some combination of action/token passing shennanigans, because it's a dogfighting game.

Winning by knowing how to manouvre your ships, and predicting how your opponent is going to manouvre theirs, feels like it should (at least in my head, which I admit is not worth much outside it ) be the 'default' way to win. Actions and special abilities that allow you to ignore some or most the normal rules should be a way to enhance the game, but not to the point that the manouvre dial sometimes feels like an optional extra.

I don't use any TIE fighters - personally, my squadron varies between two and three firesprays (depending on pilots and equipment fit) becuase it's supposed to be a 'pirate squadron'* - but at least for the TIEs, I don't see anything wrong with academy pilot swarms in theory; the swarm of eyeballs outnumbering the rebels significantly is one of the iconic elements of Rogue Squadron books and graphic novels.

Whether they're better or not in game; why should someone who wants to field a pack of TIE fighters and spends time thinking up formations to fly in or manouvres to pull be assumed to be driven by winning at all costs any more or less than someone who spends ages thinking up combinations of upgrade cards that are massively more powerful than the sum of their parts?

* I like Hondo from clone wars, and he has at least one firespray.

Increasing the squad points will probably do a lot to encourage more diverse squads.

Parkinsons Law;)

I think I am a cross between a Timmy and a Johnny mostly.

I will admit though, when I play in a tourney, I play to win. Outside of that, I like cool ships (think Firespray obsession)

We are potentially going to run a Tourney where you get 100 pts, you have to have one and only one named pilot, all the ships in the list are the same type and no more than 6 ships in a list.

That should prove fun for Timmy, Johnny and Spike :-)

Being a casual player that plays X-Wing with friends, don't meta gaming, doesn't play enough to know the perfect combo/squad to demolish anyone, love the named pilots and would sacrifice "1 more ship" for that named pilot + lots of upgrades...when I have the time and the disposition I always play 150 points game on 42" x 42" surface.

It's awesome, even though a bit long, and gives us a lot more room to customize our squads the way we want.

But I still enjoy tremendously 100 points games for their quick and bloody play and the hard decisions you have to make when squad building.

I think the replies here go a good ways to showing just what a good job FFG did with X-Wing, because it allows a fair amount of depth in list building.

You can go the more competitive tourney based lists, or have fun playing with more fluffy lists, or eve just odd ball stuff that may for some reason actually work.

It does seem that the many of the concepts or at least types that fit into MtG and other CCG fit here as well.

We are flying a campaign where everyone is a rebel player and we each have our own ship. Everyone has different ships with chosen upgrades and PS. It's a real hotch-potch squad when we fly, but it is real fun as well.

We earn VP's and credits for missions. I, for instance, am currently flying a B-Wing with PS2, Veteran Instincts (for PS 4) with Fire Control Systems. I am currently saving the 10,000 credits needed to buy and mount a Blaster Cannon

To be fair, the tournament rules say that local tournaments can actually set the point values however they like, but 100 is the standard. It just happens to still stay at 100 for the official ones. So, if you can maybe get local tournaments going try to see if you could work a few more points in: I'm sure nobody would object to it. Larger fleets are fun.

God I love this game. I'm somewhere between Johnny and Timmy myself, but I do genuinely want to play to win as well. I like named pilots because I don't have an unlimited budget for these things and I like a hodgepodge group of fighters, especially when playing Rebel, which is my dominant purchasing budget. That said, this game is one of both strategy, skill and luck, so there's really no wrong way of doing things. If you lose it's typically your own fault unless you have terrible dice luck. (Like me)

The problem with tournaments is that they only focus on killing your enemies.

It would be better if they did as eg 40k tournaments and used et least some other victory conditions.

If the different scenarios are announced in advance, the playes have a fair chance of building lists for this.

This would give different builds as it needs to fullfill different tasks.

Today, the lists need to fullfill one task; how can I kill the enemies before they kill me?

I am Johnny. My Rebel 150 pt list is nothing but synergy. The loss of one ship makes a huge difference in the first few turns, and after that, it is just a huge cat fight wherever the battle happens.

The problem with tournaments is that they only focus on killing your enemies.

It would be better if they did as eg 40k tournaments and used et least some other victory conditions.

If the different scenarios are announced in advance, the playes have a fair chance of building lists for this.

This would give different builds as it needs to fullfill different tasks.

Today, the lists need to fullfill one task; how can I kill the enemies before they kill me?

I like you. After all, War is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Having objectives and scenarios other than 'eliminate all enemies' is a nice change of pace, though, often difficult to balance in a tourney situation unless the scenario is really well designed.

Me, I'm between Timmy & Johnny, with a touch of, what was it, Vorthos? too.. I enjoy the lore, Roleplay, and a grand story. I tend to get invested in characters and like lists that have some hint at a narrative and interesting interactions. I like lists that seem like a sensible flight group, and tend to be put off by tournaments and games where a particular night-invulnerable wunderlist sees all the action. That's boring. :3

The problem with tournaments is that they only focus on killing your enemies.

It would be better if they did as eg 40k tournaments and used et least some other victory conditions.

If the different scenarios are announced in advance, the playes have a fair chance of building lists for this.

This would give different builds as it needs to fullfill different tasks.

Today, the lists need to fullfill one task; how can I kill the enemies before they kill me?

I like you. After all, War is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Having objectives and scenarios other than 'eliminate all enemies' is a nice change of pace, though, often difficult to balance in a tourney situation unless the scenario is really well designed.

Me, I'm between Timmy & Johnny, with a touch of, what was it, Vorthos? too.. I enjoy the lore, Roleplay, and a grand story. I tend to get invested in characters and like lists that have some hint at a narrative and interesting interactions. I like lists that seem like a sensible flight group, and tend to be put off by tournaments and games where a particular night-invulnerable wunderlist sees all the action. That's boring. :3

Melvin vs Vorthos were attempts to start psychographs of why people play, rather than how they play. Vorthos is the guy who get's really into the lore, and plays Magic because he enjoys the idea of being a sorceror who can throw murdercows at people.

Melvin is the one who plays because it is mechanically interesting.

In X-Wing, Vorthoses play because you're driving Luke Skywalker and Han Solo around and shooting at tie fighters, while Melvins play because it is a highly balanced game with many features not found anywhere else in miniatures gaming.

I'm definitely Vorthos to Sable Gryphon's Melvin. ;3

Huh... I kinda fit somewhere in the middle of all of these archetypes. I just love this gaaaame. D: <3

But yeah, I agree with you Gazer: there should be more objective based missions instead of just a two sided slug-fest all the time. Seeing TIE Swarms gets f*cking boring.

Now that I'd definitely be up for.

Throwing lots of different missions into a game (beyond just 'kill everyone') instantly makes the game more varied, which generally equates to more fun. It also - as long as the different missions are different enough - acts as a built-in check against "That List From The Internet" syndrome, because no one list should be able to win every scenario.

Scenarios where one named pilot has to survive/escape/break through the enemy lines/whatever stop the academy swarm being the be-all-and-end-all. Scenarios where part of your forces start in reserve, or start split up and have to link up, challenge the token-passers and action-passers. Hell, I could see an 'ambush' where certain types of upgrade card start 'cold', which challenges shuttle/bomber types (to be honest "they're not in front of me" challenges the Pearlescent Manatee Of The Stars pretty well, impressive as its firepower can be...).

More importantly, they just add fun. Trophy kills, grabbing cargo, bounty hunting, dropping troops, strafing runs on capital ships (just assume 'your' board edge is part of a 'to scale' star destroyer!)...a dogfight to the death is cool, but different challenges keep the game fresh.

A good comparison is the Attack Wing organised events; they're doing the Dominion War, and each month the games are a fundamentally different scenario. The first was a generic ship engagement (I think). Last month was Chin'Toka, with all the orbital guns in the world, meaning speed and defence dice a-go-go. This month it's a planetary landing, and do drop troops you have to stop and lower your shields.

I'm thinking of running some larger point tournaments, 125-150. I was considering putting in a limit of 100pts on any one ship type + their upgrades. I just feel this makes things fairer as it doesn't force players that have 100pts of every ship type to buy more to be competitive, as I'm sure some people would run 12 Academies otherwise.

i like the idea of squad limitations that encourage diversity. imo increasing the pts will just allow ppl to add an extra tie fighter or more upgrades rather than promote diversity.

i do agree that limitations encourages diversity but setting official pt limits at a such a low point limit the only way to expend each new expansion so that people will keep buying is to either:

a) have power crap (which is a very very very (yes it deserve a 3 very statement) bad idea with such a young game)

b) introduce a new format (which FFG were partially forced to do)

c) have erratas every few years (curse you GW) (ok i acknowledge that they need lots of revision for their whfb and 40k games due to the age of the game, but most could be avoided if they have stop pimping out their space marines)

and yes i do also acknoladge that increasing the points would only see lots of people either add to the swarm, or beef up their upgrade slots, but that's besides the point since the type of teams that module tactical games such as this has are always divided into this few categories

1) swarm list

2) min-max list

3) specialize list / meta list

4) balance list (a balance list of offensive, secondary & support units (that actually be able to do their intendedjobs))

5) combo list

6) others (alpha strikes, maneuver list, special skill list etc...)

but with the current cap set att 100, ma jority of list are focus on the first 2 type because for 1) they only care about quantity of shots while 2) only cares about quality of their units, which are the easiest to accomplished but the others are a little hard to accomplished since the point limit basically doesn't give enough options open to not make them suck.

though with the costing of ships currently i would suggest that they don't go over 200pt if they were to increase the point limit, since i feel that goiong over 225 pt basically the same as playing with 2 squads per side, i feel that the sweet spot should be between 130~175pt

p.s. ah i forgotten about melvin the poor over shadowed profile by his other more well known/weird brothers.

just to note players are generally a combination of multiple different psyc profile just that there would normally be 1 or 2 major profile while the others are evident at different levels.

phew that is one long post