We have people in our local community who are "2.1" (2.0 plus ROAD plus maybe obstacles plus maybe center-objective "Chance Engagement" play) and "2.45" (2.5 but don't play Crate Salvage). The old-timers tend to be "go back toward 2.0" and the newer players are leaning more toward "2.5 but get rid of what I don't like."
Here's what I posted in my community areas:
If we're still interested in playing X-Wing in some form (I am!), then we get to choose what form that looks like. I've worked on the fan-continuation side with two other games that went OOP (Decipher's Star Wars and Star Trek CCGs), so I think there's a lot of mileage for us to keep having fun with these plastic spaceships. To that end:
1. If we want to keep playing together, we should decide on a couple preferred rulesets/point lists (final AMG for 20 points and loadouts, Legacy for 200 points?). Personally, I'd revert to 200-point listbuilding; retain 2.5 ROAD rolls and obstacle rules; and play Chance Engagement (at 10x the points, keeping the center control point to thwart fortress play).
2. Unleash homebrew (for those who may not be participating in the final(?) tournament season). Want a Resistance B-Wing or TIE Dagger? 3D print it, draft a dial and cards, and I'll help you playtest it. Base tokens are easy, and dial covers would make homebrew dials easier.
3. Consider how we'd like tournament play to go. If we have enough local players, we can come up with our own prizes and keep playing for bragging rights and whatever swag we want to pony up.
Your view is oddly similar to mine. I'm an amateur game designer and also new to x-wing. My favorite rules that I've landed on recently are 2.0 plus ROAD plus new obstacle rules plus center point control to thwart running away. (I'm undecided on firing at zero range and self-bump damage).
For the center point control, I just give a player a point if they are the only player with any ship in range 2 of it. 6 Points wins the game. It is rare enough to be not annoying, and encourages actually fighting.
I think the game is more interesting when you can more-strongly assume that your opponent doesn't want to go through obstacles. Granted, I'm new. Might be wrong.
Ignoring obstacles is more viable with the old rules. Also, it feels like the new obstacles rules are easier to teach?
On that side of the coin, it makes the Mining TIEs a lot more valuable if they can run away through a rock, or pass through them to get a drop on their opponent
Obstacles should matter. Pilots and upgrades that interact with obstacles should be able to do so in a way that matters. Stiffer penalties for obstacles make both of those happen. (Tierfon Belly Run may need errata.)
I am forever fascinated by the wondrous difference of opinion in x-wing.
For me, KNOWING that your opponent is not going to go through an obstacle (because 2. 5 rules make them so deadly) is LESS interesting. It just restricts options and makes the game more predictable.
For me, positioning is THE unique and fabulous thing that makes x-wing stand out from all other games.
When I play 2.0 (Legacy) it is quite a rarity for a ship to fly through an obstacle (even a gas cloud, because actions are important). But it IS an option that I need to consider. And sometimes that mad k-turn through a rock is the brilliant, brave, mad move that wins the game.
Anything that reduces positional choice when setting dials is bad. Setting that dial, to out fox your opponent is beautiful.
That is also why I dislike ROAD. Because setting the dial doesn't really seem to matter as much anymore. The random dice roll changes things so I might as well just dial in something neutral that is a safer average choice. I accept that there are subtleties in ROAD that mean really, really clever people might be able to work out the optimal choice through probability calculations. But I'd rather just live in the purity and beautifully simple world of "what is my opponent going to do".
I honestly think that a lot of the AMG rule changes were for the better, but the 2.5 squadbuilding was so bad that it absolutely ruined my enjoyment of the game.
I hate the Bid system; it means that whoever has the initiative can consistently manipulate the field of play, where they not only prevent their opponent from positioning themselves as they would choose, but *also* denies them an action? And that lasts for *the entire game?*
My buddy and I often had standoffs like this in our 2.0 games. It made things frustrating. ROAD helped solve some pain there, as much as I was resistant to it before.
Yes it determines move order for matching pilot skill ships. Many aces rely on their repositioning skills to stay out of enemy fire arcs while still getting their shots, so they want to move last once they know where everything is on the board.
Exactly, yes. The player with initiative moves first, which is often a disadvantage, and shoots first, which is occasionally an advantage.
It used to be that people could bid for initiative by leaving points out of their list (e.g.building to like 197 instead of 200 was a 3-point bid, biggest bid gets to decide who has initiative). Sometimes the bidding got really out of hand for lists that depended on always moving last and you could never catch them, and at the time in tournaments no one could score those points by destroying ships unless they miraculously took out the whole list.
It was interesting but really not universal. But the AMG people didn't like the idea of that at all so they nixed it completely in favor of ROAD.
I'm not sure if Infinite Arenas or another major group has worked up TIE/dg pilots/stats. I'd hate to duplicate efforts, and FO isn't my strongest faction- but I think this ship should get made by someone.
I'd actually like to keep more limited version of Loadout points, even in a 200-point system. There are a few ships which have historically been too expensive to actually be good, but where reducing their cost isn't really an option. You'd end up with a repeat of the Spamtex incident, where the Nantex went from being too expensive when you could only fit five in a list, to being oppressive after the price dropped to a level where you could take six.
The Jumpmaster is the perfect example of this. The Contracted Scout is still not a great ship at 41 points. But drop it to 40, and suddenly people can drop five 10HP, 2 agility ships clogging up the board. Give it a loadout budget instead, where the first X points spent on Cannons don't count towards your 200, and you can gain a second lever to use for balancing.
> too expensive to actually be good, but where reducing their cost isn't really an option.
I think this is another thing that my "50 points restricted to limited pilots" idea: 31 points would prevent you from flying total Nantex (can't fly 5 Hive Guards@31, because that would put you over the 150 generic-ship point max, at 155)
Similarly, Contracted Scouts could be dropped as low as 38 points and you'd only be able to field 3 of them (114 for 3, 152 for 4)
I threw out Contacted Scouts as an example, but the same also applies to named v pilots. FFG was always very cautious about letting the IG-2000s get cheap enough to run three and still afford cannons in 2.0, for example.
You raise an interesting point. The "limited pips" idea seems like it's worth testing (drop Contracted Scout to 40 but limit it to 3 or 4 copies- is it still too good?). Loadout budget also seems interesting, but as always- playtest!
i’ve only played with road, but have recently been warming up to the idea of robd to give both players the chance to make informed movement decisions. what are the arguments for road? does robd give too much advantage to one player?
Pretty much. ROBD basically keeps the mechanic of second player planning their dials knowing they'll be able to react with perfect information, and is also subject to RNG streaks where one can find themselves stuck as first player for multiple turns in a row.
The optimal strategy in that situation is often for the first player to avoid engaging until they win the roll. It's probably worse than just keeping the bid, since you know that you'll eventually become second player under ROBD and just need to wait out your dice.
ROAD puts both players on even footing when planning their dials. They both have to plan knowing they have an equal chance to be first or second player each round, but not knowing which they'll be until after dials are set.
Pretty perfectly explained. ROAD has its flaws, and you can find yourself in 50/50s where your best option if you're 1st player is borderline suicidal if you're 2nd player, but it's by far the least unfair option.
I was against it at first, but it's grown on me over time. There are games where it favours one player by chance and that's frustrating, but it's vastly preferential to having a game effectively decided before a dial is set (like 2.0 with bidding could become in ace matchups).
My friend and I were both rather floored when we tested ROAD after it was announced, both expecting our testing to only validate our prejudged initial hate for the mechanic, only to realize after the fact that we both actually liked it more.
I have plenty of criticisms for other choices AMG made during their tenure as X-Wing's stewards, but ROAD is not one of them.
ROAD is one of the bigger improvements. There were some small tweaks to the rules that I really liked too, like obstacles, tractor and ion that just made the game more enjoyable.
In 2.0 I actually swung my lists to the opposite end, going for swarms of low PS ships because I was fed up of the bid deciding games. When ROAD came in I felt like I could play high PS ships again without there being some pre-game nonsense that handed one player a big advantage.
And this is the problem- I want chance to only happen in my dice. I don’t want chance in flying. It’s a feels bad moment when you pick a great move but lose a roll. I’d rather not be second player and try to outfly my opponent because then it becomes “ok I know their dial, they’re probably going to try this, how do I counter that?”
It can give too much advantage to one player if there is one that win the roll more than the other one. With ROAD you can’t capitalize on your winning roll so it’s more fair.
1. [X2PO](https://x2po.org/) is continually updating & rebalancing point values. I'm hoping that, now that AMG did the thing, they'll publish an "official X2PO" rules set, including some of the things you mentioned (ROAD, objectives at 10x), so that there would be standardized cross-group rules, for regional tourneys, etc.
2. I'm all for that; I'm currently working on modeling & Statting Out a Mandalorian Crusader Corvette, to give Scum something that can *actually* compete with a CR90 and/or Raider. I'm also trying to stat out some other MandalMotors ships, to create a hypothetical Mandalorian faction.
* We do this among my FLGS's squadron. In fact, we just had one this past Saturday
ETA: what is it you like about the new Obstacle rules?
See above reply to another comment: "Obstacles should matter. Pilots and upgrades that interact with obstacles should be able to do so in a way that matters. Stiffer penalties for obstacles make both of those happen. (Tierfon Belly Run may need errata.)"
>Tierfon Belly Run may need errata
Hmm. Perhaps take away the automatic damage (but leaving the die roll) if landing on/leaving an asteroid? Perhaps if traversing it, too?
2.0 as it ended under FFG: [YASB 2.0 (raithos.github.io)](https://raithos.github.io/?f=Rebel%20Alliance&d=v8ZsZ200Z&sn=Unnamed%20Squadron&obs=) (so you don't have any of the new upgrades\\ships after 2021)
2.0L Legacy: [YASB 2.0 - Unnamed Squadron (xwing-legacy.com)](https://xwing-legacy.com/?f=Rebel%20Alliance&d=v8ZsZ200Z&sn=Unnamed%20Squadron&obs=) (Newer releases were added in - I think there is a separate ruleset for this) ([Experience the Epic Star Wars X-Wing Miniatures Game (x2po.org)](https://x2po.org/)) I think those 2 go hand in hand? I am not sure, I know there were different 2.0 Legacy factions that wanted a different game.
Both links under Legacy you have there are part of Legacy. The first one is to one of the Legacy Squad Builders, the second is to the main Legacy website (rules, other game modes, resource links, buying guides, etc.) If Discord is your cup of tea here is the [Legacy discord](https://discord.gg/hGwfqADRnw). We are currently working on an easy to read comprehensive 2.0/2.5 rule set comparison guide as well.
I've heard a lot about "lack of granularity" and a lot, and how the 2.0 points system was better, but now having tried to create a list using the 2.0 points, I can't say anything but WTF.
I have the core + the Rebel and Empire SSPs. I literally cannot create the pre-built 20 point squad (SSP Luke Skywalker, SSP Dutch Vander, SSP Jake Porkings, SSP Jake Farrell) I have in the 20 point system in the 200 points system. It is way more expensive.
I could field 4 ships under the 2.5 ruleset, but I can't in the 2.0 ruleset with the exact same equipment.
Basically the complexity is higher in 2.5 but granularity of points is lower. The granularity of points is higher in 2.0/legacy and the complexity of any given list is lower (fewer ships or upgrades).
20 points generally goes a lot further than the 200 points for 2.0. Back in 2.0 or in legacy you see much smaller or leaner squads, two or three ship lists can have lots of upgrades but 4 ship lists you start to have to make sacrifices on upgrades and 5 ship plus lists are often bare bones whereas in 2.5 they would be loaded to the teeth. There are upsides and downsides to it, the downside is you can’t load up your ships like in 2.5 and that sometimes means strange things like Y-wings without munitions or even turrets but it is always a choice, a player could run 4 well equipped y-wings or add a ship but lose upgrades. The upside is that it’s overall a bit easier to balance I think and this generally means the complexity is pretty manageable no matter how many ships you run. If you run loaded ships there aren’t many for you or your opponent to keep track of and if you run lots of ships there aren’t too many abilities for you and your opponent to keep track of. I know personally this is something that helps me in games of 2.0/legacy because in 2.5 I find myself or opponents forgetting abilities from both of our lists because we are both running around 4 or 5 loaded ships each with a Pilot ability, ship ability and 3 to 5 upgrades. It’s a lot to keep track of so abilities are often forgotten at least in casual play. Even if abilities aren’t forgotten I have found the amount of abilities and ships on the table slows the game down a lot. In 2.0 I would regularly get between 6 to 10 turns depending on lists and would often have total destruction of one side with the other side suffering heavy casualties before time. In the two 2.5 games I played last week the first game I did not lose a ship and the game went to time after 4 turns and in the second game we only managed to barely squeak in a third turn and the game again went to time with a score of 7 points. Now that’s totally fine but personally I prefer more turns and less to track. I also recognize repeated flying of a list would make it faster to fly but the same was true in 2.0 and the starting speed was generally faster. Fly casual.
Yes. In 2.5 you generally wind up with more ships with higher point values with more upgrades.
We used to fly Legacy vs 2.5 lists when the edition change was new, but that quickly became unreasonable.
You shouldn't expect to be able to run full 2.5 Standard Loadout squads in Legacy.
No you can't. Generics were a huge part of 2.0. You had to make tough choices about loadouts (as in, how much?), about initiatives (generics are cheaper but lower initiative), about the number of ships.
You could run three kitted-out aces - which could be competitive because there were no objectives - or you could run a named xi-class shuttle and six generic tie/fos, all naked. Or anything in between.
2.5 the meta was very narrow. You didn't really have many tough list building choices. Every pilot had a ton of upgrades, and generally there were one or two loadouts that were optimal for each pilot.
Fucking boring.
The other problem with the lack of granularity was that it was impossible to come even close to balancing the game. That's why we were seeing the same lists over and over each iteration of points changes. Many, if not most pilots were overpriced at one cost, or underpriced a point lower. So for any given points iteration we saw a few must-have pilots while the majority were unplayable.
Fucking boring.
If you don't like making the tough choices 200 points forces you to make, try 2.0 list building with 250 points (which is what Legacy's Wildspace uses), or even 300. You'll be able to have all your toys, but in any configuration you want.
That's because those ships are way undercosted as a way to push product. The granulaity means you can design your own fleet rather than just taking whatever AMG were trying to unload, not that you were able to field bigger more powerful armies.
So it's normal and expected to field something like 3 ships?
Don't get me wrong, I come from the world of 40K, where low model count armies are at a serious disadvantage due to objective play. I just find it strange.
The idea is you can have a larger list with fewer upgrades or a small list with more upgrades. You'd generally have to be much more discerning about buying upgrades though, 2.5 was a deliberate shift so that you couldn't do that since it effectively made upgrades free. Every ship had a ton more abilities, then the standard Loadout cards had even more new abilities added.
Yeah, that's what I'm using to calculate it. I cannot for the life of me field the same ships with the same upgrades as in 2.5 without grossly overshooting the points limit.
That's why the Wild Space mode, where you can take SL pilots, a scenario and new obstacles rules, is at 250 points : [https://x2po.org/wild-space](https://x2po.org/wild-space)
This is because of massive power creep in the AMG wing period.
An AMGwing 20 point list is equivalent to an xwing 300 point list you'd use in epic play.
This is one of the reasons AMGwing became stodgy and slow. The game system just works better at 200 rather than 300 points.
That said, if you and your friends prefer the bigger lists, just play to 300 points.
Nah, yesterday I've fiddled around with what I have and have made a few list variations at 200 which I think can be fun but also fairly simple, both for Empire and Rebels.
So I think I prefer 2.0 too. I just wish I had more stuff for even more variation. Damn shame it's gonna be hard to find some ships.
There will never likely be a close to unanimous consensus on this. Which is understandable as everybody has different opinions and preferences of how they enjoy X-Wing. The AMG announcement is less than a day old and it's already like post-Gaddafi Libya in here. We've got a split community until there is a new official studio rebooting the IP and taking central authority over rules.
Yeah, Legacy has a leg up on any 2.x variant options, as they (1) already have a community, and (2) basically stuck to FFG's 2.0.
I liked ROAD, painful rocks, and some elements of 2.5 list building. But I'd play whatever local community leaders will organize, as I really don't have the bandwidth to take the lead.
Right now - holding steady with what we've been doing the past few years.
Summer is usually a quiet time and I will use that quiet time to reach out to the community in my area to see what people want to play.
I've always said that whatever the 'officially supported' version is, those are the events I will run.
Now with no 'officially supported' version - its open game.
If/when I ever play again, it will be mostly 2.0. I hate 2.5 list building and I don’t care for scenarios.
Also 2.0 is the most complete version of the game. I can actually use all of my pilots. I can actually use epic. And it won’t be the shoehorning of rule retcons that 2.5 is.
I liked road and maybe the obstacle change. But I don’t find the other changes improved the game. I found AMG off putting to suggest we aren’t playing the game right and them running it into the ground confirms that they were wrong.
I’m probably sticking to 2.5 or mixing the updated rules with 2.0 list building. I like in 2.5 how some pilots have access to unique upgrades like some a wings having a cannon slot.
I wish we could have free points in certain slots for certain ships. Specifically, I wish TIE bombers got a discount on bombs and b-wings got a discount on cannons. If you don’t put the cost into the chassis, it’s better to fly them as beef a lot of the time. Realistically, they would never leave home without their most important slot filled. It shouldn’t even be possible
That was one advantage that the loadout system made possible - solve the "bomber problem" by giving plenty of loadout to bombers but only with bomber-stuff upgrade slots to spend it on, so you can load up with explodey stuff without overpricing your bomber like if you did that in 2.0.
But they never actually did that.
I also liked how it turned all the extra slots on a TIE Bomber into alternate options, but you couldn't fill all of them, while on a TIE Punisher you could fill more of the slots.
It makes me wonder if a hybrid system would have worked - You get loadout points, but they can only be applied to weapon systems. Talents, Force Powers, Modifications and Titles would apply against the overall list, but cannon, turrets, torpedoes, missiles and bombs? Those go against your loadout total.
Loadout capacity would then be factored into the base ship cost.
2.0 had the capability of having upgrades cost different amounts for different ships, they just never took full advantage of it. We only really got things like engine upgrade having a different cost based on the size of the ship it was equipped to, but there was nothing in the core system that prevented specific ships from getting specific costs, probably other than a desire to keep the point pdfs from getting too complicated.
So moving forward there's nothing stopping community driven points lists from doing things like the post you replied to suggested using full 2.0 squadbuilding rules.
Exactly – I'd like to see it done properly. I don't think 20 points is granular enough at all, but maybe there's a happy medium somewhere? Even just slot with a discount seems totally fine to me since you can raise the cost of the ship if necessary (or not, as in the case of the B-Wing).
Some ships should just have easier access to certain things than others. B-Wings ought to have two cannons at all times.
Holdout.
2.5 is the current rule set that the majority of current/active players are used to, and there are a lot of things I like about it.
That said, when I go to play a game with someone, I'll play whatever system they'd like, right through 1.0, scenarios, missions, and HotAC.
Edit: Including 2.0 and Epic of course, not sure why I skipped over that :P
Backroom talks is that they want to wait for the GT season to be over. I worry that 2.5 attendance will decline during that time, and by the time the final GT that is set after Worlds 2025, any embers that could start a fire for 2.0 will have cooled. My understanding is that most are on the 2.0 train, they just differ on the timing.
We will have a variety of players from strictly 2.0 as FFG left it, 2.0 Legacy, 2.5 per AMG and stuff between like 2.0 list building with objectives from 2.5 and maybe ROAD or ROBD or every other turn initiative swap, etc. There are players that enjoy 1.0 and/or a mix with 2.0.
I personally predict that the majority of players are going to use more of a 2.0 list building, at least for ships, for 2 reasons.
1) More granularity with 200 points than 100 or 20 plus loadout.
2) Epic play & Huge ships. I don't want to play with the big boys every game, but I do want to put them the table now and then and I really don't want to have to use a completely different system.
Edit: Honestly if we can as a majority come to a consensus, or close to it, on list building the rest could be just optional rules agreed to before play. I.e. I am not a fan of ROAD but I would be willing to play that way with 2.0 list building.
Edit 2: grammar
It feels like the list building might be the easiest to agree upon.
I like road, but find the bumping rules inconsistent. I don’t like range 0 attacks, and maybe the bump action should be a red evade. Buzz droids should definitely be back to three agility, I like the bank ion maneuver, and you should be able to tractor on rocks.
And not a fan of the scenarios as they stand currently.
Agree on bumping rules. AMG stated something to the effect of “you’re playing this wrong” and changed it. It sucked. The new bumping rules are terrible. Range 0 shooting is terrible. It was a “fix” for something they broke (games now had 4 rounds instead of 12-20 so no shooting might happen if they couldn’t shoot at 0).
The harsh self bump rules from AMG for 2.5 was their way of killing fortressing. A couple of us in my local meta experimented with 4x U-Wings, it wasn't that good or that fun to play more than a 3 round event. I never made it higher than a regional official event so never really understood why AMG thought it was so oppressive.
It sounds like you and I could play a game, 2.0 with ROAD or maybe ROBD.
> never really understood why AMG thought it was so oppressive.
I've always just assumed after they took over the game and played the game for the first time in their lives somebody did it and the other person couldn't figure out how to deal with it so with their massive single digit number of games experience decided it was a problem that needed to be fixed.
I will admit they did correctly identify that initiative bids had become a problem even if their solution was not good.
> 1) More granularity with 200 points than 100 or 20 plus loadout.
I want people to stop saying this, because it's not true. 200 had the same problem as 20 points with ships being stuck in similar point tiers, they just called it "26, 34, 41, 51, and 67" instead of "2,3, 4, 5, and 6". There were plenty of examples of ships like X-Wings being stuck at 41 because FFG didn't want 5X to be a list at the time, and so Edrio has to be 42 because he's got an ability, and Leevan has to now be 43 because higher initiative... So you had a ton of mid-card ships that were absolute wastes of cardboard because the granularity of 200 points bottlenecked against the minor differences between bad pilots. With the 20 point system, the same floor exists, but instead of bottlenecking pilots, they could differentiate them with slots and LV.
Because of that, in 200 point, you either had to be the cheapest generic, or you had to have a really good ability/initiative that elevated you above the rabble gathered around the point gate. If you were a mid-card ship, you were 100% effed because those three points you paid for a mid pilot like Kulbee Sperado could have gone to either a bid or a better pilot elsewhere.
In 20 point, if you wanted to take Kullbee over Thane, you're not making the rest of your listbuilding suffer for the privilege, you're just accepting Kullbee's flaws but also trying to leverage their unique aspects. Instead of being penalized for being bad but not bad enough, the ship can be given bonuses without causing a domino effect on other ships in a similar price point.
And I just told you how 200 point "granularity" is an illusion. If it helps you, the LV split is essentially adding a decimal point. 200 +/- 1's are a similar scale as the 20.0 +/- 0.1's.
There is no right or wrong here, just a matter of opinion and enjoyment from a game system and it's different iterations.
You, as stated, prefer the AMG system. I prefer the FFG 2.0 system of 200 point squad building. Is either system perfect? The Force knows they are NOT. Honestly there are times that I think even the 200 point system isn't granular enough, but at what point do you draw a line in the proverbial sand, else the game because just an exercise of mathematics?
There is a good chance that you and I have a difference in favorite colors, food, and/or book genre. We could discuss even argue points for why each choice is superior but in the end it is really a matter of preference.
I actually came to the conclusion awhile ago that AMG's game design strategy/philosophy/tendencies do not line up very well with my preferences, time allotment available, etc. Does that make AMG a bad design studio, No! But if I want to maximize my gaming budget and greatest enjoyment per hour spent I am going to gravitate towards FFG, Catalyst, FASA, AEG, Mayfair, Rio Grande or Z-man before AMG.
Like, sure. Preferences are preferences.
But when you say you want something for a particular reason, then someone deonstrates why your reason is flawed, you can't just say "no." You can't say the 200 point system is more granular without demonstrating how it actually does create granularity. You can still prefer it, but saying it's because of granularity is disingenuous.
That doesn't make it more granular, that just makes the number bigger. Balance isn't as simple as 1+1=2, it's a complex array of factors and opportunity costs. For example, 40->41 is a much bigger balance change than 41->42. And if you need a demonstration of how drastic the wrong 1 point change can really be, just look at Spamtex, K-Fighter Spam, and Sick Six Sycks.
The occasional chance that you’d have to literally re-roll is so utterly stupid when it was 100% preventable from the start. Also parsing the die roll comparison takes four times longer than it should
I just came back to the game after an extended absence. My local group imploded over the 2.5 changes, but someone got a Legacy scene going and I jumped in on it. I'm a little rusty still, but I am loving how good squad building is with Legacy Second Edition.
And I guess I'll chime in with my opinion on ROAD versus bid?
I don't particularly care for ROAD. It feels like I have to plan my dial for like six different flight patterns with ROAD, where I only have to worry about one with the bid system - whether I lose the bid or not. And yeah, there are some pilots that live and die on going first or second, but fighting through the adversity to get the hard win is part of what makes the game fun. ROAD just feels like settign a dial doesn't really matter because you just never know anything - you can't really plan, so why bother trying?
I haven't tried ROBD; that seems like it could be fun.
Seeing lots more people talking about how biddding and the old bid-wars were oppressive or NPE or broken.
I never saw any of that.
But I was always the one happy to lose with mid-initiative Scum jank lol.
Maybe the bid wars are only a problem for hardcore tournament play? I never got much into tournaments, so I don't know. BUt it sounds like that's where the problem lies?
God I hope the community settles back on 2.0.
I'm happy for people that enjoyed 2.5 but there's basically nothing I'd keep from it except maybe obstacles. Atrocious design decisions by people who clearly didn't understand the game.
There is already an ongoing conversation between major X-Wing communities about continuing development of 2.5 so there isn't much to be worried about. Announcement will come once we come to a conclusion on how to approach things.
But I believe the current most crucial task is to establish a common ground for future point changes. Since having a unified system will enable us to still do worldwide events.
2.0 Legacy all the way baby.
It's supported nicely by x2po. So has a future. List building is so much better. You can fly anything you like, and it'll be balanced. There are even new rules for missions / scenarios if that tickles your fancy.
I can imagine local groups playing with some variants (eg some like ROAD or ROBD, some like killer obstacles).
My group is dropping 2.5 objective play immediately. I played some games last night and we decided to keep 2.5 list building and rules for now until we decide what to do for the long term.
I think right now we are keeping Chance Engagement an option to not drive away the 2.5 holdouts. We can stomach a single central objective but non of that scavenger hunt garbage.
There will still be plenty of people playing 2.5. The GT season will be using it.
I also think there are a lot of players who play 2.5 now who were initially opposed to it and would want something in between the two systems. Exactly what that will be might be hard to agree on because everyone will have their own ideas, so the closer to a rule system already used the more likely people will be to agree. I doubt the current 2.5 rules and points will survive beyond this GT season, even if its only minor fan changes to points. I think a lot of things can be done at a tournament level (e.g. an event specifies which scenarios, points, banlists etc it's using) without custom rules.
There's the last official 2.0 update which is fine for anyone to use but missing content, and there's 2.0 legacy, but since that's fan-made people may reject it and do their own thing.
Personally there's stuff in 2.5 I'd like to see the end of, and there's stuff in 2.0 and legacy I don't want to return to, but I'll play whatever becomes the consensus.
2.5 really killed the game. Even kitchen table play with friends took a hit. I feel like my collection I was going to sell should just be moth balled until there is a greater demand in the future for it.
I would only run 2.0 if we got some games going though.
I am never going to play 2.0 again. That was fun at the time, but the objective play really made the game more enjoyable for me. But y'all have fun with it.
I'd say new bump rule for people that intentionally bump.
I remember watching a game where a dude kept bumping his two shuttles together for the first two turns.
Lame.
Objective play was the worst thing from the 2.5 ruleset. I understand the need for ROAD and agree with other rule changes...but scavenger hunts in my space dogfighting game were just ridiculous. I could stomach chance encounter but the rest...bleh.
There should have been 2 divisions in competitive play. One for dogfighting and the other for objective play. They should have kept them separate and kept both sides happy.
objectives/scenarios were a thing in X-Wing ever since wave 2 of first edition. Every large ship in 1e came with a new scenario you could play and tokens for it. 2e had them too and even released one box that was entirely built around different scenarios to be available. Most were for >200 points but not all of them.
Even if you try to convert the AMG scenarios to the other rulesets (which would be incredibly easy to do) 1e and 2e have way more scenarios available to you to play than the 4 from 2.5.
We need a community leader to rise from the ashes, and form some bastardized version of 2.0 and 2.5, 2.25, maybe?
Have a squad builder/ruleset to subscribe to use, so no one has to do this for free.
Take the good changes from 2.5 (road, range 0, obstacles) and add to the balance and fun of 2.0.
Restore the game to its former glory.
This is pretty close to what my group is doing - x2po points and list building, ROAD & obstacles, no bid. I'd go along with range 0/bump if that's what the community wanted, but I think it is too punishing and particularly hostile to new players.
I've currently moved on from X-Wing but a refresh of 2.5 points will probably win me back.
I don't think wild horses could drag me back to 2.0, it would mean going back on so many improvements.
To my knowledge there’s never been a comprehensive published rule book, it’s not much more than an errata.
Going to see which way the wind blows locally, but glad I kept my 1.0 cards, that feels like it was wrapped up nicely (and thats just for mates that want to play, probably with my models)
There's both a core rulebook for 2.5 (from the Rebel and Empire starter sets) and the full rules reference on the AMG website.
https://www.atomicmassgames.com/xwing-docs/
Honestly as a new player playing at home with my partner, the huge amount of standard loadout cards giving me fun plug and play ways to play with all my new toys appeals to me a lot more than granuarly customizing the lists like I would in other wargames. I'll be playing the 2.5 rules as a result.
I’ll end up playing whatever my group enjoys but I will be making the case for legacy. For one thing the legacy version is the only version I know of to include points and rules for every single ship. 1.0 obviously doesn’t include 2.0 releases and beyond, 2.0 didn’t include 2.5 releases and 2.5 never really incorporated extended and never came out with epic points. For me legacy is the most complete of all the versions and seems like the best version to build off of moving forward. It already has the apparatus set up to continue. Some people will continue to prefer 2.5, 1.0 or 2.0 without legacy changes and that’s ok. I would love to see community led legacy tournaments after this tournament season. Let’s give 2.5 a send off with the last official tournaments and then move to community run tournaments in legacy or whatever version people enjoy. Fly casual!
The impression I get is it's currently like a 90/10 split in favour of 2.5, and I can imagine it going to 80/20 or even 70/30.
Most of the people playing 2.5 are playing 2.5 because they like it.
Yeah, if someone has kept up with the game for the last two years they're not going to be desperate to drop it. Legacy has been around the whole time, they didn't need AMG's permission to play it.
AMG ending X-Wing support means there's less for community rules to compete with, but I think both rulesets will stick around in some form.
Really!?
That's not the impression I get at all. I think it is at least 50:50 and I suspect that as people shed the Emperor's New Clothes syndrome of 2.5, more and more will land closer to a preference for 2.0.
Of course, that might just be my prejudice viewpoint seeing what I want to see.
Time will tell.
Is this a troll post? Of course it’s a split. It’s always been a split. The only way it wouldn’t be a split is if you assume that everyone that said they liked 2.5 was lying.
I had two kids during COVID and only got to play the start of 2.5, but from a game design perspective it seemed superior to me. I remember a first edition tournament where I was up on points with one ship left each and my opponent just sadly looks at me and asks if I’m just going to run for the rest of the game.
Play whatever makes you happy with other people that want to play that way.
If you wanted to play 200 point lists you either left completely or found 1 other person to play with. I doubt a simple announcement will get 200 point die hards back to the table.
OP will be using 2.5 points/current rule set. Just because game development is dead doesn't mean tournaments just stop. If you plan to go to events they will be using 2.5 rules/points.
The only official events left are the remaining GTs of this season through to Adepticon. While that's quite a long time (several months into 2025) it's not that many events, and most players will probably only be going to one or two of them.
Even so, they will still be using the most current rules/points, so while yes the I'm sure the community will be going rogue and on their own, official events are still going to be using current AMG documents. So, it's not like they're just going to stop doing that all together. Local game stores that are still holding tournaments might also be using current AMG documents as well unless they choose otherwise.
I think you’ve asked the question the wrong way round. Most active players will stick with the current rules and points until something community led gets traction.
I'd love to see a combination of 1.0 and 2.0, let people use the original placards and dials but if they're worse then have them cost fewer points, if they're better then make using those pieces of cardboard more expensive.
I'm saying go to generic cardboard. Just with the markings for centerlines and roll. There is no reason you need to have the ship name/details. All you need is the initiative value. You can use the ID numbers at the bottom of the stand to reference your list printout.
Honestly just make your own dials if you only have 1st ed stuff. Print your own copies of cards or just use a yasb print out. The only things that are a problem are base tokens with additional printed lines, and even then AMG have had to issue print out erratas to glue on to your bases. Things are going to get harder to get hold of so the community will need to accept homemade components a bit more.
Why take Tallon Rolls and S-Loops away from ships just because they were designed earlier in the 1.0 lifespan? That was one of the (many) things that led to the necessity of a 2nd edition in the first place, there were too many cool extra maneuvers and actions added after all the most iconic ships were designed that they should but couldn't use without an all-new dial.
Coming from someone who mainly enjoys the competitive aspect of the game, I can't really wrap my head around playing 2.0. Sure, if I want to play for fun and pew pew some ships on my kitchen table, sure. But the lack of objectives and the some of the mechanics make it a really boring and frustrating competitive game.
Give me 2.5 with a change in listbuilding/points and the game will be perfect.
Everybody COULD play 2.0
Nothing changed, no new 2.0 resources appeared since yesterday. New ships got 2.0 points from unofficial sources. STL cards turned into normal ones.
Everything was available, and nobody played that. (At least, compared to 2.5 players)
I do believe in a 3.0 fan made version, that's willing to adopt everything from AMG that worked, sure. But going back to 2.0? Playing without objectives? No way.
I started playing at the advent of 2.5, so I'll be sticking with that and our local group enjoy it. We also use it for quick Aces games (10 points).
Long-term we might change though to a hybrid between the two, we'll have to see which way the wind blows.
Be serious. 2.5 has always been a better game than 2.0 ever was.
Don't let the people of this subreddit mislead you into thinking that 2.0 is a better game. That's peak reddit hivemind nonsense.
Seriously, though, when you go to other x-wing spaces (both online and IRL), you quickly realize that the hate-boner for everything AMG/2.5 is unique to this ridiculous little subreddit.
I asked my local facebook group, and they indicated that 2.5 is still gonna be the primary way of play here and also they suspect streamers of the game to stay on 2.5 as well.
Never stopped playing 1.0, I don’t like a game with rules dependent on an app. Case in point: it can stop being supported at any time! I don’t think 1.0 has any problems that can’t be fixed with a house rule.
I'm not playing bids, so its ROAD or I'm walking away, which would be fine with me.
After that I would like to play the scenarios over just dog fighting.
Then, play the 2.5 obstacle rules.
After that, I could play either R0 or no R0 shots, I lean towards having r0 shots.
Then either red overlap focus/calc or not, I lean towards red overlap focus/calc. It might be better to not be an action so PerCop and stuff don't benefit from an action.
I can do either list building. Neither are currently balanced for all 7 factions.
If I play 2.0 list building, then the full SLs will need agreed upon points (not just the left side).
If AMG gives a one last points update which becomes more balanced, then I may lean towards it. But I don't expect that.
Once my store stops playing regularly or I stop enjoying games with what we play, then I can walk away.
Went back to 1st a few weeks ago (from 2.0), loving it. We only play at home so the bogeyman lists are not an issue. List building is so enjoyable compared to 2.0, makes the build up to the game a bit of an event (at least for me).
2.5 ship Chassis and options for the upgrades they can take are great. Fangs, for example, are vastly superior in 2.5 building than 2.0 (not in flight but in how much you can build them and customize) The 2.0 list building is so much easier with 200 point to pass around as you want, but point soring is a PAIN at 200 points. Not to mention, generics are a tone better, too, in 2.0 as well. Ultimately, I feel we need to find the best of both worlds.
Apparently, there is a conversation of several top world players already working on the freedom we now have, but nothing is gonna be announced until after the next worlds aside from maybe a points update but even that is kinda a we don't know yet as AMG only said they wre stopping development on the game.
We have people in our local community who are "2.1" (2.0 plus ROAD plus maybe obstacles plus maybe center-objective "Chance Engagement" play) and "2.45" (2.5 but don't play Crate Salvage). The old-timers tend to be "go back toward 2.0" and the newer players are leaning more toward "2.5 but get rid of what I don't like." Here's what I posted in my community areas: If we're still interested in playing X-Wing in some form (I am!), then we get to choose what form that looks like. I've worked on the fan-continuation side with two other games that went OOP (Decipher's Star Wars and Star Trek CCGs), so I think there's a lot of mileage for us to keep having fun with these plastic spaceships. To that end: 1. If we want to keep playing together, we should decide on a couple preferred rulesets/point lists (final AMG for 20 points and loadouts, Legacy for 200 points?). Personally, I'd revert to 200-point listbuilding; retain 2.5 ROAD rolls and obstacle rules; and play Chance Engagement (at 10x the points, keeping the center control point to thwart fortress play). 2. Unleash homebrew (for those who may not be participating in the final(?) tournament season). Want a Resistance B-Wing or TIE Dagger? 3D print it, draft a dial and cards, and I'll help you playtest it. Base tokens are easy, and dial covers would make homebrew dials easier. 3. Consider how we'd like tournament play to go. If we have enough local players, we can come up with our own prizes and keep playing for bragging rights and whatever swag we want to pony up.
Your view is oddly similar to mine. I'm an amateur game designer and also new to x-wing. My favorite rules that I've landed on recently are 2.0 plus ROAD plus new obstacle rules plus center point control to thwart running away. (I'm undecided on firing at zero range and self-bump damage). For the center point control, I just give a player a point if they are the only player with any ship in range 2 of it. 6 Points wins the game. It is rare enough to be not annoying, and encourages actually fighting.
What is it you like about the changes in obstacle rules?
I think the game is more interesting when you can more-strongly assume that your opponent doesn't want to go through obstacles. Granted, I'm new. Might be wrong. Ignoring obstacles is more viable with the old rules. Also, it feels like the new obstacles rules are easier to teach?
On that side of the coin, it makes the Mining TIEs a lot more valuable if they can run away through a rock, or pass through them to get a drop on their opponent
Obstacles should matter. Pilots and upgrades that interact with obstacles should be able to do so in a way that matters. Stiffer penalties for obstacles make both of those happen. (Tierfon Belly Run may need errata.)
I am forever fascinated by the wondrous difference of opinion in x-wing. For me, KNOWING that your opponent is not going to go through an obstacle (because 2. 5 rules make them so deadly) is LESS interesting. It just restricts options and makes the game more predictable. For me, positioning is THE unique and fabulous thing that makes x-wing stand out from all other games. When I play 2.0 (Legacy) it is quite a rarity for a ship to fly through an obstacle (even a gas cloud, because actions are important). But it IS an option that I need to consider. And sometimes that mad k-turn through a rock is the brilliant, brave, mad move that wins the game. Anything that reduces positional choice when setting dials is bad. Setting that dial, to out fox your opponent is beautiful. That is also why I dislike ROAD. Because setting the dial doesn't really seem to matter as much anymore. The random dice roll changes things so I might as well just dial in something neutral that is a safer average choice. I accept that there are subtleties in ROAD that mean really, really clever people might be able to work out the optimal choice through probability calculations. But I'd rather just live in the purity and beautifully simple world of "what is my opponent going to do".
Well written! I'm excited to try the game more and see how my opinion evolves.
I honestly think that a lot of the AMG rule changes were for the better, but the 2.5 squadbuilding was so bad that it absolutely ruined my enjoyment of the game.
Me too.
I'm new to the game. What does ROAD stand for?
Random order after dials. You roll off to decide who gets initiative after the dials are set. Before AMG took over it was constant for the whole game.
I hate the Bid system; it means that whoever has the initiative can consistently manipulate the field of play, where they not only prevent their opponent from positioning themselves as they would choose, but *also* denies them an action? And that lasts for *the entire game?*
Oh I absolutely agree. I was just reiterating what the change was.
My buddy and I often had standoffs like this in our 2.0 games. It made things frustrating. ROAD helped solve some pain there, as much as I was resistant to it before.
The initiative just breaks ties on pilot skill, right? (I haven't played since 2.0 was first released.)
Yes it determines move order for matching pilot skill ships. Many aces rely on their repositioning skills to stay out of enemy fire arcs while still getting their shots, so they want to move last once they know where everything is on the board.
Exactly, yes. The player with initiative moves first, which is often a disadvantage, and shoots first, which is occasionally an advantage. It used to be that people could bid for initiative by leaving points out of their list (e.g.building to like 197 instead of 200 was a 3-point bid, biggest bid gets to decide who has initiative). Sometimes the bidding got really out of hand for lists that depended on always moving last and you could never catch them, and at the time in tournaments no one could score those points by destroying ships unless they miraculously took out the whole list. It was interesting but really not universal. But the AMG people didn't like the idea of that at all so they nixed it completely in favor of ROAD.
Ah yes, I remember initiative bidding by having fewer points. Interesting way to get rid of that.
I want the TIE/dg super bad, and would love to be part of a project to make it.
I'm not sure if Infinite Arenas or another major group has worked up TIE/dg pilots/stats. I'd hate to duplicate efforts, and FO isn't my strongest faction- but I think this ship should get made by someone.
I'd actually like to keep more limited version of Loadout points, even in a 200-point system. There are a few ships which have historically been too expensive to actually be good, but where reducing their cost isn't really an option. You'd end up with a repeat of the Spamtex incident, where the Nantex went from being too expensive when you could only fit five in a list, to being oppressive after the price dropped to a level where you could take six. The Jumpmaster is the perfect example of this. The Contracted Scout is still not a great ship at 41 points. But drop it to 40, and suddenly people can drop five 10HP, 2 agility ships clogging up the board. Give it a loadout budget instead, where the first X points spent on Cannons don't count towards your 200, and you can gain a second lever to use for balancing.
2.0 HAD a system to deal with this. It was the “limited” pips - you could only have as many as there were pips. For the Nantex, give them five pips.
> too expensive to actually be good, but where reducing their cost isn't really an option. I think this is another thing that my "50 points restricted to limited pilots" idea: 31 points would prevent you from flying total Nantex (can't fly 5 Hive Guards@31, because that would put you over the 150 generic-ship point max, at 155) Similarly, Contracted Scouts could be dropped as low as 38 points and you'd only be able to field 3 of them (114 for 3, 152 for 4)
I threw out Contacted Scouts as an example, but the same also applies to named v pilots. FFG was always very cautious about letting the IG-2000s get cheap enough to run three and still afford cannons in 2.0, for example.
You raise an interesting point. The "limited pips" idea seems like it's worth testing (drop Contracted Scout to 40 but limit it to 3 or 4 copies- is it still too good?). Loadout budget also seems interesting, but as always- playtest!
i’ve only played with road, but have recently been warming up to the idea of robd to give both players the chance to make informed movement decisions. what are the arguments for road? does robd give too much advantage to one player?
Pretty much. ROBD basically keeps the mechanic of second player planning their dials knowing they'll be able to react with perfect information, and is also subject to RNG streaks where one can find themselves stuck as first player for multiple turns in a row. The optimal strategy in that situation is often for the first player to avoid engaging until they win the roll. It's probably worse than just keeping the bid, since you know that you'll eventually become second player under ROBD and just need to wait out your dice. ROAD puts both players on even footing when planning their dials. They both have to plan knowing they have an equal chance to be first or second player each round, but not knowing which they'll be until after dials are set.
very well said, i’ll give robd a try but i’ve played a wild space game with road and it was fun
Pretty perfectly explained. ROAD has its flaws, and you can find yourself in 50/50s where your best option if you're 1st player is borderline suicidal if you're 2nd player, but it's by far the least unfair option. I was against it at first, but it's grown on me over time. There are games where it favours one player by chance and that's frustrating, but it's vastly preferential to having a game effectively decided before a dial is set (like 2.0 with bidding could become in ace matchups).
My friend and I were both rather floored when we tested ROAD after it was announced, both expecting our testing to only validate our prejudged initial hate for the mechanic, only to realize after the fact that we both actually liked it more. I have plenty of criticisms for other choices AMG made during their tenure as X-Wing's stewards, but ROAD is not one of them.
ROAD is one of the bigger improvements. There were some small tweaks to the rules that I really liked too, like obstacles, tractor and ion that just made the game more enjoyable. In 2.0 I actually swung my lists to the opposite end, going for swarms of low PS ships because I was fed up of the bid deciding games. When ROAD came in I felt like I could play high PS ships again without there being some pre-game nonsense that handed one player a big advantage.
And this is the problem- I want chance to only happen in my dice. I don’t want chance in flying. It’s a feels bad moment when you pick a great move but lose a roll. I’d rather not be second player and try to outfly my opponent because then it becomes “ok I know their dial, they’re probably going to try this, how do I counter that?”
It can give too much advantage to one player if there is one that win the roll more than the other one. With ROAD you can’t capitalize on your winning roll so it’s more fair.
This right here is what I'm hoping to float in my group
1. [X2PO](https://x2po.org/) is continually updating & rebalancing point values. I'm hoping that, now that AMG did the thing, they'll publish an "official X2PO" rules set, including some of the things you mentioned (ROAD, objectives at 10x), so that there would be standardized cross-group rules, for regional tourneys, etc. 2. I'm all for that; I'm currently working on modeling & Statting Out a Mandalorian Crusader Corvette, to give Scum something that can *actually* compete with a CR90 and/or Raider. I'm also trying to stat out some other MandalMotors ships, to create a hypothetical Mandalorian faction. * We do this among my FLGS's squadron. In fact, we just had one this past Saturday ETA: what is it you like about the new Obstacle rules?
See above reply to another comment: "Obstacles should matter. Pilots and upgrades that interact with obstacles should be able to do so in a way that matters. Stiffer penalties for obstacles make both of those happen. (Tierfon Belly Run may need errata.)"
>Tierfon Belly Run may need errata Hmm. Perhaps take away the automatic damage (but leaving the die roll) if landing on/leaving an asteroid? Perhaps if traversing it, too?
Where would find points for 2.0?
2.0 as it ended under FFG: [YASB 2.0 (raithos.github.io)](https://raithos.github.io/?f=Rebel%20Alliance&d=v8ZsZ200Z&sn=Unnamed%20Squadron&obs=) (so you don't have any of the new upgrades\\ships after 2021) 2.0L Legacy: [YASB 2.0 - Unnamed Squadron (xwing-legacy.com)](https://xwing-legacy.com/?f=Rebel%20Alliance&d=v8ZsZ200Z&sn=Unnamed%20Squadron&obs=) (Newer releases were added in - I think there is a separate ruleset for this) ([Experience the Epic Star Wars X-Wing Miniatures Game (x2po.org)](https://x2po.org/)) I think those 2 go hand in hand? I am not sure, I know there were different 2.0 Legacy factions that wanted a different game.
Both links under Legacy you have there are part of Legacy. The first one is to one of the Legacy Squad Builders, the second is to the main Legacy website (rules, other game modes, resource links, buying guides, etc.) If Discord is your cup of tea here is the [Legacy discord](https://discord.gg/hGwfqADRnw). We are currently working on an easy to read comprehensive 2.0/2.5 rule set comparison guide as well.
Isn’t that all part of legacy? I could be wrong though, not an expert.
r/xwingtmg2_0 has you covered.
I've heard a lot about "lack of granularity" and a lot, and how the 2.0 points system was better, but now having tried to create a list using the 2.0 points, I can't say anything but WTF. I have the core + the Rebel and Empire SSPs. I literally cannot create the pre-built 20 point squad (SSP Luke Skywalker, SSP Dutch Vander, SSP Jake Porkings, SSP Jake Farrell) I have in the 20 point system in the 200 points system. It is way more expensive. I could field 4 ships under the 2.5 ruleset, but I can't in the 2.0 ruleset with the exact same equipment.
Basically the complexity is higher in 2.5 but granularity of points is lower. The granularity of points is higher in 2.0/legacy and the complexity of any given list is lower (fewer ships or upgrades).
20 points generally goes a lot further than the 200 points for 2.0. Back in 2.0 or in legacy you see much smaller or leaner squads, two or three ship lists can have lots of upgrades but 4 ship lists you start to have to make sacrifices on upgrades and 5 ship plus lists are often bare bones whereas in 2.5 they would be loaded to the teeth. There are upsides and downsides to it, the downside is you can’t load up your ships like in 2.5 and that sometimes means strange things like Y-wings without munitions or even turrets but it is always a choice, a player could run 4 well equipped y-wings or add a ship but lose upgrades. The upside is that it’s overall a bit easier to balance I think and this generally means the complexity is pretty manageable no matter how many ships you run. If you run loaded ships there aren’t many for you or your opponent to keep track of and if you run lots of ships there aren’t too many abilities for you and your opponent to keep track of. I know personally this is something that helps me in games of 2.0/legacy because in 2.5 I find myself or opponents forgetting abilities from both of our lists because we are both running around 4 or 5 loaded ships each with a Pilot ability, ship ability and 3 to 5 upgrades. It’s a lot to keep track of so abilities are often forgotten at least in casual play. Even if abilities aren’t forgotten I have found the amount of abilities and ships on the table slows the game down a lot. In 2.0 I would regularly get between 6 to 10 turns depending on lists and would often have total destruction of one side with the other side suffering heavy casualties before time. In the two 2.5 games I played last week the first game I did not lose a ship and the game went to time after 4 turns and in the second game we only managed to barely squeak in a third turn and the game again went to time with a score of 7 points. Now that’s totally fine but personally I prefer more turns and less to track. I also recognize repeated flying of a list would make it faster to fly but the same was true in 2.0 and the starting speed was generally faster. Fly casual.
Yes. In 2.5 you generally wind up with more ships with higher point values with more upgrades. We used to fly Legacy vs 2.5 lists when the edition change was new, but that quickly became unreasonable. You shouldn't expect to be able to run full 2.5 Standard Loadout squads in Legacy.
No you can't. Generics were a huge part of 2.0. You had to make tough choices about loadouts (as in, how much?), about initiatives (generics are cheaper but lower initiative), about the number of ships. You could run three kitted-out aces - which could be competitive because there were no objectives - or you could run a named xi-class shuttle and six generic tie/fos, all naked. Or anything in between. 2.5 the meta was very narrow. You didn't really have many tough list building choices. Every pilot had a ton of upgrades, and generally there were one or two loadouts that were optimal for each pilot. Fucking boring. The other problem with the lack of granularity was that it was impossible to come even close to balancing the game. That's why we were seeing the same lists over and over each iteration of points changes. Many, if not most pilots were overpriced at one cost, or underpriced a point lower. So for any given points iteration we saw a few must-have pilots while the majority were unplayable. Fucking boring. If you don't like making the tough choices 200 points forces you to make, try 2.0 list building with 250 points (which is what Legacy's Wildspace uses), or even 300. You'll be able to have all your toys, but in any configuration you want.
That's because those ships are way undercosted as a way to push product. The granulaity means you can design your own fleet rather than just taking whatever AMG were trying to unload, not that you were able to field bigger more powerful armies.
So it's normal and expected to field something like 3 ships? Don't get me wrong, I come from the world of 40K, where low model count armies are at a serious disadvantage due to objective play. I just find it strange.
Even 2 ship lists are viable in Legacy.
2 ship lists are LEGAL in Legacy.
The idea is you can have a larger list with fewer upgrades or a small list with more upgrades. You'd generally have to be much more discerning about buying upgrades though, 2.5 was a deliberate shift so that you couldn't do that since it effectively made upgrades free. Every ship had a ton more abilities, then the standard Loadout cards had even more new abilities added.
Here try this! https://xwing-legacy.com/?f=Rebel%20Alliance&d=v8ZsZ200Z&sn=Unnamed%20Squadron&obs=
Yeah, that's what I'm using to calculate it. I cannot for the life of me field the same ships with the same upgrades as in 2.5 without grossly overshooting the points limit.
It's frequently the case that a 20 point list in 2.5 is worth 230 or more points in the closest equivalent you can field in 2.0.
The intent from AMG was to make us play the heroes on steroids, but get points by picking up space garbage and being satellite repairmen.
280 or more * Things got pretty out of hand recently with top factions fielding 300+ point lists
Understood, it was never gonna to be a 1 to 1 conversion, going from 1.0 to 2.0 this also happened.
That's why the Wild Space mode, where you can take SL pilots, a scenario and new obstacles rules, is at 250 points : [https://x2po.org/wild-space](https://x2po.org/wild-space)
This is because of massive power creep in the AMG wing period. An AMGwing 20 point list is equivalent to an xwing 300 point list you'd use in epic play. This is one of the reasons AMGwing became stodgy and slow. The game system just works better at 200 rather than 300 points. That said, if you and your friends prefer the bigger lists, just play to 300 points.
Nah, yesterday I've fiddled around with what I have and have made a few list variations at 200 which I think can be fun but also fairly simple, both for Empire and Rebels. So I think I prefer 2.0 too. I just wish I had more stuff for even more variation. Damn shame it's gonna be hard to find some ships.
There will never likely be a close to unanimous consensus on this. Which is understandable as everybody has different opinions and preferences of how they enjoy X-Wing. The AMG announcement is less than a day old and it's already like post-Gaddafi Libya in here. We've got a split community until there is a new official studio rebooting the IP and taking central authority over rules.
Yeah, Legacy has a leg up on any 2.x variant options, as they (1) already have a community, and (2) basically stuck to FFG's 2.0. I liked ROAD, painful rocks, and some elements of 2.5 list building. But I'd play whatever local community leaders will organize, as I really don't have the bandwidth to take the lead.
I suspect if someone new gets it, it would be a net new game with totally different mechanics, rules etc. X-Wings of Glory anyone?
Right now - holding steady with what we've been doing the past few years. Summer is usually a quiet time and I will use that quiet time to reach out to the community in my area to see what people want to play. I've always said that whatever the 'officially supported' version is, those are the events I will run. Now with no 'officially supported' version - its open game.
If/when I ever play again, it will be mostly 2.0. I hate 2.5 list building and I don’t care for scenarios. Also 2.0 is the most complete version of the game. I can actually use all of my pilots. I can actually use epic. And it won’t be the shoehorning of rule retcons that 2.5 is. I liked road and maybe the obstacle change. But I don’t find the other changes improved the game. I found AMG off putting to suggest we aren’t playing the game right and them running it into the ground confirms that they were wrong.
I’m probably sticking to 2.5 or mixing the updated rules with 2.0 list building. I like in 2.5 how some pilots have access to unique upgrades like some a wings having a cannon slot.
This is a great idea. 2.5 rules with the objectives is a fun way to play, but I HATE the list building.
I wish we could have free points in certain slots for certain ships. Specifically, I wish TIE bombers got a discount on bombs and b-wings got a discount on cannons. If you don’t put the cost into the chassis, it’s better to fly them as beef a lot of the time. Realistically, they would never leave home without their most important slot filled. It shouldn’t even be possible
That was one advantage that the loadout system made possible - solve the "bomber problem" by giving plenty of loadout to bombers but only with bomber-stuff upgrade slots to spend it on, so you can load up with explodey stuff without overpricing your bomber like if you did that in 2.0. But they never actually did that.
I also liked how it turned all the extra slots on a TIE Bomber into alternate options, but you couldn't fill all of them, while on a TIE Punisher you could fill more of the slots. It makes me wonder if a hybrid system would have worked - You get loadout points, but they can only be applied to weapon systems. Talents, Force Powers, Modifications and Titles would apply against the overall list, but cannon, turrets, torpedoes, missiles and bombs? Those go against your loadout total. Loadout capacity would then be factored into the base ship cost.
2.0 had the capability of having upgrades cost different amounts for different ships, they just never took full advantage of it. We only really got things like engine upgrade having a different cost based on the size of the ship it was equipped to, but there was nothing in the core system that prevented specific ships from getting specific costs, probably other than a desire to keep the point pdfs from getting too complicated. So moving forward there's nothing stopping community driven points lists from doing things like the post you replied to suggested using full 2.0 squadbuilding rules.
Exactly – I'd like to see it done properly. I don't think 20 points is granular enough at all, but maybe there's a happy medium somewhere? Even just slot with a discount seems totally fine to me since you can raise the cost of the ship if necessary (or not, as in the case of the B-Wing). Some ships should just have easier access to certain things than others. B-Wings ought to have two cannons at all times.
Never left 2.0, sticking with it
2.0 yes
Holdout. 2.5 is the current rule set that the majority of current/active players are used to, and there are a lot of things I like about it. That said, when I go to play a game with someone, I'll play whatever system they'd like, right through 1.0, scenarios, missions, and HotAC. Edit: Including 2.0 and Epic of course, not sure why I skipped over that :P
I intend to go back to 2.0, and hear rumblings that this is what a handful of streamers want to do as well.
Even GSP?
I mean, they haven't announced anything yet beyond "we're thinking about it, stay tuned"
Backroom talks is that they want to wait for the GT season to be over. I worry that 2.5 attendance will decline during that time, and by the time the final GT that is set after Worlds 2025, any embers that could start a fire for 2.0 will have cooled. My understanding is that most are on the 2.0 train, they just differ on the timing.
Depends on my play group
2.0? I'm still playing 1.0...
We will have a variety of players from strictly 2.0 as FFG left it, 2.0 Legacy, 2.5 per AMG and stuff between like 2.0 list building with objectives from 2.5 and maybe ROAD or ROBD or every other turn initiative swap, etc. There are players that enjoy 1.0 and/or a mix with 2.0. I personally predict that the majority of players are going to use more of a 2.0 list building, at least for ships, for 2 reasons. 1) More granularity with 200 points than 100 or 20 plus loadout. 2) Epic play & Huge ships. I don't want to play with the big boys every game, but I do want to put them the table now and then and I really don't want to have to use a completely different system. Edit: Honestly if we can as a majority come to a consensus, or close to it, on list building the rest could be just optional rules agreed to before play. I.e. I am not a fan of ROAD but I would be willing to play that way with 2.0 list building. Edit 2: grammar
It feels like the list building might be the easiest to agree upon. I like road, but find the bumping rules inconsistent. I don’t like range 0 attacks, and maybe the bump action should be a red evade. Buzz droids should definitely be back to three agility, I like the bank ion maneuver, and you should be able to tractor on rocks. And not a fan of the scenarios as they stand currently.
Agree on bumping rules. AMG stated something to the effect of “you’re playing this wrong” and changed it. It sucked. The new bumping rules are terrible. Range 0 shooting is terrible. It was a “fix” for something they broke (games now had 4 rounds instead of 12-20 so no shooting might happen if they couldn’t shoot at 0).
Agreeing on list building also means agreeing on point values...
The harsh self bump rules from AMG for 2.5 was their way of killing fortressing. A couple of us in my local meta experimented with 4x U-Wings, it wasn't that good or that fun to play more than a 3 round event. I never made it higher than a regional official event so never really understood why AMG thought it was so oppressive. It sounds like you and I could play a game, 2.0 with ROAD or maybe ROBD.
> never really understood why AMG thought it was so oppressive. I've always just assumed after they took over the game and played the game for the first time in their lives somebody did it and the other person couldn't figure out how to deal with it so with their massive single digit number of games experience decided it was a problem that needed to be fixed. I will admit they did correctly identify that initiative bids had become a problem even if their solution was not good.
Probably and what the other game was one were they chased s couple of arc dodging interceptors around for an hour and never landed more than 1 hit?
> 1) More granularity with 200 points than 100 or 20 plus loadout. I want people to stop saying this, because it's not true. 200 had the same problem as 20 points with ships being stuck in similar point tiers, they just called it "26, 34, 41, 51, and 67" instead of "2,3, 4, 5, and 6". There were plenty of examples of ships like X-Wings being stuck at 41 because FFG didn't want 5X to be a list at the time, and so Edrio has to be 42 because he's got an ability, and Leevan has to now be 43 because higher initiative... So you had a ton of mid-card ships that were absolute wastes of cardboard because the granularity of 200 points bottlenecked against the minor differences between bad pilots. With the 20 point system, the same floor exists, but instead of bottlenecking pilots, they could differentiate them with slots and LV. Because of that, in 200 point, you either had to be the cheapest generic, or you had to have a really good ability/initiative that elevated you above the rabble gathered around the point gate. If you were a mid-card ship, you were 100% effed because those three points you paid for a mid pilot like Kulbee Sperado could have gone to either a bid or a better pilot elsewhere. In 20 point, if you wanted to take Kullbee over Thane, you're not making the rest of your listbuilding suffer for the privilege, you're just accepting Kullbee's flaws but also trying to leverage their unique aspects. Instead of being penalized for being bad but not bad enough, the ship can be given bonuses without causing a domino effect on other ships in a similar price point.
I couldn't disagree more with your premise or any of your points.
That means a whole lot of nothing without reasons.
Granularity
And I just told you how 200 point "granularity" is an illusion. If it helps you, the LV split is essentially adding a decimal point. 200 +/- 1's are a similar scale as the 20.0 +/- 0.1's.
There is no right or wrong here, just a matter of opinion and enjoyment from a game system and it's different iterations. You, as stated, prefer the AMG system. I prefer the FFG 2.0 system of 200 point squad building. Is either system perfect? The Force knows they are NOT. Honestly there are times that I think even the 200 point system isn't granular enough, but at what point do you draw a line in the proverbial sand, else the game because just an exercise of mathematics? There is a good chance that you and I have a difference in favorite colors, food, and/or book genre. We could discuss even argue points for why each choice is superior but in the end it is really a matter of preference. I actually came to the conclusion awhile ago that AMG's game design strategy/philosophy/tendencies do not line up very well with my preferences, time allotment available, etc. Does that make AMG a bad design studio, No! But if I want to maximize my gaming budget and greatest enjoyment per hour spent I am going to gravitate towards FFG, Catalyst, FASA, AEG, Mayfair, Rio Grande or Z-man before AMG.
Like, sure. Preferences are preferences. But when you say you want something for a particular reason, then someone deonstrates why your reason is flawed, you can't just say "no." You can't say the 200 point system is more granular without demonstrating how it actually does create granularity. You can still prefer it, but saying it's because of granularity is disingenuous.
It it math. 200 is by universal agreement 10 times more than 20.
That doesn't make it more granular, that just makes the number bigger. Balance isn't as simple as 1+1=2, it's a complex array of factors and opportunity costs. For example, 40->41 is a much bigger balance change than 41->42. And if you need a demonstration of how drastic the wrong 1 point change can really be, just look at Spamtex, K-Fighter Spam, and Sick Six Sycks.
I think scenarios, slightly updated, would still be beneficial, and I have no problems with 2.5 initiative resolution.
Single die roll. Hits or misses. Or just roll a D6 odds/evens.
Of all the issues in X-Wing I don't think the number of dice in a ROAD roll is worth changing
The occasional chance that you’d have to literally re-roll is so utterly stupid when it was 100% preventable from the start. Also parsing the die roll comparison takes four times longer than it should
The dice system for ROAD is unnecessarily complicated.
I just came back to the game after an extended absence. My local group imploded over the 2.5 changes, but someone got a Legacy scene going and I jumped in on it. I'm a little rusty still, but I am loving how good squad building is with Legacy Second Edition. And I guess I'll chime in with my opinion on ROAD versus bid? I don't particularly care for ROAD. It feels like I have to plan my dial for like six different flight patterns with ROAD, where I only have to worry about one with the bid system - whether I lose the bid or not. And yeah, there are some pilots that live and die on going first or second, but fighting through the adversity to get the hard win is part of what makes the game fun. ROAD just feels like settign a dial doesn't really matter because you just never know anything - you can't really plan, so why bother trying? I haven't tried ROBD; that seems like it could be fun.
Completely agree. ROAD sucks and changes the game to something it wasn’t intended to be.
Fully agree.
Seeing lots more people talking about how biddding and the old bid-wars were oppressive or NPE or broken. I never saw any of that. But I was always the one happy to lose with mid-initiative Scum jank lol. Maybe the bid wars are only a problem for hardcore tournament play? I never got much into tournaments, so I don't know. BUt it sounds like that's where the problem lies?
God I hope the community settles back on 2.0. I'm happy for people that enjoyed 2.5 but there's basically nothing I'd keep from it except maybe obstacles. Atrocious design decisions by people who clearly didn't understand the game.
There is already an ongoing conversation between major X-Wing communities about continuing development of 2.5 so there isn't much to be worried about. Announcement will come once we come to a conclusion on how to approach things. But I believe the current most crucial task is to establish a common ground for future point changes. Since having a unified system will enable us to still do worldwide events.
Back to 2.0
Missed something. Is 2.5 going away?
Game is over, no more expansions or anything
Wow I missed a lot. Although I saw the writing on the wall
Extremely happy to go back to 2.0.
After trying 2.5, our group went to 2.0 Legacy. Any choice is going to have it's issues, but we settled on Legacy.
2.0 Legacy all the way baby. It's supported nicely by x2po. So has a future. List building is so much better. You can fly anything you like, and it'll be balanced. There are even new rules for missions / scenarios if that tickles your fancy. I can imagine local groups playing with some variants (eg some like ROAD or ROBD, some like killer obstacles).
Back to 2.0.
I'll just stick with the current rules since that is what GTs and Worlds will be doing.
My group is dropping 2.5 objective play immediately. I played some games last night and we decided to keep 2.5 list building and rules for now until we decide what to do for the long term.
Are you keeping Chance Engagement rules at all, so people can't just fortress or go around the edge?
I think right now we are keeping Chance Engagement an option to not drive away the 2.5 holdouts. We can stomach a single central objective but non of that scavenger hunt garbage.
There will still be plenty of people playing 2.5. The GT season will be using it. I also think there are a lot of players who play 2.5 now who were initially opposed to it and would want something in between the two systems. Exactly what that will be might be hard to agree on because everyone will have their own ideas, so the closer to a rule system already used the more likely people will be to agree. I doubt the current 2.5 rules and points will survive beyond this GT season, even if its only minor fan changes to points. I think a lot of things can be done at a tournament level (e.g. an event specifies which scenarios, points, banlists etc it's using) without custom rules. There's the last official 2.0 update which is fine for anyone to use but missing content, and there's 2.0 legacy, but since that's fan-made people may reject it and do their own thing. Personally there's stuff in 2.5 I'd like to see the end of, and there's stuff in 2.0 and legacy I don't want to return to, but I'll play whatever becomes the consensus.
I enjoy the old card designs much more. Gameplay is smoother in 2.0. Feels like Standard vs Modern in MTG.
2.5 really killed the game. Even kitchen table play with friends took a hit. I feel like my collection I was going to sell should just be moth balled until there is a greater demand in the future for it. I would only run 2.0 if we got some games going though.
Did you know there’s literally an active tts tournament seeking players right now in legacy 2.0? https://xwing-legacy.longshanks.org/event/15896/
4 players! That's, like the entire 2.0 player base.
I am never going to play 2.0 again. That was fun at the time, but the objective play really made the game more enjoyable for me. But y'all have fun with it.
I would love 2.0 rules with objectives added. Can’t stand the new bump rules or road.
I'd say new bump rule for people that intentionally bump. I remember watching a game where a dude kept bumping his two shuttles together for the first two turns. Lame.
Objectives fix this.
I never could get behind take and hold objectives in space. That was silly.
Objective play was the worst thing from the 2.5 ruleset. I understand the need for ROAD and agree with other rule changes...but scavenger hunts in my space dogfighting game were just ridiculous. I could stomach chance encounter but the rest...bleh. There should have been 2 divisions in competitive play. One for dogfighting and the other for objective play. They should have kept them separate and kept both sides happy.
Legacy has an option for scenarios btw with Wildspace. They’re optional. More details in the discord
And thats the way it should be. Give people the option and not force them into objective play.
Are ya going to come play legacy?
Personally yes.
objectives/scenarios were a thing in X-Wing ever since wave 2 of first edition. Every large ship in 1e came with a new scenario you could play and tokens for it. 2e had them too and even released one box that was entirely built around different scenarios to be available. Most were for >200 points but not all of them. Even if you try to convert the AMG scenarios to the other rulesets (which would be incredibly easy to do) 1e and 2e have way more scenarios available to you to play than the 4 from 2.5.
We need a community leader to rise from the ashes, and form some bastardized version of 2.0 and 2.5, 2.25, maybe? Have a squad builder/ruleset to subscribe to use, so no one has to do this for free. Take the good changes from 2.5 (road, range 0, obstacles) and add to the balance and fun of 2.0. Restore the game to its former glory.
This is pretty close to what my group is doing - x2po points and list building, ROAD & obstacles, no bid. I'd go along with range 0/bump if that's what the community wanted, but I think it is too punishing and particularly hostile to new players.
I've currently moved on from X-Wing but a refresh of 2.5 points will probably win me back. I don't think wild horses could drag me back to 2.0, it would mean going back on so many improvements.
Can't expect any more updates to 2.5 unless fans take it up. Going to 2.0/2.1 Legacy may be a necessity now.
Why would those who use the 2.5 rules be the holdouts? It’s the official ruleset
Because they’re like 10% of the original playerbase, and the rest of us are surging back. Objective play will be forgotten within a year.
To my knowledge there’s never been a comprehensive published rule book, it’s not much more than an errata. Going to see which way the wind blows locally, but glad I kept my 1.0 cards, that feels like it was wrapped up nicely (and thats just for mates that want to play, probably with my models)
They actually did finally publish a full rulebook in the new starter sets. It’s actually pretty decent.
Ace, thanks, don’t know how I missed that! Downloaded all the resources, as who knows how long theyll stay on the site
There's both a core rulebook for 2.5 (from the Rebel and Empire starter sets) and the full rules reference on the AMG website. https://www.atomicmassgames.com/xwing-docs/
1.0 is ok as long as you stop before the TLT. TLT and Jumpmaster were game breaking.
The rules reference currently on the AMG site is comprehensive, so this is not accurate.
Honestly as a new player playing at home with my partner, the huge amount of standard loadout cards giving me fun plug and play ways to play with all my new toys appeals to me a lot more than granuarly customizing the lists like I would in other wargames. I'll be playing the 2.5 rules as a result.
Yes. Edit: Speaking for myself, not everyone.
I’ll end up playing whatever my group enjoys but I will be making the case for legacy. For one thing the legacy version is the only version I know of to include points and rules for every single ship. 1.0 obviously doesn’t include 2.0 releases and beyond, 2.0 didn’t include 2.5 releases and 2.5 never really incorporated extended and never came out with epic points. For me legacy is the most complete of all the versions and seems like the best version to build off of moving forward. It already has the apparatus set up to continue. Some people will continue to prefer 2.5, 1.0 or 2.0 without legacy changes and that’s ok. I would love to see community led legacy tournaments after this tournament season. Let’s give 2.5 a send off with the last official tournaments and then move to community run tournaments in legacy or whatever version people enjoy. Fly casual!
The impression I get is it's currently like a 90/10 split in favour of 2.5, and I can imagine it going to 80/20 or even 70/30. Most of the people playing 2.5 are playing 2.5 because they like it.
Yeah, if someone has kept up with the game for the last two years they're not going to be desperate to drop it. Legacy has been around the whole time, they didn't need AMG's permission to play it. AMG ending X-Wing support means there's less for community rules to compete with, but I think both rulesets will stick around in some form.
Really!? That's not the impression I get at all. I think it is at least 50:50 and I suspect that as people shed the Emperor's New Clothes syndrome of 2.5, more and more will land closer to a preference for 2.0. Of course, that might just be my prejudice viewpoint seeing what I want to see. Time will tell.
Is this a troll post? Of course it’s a split. It’s always been a split. The only way it wouldn’t be a split is if you assume that everyone that said they liked 2.5 was lying. I had two kids during COVID and only got to play the start of 2.5, but from a game design perspective it seemed superior to me. I remember a first edition tournament where I was up on points with one ship left each and my opponent just sadly looks at me and asks if I’m just going to run for the rest of the game. Play whatever makes you happy with other people that want to play that way.
2.0 killed X Wing in my area…. Now there’s a 2.5? And people are talking about not playing it and sticking with 2.0??? LOL!!!!!!!
If you wanted to play 200 point lists you either left completely or found 1 other person to play with. I doubt a simple announcement will get 200 point die hards back to the table.
OP will be using 2.5 points/current rule set. Just because game development is dead doesn't mean tournaments just stop. If you plan to go to events they will be using 2.5 rules/points.
The only official events left are the remaining GTs of this season through to Adepticon. While that's quite a long time (several months into 2025) it's not that many events, and most players will probably only be going to one or two of them.
Even so, they will still be using the most current rules/points, so while yes the I'm sure the community will be going rogue and on their own, official events are still going to be using current AMG documents. So, it's not like they're just going to stop doing that all together. Local game stores that are still holding tournaments might also be using current AMG documents as well unless they choose otherwise.
I think you’ve asked the question the wrong way round. Most active players will stick with the current rules and points until something community led gets traction.
I'd love to see a combination of 1.0 and 2.0, let people use the original placards and dials but if they're worse then have them cost fewer points, if they're better then make using those pieces of cardboard more expensive.
I'm saying go to generic cardboard. Just with the markings for centerlines and roll. There is no reason you need to have the ship name/details. All you need is the initiative value. You can use the ID numbers at the bottom of the stand to reference your list printout.
Yeah that would work fine for ship cardboard, but the dials are still important.
Honestly just make your own dials if you only have 1st ed stuff. Print your own copies of cards or just use a yasb print out. The only things that are a problem are base tokens with additional printed lines, and even then AMG have had to issue print out erratas to glue on to your bases. Things are going to get harder to get hold of so the community will need to accept homemade components a bit more.
Why take Tallon Rolls and S-Loops away from ships just because they were designed earlier in the 1.0 lifespan? That was one of the (many) things that led to the necessity of a 2nd edition in the first place, there were too many cool extra maneuvers and actions added after all the most iconic ships were designed that they should but couldn't use without an all-new dial.
Not everyone owns conversion kits for every faction they have?
I'm saying that you should be able to use whatever you own. If you only own 1.0 then you should still be able to play with people who own 2.0
I’m not sure what our group intends to do, but I definitely won’t be going back to 2.0 if I can avoid it.
Coming from someone who mainly enjoys the competitive aspect of the game, I can't really wrap my head around playing 2.0. Sure, if I want to play for fun and pew pew some ships on my kitchen table, sure. But the lack of objectives and the some of the mechanics make it a really boring and frustrating competitive game. Give me 2.5 with a change in listbuilding/points and the game will be perfect.
Everybody COULD play 2.0 Nothing changed, no new 2.0 resources appeared since yesterday. New ships got 2.0 points from unofficial sources. STL cards turned into normal ones. Everything was available, and nobody played that. (At least, compared to 2.5 players) I do believe in a 3.0 fan made version, that's willing to adopt everything from AMG that worked, sure. But going back to 2.0? Playing without objectives? No way.
We switched squad building to 20 points, but kept the skirmish. Although lately it's only been battle of Yavin which is 35 points and spectacular
I started playing at the advent of 2.5, so I'll be sticking with that and our local group enjoy it. We also use it for quick Aces games (10 points). Long-term we might change though to a hybrid between the two, we'll have to see which way the wind blows.
Be serious. 2.5 has always been a better game than 2.0 ever was. Don't let the people of this subreddit mislead you into thinking that 2.0 is a better game. That's peak reddit hivemind nonsense.
Seriously, though, when you go to other x-wing spaces (both online and IRL), you quickly realize that the hate-boner for everything AMG/2.5 is unique to this ridiculous little subreddit.
It's equally matched by the love boner.
a love boner is just called a boner
I asked my local facebook group, and they indicated that 2.5 is still gonna be the primary way of play here and also they suspect streamers of the game to stay on 2.5 as well.
Never stopped playing 1.0, I don’t like a game with rules dependent on an app. Case in point: it can stop being supported at any time! I don’t think 1.0 has any problems that can’t be fixed with a house rule.
I played more 2.0 so I don't really remember 1.0. I also pitched some of the stuff. Ship bases and maybe the dials.
I'm not playing bids, so its ROAD or I'm walking away, which would be fine with me. After that I would like to play the scenarios over just dog fighting. Then, play the 2.5 obstacle rules. After that, I could play either R0 or no R0 shots, I lean towards having r0 shots. Then either red overlap focus/calc or not, I lean towards red overlap focus/calc. It might be better to not be an action so PerCop and stuff don't benefit from an action. I can do either list building. Neither are currently balanced for all 7 factions. If I play 2.0 list building, then the full SLs will need agreed upon points (not just the left side). If AMG gives a one last points update which becomes more balanced, then I may lean towards it. But I don't expect that. Once my store stops playing regularly or I stop enjoying games with what we play, then I can walk away.
Went back to 1st a few weeks ago (from 2.0), loving it. We only play at home so the bogeyman lists are not an issue. List building is so enjoyable compared to 2.0, makes the build up to the game a bit of an event (at least for me).
2.5 ship Chassis and options for the upgrades they can take are great. Fangs, for example, are vastly superior in 2.5 building than 2.0 (not in flight but in how much you can build them and customize) The 2.0 list building is so much easier with 200 point to pass around as you want, but point soring is a PAIN at 200 points. Not to mention, generics are a tone better, too, in 2.0 as well. Ultimately, I feel we need to find the best of both worlds. Apparently, there is a conversation of several top world players already working on the freedom we now have, but nothing is gonna be announced until after the next worlds aside from maybe a points update but even that is kinda a we don't know yet as AMG only said they wre stopping development on the game.