3 minutes ago, Pewpewpew BOOM said:

I am all for a well designed 2.0 AS LONG AS I can use my old stuff. I would buy replacement card packs etc for the purpose if reasonably priced. FFG should also post all those items in PDF and allow printouts at events for folks whose collections outpaced their incomes.

Which let's face it; they wouldn't. which is why a version 2.0 would murdererise 50% of community.

I think the 100 point game is what really limited the design space and a 2.0 would require a revisit to that limitation. With 100 points you don't have a lot of flexibility to "fine tune" point costs for ships and upgrades. Imagine if they even took it to a 400 point game and made, Dash for example, an 80 point base chassis instead of a 36. They would be able to do more to balance the game out. I think this is why Armada and Legion have a much larger point total game to allow for more fine tuning of the cost balance.

A 2.0 core could include a sticker book full to apply to all the pilots and a new rule book that could rewrite some of the rules.

I love this game, I still have a lot of passion for it and I only bought into Legion because a large percentage of the X-Wing players I enjoy spending time with bought in as well. (that and it's actually a really well designed and very fun game) But there are a few things I see wrong with it:

a) Too many things that "break" the fundamentals of the game (dash ignoring obstacles, turrets ignoring arcs for example)

b) Too many high powered combos for offensive of defensive modifications

c) Too much auto-damage

d) the half points debate

If points values were more spread out, maybe this stuff could still have a home and be better balanced?

33 minutes ago, sozin said:

For me the idea of a 2.0 would:

- clean up old ships that have fallen behind the power curve (b-wing, hwk, tie fighter)

- correct the small contingent of cards that are problematic (you know what they are )

- provide some fresh formats that aren’t 100 by 6 (campaign mode!) for the filthy casuals

None of these things require a 2.0.

39 minutes ago, sozin said:

For me the idea of a 2.0 would:

- clean up old ships that have fallen behind the power curve (b-wing, hwk, tie fighter)

- correct the small contingent of cards that are problematic (you know what they are )

- provide some fresh formats that aren’t 100 by 6 (campaign mode!) for the filthy casuals

Card packs, digital app, big hardcover book, anything but having to buy yet another b-wing to get yet another b-wing fix (the current “fix” mechanism, which imo isn’t customer friendly).

Amen to that. Except other formats (aka objectives^^) should be mandatory, not only a casual thing.

Right now a squad is only designed to kill more ships than the opponent.

Objectives force players to build squads with various goals in mind, hence less specialized builds, which could only make things better imo.

20 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

None of these things require a 2.0.

Yep. A rose by any other name will still smell as sweet. I don’t care how it is branded.

12 minutes ago, Giledhil said:

Amen to that. Except other formats (aka objectives^^) should be mandatory, not only a casual thing.

Right now a squad is only designed to kill more ships than the opponent.

Objectives force players to build squads with various goals in mind, hence less specialized builds, which could only make things better imo.

can't agree with this more, and I personally don't think any of these need a 2.0

2 minutes ago, sozin said:

Yep. A rose by any other name will still smell as sweet. I don’t care how it is branded.

lol, Yeh. Alot of attack wing players have taken to calling the new card + faction packs 1.5 - which is a valid point of view.

the key thing is Wizkids made sure to state that nothing is now illegal from the old expansions, and allowed things like generic ship cost to be errata'd to the new card pack costs (which they even provide on the official rules forum) - as soft reboots go, its been fairly painless as a long-term player with a massive collection (the same situation i find myself in with X-wing)

8 hours ago, Quadjumper King said:

The way I see it, we are slowly shifting towards a reboot of Xwing with the line of newest releases.

To start with, the game leans more heavily on competent listbuilding than it did in its original form. Sure some things were better than others, but most lists had a standard level of viability with only obscenely terrible lists, being the exception. Now only a small number of lists are competitively viable, generally around 3 in each meta, with room for variance.

Secondly, older ships are being re-released to update them with to a newer level of balance in conjunction with more recent waves, aside from a few outstanding designs, being relatively decent in terms of their power curve. S/F's, FO's, T70's, Rey, Tie Agressors, Strikers, Silencers, Gunboats, Fang fighters, Lancers, Upsilons, BSF 17's and the like are all decent ships, most of which can have outstanding builds (Omega Leader, Assaj, Kannan/Rey, Kylo, Fenn) but all of which are indeed playable, serviceable and largely decent. This indicates that a new perception of what "balance" is exists in the eyes of the design team, hence they are operating upon different assumptions than OG Xwing which really hit the peak of its power curve with Palp, Dengaroo and Miranda. As such, the design space "feels" different, standard ties feel weak, because we've all had them nuked off the board in missile and alpha strike engagements, B-Wings aren't tough to kill anymore, they're slow and feeble. It's a different space from the one we fell in love with.

While this is merely a very casual analysis based largely on my own personal experience and these paragraphs are little more than anecdotal evidence. I find that, regardless of fact, I feel that the game I play now, isn't the X-Wing miniatures game I tore from that dusty core set so many moons ago.

I believe, that for better or for worse, we are in an X-Wing 2.0.

Some people prefer aspects of the original game and that's perfectly fine, but I find that the game as it is now is no less appealing to me. Different maybe, but no less appealing. Older ships are re-released to keep pace with the power curve, new ships introduce fascinating new facets of all aspects of the game from the manouverability of the Striker to the action coordination of the Upsilon to the reload of the Kimogila and the Gunboat.

I enjoy the game as it is and I'm willing to let certain gameplay elements fall by the wayside as others gain prominence.

TLDR:

The game of Xwing is no longer the fire game many of us came to love, but it is beloved by many that have found it. But I'm not sure that I believe it's time to reach for the "2.0" hammer quite yet, the game is in flux and is slowly shifting to something different anyhow. Replace all the pieces of an old car over time and eventually it's no longer the same car.

P.S the meta blows balls

Trigger had the same broom for 20 years

I believe that concepts known as the 'Ship of Theseus' paradox

10 hours ago, the1hodgy said:

Which let's face it; they wouldn't. which is why a version 2.0 would murdererise 50% of community.

Warmachine/Hordes and Malifaux are both miniatures games that use rule cards. I watched the transition from v1 to v2 in each game.

Both did open beta testing to get feedback from the community. There were some wide variations of characters & units tested.

After several iterations, each company ended the testing and later sold decks of updated cards. Both also did new sculpts for the old stuff but you did not need to rebuy any of them if you didn’t want to. The new sculpts were cooler in some cases, but you could use either.

I’d love open beta testing, but even without that, these examples give models for updating a minis game without screwing existing players. Not everyone operates like GW.

13 hours ago, FatherTurin said:

Honestly if they were to do an honest to goodness Second Edition, they would have absolutely no choice but to do what they did when Descent moved to second edition: update packs. A pack with nothing but cards and ship tiles updated to the new rules (in whatever form they took) sufficient copies of each generic to field a 100 point list, 1 copy of each named pilot. There would have to be 5 of them, because putting everything in one pack would just not be feasible.

1: Rebels

2: Imperials

3: Scum

4: Upgrades (the faction specific ones would be included in their respective factions, this is for everything else)

5: Epic Ships

That's what Privateer Press did when they moved Warmachine from Mk1 to Mk2 and also from Mk2 to Mk3. The card packs were about $20 each, and the new cards were all you needed. All the old models were still usable. It worked incredibly well.

It might be a little more complicated for X-wing, depending on whether or not the cardboard inserts for the ships changed. If not, then card upgrade (1.0 to 2.0) packs. If not, the upgrade packs would need to be bigger, with new cardboard inserts also. Either way, it's very doable from a production standpoint, and to do it in a way that's inexpensive for existing players.

13 hours ago, Pewpewpew BOOM said:

I am all for a well designed 2.0 AS LONG AS I can use my old stuff.

You can!! The OP specifically mentions that all you'll need is a new carry-all.

I wonder if it will be a hard-sided case or a soft-sided one.

On 4/3/2018 at 11:01 PM, RedHotDice said:

You do know the core design team from Legion is Alex Davy? You know the current lead designer in X-wing... sorry to burst your bubble ;D

that was the point. lead designer for x-wing just finished a major task and might be available

Why do people want to go back to 2.0?

Were already on version 6.

7 hours ago, Pewpewpew BOOM said:

I’d love open beta testing, but even without that, these examples give models for updating a minis game without screwing existing players. Not everyone operates like GW.

This is true enough; not every one is GW. but under the same ground; not everyone is Privateer Press.

I would prefer; an updated rule book. leaving everything intact (remove cards from game if you have too). Drop off rates of player is higher when you swap to a new version. this happened with version 4 of Warhammer.

But FFG don't have a track record (a good one); with this; and have listened (i mean really listen) to the community once (gunboat).

6 hours ago, the1hodgy said:

This is true enough; not every one is GW. but under the same ground; not everyone is Privateer Press.

I would prefer; an updated rule book. leaving everything intact (remove cards from game if you have too). Drop off rates of player is higher when you swap to a new version. this happened with version 4 of Warhammer.

But FFG don't have a track record (a good one); with this; and have listened (i mean really listen) to the community once (gunboat).

Change often spurs player attrition. It did in both of my examples, and yet, a healthier game was left in the end.

28 minutes ago, Pewpewpew BOOM said:

Change often spurs player attrition. It did in both of my examples, and yet, a healthier game was left in the end.

I would argue that the game is in the healthiest state it has been in a long time.

A few leafs need pruning i won't argue that. But we are seening such a deserve meta (least in Europe) with variations on big lists.

I think a more regular FAQ or something similar to Destiny's holocron system

2 minutes ago, the1hodgy said:

I would argue that the game is in the healthiest state it has been in a long time.

A few leafs need pruning i won't argue that. But we are seening such a deserve meta (least in Europe) with variations on big lists.

I think a more regular FAQ or something similar to Destiny's holocron system

I agree that things are better now than other times, but I feel the the game could use a big points overhaul so we see an even more diverse meta. There are many packs now that may as well come with only 1 pilot card due to the others being marginally effective for their points.

This could be done at very low cost by simply posting a “tourney points” pdf, but FFG seems so reluctant to change to printed cost on a card that I figure it will only happen with a 2.0.

Is there room for a new case? I thought Feldherr and KR had that pretty much covered

Even if they DID make an X-Wing 2.0, sooner or later there would be more imbalanced and troublesome things that would once again need major correction.

Why not just an app that allows minor course-corrections as you go.......?

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/268496-ffg-needs-an-official-x-wing-app/

I would be plenty happy if I could send in old cards to FFG and get updated ones in return.

Card packs have been discussed since literally wave one. And I was/am all for the idea. For a revision process or expansion process I think it would be a great way to go. As many others as I've heard say so tells me I'm probably not wrong in that belief.

@FlyingAnchors that's debatable, to say the least. The deepest core change the game has ever experienced was the damage deck in the second core set. The combat system has been expanded and refined but only so far as added cards dictated it needed to be but we would be inane to say that constitutes a edition. As for development direction it's only changed three times over all last I counted with the usual guard change of development teams, which to be sure was almost a year ago or more that I looked. Regardless of how we interpret what constitutes a "edition" though, the fact is the game has not received much overhaul. It would be more accurate to say it's on version 1.6 than 6.0 I feel.

This actually brings up a good point. Do we need a full edition change, or more of an iterative change?

What I mean by that is that take 40k as an example. From 4th edition to 7th edition there were mostly iterative changes. The core mechanics all stayed mostly the same, and someone who played 4th could pick up 7th and be playing their old army in a couple hours tops. 8th edition, meanwhile, was a huge change in system, invalidating everything piece of rules that you had that predated 8th edition. Similarly, D&D went through true edition changes from 2-3, 3.5-4 and 4-5, but 3-3.5 was just an iteration.

Obviously there is a vast difference between 40k and X-Wing. If you have a space marine tactical squad from 20 years ago, you have a space marine tactical squad that is legal and playable in the modern edition (thanks to rules being found primarily in books). Putting the unit information on cards or tokens like X-Wing, Warmahordes and other games makes it easier to play without flipping through a book, but it does mean that if the edition has to change, concessions need to be made based on the format.

That of course leads to the question of whether we need a full edition change, and iterative change, or neither.

I would envision a full edition change being something that adopts concepts from Armada (different attack dice, defense tokens instead of defense dice - or the legion method of different defense dice), as well as a total overhaul of other mechanics. An iterative change would be points tweaks, maybe upping the points limit to allow more granularity in pricing, making most PWT either turret upgrades or mobile firing arcs, maybe doing something to tweak the mod/title system that is starting to get a little unwieldy. Changing some rules but not core mechanics.

For what it’s worth I think that if X-Wing needs something (and I’m not 100% conceding that it does), it’s an iterative change at best. A lot of the fan made second editions are absurdly complicated, which ruins one of the core attractors to X-Wing: simplicity. Now I know that card bloat and rules bloat has done a lot to damage that simplicity and accessibility, but any new edition should strive to get back to that point, not further away.

Those are some very good point FatherTurin. I think the game is in between needing an iterative change and an edition change. This is all a house of cards in a manner of speaking. A small iterative change could ripple out and become the need for an edition change.

On 2018-04-04 at 5:28 PM, Giledhil said:

Amen to that. Except other formats (aka objectives^^) should be mandatory, not only a casual thing.

Right now a squad is only designed to kill more ships than the opponent.

Objectives force players to build squads with various goals in mind, hence less specialized builds, which could only make things better imo.

While I really would like to see objectives!,

there is the fear that FFG with their design history releases a-too-good allrounder like e.g. the pre-nerf Scouts or pre-nerf x7 defenders, then these are equally good for all scenarios - just another stale meta rising.

On 4/4/2018 at 1:09 AM, ForceSensitive said:

@Lego Leonidas The general consensus in the community is that any second edition hinges upon the old product being usable. This was always the number one point. Other than that the concept of the product has been fantasized to a large degree. If FFG is wise, and Force knows many times they are not, they will keep the models the same and build a new version around them.

@Sasajak Details, shmetails lol ?

The models will obviously still be usable in a second edition, but what about all of the cards? It would suck if they were all invalidated by a new edition. One of the reasons I have a hard time getting back into Warmachine/Hordes is that every time a new edition drops, I have to replace all of my unit cards, and that's a pain in the butt. It would be an absolute nightmare to replace all of my cards for X-Wing!

Fair point, but to say or think there isn't a solution to be had there is short sighted at best. Card packs, official app support, Codex documents, printable PDF, extra cards in packs to be passed around, space is the limit! Somewhere, there's a solution. For Force sake it's silly to still require a card for it at all in the first place, almost two decades into the 21st century anyway!

More than cards, I would be worried more about what a change in the base would lead to. I'm not saying they should or shouldn't, but if they did... That's a weird one. Again, there's a solution there. But it's probably not as simple.