Speaking as a 1.0 hold out , I don’t see the communities coming together. The game dying just means the stratification of editions and who keeps playing with each one will solidify. I love the idea of the community keeping it alive but it really won’t outside a few hardcore groups. It will end up being 1.0 old heads , 2.0 die hards and the 2.5 cleaners who want to salvage 2.5 for the best that can be taken from it. The divide won’t be fixed and there won’t be any unified view now anymore than there was before the announcement.
I think this is a fair point. I got in with 1.0 and the prospect of needing to get several conversion packs to convert over to 2.0 was a bit of a turnoff. I always had planned to "one day" change to 2.0 (as there are a lot of ships I like only in 2.0), but as stock of the conversion sets started to dry up it got harder and harder to justify paying over RRP for the conversion kits. Now I don't see myself ever moving over to 2.0/2.5, it'd involve rebuying a chunk of my collection, and with the game being discontinued that is only going to get more expensive.
1.0 up to wave 10 plus some careful additions - it's all you need for a wonderful game. Nobody I know moved to 2.0, I think the great majority of players only own 1.0 stuff, fracture is assured unfortunately.
The problem with 2.5 is that there are three distinct groups of changes that have little to do with each other: the rules changes, the scenarios/objectives, and the new list building system. Even if you agree with those things, there is no real reason why they needed to be grouped up into a new edition. The rules changes could have been presented as "Tournament" rules that anyone could chose to use some or all of them in their own home 2.0 game. The scenarios are just scenarios and the game already has those. The list building changes are probably the least needed change as there were already two different list building systems in 2.0 and, just like the others, it is really independent of the rest of the changes. Except for the list building, the rest of the changes in 2.5 could have simply been optional for everyone not playing in an official tournament. Doing that wouldn't have split the player base at all. But saying that people who don't like these changes are "toxic" and should be ignored isn't really the best strategy to get people to invest in 2.5. It is most likely to have the opposite effect.
I must have said something really wrong in this video, because I never meant to imply that *anyone* who didn't like the 2.5 rules was toxic and not worth listening to. I've said all along that too many people were WAY too toxic, and that they were active advocates/members of Legacy. My impression - incorrect it seems - was that they were the leadership of Legacy. I'm very pleased to hear that that's not the leadership, or the feeling within the community. Buuuut on some level it has been the impression people got from the outside. I'm far from the only X-wing player who has felt this way. I am sorry people have felt targeted as individuals, that was never my intention. I'm excited to have Legacy as one of the main formats moving forward so that everyone has opportunities to play the way(s) they want to.
@@casualdadgamesno, you didn’t say anything wrong. You told the truth, it’s just a prickly community. Shocking that a group of people that pitched a fit and left the game hoping the developers would fail might not be that awesome to deal with, and they refuse to acknowledge the very real competitive problems that players developed in 2.0. They don’t have AMG to complain about anymore so they’re going to complain about everyone else. I don’t envy anyone who thinks they’re going to be received well trying to keep the game “alive” moving forward. The behavior of the community since AMG took over (regardless of legitimate complaints about the rules) has been absolutely horrifying. And almost 100% of that toxicity found its way into Legacy. And just look at the comments here. Not “hey, give legacy a chance.” Just coming in slagging you. Not a good sign.
Long time 1.0 and 2.0 player. Covid followed by the AMG changes basically killed the local and competetive scene in my area. I would love to come back to the game but never got on with most of the 2.5 changes.... 2.0 was basically perfect for me and only needed a couple of minor tweaks If I were to return, things I'd like to see... - 200 point lists and recent ships balaced to it - Turn limit removed - 2 ship minimum reinstated - 2.5 obstacle rules YES - I like the idea of R.O. every turn BUT if there's a Random Order every round, then ROBD is 1,000% the way to go ... and reinstate cards that ROAD disqualified ... ROAD killed Hera in the Ghost! 😢 - Change to the bumping and range 0 rules back to 2.0 ... open to changes to prevent repeated self bumping, but never in hundreds of games did I ever think that was a problem - Pre-built ships with upgrade slots instead of their pre-built upgrades... use them as Alternate Pilot cards with different stat lines and abilities - Dogfighting as the primary matchup for competetive ... I think the objective matches can work but don't like the way they got shoe horned into 2.5. Better to build a 3.0 system for the game from scratch. - Point defecit scoring on list building to counteract massive bid advantage - Half point on all ships - On balance, I'd remove the loadout values ... they killed the Generics I've always, always, always wanted an objectives based campaign mode for X-wing though, and would love a build your own pilot for it. I also love 2.0 Epic. Lovethe positivity! Love the coverage! Keep up the good work :D
Honestly as a new player coming into it, I just find the self bumping penalties to be super funny and leads to a more chaotic play experience, had a guaranteed win in my game yesterday… until I forgot my initiative 5 fang moved before my initiative 6 one, and collided into the back of the 2ed one, killing the first
I personally left xwing when 2.5 arrived, and my local community died a few months later. I think 2.5 does address a couple of the issues of 2.0, that highly competitive tournament exposed and that you discuss in this video. Those things were not issues in our local group but I can see how they can be bad for the game in 2.0 My personal biggest issues with 2.5 are the new listbuilding (20pts, upg pts per ship) that makes a lot of lists have so many upgrades that I couldn’t stand it, and the fact that the objectives didn’t seem well integrated to me
Also, I can understand how there were clearly innapropriate comments made at the time, towards AMG and towards players making the switch to 2.5, but I can personally attest to the opposite as well. While vitriolic comments by a few make the whole community look bad, I think all camps came out of that transition looking really bad. Some people not liking 2.5 were being treated pretty poorly by the 2.5 community as well… I don’t see a clear path to bring everyone together again
@@RemisRandR all fair takes. 2.5 is quite different, and does feel at times like an unfinished variation of the game. Playing in tournaments where I learned key tips about how to quickly place Objectives, cool markers, and 3rd party stuff like a Scenario D6 really helped me fit my X-wing play in with the new rules. I also won't pretend that 2.5 fans have always been polite and friendly, there is bad blood on both sides. We're unlikely to get a single unified edition agreed on... But a side-by-side of 2.5 and 2.0 with 1-3 crossover formats in between, that seems totally doable (and healthier anyway).
As a new player coming into it, I found the awkward nature of objectives not being too impactful somewhat of a good thing - you should only win this game with objectives if your opponent is doing nothing, otherwise if you’re both playing the game in a natural way, it still really does come down to the dogfight. I’ll admit the first time I played with objectives it devolved into flying circles around each other not shooting to score points, but the player who’s behind can very quickly math out that they’ll lose with that strategy after a round or two of that sort of action. I mostly like how it exists as an incentive and offers alternative win conditions And then as I lack years of a 2.0 play experience, I find both 2.5 and 2.0 list building basically boils down to “I have a few fun lists I want to try at both sets of points” so 200 vs 20 is just like swapping languages to say the same sort of thing…. But I can totally see upgrade bloat of 2.5 being it’s own grievance, it’s especially an issue that slows down the game when setting up and while explaining lists at the start
@@NinjatoBlade yeah all fair points. My comment about the objectives is purposefully not very specific because I can’t in all honesty remember the scenarios now… I only remember that they didn’t feel properly integrated in the game. They may even have changed since then and I wouldn’t know. The listbuilding for me was the biggest thing. I remember, when I was very involved in the game, just making lists to see what I could manage to fit that looked like fun. I tried a couple times in 2.5 to do the same, but the process wasn’t interesting for me. Always liked trying to find the balance between more upgrades or more/better ships. Also, with 200pts to work with, if some cards are 2-3 pts off (in my opinion), unless it’s at very specific numbers, it doesn’t super matter. But with only 20pts, being off by 1 is huge. Overall 2.5 felt to me like x-wing 3.0, but they chose not to risk actually re-working everything to properly make their ruleset work with existing ships, so the risk they took was having them work weird instead.
I have a massive 1.0 fleet and never wanted to pay the hundreds of dollars I'd have to, to update my fleet to go to 2.0 and beyond. As for list building, knocking the points down by a factor of 10 means it's literally impossible for this game to be properly balanced. A 15 point ship/pilot at 1 point is too strong and at 2 points is quite weak. I mean you could end up with a 16 point pilot and a 24 point pilot both being 2 points? That's just crazy. Anyway, I'm a competitive casual player, I loved the game, I was very good, there was never a tournament scene in my area, so the game abandoned me a long time ago. I think the perfect ruleset is probably a combination of the 2.0 listbuilding and core rules and some of the changes from 2.5 that made the game more about dogfighting again and less about exploiting weird mechanical edge cases to gain an advantage. The core of the game is about predicting what your opponent will do and countering that. We need to get back to that.
To balance the 16 and 24pt pilots, you either do things like slap a Cannon slot on one and give the other one a good bit more Loadout. Ways to give them both advantages that are different and differently weighted - or, you don't, and points changes make each one relevant at different times. That's not any different than 1.0 or 2.0... except that there are more levers to pull. I recently went back and built an equivalent list in both 2.5 and 2.0, then Legacy, and I really didn't miss shaving off Upgrades to squeeze in more ships, or the building pressure to trade named pilots down to generics. I would be much more on board with just upping the base number from 20. 40 is interesting, but I saw even 24* being thrown around as a little more directly translatable. As for dogfighting and predicting your opponent's moves - that's still THE core of the game. Arguably more so with dial peeking and changing being banned. There's just also conflicting priorities and counterplay that make for more nail-biting turns, and it makes for (I think) much more interesting endgames
Legacy's Wild Space is where the focus should be for collaboration as it has already attempted to combine Objective Play and Standard Loadout points in a 250-point system. That's a huge starting point and I think you could get essentially all the legacy folks to buy into both, even if they'd prefer to have tourney play with a 'dogfighting'/chance-encounter only format. The big sticking points are (1) ROAD, (2) Ship overlap/Bump Focus, (3) Range Zero Attacks, (4) Maybe Obstacle changes. (1-3) are somewhat intrinsically linked as the consequences of ROAD created the need to reduce collision penalties, and so ROAD is ultimately the most important rule element. I've heard the 'ROAD increases randomness' claim a lot, but I don't think it's really accurate. ROAD only affects same-ini pilots and I think a bunch of people forget that your 6-skill ace will always fly after 5-skill pilots. Bidding low to get a pretty massive initiative bonus in game was definitely imperfect and unsatisfying. In the worst case scenario of a full 200 point list or a same-bid instance, you still had to flip a coin to determine initiative order. The variance was happening on a game-level rather than a movement-level. I can kind of understand why folks wouldn't want to have to worry about an additional axis of 'risky vs safe' initiative movements, but to claim that the game is less competitive because you have to consider a bigger, more risky play space doesn't jive with me. The game is already full of hidden dials and dice rolls and I don't think the overall influence of ROAD is any bigger than the bidding advantage roll-off randomness. What we're missing with initiative is player agency over initiative order. In 2.0 we had imperfect bidding that sets permanent initiative or a 'balanced' roll-off. In 2.5, we have more of that 'balanced' roll-off approach, just with more granularity and higher frequency in game. In neither 2.0 or 2.5 do players have a way to influence that initiative order within the game itself and I think that's where most of the 'bad feels' due to initiative consequences come from. I'd love to see options to allow players to either gain or lose initiative within the match as a result of player's flying/shooting skill. Two ideas: (1) The player who uses the fewest squad points determines only the starting initiative. If the last revealed maneuver in the round is not fully executed, the initiative must change hands. Poor flying can have consequences and the second player can try to position defensively in order to win that initiative boon. (2) Make ROAD rules default for most ships except single-ship initiative token holders (per skill level), with no ships starting with initiative tokens. First blood damage to a hull of a same-ini ship grants initiative token. Subsequent damage to the initiative holder by a different same-ini ship transfers the token. This simultaneously gives an incentive to engage first as well as provides a push-pull mechanism for same-ini pilots to fight over an initiative token. Another variant could allow you to lose initiative token for a variety of reasons (failed maneuver, crits, depletes, etc.) Honestly, I think there's good competitive gravy that we should try to preserve from both formats. Increasing the possible flight play space is not a bad thing. Neither is gaining more perfect information due to good tactical decisions. My aim is to try and squeeze both aspects into a manageable mouthful. My biggest concern is that additional rules increase game complexity (and skill ceiling) quite a bit and may make the game more obtuse for casual players. Here are some older '22/'23 community feedback polls that might give some pointers as to where pain points exist: midwestscrub.wordpress.com/2022/05/12/2-5-months-of-2-5-x-wing-survey-results/ fridaynightxwing.wordpress.com/2023/05/30/x-wing-survey-vi/ What I get from those is that the bump-focus rules are universally disliked lol.
Just a quick addition on Wild Space is that it's Rules Agnostic too. It's an addendum to whichever rule set you are using. If using the 2.5 Loadout squad building, simply build to 20 as normal and just shift the decimal over for scoring for scenario points. -Happy Flying!
@@CaptainTruelove Yup Wild Space is a great success as is - and I encourage current 2.0/2.5 folks to both try it out! It's *because* of that success that I think it provides some good scaffolding to build out a potential 3.0 ruleset.
@@Tsotanga2 Hey, I'm glad you think so! If you find anything in Wave 2 Open Beta, please let me know! We've identified a few small ticket things to fix/change in part to better align with both rule sets (one big ticket item that is easily rectified, and a few smaller ones to better align both rulesets).
@casualdadgames I dunno, man. It just felt like they watered the game down so much for 2e. Took a lot of the fun out, for my playgroup. I never played 2.5
They dialed down the power level for sure. And man did Large ships take a ding. The biggest thing I go back to is turrets. Sure, it makes narrative sense for turrets to be able to hit anywhere anytime, but in-game it's an insane advantage. Then that led to Autothrusters, which led to turrets getting TLT, then to offset turrets AND Autothrusters they started bringing fixed-arc Ordinance up with Harpoon Missiles... Not that that was the entire experience of playing in 1.0, not everyone ran any of that, but I'm over the moon to have not seen, say, Miranda since 1.0. Really I'm just glad there are multiple ways to play, and for the most part enough players to play them, for everyone to get what they want!
We'd not played in years so i comped us back to 1st ed - wave 10. For us it was the peak of flying prior to jumpmaster and various other expansions leaned too far away from the 'flying'. Nobody I know moved past 1.0, nobody in our group bought the conversion packa. So we have our comp which we work on and add to carefully as we play. Amazing game, still is if you ban enough stuff.
Hey. First of all, thank you for your work! I find it difficult to attribute the behavior of individuals to an entire community. Just because someone favors Legacy doesn't mean they are the voice of that community or represent it. I understand that you've had experiences with toxic players who prefer 2.0, but these people are not the face of the community, nor does the community have any control over what people who enjoy their work say. For my part, I am not in contact with any representative of the Legacy organization, nor do I follow their social media or participate in their Discord. I simply use their content to play the game I prefer. Many in our local group do the same. I hope you can keep this in mind the next time someone annoys you who happens to play Legacy. That person would still be unpleasant even if they played 2.5. Otherwise, thanks for your input; it helps me understand what people like about 2.5. Although I can't personally relate to these reasons, I respect that there are people who see it differently. Best regards from Germany!
Guten abend, freund! You and other commenters are correct in this point, and I fully intend to dial back the criticism of Legacy as a community and focus on the specific individual experiences. I also appreciate Legacy folks' patience and taking the time to reach out to me about that part of the video. Happy flying!
@@casualdadgames That's wonderful to read, and I'm glad that we can consider this from different perspectives. I've also noticed in your work that you make an effort to highlight various viewpoints. This is an important contribution, and I'm very pleased to see how you fulfill your responsibilities as a content creator. Keep up the good work and know that you can count me as one of your viewers! :)
Wow. Strong opinions. Shots fired. I am trying to process this. Trying to respond in a fair way. See, because reddit has always been a "toxic hellhole." ALWAYS. I've quit that platform and rejoined and quit again so many times for that very reason. But you must recognize that the toxicity flows both ways. It always has. Probably always will. And yes, Legacy players - myself included - have some very strong opinions about the changes made to the game. Some of those people are going to go too far when expressing their grief and their unhappiness. You can always count on someone going too far. But it is entirely unfair judge an entire community by its extremists. And I'm going to stop now. There's simply too much going here for this kind of format to support. You've struck a nerve. Because you've basically called me and my buddies down at the flgs a bunch of raging assholes, and we are not that. Play the game the way you like it. Fly casual. Have fun. Just.... siiiiiiiigh......
You, your buddies, and nearly everyone in Legacy is definitely not a raging asshole (...I think. Clearly we've never met, but based on your comment that's a sturdy limb to go out on). I quit playing in-store because of COVID. I never went back because of Legacy. The friendliest, kindest, most dedicated X-wing fans I ever knew flat-out refused to touch the 2.5 rules or points changes. Wouldn't even try them. And even this past week, those same people have been actively posting about the game again - much like the big marketing posts in the Discords - more or less saying "thank goodness, now you all can stop drinking the kool-aid and come back to your senses," with a healthy dose curses on AMG's name and spitting on all of the changes they ever made. Zero recognition that a ton (maybe even the majority) of new and current players actually like the bulk of the new rules. Reddit on the whole is actually remarkably positive. It's one of the (weirdly) friendliest social media channels, in general. Especially in the fan bases where people talk about their favorite games. The X-wing Sub is not. More to the point it *used to be,* but changed around COVID. Is that all Legacy's fault? AMG's fault? No, but it's driven a huge number of people away from the channel and the game. That's new, and a lot of that goes back to some extremely active, negative, regulars who happen also to be big parts of Legacy. That's not you, or your buddies. That's not all of Legacy. That IS what most of the rest of the community thinks of when Legacy as a group comes up. Not the individual players, but the bad stuff, and the places where the bad stuff happened and continues to happen. But yes, the big part of my goal with this wasn't to shame anyone or any edition, but to highlight the differences between the three, especially for new players trying to figure out where to go. That I DID strike a nerve and published what felt like a personal attack on you and your group - for that I am genuinely sorry
@@casualdadgames you have the right to your opinion, as we all do. We really just don’t want to obfuscate facts from fiction as AMG did very well from its 2/22/22 statement to us… I stay off discord and most public Xwing forums, better to rub elbows and socialize and stay arms length yet aware I’m dealing with actual people. Our want for instant gratification causes half our woes these days, in my opinion. Btw, not part of ANY ‘1’ group, from my standards, I go where I go lol ‘…just a man trying to make his way through the galaxy’ Legacy allows use of generics ships and customization, AMG 2.5, not so much. I believe one is incomplete and I believe the other never had enough to justify banning cards for the pushing of the mixed card ‘dynamic’ and I don’t expect anyone to think how I think, I can only HOPE that assertive decisions for gameplay by a community who care’s about the game comes out ahead in all of this. Honestly don’t care who that is though the XWA will probably be closer to ‘home base’ for me BECAUSE I’m 51% casual, 49% competitive. Peace to you and yours! 🤗 (AMG seems too high in the clouds for me to even give them a little credit, Dont like the false advertising/obfuscated nonsensical jargon on 2/22/22, and sadly, since)
I also like having modes other than simply "just dogfighting". So in that sense, I appreciate the direction they were heading in 2.5 My main personal issue with the squad building (aside from the generic-pilot hate (huge bummer)) is that the load-out logic means you should always max out your upgrades, and I feel like (at least at the non-competitive level that I play with my friends) this unnecessarily leads to complexity creep (whilst somehow still being more restrictive) Also: I'm a brand new (I know, weird timing) player and I'm loving your channel! Keep it up! Thanks for your hard comments on community friendliness and respect. Those are so so important. There's no place for rudeness in our hobby anymore.
Oh hey! Welcome aboard! You're spot-on on the upgrade bloat. In 1.0 and 2.0, I was often frustrated that almost no upgrades were "worth" the points over more bodies, so you only saw the same handful of upgrades (sometimes spammed). In the new system, I see a much wider variety of cards and slots being used than ever before, and that's been refreshing for me personally as a long-time player. Buuuut, yeah, that's a whole new kind of problem. 2.5's bloat could be solved by slashing Loadout across the board, but that could skew balance and we're back to upgrade scarcity and little variety. 1.0/2.0's problem could be solved by adding some form of LV system. Or, we could get really weird and add a 40k-style Force Organization Chart or Faction limitation system that would add some different kind of lever to give granularity, customization, AND variety. Personally I really like what 312 has been doing by pipping Generics so even if they're cheaper, they're less spammable (although you can still do it with multiple chasses). We'll just have to see what happens :D
Wow, great to see all the work being put into this.... I mentioned before I am not a fan of print and play, I hope the guy who runs Infinite Arenas will also sell the rules, scenarios, etc. once it has all be finalized... I have been waiting for some of his product to get back and stock and plan on ordering the deck packs. Thanks as always for the info.
I mean - anyone with any love for Republic or Separatists probably isn't going to go for that XD I also think while 2.0 folks are on to something about granularity, I'm not ready to completely abandon Loadout Value. Or ROAD.
Wow, The collapse of Xwing. i played 1.0 and had a big amount of ships, tired 2.0 but didn't like the splintering of factions or the money out to upgrade all the cards. I just found out that there is a 2.5 only to find that it is gone now as well. I understand the value of the online list builders, but there is a likelihood that those will not be maintained and it'll be wished that the points on the cards, as imperfect as it was, were still available.
I wonder - generally, yes, of course you're right. But this community is BIG, international, and both motivated and well organized (not to mention fairly well funded). I would be on the list-builders being maintained indefinitely. "Indefinitely" doing a lot of work as a Null field of course.
Too many changes because competitive abuse. The 2.5 rules ultimately divided the community which resulted in the dead of the game. Those are facts. We need a new system that move us out of 2.5 so we can unify the player base again in ONE game. Hopefully the community will do that!
I'm fairly sure that ship has sailed. One game for major tournaments, two, at least, is more likely. But different communities are probably irrevocably divided beyond that already, let alone a year or two from now.
To update you, currently this week the XWA is holding a vote on a 3 person leadership council. It will have a name like The Senate or something Star Wars and goofy. These three people will be responsible for processing the next steps, setting the pace, and guiding the XWA forward. I wish everything was faster paced, but slow and steady is the way.
"We ARE the Senate. And Alpharius" (please say that, at least once!) Thank you for the update! As much as I'm eager for next steps, I do appreciate the slow and steady approach. Like you've all said already, there's an active tournament season going on for half a year yet that a whole lot of community work has gone in to. Plus, after the "farewell tour," who knows what further official announcements we'll get? Really enjoying the approach, appreciate all y'all's work, and the prototype points are very promising!
2.0 squad building with 2.5s game play mechanics The list building in 2.5 is trash. Generics are useless and upgrade points being per ship made a lot of ships useless for their intended role.
As is right and just! I do think the future will largely be XWA 2.5 and Legacy, probably both appearing side by side at formal events at every level. Odds are good plenty of players will hop back and forth too, whether for the formal events, side events, or just pickup
I'll never play 1.0 again, 2.0 was too much of an improvement to go back there. I don't want to play 2.0 as it finished. The bid system just got stupid - if you weren't winning the bid, you were probably losing the game. 2.5 is good, but 20 points makes for stupid list building. To start, it should be 200 points with everything costing 10 times as much. Then ships can be tweaked a lot better. ROAD has just improved the game so much, for me, that I don't want to play without it. So, I would play 2.0 - but only if they bring in some 2.5 rules. I will play 2.5, but hope to see some improvements in points.
I quit with 2.0 coming out. Not really because I was against it, but I was tired of the same old song and dance of each wave power escalating to the point if you weren't buying the new ships you were not competitive. Even if you wanted to play the objective best way to use your old ships you often needed the cards from the new ships to compete. I didn't see an end in sight and the $300 price tag to "upgrade" my collection was the door I needed to see myself out of the community. Honestly listening to you talk 2.5 sounds like an absolute breath of fresh air for the game. Dogfighting is fun but being the only way to play is stale. It also drastically limits game design space as you only really have 2 levels to turn, attack values and defense values. It was nearly impossible to have a utility ship in 1.0 because the only utility a ship really had outside of those values was the space it occupied on the board so if thats all you cared about the cheapest thing for the space is all that mattered.
2.0 really improved on that power creep. 1.0 went deep into cane-toading balance issues, unleashing crazy unintended consequences - and since there were no card packs or way to change values on the cards... Yeah. 2.0 improved a *ton* in that regard. Errata, ban lists, adjustable points and upgrade slots - absolutely huge. It's still fundamentally the same, just maybe grown up a bit. My next video (barring more disturbances in the Force) should be a "Play & Chat" where I'll play a game and compare how the editions would differ in each situation. As part of the prep for that I've gone back to 2.0 list-building and I'll definitely have commentary on exactly that. Also, welcome! I'm glad you're enjoying my content!
Can't we just keep the dog fighting and make it so you can't just run and hide and you can't hit your own ships without a penalty and just play until all ships are destroyed or a player concedes ? decide on a points value at the beginning, either on just pilots and all add ons are included or a point system for everything and then just play ?
It's going to be up to individual groups and players. For my part, I like Objectives and don't really understand (but do respect) the resistance to doing anything but dogfighting. I couldn't think of a single Star Wars space battle that wasn't about some mission first, dogfighting second. Part of the conversation is that even with a "few" moving parts here, there's a hilarious number of possible combinations, so community consensus on a few variants could go a long way towards supporting a game for all players
@@casualdadgames I completely agree and think objectives are fun for playing at home or at your local store, I was thinking more competitively. just stick to a point system and fight it out. at the end of the day I don't really mind as I love the game so just want to see it do well and continue to grow
@@19EightySixINC Competitive play is where you saw\see the most issues come up - self bumping\fortressing in a corner. Points fortressing (especially with bidding in play). If there is a boring yet effective way to win... it will be used. We all forget how we very very rarely saw a slew of those mid-range pilots that sits in the I2 to I4 initiative slot. It was more beneficial to just spend a bit more for that I5 or I6 Ace to arc dodge or shoot first, or both or a little less to get multiples of those generics to block or just have so much for your opponent to chew through. I recall even when 2.0 came out, there was a lot of talk about scenario play. It just adds to much to a game.
Homebrew is open season ladies & gents…combine rules, personally, I’m using my huge ships, AMG can’t put the kings stamp on my C-ROC! Nor should anyone stop figuring out ‘ways’ to enjoy your models. Just look at HotAC. Good luck space cowboys…
games like x-wing, once they are solved, the community will gradually die because there is no new content. the only way the community can continue to grow is with community made story driven campaigns.
@@casualdadgames its really limited to the ability and imagination of the community to come up with story driven campaigns. if they have experience in D&D or other miniature systems it will of course be easier. a simple story campaign can be a rebel fleet is trying to escape from the imperial fleet but they are held back because a secret EMP weapon has disabled most of their jump capabilities. hence they have to wait till most of them get it fixed and then make the jump. or a small rebel fleet has managed to steal a secret weapon from an imperial research outpost. the fleet has to survive X turns and jump away before the imperial reinforcement star destroyers arrive. other parameters include no special character ships unless they are part of the story etc. you can even have rescue missions as part of the story campaign. usually the final game in the campaign is a big battle.
I’d say AMG should invest in some 3-D printers lol ever design your own starship for a 3-D printer? (Walking away whistling) Enjoy your models AND your starship combat game!
How do the Quickbuilds work for 2.5 then ? (Newbie). I just make a list of max. 8 points and I add all the upgrades and cards that it says on the quickbuild right? :)
I also wonder how the 3d printing scene will adapt and make the ships and flight stands available. As well as scanning the cardboard and making available to print at home 🤔
Are we talking the old plain text black cards? If so, yup, pick the ship and grab the upgrades. Those are pretty old, so chances are some slots/points won't work anymore. Buuuuut, if that's the route you want to go, Infinite Arenas makes decks of exactly those cards, with pilot abilities and upgrade text all printed out: infinitearenas.com/
2.5 "replaced" these with the new Standard Loadout versions, which look just like Infinite Arenas' versions - large, Tarot-sized cards with all of the pilot and upgrade text on one card - but often have unique abilities and upgrades that don't appear on any standalone upgrade cards (see the Battle over Endor pilots here: www.atomicmassgames.com/transmission/star-wars-x-wing-battle-over-endor-rebel-preview/)
"Something given has no value." AMG was given the highly successful game of x-wing by asmodee after asmodee purchased FFG. The current state of the game is wholly AMG's fault.
My understanding is that sales-wise, X-wing never recovered from the transition to 2.0. AMG took some smart business steps to address that (some less so, especially on the community engagement side) ...but they were tasked with rebooting a production of a physical production in the middle of a catastrophic failure of global manufacturing and shipping, one that still hasn't recovered. Lay blame, sure. But it's dishonest to claim the entire state of the game is AMG's fault. Especially since 2.0 was a redesign to fix FFG's issues in the first edition in the first place.
Dishonest isn't the word I meant to use, you're obviously entitled to your opinions, and I'm sure you're a person of integrity (seriously). BUT, the statement that X-wing was "highly successful" at the end of 2020 is outright false. So is the quote. And the statement that the state of the game is "wholly" AMG's fault immediately after saying it was Asmodee who chose to give it to them contradicts itself.
I definitely agree that all the rules changes from 2.0 to 2.5 was a natural evolution of the game, but I can certainly see people's issues with the list building
Oh yeah. I'm, personally (and I think I said so?) coming around to something as simple as doubling squad points up to 40, and making Objectives worth 2/4 instead of 1/2 To limit upgrade bloat, you could also make upgrades across the board a little more expensive, but some of the stuff for key pilots (I'm always thinking of how to fix Dengar) a bit more affordable.
@@casualdadgames personally as a new player, I find it very digestible with 20 points, you can very easily tell if you’re getting 3-5 (or even 7, for CIS) ships just based on who you’re building around. I find that you tend to build around a particular leader pilot or whatever abilities you like sorta like subfactions in other games, then the strength of said leader is increased or decreased based on the amount of upgrades they can take. As a result of having more rules and higher initiative built in though, I feel like named pilots should have less of a pool than unnamed pilots or something. (Base cost depending of course) but it’s ridiculous how some unnamed pilots (Jedi Generals looking at you) are just expensive and have no upgrade pool
@@NinjatoBlade both kind of relics of the active balancing 2.5 was going through. Drop-seat and Commandos both got nerfed really hard because the Commando tokens just made a total mess of play areas - as I understand it - but there was always room for things to come back in in a later update. Generics have been a hot-button topic too, and the experimental community points I've seen do exactly that: shave down the squad cost of key Generics and the lv of some Named equivalents, then bump the cheaper generics LV a reasonable amount.
I sense…suicidal empathy….but that’s just me… AMG needed(s) to study the game a little more instead of just dismantling and cherry picking. Good luck, I’ll say no more. Peace.
All communities are represented by a vocal minority who usually don't actually represent those communities. X-Wing rules were changed to accommodate a vocal minority of hyper-competitive elitists who weren't winning, because FFG/Atomic Ass Games only ever listened to that vocal minority. Today, another vocal minority is attempting to impose its will upon the future of a discontinued board game, thereby sabotaging any effort to unite the community under a single banner. X-Wing players have always been too emotionally stunted and weak-willed to see through the bullshit, which is why everything happened the way it did.
The whole point of the so-called X-wing Alliance is to guarantee Organized Play, points balancing, and maaaaaybe even some physical product support moving forward. They're also a lot more likely to support 2.0 (Legacy) and even 1.0 on some level than formal developers ever were. That potentially *is* a single banner, which would be the first time since the game launched. I don't think any single version of the game could ever hope to be a unifying one, that ship has long since sailed.
So can I ask a rules question, from one dad to another? I collected a fair amount back in 1.0, played casually (at home with my kids), and have long had the intent to play through HOTAC, even to the point of printing the rules in a nice spiral format. I picked up the conversion kits when they came out with the same intent, but didn't follow through. I got away from it for awhile, and was learning TTS over the past year for other games, and had the idea of doing HOTAC on TTS, and was watching your stuff when all this news broke. I had no idea about 2.5 until a few weeks ago, am rusty about the 1.0 and 2.0 rules anyway, so I feel like I'm coming in with not much stake about what version to play, and am mostly confused about the different point systems. For HOTAC on TTS and home play, what rule set would you recommend I start with?
I would start with the one you know - 1.0. If I'm not mistaken, HotAC was originally designed for 1.0 anyway, and it sounds like it's the bulk of your collection. Then, I would try (or watch) a game or two each of 2.0 and 2.5, see if either one "speaks" to you enough to fully convert. No matter which you go with, HotAC will work just fine! My next X-wing video is (planned anyway) going to be a TTS "Play and Chat" of 2.5, so maybe that will help :D
@@casualdadgames Pretty young, around 7-9. Probably too young, but I just simplified things as much as possible, and was really forgiving about bumps and the like. Just enjoyed the basic concept of flying around, trying to get shots off. Didn't use any advanced builds. Focused on simplicity. It's on the radar to reintroduce now that they are teens...
How the hell does it turn out that in every video you make, you somehow manage to get so much wrong? Is it intentional? Is it just to get views and guarantee one comment to come and correct you? Mistakes and oversights in order below with timestamps 4:50 "Flying over obstacles was a very viable strategy". Patently false. Intentionally going over a obstacle was and had been always a very *risky* strategy because it cost you your all too important action and the damage potential was always a serious concern, not to mention missing out on an attack. The only exception was gas clouds in the Republic faction initially at the being of that release had a couple really balance poor interactions that later FFG erratas addressed. Self bumping was not as common as you play it up to be either, many competitive list archetype couldn't even dare risk it and try somehow you repeatedly harp on throughout. It would be so nice to see you not sugarcoating and down playing the reality to try to artificially glamorize your opinion. (More on this one below) 7:00 The Empire has initiative rule didn't last through all of 1.0, in fact it didn't even make it two full years. it was eventually swapped to a standard coin flip for all ties in 2014 or maybe even before that I can't recall, that's just the date on a doc a quick search found. This was documented in the tournament regulations. Remember, S&V had to be added and that rule was incompatible with a later added three faction system. 16:30 X2PO has two new rules. Once a ship is scored at half points, it is scored. It can't be unscored by regen. And the first time you score points from an opponent, all of the opponents bid is also credited to your score at that time. FFS, sir, you had the website open in front of you and you missed that? It's incredibly poor reporting, even for amateur TH-cam, to then make the claims "these people want to keep bidding" and simultaneously not report on how they are trying to address it. For the love of Grogu they even made it a separate document so you could find it in one place. Link for the ones who actually do their research x2po.org/standard 22:00 Toilet bowling and fortressing. Here you just say you've heard a lot of *players* argue they aren't problems. And completely ignore that off the top of my head Alex Davy and Max Brooks, maybe others I can't remember, both directly responding in interviews to questions about these issues provided very detailed insight as to what they thought about them, the data they had on them, and why they also didn't spend more time adjusting the game for them. If your going to attack the players for their opinion, I say then you should recognize that the devs didn't think they were a problem either. Have fun trying to argue that with them, but at least you'd be arguing with the right people. These two conditions were a thing that very rarely led to any significant results beyond annoying cheese. And if it was really such a problem there were plenty of other mechanic options to remove it other than flat damage that just penalties new players who don't often even know they'll bump. But by all means, rant away.
Full disclosure, I do these without notes - which you're absolutely right, I need at least an outline if I'm going to keep doing this. Also on this particular video I did three takes and this was the "best" one. I DO appreciate the corrections, I'm not making mistakes on purpose - just scrambling three editions (two of which I haven't played in years) live on camera. Flying over obstacles wasn't *always* a viable strategy, and you're right it was mostly gas clouds, but it's not an exaggeration to say it was much more common in 1.0 and 2.0 than in 2.5. Risky, sure, but that doesn't make it not viable. Empire going First - that was changed in tournament documents, was it ever changed in the written rules of the game? There was enough less incentive to look anywhere but the box in 1.0 that tournament-specific adjustments affected very few players, but I could see that having been added in the TFA Starter. Still, I appreciate being called on that, because I couldn't remember how initiative was called in 1.0 and there wasn't a quick reference available. Definitely appreciated the note on the changed rules in x2po. On that, I was relying on a conversation I saw maybe a week ago where it was clearly stated by multiple sources that there were no significant rules changes to Legacy 2.0. Obviously that's false, and those are very positive changes I'll be sure to highlight in future. HOWEVER, that doesn't change that initiative is still decided, in part, by bidding - and everything I said about the in-game importance of that is still true. It's also important to note that the focus of the video was talking about 2.0 as it was when FFG ran it and I dipped in and out of Legacy, but certainly could have made more clear distinctions. Toilet bowling and fortressing are game design problems. I experienced them personally, I have regularly heard other long-time players talk about how happy they are that they're gone, and even if they weren't all the time, every game, holy crap did they suck the fun out of games - that's opinion. Pure, biased, off-the-cuff opinion, but that one I'll stand by with no apology. Deliberately not engaging and giving yourself maneuver options that aren't on a ship's dial should come with significant costs, which in 1.0, 2.0 and 2.0 Legacy they don't. Frankly I don't care who disagrees on that point, that's their opinion which they're fully entitled to. Just to be thorough, one thing I missed completely was the bump-focus/calc, which is new in 2.5, so we can add that to the mistakes list too ;)
@@casualdadgames Flying over obstacles being touted as "viable" really should be further qualified is what I really want to get across here. I'm not arguing that it happened more often in the first two editions, that's obvious. But you still have to add to that declaration that if you were going to make a move over an obstacle, it was more than likely because your earlier flight plan from a turn before or so was disrupted and you're looking for a way out of a problem, and there's no other real option. It's one thing for someone to say "flying through rocks was a viable strategy" as a catch all statement that implies no consequences as though you could plan a whole approach around it, and something completely different to say "if you're really stuck you can throw this move as a */viable/* last ditch effort to get out of trouble, but it comes at a moderate price." The latter statement is clearly more accurate about the old version. Nobody was just winging it over rocks to try to get shots whenever they felt like it. The AMG edition upped the price and risk to the point of just removing the option entirely for better or worse. Personally I thought it an overcorrection, but whatever. Try telling an Aces player in an older edition they can absolutely send Soontir or the like over that debris, trust me it's "viable" :/ X2po is stuck with bidding and the only thing in their structure they can do to change it is points adjustment and scoring modification which they have. There are plenty of voices inside their community that push for all manner of different initiative systems. Unfortunately because they're trying hard to not just rewrite the game into a fan edit entirely, the core structure of the game is left in its artifact state. But even they will tell you to by all means use a house rule for init if you want. It's a huge reach to lump them all together and throw shade at them the way you did. Especially to then retreat to "oh well I heard from secondary sources a week ago which is why I was misinformed". Like I heard this one time, from that one guy, who read in this one thing,... Do better as you said you would and you won't get a complaint from me. On empire-first. The general rule reference book and the tournament document were often updated in synch, but I don't think it was always. It's been a long time but I think the general Rules Reference was updated close to the tournament docs in those early years. And I want to say that some rules were duplicated across both the tournament docs and the rules docs back then as well, they might've even been merged? Again my memory is fuzzy. Considering the Most Wanted box came out in '14 as well, that might've had the first printed hard copy rules insert for initiative in the box to account for the new faction. The little like two page or foldout ones those boxes often came with. So I'm sure the TFA box(Dec 2015) would've had it as well in a full book version. And the online PDF rules would've all had it in that time period. Unfortunately my Google Fu was weak and I could not find the PDF for any of those, generally searches only come up with the last revision. If anyone had shown up to a game night or event around that time I'm sure that's about when they would've found it without looking themselves. Those online rule docs were also where the FAQ were so they were easy enough for even kitchen table folk to find. Now admittedly this is anecdotal, but I'd add here that often I had players come to the store doing the coin flip anyway because the first rule book had a weird phrasing that in one part implied you ignore the empire-first rule entirely if playing your own lists, and many assumed you then randomly determined and never read the rest of the rule like two pages later. Your experience may vary. It really wasn't intuitively written in the first pass, to the point many never noticed it changed. I saw you had corrected yourself in the comments about bump focus, so I had not included it
I really want to get past it, not be petty and set the stage for a friendlier community moving forward... But those latest big recruitment posts have really rubbed me the wrong way, I couldn't help it XD
In your next video, please take a Star Wars action figure and point on it where the big bad Legacy community hurt you😮😮😮. Legacy didn’t kill “your” game, AMG killed our game. Legacy doesn’t feel threatened by AMG Wing, we just don’t like the game. By comparison, you genuinely feel threatened and triggered by our existence. Lastly, and for the record, there are additional groups playing V2.0- the toxic personalities that were affiliated with Legacy are no longer there and have migrated to some of these groups. Get your facts straight before you smear an entire group…
Don't tempt me, I'll do the action figure thing XD To be clear, Legacy absolutely did not kill the game, or even the community. I never meant to say or even imply that. I'm also very surprised to hear that some toxic personalities have been... unaffiliated? I had no idea there had been anything like that (and would like to know where I could find exactly that for future research). I was going to say "Of course I'm not threatened!" but on some level, yeah. The Subreddit and FLGS' are the first stops for a lot of prospective new players, and there have been times where I'm sure a whole lot of new players wanted nothing to do with X-wing and returned it/left it on the shelf. You could say that's "threatened," yes. I'm genuinely hopeful about where Legacy continues on, and becomes a core part of the life of X-wing moving forward. Y'all have done a great job of building out the resources and tools. I'll do my level best to move on from the criticism I expressed here.
This comment reads like parody lol. Like, are you seriously just doing the EXACT embarrassing thing that was pointed out. I myself prefer 2.0 rules, but it's such a huge bummer that this is associated with people like you, who seem somehow incapable of expressing a point respectfully
![30 ชั่วโมงคนเดียว บนรถไฟชั้น 3 โซเวียต [Around The World Ep. 2]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/MlE9boAVqDA/mqdefault.jpg)
Speaking as a 1.0 hold out , I don’t see the communities coming together. The game dying just means the stratification of editions and who keeps playing with each one will solidify. I love the idea of the community keeping it alive but it really won’t outside a few hardcore groups.
It will end up being 1.0 old heads , 2.0 die hards and the 2.5 cleaners who want to salvage 2.5 for the best that can be taken from it.
The divide won’t be fixed and there won’t be any unified view now anymore than there was before the announcement.
I think this is a fair point. I got in with 1.0 and the prospect of needing to get several conversion packs to convert over to 2.0 was a bit of a turnoff. I always had planned to "one day" change to 2.0 (as there are a lot of ships I like only in 2.0), but as stock of the conversion sets started to dry up it got harder and harder to justify paying over RRP for the conversion kits.
Now I don't see myself ever moving over to 2.0/2.5, it'd involve rebuying a chunk of my collection, and with the game being discontinued that is only going to get more expensive.
1.0 up to wave 10 plus some careful additions - it's all you need for a wonderful game. Nobody I know moved to 2.0, I think the great majority of players only own 1.0 stuff, fracture is assured unfortunately.
The problem with 2.5 is that there are three distinct groups of changes that have little to do with each other: the rules changes, the scenarios/objectives, and the new list building system. Even if you agree with those things, there is no real reason why they needed to be grouped up into a new edition. The rules changes could have been presented as "Tournament" rules that anyone could chose to use some or all of them in their own home 2.0 game. The scenarios are just scenarios and the game already has those. The list building changes are probably the least needed change as there were already two different list building systems in 2.0 and, just like the others, it is really independent of the rest of the changes. Except for the list building, the rest of the changes in 2.5 could have simply been optional for everyone not playing in an official tournament. Doing that wouldn't have split the player base at all.
But saying that people who don't like these changes are "toxic" and should be ignored isn't really the best strategy to get people to invest in 2.5. It is most likely to have the opposite effect.
I must have said something really wrong in this video, because I never meant to imply that *anyone* who didn't like the 2.5 rules was toxic and not worth listening to.
I've said all along that too many people were WAY too toxic, and that they were active advocates/members of Legacy. My impression - incorrect it seems - was that they were the leadership of Legacy.
I'm very pleased to hear that that's not the leadership, or the feeling within the community. Buuuut on some level it has been the impression people got from the outside. I'm far from the only X-wing player who has felt this way.
I am sorry people have felt targeted as individuals, that was never my intention. I'm excited to have Legacy as one of the main formats moving forward so that everyone has opportunities to play the way(s) they want to.
@@casualdadgamesno, you didn’t say anything wrong. You told the truth, it’s just a prickly community. Shocking that a group of people that pitched a fit and left the game hoping the developers would fail might not be that awesome to deal with, and they refuse to acknowledge the very real competitive problems that players developed in 2.0. They don’t have AMG to complain about anymore so they’re going to complain about everyone else. I don’t envy anyone who thinks they’re going to be received well trying to keep the game “alive” moving forward. The behavior of the community since AMG took over (regardless of legitimate complaints about the rules) has been absolutely horrifying. And almost 100% of that toxicity found its way into Legacy. And just look at the comments here. Not “hey, give legacy a chance.” Just coming in slagging you. Not a good sign.
Long time 1.0 and 2.0 player.
Covid followed by the AMG changes basically killed the local and competetive scene in my area.
I would love to come back to the game but never got on with most of the 2.5 changes.... 2.0 was basically perfect for me and only needed a couple of minor tweaks
If I were to return, things I'd like to see...
- 200 point lists and recent ships balaced to it
- Turn limit removed
- 2 ship minimum reinstated
- 2.5 obstacle rules YES
- I like the idea of R.O. every turn BUT if there's a Random Order every round, then ROBD is 1,000% the way to go ... and reinstate cards that ROAD disqualified ... ROAD killed Hera in the Ghost! 😢
- Change to the bumping and range 0 rules back to 2.0 ... open to changes to prevent repeated self bumping, but never in hundreds of games did I ever think that was a problem
- Pre-built ships with upgrade slots instead of their pre-built upgrades... use them as Alternate Pilot cards with different stat lines and abilities
- Dogfighting as the primary matchup for competetive ... I think the objective matches can work but don't like the way they got shoe horned into 2.5. Better to build a 3.0 system for the game from scratch.
- Point defecit scoring on list building to counteract massive bid advantage
- Half point on all ships
- On balance, I'd remove the loadout values ... they killed the Generics
I've always, always, always wanted an objectives based campaign mode for X-wing though, and would love a build your own pilot for it.
I also love 2.0 Epic.
Lovethe positivity!
Love the coverage!
Keep up the good work :D
Honestly as a new player coming into it, I just find the self bumping penalties to be super funny and leads to a more chaotic play experience, had a guaranteed win in my game yesterday… until I forgot my initiative 5 fang moved before my initiative 6 one, and collided into the back of the 2ed one, killing the first
I personally left xwing when 2.5 arrived, and my local community died a few months later.
I think 2.5 does address a couple of the issues of 2.0, that highly competitive tournament exposed and that you discuss in this video. Those things were not issues in our local group but I can see how they can be bad for the game in 2.0
My personal biggest issues with 2.5 are the new listbuilding (20pts, upg pts per ship) that makes a lot of lists have so many upgrades that I couldn’t stand it, and the fact that the objectives didn’t seem well integrated to me
Also, I can understand how there were clearly innapropriate comments made at the time, towards AMG and towards players making the switch to 2.5, but I can personally attest to the opposite as well.
While vitriolic comments by a few make the whole community look bad, I think all camps came out of that transition looking really bad.
Some people not liking 2.5 were being treated pretty poorly by the 2.5 community as well…
I don’t see a clear path to bring everyone together again
@@RemisRandR all fair takes. 2.5 is quite different, and does feel at times like an unfinished variation of the game. Playing in tournaments where I learned key tips about how to quickly place Objectives, cool markers, and 3rd party stuff like a Scenario D6 really helped me fit my X-wing play in with the new rules.
I also won't pretend that 2.5 fans have always been polite and friendly, there is bad blood on both sides. We're unlikely to get a single unified edition agreed on... But a side-by-side of 2.5 and 2.0 with 1-3 crossover formats in between, that seems totally doable (and healthier anyway).
As a new player coming into it, I found the awkward nature of objectives not being too impactful somewhat of a good thing - you should only win this game with objectives if your opponent is doing nothing, otherwise if you’re both playing the game in a natural way, it still really does come down to the dogfight.
I’ll admit the first time I played with objectives it devolved into flying circles around each other not shooting to score points, but the player who’s behind can very quickly math out that they’ll lose with that strategy after a round or two of that sort of action. I mostly like how it exists as an incentive and offers alternative win conditions
And then as I lack years of a 2.0 play experience, I find both 2.5 and 2.0 list building basically boils down to “I have a few fun lists I want to try at both sets of points” so 200 vs 20 is just like swapping languages to say the same sort of thing…. But I can totally see upgrade bloat of 2.5 being it’s own grievance, it’s especially an issue that slows down the game when setting up and while explaining lists at the start
@@NinjatoBlade yeah all fair points.
My comment about the objectives is purposefully not very specific because I can’t in all honesty remember the scenarios now… I only remember that they didn’t feel properly integrated in the game. They may even have changed since then and I wouldn’t know.
The listbuilding for me was the biggest thing. I remember, when I was very involved in the game, just making lists to see what I could manage to fit that looked like fun. I tried a couple times in 2.5 to do the same, but the process wasn’t interesting for me.
Always liked trying to find the balance between more upgrades or more/better ships. Also, with 200pts to work with, if some cards are 2-3 pts off (in my opinion), unless it’s at very specific numbers, it doesn’t super matter. But with only 20pts, being off by 1 is huge.
Overall 2.5 felt to me like x-wing 3.0, but they chose not to risk actually re-working everything to properly make their ruleset work with existing ships, so the risk they took was having them work weird instead.
I have a massive 1.0 fleet and never wanted to pay the hundreds of dollars I'd have to, to update my fleet to go to 2.0 and beyond. As for list building, knocking the points down by a factor of 10 means it's literally impossible for this game to be properly balanced. A 15 point ship/pilot at 1 point is too strong and at 2 points is quite weak. I mean you could end up with a 16 point pilot and a 24 point pilot both being 2 points? That's just crazy.
Anyway, I'm a competitive casual player, I loved the game, I was very good, there was never a tournament scene in my area, so the game abandoned me a long time ago. I think the perfect ruleset is probably a combination of the 2.0 listbuilding and core rules and some of the changes from 2.5 that made the game more about dogfighting again and less about exploiting weird mechanical edge cases to gain an advantage. The core of the game is about predicting what your opponent will do and countering that. We need to get back to that.
To balance the 16 and 24pt pilots, you either do things like slap a Cannon slot on one and give the other one a good bit more Loadout. Ways to give them both advantages that are different and differently weighted - or, you don't, and points changes make each one relevant at different times. That's not any different than 1.0 or 2.0... except that there are more levers to pull.
I recently went back and built an equivalent list in both 2.5 and 2.0, then Legacy, and I really didn't miss shaving off Upgrades to squeeze in more ships, or the building pressure to trade named pilots down to generics. I would be much more on board with just upping the base number from 20. 40 is interesting, but I saw even 24* being thrown around as a little more directly translatable.
As for dogfighting and predicting your opponent's moves - that's still THE core of the game. Arguably more so with dial peeking and changing being banned. There's just also conflicting priorities and counterplay that make for more nail-biting turns, and it makes for (I think) much more interesting endgames
Awesome video. I love 1.0 and i refuse to pay more money for 2.0. I rather enjoy the game with what got me started and what my friends and i enjoy.
Legacy's Wild Space is where the focus should be for collaboration as it has already attempted to combine Objective Play and Standard Loadout points in a 250-point system. That's a huge starting point and I think you could get essentially all the legacy folks to buy into both, even if they'd prefer to have tourney play with a 'dogfighting'/chance-encounter only format. The big sticking points are (1) ROAD, (2) Ship overlap/Bump Focus, (3) Range Zero Attacks, (4) Maybe Obstacle changes. (1-3) are somewhat intrinsically linked as the consequences of ROAD created the need to reduce collision penalties, and so ROAD is ultimately the most important rule element.
I've heard the 'ROAD increases randomness' claim a lot, but I don't think it's really accurate. ROAD only affects same-ini pilots and I think a bunch of people forget that your 6-skill ace will always fly after 5-skill pilots. Bidding low to get a pretty massive initiative bonus in game was definitely imperfect and unsatisfying. In the worst case scenario of a full 200 point list or a same-bid instance, you still had to flip a coin to determine initiative order. The variance was happening on a game-level rather than a movement-level. I can kind of understand why folks wouldn't want to have to worry about an additional axis of 'risky vs safe' initiative movements, but to claim that the game is less competitive because you have to consider a bigger, more risky play space doesn't jive with me. The game is already full of hidden dials and dice rolls and I don't think the overall influence of ROAD is any bigger than the bidding advantage roll-off randomness.
What we're missing with initiative is player agency over initiative order. In 2.0 we had imperfect bidding that sets permanent initiative or a 'balanced' roll-off. In 2.5, we have more of that 'balanced' roll-off approach, just with more granularity and higher frequency in game. In neither 2.0 or 2.5 do players have a way to influence that initiative order within the game itself and I think that's where most of the 'bad feels' due to initiative consequences come from. I'd love to see options to allow players to either gain or lose initiative within the match as a result of player's flying/shooting skill.
Two ideas:
(1) The player who uses the fewest squad points determines only the starting initiative. If the last revealed maneuver in the round is not fully executed, the initiative must change hands. Poor flying can have consequences and the second player can try to position defensively in order to win that initiative boon.
(2) Make ROAD rules default for most ships except single-ship initiative token holders (per skill level), with no ships starting with initiative tokens. First blood damage to a hull of a same-ini ship grants initiative token. Subsequent damage to the initiative holder by a different same-ini ship transfers the token. This simultaneously gives an incentive to engage first as well as provides a push-pull mechanism for same-ini pilots to fight over an initiative token. Another variant could allow you to lose initiative token for a variety of reasons (failed maneuver, crits, depletes, etc.)
Honestly, I think there's good competitive gravy that we should try to preserve from both formats. Increasing the possible flight play space is not a bad thing. Neither is gaining more perfect information due to good tactical decisions. My aim is to try and squeeze both aspects into a manageable mouthful. My biggest concern is that additional rules increase game complexity (and skill ceiling) quite a bit and may make the game more obtuse for casual players.
Here are some older '22/'23 community feedback polls that might give some pointers as to where pain points exist:
midwestscrub.wordpress.com/2022/05/12/2-5-months-of-2-5-x-wing-survey-results/
fridaynightxwing.wordpress.com/2023/05/30/x-wing-survey-vi/
What I get from those is that the bump-focus rules are universally disliked lol.
Just a quick addition on Wild Space is that it's Rules Agnostic too. It's an addendum to whichever rule set you are using. If using the 2.5 Loadout squad building, simply build to 20 as normal and just shift the decimal over for scoring for scenario points.
-Happy Flying!
@@CaptainTruelove Yup Wild Space is a great success as is - and I encourage current 2.0/2.5 folks to both try it out! It's *because* of that success that I think it provides some good scaffolding to build out a potential 3.0 ruleset.
@@Tsotanga2 Hey, I'm glad you think so! If you find anything in Wave 2 Open Beta, please let me know! We've identified a few small ticket things to fix/change in part to better align with both rule sets (one big ticket item that is easily rectified, and a few smaller ones to better align both rulesets).
Commenting before watching the video - but yo, first edition is where it's at.
If you say so XD
I had some truly great times in 1.0, but realized how bad I actually had it after seeing the other side(s)!
@casualdadgames I dunno, man. It just felt like they watered the game down so much for 2e. Took a lot of the fun out, for my playgroup. I never played 2.5
They dialed down the power level for sure. And man did Large ships take a ding.
The biggest thing I go back to is turrets. Sure, it makes narrative sense for turrets to be able to hit anywhere anytime, but in-game it's an insane advantage. Then that led to Autothrusters, which led to turrets getting TLT, then to offset turrets AND Autothrusters they started bringing fixed-arc Ordinance up with Harpoon Missiles...
Not that that was the entire experience of playing in 1.0, not everyone ran any of that, but I'm over the moon to have not seen, say, Miranda since 1.0.
Really I'm just glad there are multiple ways to play, and for the most part enough players to play them, for everyone to get what they want!
@casualdadgames yeah the auto-take turrets/thrusters combo if you could got stale for sure, I can't deny all of that.
We'd not played in years so i comped us back to 1st ed - wave 10. For us it was the peak of flying prior to jumpmaster and various other expansions leaned too far away from the 'flying'.
Nobody I know moved past 1.0, nobody in our group bought the conversion packa. So we have our comp which we work on and add to carefully as we play. Amazing game, still is if you ban enough stuff.
Hey. First of all, thank you for your work!
I find it difficult to attribute the behavior of individuals to an entire community. Just because someone favors Legacy doesn't mean they are the voice of that community or represent it. I understand that you've had experiences with toxic players who prefer 2.0, but these people are not the face of the community, nor does the community have any control over what people who enjoy their work say. For my part, I am not in contact with any representative of the Legacy organization, nor do I follow their social media or participate in their Discord. I simply use their content to play the game I prefer. Many in our local group do the same. I hope you can keep this in mind the next time someone annoys you who happens to play Legacy. That person would still be unpleasant even if they played 2.5.
Otherwise, thanks for your input; it helps me understand what people like about 2.5. Although I can't personally relate to these reasons, I respect that there are people who see it differently.
Best regards from Germany!
Guten abend, freund!
You and other commenters are correct in this point, and I fully intend to dial back the criticism of Legacy as a community and focus on the specific individual experiences. I also appreciate Legacy folks' patience and taking the time to reach out to me about that part of the video.
Happy flying!
@@casualdadgames That's wonderful to read, and I'm glad that we can consider this from different perspectives. I've also noticed in your work that you make an effort to highlight various viewpoints. This is an important contribution, and I'm very pleased to see how you fulfill your responsibilities as a content creator. Keep up the good work and know that you can count me as one of your viewers! :)
Wow.
Strong opinions.
Shots fired.
I am trying to process this. Trying to respond in a fair way.
See, because reddit has always been a "toxic hellhole." ALWAYS. I've quit that platform and rejoined and quit again so many times for that very reason. But you must recognize that the toxicity flows both ways. It always has. Probably always will.
And yes, Legacy players - myself included - have some very strong opinions about the changes made to the game. Some of those people are going to go too far when expressing their grief and their unhappiness.
You can always count on someone going too far.
But it is entirely unfair judge an entire community by its extremists.
And I'm going to stop now. There's simply too much going here for this kind of format to support.
You've struck a nerve. Because you've basically called me and my buddies down at the flgs a bunch of raging assholes, and we are not that.
Play the game the way you like it. Fly casual. Have fun. Just....
siiiiiiiigh......
Amen brother. 😉👍 I think that’s the secret…I like the Alpharius reference floating around hehehehe
(‘…Alpharious…I AM…’
You, your buddies, and nearly everyone in Legacy is definitely not a raging asshole (...I think. Clearly we've never met, but based on your comment that's a sturdy limb to go out on).
I quit playing in-store because of COVID. I never went back because of Legacy. The friendliest, kindest, most dedicated X-wing fans I ever knew flat-out refused to touch the 2.5 rules or points changes. Wouldn't even try them. And even this past week, those same people have been actively posting about the game again - much like the big marketing posts in the Discords - more or less saying "thank goodness, now you all can stop drinking the kool-aid and come back to your senses," with a healthy dose curses on AMG's name and spitting on all of the changes they ever made. Zero recognition that a ton (maybe even the majority) of new and current players actually like the bulk of the new rules.
Reddit on the whole is actually remarkably positive. It's one of the (weirdly) friendliest social media channels, in general. Especially in the fan bases where people talk about their favorite games. The X-wing Sub is not. More to the point it *used to be,* but changed around COVID. Is that all Legacy's fault? AMG's fault? No, but it's driven a huge number of people away from the channel and the game. That's new, and a lot of that goes back to some extremely active, negative, regulars who happen also to be big parts of Legacy.
That's not you, or your buddies.
That's not all of Legacy.
That IS what most of the rest of the community thinks of when Legacy as a group comes up. Not the individual players, but the bad stuff, and the places where the bad stuff happened and continues to happen.
But yes, the big part of my goal with this wasn't to shame anyone or any edition, but to highlight the differences between the three, especially for new players trying to figure out where to go.
That I DID strike a nerve and published what felt like a personal attack on you and your group - for that I am genuinely sorry
@@casualdadgames you have the right to your opinion, as we all do. We really just don’t want to obfuscate facts from fiction as AMG did very well from its 2/22/22 statement to us…
I stay off discord and most public Xwing forums, better to rub elbows and socialize and stay arms length yet aware I’m dealing with actual people. Our want for instant gratification causes half our woes these days, in my opinion.
Btw, not part of ANY ‘1’ group, from my standards, I go where I go lol ‘…just a man trying to make his way through the galaxy’ Legacy allows use of generics ships and customization, AMG 2.5, not so much. I believe one is incomplete and I believe the other never had enough to justify banning cards for the pushing of the mixed card ‘dynamic’ and I don’t expect anyone to think how I think, I can only HOPE that assertive decisions for gameplay by a community who care’s about the game comes out ahead in all of this. Honestly don’t care who that is though the XWA will probably be closer to ‘home base’ for me BECAUSE I’m 51% casual, 49% competitive. Peace to you and yours! 🤗
(AMG seems too high in the clouds for me to even give them a little credit, Dont like the false advertising/obfuscated nonsensical jargon on 2/22/22, and sadly, since)
I also like having modes other than simply "just dogfighting". So in that sense, I appreciate the direction they were heading in 2.5
My main personal issue with the squad building (aside from the generic-pilot hate (huge bummer)) is that the load-out logic means you should always max out your upgrades, and I feel like (at least at the non-competitive level that I play with my friends) this unnecessarily leads to complexity creep (whilst somehow still being more restrictive)
Also: I'm a brand new (I know, weird timing) player and I'm loving your channel! Keep it up! Thanks for your hard comments on community friendliness and respect. Those are so so important. There's no place for rudeness in our hobby anymore.
Oh hey! Welcome aboard!
You're spot-on on the upgrade bloat. In 1.0 and 2.0, I was often frustrated that almost no upgrades were "worth" the points over more bodies, so you only saw the same handful of upgrades (sometimes spammed).
In the new system, I see a much wider variety of cards and slots being used than ever before, and that's been refreshing for me personally as a long-time player. Buuuut, yeah, that's a whole new kind of problem.
2.5's bloat could be solved by slashing Loadout across the board, but that could skew balance and we're back to upgrade scarcity and little variety. 1.0/2.0's problem could be solved by adding some form of LV system.
Or, we could get really weird and add a 40k-style Force Organization Chart or Faction limitation system that would add some different kind of lever to give granularity, customization, AND variety.
Personally I really like what 312 has been doing by pipping Generics so even if they're cheaper, they're less spammable (although you can still do it with multiple chasses).
We'll just have to see what happens :D
*I skipped right over Bump Focus/Calc in 2.5, that's another big sticking point rule
Wow, great to see all the work being put into this.... I mentioned before I am not a fan of print and play, I hope the guy who runs Infinite Arenas will also sell the rules, scenarios, etc. once it has all be finalized... I have been waiting for some of his product to get back and stock and plan on ordering the deck packs. Thanks as always for the info.
1st edition factions, 2.0 points, 2.5 missions
I mean - anyone with any love for Republic or Separatists probably isn't going to go for that XD
I also think while 2.0 folks are on to something about granularity, I'm not ready to completely abandon Loadout Value. Or ROAD.
I Play Republic
Wow, The collapse of Xwing. i played 1.0 and had a big amount of ships, tired 2.0 but didn't like the splintering of factions or the money out to upgrade all the cards. I just found out that there is a 2.5 only to find that it is gone now as well. I understand the value of the online list builders, but there is a likelihood that those will not be maintained and it'll be wished that the points on the cards, as imperfect as it was, were still available.
I wonder - generally, yes, of course you're right. But this community is BIG, international, and both motivated and well organized (not to mention fairly well funded). I would be on the list-builders being maintained indefinitely. "Indefinitely" doing a lot of work as a Null field of course.
Too many changes because competitive abuse. The 2.5 rules ultimately divided the community which resulted in the dead of the game. Those are facts. We need a new system that move us out of 2.5 so we can unify the player base again in ONE game. Hopefully the community will do that!
I'm fairly sure that ship has sailed. One game for major tournaments, two, at least, is more likely. But different communities are probably irrevocably divided beyond that already, let alone a year or two from now.
To update you, currently this week the XWA is holding a vote on a 3 person leadership council. It will have a name like The Senate or something Star Wars and goofy. These three people will be responsible for processing the next steps, setting the pace, and guiding the XWA forward. I wish everything was faster paced, but slow and steady is the way.
"We ARE the Senate. And Alpharius" (please say that, at least once!)
Thank you for the update!
As much as I'm eager for next steps, I do appreciate the slow and steady approach. Like you've all said already, there's an active tournament season going on for half a year yet that a whole lot of community work has gone in to.
Plus, after the "farewell tour," who knows what further official announcements we'll get?
Really enjoying the approach, appreciate all y'all's work, and the prototype points are very promising!
😂’…slaughter…’
2.0 squad building with 2.5s game play mechanics
The list building in 2.5 is trash. Generics are useless and upgrade points being per ship made a lot of ships useless for their intended role.
That's a common opinion, and likely to be one of the key middle ground versions we end up with
I’ll be sticking with 2.0.
As is right and just! I do think the future will largely be XWA 2.5 and Legacy, probably both appearing side by side at formal events at every level.
Odds are good plenty of players will hop back and forth too, whether for the formal events, side events, or just pickup
I'll never play 1.0 again, 2.0 was too much of an improvement to go back there.
I don't want to play 2.0 as it finished. The bid system just got stupid - if you weren't winning the bid, you were probably losing the game.
2.5 is good, but 20 points makes for stupid list building. To start, it should be 200 points with everything costing 10 times as much. Then ships can be tweaked a lot better.
ROAD has just improved the game so much, for me, that I don't want to play without it.
So, I would play 2.0 - but only if they bring in some 2.5 rules. I will play 2.5, but hope to see some improvements in points.
I quit with 2.0 coming out. Not really because I was against it, but I was tired of the same old song and dance of each wave power escalating to the point if you weren't buying the new ships you were not competitive. Even if you wanted to play the objective best way to use your old ships you often needed the cards from the new ships to compete. I didn't see an end in sight and the $300 price tag to "upgrade" my collection was the door I needed to see myself out of the community. Honestly listening to you talk 2.5 sounds like an absolute breath of fresh air for the game. Dogfighting is fun but being the only way to play is stale. It also drastically limits game design space as you only really have 2 levels to turn, attack values and defense values. It was nearly impossible to have a utility ship in 1.0 because the only utility a ship really had outside of those values was the space it occupied on the board so if thats all you cared about the cheapest thing for the space is all that mattered.
2.0 really improved on that power creep. 1.0 went deep into cane-toading balance issues, unleashing crazy unintended consequences - and since there were no card packs or way to change values on the cards... Yeah.
2.0 improved a *ton* in that regard. Errata, ban lists, adjustable points and upgrade slots - absolutely huge. It's still fundamentally the same, just maybe grown up a bit.
My next video (barring more disturbances in the Force) should be a "Play & Chat" where I'll play a game and compare how the editions would differ in each situation. As part of the prep for that I've gone back to 2.0 list-building and I'll definitely have commentary on exactly that.
Also, welcome! I'm glad you're enjoying my content!
Can't we just keep the dog fighting and make it so you can't just run and hide and you can't hit your own ships without a penalty and just play until all ships are destroyed or a player concedes ?
decide on a points value at the beginning, either on just pilots and all add ons are included or a point system for everything and then just play ?
It's going to be up to individual groups and players. For my part, I like Objectives and don't really understand (but do respect) the resistance to doing anything but dogfighting. I couldn't think of a single Star Wars space battle that wasn't about some mission first, dogfighting second.
Part of the conversation is that even with a "few" moving parts here, there's a hilarious number of possible combinations, so community consensus on a few variants could go a long way towards supporting a game for all players
@@casualdadgames I completely agree and think objectives are fun for playing at home or at your local store, I was thinking more competitively. just stick to a point system and fight it out.
at the end of the day I don't really mind as I love the game so just want to see it do well and continue to grow
@@19EightySixINC amen to that :D
@@19EightySixINC Competitive play is where you saw\see the most issues come up - self bumping\fortressing in a corner. Points fortressing (especially with bidding in play). If there is a boring yet effective way to win... it will be used.
We all forget how we very very rarely saw a slew of those mid-range pilots that sits in the I2 to I4 initiative slot. It was more beneficial to just spend a bit more for that I5 or I6 Ace to arc dodge or shoot first, or both or a little less to get multiples of those generics to block or just have so much for your opponent to chew through.
I recall even when 2.0 came out, there was a lot of talk about scenario play. It just adds to much to a game.
Homebrew is open season ladies & gents…combine rules, personally, I’m using my huge ships, AMG can’t put the kings stamp on my C-ROC!
Nor should anyone stop figuring out ‘ways’ to enjoy your models. Just look at HotAC. Good luck space cowboys…
games like x-wing, once they are solved, the community will gradually die because there is no new content.
the only way the community can continue to grow is with community made story driven campaigns.
That's a new take! What kind of campaign did you have in mind?
@@casualdadgames its really limited to the ability and imagination of the community to come up with story driven campaigns. if they have experience in D&D or other miniature systems it will of course be easier.
a simple story campaign can be a rebel fleet is trying to escape from the imperial fleet but they are held back because a secret EMP weapon has disabled most of their jump capabilities. hence they have to wait till most of them get it fixed and then make the jump.
or a small rebel fleet has managed to steal a secret weapon from an imperial research outpost. the fleet has to survive X turns and jump away before the imperial reinforcement star destroyers arrive.
other parameters include no special character ships unless they are part of the story etc.
you can even have rescue missions as part of the story campaign.
usually the final game in the campaign is a big battle.
I’d say AMG should invest in some 3-D printers lol ever design your own starship for a 3-D printer?
(Walking away whistling)
Enjoy your models AND your starship combat game!
How do the Quickbuilds work for 2.5 then ? (Newbie). I just make a list of max. 8 points and I add all the upgrades and cards that it says on the quickbuild right? :)
I also wonder how the 3d printing scene will adapt and make the ships and flight stands available. As well as scanning the cardboard and making available to print at home 🤔
Are we talking the old plain text black cards? If so, yup, pick the ship and grab the upgrades. Those are pretty old, so chances are some slots/points won't work anymore.
Buuuuut, if that's the route you want to go, Infinite Arenas makes decks of exactly those cards, with pilot abilities and upgrade text all printed out: infinitearenas.com/
I was talking about the plain text cards with the red X-wing model on the back of them that comes with the Ship packs :)
2.5 "replaced" these with the new Standard Loadout versions, which look just like Infinite Arenas' versions - large, Tarot-sized cards with all of the pilot and upgrade text on one card - but often have unique abilities and upgrades that don't appear on any standalone upgrade cards (see the Battle over Endor pilots here: www.atomicmassgames.com/transmission/star-wars-x-wing-battle-over-endor-rebel-preview/)
@@bernhardeisl7382 actively being worked on, stay tuned :D
"Something given has no value."
AMG was given the highly successful game of x-wing by asmodee after asmodee purchased FFG.
The current state of the game is wholly AMG's fault.
My understanding is that sales-wise, X-wing never recovered from the transition to 2.0. AMG took some smart business steps to address that (some less so, especially on the community engagement side)
...but they were tasked with rebooting a production of a physical production in the middle of a catastrophic failure of global manufacturing and shipping, one that still hasn't recovered.
Lay blame, sure. But it's dishonest to claim the entire state of the game is AMG's fault. Especially since 2.0 was a redesign to fix FFG's issues in the first edition in the first place.
@@casualdadgames you're calling me dishonest after making that video? Wow.
Dishonest isn't the word I meant to use, you're obviously entitled to your opinions, and I'm sure you're a person of integrity (seriously).
BUT, the statement that X-wing was "highly successful" at the end of 2020 is outright false. So is the quote. And the statement that the state of the game is "wholly" AMG's fault immediately after saying it was Asmodee who chose to give it to them contradicts itself.
@casualdadgames you start off interactions with insults. I have no reason to take you seriously.
I definitely agree that all the rules changes from 2.0 to 2.5 was a natural evolution of the game, but I can certainly see people's issues with the list building
Oh yeah. I'm, personally (and I think I said so?) coming around to something as simple as doubling squad points up to 40, and making Objectives worth 2/4 instead of 1/2
To limit upgrade bloat, you could also make upgrades across the board a little more expensive, but some of the stuff for key pilots (I'm always thinking of how to fix Dengar) a bit more affordable.
@@casualdadgames personally as a new player, I find it very digestible with 20 points, you can very easily tell if you’re getting 3-5 (or even 7, for CIS) ships just based on who you’re building around. I find that you tend to build around a particular leader pilot or whatever abilities you like sorta like subfactions in other games, then the strength of said leader is increased or decreased based on the amount of upgrades they can take.
As a result of having more rules and higher initiative built in though, I feel like named pilots should have less of a pool than unnamed pilots or something. (Base cost depending of course) but it’s ridiculous how some unnamed pilots (Jedi Generals looking at you) are just expensive and have no upgrade pool
Also not sure why in 2.5 gauntlets have the ability to take drop seats when you will NEVER have points to take the dudes who go in said seats.
@@NinjatoBlade both kind of relics of the active balancing 2.5 was going through. Drop-seat and Commandos both got nerfed really hard because the Commando tokens just made a total mess of play areas - as I understand it - but there was always room for things to come back in in a later update.
Generics have been a hot-button topic too, and the experimental community points I've seen do exactly that: shave down the squad cost of key Generics and the lv of some Named equivalents, then bump the cheaper generics LV a reasonable amount.
I sense…suicidal empathy….but that’s just me…
AMG needed(s) to study the game a little more instead of just dismantling and cherry picking.
Good luck, I’ll say no more. Peace.
All communities are represented by a vocal minority who usually don't actually represent those communities. X-Wing rules were changed to accommodate a vocal minority of hyper-competitive elitists who weren't winning, because FFG/Atomic Ass Games only ever listened to that vocal minority. Today, another vocal minority is attempting to impose its will upon the future of a discontinued board game, thereby sabotaging any effort to unite the community under a single banner. X-Wing players have always been too emotionally stunted and weak-willed to see through the bullshit, which is why everything happened the way it did.
The whole point of the so-called X-wing Alliance is to guarantee Organized Play, points balancing, and maaaaaybe even some physical product support moving forward. They're also a lot more likely to support 2.0 (Legacy) and even 1.0 on some level than formal developers ever were.
That potentially *is* a single banner, which would be the first time since the game launched. I don't think any single version of the game could ever hope to be a unifying one, that ship has long since sailed.
So can I ask a rules question, from one dad to another? I collected a fair amount back in 1.0, played casually (at home with my kids), and have long had the intent to play through HOTAC, even to the point of printing the rules in a nice spiral format. I picked up the conversion kits when they came out with the same intent, but didn't follow through. I got away from it for awhile, and was learning TTS over the past year for other games, and had the idea of doing HOTAC on TTS, and was watching your stuff when all this news broke. I had no idea about 2.5 until a few weeks ago, am rusty about the 1.0 and 2.0 rules anyway, so I feel like I'm coming in with not much stake about what version to play, and am mostly confused about the different point systems. For HOTAC on TTS and home play, what rule set would you recommend I start with?
I would start with the one you know - 1.0. If I'm not mistaken, HotAC was originally designed for 1.0 anyway, and it sounds like it's the bulk of your collection.
Then, I would try (or watch) a game or two each of 2.0 and 2.5, see if either one "speaks" to you enough to fully convert. No matter which you go with, HotAC will work just fine!
My next X-wing video is (planned anyway) going to be a TTS "Play and Chat" of 2.5, so maybe that will help :D
@@casualdadgames Thanks! That helps!
Follow up for you - how old were your kids when you introduced them, and how did you introduce them?
@@casualdadgames Pretty young, around 7-9. Probably too young, but I just simplified things as much as possible, and was really forgiving about bumps and the like. Just enjoyed the basic concept of flying around, trying to get shots off. Didn't use any advanced builds. Focused on simplicity. It's on the radar to reintroduce now that they are teens...
How the hell does it turn out that in every video you make, you somehow manage to get so much wrong? Is it intentional? Is it just to get views and guarantee one comment to come and correct you? Mistakes and oversights in order below with timestamps
4:50 "Flying over obstacles was a very viable strategy". Patently false. Intentionally going over a obstacle was and had been always a very *risky* strategy because it cost you your all too important action and the damage potential was always a serious concern, not to mention missing out on an attack. The only exception was gas clouds in the Republic faction initially at the being of that release had a couple really balance poor interactions that later FFG erratas addressed. Self bumping was not as common as you play it up to be either, many competitive list archetype couldn't even dare risk it and try somehow you repeatedly harp on throughout. It would be so nice to see you not sugarcoating and down playing the reality to try to artificially glamorize your opinion. (More on this one below)
7:00 The Empire has initiative rule didn't last through all of 1.0, in fact it didn't even make it two full years. it was eventually swapped to a standard coin flip for all ties in 2014 or maybe even before that I can't recall, that's just the date on a doc a quick search found. This was documented in the tournament regulations. Remember, S&V had to be added and that rule was incompatible with a later added three faction system.
16:30 X2PO has two new rules. Once a ship is scored at half points, it is scored. It can't be unscored by regen. And the first time you score points from an opponent, all of the opponents bid is also credited to your score at that time. FFS, sir, you had the website open in front of you and you missed that? It's incredibly poor reporting, even for amateur TH-cam, to then make the claims "these people want to keep bidding" and simultaneously not report on how they are trying to address it. For the love of Grogu they even made it a separate document so you could find it in one place. Link for the ones who actually do their research x2po.org/standard
22:00 Toilet bowling and fortressing. Here you just say you've heard a lot of *players* argue they aren't problems. And completely ignore that off the top of my head Alex Davy and Max Brooks, maybe others I can't remember, both directly responding in interviews to questions about these issues provided very detailed insight as to what they thought about them, the data they had on them, and why they also didn't spend more time adjusting the game for them. If your going to attack the players for their opinion, I say then you should recognize that the devs didn't think they were a problem either. Have fun trying to argue that with them, but at least you'd be arguing with the right people. These two conditions were a thing that very rarely led to any significant results beyond annoying cheese. And if it was really such a problem there were plenty of other mechanic options to remove it other than flat damage that just penalties new players who don't often even know they'll bump.
But by all means, rant away.
Full disclosure, I do these without notes - which you're absolutely right, I need at least an outline if I'm going to keep doing this. Also on this particular video I did three takes and this was the "best" one.
I DO appreciate the corrections, I'm not making mistakes on purpose - just scrambling three editions (two of which I haven't played in years) live on camera.
Flying over obstacles wasn't *always* a viable strategy, and you're right it was mostly gas clouds, but it's not an exaggeration to say it was much more common in 1.0 and 2.0 than in 2.5. Risky, sure, but that doesn't make it not viable.
Empire going First - that was changed in tournament documents, was it ever changed in the written rules of the game? There was enough less incentive to look anywhere but the box in 1.0 that tournament-specific adjustments affected very few players, but I could see that having been added in the TFA Starter. Still, I appreciate being called on that, because I couldn't remember how initiative was called in 1.0 and there wasn't a quick reference available.
Definitely appreciated the note on the changed rules in x2po. On that, I was relying on a conversation I saw maybe a week ago where it was clearly stated by multiple sources that there were no significant rules changes to Legacy 2.0. Obviously that's false, and those are very positive changes I'll be sure to highlight in future. HOWEVER, that doesn't change that initiative is still decided, in part, by bidding - and everything I said about the in-game importance of that is still true. It's also important to note that the focus of the video was talking about 2.0 as it was when FFG ran it and I dipped in and out of Legacy, but certainly could have made more clear distinctions.
Toilet bowling and fortressing are game design problems. I experienced them personally, I have regularly heard other long-time players talk about how happy they are that they're gone, and even if they weren't all the time, every game, holy crap did they suck the fun out of games - that's opinion. Pure, biased, off-the-cuff opinion, but that one I'll stand by with no apology. Deliberately not engaging and giving yourself maneuver options that aren't on a ship's dial should come with significant costs, which in 1.0, 2.0 and 2.0 Legacy they don't. Frankly I don't care who disagrees on that point, that's their opinion which they're fully entitled to.
Just to be thorough, one thing I missed completely was the bump-focus/calc, which is new in 2.5, so we can add that to the mistakes list too ;)
@@casualdadgames Flying over obstacles being touted as "viable" really should be further qualified is what I really want to get across here. I'm not arguing that it happened more often in the first two editions, that's obvious. But you still have to add to that declaration that if you were going to make a move over an obstacle, it was more than likely because your earlier flight plan from a turn before or so was disrupted and you're looking for a way out of a problem, and there's no other real option. It's one thing for someone to say "flying through rocks was a viable strategy" as a catch all statement that implies no consequences as though you could plan a whole approach around it, and something completely different to say "if you're really stuck you can throw this move as a */viable/* last ditch effort to get out of trouble, but it comes at a moderate price." The latter statement is clearly more accurate about the old version. Nobody was just winging it over rocks to try to get shots whenever they felt like it. The AMG edition upped the price and risk to the point of just removing the option entirely for better or worse. Personally I thought it an overcorrection, but whatever. Try telling an Aces player in an older edition they can absolutely send Soontir or the like over that debris, trust me it's "viable" :/
X2po is stuck with bidding and the only thing in their structure they can do to change it is points adjustment and scoring modification which they have. There are plenty of voices inside their community that push for all manner of different initiative systems. Unfortunately because they're trying hard to not just rewrite the game into a fan edit entirely, the core structure of the game is left in its artifact state. But even they will tell you to by all means use a house rule for init if you want. It's a huge reach to lump them all together and throw shade at them the way you did. Especially to then retreat to "oh well I heard from secondary sources a week ago which is why I was misinformed". Like I heard this one time, from that one guy, who read in this one thing,... Do better as you said you would and you won't get a complaint from me.
On empire-first. The general rule reference book and the tournament document were often updated in synch, but I don't think it was always. It's been a long time but I think the general Rules Reference was updated close to the tournament docs in those early years. And I want to say that some rules were duplicated across both the tournament docs and the rules docs back then as well, they might've even been merged? Again my memory is fuzzy. Considering the Most Wanted box came out in '14 as well, that might've had the first printed hard copy rules insert for initiative in the box to account for the new faction. The little like two page or foldout ones those boxes often came with. So I'm sure the TFA box(Dec 2015) would've had it as well in a full book version. And the online PDF rules would've all had it in that time period. Unfortunately my Google Fu was weak and I could not find the PDF for any of those, generally searches only come up with the last revision. If anyone had shown up to a game night or event around that time I'm sure that's about when they would've found it without looking themselves. Those online rule docs were also where the FAQ were so they were easy enough for even kitchen table folk to find. Now admittedly this is anecdotal, but I'd add here that often I had players come to the store doing the coin flip anyway because the first rule book had a weird phrasing that in one part implied you ignore the empire-first rule entirely if playing your own lists, and many assumed you then randomly determined and never read the rest of the rule like two pages later. Your experience may vary. It really wasn't intuitively written in the first pass, to the point many never noticed it changed.
I saw you had corrected yourself in the comments about bump focus, so I had not included it
I find it funny how you moved on past the legacy community post then went "... Fucket I gotta say it" lmao
I really want to get past it, not be petty and set the stage for a friendlier community moving forward... But those latest big recruitment posts have really rubbed me the wrong way, I couldn't help it XD
In your next video, please take a Star Wars action figure and point on it where the big bad Legacy community hurt you😮😮😮. Legacy didn’t kill “your” game, AMG killed our game. Legacy doesn’t feel threatened by AMG Wing, we just don’t like the game. By comparison, you genuinely feel threatened and triggered by our existence. Lastly, and for the record, there are additional groups playing V2.0- the toxic personalities that were affiliated with Legacy are no longer there and have migrated to some of these groups. Get your facts straight before you smear an entire group…
Don't tempt me, I'll do the action figure thing XD
To be clear, Legacy absolutely did not kill the game, or even the community. I never meant to say or even imply that. I'm also very surprised to hear that some toxic personalities have been... unaffiliated? I had no idea there had been anything like that (and would like to know where I could find exactly that for future research).
I was going to say "Of course I'm not threatened!" but on some level, yeah. The Subreddit and FLGS' are the first stops for a lot of prospective new players, and there have been times where I'm sure a whole lot of new players wanted nothing to do with X-wing and returned it/left it on the shelf. You could say that's "threatened," yes.
I'm genuinely hopeful about where Legacy continues on, and becomes a core part of the life of X-wing moving forward. Y'all have done a great job of building out the resources and tools. I'll do my level best to move on from the criticism I expressed here.
This comment reads like parody lol. Like, are you seriously just doing the EXACT embarrassing thing that was pointed out.
I myself prefer 2.0 rules, but it's such a huge bummer that this is associated with people like you, who seem somehow incapable of expressing a point respectfully
@@VictorKolbe It was a parody too bad you didn’t get it
@@BobWilson-fz8rj 😱