Recommend
6 
 Thumb up
 Hide
23 Posts

Star Wars: X-Wing Miniatures Game» Forums » General

Subject: Great game but it desperately needs other objectives. rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Wolf Dude
msg tools
The game is fun, but I think other than blowing your opponents ships up, there should be other objectives brough in the game, for example rescuing someone from opponent ship, destroying imperial death star. I think it will keep the game more fresh instead of just dogfight deathmatch.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Angelus Seniores
Belgium
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
every large ship/core set/huge ship comes with 1 or more scenarios that portray objectives like you describe

or do you mean objectives for use in the dogfights, a bit like armada does?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ray
Thailand
Bangkok
Bangkok
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Or like the scenario you get with Rebel Aces?

I agree in that there should be more. How about an X-Wing Scenario and Campaign book?
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Boeren
United States
Marietta
Georgia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
The game does come with some scenarios and more of them come with certain expansions. Or you can find fan-made scenarios online.

But, those are generally things you play for fun - they aren't well suited for tournaments.

Minis games are designed to be balanced around a certain type of play. In this case, that type is 100 point deathmatch on a 3x3 table with some scattered obstacles. Minor modifications will probably not upset the balance that much but changing the victory condition is a pretty big change (depending on what the scenario goal is) and will immediately favor some ships and list types over others.

Armada on the other hand was designed from the beginning to use objectives so it's been balanced around that. The upcoming RuneWars minis game from FFG is also designed specifically for objective play. So, you might prefer one of those instead.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh Derksen
Canada
Toronto
ON
flag msg tools
armoredgear7.net
badge
Heroes of the Aturi Cluster dockingbay416.com/campaign
mbmbmbmbmb
Shameless Plug: you might also have a look at Heroes of the Aturi Cluster, which is a 15-mission co-operative Rebel Campaign: http://www.dockingbay416.com/campaign
20 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff
United States
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
armoredgear7 wrote:
Shameless Plug: you might also have a look at Heroes of the Aturi Cluster, which is a 15-mission co-operative Rebel Campaign: http://www.dockingbay416.com/campaign


For a co-op campaign, nothing comes close to HotAC. Highly recommended.

For player vs player missions with objectives that do not require wiping out the opposing ships, we need more entertaining missions. If FFG put out a mission and campaign book, I think a lot of X-Wingers will get it.
3 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Cameron Calka
United States
Holland
OTTAWA-MI
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Wolf_Dude80 wrote:
The game is fun, but I think other than blowing your opponents ships up, there should be other objectives brough in the game, for example rescuing someone from opponent ship, destroying imperial death star. I think it will keep the game more fresh instead of just dogfight deathmatch.


Have you looked at the mission cards that come with the various expansion packs? http://xwing-miniatures.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Missions seems to show that over half of the missions (and a number of the large ship campaigns) involve dogfights over other objectives.

They also added a tool (https://tools.fantasyflightgames.com/xwing/) so people can design and share their own missions.

Armada like objectives would be welcome, but they work for Armada because there is an enforced time limit on the game. You could essentially replicate that time limit and add the same type of scoring mechanic.

Now if someone took the TIE Fighter Computer game and started to turn it into a series of X-wing missions, that could be a lot of fun.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Lyons
msg tools
One scenario I've been thinking of is a convoy attack. One side has freighters and transports that they have to exit off the far side of the map. Victory is determined by how many ship points of freighters (or undestroyed hull points?) manage to exit.

The defender gets a certain number of points for escorts. The attacker's force would be larger than the defender's escort force. The convoy ships would be the lowest pilot skill versions of the game's freighters and transports.

I haven't played with this idea beyond brainstorming.

(I haven't seen the Rebel Transport missions. I assume there is a mission like this for the ship, or one of the other epic ships.)
Edit: I see the Rebel Transport does have a mission like that.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Patrick Sloan
United States
Edmond
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Wolf_Dude80 wrote:
The game is fun, but I think other than blowing your opponents ships up, there should be other objectives brough in the game, for example rescuing someone from opponent ship, destroying imperial death star. I think it will keep the game more fresh instead of just dogfight deathmatch.




The 'dogfighting and deathmatches' mentality drove me away from organized play and purchasing more ships. I stopped on Wave 5. I did not play for an year and a half. HotAC brought me back to the gaming table, buying new ships, and my spouse actually LIKES it now! Thanks Josh D! Well done. I would HIGHLY recommend printing this and giving it a try. It is a fresh approach to X-Wing.
6 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim Chadwick
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
There is also Mission Control. It's something FFG started, but haven't really kept up with. It desperately needs some sort of tagging or filing system that allows you to search for types of missions.

https://tools.fantasyflightgames.com/xwing/

Babaganoosh makes some of the best and he has a lot of them. Also, he's responsive to PM's from FFG forums with questions or comments about his missions. That's how he became one of my hosts for my Casual X-wing podcast. His are very good.

There are 17 missions from FFG (well, I don't know about Wave 9 as I don't have it yet). Some are duds and some are awesome. I've reviewed a few of them on my podcast. The best that I've found is the Senator's Shuttle mission. My only complaint would be to either have reinforcements come from the side or get rid of them completely. It's still good with all the latest and greatest toys. There are counters to many things. It's also good to swap sides and not always have the Rebels defensive. Throw in Scum on either side, as well.

The campaigns that come in the Epic ships are also really good. They are quite a bit of fun and also help you learn Epic rules.

I also like making up rules for missions. I'm not as good as Babaganoosh, but it's fun. I'm working to tweak one right now that is based on 4 fully loaded Tie Punishers blowing up a pirate base:
https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/226174-missio...

As stated by many others, the Heroes of the Aturi Cluster campaign is just....fantastic. It's some of the best X-wing there is to play.


Oh....and many people do think that tournament play would be better with missions. Many on FFG disagree, though.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave Rathbun
United States
Dallas
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
heychadwick wrote:
There is also Mission Control. It's something FFG started, but haven't really kept up with. It desperately needs some sort of tagging or filing system that allows you to search for types of missions.

https://tools.fantasyflightgames.com/xwing/

<soapbox>
As a point of annoyance - why can guests (non-members) read the forums, but the missions are behind a login? If FFG really wanted to push these, they should be visible to the public.
</soapbox>
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Barlowe
United States
Clarks Summit
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Maybe prevents robots from spamming their site with hits?

Either way, create a phony login and dive in! Or just play the 17 missions plus campaigns for Epic and you'll be set for a year at least until FFG releases their campaign book (bound to happen).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim Chadwick
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
drathbun wrote:
heychadwick wrote:
There is also Mission Control. It's something FFG started, but haven't really kept up with. It desperately needs some sort of tagging or filing system that allows you to search for types of missions.

https://tools.fantasyflightgames.com/xwing/

<soapbox>
As a point of annoyance - why can guests (non-members) read the forums, but the missions are behind a login? If FFG really wanted to push these, they should be visible to the public.
</soapbox>


<soapbox> Or....why haven't they even updated the thing with the latest wave of ships for icons and such? Or why is there not a better tagging or search function? How the heck can you find any type of mission if there is one? The only way to search is to search via author. What if I want to look for an Epic mission? Or a three person mission? There is no way to do that. </soapbox>
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Russ
United States
Ohio
flag msg tools
Consider doing ground attack scenario's. The Cinematic Play has some of that too. There is one, I think out of the millennium falcon book, that is called Rendezvous. I do not do tournament games but it is a fun game as a mass battle game
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Henry Rodriguez
United States
Miami
Florida
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
dboeren wrote:
The game does come with some scenarios and more of them come with certain expansions. Or you can find fan-made scenarios online.

But, those are generally things you play for fun - they aren't well suited for tournaments.

Minis games are designed to be balanced around a certain type of play. In this case, that type is 100 point deathmatch on a 3x3 table with some scattered obstacles. Minor modifications will probably not upset the balance that much but changing the victory condition is a pretty big change (depending on what the scenario goal is) and will immediately favor some ships and list types over others.

Armada on the other hand was designed from the beginning to use objectives so it's been balanced around that. The upcoming RuneWars minis game from FFG is also designed specifically for objective play. So, you might prefer one of those instead.


I have played a great number of different miniature games (most of GW's offerings, Flames of War, Chronopia, Battletech, etc...). I believe you are overstating the delicate balance crafted by FFG into X-Wing. I do not think it would be too difficult for FFG to release an alternate set of victory conditions beyond the deathmatch. Most of those other minis-games I have played provide missions that help guide the action (not saying that the straight up killing of one's opponent's pieces is absent there). Further, those missions were present in tournament environments.

Players would organically adapt to a new tournament setting and change their squadron construction accordingly (likely by becoming more flexible in order to handle different types of missions). Admittedly, I believe that mission-based games would require a larger point count (probably 150-200 instead of 100) in order to provide room for that flexibility.

Each game would take longer to play and this may not be what the greater consuming public wants, but I would be playing in such tournaments if they existed (I do not bother now).

What the OP speaks to, I have found, is a problem inherent with small, skirmish miniature games. Straight up deathmatches are really not that interesting over repeated plays to me. So FFG has mixed it with a pseudo-CCG tourney format of evolving metas overtime to keep things fresh. This is great for the company's bottom line, but the game itself is not improved by it (not saying that the game is bad; it is good, but could be better).

The solution is either missions at a higher point total or a campaign system (like that used in GW's Necromunda or Mordheim). The former would still work for tournament settings. The latter is not conducive to tournament play (though campaigns are a blast to play).

We have a great user-created co-op campaign system in Heroes of the Alturi Cluster. I believe a competitive one could be created whereby both sides accrue XP and advance.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Roberto Lanza
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
I believe that X-Wing has had a huge impact on miniatures based board games.

I look at what SJG is doing with Car Wars 6E and it is more or less X-Wings with cars. They have gone from a read heavy paper heavy game to a more x-wing like mechanics.

My other favorite game Battletech, with its Alpha Strike and forthcoming Alpha Strike Box is once again simplifying its game to be more X-Wing like for faster more balanced play without a lot of book keeping. In fact, the least I have seen in the game.

One thing that both Car Wars and this goes double for Battletech, is a rich history and a lot of cannon. Star Wars has a lot of cannon and I hope FFG draws on that for future games.

I good part of Start Wars verse is the ground battles. I hope they do something to mix ground and flight similar to what is possible in Battletech. They also need to go the many star wars cannon and create scenario books.

That all said, there are plenty of objectives and scenarios you can do on your own. We have played scenarios where we have had to limp back one of the transport carriers or you had to have the best score after 10 rounds. If you are creative, there are ton of scenarios and objectives you can come up with.

Granted, you will need much more than the starter set. We have setup the trench run scenario and have played that many times. We are just working on the HotAC scenario. We are developing our own paper AT-AT and trying our own ground battle that includes X-Wings as well.

I don't see a problem with coming up with ideas for the X-Wing game and I see many other old games taking on much of the simplicity into their games as well. I hope the FFG makes it a more rich experience in the future but in the meantime, we are having fun experimenting.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Henry Rodriguez
United States
Miami
Florida
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
turbocooler wrote:
I don't see a problem with coming up with ideas for the X-Wing game and I see many other old games taking on much of the simplicity into their games as well. I hope the FFG makes it a more rich experience in the future but in the meantime, we are having fun experimenting.


You are wholly correct that X-Wing's success is being emulated by many companies. Its simplicity makes it very accessible. Nothing wrong with that.

For me though, as a gamer who used to play in lots of miniature tournaments, I want my missions. I believe they improve gameplay. It puts more of a focus on how one plays on the tabletop. Deathmatches, much like Magic CCG, stress construction over in-game decision making (i.e. a game is often won at the squadron construction phase). And I don't think adding missions would increase the game's complexity in any appreciable way.

This is not to say that I don't play the game casually in ways that I find enjoyable. I do that too.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave Rathbun
United States
Dallas
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
callidusx3 wrote:
Deathmatches, much like Magic CCG, stress construction over in-game decision making (i.e. a game is often won at the squadron construction phase).

Absolutely agree. Ships that are fun to fly, lists that show creativity but don't stand a chance against the "power meta" can still be a blast to fly. Missions are certainly one way to provide that outlet.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Philip Meade
msg tools
Don't assume that a change from death matches to objective based missions necessarily means an increased importance of in-game decision making over pregame list building. It really depends on the missions you're working with. Many typical mission archetypes lend themselves to swarm-style lists, for example. Swarms have more actions, can cover more board space, and can often deliver more attack dice on a target (and many scenario defined targets are vulnerable to multiple low-dice attacks) than other lists.

If there is a rock-scissor-paper dynamic in the current metagame ( the old meta in wave 4 comes to mind: swarm- fat turret - phantom), missions can bust that up, for sure. But a mission or set of missions can also be vulnerable to similar metagame pressures. And missions can exacerbate the power imbalance between lists, too. It is not hard to imagine some games in a tournament that uses scenarios being auto-loss scenarios under some circumstances.

For example if there is a mission where you need to scan a bunch of satellites, and one player brings a swarm while the other brings a 2 ship build, the player with two ships is probably at a significant disadvantage and possibly in an unwinnable situation, depending on the specifics of the scenario. Likewise, if the mission is to kill a specific enemy ship, a 2-ship list might have much better tools to protect and preserve one of their ships, while a ship in a swarm is quite vulnerable by comparison.

The scenario portfolio and specific details of the missions are incredibly important and present great opportunity and danger to a healthy metagame at the same time.
3 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Henry Rodriguez
United States
Miami
Florida
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Nice post Phillip, with good points. However, in my experience, the scenario spread to be faced at a tournament is known ahead of time. A player will not be surprised by the mission structure / goals. If one designs a list that plays poorly in a given scenario, then that is the mistake (or strategic decision) of the player. This tends to broaden the meta greatly (one can never get rid of it; force composition is part of the allure after all).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Philip Meade
msg tools
That's true, if the guys running the tournament are doing a good job. But I would still feel responsible if I made a mission portfolio that encouraged a sort of gaming of the system where your matches end up being determined more by your squad buildings choices and matchup a rather than your tactical decisions in-game.

So let's say I made a mission portfolio where 1/5 missions strongly favors a swarm, and another mission favors a 2-ship list. If a 2-ship list goes up against a swarm for swarm-favoring mission, I don't have any reason to think that will be a fair or fun match; and the same goes for the same matchup in the mission that favors the 2-ship build. Both players made equally valid list choices for the tournament format, and the format is fair overall, but we end up with poor quality games. That's just as much a danger as making a scenario portfolio that produces a narrow metagame.

It's not that I don't want competitive scenario play, but I don't think it's as easy as some might think to make a quality scenario-based tournament format.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Henry Rodriguez
United States
Miami
Florida
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
That is certainly a concern to keep in mind when running tournaments. And I agree, it would be foolish to think that one can easily do away with the problem by just throwing out some scenarios to fight over.

But I may accept your challenge and start an X-Wing tournament with quality scenarios instead of deathmatches here in Miami, FL laugh We shall see... If so, I will share the format and results.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim Chadwick
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
babagannoosh wrote:
That's true, if the guys running the tournament are doing a good job. But I would still feel responsible if I made a mission portfolio that encouraged a sort of gaming of the system where your matches end up being determined more by your squad buildings choices and matchup a rather than your tactical decisions in-game.

So let's say I made a mission portfolio where 1/5 missions strongly favors a swarm, and another mission favors a 2-ship list. If a 2-ship list goes up against a swarm for swarm-favoring mission, I don't have any reason to think that will be a fair or fun match; and the same goes for the same matchup in the mission that favors the 2-ship build. Both players made equally valid list choices for the tournament format, and the format is fair overall, but we end up with poor quality games. That's just as much a danger as making a scenario portfolio that produces a narrow metagame.

It's not that I don't want competitive scenario play, but I don't think it's as easy as some might think to make a quality scenario-based tournament format.


You see....that's where we differ. I'm actually OK with that scenario. If someone wants to fly the Swarm and someone wants to fly the 2 ship list, then it's their issue for if it fits the scenarios. It's my humble opinion that there are missions that tend to be pro/con almost every list type. The overall effect should be that a well balanced list comes out with the best chance to win. If someone wants to go Swarm or 2 ship list, then it's their issues for taking a list that will be hard to win against in 1/5 of the matches. I'm all for this.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.