I don't agree with switching back and forth between Rebels and Imperials in a tournament, and I'll tell you why.  First, I should tell you that I was a tournament director for Decipher's Star Wars CCG.  And I liked switching between Dark Side and Light Side in that game.  But it was set up that way from the beginning.  All cards were either Dark Side or Light Side.  There were no cards that were "ambidextrous" like the upgrade cards we use in X-wing.

This game is different.  First of all, it's based on factions (Rebels and Imperials), not sides of the force (Light Side and Dark Side).  Factions tells me that in the future there may be Republic, Separatist, New Republic, Sith, Mandalorian, etc in the future.  If that is the case, this tournament format wouldn't work.

I like the idea of choosing a squad and using it for the duration of the tournament.  This lets people who only like Rebels focus on that and ignore Imperials or any other faction that may be introduced in the future.  And as its been stated in other threads in this forum, dogfighting tactics also play a big part in this game.  Poor tactics can be the downfall of even the best squad builds.  Once the game gets bigger and more options become available, there should be much more diversity in squad builds and should  be a reason for people alter their squads between tournaments.  Of course, people will have squads that they like more than others, but I myself plan on trying as many different combinations in as many tournaments as possible.

Roy

drkjedi35 said:

But wouldn't this group also take issue with having to enact a self-destructive dogfight between two Rebel squadrons half the time? Isn't it more satisfying to shoot down Darth Vader while playing as Luke Skywalker, rather than shooting down another Luke Skywalker instead?

My 2 creds: I Don't like the needing an Imp and Reb Squad at the tourneys for what has already been stated but also because this is a miniature war game.  Card game players tend to get a mix of cards for all sides due to the way the cards are sold.  Not so with Mini-war games.  There's already an increased cost for Imp payers due to the fact that you need more models to build a squad compared to the Rebs.  But making them bring both greatly increases the cost of entry.

Not doing this for the first tourney was smart as none of the players had a chance to build their collections prior to the tourney.  They had what they could afford that weekend and thats that.  Also, players having trouble against their own kind had to be expected due to the complete lack of experience playing the game.  You've got to assume anyone who played the night before to prepare played Reb vs. Imp.  So very few if any had any experience taking on their own faction.  If you were banking on taking on a few slower/less agile targets as an Imp player but then end up facing a horde of TIEs, you're going to have some problems shifting gears when you haven't even learned that there are gears to shift.

At this point trying to fix anything is premature.  As folks try out the game and get more experience taking on same side games, tactics will develop.

-DavicusPrime

Yes, that would be more satisfying.  And I think it would be a great idea for playing at home or for a scenario type tournament.  However, regular tournaments should be Squad v Squad no matter what factions they happen to be.  That means that your squad has to be built go against any possibility and not just whatever the meta is in the opposite faction.

Roy

R2D2 said:

+1

Well, it was the player who assembled the squad, so how can it not be the player's credit if it's the squad that gets him the win?

(Even assuming that in-game decisions don't matter with the right squad, something I don't buy at all…)

haslo said:

I believe everyone is worried about "netlisting", or that there may be certain squads which are practically "I win!" buttons, that people will copy and use to win with little skill. I however, doubt this will be too much of a problem.

sverigesson said:

Well, if there are to be such squads, then squads that specificially counter them will emerge, which in turn will lead to counter squads for those counter squads … the good old metagame of CCGs all over again. Something I really look forward to, in fact.

 Unlike ccgs, miniatures don't play themselves.

Your ccg deck is usually straight forward, but with minis you've got to know what to do with that squad to win.

AGASHAMIRV said:

I agree with this, it doesnt matter how good your 'army list' is, if your deployment and actions are bad your going to lose. And if you have the worst on paper force for facing your opponent good tactics can still bring you a win even if its harder to come by. there should be any rocks beat scissors in x wing.

That might be true now, but I'm sure there'll be more strong comboes in the future, with a wider array of ships and pilots and upgrades available. I certainly hope that both the squad build and the onboard tactics and strategy have an impact on the outcome of a game…

 Never forget the dice.  My dice hate me.  Doesn't matter what game, if there are dice, they will derail any and all effort put in to list building and tactics.  I'm hoping the fact that the game comes with it's own dice, they won't have developed the same level of Davicus hatred the rest of my dice seem to have. 

-DavicusPrime

 I got an award in a tourney once for worst dice. It was Confrontation, a skirmish mini game. Everyone tracked one's rolled in a round (ones bad). I beat the next worst roller by double. I got 54 one's in about 150 rolls. I won a $50 gift certificate, and yes, I bought some dice with the $$$.

 AGASHAMIRV, That is awesome.  I bet I would have given you a run for your money. 

-DavicusPrime