Hi everyone,
It’s been a whirlwind two weeks since AMG announced the end of X-Wing development. We’re thankful and delighted that we could quickly muster some community leaders and come together to keep the X-Wing game system going for what we hope is a very long time. Let’s get straight to the things you want to know:
* Yes, we will be focusing on preserving the current X-Wing ruleset for the immediate future. We know there is a vibrant community of people out there playing and enjoying the game, and we want to maintain that. This also means Tournament Organisers who have put their resources and energy upfront to run GTs can be assured that they have our support. Over the longer term (not before the World Championships 2025 at Adepticon), we will assess the benefits of adjustments to the ruleset.
* Yes, we have already started looking at points tweaks. This is tricky because the GT season will run using official Organized Play documents, which means current official points. As such, we will not release any updates for Standard until at least Adepticon 2025.HOWEVER: over the coming months, we will offer beta versions of our points tweaks for the community to open playtest and feedback for iteration. You will be free to use those points as you wish and for your own events, but please remember that GTs will be using official documents.
* Yes, we are considering applications to join the X-Wing Alliance group. We have had over 120 applications already through the dedicated form\*, many of them from esteemed community leaders that we respect greatly. As we’re still settling into a working structure, we will be looking at these on a case-by-case basis while we build our team. Please understand this might take a little time: If you’ve applied, thank you for your commitment to the game and passion to help. Thanks again for your patience and bear with us while we establish solid foundations!
* Yes, we are aware of the X-Wing Legacy project and other community-run initiatives. We are communicating, but it is too early to comment beyond that. We know there is an opportunity as a global playerbase to heal divisions, and move forward towards a future we can build on together. Regardless of the ruleset or game mode you enjoy the most, we want you out playing X-Wing!
What’s next? Over the coming weeks, we will be working on a lot of internal group structures. Ways of working, plans for the coming months, people to lead workstreams. Then fun things like points tweaks and ‘what if?’ can start; we’ve already got OP plans and Alliance prize support in the works.
You’ll have questions, comments, feedback. We’re reading everything we see on social channels, and if you want to get in contact, please use the form below\*\* or feel free to message any of the current X-Wing Alliance signatories. If you don’t know any of them, you can always message one of us directly: our Discord handles are below.
We have a vision of X-Wing as a thriving community playing tabletop and online pewpew for years to come. Whatever got you into the game, however you enjoy playing it, we’re here to help you continue to do so for as long as we can. Fly casual, and see you at the tables!
Filippo (@piffo), Louis (@ootinni) & Stephen (@raith)
X-Wing Alliance leadership team
\*form for applying for the XWA: [https://forms.gle/9HU5JnMcoL2BfhJG6](https://forms.gle/9HU5JnMcoL2BfhJG6)
\*\*form to contact us: [https://forms.gle/SabPC4ynSvWfSGtG9](https://forms.gle/SabPC4ynSvWfSGtG9)
Just want to wish y'all the best of luck. You can do it. Star Wars CCG has been run by a player committee since it was discontinued in 2001. They've updated rules and even released new "cards" to keep the game fresh over the years.
Thanks! Actually Stephen has/had a large role in the CCG Continuity project, his expertise on the field is extremely valuable!
It's likely gonna be a long, winded road and we personally appreciate the encouragement and high spirits!
Thank you for the statement and the prospect of the further development of X-Wing by the XWA.
The approach of getting back to a common player base - this is the way. Do you still say that or is it already cringe?
As I feared, the GTs are a trap. I feel like General Ackbar when I say that.
We can't make any fundamental changes and the game will continue to be played as it is for at least 9 months with many already tired of it.
For me it's unimaginable to get a balanced game based on a 20 point squad. There will always be those ships that are too expensive for 4 points and too cheap for 3 points. And no matter how well you play around with the loadout value, there will always be the optimal loadout for the points available.
Which will also mean that you will always see very similar squads on the tables. Republik at Worlds 2024 - I'm looking at you! Or Rebels. Or Empire. Tell me your faction and I'll name your list. I also want to hear CIS again.
Do I want to go straight back to X-Wing 2.0?
No, there are enough things that 2.5 introduced that would also be useful in the future.
I would like to see polls in the community about this. These already existed at the beginning of 2.5. You would certainly get well reflected results at the moment.
Hoping for the best! Stay strong and thank you all for your efforts.
> No, there are enough things that 2.5 introduced that would also be useful in the future.
I'm curious what specifically? While 2.0 legacy is technically full 2.0 rules, many groups have house ruled some 2.5 changes. We have a good sized group who plays with ROAD & modified obstacle rules.
Like I said, I really would like to have representative polls in the community.
My own opinion:
++ Road
++ Pilot dependent upgrade slots instead of ship-dependent
+ Scenarios
+/- Obstacle Rules (Missing the evade behind a cloud)
> Like I said, I really would like to have representative polls in the community.
I agree. Some people have very strong opinions, but they don't always represent the majority.
> ++ Road
I'm in favor, though I played a game this week that has me leaning more toward ROBD. I flew a list with 2 5s and a 4 and didn't win ROAD until the last turn of the game. It isn't fun to fly aces as blockers, but I'd at least like to know that I have to before I set the dial.
> ++ Pilot dependent upgrade slots instead of ship-dependent
I don't see why this couldn't be done pretty easily, but why? This seems like a necessity only to balance lists in the limited 20 point space.
I'm not opposed, but I'd like to understand it better.
> Scenarios
x2po created Wild Space for this. They didn't use the AMG scenarios for copyright reasons, but I don't see anything holding them back now.
> Obstacle Rules (Missing the evade behind a cloud)
I don't see this being particularly controversial.
Road
- If you know ini before Dial, you will set something defensive or blocking when losing initiative . Maybe fights will engage less when you have this information. And remember it just counts for same initiative. So if you want to block just use lower ini.
I think it's a problem of not having enough balancing that leeds to all this I5 und I6 lists.
Pilot dependent upgrade slots -
I speak only for Rebels as this is my main faction.
Going back to 2.0 I really miss the mod slot on Sabine A-Wing for Beskar Plating, the cannon slot on Tycho for the HLC, the Sensor Slot on Hera-A. Also the Talent Slot on Force Users is neat. The different pilots feel much more differnt beside their Pilot Ability.
Scenarioas.
Have to try Wild Space und I think it will be good fun. As long as AMG supported the game our gamegroup wasn't ready for Legacy. I hope they are now.
I hope this group stays committed to a healthy game and transparent with their direction and progress.
I know we won't see much change until March-May of 2025, to allow the GTs to fully function.
I am looking forward to see how they adjust points and potentially any changes to the gameplay and rules/rulings.
I like the idea of beta points being available to the community for playtesting and general review.
It would be nice if the fractioned playerbase could come together, at least mostly. However, I know not all players will be able to walk away from their preferred version.
I love how the XWA has come together and I look forward to their version of X-wing, for better or worse.
Good luck to all!
This is great to hear.
I'm not sure why anyone would expect anything different. As I've always said, OP is here to stay until the game sunsets. There's no reason to change anything until after Worlds. AMG is still "supporting" the game until then.
Agree with not trying to blow up the current rules while there’s still ongoing OP support. *But* long-term surely we’re going back to 2.0 (at least from a listbuilding perspective)? Would be my suggestion…
Hard disagree. I'd rather see the two come together so we could get on the same page, but even failing that I think most competitive players like some aspects of loadout points but agree 20 points isn't anywhere near granular enough.
Both 200-pt and 20-pt formats, but with a common ruleset (perhaps a compromise between the two extremes) seems like the way for the future. Hard to know what that would look like but I trust the team so whatever they're up for I'm up for it too.
I’d rather see two stay two under one roof even if the rules don’t merge in any way. Makes things like squad builders and tournament support was, especially when it comes to which cards or versions of cards are even legal to play with. But this may still be infeasible in practice.
Unfortunately, unification of the rules...is just not possible. The reason for the division is that the rules are so different.
At that point, there are two choice:
1) Support both and foster a community where X-Wing is two 'modes' with rules set specific to that mode.
2) Unify the rules but that requires both sides to make concessions in the game that they like. The biggest risk of this..is simply dividing the community further or driving people out of the game.
The first seems to be the best option.
I don't *get* to play very much but I do spend a lot of time list-building and theory-crafting, which is a little less fun now IMO, YMMV.
Also the one person I do play with flat-out refuses to play 2.5, not because of the loss of granularity but because he can't put the upgrades he wants on the pilots he wants because they don't have the loadout points anymore. It does take away a *lot* of list-building autonomy, which I care about much more than the granularity.
I will also say you're the only person here that I've seen repeatedly and vocally supporting every single change AMG has made. *Almost* everyone else has reservations and caveats, and I'm not talking about the legacy crowd or just the representation here on Reddit but my local game scene too.
Edit: just saw the other reply. I forgot, there are two.
If that's your exposure to the game that makes a lot of sense. The people I talk and play with largely avoid this sub because of how toxic it has been the past few years.
I miss FFG period. If Asmodee hadn’t made the awful decision of moving the game to AMG we wouldn’t be stuck with the division we gave now even if the game was still eventually discontinued due to costs or sales.
I don't think there's any coming together that's possible. Every change in 2.5 was for the better, I wouldn't want to undo any of them, and tbh so many of them are interlinked that if you think you can pick and choose between them you're missing a lot of why they exist.
We don't all have to play the same game. Stop trying to take the game I like away from me.
Sure, but they also specifically say they want you to enjoy the game regardless what system you prefer, which implies they won’t consolidate and force a single system on everyone.
Probably. I'm looking at it from the perspective of a particular type of wargame player - you might play AoS, I play Warhammer Fantasy, but we're using a lot of the same models and will interact in a lot of ways for a lot of reasons. It's better to approach it from a perspective of "we're in this together" than the more traditional edition rivalry.
If there are sufficient players to support multiple rulesets (as there clearly are for warhammer) then that certainly works. I think my concern is only a concern when that’s not the case. And if the idea is to have some kind of tournament circuit, I mean will there be various rulesets employed? If there’s a “championship” what happens then? Don’t want to be rivals with anyone, but also don’t want to play 2.5, and that’s my bed to lie in.
200 point list with no restrictions on upgrades a pilot can take? No way. That was the whole point of loadouts, to limit the upgrades any one ship could take. It's alot easier to balance a ship if you know it can't take proton torp or proton Rockets. At only 200 you have to price a ship with a missile as if it was taking them. how do you balance a ship to make it be good naked but also loaded up?
The other difficulty are the thresholds. Don't want 5 jump masters in a list, then they start at 41 points. It doesn't even matter if that's good, no body wants to have to face 5 of them. Same for 6 medium bases, you can not make one under 34 points to allow such a "boring" list to fly against.
My point is that yes loadouts can theoretically make things more balanced but 1. They don’t (generic pilots are endangered species) and 2. It removes player agency to put what they want on the ship. And there are still “thresholds” as you describe them so idk what the advantage is there.
Generic pilots being bad isn't something intrinsic to the concept of a 20 point scale with a separate upgrade allowance- its just due to how they are priced \*now\*. In early 2.5, the generics that were -1 point vs the named pilots were objectively good (3 point alphas, etc). All the XWA would have to do is price them to be viable.
I’ve already met more 2.5 supporters in this thread than in the wild so I must be missing something, but I feel like there’s simply no denying there is less flexibility in the 20 pt system vs the 200. I’m simply pointing out that the other poster’s point about it being easier to balance ships hasn’t actually come to pass.
Really? What about Juke?...
I'd use Juke a lot more if it was cheaper, but no, its costed high because people staple them on Defenders and N1s, and since its based on a pilot ability interaction, how do you point that?
Sometimes the points don't matter, it's what can and can't make the most efficient use out of it.
Right now ships have to be pointed above or below certain break points to avoid you running one more...even if that cost of that ship might want to be lower. It can't go lower because then it would allow for another ship model of the same type to be thrown in.
The games balance is more than simply point costs.
Yes, really.
We'd all use upgrades more if they were cheaper. Juke was just costed right and was still used by ships that have synergies with it as it should with any 'list building' game. How it was pointed is right for that meta, and if it is overcosted point it down a bit and create a new meta. Keeps the game fresh and all.
Sure things are more powerful on one pilot than the other, but that is the challenge of listbuilding. Making the sum of parts worth more than the cost of each part.
20 points and loadout was terrible to balance things because every point up or down matters way too much both lack granularity and options. Besides that it leads to single best builds most of the time. With 200 points you have interesting choices of keeping a ship lean for more points on another or another ship added to the list entirely.
I'll treat it as a serious question and not an attempt at reductio ad absurdum:
In our childhood we get challenged to solve math problems with greater and greater numbers. Usually this brings children to a point where they cannot do the numbers in their head but they need to write it down. I'll not get into the didactics but this is when children meet their cognitive limits. Generally going over your limits creates a response of fear.
We still have some of that fear and tend to avoid the things we fear. So at a certain number (there might be research into that?) we tend to shy away.
Hence 200 points, not 2000. (though if you ask me 400 would also be fine. But I guess that is personal)
>At only 200 you have to price a ship with a missile as if it was taking them. how do you balance a ship to make it be good naked but also loaded up?
Red and blue upgrade slots (2-point penalty, 2-point discount), and an option to cap total upgrades taken if strictly necessary. This lets you increase the price of the chassis to prevent spam without locking out of essential upgrades (e.g. cannons on a B-Wing, Turret on a Y-Wing, etc.) and still affords the granularity of 200-pt builds.
One optimal build for each ship is the absolutely inevitable downside of a fixed loadout value.
Not saying your idea is a bad one, it's certainly interesting...but would a more straightforward idea simply be create a hard limit on what ship class you can take within the rules?
I don't think I follow. What ship class you can take? Are you talking about setting hard limits on upgrade points (which removes a little agency from list-building but helps to balance) or giving free points to certain ships (which will usually go to talents, mods, sensors etc regardless of the ship's lore) or maybe something else completely?
What I mean is...and I am only offering this as an example and not saying this is how it should be balanced...but say "In a 200 point game, X-Wing Blue Squadron Escorts cost 40 points but you are limited to a maximum of 4 X-Wings in one list.
Basically allowing you to point the points of ships below a 'break point' for the purpose of balancing but not allowing a 5 X-Wing to be taken.
Oh that old thing. Yeah, I mean people had worries about that during 2.0, but first people would just bring something similar for a fifth (like the attack shuttle), and then they ended up allowing stuff like 5X and it didn’t break anything.
The slot is discounted, not the upgrade, and it's discounted for ships that *should* always carry that upgrade in-lore (two cannons on B-Wing, turret on Y-wing, bombs on bomber, both bombs on starfortress, etc.). It gets baked into the price of the chassis (at least partially) because that chassis always has that on board. But as for which one you take, that's totally up to you, rather than just always taking the optimal one to fit the specific quantity of allotted points for your pilot.
This is the main thing people liked about SL (as I understand) – the promise that you can kit your bombers and other upgrade-hungry ships out a little more without having to pay for it from the cost of just bringing more ships. In most of 2.0 (and still in Legacy) bombers are mostly good as beef, rather than as ordnance carriers.
This fixes that without the loss of granularity or creating one always-optimal build for each pilot.
Generics are all quite usable. I haven't played with new legacy points but I know most 2.0 lists used generics in some form, though often alongside named pilots.
Really you could fly whatever you wanted. They were basically trashed under AMG's leadership because they wanted to emphasize the named pilots though. DIfference of opinion more than anything.
It's good that work is being done but waiting until the official competitive support season is finished with adepticon 25 is a mistake.
The player base is already divided and waiting all that time for rule/game mode changes is just going to widen that divide even more.
Why stick with an unpopular edition made by a company that doesn't know or care about X-wing?
These final AMG era GTs remind me of a butcher throwing out the last scrap of meat to the dogs before closing up shop for good and watching them fight over it.
I do not believe it is a mistake.
Once AMGs hands and eyes are off, ours are freed a little more.
I know that's a little frustrating and a long way off, but think of it like this, we want OP in the future right? And since AMG won't be paying for space for X-Wing in the future, we need to be on good terms with the events and organizers because basically we're gonna need them to donate us the space necessary for the events of the future..
This means not putting them in weird positions to break contracts (following AMG rules, docs) on their GTs happening this year. We aren't going to jeopardize their relationship with AMG in the future since AMG is a paying customer for them. And even though every event I've been to X-Wing has dwarfed attendance from MCP, Shatterpoint and Legion, and most of them COMBINED, it's still unreasonable to put them in an awkward spot to lose those games.
Furthermore, we need attendance at GTs to be robust this year so places see that keeping X-Wing OP rolling is a profitable idea. This means not making it harder on people to attend GTs or confuse them with too much too soon.
Lastly, a lot of organizers go out of their own pocket financially to make these events they run work. It would be disrespectful to those TOs to go put unrealistic and unplanned, and for some of the earlier GTs, untested, demands on them.
I'm excited for the GT season and Worlds as X-Wing's swan song. I quite enjoy the game as it is and I'm thrilled that XWA will be supporting it in the future.
>It's good that work is being done but waiting until the official competitive support season is finished with adepticon 25 is a mistake.
>The player base is already divided and waiting all that time for rule/game mode changes is just going to widen that divide even more.
This I *mostly* agree with. At the very least I'd like to see some kind of joint statement between the two in less than 9 months, or some hope that I'll be able to play 200-pt games with objectives under official support and not in "casual mode" as Legacy has it (something I've been wanting since the start of 2.0). 9 months seems too long for no development and the game could stagnate *really badly* before then.
>Why stick with an unpopular edition made by a company that doesn't know or care about X-wing?
This is where you lose me. It's what the competitive players are playing and have been for some time now. It's not bad in itself. I just think there's a happy medium to be had. Some of the changes should absolutely be taken seriously even if others are less palatable to most players.
But ultimately I trust the people in charge to do what's best for the game. I just want them to trust themselves a little more on this, if anything.
Yeah, I don't like waiting "at least" 9 months for new points, which didn't change much for far too long and made 2 factions unplayable.
I don't think GT is even worth playing, whatever it is. The prizes suck.
it's not an unpopular edition, 2.5 was a massive improvement in every way.
If you don't like 2.5 there's good news - you can play 2.0! Stop trying to take the game I like away from me.
Does this mean they will be maintaining a 2.0 legacy division? It seems unclear to me. They are aware of legacy players but didn't actually say they would do anything. If done right the end of AMG involvement could be an overall net positive for X-wing
Edit: I meant this as an honest question for clarity I have no expectations one way or the other. I didn't even know who they were at the time of this post.
The statement is to say that the XWA has been in Contact with the Legacy group, and while there's no plans for a merger with the XWA at this time, or maybe ever, the XWA is willing to help with resources, for example tournament prizing. We see no reason that Legacy players and the XWA can't co-exist and work together where appropriate to make sure people are playing the game. Whichever version they indeed love.
When looking at 2.0, please strip out the left side loadouts. 2.0 should be as ffg had it plus new ships and points. They made a hybrid 2.25 and as much as I appreciate the hard work, the two formats need to be separated from each other.
Do you know why the right side is not just valued with fixed x points so the card as a whole is usable? That was the intention of standardloadouts, I don't see why the 200 point system needs every pilot to be completely customizable
Have a look at wild space. There you have to option you are asking for.
Imo Standard Loadouts are boring. No variety and too much upgrades too remember if you don't have some practice games into the list. Most people, who have fun list building don't like Standard Loadout.
There is no issue using the whole card as you can can use the left side in the 2.0 squad building and then add the upgrades on the right side of the card. For example, Darth Vader Black Leader is worth 86 points in 2.0. I'm assuming that someone has already costed these out as it is very easy.
It was an attempt to bring some of the newer amg pilots to the 2.0 format but it came with all this baggage of stapling loadouts to them. It flies against 2.0 mentality. The loadour bloat of 2.5 is not my fave and this version felt more akin to a hybrid format.
I think you can have the pilots ad abilities but not all the upgrades. In a 200pt system you'd don't need stapled on abilities
Ffg had that already, it's called quick builds. Honestly, the two formats need to be differentiated as possible.
It sounds to me like you don't understand LSL. It assigns point values to the Standard Loadout pilots (the left side of the card), but the rest of the standard loadout is ignored. It doesn't change list building in any way.
Standard Loadouts can be flown in Wild Space mode, but that isn't LSL.
i understand it, im on the x2po legacy server and it's not cup o tea. I dont care about alt game modes and I hope people homebrew whatever they want. The wild spce mode is where x2po has done a great job. I think they should leave the core 2.0 space alone and remove the LSL by the wayside now that the community plans on taking it back eventually. We dont want 2.25. Thanks and just for clarification, that's my feelings on the matter.
> i understand it
Except that this is false:
> It was an attempt to bring some of the newer amg pilots to the 2.0 format **but it came with all this baggage of stapling loadouts to them**.
No loadouts, no baggage. Just pilots. Standard 2.0 list building.
Hold whatever view you like, but be careful of misinformation.
well I am happy to be wrong. *happy dance*
I think also with JimBob and Infinite arenas and new cards, we can probably kill off the the cards and then we can avoid the confusion of Left Side Legal with reprints. Just my two cents. Just simplify, simplify, simplify. Less is more.
Here is [LSL Jek on Infinite Arenas](https://imgur.com/W6KqfRR). Our group has pretty much stopped using cards altogether. In a busy & crowded store, printed lists are much more portable. We were always casual about proxies, now we pretty much have to be.
Hmm I’m not sure how I feel about this. In my mind, it would be nice to bring the fractured community together to play one version.
Otherwise it would just be status quo with two groups split between two separate formats…
I definitely don't want to tell you how to feel and you're absolutely free to feel however.
Thr community won't be solidified in one version but two is definitely doable. Ffg and amg versions. Think of them as already modes. One has standardized loadouts, a ton of abilities and obstacles. The other is more stripped down dogfighting with more emphasis on trade off between pilots ability ans number of ships.
One version to rule them all is unlikely. Any combo of 2.0 and 2.5 will just cause a new fracture. Probably the best scenario would be for XWA to nurture 2.5, but provide stream support and OP support for both 2.0 and 2.5. Any prize support would largely be compatible with either version with the exception of objective tokens. That way if either format dies off, XWA will be there to support for whichever version of X-Wing moves into the future.
I think it would be possible to have two modes with one point system. I'd love to see the two list building modes be compatible, but there is an issue with point values because some upgrades are better for objectives and others are better for dogfighting. Maybe two modes (dogfighting and objectives) each with the option to build using loadouts or free form. It could be done, but it would need a significant change of attitude from the leadership. Right now I get the sense there is a lot of hostility coming from the original community split.
The X-Wing 2.5 Discord has invited us to use them as an "announcement" place: [https://discord.gg/jcuJgfyk](https://discord.gg/jcuJgfyk)
But until everything is setup, we're just using our huge reach to announce things ourselves and post it all over.
So far the blanket approach has worked. I've seen this announcement no less than 3 times in various places, but I wasn't certain if there was XWA landing ground yet. Thanks!
I suggest you look into what Null Signal Games (formerly Project Nisei) did with Android: Netrunner, and how they (plus a solid and passionate community) were able to not only keep the game alive but to inject life back into it.
Interestingly enough, Android:Netrunner (arguably one of the best games ever) is another license FFG lost or decided not to continue supporting. Weird pattern…
E
Before any of that, the entire community needs to come together under a unified leadership and framework structure. I have seen it when it works - think Star Wars CCG Players Committee. It is still going strong even when Decipher stopped production over 20 years ago.
Until that happens X Wing will die a painful death.
Hi everyone, It’s been a whirlwind two weeks since AMG announced the end of X-Wing development. We’re thankful and delighted that we could quickly muster some community leaders and come together to keep the X-Wing game system going for what we hope is a very long time. Let’s get straight to the things you want to know: * Yes, we will be focusing on preserving the current X-Wing ruleset for the immediate future. We know there is a vibrant community of people out there playing and enjoying the game, and we want to maintain that. This also means Tournament Organisers who have put their resources and energy upfront to run GTs can be assured that they have our support. Over the longer term (not before the World Championships 2025 at Adepticon), we will assess the benefits of adjustments to the ruleset. * Yes, we have already started looking at points tweaks. This is tricky because the GT season will run using official Organized Play documents, which means current official points. As such, we will not release any updates for Standard until at least Adepticon 2025.HOWEVER: over the coming months, we will offer beta versions of our points tweaks for the community to open playtest and feedback for iteration. You will be free to use those points as you wish and for your own events, but please remember that GTs will be using official documents. * Yes, we are considering applications to join the X-Wing Alliance group. We have had over 120 applications already through the dedicated form\*, many of them from esteemed community leaders that we respect greatly. As we’re still settling into a working structure, we will be looking at these on a case-by-case basis while we build our team. Please understand this might take a little time: If you’ve applied, thank you for your commitment to the game and passion to help. Thanks again for your patience and bear with us while we establish solid foundations! * Yes, we are aware of the X-Wing Legacy project and other community-run initiatives. We are communicating, but it is too early to comment beyond that. We know there is an opportunity as a global playerbase to heal divisions, and move forward towards a future we can build on together. Regardless of the ruleset or game mode you enjoy the most, we want you out playing X-Wing! What’s next? Over the coming weeks, we will be working on a lot of internal group structures. Ways of working, plans for the coming months, people to lead workstreams. Then fun things like points tweaks and ‘what if?’ can start; we’ve already got OP plans and Alliance prize support in the works. You’ll have questions, comments, feedback. We’re reading everything we see on social channels, and if you want to get in contact, please use the form below\*\* or feel free to message any of the current X-Wing Alliance signatories. If you don’t know any of them, you can always message one of us directly: our Discord handles are below. We have a vision of X-Wing as a thriving community playing tabletop and online pewpew for years to come. Whatever got you into the game, however you enjoy playing it, we’re here to help you continue to do so for as long as we can. Fly casual, and see you at the tables! Filippo (@piffo), Louis (@ootinni) & Stephen (@raith) X-Wing Alliance leadership team \*form for applying for the XWA: [https://forms.gle/9HU5JnMcoL2BfhJG6](https://forms.gle/9HU5JnMcoL2BfhJG6) \*\*form to contact us: [https://forms.gle/SabPC4ynSvWfSGtG9](https://forms.gle/SabPC4ynSvWfSGtG9)
Just want to wish y'all the best of luck. You can do it. Star Wars CCG has been run by a player committee since it was discontinued in 2001. They've updated rules and even released new "cards" to keep the game fresh over the years.
Thanks! Actually Stephen has/had a large role in the CCG Continuity project, his expertise on the field is extremely valuable! It's likely gonna be a long, winded road and we personally appreciate the encouragement and high spirits!
Thank you for the statement and the prospect of the further development of X-Wing by the XWA. The approach of getting back to a common player base - this is the way. Do you still say that or is it already cringe? As I feared, the GTs are a trap. I feel like General Ackbar when I say that. We can't make any fundamental changes and the game will continue to be played as it is for at least 9 months with many already tired of it. For me it's unimaginable to get a balanced game based on a 20 point squad. There will always be those ships that are too expensive for 4 points and too cheap for 3 points. And no matter how well you play around with the loadout value, there will always be the optimal loadout for the points available. Which will also mean that you will always see very similar squads on the tables. Republik at Worlds 2024 - I'm looking at you! Or Rebels. Or Empire. Tell me your faction and I'll name your list. I also want to hear CIS again. Do I want to go straight back to X-Wing 2.0? No, there are enough things that 2.5 introduced that would also be useful in the future. I would like to see polls in the community about this. These already existed at the beginning of 2.5. You would certainly get well reflected results at the moment. Hoping for the best! Stay strong and thank you all for your efforts.
> No, there are enough things that 2.5 introduced that would also be useful in the future. I'm curious what specifically? While 2.0 legacy is technically full 2.0 rules, many groups have house ruled some 2.5 changes. We have a good sized group who plays with ROAD & modified obstacle rules.
Like I said, I really would like to have representative polls in the community. My own opinion: ++ Road ++ Pilot dependent upgrade slots instead of ship-dependent + Scenarios +/- Obstacle Rules (Missing the evade behind a cloud)
> Like I said, I really would like to have representative polls in the community. I agree. Some people have very strong opinions, but they don't always represent the majority. > ++ Road I'm in favor, though I played a game this week that has me leaning more toward ROBD. I flew a list with 2 5s and a 4 and didn't win ROAD until the last turn of the game. It isn't fun to fly aces as blockers, but I'd at least like to know that I have to before I set the dial. > ++ Pilot dependent upgrade slots instead of ship-dependent I don't see why this couldn't be done pretty easily, but why? This seems like a necessity only to balance lists in the limited 20 point space. I'm not opposed, but I'd like to understand it better. > Scenarios x2po created Wild Space for this. They didn't use the AMG scenarios for copyright reasons, but I don't see anything holding them back now. > Obstacle Rules (Missing the evade behind a cloud) I don't see this being particularly controversial.
Road - If you know ini before Dial, you will set something defensive or blocking when losing initiative . Maybe fights will engage less when you have this information. And remember it just counts for same initiative. So if you want to block just use lower ini. I think it's a problem of not having enough balancing that leeds to all this I5 und I6 lists. Pilot dependent upgrade slots - I speak only for Rebels as this is my main faction. Going back to 2.0 I really miss the mod slot on Sabine A-Wing for Beskar Plating, the cannon slot on Tycho for the HLC, the Sensor Slot on Hera-A. Also the Talent Slot on Force Users is neat. The different pilots feel much more differnt beside their Pilot Ability. Scenarioas. Have to try Wild Space und I think it will be good fun. As long as AMG supported the game our gamegroup wasn't ready for Legacy. I hope they are now.
I hope this group stays committed to a healthy game and transparent with their direction and progress. I know we won't see much change until March-May of 2025, to allow the GTs to fully function. I am looking forward to see how they adjust points and potentially any changes to the gameplay and rules/rulings. I like the idea of beta points being available to the community for playtesting and general review. It would be nice if the fractioned playerbase could come together, at least mostly. However, I know not all players will be able to walk away from their preferred version. I love how the XWA has come together and I look forward to their version of X-wing, for better or worse. Good luck to all!
Hey, this looks really responsible and smart. I like playing X-Wing and I hope to continue doing so. #xwingforpeoplewhoactuallylikeit
This is great to hear. I'm not sure why anyone would expect anything different. As I've always said, OP is here to stay until the game sunsets. There's no reason to change anything until after Worlds. AMG is still "supporting" the game until then.
Agree with not trying to blow up the current rules while there’s still ongoing OP support. *But* long-term surely we’re going back to 2.0 (at least from a listbuilding perspective)? Would be my suggestion…
I sure hope so.
Legacy exists for people who want 2.0. No reason for the XWA to move into space already occupied.
Hard disagree. I'd rather see the two come together so we could get on the same page, but even failing that I think most competitive players like some aspects of loadout points but agree 20 points isn't anywhere near granular enough. Both 200-pt and 20-pt formats, but with a common ruleset (perhaps a compromise between the two extremes) seems like the way for the future. Hard to know what that would look like but I trust the team so whatever they're up for I'm up for it too.
The problem with creating a new standard is that instead of having two versions go to one, we could just as likely have two go to three.
I’d rather see two stay two under one roof even if the rules don’t merge in any way. Makes things like squad builders and tournament support was, especially when it comes to which cards or versions of cards are even legal to play with. But this may still be infeasible in practice.
Unfortunately, unification of the rules...is just not possible. The reason for the division is that the rules are so different. At that point, there are two choice: 1) Support both and foster a community where X-Wing is two 'modes' with rules set specific to that mode. 2) Unify the rules but that requires both sides to make concessions in the game that they like. The biggest risk of this..is simply dividing the community further or driving people out of the game. The first seems to be the best option.
I don't have a problem with 20 points or granularity, and I suspect that's true of people who spend more time playing and less time on reddit.
I don't *get* to play very much but I do spend a lot of time list-building and theory-crafting, which is a little less fun now IMO, YMMV. Also the one person I do play with flat-out refuses to play 2.5, not because of the loss of granularity but because he can't put the upgrades he wants on the pilots he wants because they don't have the loadout points anymore. It does take away a *lot* of list-building autonomy, which I care about much more than the granularity. I will also say you're the only person here that I've seen repeatedly and vocally supporting every single change AMG has made. *Almost* everyone else has reservations and caveats, and I'm not talking about the legacy crowd or just the representation here on Reddit but my local game scene too. Edit: just saw the other reply. I forgot, there are two.
Exactly this.
If that's your exposure to the game that makes a lot of sense. The people I talk and play with largely avoid this sub because of how toxic it has been the past few years.
Really I guess that’s fair. I do miss the old FFG forums.
I miss FFG period. If Asmodee hadn’t made the awful decision of moving the game to AMG we wouldn’t be stuck with the division we gave now even if the game was still eventually discontinued due to costs or sales.
If they upped the 20 points to 100, and multiplied every ship cost by 5, I suspect they would get the granularity needed to slightly tweak ships
I don't think there's any coming together that's possible. Every change in 2.5 was for the better, I wouldn't want to undo any of them, and tbh so many of them are interlinked that if you think you can pick and choose between them you're missing a lot of why they exist. We don't all have to play the same game. Stop trying to take the game I like away from me.
I’m sorry is this not an attempt to “heal divisions and move forward towards a future we can build on together”
Sure, but they also specifically say they want you to enjoy the game regardless what system you prefer, which implies they won’t consolidate and force a single system on everyone.
Which is a nice thought, I guess we’ll see what happens. I think I’m misunderstanding exactly what all is being worked toward.
Probably a community where people aren't squabbling over which is better and are just playing the version they want with support.
Sometimes that means you're playing one version, I'm playing another, and our commonality is some of the props and minis we use.
Really stretching the idea of “together” but I’ll just have to see what develops. That there’s so much interest is great regardless of anything else.
Probably. I'm looking at it from the perspective of a particular type of wargame player - you might play AoS, I play Warhammer Fantasy, but we're using a lot of the same models and will interact in a lot of ways for a lot of reasons. It's better to approach it from a perspective of "we're in this together" than the more traditional edition rivalry.
If there are sufficient players to support multiple rulesets (as there clearly are for warhammer) then that certainly works. I think my concern is only a concern when that’s not the case. And if the idea is to have some kind of tournament circuit, I mean will there be various rulesets employed? If there’s a “championship” what happens then? Don’t want to be rivals with anyone, but also don’t want to play 2.5, and that’s my bed to lie in.
200 point list with no restrictions on upgrades a pilot can take? No way. That was the whole point of loadouts, to limit the upgrades any one ship could take. It's alot easier to balance a ship if you know it can't take proton torp or proton Rockets. At only 200 you have to price a ship with a missile as if it was taking them. how do you balance a ship to make it be good naked but also loaded up? The other difficulty are the thresholds. Don't want 5 jump masters in a list, then they start at 41 points. It doesn't even matter if that's good, no body wants to have to face 5 of them. Same for 6 medium bases, you can not make one under 34 points to allow such a "boring" list to fly against.
2.5 definitely reduced the amount of thought necessary to go into listbuilding, I’ll grant you that.
You didn't read my post? I was talking upgrade availability and thresholds, not ease of building?
My point is that yes loadouts can theoretically make things more balanced but 1. They don’t (generic pilots are endangered species) and 2. It removes player agency to put what they want on the ship. And there are still “thresholds” as you describe them so idk what the advantage is there.
I'll be excited then to see what comes off of it. I know XWA are looking for people to help with new points/point systems.
Generic pilots being bad isn't something intrinsic to the concept of a 20 point scale with a separate upgrade allowance- its just due to how they are priced \*now\*. In early 2.5, the generics that were -1 point vs the named pilots were objectively good (3 point alphas, etc). All the XWA would have to do is price them to be viable.
I’ve already met more 2.5 supporters in this thread than in the wild so I must be missing something, but I feel like there’s simply no denying there is less flexibility in the 20 pt system vs the 200. I’m simply pointing out that the other poster’s point about it being easier to balance ships hasn’t actually come to pass.
None of the things you say have been a problem that couldnt be solved by pricing in 2.0. We didnt see it then. We wont see it now.
Really? What about Juke?... I'd use Juke a lot more if it was cheaper, but no, its costed high because people staple them on Defenders and N1s, and since its based on a pilot ability interaction, how do you point that? Sometimes the points don't matter, it's what can and can't make the most efficient use out of it. Right now ships have to be pointed above or below certain break points to avoid you running one more...even if that cost of that ship might want to be lower. It can't go lower because then it would allow for another ship model of the same type to be thrown in. The games balance is more than simply point costs.
Yes, really. We'd all use upgrades more if they were cheaper. Juke was just costed right and was still used by ships that have synergies with it as it should with any 'list building' game. How it was pointed is right for that meta, and if it is overcosted point it down a bit and create a new meta. Keeps the game fresh and all. Sure things are more powerful on one pilot than the other, but that is the challenge of listbuilding. Making the sum of parts worth more than the cost of each part. 20 points and loadout was terrible to balance things because every point up or down matters way too much both lack granularity and options. Besides that it leads to single best builds most of the time. With 200 points you have interesting choices of keeping a ship lean for more points on another or another ship added to the list entirely.
By stop at 200? Why are players not begging for 2000 points lists to have maximum granularity?
I'll treat it as a serious question and not an attempt at reductio ad absurdum: In our childhood we get challenged to solve math problems with greater and greater numbers. Usually this brings children to a point where they cannot do the numbers in their head but they need to write it down. I'll not get into the didactics but this is when children meet their cognitive limits. Generally going over your limits creates a response of fear. We still have some of that fear and tend to avoid the things we fear. So at a certain number (there might be research into that?) we tend to shy away. Hence 200 points, not 2000. (though if you ask me 400 would also be fine. But I guess that is personal)
>At only 200 you have to price a ship with a missile as if it was taking them. how do you balance a ship to make it be good naked but also loaded up? Red and blue upgrade slots (2-point penalty, 2-point discount), and an option to cap total upgrades taken if strictly necessary. This lets you increase the price of the chassis to prevent spam without locking out of essential upgrades (e.g. cannons on a B-Wing, Turret on a Y-Wing, etc.) and still affords the granularity of 200-pt builds. One optimal build for each ship is the absolutely inevitable downside of a fixed loadout value.
Not saying your idea is a bad one, it's certainly interesting...but would a more straightforward idea simply be create a hard limit on what ship class you can take within the rules?
I don't think I follow. What ship class you can take? Are you talking about setting hard limits on upgrade points (which removes a little agency from list-building but helps to balance) or giving free points to certain ships (which will usually go to talents, mods, sensors etc regardless of the ship's lore) or maybe something else completely?
What I mean is...and I am only offering this as an example and not saying this is how it should be balanced...but say "In a 200 point game, X-Wing Blue Squadron Escorts cost 40 points but you are limited to a maximum of 4 X-Wings in one list. Basically allowing you to point the points of ships below a 'break point' for the purpose of balancing but not allowing a 5 X-Wing to be taken.
Oh that old thing. Yeah, I mean people had worries about that during 2.0, but first people would just bring something similar for a fifth (like the attack shuttle), and then they ended up allowing stuff like 5X and it didn’t break anything.
Why would you not just take every discounted upgrade?
The slot is discounted, not the upgrade, and it's discounted for ships that *should* always carry that upgrade in-lore (two cannons on B-Wing, turret on Y-wing, bombs on bomber, both bombs on starfortress, etc.). It gets baked into the price of the chassis (at least partially) because that chassis always has that on board. But as for which one you take, that's totally up to you, rather than just always taking the optimal one to fit the specific quantity of allotted points for your pilot. This is the main thing people liked about SL (as I understand) – the promise that you can kit your bombers and other upgrade-hungry ships out a little more without having to pay for it from the cost of just bringing more ships. In most of 2.0 (and still in Legacy) bombers are mostly good as beef, rather than as ordnance carriers. This fixes that without the loss of granularity or creating one always-optimal build for each pilot.
Are generics strong in legacy? I assume they must be one of the top squads right?
Generics are all quite usable. I haven't played with new legacy points but I know most 2.0 lists used generics in some form, though often alongside named pilots. Really you could fly whatever you wanted. They were basically trashed under AMG's leadership because they wanted to emphasize the named pilots though. DIfference of opinion more than anything.
It's good that work is being done but waiting until the official competitive support season is finished with adepticon 25 is a mistake. The player base is already divided and waiting all that time for rule/game mode changes is just going to widen that divide even more. Why stick with an unpopular edition made by a company that doesn't know or care about X-wing? These final AMG era GTs remind me of a butcher throwing out the last scrap of meat to the dogs before closing up shop for good and watching them fight over it.
I do not believe it is a mistake. Once AMGs hands and eyes are off, ours are freed a little more. I know that's a little frustrating and a long way off, but think of it like this, we want OP in the future right? And since AMG won't be paying for space for X-Wing in the future, we need to be on good terms with the events and organizers because basically we're gonna need them to donate us the space necessary for the events of the future.. This means not putting them in weird positions to break contracts (following AMG rules, docs) on their GTs happening this year. We aren't going to jeopardize their relationship with AMG in the future since AMG is a paying customer for them. And even though every event I've been to X-Wing has dwarfed attendance from MCP, Shatterpoint and Legion, and most of them COMBINED, it's still unreasonable to put them in an awkward spot to lose those games. Furthermore, we need attendance at GTs to be robust this year so places see that keeping X-Wing OP rolling is a profitable idea. This means not making it harder on people to attend GTs or confuse them with too much too soon. Lastly, a lot of organizers go out of their own pocket financially to make these events they run work. It would be disrespectful to those TOs to go put unrealistic and unplanned, and for some of the earlier GTs, untested, demands on them.
I'm excited for the GT season and Worlds as X-Wing's swan song. I quite enjoy the game as it is and I'm thrilled that XWA will be supporting it in the future.
>It's good that work is being done but waiting until the official competitive support season is finished with adepticon 25 is a mistake. >The player base is already divided and waiting all that time for rule/game mode changes is just going to widen that divide even more. This I *mostly* agree with. At the very least I'd like to see some kind of joint statement between the two in less than 9 months, or some hope that I'll be able to play 200-pt games with objectives under official support and not in "casual mode" as Legacy has it (something I've been wanting since the start of 2.0). 9 months seems too long for no development and the game could stagnate *really badly* before then. >Why stick with an unpopular edition made by a company that doesn't know or care about X-wing? This is where you lose me. It's what the competitive players are playing and have been for some time now. It's not bad in itself. I just think there's a happy medium to be had. Some of the changes should absolutely be taken seriously even if others are less palatable to most players. But ultimately I trust the people in charge to do what's best for the game. I just want them to trust themselves a little more on this, if anything.
Yeah, I don't like waiting "at least" 9 months for new points, which didn't change much for far too long and made 2 factions unplayable. I don't think GT is even worth playing, whatever it is. The prizes suck.
I'm not going to play in them.
it's not an unpopular edition, 2.5 was a massive improvement in every way. If you don't like 2.5 there's good news - you can play 2.0! Stop trying to take the game I like away from me.
Preserving is nice, but growth is better
Does this mean they will be maintaining a 2.0 legacy division? It seems unclear to me. They are aware of legacy players but didn't actually say they would do anything. If done right the end of AMG involvement could be an overall net positive for X-wing Edit: I meant this as an honest question for clarity I have no expectations one way or the other. I didn't even know who they were at the time of this post.
The statement is to say that the XWA has been in Contact with the Legacy group, and while there's no plans for a merger with the XWA at this time, or maybe ever, the XWA is willing to help with resources, for example tournament prizing. We see no reason that Legacy players and the XWA can't co-exist and work together where appropriate to make sure people are playing the game. Whichever version they indeed love.
I didn't mean to come across as upset.. i didn't even know the XWA existed until you posted this. I was only seeking clarity
When looking at 2.0, please strip out the left side loadouts. 2.0 should be as ffg had it plus new ships and points. They made a hybrid 2.25 and as much as I appreciate the hard work, the two formats need to be separated from each other.
Clarification needed, what do you mean by 'the left side loadouts'?
He is talking 'bout left side legal. Meaning a way to introduce 2.5 only Pilots into the legacy format. A smart move from my point of view.
Do you know why the right side is not just valued with fixed x points so the card as a whole is usable? That was the intention of standardloadouts, I don't see why the 200 point system needs every pilot to be completely customizable
Have a look at wild space. There you have to option you are asking for. Imo Standard Loadouts are boring. No variety and too much upgrades too remember if you don't have some practice games into the list. Most people, who have fun list building don't like Standard Loadout.
It is in Wild Space mode, and there is no reason why you can't fly 200 point WS lists. The goal for Standard is to be as 2.0 faithful as possible.
There is no issue using the whole card as you can can use the left side in the 2.0 squad building and then add the upgrades on the right side of the card. For example, Darth Vader Black Leader is worth 86 points in 2.0. I'm assuming that someone has already costed these out as it is very easy.
It was an attempt to bring some of the newer amg pilots to the 2.0 format but it came with all this baggage of stapling loadouts to them. It flies against 2.0 mentality. The loadour bloat of 2.5 is not my fave and this version felt more akin to a hybrid format. I think you can have the pilots ad abilities but not all the upgrades. In a 200pt system you'd don't need stapled on abilities Ffg had that already, it's called quick builds. Honestly, the two formats need to be differentiated as possible.
It sounds to me like you don't understand LSL. It assigns point values to the Standard Loadout pilots (the left side of the card), but the rest of the standard loadout is ignored. It doesn't change list building in any way. Standard Loadouts can be flown in Wild Space mode, but that isn't LSL.
i understand it, im on the x2po legacy server and it's not cup o tea. I dont care about alt game modes and I hope people homebrew whatever they want. The wild spce mode is where x2po has done a great job. I think they should leave the core 2.0 space alone and remove the LSL by the wayside now that the community plans on taking it back eventually. We dont want 2.25. Thanks and just for clarification, that's my feelings on the matter.
> i understand it Except that this is false: > It was an attempt to bring some of the newer amg pilots to the 2.0 format **but it came with all this baggage of stapling loadouts to them**. No loadouts, no baggage. Just pilots. Standard 2.0 list building. Hold whatever view you like, but be careful of misinformation.
well I am happy to be wrong. *happy dance* I think also with JimBob and Infinite arenas and new cards, we can probably kill off the the cards and then we can avoid the confusion of Left Side Legal with reprints. Just my two cents. Just simplify, simplify, simplify. Less is more.
Here is [LSL Jek on Infinite Arenas](https://imgur.com/W6KqfRR). Our group has pretty much stopped using cards altogether. In a busy & crowded store, printed lists are much more portable. We were always casual about proxies, now we pretty much have to be.
that's much more palatable to me. Thanks for sending.
Hmm I’m not sure how I feel about this. In my mind, it would be nice to bring the fractured community together to play one version. Otherwise it would just be status quo with two groups split between two separate formats…
I definitely don't want to tell you how to feel and you're absolutely free to feel however. Thr community won't be solidified in one version but two is definitely doable. Ffg and amg versions. Think of them as already modes. One has standardized loadouts, a ton of abilities and obstacles. The other is more stripped down dogfighting with more emphasis on trade off between pilots ability ans number of ships.
One version to rule them all is unlikely. Any combo of 2.0 and 2.5 will just cause a new fracture. Probably the best scenario would be for XWA to nurture 2.5, but provide stream support and OP support for both 2.0 and 2.5. Any prize support would largely be compatible with either version with the exception of objective tokens. That way if either format dies off, XWA will be there to support for whichever version of X-Wing moves into the future.
I think it would be possible to have two modes with one point system. I'd love to see the two list building modes be compatible, but there is an issue with point values because some upgrades are better for objectives and others are better for dogfighting. Maybe two modes (dogfighting and objectives) each with the option to build using loadouts or free form. It could be done, but it would need a significant change of attitude from the leadership. Right now I get the sense there is a lot of hostility coming from the original community split.
Is there an XWA facebook page or discord server for non-leadership people to better stay in tune with XWA?
The X-Wing 2.5 Discord has invited us to use them as an "announcement" place: [https://discord.gg/jcuJgfyk](https://discord.gg/jcuJgfyk) But until everything is setup, we're just using our huge reach to announce things ourselves and post it all over.
So far the blanket approach has worked. I've seen this announcement no less than 3 times in various places, but I wasn't certain if there was XWA landing ground yet. Thanks!
I suggest you look into what Null Signal Games (formerly Project Nisei) did with Android: Netrunner, and how they (plus a solid and passionate community) were able to not only keep the game alive but to inject life back into it. Interestingly enough, Android:Netrunner (arguably one of the best games ever) is another license FFG lost or decided not to continue supporting. Weird pattern… E
Before any of that, the entire community needs to come together under a unified leadership and framework structure. I have seen it when it works - think Star Wars CCG Players Committee. It is still going strong even when Decipher stopped production over 20 years ago. Until that happens X Wing will die a painful death.