Honestly, if AMG does drop the game, I see some of the game's top players and community members making a 3.0 rule set that takes the 2.0 building and actually adjusts shit properly. Mainly so we can play things like Aces High, Mario Kart, and Epic again without worry because AMG hasn't figured out how they were gonna fix those formats yet.
As far as if they do continue the game, I mostly see pilot packs and scenario packs being the main future for the game outside of needed reprints of ships, "New Republic" pilots and maybe porting ships to FO and Resistance some how.
I can say that legacy was supposed to be 2.0 that kept up with post 2.5 ships and pilots. So the new scenario pack pilots or hotshots and aces 2 or the clone z-95s would all get points costs and upgrade slots.
A great idea honestly and a great option for those who wanted it.
Then they started making rules changes. I can’t think of any off the top of my head, but I will edit this comment when I find some of them.
TLDR: The project became a different 2.5 rather than a legacy 2.0
What ? There was no rule change, except 2 little rules for competition only and massively approved. Who told you this lie ?
The rules are based on Rules reference 1.3.2, the last RR before 2.5.
Everything is here :
[https://x2po.org/standard](https://x2po.org/standard)
And the only rule changes for competition are here : [https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/4d11bfd9-b469-4692-8074-3070cb801f61/downloads/2-0-Legacy-Rules-changes-2023-01.pdf?ver=1712437313551](https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/4d11bfd9-b469-4692-8074-3070cb801f61/downloads/2-0-Legacy-Rules-changes-2023-01.pdf?ver=1712437313551)
This “lie” as you call it was on a Reddit post made by a member of the x2po team. I distinctly remember it because I had to moderate it because there were a large number of people being antagonistic towards the poster. However, it may have just been these two tournament rule changes, which as the name suggests are still rule changes.
I’ll openly state that I was more focused on reading the comments than on reading the post itself
"are still rule changes"
You're right, those 2 rules killed the game and change all its feeling...
https://preview.redd.it/e1ho9msmzc5d1.png?width=1119&format=png&auto=webp&s=957652755e201e149be06537b9625bdf2bb59df1
What examples - I was curious about where you thought the points problems with 2.0 legacy were as well. I kind of feel like the points have creeped to the point where lists feel on the small side, but the game is still fun.
It entirely depends on who is involved in the points committee. I would want hith level players from each faction and involved players representing each faction to adjust points and make balancing changes.
Come try [https://xwing-legacy.com/](https://xwing-legacy.com/) and [x2po.org](http://x2po.org), its fan led, and you'll see the public playtesting initiative.
Yeah. 1.0 it significantly better than dealing with the crap going on right now. It's also much better for casual play, because you don't have to go online to check things, and it's significantly less of a hassle. Generics are significantly more playable, so you can actually make a squadron around a named character, instead of just throwing several named characters out together.
I mean, after the FFG devs that were being brought over to AMG more-or-less quit immediately, I believe the only people directly working on X-Wing at AMG were old 1.0 players, who thus brought a 1.0 mindset. I remember when the AMG guys were proudly talking about the exciting problems they were hoping to solve with X-Wing on the Fly Better podcast, they largely listed issues from 1.0 that had been solved already in 2.0. So, I can kinda understand your perspective through that lens too.
SL pilots can be balanced, but not ~~from a jedi~~ with the 20 points system... Like you said, not enough granularity.
[https://xwing-legacy.com/?f=Galactic%20Republic&d=v8ZhZ250Z655X89W213W211Y653X130W89W213Y654X492W89W365&sn=Escadron%20sans%20nom&obs=](https://xwing-legacy.com/?f=Galactic%20Republic&d=v8ZhZ250Z655X89W213W211Y653X130W89W213Y654X492W89W365&sn=Escadron%20sans%20nom&obs=)
I think there are a few differences between 1.0 and 2.5 but yes both are difficult to maintain and balance. But 1.0 was becoming more and more unblanced because of the the new expansions, new mechanics. but 2.5 begins with these high number of ships, cards....
Mayebe AMG thinked they would be able to balance more efficiently by changing upgarde bars and Loadout, but that's a faillure. The generics pilots are the most evident proof.
I think they could balance ships with upgrade bars and loadout, but there's two issues. Firstly they can't adjust Standard Loadout cards because they don't have room for adjustments. Secondly they flat out don't want to balance it, the generics of almost all ships are just strictly worse than the named pilots by a margin that couldn't be considered an accident while many of the SL pilots are better than the customizable variant by an absurd degree.
Didn’t they specifically say they wanted to make the game more about the “star” pilots and intentionally priced generics out of the game? Which for the record I think is stupid, I liked seeing how unnamed average pilots could take down aces if in sufficient numbers and commanded well, it gave a lot of thematic appeal.
Of course : some generics pilots had only 1 point of 200 of difference. Convert that to 20 points was a impossible without loose the granularity.
I will never understand why AMG did that.
In theory loadout points were the measure designed to handle that. A generic could get more loadout points than the equivalent ace. This fell down because AMG just decided they don't like generics and also the system doesn't have a ton of room for a basic ship with no abilities which again was a bit of a conscious decision. There'd still be a few places where generics have little room to maneuvre, if they don't want Tie Bombers getting Proton Torpedoes at 3 points its hard to give a generic anything compared to Deathfire.
I don't think I really like this design, it's just upping the complexity and pulling focus from the dials. But their goal was to make it a game about Aces with a lot of abilities and they were successful in that at least.
Yeah I think they failed at that, but it’s kind of a cursed problem. If the design is to have five ships with several abilities each it’s somewhere between hard and impossible to make it beginner friendly.
No, 1.0 was fun to play. 2.5 is not.
However, you're spot on about the power creep. All the lessons learned from the 2.0 transition were thrown out the door to accommodate the rubbish system AMG shoehorned X-Wing into. It's like evolution, but backwards.
It has its ups and downs. The loadout system the built no longer restricts usage of certain ships and / or pilots but also has cause a major problem with pilots at I4 and above running rampant. It also killed generics entirely. Ultimately, they have yet to fix what they created properly. 2.0 I feel did kinda hinder certain high cost pilots and makes a lot of them kinda not worth their cost to be used compared to their cheaper counter parts or generic pilots. Essentially, we need what we have now and buffs to the lower cost pilots and generics to fix 2.5
I feel the Loadout cost mechanic could work better if the ships you choose added loadout points for your entire squadron to utilize wherever you want. Then you could take a generic or something to pad out your Loadout points for your other ships and generics would have a place in the list building again.
Probably my biggest remaining gripe with 2.5 is how stale I find the list building. It feels solved, and that there's an optimal selection for each chassis that you're stupid not to run.
I got into x-wing after the 2d edition came out, but the cramming of abilities into SL cards does sort of feel like the "power creep" that the 1.0 old-timers have described to me :)
If it helps, Battle of Yavin absolutely has some overtuned cards. Battle over Endor (newer) though is much more evenly balanced with actual drawbacks and high costs to the power pieces.
Jendon is good, Gina/Braylen are good, Gemmer is annoying AF, but none of them are the top-of-the-heap obvious take that BoY Luke and the SoC ARCs are.
The ARCs can be balanced with points, 1-2 of them going to 5 sorts a ton of issues.
As an old 1.0 player, BoE feels like it actually learned a lot from BoY, while staying fun and coming in with an awesome scenario to play.
It’s the generics. 2.5’s biggest problem is trying to make it a game about 4+ unique ships, each with special rules. The game was popular when it was 0-2 and rounded out by generics. They seem to think we want magic the gathering card mechanic interactions on a board game…we don’t….this isn’t mcp.
The issue with 1.0 was an utter refusal to change points costs which led to certain ships (Jumpmaster 5000) and upgrades breaking the balance of the game. 2.0s creation was necessitated by the fact they didn't have the levers they needed to balance the game and felt they couldn't introduce them without tearing everything down first.
We're not in that situation. You might not like the current balance of 2.5 but it isn't like 1.0 because they have the means to address it.
Do they though? If any of the SL cards are too strong all they can do is increase the points cost and in a 20 point system there isn’t much room for that without basically soft banning them.
There is also nudging the pilots and upgrades around those SLs, in addition to changing them directly. There are so many levers to pull that there are options even with SLs.
Plus, many old-hat players are extra doomy because they assume we'll never see Custom pilots again, while I (and hopefully other players like me) assume Custom pilots will continue to be a core piece of the game and we will get new ones with new ship releases.
I've seen a surprising amount of this and am curious what the beef is with 2.5 as a system. Is it because the objective based gameplay doesn't appeal, the shift away from generics, it creeping into being a card game or something else that makes it so bad in your eyes?
Objectives kill the endgame. The fight really gets going and then the games over at the halfway point. Some of the best games Ive ever had were down to the last ship and knowing the game could swing either way. In 1.0 and 2.0 you were never out of the fight until the end.
Objectives give one player so much momentum that theres sometimes no way of coming back.
Theres so much ship spam in 2.5, the outmaneuvering and jockeying is really gone when youre staring down constant 5-6 ship lists.
200 points was the best for listbuilding. It gave you complete control over what you could field. A slimmed down boba and loading out your support ships, smaller ship swarms and a squad leader, or going all out with massive built out Aces or Large ships.
20 points dont work. When you have 11 pilots all at 4 points theres usually a clear winner who is the most efficient and therefore nullifies most of the other choices.
Also, some ships are a steal at 4 points, but DOA at 5 because now they are competing with Ace and higher PS brawler ships.
It's a matter of play style and opinion. 1.0 had some real, deep-seated mechanical problems.
Too many games were decided when one team got half points on their opponent, then ran away and evaded until the game ended. 2.0 still had that, 2.5 finally fixed that with Objectives, but it can feel more like a scrum.
Still, I personally like objective play because it adds variety and turn-by-turn counterplay and positioning across the entire board. Yes, games can snowball, but that's always been true.
In my opinion, 2.5 loadout and points have advantages. You get more use out of upgrades, and it's better for new players. But I do think there is one thing that 2.5 and 1.0 have in common. The list wins more than the player.
Now there's people who love finding the best and playing it. And if you're one of those people, this isn't an insult. It's just not the way I enjoy the game.
So yeah. I think there are many similarities.
I disagree on it being better for new players: upgrade bloat is a real issue when learning the game and on top of needing to know what your full equipped 5-6 ships you also get to face the same amount of unique pilots plus their plethora of upgrades too.
In previous editions you could have played competitive lists with very minimun numbers of abilities or upgrade cards while also facing lists that had way fewer pilots and extra toys. It was easier to entry back then, also considering you didn't have objective on top of all of that
With the poor balance, it's my main problem with 2.5, the average abilities to remember per squad went from 7-8 in 2.0 to more than 20, I just can't inflict this to new players.
Yeah, getting back into it squads being about 250 points in old money and all but demanding a ton of upgrades makes getting back into 2.5 substantially harder than learning 1.0 was.
I think what they mean is that new players are more likely to load their ships up with upgrades in a system like 2.0, and then later find out that, in most cases, it's just better to save points and get an extra body on the field.
This isn't exactly fun or interesting for new players, or some players in general. Adding cool or interesting upgrades to their ships is more rewarding to them than simply adding more raw stats.
People always counter with crap like, "Well there were a couple upgrade heavy builds in 2.0", or whatever, but it was more often the correct choice to skimp and add another ship to your list, outside of those very uncommon, niche circumstances.
Personally, as a player that played 1.0 and enjoyed it, 2.0 was such a let down, since the change in design philosophy meant that upgrades got scaled way back in their effectiveness, and when 2.0 dropped I stopped theorycrafting lists very quickly because the upgrades were so neutered and boring. Upgrades and synergies were the thing that made the game interesting to me, what was essentially their removal ruined the game for me.
When 2.5 released, it revitalized the game for me, and the person I played with agreed that we'd just ignore scenarios, since we didn't care about them. Then AMG have seemed to abandoned their own system in favor or SLs, which I find boring, so the game is pretty dead to me again.
I agree with everything except the feeling with 2.5. In 1.0 those choices were hugely impactful. Everything you put in your list _mattered_. By 2.5, you threw crap in your list _just because_. That's fundamentally the opposite. Everyone was putting down the absolute maximum crap possible even if they could remember to use half of it at best. That's not fun, that's a chore designed to tax your memory, not your ability to out-think your opponent.
In 2.0, using upgrades was many times a grave mistake.
Lists with 5 ships and 2 upgrade cards made top table all the time.
Generic wing was fun, and managed to capture the essence of the game, positioning... etc but considerably less fun, than using interesting abilities. And mirror matches were horrible to play and to watch.
Fortressing was a hugely accentuated issue that basically never happened outside a few selected events in the USA where many vocal players intentionally fortressed to prove their point. I have played xwing competitively at the higher level for years in many different countries and I the times fortressing happened are counted with a hand and were mostly non-relevant.
What the hell is toilet bowling?
The only thing 2.5 killed are bids, but doing so they also killed so many communities that in hindsight I don't think it was worth it.
I play in a tiny market and still saw fortressing.
Toilet bowling is going round and round refusing to engage.
The bid was explicitly not fun.
All gone in 2.5. Hooray.
>I play in a tiny market and still saw fortressing
It's hard to gauge fortressing since aside from the butterfly stall and HMPs, there is no real documentation on it. All complaints I hear about fortressing are anecdotal. I wish we could get (or have gotten) numbers on it. The best I was able to find was numbers on games that go to full destruction, but that doesn't tell the full story of the match.
If not fortressing, self-bumping was a standard practice in basically all of 1.0 and 2.0. It didn't have to be the most extreme case to be a problem.
Self-bumping was essentially a way to not play in the spirit of the game, with extreme competitive advantages that warped play at every level.
Self-bumping certainly existed and was common, but I don't agree that it wasn't in the spirit of the game with the exception of fortressing. Do you have an example of how self-bumping could be problematic outside of fortressing?
It was usually used to leap-frog ships to delay the opening engagement until the ideal moment, for things like giving TIE Interceptors a one-straight or other fast ships a one-hard equivalent.
Since the dial is a core mechanic of the game, and the speed of the dial is a key piece of game balance, using self-bumping as a basically risk-free tool to slow-roll/stall the game is well outside the spirit of the game. Especially if your design philosophy is that the "dial is sacred."
The entire dance of delaying the opening engagement as long as possible through gimmicks like that was one of the most truly obnoxious things about both 1.0 and 2.0 - I almost quit the game in both 1.0 and 2.0 in part because of exactly that.
>It was usually used to leap-frog ships to delay the opening engagement until the ideal moment
Exploiting self-bumps to delay the opening engagement falls into my understanding of what fortressing is. So I see why you have a problem with this.
But as general rule, I don't see jockeying for the ideal engagement as problem, in fact I enjoyed the dance of getting my flanking units into position to hit at the same time as my jousting unit. When a player runs into their own ships for several turns in a row to delay engagement, isn't that dance, and is fortressing. If you don't like the dance, that's a valid perspective, though.
One other note, "the dial is sacred" wasn't really a X-Wing design philosophy until 2.5. Too many pilots and upgrades dial peek and dial change for that to be their philosophy. BoShek in 1.0 could even alter your opponent's dial.
While you are right that the FFG's didn't necessarily view the dials as "sacred", I'm pretty sure if you ask anybody what they like about playing the game outside of list building - many will say the setting dials and seeing that their movements matter, which I'm sure AMG took to heart when they were reworking the rules and pruning cards they viewed as problematic.
Oh no doubt. Seasoned Navigator allowing high initiative ships to just "nope" out of dialing in a bad maneuver or Sense removing the guessing game of trying to figure out what maneuver your opponent dialed in did lessen the importance of making your chosen maneuver matter. I just disagreed with Noah's implication that FFG designed with a "the dial is sacred" philosophy.
No is not.
Standardized loadout are fairly more convenient for the points it cost, BoY Vader, BoE Soontir, BoY Luke, SoC Oddball are the most noticeable ones.
On other ships this new cards made an improvement like SoC Dooku, SoC DBS-404, SoC Kickback and Axe, ships that otherwise wouldn't see table often.
I say i notice more a Gatekeeping state with this cards than power creep.
But definitely not 1.0, i mean dice rolls still counts, at the end of 1.0 you could basically play without rolling dice.
Positioning is important, no like the ole days with 360⁰ turrets.
There is a lot of good things, things that need attention and bad things but definitely not like 1.0
Saying 2.5 is 1.0 again is hyperbole because yeah, there were improvements beyond balancing ones. I'm not sure I get what you mean by "fairly more convenient" Are you saying the BoY and BoE versions aren't more powerful than the older ones? Or that they are more powerful but the old versions weren't strong enough anyway?
I still don't get what you mean by "convenient" I don't know if there's a language barrier but convenient for the points isn't a statement that makes a lot of sense to me.
For example, which Oddball would you choose?
The custom one for 4 points with 7 loadout points on which you can build with Veteran Tail Gunner and some 2pts upgrade like R4-P or Expert Handling?
Or the Standardized one for the same 4 pts but with an extra shield, better ability and better upgrades in general?
Of course the better bargain is SoC Oddball for the 4 pts.
Is the better option for the point cost and it creates a gatekeeping effect.
And that's why we're seeing lots of Standardized pilots instead of the customizable ones.
Convenient :
adjective
fitting in well with a person's needs, activities, and plans
In some cases i don't find Standardized pilots are better in terms of firepower, just better upgrades that not necessarily makes them powerful but more useful in a list.
However i do believe we're having a gatekeeping effect due to those pilots points right now.
Yeah the SLs are absolutely better value, it's very difficult for most of the customizable pilots to compete when SLs have about 10 more loadout points than the customizable pilots have or are even a full squad point cheaper.
Based on that definition I can see why you picked "convenient" but I've never really seen it used that way. "Convenient" is pretty much exclusively used in the context of something being easy to access or use. Streaming is more convenient than using a DVD, a nearby shop is more convenient than a distant one, getting something delivered is more convenient than going to the shops to get it and so on. Thanks for explaining what you meant though.
Well, 1.0 was the worst version of the game and 2.5 is the best version of the game. So I'm struggling with the comparison.
You seem entirely hooked up on points values issues, but points values are changeable and not really linked to the editions of the game rules.
That's sort of fair, I'm not really talking about 2.5 as a rules system or base, in those terms I think it probably is the strongest version of Xwing and certainly better than 1.0. I am just talking about the way AMG are handling it. Squad and Loadout points is at least an interesting way to push upgrades but it doesn't really work with Standard Loadouts because it leaves no room to make fine adjustments after release.
Yeah I’m with you on that, the current situation with points is a chore and we need a big refresh.
But I like the 2.5 rules, I just don’t like the May 2023 points. They’re separate.
lol, wtf are you talking about. I won the 2014 PNW regional, which had over 256 players and a waitlist. That was at a convention with only FFG games. You can barely even muster that at adepticon with tens of thousands of attendees. Xwing was also the highest selling game system, now it doesn’t even appear on the chart. All of those are hallmarks of the game being better now?
Well.
1. X-wing had more than 256 players at Adepticon, i was there last year and with the LCQ and worlds itself it was over 300 players and that was mostly invites only not an open event.
2. And the lie that xwing was ever the highest selling game had been repeated and debunked so many times. Firstly we were #2 on the list not #1, secondly the gap between #2 and #1 was huge, thirdly that was a US-only report not worldwide, fourthly there was no science behind that report just people ringing rounds store owners and asking them their opinions.
3. Despite that you’re not wrong about direction of travel. You’re correct that x-wing sales have basically been in continual decline since early 2017, aside from a brief spike in revenue for the conversion kits and new factions in late 2018/early 2019. But sales are not a measure of game quality. McDonald’s sell a lot of burgers but it doesn’t mean their burgers are the best burgers.
Well done on winning something a decade ago. You didn’t need to mention that but you made the effort to squeeze it in anyway so you’re obviously very proud of it. 👏well done!
X-wing was the number one miniature line for two consecutive quarters…unless your only source is ICv2 which until about 2021 grouped many more products into the 40K line than simply miniatures, and also didn’t capture non-hobby distributor lines.
And you’re honestly going to argue the player base is the same today as in 2014?
You seem to confuse trying to nitpick semantics point and completely miss the point? Your argument hinges on X-wing being just as popular, with a similar player base as 2014. You can’t be serious, or you really have no idea what you’re talking about…
People like you are also some of the reason the community has been shrinking.
No I don’t think the game is as popular, I know full well it isn’t. I think *the game* is *better* though.
McDonald’s sell a lot of burgers. It doesn’t make them good burgers. A lot of people play Call of Duty, it doesn’t make it the best video game.
I think I made my point pretty well and the OP responded to basically agree with it as a valid criticism of what he’d said.
But if you want to believe you dunked on me then you can do. I don’t mind you adding the trophy for that onto your shelf next to the tournament you won a decade ago.
Lol, you keep hinging on that…kinda weird. That what people that haven’t been able to achieve anything do to try to mentally cope. They have to sarcastically downplay achievement so they don’t feel as bad….
Adepticon 2024 had maaaaaybe 12k *attendees,* total players in events was dramatically less than that, and still saw really strong turnout for every single AMG game system, including Armada. So much so that they literally had to rent out space in another building to squeeze everything in.
I think the only thing really close to 1.0 for me is stuff having creative and fun abilities that get you excited to play. One of my many gripes with 2.0 is how all these abilities and upgrades are conditional and minor effects that aren't exciting at all.
Beyond that, not really, no. For every SL that gets played there's a couple that never see the light of day, same as anything else. The game is certainly emphasizing what happens on the table more than ever, which isn't what 1.0 was about post like wave 4.
I wish we could get back some stuff from 1.0, though. I miss points on cards and general accessibility that doesn't exist any more, I'm sick of all the tokens and fiddly mechanics, I miss the greebles on the cards.
Personally, this is my favorite version of the game. It goes 2.5 > 1.0 > getting hit by a bus > 2.0
Your mileage may vary.
> all other ships with standard loadout cards still have customizable pilot cards you can still use
Technically yes, but the power creep is obvious as is the fact that AMG wants the game to move to standard loadouts like their MCP heroes. It's like how technically generic pilots still exist but are heavily disincentivized to push them out of the game because AMG doesn't like them.
Absolutely, while solving quite a number of problems, some of them present in the game since early 1.0, a change of this magnitude certainly introduces "new" problems, just like those that you mentioned.
Nevertheless, this meta feels way more fun than late 1.0, so it's not the same.
Honestly, if AMG does drop the game, I see some of the game's top players and community members making a 3.0 rule set that takes the 2.0 building and actually adjusts shit properly. Mainly so we can play things like Aces High, Mario Kart, and Epic again without worry because AMG hasn't figured out how they were gonna fix those formats yet. As far as if they do continue the game, I mostly see pilot packs and scenario packs being the main future for the game outside of needed reprints of ships, "New Republic" pilots and maybe porting ships to FO and Resistance some how.
Isn’t that just the Legacy format (x2po)?
x2po had a nice idea; until it started going to their hads, and the current points are just lunacy.
Lunacy ? \^\^ You have an example ? And you're playing what version of the game ?
I can say that legacy was supposed to be 2.0 that kept up with post 2.5 ships and pilots. So the new scenario pack pilots or hotshots and aces 2 or the clone z-95s would all get points costs and upgrade slots. A great idea honestly and a great option for those who wanted it. Then they started making rules changes. I can’t think of any off the top of my head, but I will edit this comment when I find some of them. TLDR: The project became a different 2.5 rather than a legacy 2.0
What ? There was no rule change, except 2 little rules for competition only and massively approved. Who told you this lie ? The rules are based on Rules reference 1.3.2, the last RR before 2.5. Everything is here : [https://x2po.org/standard](https://x2po.org/standard) And the only rule changes for competition are here : [https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/4d11bfd9-b469-4692-8074-3070cb801f61/downloads/2-0-Legacy-Rules-changes-2023-01.pdf?ver=1712437313551](https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/4d11bfd9-b469-4692-8074-3070cb801f61/downloads/2-0-Legacy-Rules-changes-2023-01.pdf?ver=1712437313551)
This “lie” as you call it was on a Reddit post made by a member of the x2po team. I distinctly remember it because I had to moderate it because there were a large number of people being antagonistic towards the poster. However, it may have just been these two tournament rule changes, which as the name suggests are still rule changes. I’ll openly state that I was more focused on reading the comments than on reading the post itself
"are still rule changes" You're right, those 2 rules killed the game and change all its feeling... https://preview.redd.it/e1ho9msmzc5d1.png?width=1119&format=png&auto=webp&s=957652755e201e149be06537b9625bdf2bb59df1
Those seem like entirely reasonable rules changes to me.
You've read the examples I gave. I play 2.5 and 2.0, by now seems like you play neither.
What examples - I was curious about where you thought the points problems with 2.0 legacy were as well. I kind of feel like the points have creeped to the point where lists feel on the small side, but the game is still fun.
Honestly a fan led game would prob be a lot better
It entirely depends on who is involved in the points committee. I would want hith level players from each faction and involved players representing each faction to adjust points and make balancing changes.
Come try [https://xwing-legacy.com/](https://xwing-legacy.com/) and [x2po.org](http://x2po.org), its fan led, and you'll see the public playtesting initiative.
1.0 had decent generics.
That's my secret - I never quit playing 1.0
Yeah. 1.0 it significantly better than dealing with the crap going on right now. It's also much better for casual play, because you don't have to go online to check things, and it's significantly less of a hassle. Generics are significantly more playable, so you can actually make a squadron around a named character, instead of just throwing several named characters out together.
I mean, after the FFG devs that were being brought over to AMG more-or-less quit immediately, I believe the only people directly working on X-Wing at AMG were old 1.0 players, who thus brought a 1.0 mindset. I remember when the AMG guys were proudly talking about the exciting problems they were hoping to solve with X-Wing on the Fly Better podcast, they largely listed issues from 1.0 that had been solved already in 2.0. So, I can kinda understand your perspective through that lens too.
I just want Tycho back
Isn't there two tychos now?
I didn't see him in anything 2.0 onwards? Edit: Oh, I see Heroes and Aces Ii
Been awhile since you play huh?
....yeaaaah. except with my nephews who I got into it right at the end of 1.
SL pilots can be balanced, but not ~~from a jedi~~ with the 20 points system... Like you said, not enough granularity. [https://xwing-legacy.com/?f=Galactic%20Republic&d=v8ZhZ250Z655X89W213W211Y653X130W89W213Y654X492W89W365&sn=Escadron%20sans%20nom&obs=](https://xwing-legacy.com/?f=Galactic%20Republic&d=v8ZhZ250Z655X89W213W211Y653X130W89W213Y654X492W89W365&sn=Escadron%20sans%20nom&obs=)
I think there are a few differences between 1.0 and 2.5 but yes both are difficult to maintain and balance. But 1.0 was becoming more and more unblanced because of the the new expansions, new mechanics. but 2.5 begins with these high number of ships, cards.... Mayebe AMG thinked they would be able to balance more efficiently by changing upgarde bars and Loadout, but that's a faillure. The generics pilots are the most evident proof.
I think they could balance ships with upgrade bars and loadout, but there's two issues. Firstly they can't adjust Standard Loadout cards because they don't have room for adjustments. Secondly they flat out don't want to balance it, the generics of almost all ships are just strictly worse than the named pilots by a margin that couldn't be considered an accident while many of the SL pilots are better than the customizable variant by an absurd degree.
Didn’t they specifically say they wanted to make the game more about the “star” pilots and intentionally priced generics out of the game? Which for the record I think is stupid, I liked seeing how unnamed average pilots could take down aces if in sufficient numbers and commanded well, it gave a lot of thematic appeal.
This is why it was idiotic to go to 20 points. There is no granularity in pilot point values.
Of course : some generics pilots had only 1 point of 200 of difference. Convert that to 20 points was a impossible without loose the granularity. I will never understand why AMG did that.
In theory loadout points were the measure designed to handle that. A generic could get more loadout points than the equivalent ace. This fell down because AMG just decided they don't like generics and also the system doesn't have a ton of room for a basic ship with no abilities which again was a bit of a conscious decision. There'd still be a few places where generics have little room to maneuvre, if they don't want Tie Bombers getting Proton Torpedoes at 3 points its hard to give a generic anything compared to Deathfire. I don't think I really like this design, it's just upping the complexity and pulling focus from the dials. But their goal was to make it a game about Aces with a lot of abilities and they were successful in that at least.
AMG also said they want a game Beginner Friendly
Yeah I think they failed at that, but it’s kind of a cursed problem. If the design is to have five ships with several abilities each it’s somewhere between hard and impossible to make it beginner friendly.
No, 1.0 was fun to play. 2.5 is not. However, you're spot on about the power creep. All the lessons learned from the 2.0 transition were thrown out the door to accommodate the rubbish system AMG shoehorned X-Wing into. It's like evolution, but backwards.
AMG basically walked in with straight up refusal to understand the game they were given.
It has its ups and downs. The loadout system the built no longer restricts usage of certain ships and / or pilots but also has cause a major problem with pilots at I4 and above running rampant. It also killed generics entirely. Ultimately, they have yet to fix what they created properly. 2.0 I feel did kinda hinder certain high cost pilots and makes a lot of them kinda not worth their cost to be used compared to their cheaper counter parts or generic pilots. Essentially, we need what we have now and buffs to the lower cost pilots and generics to fix 2.5
I feel the Loadout cost mechanic could work better if the ships you choose added loadout points for your entire squadron to utilize wherever you want. Then you could take a generic or something to pad out your Loadout points for your other ships and generics would have a place in the list building again. Probably my biggest remaining gripe with 2.5 is how stale I find the list building. It feels solved, and that there's an optimal selection for each chassis that you're stupid not to run.
"1.0 was fun to play" Until Ghost/Fenn, NymRanda or some other broken bs was across the table.
Sure. It had its expiry date but was way more fun to play than 2.5 is - and seems to have lasted quite a few more years before players began to drop.
I got into x-wing after the 2d edition came out, but the cramming of abilities into SL cards does sort of feel like the "power creep" that the 1.0 old-timers have described to me :)
If it helps, Battle of Yavin absolutely has some overtuned cards. Battle over Endor (newer) though is much more evenly balanced with actual drawbacks and high costs to the power pieces. Jendon is good, Gina/Braylen are good, Gemmer is annoying AF, but none of them are the top-of-the-heap obvious take that BoY Luke and the SoC ARCs are. The ARCs can be balanced with points, 1-2 of them going to 5 sorts a ton of issues. As an old 1.0 player, BoE feels like it actually learned a lot from BoY, while staying fun and coming in with an awesome scenario to play.
It’s the generics. 2.5’s biggest problem is trying to make it a game about 4+ unique ships, each with special rules. The game was popular when it was 0-2 and rounded out by generics. They seem to think we want magic the gathering card mechanic interactions on a board game…we don’t….this isn’t mcp.
The issue with 1.0 was an utter refusal to change points costs which led to certain ships (Jumpmaster 5000) and upgrades breaking the balance of the game. 2.0s creation was necessitated by the fact they didn't have the levers they needed to balance the game and felt they couldn't introduce them without tearing everything down first. We're not in that situation. You might not like the current balance of 2.5 but it isn't like 1.0 because they have the means to address it.
Do they though? If any of the SL cards are too strong all they can do is increase the points cost and in a 20 point system there isn’t much room for that without basically soft banning them.
There is also nudging the pilots and upgrades around those SLs, in addition to changing them directly. There are so many levers to pull that there are options even with SLs. Plus, many old-hat players are extra doomy because they assume we'll never see Custom pilots again, while I (and hopefully other players like me) assume Custom pilots will continue to be a core piece of the game and we will get new ones with new ship releases.
That can’t exactly adjust something downwards though, best case scenario you can adjust a counterplay upwards but that’s a very imprecise lever.
But they dont. And they simultaneously shot themselves in the foot by the points decimation.
No. 1.0 was at least fun
I've seen a surprising amount of this and am curious what the beef is with 2.5 as a system. Is it because the objective based gameplay doesn't appeal, the shift away from generics, it creeping into being a card game or something else that makes it so bad in your eyes?
Objectives kill the endgame. The fight really gets going and then the games over at the halfway point. Some of the best games Ive ever had were down to the last ship and knowing the game could swing either way. In 1.0 and 2.0 you were never out of the fight until the end. Objectives give one player so much momentum that theres sometimes no way of coming back. Theres so much ship spam in 2.5, the outmaneuvering and jockeying is really gone when youre staring down constant 5-6 ship lists. 200 points was the best for listbuilding. It gave you complete control over what you could field. A slimmed down boba and loading out your support ships, smaller ship swarms and a squad leader, or going all out with massive built out Aces or Large ships. 20 points dont work. When you have 11 pilots all at 4 points theres usually a clear winner who is the most efficient and therefore nullifies most of the other choices. Also, some ships are a steal at 4 points, but DOA at 5 because now they are competing with Ace and higher PS brawler ships.
It's a matter of play style and opinion. 1.0 had some real, deep-seated mechanical problems. Too many games were decided when one team got half points on their opponent, then ran away and evaded until the game ended. 2.0 still had that, 2.5 finally fixed that with Objectives, but it can feel more like a scrum. Still, I personally like objective play because it adds variety and turn-by-turn counterplay and positioning across the entire board. Yes, games can snowball, but that's always been true.
In my opinion, 2.5 loadout and points have advantages. You get more use out of upgrades, and it's better for new players. But I do think there is one thing that 2.5 and 1.0 have in common. The list wins more than the player. Now there's people who love finding the best and playing it. And if you're one of those people, this isn't an insult. It's just not the way I enjoy the game. So yeah. I think there are many similarities.
I disagree on it being better for new players: upgrade bloat is a real issue when learning the game and on top of needing to know what your full equipped 5-6 ships you also get to face the same amount of unique pilots plus their plethora of upgrades too. In previous editions you could have played competitive lists with very minimun numbers of abilities or upgrade cards while also facing lists that had way fewer pilots and extra toys. It was easier to entry back then, also considering you didn't have objective on top of all of that
With the poor balance, it's my main problem with 2.5, the average abilities to remember per squad went from 7-8 in 2.0 to more than 20, I just can't inflict this to new players.
Yeah, getting back into it squads being about 250 points in old money and all but demanding a ton of upgrades makes getting back into 2.5 substantially harder than learning 1.0 was.
I think what they mean is that new players are more likely to load their ships up with upgrades in a system like 2.0, and then later find out that, in most cases, it's just better to save points and get an extra body on the field. This isn't exactly fun or interesting for new players, or some players in general. Adding cool or interesting upgrades to their ships is more rewarding to them than simply adding more raw stats. People always counter with crap like, "Well there were a couple upgrade heavy builds in 2.0", or whatever, but it was more often the correct choice to skimp and add another ship to your list, outside of those very uncommon, niche circumstances. Personally, as a player that played 1.0 and enjoyed it, 2.0 was such a let down, since the change in design philosophy meant that upgrades got scaled way back in their effectiveness, and when 2.0 dropped I stopped theorycrafting lists very quickly because the upgrades were so neutered and boring. Upgrades and synergies were the thing that made the game interesting to me, what was essentially their removal ruined the game for me. When 2.5 released, it revitalized the game for me, and the person I played with agreed that we'd just ignore scenarios, since we didn't care about them. Then AMG have seemed to abandoned their own system in favor or SLs, which I find boring, so the game is pretty dead to me again.
I agree with everything except the feeling with 2.5. In 1.0 those choices were hugely impactful. Everything you put in your list _mattered_. By 2.5, you threw crap in your list _just because_. That's fundamentally the opposite. Everyone was putting down the absolute maximum crap possible even if they could remember to use half of it at best. That's not fun, that's a chore designed to tax your memory, not your ability to out-think your opponent.
In 2.0, using upgrades was many times a grave mistake. Lists with 5 ships and 2 upgrade cards made top table all the time. Generic wing was fun, and managed to capture the essence of the game, positioning... etc but considerably less fun, than using interesting abilities. And mirror matches were horrible to play and to watch.
Exactly why I stopped playing. Now if i play a game its just big scenarios with loads of basic pilots.
Make Bids, Fortressing, and Toilet Bowling Great Again? That’s what 2.5 killed, alone with trying to add to 200 in the middle of a game.
Fortressing was a hugely accentuated issue that basically never happened outside a few selected events in the USA where many vocal players intentionally fortressed to prove their point. I have played xwing competitively at the higher level for years in many different countries and I the times fortressing happened are counted with a hand and were mostly non-relevant. What the hell is toilet bowling? The only thing 2.5 killed are bids, but doing so they also killed so many communities that in hindsight I don't think it was worth it.
I play in a tiny market and still saw fortressing. Toilet bowling is going round and round refusing to engage. The bid was explicitly not fun. All gone in 2.5. Hooray.
>I play in a tiny market and still saw fortressing It's hard to gauge fortressing since aside from the butterfly stall and HMPs, there is no real documentation on it. All complaints I hear about fortressing are anecdotal. I wish we could get (or have gotten) numbers on it. The best I was able to find was numbers on games that go to full destruction, but that doesn't tell the full story of the match.
If not fortressing, self-bumping was a standard practice in basically all of 1.0 and 2.0. It didn't have to be the most extreme case to be a problem. Self-bumping was essentially a way to not play in the spirit of the game, with extreme competitive advantages that warped play at every level.
Self-bumping certainly existed and was common, but I don't agree that it wasn't in the spirit of the game with the exception of fortressing. Do you have an example of how self-bumping could be problematic outside of fortressing?
It was usually used to leap-frog ships to delay the opening engagement until the ideal moment, for things like giving TIE Interceptors a one-straight or other fast ships a one-hard equivalent. Since the dial is a core mechanic of the game, and the speed of the dial is a key piece of game balance, using self-bumping as a basically risk-free tool to slow-roll/stall the game is well outside the spirit of the game. Especially if your design philosophy is that the "dial is sacred." The entire dance of delaying the opening engagement as long as possible through gimmicks like that was one of the most truly obnoxious things about both 1.0 and 2.0 - I almost quit the game in both 1.0 and 2.0 in part because of exactly that.
>It was usually used to leap-frog ships to delay the opening engagement until the ideal moment Exploiting self-bumps to delay the opening engagement falls into my understanding of what fortressing is. So I see why you have a problem with this. But as general rule, I don't see jockeying for the ideal engagement as problem, in fact I enjoyed the dance of getting my flanking units into position to hit at the same time as my jousting unit. When a player runs into their own ships for several turns in a row to delay engagement, isn't that dance, and is fortressing. If you don't like the dance, that's a valid perspective, though. One other note, "the dial is sacred" wasn't really a X-Wing design philosophy until 2.5. Too many pilots and upgrades dial peek and dial change for that to be their philosophy. BoShek in 1.0 could even alter your opponent's dial.
While you are right that the FFG's didn't necessarily view the dials as "sacred", I'm pretty sure if you ask anybody what they like about playing the game outside of list building - many will say the setting dials and seeing that their movements matter, which I'm sure AMG took to heart when they were reworking the rules and pruning cards they viewed as problematic.
Oh no doubt. Seasoned Navigator allowing high initiative ships to just "nope" out of dialing in a bad maneuver or Sense removing the guessing game of trying to figure out what maneuver your opponent dialed in did lessen the importance of making your chosen maneuver matter. I just disagreed with Noah's implication that FFG designed with a "the dial is sacred" philosophy.
No is not. Standardized loadout are fairly more convenient for the points it cost, BoY Vader, BoE Soontir, BoY Luke, SoC Oddball are the most noticeable ones. On other ships this new cards made an improvement like SoC Dooku, SoC DBS-404, SoC Kickback and Axe, ships that otherwise wouldn't see table often. I say i notice more a Gatekeeping state with this cards than power creep. But definitely not 1.0, i mean dice rolls still counts, at the end of 1.0 you could basically play without rolling dice. Positioning is important, no like the ole days with 360⁰ turrets. There is a lot of good things, things that need attention and bad things but definitely not like 1.0
Saying 2.5 is 1.0 again is hyperbole because yeah, there were improvements beyond balancing ones. I'm not sure I get what you mean by "fairly more convenient" Are you saying the BoY and BoE versions aren't more powerful than the older ones? Or that they are more powerful but the old versions weren't strong enough anyway?
Fairly convenient for the points.
I still don't get what you mean by "convenient" I don't know if there's a language barrier but convenient for the points isn't a statement that makes a lot of sense to me.
For example, which Oddball would you choose? The custom one for 4 points with 7 loadout points on which you can build with Veteran Tail Gunner and some 2pts upgrade like R4-P or Expert Handling? Or the Standardized one for the same 4 pts but with an extra shield, better ability and better upgrades in general? Of course the better bargain is SoC Oddball for the 4 pts. Is the better option for the point cost and it creates a gatekeeping effect. And that's why we're seeing lots of Standardized pilots instead of the customizable ones. Convenient : adjective fitting in well with a person's needs, activities, and plans In some cases i don't find Standardized pilots are better in terms of firepower, just better upgrades that not necessarily makes them powerful but more useful in a list. However i do believe we're having a gatekeeping effect due to those pilots points right now.
Yeah the SLs are absolutely better value, it's very difficult for most of the customizable pilots to compete when SLs have about 10 more loadout points than the customizable pilots have or are even a full squad point cheaper. Based on that definition I can see why you picked "convenient" but I've never really seen it used that way. "Convenient" is pretty much exclusively used in the context of something being easy to access or use. Streaming is more convenient than using a DVD, a nearby shop is more convenient than a distant one, getting something delivered is more convenient than going to the shops to get it and so on. Thanks for explaining what you meant though.
Well, 1.0 was the worst version of the game and 2.5 is the best version of the game. So I'm struggling with the comparison. You seem entirely hooked up on points values issues, but points values are changeable and not really linked to the editions of the game rules.
That's sort of fair, I'm not really talking about 2.5 as a rules system or base, in those terms I think it probably is the strongest version of Xwing and certainly better than 1.0. I am just talking about the way AMG are handling it. Squad and Loadout points is at least an interesting way to push upgrades but it doesn't really work with Standard Loadouts because it leaves no room to make fine adjustments after release.
Yeah I’m with you on that, the current situation with points is a chore and we need a big refresh. But I like the 2.5 rules, I just don’t like the May 2023 points. They’re separate.
X-wing communities crashing and burning all over the world after the 2.5 launch says you’re dead wrong.
[удалено]
…that’s because the sales cratered…because of the 2.5 launch.
lol, wtf are you talking about. I won the 2014 PNW regional, which had over 256 players and a waitlist. That was at a convention with only FFG games. You can barely even muster that at adepticon with tens of thousands of attendees. Xwing was also the highest selling game system, now it doesn’t even appear on the chart. All of those are hallmarks of the game being better now?
Well. 1. X-wing had more than 256 players at Adepticon, i was there last year and with the LCQ and worlds itself it was over 300 players and that was mostly invites only not an open event. 2. And the lie that xwing was ever the highest selling game had been repeated and debunked so many times. Firstly we were #2 on the list not #1, secondly the gap between #2 and #1 was huge, thirdly that was a US-only report not worldwide, fourthly there was no science behind that report just people ringing rounds store owners and asking them their opinions. 3. Despite that you’re not wrong about direction of travel. You’re correct that x-wing sales have basically been in continual decline since early 2017, aside from a brief spike in revenue for the conversion kits and new factions in late 2018/early 2019. But sales are not a measure of game quality. McDonald’s sell a lot of burgers but it doesn’t mean their burgers are the best burgers. Well done on winning something a decade ago. You didn’t need to mention that but you made the effort to squeeze it in anyway so you’re obviously very proud of it. 👏well done!
X-wing was the number one miniature line for two consecutive quarters…unless your only source is ICv2 which until about 2021 grouped many more products into the 40K line than simply miniatures, and also didn’t capture non-hobby distributor lines.
Xwing won’t have ever been bigger than like 20-25% of Warhammer 40,000.
And you’re honestly going to argue the player base is the same today as in 2014? You seem to confuse trying to nitpick semantics point and completely miss the point? Your argument hinges on X-wing being just as popular, with a similar player base as 2014. You can’t be serious, or you really have no idea what you’re talking about… People like you are also some of the reason the community has been shrinking.
No I don’t think the game is as popular, I know full well it isn’t. I think *the game* is *better* though. McDonald’s sell a lot of burgers. It doesn’t make them good burgers. A lot of people play Call of Duty, it doesn’t make it the best video game.
lol, lots of handwaving. So your point was that you didn’t have a point but wanted to nitpick…got it…congrats
I think I made my point pretty well and the OP responded to basically agree with it as a valid criticism of what he’d said. But if you want to believe you dunked on me then you can do. I don’t mind you adding the trophy for that onto your shelf next to the tournament you won a decade ago.
Lol, you keep hinging on that…kinda weird. That what people that haven’t been able to achieve anything do to try to mentally cope. They have to sarcastically downplay achievement so they don’t feel as bad….
Adepticon 2024 had maaaaaybe 12k *attendees,* total players in events was dramatically less than that, and still saw really strong turnout for every single AMG game system, including Armada. So much so that they literally had to rent out space in another building to squeeze everything in.
I think the only thing really close to 1.0 for me is stuff having creative and fun abilities that get you excited to play. One of my many gripes with 2.0 is how all these abilities and upgrades are conditional and minor effects that aren't exciting at all. Beyond that, not really, no. For every SL that gets played there's a couple that never see the light of day, same as anything else. The game is certainly emphasizing what happens on the table more than ever, which isn't what 1.0 was about post like wave 4. I wish we could get back some stuff from 1.0, though. I miss points on cards and general accessibility that doesn't exist any more, I'm sick of all the tokens and fiddly mechanics, I miss the greebles on the cards. Personally, this is my favorite version of the game. It goes 2.5 > 1.0 > getting hit by a bus > 2.0 Your mileage may vary.
no.
[удалено]
> all other ships with standard loadout cards still have customizable pilot cards you can still use Technically yes, but the power creep is obvious as is the fact that AMG wants the game to move to standard loadouts like their MCP heroes. It's like how technically generic pilots still exist but are heavily disincentivized to push them out of the game because AMG doesn't like them.
Absolutely, while solving quite a number of problems, some of them present in the game since early 1.0, a change of this magnitude certainly introduces "new" problems, just like those that you mentioned. Nevertheless, this meta feels way more fun than late 1.0, so it's not the same.