THE CASE FOR X WING SECOND EDITION - Discussing which rules to use in the future of X-wing
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 17 ก.ย. 2024
- X-wing the miniatures game is a tabletop game designed for and marketed to adults 14 years old and above. The videos on this channel covering X-wing are entirely designed to be viewed by the same adult audiences, and are not intended to be viewed by children.
Support us by dropping a like and Subscribe and jumping on our Discord to discuss everything to do with the channel/ X-wing/ Table top gaming!
/ discord
X-wing 2.5 Server (best place for XWA updates):
/ discord
X-wing Legacy Server:
/ discord
Join the conversation on Facebook
/ hairynick
Dogfighting was what drew me to x-wing in the first place. That to me was the beauty of the game paired with my love for Star Wars. The pacing with trying to outmaneuver an opponent with hidden dials completely sold me on the game as soon as I saw it.
I liked a lot of the changes that 2.0 brought in, especially how force users really became a thing.
It did become quite token heavy though with all the additions like charge tokens, strain, and deplete.
I wouldn’t be upset if some of those were removed or dialled back to just general ‘stressed’ conditions.
I do like the ability to still shoot at range 0 (but without the close range bonus attack dice) which came in with 2.5.
Agreed, the tokens got a little silly. However, that's kind of a fundamental part of either system at this point.
My biggest gripe with 2.0 is how they have two tokens that do similar things with similar names: Stress & Strain or Disarm & Deplete. Disarm and Deplete even use the same counter graphic.
The problem is the tokens exist for a reason. I actually believe that strain and deplete as 'costs' for abilities is an extremely underutilised mechanic because they were introduced so late into 2.0. While I do understand it adds complexities, it also opens gameplay and mechanical space for designers to do different things. I also think they missed a trick with having deplete and strain tokens be double sided to keep the actual number of tokens down. To be fair I think if Deplete would have been around at the start of the game we probably would never have seen Disarm come back as a token since Disarming yourself is seen as not worth it cost whereas hampering your attack is not brilliant...but at least you still get an attack.
Charges again are a necessary means of tracking use. We all remember the days of 1.0 where secondary weapons were one and done and everyone agreed they weren't worth it, introducing charges opened the door for tracking abilities with limited use as well as even tracking "Have I used that once per round ability?" and things like that.
Token bloat is the cost we pay for additional and interesting mechanics, it's one of those monkey paw things of you could easily remove them...but then you'll be removing mechanics and ultimately those mechanics have their uses.
Another aspect of the 200 point system that I love is that you’re not forced to put upgrades on ships to make them a viable list. I loved running great pilots with light upgrades and being forced to run upgrades isn’t always my thing. Also, from a new player standpoint. Seeing a table full of upgrade cards all the time makes it a lot more difficult, whereas I used to be able to set up competitive squadrons with light upgrades to help them focus more on flying well and less on remembering a bunch of upgrades.
Big agree. I miss being able to run light builds, and I worry that AMG didn't really consider how much it would force newer players to track multiple mechanics and triggers during games.
Nick. Amazing video. Absolutely spoken from my heart. Gosh I miss the old times playing.
One thing you didn't mention strongly is theme of the game and how it relates to some of the rules:
- The dog fights are at the heart of the movies of fightets going against fighters, this is what X-Wing used to deliver. The scenarios do not feel right and rather seem to be ground fighter style.
- Bumping a ship and not being able to shot or taking an action reflects both pilots being busy trying to avoid each other in space.
- List building freedom is the player telling their own little story of a squad of grunts with torps going head to head with an ace with escorts ...
The initiative system and who goes first is an interesting one and I also feel that there is design space that has not been explored. Having seen creative solutions like in Warcry I don't think random or bid on its own is the solution. The bid is the right approach to a degree but needs a bit more rule work.
Hats up how you put things while keeping an open my mind. Thanks for these words.
I am very pro 2.0, but I think scenarios are better for the game, at least as an option, over straight dogfights
Honestly, while I wasn't certain about 2.5 at first, I ultimately welcomed a lot of the changes. The Scenarios alternate win conditions added more variety to play and took the game out of simple attrition and into more complex strategy. The dogfights are still there, one of the scenarios was basically that, save that the addition of the point box helped cut back on a lot of poor gamesmanship tactics like Ace/Slam lists. I know I got a few complaints when Bossk would park for five rounds while Jabba the Hutt sat there refilling his cybernetics and racking up stress. The separate loadout points put a lot of pilots on an even foot, squad wise, and gave people more room to experiment with other builds. One of the most depressing things in X-Wing 1.0 and 2.0 was when I'd show up at a tournament with thirty people and there's only five different lists among them. I like my house of cards lists, and the 2.5 point system let me get creative without feeling like I was sacrificing the whole squad for a gimmick.
So glad to be watching hairy nick videos again.
I liked the point base list building system. Scenarios is what I would like to make a quick point on. i think 200 point dogfight is a no brainer for tournaments, but scenarios are more fun for the more casaul players.
I would say some core mechanics did change from 1.0 to 2.0, but they were things implemented on individual ships or cards during someplace in 1.0 and were almost universally seen as the better version. The clearest example being turrets.
It was a change in terms of the core rules, but that was applying the lessons learned over 1st edition into the core.
You are correct that it's not between 3 different rules sets, because no one wants to go back to 1.0. The switch to 2.0 brought a lot of people back to x-wing, and I don't remember anyone who thought overall changes were bad, just some individual ships getting messed up.
Cheers! :)
I like you have bounced my opinion around a lot. I have come to the conclusion that I like 2.5 minus these rules: 20/loadout building, standard tournaments, bumping and R-0 attacks, and banning of dial mechanics. I think AMG missed the part where dial change/peaking mechanics helps the new players more than the veteran players.
Good video.
Those are my three gripes about 2.5 as well. I can live with scenarios if tweaked, but would like the 200points back to get generics back in the game. Roll back bumping as well or make no shoot range 0 with a focus.
I just want to dog fight in my b wings.😊
One way that the game could compromise is possible. Make 2.0 standard and 2.5 extended. Let stores and players decide which tournaments to run. Make sure both are evenly pushed and promoted.
If you do play a 2.5 tournament people have started playing “gentlemen rules”. Nobody goes after scenario points and just dog fight. As for the clock, I use my phone and start the timer when the judges say go.
Was really hoping they would go back to dog fighting/2.0 as that would have got me back in the game, that's the game I got in to and the game I want to play. Best of luck to all who are continuing with the game.
It's a big ask to expect the core player base to go through another massive change in such a short time. Remember, plenty of people started playing in the last 2 years and ONLY know 2.5. Would recommend jumping on the Legacy 2.0 server if you're interested in playing dogfighting, though. :)
@@HairyNick I understand the reasoning why buy it's still disappointing. I don't want to be part of a featured game that has few players and even fewer organized plays but appreciate the suggestion. All the best with your videos, it's great to see you back.
Great discussion/video
One of the main things that the Legacy 2.0 group has done is create the Wild Space scenario system. So I don't think it's fair to classify 2.0 as "dogfight only". I also think that these sort of casual playstyles (including things like HotAC) are the main ways that X-Wing can continue to grow as you can always add more narrative content (new pilots, "prototype" ships, play environments) without having to rely on Disney giving permission to use any newly created Star Wars ship designs or characters.
Adding another comment :) I think scenarios should revolve around dog fighting, like more styles of chance engagement.
2.0 brought in a lot of nice clean-ups (short of halving piloting skill) and I will not play 2.5 with it taking away the ability to "build what you want"
Having played Wings of Glory, bumping should include the possibility of collision - I wish the game would handle overlapping. I am fine with it preventing shooting/actions, though I think it might be good if you could take stress to shoot/take actions (as if it were a modified red maneuver) so that a 1-v-1 scissors fight doesn't become a stalemate.
I welcome scenarios, but straight-up dogfighting should be one scenario that can be chosen.
Great video, Nick!
Once you move this from a pure dogfighting game to scenario driven, mechanics like collisions had to change because 2.5 is a zone control game, not a dogfighting combat game. It’s fundamentally a different kind of game.
My opinion...I am torn. I think more granularity is needed but I also like that with the current system you see more ships with upgrades than you did in the 200 point days. I am not sure what a perfect solution is to that sadly.
I think rolling initative is still a good idea. Switching for me doesn't eliminate the problem that bidding had, it just makes it less of an issue...every other turn and really in those turns where it will effect you negatively you are then incentivised to disengage and run whereas while the current system carries with it uncertainties, I actually believe it's the risk nature of ROAD that makes it more interesting as an overall game. Now I understand a lot of players don't like it, they want as little uncertainty as possible but I truly believe uncertainty particularly when it comes to movement order breeds the most interesting decision making in the games I've played.
I do agree with ROAD being better in the initiative issue. I really dislike the banning of ships and the 60+ cards.
@@superblue1971 I do agree with you to a point. One of the most disappointing things was the ban list. I think it's important to acknowledge that those cards were banned for a reason and a very good one, but one of the missed opportunities...which I feel would have been addressed long term under AMG if the YT-2400 expansion was anything to go by.
However, it most definitely SHOULD be addressed by the entire community (Legacy 2.0, XWA 2.5 etc); reintroduce those cards back into play with different abilities. Less so important for 2.0 because a lot of those changes were made with 2.5 in mind.
It's very strange to me that I cannot play the Ghost and it be Hera, it's also weird she isn't the go to pilot, so a chance to redo her ability shouldn't be squandered.
Where my opinion will differ greatly from the majority will be the generics. I don't miss the generics at all. I've always believed from day 1 generics have been entirely misused by people in the community in a min-max effort to squeeze efficiency out of the game at the cost of making the game less interesting. Why take 4 ships with abilities and some upgrades when I can just take 5 ships, getting an extra shot is always better 100% of the time and I have another ship my opponent has to deal with. However for me that always lessened my personal enjoyment of the game greatly. I'd have built a list with Luke Skywalker with R2-D2, Wedge with marksmanship, carrying R2-A3, and Porkins and I'd look across the board.....oh...you're flying Blue Squadron Rookie...Blue Squadron Rookie....Blue Squadron Rookie and....oh look, surprise surprise...Blue Squadron Rookie.
I know, people will argue "Oh but blank face of the Empire" and all that and I always believed that argument rang hollow when we literally know the names of the TIE Fighter Pilots to take place in nearly any and all engagements in Star Wars right down to one of the TIE pilots that chased the Falcon from cloud city has becoming an iconic pilot., and don't get me wrong I am all for there being exceptions to the rules like TIE Fighters and Vultures to enable swarm play, but just that; a curated specified bunch of ships that are built to swarm, not just allow any and all ships to do generic spam.
I get that's a 'me' problem but I feel it's still a valid opinion to have and no I am not sure how to come up with a solution everyone is happy with. I do understand there are people out there that don't like upgrades and that is completely and utterly viable and why swarms should be an option. For me; I'd rather generics stay as they are in 2.5, the cards you go to only when you've run out of other viable pilots (beyond the exceptions I have mentioned) and I quite like how SWA have reinterpreted that in their Epic mode to have it so that in Squadrons your squadron leader must be a limited ship, and the wingmen must be Generics. For me that's a good compromise to require a list to have a mix and makes complete sense for the Epic format.
this is the video I've been wanting!!! what are your thoughts on changes to obstacles? (that is not what you meant by "bumping", correct?)
Will be discussing that more in the next video. :)
Scenarios should enhance the dogfight, not replace it. IMO.
I think Chance Engagement is just fine at being the "dogfight scenario" that keeps people honest. Can't run away and regen without penalty. Can't just sit and fortress in place. It's hardly a scenario, honestly and serves a good purpose. So if people just wanted to dogfight, they can just play that.
%100. If done well, I think that can happen.
Great to hear your opinions. I mostly agree with you. Here's mine.
List building: 200 points.
Initiative: just go to a "pass first player each turn" system
Scenarios: keep them
Bumping: allow shooting at range 0, keep everything else 2.0.
Rotating first player is an interesting concept.
I'm allergic to grass, Nick!
I am sorry. Please do not touch grass. :)
So you want more freedom in list building, and to win by knowing/figuring out how to kill your opponent's list faster than they kill yours. That's less appealing to me than multiple scenarios (although the scenarios need to be rotated and supported in a way that AMG did not). I think a good question should be 'how much of the victory should come from list building as opposed to what happens on the table' and I think the answer should be 'as little as possible'.
The way 2.5 killed the game for me was with the fixed points per ship (3 x Alpha Class Star Wing Imperial List couldn't be done because you couldn't load them up anymore) / Banning my good friend Ved Foslo in the TIE X1 that featured in my Imperial Hyperspace list. Lastly my Rebel list suffering from Arvil, Intimidation and Droids being crippled and banned. All 3 of the lists i carried to my FLGS were invalidated.
I think the biggest problem with Dogfighting only is that it became incredibly hard for there not to be some form of either super turtle list, or lists that relied on pulling out and preserving points that couldn't be taken, and those were incredibly unfun and very reliable ways to get the most wins over multiple matches. This was mostly a tournament problem, because it was extremely unfun so it would get table banned, or it relied on running out a clock.
There would be a fix, and then a new problem would happen, because in the end the core idea of "do not engage with the opponent and to not allow the opponent to egage with you unless can guarantee it is favorable" was too good if it was an option.
Scenarios forced players to have to engage each other and meant they couldn't just disengage after they'd gotten a point advantage and never allow another engagement.
In 2.5 there was a scenario that was basically dogfighting, except you needed to have at least one ship somewhere near the middle of the board from the end of turn 2 on, and I think at least "Dogfight but you have to actually fight" is something that should be in there to prevent this issue.
I certainly acknowledge that, which is why I'm excited to see how the XWA overhauls scenarios. The AMG implementation felt too much like an MCP-light approach.
I've been a huge advocate of giving AMG the benefit of the doubt and embracing the changes implemented in 2.5 while accepting they were a work in progress and largely a global playtest on the path to a fully fledged 3.0 version. But I have to agree that the best thing about 2.5 was adding objectives and tournament-legal standard loadout cards. ROAD got a lot of people up in arms, but turned out to be a bit of a non-issue, and I like the thematic Ion-related tweaks (assigning a dial, can bank, breaking locks, and gas clouds potentially ionising a ship).
Pretty much everything else though is either net neutral or negative. I totally get the argument for X-Wing to be a game of hero ships, but generics were always an important part of the game - whether you are going for pure value of cheap ships, or even a core part of a faction identity for swarm lists. That interacts directly with initiative and blocking as well, making pros and cons to taking high initiative aces that can react to the battlefield and shoot first, versus low initiative ships that can be confident of completing their manoeuvres and getting their actions, and maybe becoming an obstacle for higher initiative ships. That is all part of the cat-and-mouse positioning game that is somewhat lost when you can bump focus. And rolling for damage with a self-bump is extremely punishing to run a swarm of cheap low health ships. This has lead to swarms being no longer a thing, and that is a loss to the game as a whole.
With regards to the point system, I really quite liked the loadout system. I have been thinking for a while all the different things we could do to address the problems raised by people who don't like it. There is a definite loss of granularity with the 20 point squad point system. If we bring generics back into the fold it realistically has to increase. If we're going to do that we will want to keep the numbers nice and round to minimise the maths required to see where you're at while playing a game. Since we don't have to account for upgrades/loadout with squad points, we might as well go to 100 which is an easy number to get your head around in terms of how much a ship is worth to destroy, and it opens up scenario points to be adjusted so that they count more or less towards winning a game. That way we can have scenarios that are objective-heavy and ones that are kill-heavy.
The problem with increasing squad points is that it makes it difficult to spend all your squad points. Even if we partially address the issue by offering multiple versions of pilots at different squad point values and different loadouts, it's going to be rare to be able to take the ships you want and have that add up to exactly 100 points. And that means handing those points over to your opponent before the game even starts, losing perceived value, or going back to a bid. Or perhaps a way to convert squad points over to additional loadout points, at which point why not just go back to 200 points combined and use other upgrade restrictions to limit problematic combos.
What I would like to see is the addition of more mission types and more experimentation with the value of objective points within missions. I'd like to see something implemented along the lines of Armarda or some other minis games where each player chooses a couple of objectives that their squad is best suited for, and maybe do a roll-off once at the start of the game where the winner gains the initiative for the whole game, but has to choose one of their opponent's objectives to play.
Agreed on all points. Well said. The conversation around "Hero Wing" is something we should be talking about more. Generics deserve their place in the game.
"ROAD got a lot of people up in arms but turned out to be nothing"
Tell that to the massive attrition
@@jyrlan2596 2.5 has a few legitimate things that affected some players enjoyment of the game, but ROAD wasn't really one of them. For the people that actually played the game rather than rage quitting that is.
@@whittaker007 "for the people that actually played instead of rage quitting"
.......so it did cause attrition?
2.5 did, but not because of ROAD
Off topic, but are those unlimited cards on the shelf? Can we expect some unlimited videos?
Already started, check my last couple uploads!
I spent the entirety of 2.0's lifespan waiting for Dash Rendar to be rebalanced; instead they nerfed him into the ground and forgot he ever existed. Talk about disappointment, lol
Yeah the release we finally got was a bit of a cop out.
An official X-Wing 3.0 should combo elements from Snap Ships Tactics and X-Wing.
I'm not familiar with Snap Ships Tactics. What kind of elements from that do you think would benefit X-wing?
@@HairyNick The creator of Heroes of Aturi Cluster is the head dev of it. If you’re looking for a replacement for x-wing, this is like x-wing with legos.
I would love if X-Wing stole the power/heat console element so it feels like you’re diverting power, and get rid of the charge mechanics
I had completely forgotten about snap ship tactics. Thanks for the reminder. 👍
@@Quack_Shot Well I'm certainly not looking for a replacement, but always happy to expand my horizons. :) I'll check it out.
@@Quack_ShotI do wish we could adjust power output to things per round, that would be pretty cool and thematic. You always hear them in the OT talking about switching deflector shields to double front or stabilizing the rear or diverting power to something. Sure it would make the game more complex, but I think once people got the hang of it, it wouldn't really take that long to do and it would be worth it.
I think I like rolling for initiative every turn.
Definitely prefer 200 open points.
I don't like different rules for bumping friendlies and enemies. Momentum doesn't care whose flag you wave.
On the concept of shooting at range 0: shooting at an enemy ship in contact would be completely practical in reality, but at a risk to your own ship. I suggest something like allowing attacks at range 0, but at the cost of rolling an attack die against yourself (the attacking ship).
I think the unknown timer for highly competitive games needs to stay. I have had the unfortunate experience at store championships and regionals where players were clearly playing to the clock and it is a difficult thing to bring up to a TO. Players are just going to consciously be thinking about time a lot too if it is known. I'd rather just not know, and play it out the way we should. I respect your opinion on this, but just imagine you haven't had to deal with it much (which is great honestly). But there is really no downside to having it be secret except for the TO that has to call it out but that's worth the integrity of the game if you ask me.
Otherwise I agree with a lot of what you said. I think a lot of people were quick to judge ROAD, but I think it played out fine and is better than giving initiative to whoever brings the fewest points. It just is more fair, and probably better than knowing initiative before dials.
I'm really hoping to get back to more granularity in list building. And we need to make generics great again! Game got a lot more complex when every ship is stuffed to the gills with upgrades and every pilot has an ability trigger. We really can't play an entire game in 75 mins any more. So hopefully that will be some of the focus of the XWA. I'd really like to play certain ships, but when they're so overcosted compared to something else, you just can't justify it.
Anyways, love your videos as always. Positive vibes for the future of X-wing. I'm excited to see where this next chapter takes us while the community is at the helm.
I was happy playing casual 2.0, still am. I was happy with dogfights - scenarios were always an option since 1.0, but I prefer a straight fight. No interest in 2.5 whatsoever.
I'd say give 2.5 a go, but you do you. Would love to see some kind of competative return to dogfighting, even if its just an alternate play style.
I just want to buy ships.
Me too. :(
I picked up plenty on gamers guild
I wanted to listen to your opinion. But you as i enjoyed the dog fighting game, so im leaving.
I actually think that a mix of the two is the way to go for sure. I could see also making the points systems for a "simple" and "advanced". list construction that should be able to balance each other out. a new player offered the ability to pick 20 points worth of precon ships with pre-picked upgrades, can take that to a local level or regional level event and have a fair match against a 200 Advanced construction list. it should be a goal to keep a game this complex open to new players. every ship can come with 1 precon for a given platform that is just all about a simple power gameplay structure.
Let's go take the decimator and make the precon unit Captain Oicuun. his pilot ability is forgiving ( you can always bump with his big butt) and then pack in dauntless, intimidation, a close range weapon like Adv. proton, a mine that sticks around like conner nets, ruthless so you can promise damage at a cost (and teach a new player self damage is not immediately bad), agile gunner for easer piloting. this to me, looks like a ship that is fairly simple to use, forgiving for a new player, but powerful enough to actually do something in any game format. and if a really good player can use the precons to squeeze out what would end up a 210-215 list otherwise? cool. he's stuck in precon creation which won't give them advanced mechanics that can be used by an equally skilled player to get over such an advantage.
I'm very curious about "hero wing" points being used as an alternate play format. Will be talking about that more in the next discussion piece.