5 hours ago, Icelom said:

This makes no sense...

How did they fix them if they did not learn from them? also wtf does any of that mean?

What I think he means (an opinion which I also share as people don't just get smarter overnight) is that FFG understood that some things were wrong, so they fixed them. However, they didn't gain a deeper knowledge as to why things went wrong in the first place, which would allow them to prevent other mistakes from occurring in the future.

X-wing 2.0 has a more solid core of mechanics and a different balancing model through the app, both of which are really good things. This doesn't mean however, IMO at least that a new JM5k or TLT or Miranda won't happen. All those things were put in the game with good faith because to the designers they looked good at that point. All it means is it will be corrected faster when it happens.

1 minute ago, LordBlades said:

What I think he means (an opinion which I also share as people don't just get smarter overnight) is that FFG understood that some things were wrong, so they fixed them. However, they didn't gain a deeper knowledge as to why things went wrong in the first place, which would allow them to prevent other mistakes from occurring in the future.

This is a perfectly valid opinion. However, I would like to know what you're basing it on.

14 minutes ago, LordBlades said:

What I think he means (an opinion which I also share as people don't just get smarter overnight) is that FFG understood that some things were wrong, so they fixed them. However, they didn't gain a deeper knowledge as to why things went wrong in the first place, which would allow them to prevent other mistakes from occurring in the future.

X-wing 2.0 has a more solid core of mechanics and a different balancing model through the app, both of which are really good things. This doesn't mean however, IMO at least that a new JM5k or TLT or Miranda won't happen. All those things were put in the game with good faith because to the designers they looked good at that point. All it means is it will be corrected faster when it happens.

"overnight" is a bit of a massive stretch

imo, FFG demonstrated at least passing knowledge of the problems in 1.0 when they revealed just how extensive their changes have been

1.) PTL removal, specific action chaining prevents easy mod stacking

designers' repeated emphasis of wanting to avoid such things is promising

2.) forward-facing Bullsye arc implementation, making action independent mods like Predator far more difficult to apply

designers' repeated emphasis of wanting to avoid such things is promising

3.) nerfs to evade and reinforce to keep from stacking guaranteed evade results/obsoleting 2-die primaries

nerfs to previously key upgrades (especially advanced sensors and fire control system) further show they're paying attention to the problems of 1.0

4.) 1.0 TURRETS ARE DEAD

5.) previously hyper maneuverable ships are very heavily curtailed by new action layout, as seen by red boost Falcon and red b-roll jump

promise of EU's deserved death makes me quite hopeful

6.) standardized base design allows implementation of mechanics (such as reinforce) that weren't possible with 1.0 bases (apart from the auzzie)

now don't think this to mean that any human helmed venture won't be fraught with flaws and problems. that'd just be a stupid fantasy, and not one of flight nor games

**** will happen, but given the framework of 2.0 FFG will have to **** up HARD to get anything even remotely resembling the jm5k, TLTs (also ded), or Miranda

forgot to include charge limiting stuff like regen also being a VERY positive sign

In addition to all of FGD's points; the introduction of an app that can adjust points costs on the fly shows that FFG was aware they ended up behind the curve in regards to how the meta shifted, and the design space couldn't keep up. Being able to dynamically change the costs of upgrades and what ships can take them allows them to be much more responsive - and in some instances proactive - in managing the meta and balance.

20 minutes ago, LordBlades said:

What I think he means (an opinion which I also share as people don't just get smarter overnight) is that FFG understood that some things were wrong, so they fixed them. However, they didn't gain a deeper knowledge as to why things went wrong in the first place, which would allow them to prevent other mistakes from occurring in the future.

X-wing 2.0 has a more solid core of mechanics and a different balancing model through the app, both of which are really good things. This doesn't mean however, IMO at least that a new JM5k or TLT or Miranda won't happen. All those things were put in the game with good faith because to the designers they looked good at that point. All it means is it will be corrected faster when it happens.

Sure but aren't they both fixing the issues that caused those problems while putting in an easy release valve to fix those problems in the future?

And they did get a "deeper" knowledge, hence changes like the linked actions instead of ptl and the nerf to a lot of direct mods.

Little things like putting limiting charges on R2-D2, the wording change to "reduce the difficulty" for maneuver changes instead of "make green" are pretty good examples of them understanding some deeper knowledge about things in the game that caused flaws in the game. The change to evade for example (that some are pissed about for some reason) shows a huge understanding of the issues of token stacking and its effects on big heavy ships. A slight change to the wording in evade makes it about the same usefulness for high agility ships while reducing its game-breaking potential on high hp low agility ships. Changing reinforce to still be good but not hard counter low attack ships.

What have you seen that makes you think they are just doing superficial changes without having any deeper knowledge? because to me there is a bunch of things that I just thought were brilliant in 2.0 (whisper's changes and the changes to the tie phantom for example are brilliant). Please share what you have seen that makes you feel the way you do so I can understand.

Of course, the game won't be perfectly balanced and there is going to be issues that crop up. I forget what designer said this but basically, he said "the first 4h after the release of your game will see more than 100x more playtesting then a designer can do in months leading up to release". However, 2.0 has a very strong balancing ability built in with moving points and upgrades off the cards.

2 hours ago, Dr Zoidberg said:

This is a perfectly valid opinion. However, I would like to know what you're basing it on.

2 hours ago, Icelom said:

What have you seen that makes you think they are just doing superficial changes without having any deeper knowledge? because to me there is a bunch of things that I just thought were brilliant in 2.0 (whisper's changes and the changes to the tie phantom for example are brilliant). Please share what you have seen that makes you feel the way you do so I can understand.

My main assumption is that 1.0 was designed in good faith right until the end (aka the designers didn't go at some point 'screw this, we're making 2.0 anyway, just release whatever you want for next waves'). I've been playing since wave 6 and I don't feel the quality of the game has drastically improved since then. Almost every release has had cards and/or ships that were considered OP by significant parts of the community, right until the end (remember PS11 Coordinate and Maul in the last wave?). As such, if the quality of the releases hasn't meaningfully improved over 2+ years, I find it hard to believe it will make a huge leap once 2.0 launches.

So far I like most of what I've seen in 2.0 (except Luke crew and the implementation of the Force), but the track record of 1.0 (designed by the same people) is less than stellar, so that worries me a little.

PS: I'm sure 2.0 will be a great game (I had tons of fun with 1.0, even during what many people considered low points), just not as flawless as many seem to hope.

5 minutes ago, LordBlades said:

My main assumption is that 1.0 was designed in good faith right until the end (aka the designers didn't go at some point 'screw this, we're making 2.0 anyway, just release whatever you want for next waves'). I've been playing since wave 6 and I don't feel the quality of the game has drastically improved since then. Almost every release has had cards and/or ships that were considered OP by significant parts of the community, right until the end (remember PS11 Coordinate and Maul in the last wave?). As such, if the quality of the releases hasn't meaningfully improved over 2+ years, I find it hard to believe it will make a huge leap once 2.0 launches.

So far I like most of what I've seen in 2.0 (except Luke crew and the implementation of the Force), but the track record of 1.0 (designed by the same people) is less than stellar, so that worries me a little.

PS: I'm sure 2.0 will be a great game (I had tons of fun with 1.0, even during what many people considered low points), just not as flawless as many seem to hope.

While I do agree with you to an extent, the designers have all stated they have been extremely frustrating trying to design new stuff in the 1.0 environment this can explain some of the issues in the later waves.

Things like ps11 coordinate (that you mentioned) have been nuked out by removing VI a card that severely hampered design space. As well as the removal of engine upgrade help in making sure those types of crazy combos and interactions don't happen in 2.0. everything that was annoying and enabled the frustration about the ghost fen list for example are gone. It sounds like they are going to be extremely careful about blancket upgrades that can have unintended future problems. Every ship had to be designed around engine upgrade (the mod slot native on all ships was a horrid design decision that haunted the game since it's creation) and VI in 1.0 and that had to be a nightmare from a design perspective. In 2.0 they removed the blanked mod so no matter what they can remove the slot for a problem upgrade on a ship.

Here's the thing, 1.0 wasn't designed by the same people. Davy and Franks came on later. And didn't have anything to do with the core design of the game. FFG was a different company back then. I remember. And the design space of the original design was kind of limited. A big complaint was "complexity creep", as Alex and Frank, and now Max, kept trying new things. And frankly, they will continue to do that. But, from what I have seen, the new design is much more flexible in allowing them to get creative.

X-wing was never intended to be the massive tournament game it is now. ****, none of FFG's games were. But X-wing and Netrunner forced them into that. Which is why Official Play has evolved, and will continue to evolve. Along with some of their focus in terms of design.

1 hour ago, Icelom said:

Things like ps11 coordinate (that you mentioned) have been nuked out by removing VI a card that severely hampered design space. As well as the removal of engine upgrade help in making sure those types of crazy combos and interactions don't happen in 2.0.

What bothers me is the underlying principle. In a game where any single ship can gain repositioning (Engine Upgrade and Vectorrd Thrusters were already there) and VI was already a thing, the design team considered that a PS9 Fenn with EPT, and by extension the ability to coordinate a boost/br at PS 11 was a good addition to the game.

13 hours ago, Icelom said:

This makes no sense...

How did they fix them if they did not learn from them? also wtf does any of that mean?

The same way you fix a broken part in your car without understanding the problem with it. You replace the part instead of repairing the part. You only need to understand that something is broken, not what exactly went wrong.

3 hours ago, SEApocalypse said:

The same way you fix a broken part in your car without understanding the problem with it. You replace the part instead of repairing the part. You only need to understand that something is broken, not what exactly went wrong.

More like you replace parts that might be the problem until the problem goes away.

Knowing exactly what part is broken and replacing/repairing it as required shows you have an understanding of what caused the problem.

Even then, figuring out that what caused the problem in the first place was actually an 'upgrade' you made elsewhere is how you show true understanding.

Perhaps the best way to talk about would be if a fuse blows.

If you just replace the fuse, you have fixed the problem, but not the cause. If you dig deeper you might find a loose wire that occasionally shorts out and blows the fuse. But realising that the loose wire was actually caused by those new stereo speakers that were installed and that you need to check them all to remove future problems is the final step.

I just hope that FFG have done the full depth of root cause analysis on what caused the problems and actually fixed the deeper problems in 2.0...

19 minutes ago, DamianR said:

I just hope that FFG have done the full depth of root cause analysis on what caused the problems and actually fixed the deeper problems in 2.0...

I think they have done this, from what I can see in the mechanics.

However I've not necessarily got much optimism that the new system they've created won't lead to them make brand new mistakes and create brand new problems.

5 minutes ago, SOTL said:

However I've not necessarily got much optimism that the new system they've created won't lead to them make brand new mistakes and create brand new problems.

Yeah, but at least there's reason for optimism in their ability to quickly adjust point costs, rather than having to pay for a fix a 12-18 months later or wait for an errata/faq nerf.

optimism for me is more all the changes I've outlined above + the fact that said changes open but a LOT of design space

so we no longer need to jack up ship capabilities or give them ridiculous upgrade combos to make ships stand out, and with all the relevant arcs and lines printed on the base we can introduce more ship-specific abilities to make them more unique. this + linked actions are very promising

FFG is no longer limited to just whatever arc the 1.0 ship had (and it's printed action bar), now we have so much more flexibility to design interesting things without resulting in power creep

Basically the only ways they can REALLY **** things up on release is the Force mechanic and Point Costs, both of which can be easily addressed by the app (via adjusting point costs)

of course, my optimism only ever caps at "cautious" so don't take this as a gung-ho endorsement. I'm only saying that a glance at the revealed mechanics makes optimism regarding 2.0 both reasonable and logical, to a degree.

and, by extension, that the effort put into the edition change makes it far more than just a cash grab (contrasted with Warhammer edition changes). and that the costs, while significant in a vacuum, also do not represent the most expensive version change in history (again contrasted with the actual costs of a Warhammer edition change)

8 minutes ago, ficklegreendice said:

Basically the only ways they can REALLY **** things up on release is the Force mechanic and Point Costs, both of which can be easily addressed by the app (via adjusting point costs)

The Force mechanic is pretty interesting, in that with it only being available to Force sensitive characters, it should - theoretically - be enough to keep the protagonists of the films relevant, regardless of the current meta.

Vader and Luke both look legit af. Palpatine is solid. I imagine Rey and Kylo will have similar treatment.

The big names from the films are most likely going to see significant table time.

1 minute ago, FTS Gecko said:

The Force mechanic is pretty interesting, in that with it only being available to Force sensitive characters, it should - theoretically - be enough to keep the protagonists of the films relevant, regardless of the current meta.

Vader and Luke both look legit af. Palpatine is solid. I imagine Rey and Kylo will have similar treatment.

The big names from the films are most likely going to see significant table time.

This is one of the most important points to me. The game will look a lot more like the Star Wars movies again.

Theme is all well and good, but not at the expense of being overpowered

Also the currently only reliable source of action independent mods, ffg needs to keep a close eye on force

Though Palpatine's ability being changed to "Forcus" very nicely stops the triple guaranteed damage cancel nonsense soontir used to enjoy

Not overly concerned, just something to pay attention to

30 minutes ago, AlexW said:

Yeah, but at least there's reason for optimism in their ability to quickly adjust point costs, rather than having to pay for a fix a 12-18 months later or wait for an errata/faq nerf.

This. There will be a power curve, at some point something is going to be off. If nothing else, the designers have learned that having a system where mistakes are easier to fix is a needed change. There are a great many pilots and upgrades in 1.0 that would be better off with an upgrade slot added/removed or a simple point adjustment.

I don't expect perfection, but this move shows they are actively going to pursue it, and have an effective way to deliver changes. I'm optimistic.

X-wing 1.0 - Beer and Pretzel game that went big time, basic concept with no real long term plans

X-wing 2.0 - approachable miniature wargame designed from the ground up to be sustainable and balance-able

The latter will necessarily be much better than the former.

I agree that the app is a big improvement - not so much in terms of it being software but in terms of providing the design team tools to adjust on the fly to developments in the meta. Since the app is also a website and will also be a downloadable PDF they are making sure the VAST majority of players have easy access to the information. In a way, this reminds me of changes made to how Netrunner is administered after Michael Boggs took the reigns - the focus was in creating a toolkit to allow the design team to react more quickly to meta situations.

As to other changes, it really does look like they are following through on their stated aims of improving balance and making the game about flying your craft again as opposed to creating killer card combos. For example, I look forward to being able to run T-65 X-Wings again and being viable while doing it.

On 5/12/2018 at 8:18 PM, Firebird TMK said:

If you think a small ship is worth a 33% price increase merely because "it looks so much better than the old one," good on you for having that kind of $$$ to throw around. GW would approve of your thinking.

I find such price-gouging to be at least as bad as, if not worse than, the 2.0 conversion cost.

When the game was released in 2012, the Y-Wing cost the same at $15, that $15 is about $17 with inflation. So $3 more really for a better model that you don’t actually have to buy since you have the other models.

Not every company is Battlefront that provides new rulebooks (but NOT army books) for free to existing customers. GW has been mentioned to death. But we also have SW: X-Wing's sister game to compare this too.

We could instead be suffering under the Wizkids' model for their Star Trek: Attack Wing ship-upgrade packs... paying $10 per pack for some cardboard, 9-10 captain/upgrade cards and 2 ship cards (1 generic & 1 unique).

I will take FFG's comparatively generous $50 pack covering 35-37 ships any day of the week if Wizkids' model is the alternative.

On ‎5‎/‎15‎/‎2018 at 4:30 PM, __underscore__ said:

But that is why the 'gameplay-per-pound' value is so high. They're offering a higher quality of rules in a beloved IP and a well supported organised play system for a very low per unit cost compared to their normal prices. Value doesn't just mean cheap.

"[A] higher quality of rules" is very much a matter of opinion. I'm sure I'm not the only player who is dissatisfied to a greater or lesser extent by those "higher quality of rules". As for the pricing, I'm with those who think it's far too high. At the least, I would have included in each conversion kit a token or coupon that can be redeemed to let you order additional conversions for extra ships beyond the two of each (or however many) included. Say, two more per ship. Enough to allow players who have loaded up on FFG product to play their ships in 2.0 without being gouged.

On ‎5‎/‎15‎/‎2018 at 6:54 PM, General Kenobi's Chicken said:

I’ve been reading these threads for over a week now. And full disclosure: I’m a casual player who has spent somewhere between 2k and 3k on this game. I love this game. I’m happily not moving on to 2.0. But let me just say that the apologists for 2.0 are really an amazingly zealous group of individuals.

And though this will likely be a skirmish in the wilderness, I really cannot remain silent on this.

The decimal numeracy for all this was the first flag for me. Point-oh. Point-oh. Point-oh. To our post-digital brains that sounds nice. Yeah. It is the same software but better. I’ll walk away from the computer while the patches do their thing. This is not 2.0. This is a different game. This is Wimbledon with larger tennis balls and longer courts. A better game? Likely if you like blood! But the same game? No. No. It is not the same game. It is not 2.0. It is a different game. It is a different software package, not a version. The point-oh was clever. Very clever.

The second flag for me was not the conversion kits but rather the defense of the conversion kits. People are right to be a bit perturbed about the cost to make their expensive collection relevant again. And the beat downs! Oh gosh has FFG employed goons? Imagine if competitive tennis attempted this conversion: sorry. Your racquet is now officially too small. We need the 2.0 racquet. The apologists: well you only need the larger one when you play Wimbledon. Use your old racquets when you play at home. Oh and the costs? Don’t like the costs? Don’t buy it. Sheesh. Let them eat cake.

And yet flag three: is personal. Cooler miniatures. I won’t even mention the x-wing. The y-wing? Yeah the new y-wing is pretty cool. FFG is trying to reel me in with my love of miniature coolness. Well it might just work. But something tells me they knew they should sweeten the medicine to make it go down easy. Cause without the cool miniatures, this new game would be tough to stomach. For the fans of the other game anyway.

This is a new game for new players. I’m sure it will thrive. But I can’t help but smell a fault. This new game is not so much a fix as it is a second harvest.

Preach it. Well stated on every point.

On ‎5‎/‎16‎/‎2018 at 12:29 AM, Aaron Foss said:

Dear everyone who feels that the conversion kit prices are "too high" or "unfair":

You bought a game and some number of components for that game. You got exactly what you paid for, and you still have it. There is a new game coming out based on that original game, and the company producing it is very clearly making an effort to allow people who spent money on the first version capable of moving over some/all of their investment at a staggeringly lower cost than buying it all over again. They didn't have to do that - they did it because it made sense on any number of business standpoints .

You haven't lost anything. The game and the expansions you bought are still exactly what they were before - a game and pieces for that game.

FFG doesn't owe you anything. You got what you paid for. If you want to play their new game, they expect you to pay for it. If you bought content for the old game, they are giving you an option to update all of that old content for a drastically reduced cost compared to buying the new pieces.

X-Wing Second Edition is a new game. The components in the expansions and conversion kits are new. You are screaming about people 'taking' things from you because they aren't giving you, for free, something you never had.

You cry about how terribly expensive the conversion kits are, but I have yet to see a single person who has said that ever come close to understanding the costs involved. Do you actually have even the vaguest notion of what is costs to produce (design, develop, print, ship, distribute, etc.) a new game plus what is essentially 5 years worth of expansion content? I didn't think so.

Here's a little experiment for you: take a look at an average $50 MSRP hobby strategy game on the shelves at your FLGS and think about how many cards and how much punch board there is in that box (the back of the box will usually give you these numbers), then compare it to what is in one conversion kit for X-Wing Second Edition. $50 USD is staggeringly cheap for what is included in the conversion kits.

"But these other companies gave away their rules for free and I didn't have to change anything! They even sent me a picture of a kitten! That's proof that FFG is overcharging for things!"

This kind of argument is phenomenally blind to the realities of how a business functions. FFG's operational, development, material, and production/distributions costs are all contributing factors in how much they have to (yes, have to) charge for a product. Other companies produce different games for different audiences at drastically different costs and with distribution models that aren't even remotely comparable.

The game that FFG produces in this case is one that is based not only on plastic, pre-painted miniatures, but on having unique card and punch board components for each individual miniature. That means that each 'piece' for the game has all of those things, and that sets the cost of using those pieces at a certain threshold. This is not "greedy" or "gouging", this is simply the reality of the game and the components it is played with. It always has been.

"FFG is forcing me to spend 300 dollars! They should just make per-ship upgrade kits and sell them for 5 bucks!"

No, you are choosing to do that. You say you "need" an entire conversion kit just for 4 TIE Fighters, a TIE Defender and a Gunboat? That still comes to about 8 bucks per ship, or roughly 50% off of retail price. That's also ignoring the option to trade for or buy individual pieces from friends, fellow players, or secondary market dealers (never mind the option to sell excess components you may have). Your pathological need to have new cards and punch board for every single plastic ship you own is entirely on you. You are more than capable of playing a HUGE variety of games and lists with just 1 kit, and you know it.

Individual ship upgrade kits? Oh, my summer child, you really have no idea how retail works. Retailers simply cannot afford - either by square footage or in terms of raw cash outlay - to just carry that many extra SKUs. You're asking your FLGS (the shop that likely operates just barely in the black, if they're lucky) to double the shelf space they have dedicated to X-Wing, and to buy heaps of product in order to fill that shelf space with no safe assumptions to make about the sell-through numbers for each SKU.

Direct distribution from FFG? they haven't got a fraction of the direct distribution pipeline to sell that kind of quantity directly, never mind the added cost associated with doubling the amount of packaging they have to design and produce.

The Bottom Line:

You can choose to buy the new game, or you can not. You can choose to take advantage of the (incredibly generous) option to buy conversion kits instead of some/all of your ships again or you can not. Regardless of your choices, they are your choices, and the company offering you those choices is under absolutely zero obligation - moral, fiscal, or otherwise - to give you different (unrealistic) options because you think the price is 'unfair', or to produce absolutely unworkable 'solutions' that no retailer could hope to support.

"If you like your X-Wing 1.0, you can keep your X-Wing 1.0." -- Aaron Foss Obama

"You haven't lost anything." Yes, you have. You have lost the ability to play 1.0 with essentially anyone other than the few pals you may have who also want to keep playing 1.0. You have thus lost most of the value of your investment in 1.0. Smug assertions to the contrary deliberately refuse to acknowledge this point.

"FFG doesn't owe you anything." I submit that FFG owes it to its customers not to make it practically impossible to play the game that FFG convinced them to buy in the first place. BUY. Not RENT. Not "Buy it but it has an expiration date that we aren't telling you about." The same argument applies, a fortiori, to the faceless suits at GW, whose constant money-grabbing was one reason I turned to X-Wing in the first place.

"Your pathological need to have new cards and punch board for every single plastic ship you own is entirely on you. You are more than capable of playing a HUGE variety of games and lists with just 1 kit, and you know it." IMO the only "pathology" here is your pathological contempt for anyone who plays differently than the way YOU think they should in order to comport with FFG's plan.

"Oh, my summer child, you really have no idea how retail works." Do YOU? Are you an FFG insider? Do you have access to corporate secrets that confer on you godlike knowledge that mere mortal 1.0 players lack? Do you know exactly how 2.0 was priced? Pardon me if I doubt it.

The "Bottom Line": whenever GW pushes out a new edition, the fanboys and shills come out of the woodwork, singing the praises of the latest edition and chiding the benighted oldthinkers who unbellyfeel the latest GW party line. Apparently, gaming history repeats itself.