4 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

In a word:

Trust.

I have watched 1.0 vacillate power back and forth between broken and better, and all kinds of crazy **** happening to the game because of the ludicrous pursuit of The Perfect Meta.

Now, the powers that be are essentially producing game components that are unfinished, so that QUARTERLY I need to go back and see if the component still has the same specs. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. But I am tired of a game that bases all of it's decisions on the overly-exaggerated gyrations at the top of the highest mast when things on deck are actually not that bad.

The App only seems to certify that this is a known problem that will not get better, it will only get fixed faster with less paperwork.

100% agree

12 minutes ago, Marinealver said:

Many people are crying about 2.0.

All I can say is it could be worse .

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2018/6/8/jacking-out/

Right in the feels. I love Netrunner. Low blow.

34 minutes ago, AceWing said:

Right in the feels. I love Netrunner. Low blow.

Sorry, I really love the game too and hated the news (I don't think I will get into another LCG after this or any card game in general). I was just trying to make a point.

Just now, Marinealver said:

Sorry, I really love the game too and hated the news (I don't think I will get into another LCG after this or any card game in general). I was just trying to make a point.

Haha. I do love Netrunner but I was just kidding.

Just now, AceWing said:

Haha. I do love Netrunner but I was just kidding.

Oh okay, but still after listening to TWA last Episode All Good Things (as well as RLC and TC on A:Nr) yeah this was a low blow.

So people crying about 2nd edition. Let me tell you what would be worse.

53 minutes ago, Marinealver said:

Many people are crying about 2.0.

All I can say is it could be worse .

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2018/6/8/jacking-out/

5 hours ago, Jadotch said:

It is kinda like magic ... watch ...

And *POOF*

OMG!!!! Where did the stats go!! Crazy, right?!?!?!? It is like you can print on the sleeve whole new stats.

Have a different color sleeve per tournament years, sell them for $10-20 bucks or something. Problem solved, no app. (A cut in half Starbucks gift card envelope was used due to convenience of what I had in arms grasp.)

So you toke the concept of hard printed components, which where the main problem of 1.0, but fond a way to make it dumber and more impractical.

Impressive.

47 minutes ago, Duskwalker said:

So you toke the concept of hard printed components, which where the main problem of 1.0, but fond found a way to make it dumber and more impractical.

Impressive.

So ... why don't you just play a video game then ??? That way EVERYTHING can be updated digitally. Bad models ... bad artwork ... problem solved! The app is half way there.

28 minutes ago, Jadotch said:

So ... why don't you just play a video game then ??? That way EVERYTHING can be updated digitally. Bad models ... bad artwork ... problem solved! The app is half way there.

You want me to support to the video game industries terrible decision to forcing US to download and upgrade THERE game over the internet, rather then taking the OBVIOUSLY superior approach of printing everything correctly on the CD-ROM and then handing out a Floppy disc every year to fix problems? What kind of fool do you take me for, good Sir?

On 6/24/2018 at 11:25 AM, Boris_the_Dwarf said:

After the May announcement, I was cautiously optimistic for second edition. I’d been saying for about a year that the game needed a second edition, so the fact they were making one was good news to me... until i saw what their idea of second edition looked like. Conversion kits that still run the risk of alienating new players who have to go backward to buy ships that haven’t been reskinned, higher pricing on ship packs, and the requirement for an online app just to handle some of the most basic operating requirements of the game. In my opinion, the app is there as a cop out mechanism to allow the designers to be even sloppier with design. Now they can just change everything on the fly.

The one area I still held out hope for and defended FFG on when the topic came up was the idea that it would take multiple conversion kits to maintain playability. I based my response on the comments made by people who were in the room for the announcement. Because of the app, you won’t need multiple copies of the same upgrade card like you do now. That’s what I was hearing.

And then I opened my TIE Reaper and examined the second edition contents. I stand corrected. What a disappointment. One conversion kit for a faction might not be enough after all, if there’s a really good upgrade card that a top tier list will need 4-5 copies of.

My plan is to purchase the new starter, one imperial conversion kit and one rebel kit. Beyond that, I’m done. No more ships. No additional kits. This version has a year of life in it at best, as it has alienated veterans and new players alike. New players will have to backtrack to pick up old ships to go with the kits or wait out some future release date unless there is some other cash grab power play in the works that hasn’t been announced yet.

For me, 1.0 still has a lot of life left in it and I plan to continue enjoying that for years to come.

Lol. Such angst. However dodgy 2.0 is, its already obviously 100 times better than 1.0 is currently.

And if you think 2.0 has but 12 months in it, you are quite deluded.

2 hours ago, Jadotch said:

So ... why don't you just play a video game then ??? That way EVERYTHING can be updated digitally. Bad models ... bad artwork ... problem solved! The app is half way there.

Would you be happier if there was no squadbuilder app, and instead you had to compile point costs from pdfs or sourcebooks?

11 hours ago, AceWing said:

The app is the best solution for FFG, not for us. They can continue the sales model of printing overpowered ships to drive sales and then nerf them out from under you after you've already bought them. They'll praise their poor design countermeasures as flexible when it's really just part of the sales model and didn't require any foresight at all. It's kind of a brilliant way of maintaining their sales model while eliminating responsibility for their product.

This. Wisdom, even when most people can’t accept the fact that profits are the driving force behind every decision, to the point the company has abandoned the idea of making a balanced product. And not just with 2nd edition, it started long before this.

7 hours ago, player2072913 said:

Would you be happier if there was no squadbuilder app, and instead you had to compile point costs from pdfs or sourcebooks?

No, he would simply use a fan-made squad builder app because it would be easier...

On 6/26/2018 at 6:22 PM, AceWing said:

I agree. I don't get why people think the baby needs to be thrown out with the bath water. If you ban a handful of cards and make some minor tweaks, 1.0 one of the best games ever made.

https://imgur.com/a/LHbAmqe

For those likeminded people who are planning to stay with 1.0

On 6/27/2018 at 8:18 PM, Darth Meanie said:

In a word:

Trust.

I have watched 1.0 vacillate power back and forth between broken and better, and all kinds of crazy **** happening to the game because of the ludicrous pursuit of The Perfect Meta.

Now, the powers that be are essentially producing game components that are unfinished, so that QUARTERLY I need to go back and see if the component still has the same specs. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. But I am tired of a game that bases all of it's decisions on the overly-exaggerated gyrations at the top of the highest mast when things on deck are actually not that bad.

The App only seems to certify that this is a known problem that will not get better, it will only get fixed faster with less paperwork.

I like the look of 2.0. It does look like superior design with room for growth. But the required use of the Tweek-o-Matic is a huge red flag.

Well about your trust issues... idk what to tell you about that, but that’s a more general problem than with X-Wing only.

But not having a sensible way to fix mistakes is clearly better than an app. ?

Now, quarterly you have to push a button to check a stat, otherwise you would have to look for changes in a 15 page long FAQ. Or buy some ridiculous fix cards or sleeves.

Do yo really prefer that?

I can just compare two other games for you that i know and play myself.

WH40k on one hand have only begun to balance their game and are doing it via additional army pdfs and big update documents every few months. This system (while i am thankful they are trying at last to balance their rules) is so unwieldy that the books and even online codices (that are not adapted automatically) you buy are basically wrong sometimes a week after release. Its horribly clunky and sometimes you have illegal army lists despite your honest efforts to build them right.

The saving grace is BattleScribe (an App!!!). If not for that i would go mad trying to build a list.

On the other hand there is Privateers WarmaHordes. It’s hands down the best balanced asymmetrical tabletop game i have ever seen, and they have based their army builder and game tracker mainly on their extremely well-made app for years now. It’s smooth and practical (much, much cheaper than 40k’s codex system after an initial investment) and changes are immediately there for you for reference and play.

FFG is doing the absolutely right thing. Even with their best intentions and effort there ARE going to be mistakes and errors in balancing. They have been around in any TT game in existence. And right now, if we have the technical possibility to have all this in an app that facilitates our gaming experience and their work, why the heck would we expect them to not use this to their and our advantage?!?

But i guess there are always people that are going to see evil in all progress...

P.S. No pictures please, the flash might steal my soul ?

7 hours ago, ForceM said:

Do you really prefer that?

It is undeniably true that I have used a computerized system to build my lists since I started this game. I have no idea where any of my cards are. . .basically they are buried in a box in the back of my closet, because I never go to tournaments so I never need to prove ownership of anything. Since the card was released, I have had infinity copies of Autothrusters to fly 12 TIE Interceptors.

The app doesn't make the game better. What it ends is the player capability of "this card is broken as **** and it's ruining the game but I'm going to keep abusing it until FFG makes me stop." A statement that I have seen posted before.

So what would I prefer, then?

That this game was actually about Star Wars, and playing battles in that universe.

Instead, the App only confirms that this game is going to remain about the same fiddly little tweaks to Points and Upgrade slots to "Bring Balance to the Meta" so that all the Sport-Wingers can have all their tools sharpened or blunted as needed. I see nothing (save the new Force mechanic) that makes this game more like Star Wars. I have waited 5 years for this game to (officially) bloom into something more than 100/6. Epic, while provided, has been poorly supported and now is on life-support to give Sport-Wing a new method to stay sporting.

Quote

But i guess there are always people that are going to see evil in all progress...

So, as far as progress goes, I don't see any. I see a game that has been reconfigured to cater to a very specific mode of play, that continues to more-or-less neglect the fact that many people bought into this game because it's Star Wars. They lament for X-Wings to be good (wish granted, perhaps), to be able to fly squadrons of their favorite ships, and for favorite characters like K-2SO, Ben Kenobi, Phasma, et. al., to be in the game. Others would like to see missions, objectives, and campaigns.

Instead of talking about "design space" and "new mechanics" and "meta" I want the designers to talks about "story" and "iconic characters" and "Star Wars."

2.0 reboots the game for better tournament play. Maybe all the rest will follow.

But I don't trust that it will. Especially since Epic has been left behind as an opening maneuver.

So, as @SOTL has pointed out, 1.0 has plenty of Fun-Wing left in it, it just needs some of the tweaks that FFG could have done if they wanted to.

Lastly, since 2.0 has some pretty amazing similarities to what people have talked about on these boards, I can only hope that they see posts like mine and give consideration to the things I long for.

Rebellions are built on hope.

6 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

It is undeniably true that I have used a computerized system to build my lists since I started this game. I have no idea where any of my cards are. . .basically they are buried in a box in the back of my closet, because I never go to tournaments so I never need to prove ownership of anything. Since the card was released, I have had infinity copies of Autothrusters to fly 12 TIE Interceptors.

The app doesn't make the game better. What it ends is the player capability of "this card is broken as **** and it's ruining the game but I'm going to keep abusing it until FFG makes me stop." A statement that I have seen posted before.

So what would I prefer, then?

That this game was actually about Star Wars, and playing battles in that universe.

Instead, the App only confirms that this game is going to remain about the same fiddly little tweaks to Points and Upgrade slots to "Bring Balance to the Meta" so that all the Sport-Wingers can have all their tools sharpened or blunted as needed. I see nothing (save the new Force mechanic) that makes this game more like Star Wars. I have waited 5 years for this game to (officially) bloom into something more than 100/6. Epic, while provided, has been poorly supported and now is on life-support to give Sport-Wing a new method to stay sporting.

So, as far as progress goes, I don't see any. I see a game that has been reconfigured to cater to a very specific mode of play, that continues to more-or-less neglect the fact that many people bought into this game because it's Star Wars. They lament for X-Wings to be good (wish granted, perhaps), to be able to fly squadrons of their favorite ships, and for favorite characters like K-2SO, Ben Kenobi, Phasma, et. al., to be in the game. Others would like to see missions, objectives, and campaigns.

Instead of talking about "design space" and "new mechanics" and "meta" I want the designers to talks about "story" and "iconic characters" and "Star Wars."

2.0 reboots the game for better tournament play. Maybe all the rest will follow.

But I don't trust that it will. Especially since Epic has been left behind as an opening maneuver.

So, as @SOTL has pointed out, 1.0 has plenty of Fun-Wing left in it, it just needs some of the tweaks that FFG could have done if they wanted to.

Lastly, since 2.0 has some pretty amazing similarities to what people have talked about on these boards, I can only hope that they see posts like mine and give consideration to the things I long for.

Rebellions are built on hope.

So you want some story driven RPGesque missions and don’t care for competitive play.

Oo Kay!

There are missions in basically any ship expansion, and so many epic and fan made storylines. There is also HOTAC, etc. So you can enjoy yourself for ages if you are into that and find someone to play it. Nobody will stop you.

And the App won’t stop you either by the way. So i still don’t get why this gets in your way.

By the way my gaming group will start a big HOTAC campaign this summer and we will have such a blast. I will also keep all my 1.0 stuff for this reason alone.

But yes, 100/6 Deathmatch is the standard tournament mode, and i would have wished that they maybe create 2 more standard missions for 2.0 that are well balanced for tournaments, so there is a bit more diversity, and you have to practice and plan for them. I think there is justified constructive criticism to be placed there.

But you say yourself that you are not into tournaments, so why does this concern you, actually? And still, what does that have to do with the app? It will balance stuff for 200 point games, but if you play some story driven scenarios, you can adapt everything just like you want anyway...

10 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

I want the designers to talks about "story" and "iconic characters" and "Star Wars."

For me, 2.0 looks like an attempt to do this part of X-wing better. The inclusion of the force mechanic and the more deliberate design of faction identity (as long as they stick with it).

5 hours ago, AlexW said:

For me, 2.0 looks like an attempt to do this part of X-wing better. The inclusion of the force mechanic and the more deliberate design of faction identity (as long as they stick with it).

Yup. The launch stream spent a lot of time talking about iconic characters and story and star wars, there are kits coming that include thematic elements and explicit casual-play elements in addition to the usual competitive elements.

They're making a real effort to improve this aspect.

But yeah, they're clearly not trying at all and it's all terrible.

Gah! Every time I come to the forums, I see this topic and think, "Ooh, somebody's discussing 3 TIE strikers in a squad." -Click!-

...Oh yeah, I remember what this topic was about. ?

Taking a step back and reading other threads. I think a lot of the ‘app’ dislike comes down to the list building aspect of the game. At least for me.

I like this strategic element of the game. Having ever shifting mushy stats takes away from it. It’s also one of the reasons I have been against most nerfs as well. I enjoy the prep work and strategic list building aspect of the game as much as the tactical play part.

2.0 heavily takes away from this with mushy stats that can be changed on a whim and the threat cards all point to the designers trying to move away from this aspect. It seems like the designers are trying to force the player to play with ‘acceptable lists’ of what they think the player should play.

I know not all agree with this, and everything should be determined on the play board. But I digress.

17 minutes ago, Jadotch said:

Taking a step back and reading other threads. I think a lot of the ‘app’ dislike comes down to the list building aspect of the game. At least for me.

I like this strategic element of the game. Having ever shifting mushy stats takes away from it. It’s also one of the reasons I have been against most nerfs as well. I enjoy the prep work and strategic list building aspect of the game as much as the tactical play part.

2.0 heavily takes away from this with mushy stats that can be changed on a whim and the threat cards all point to the designers trying to move away from this aspect. It seems like the designers are trying to force the player to play with ‘acceptable lists’ of what they think the player should play.

I know not all agree with this, and everything should be determined on the play board. But I digress.

You're reading WAY too much into this.

Looks like @Vontoothskie is to the "confused" emoji as @madquest8 is to the "sad" emoji!

On ‎6‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 8:44 PM, AlexW said:

For me, 2.0 looks like an attempt to do this part of X-wing better. The inclusion of the force mechanic and the more deliberate design of faction identity (as long as they stick with it).

Well, I did mention the Force idea as a positive in my response.

On ‎6‎/‎30‎/‎2018 at 2:14 AM, thespaceinvader said:

Yup. The launch stream spent a lot of time talking about iconic characters and story and star wars, there are kits coming that include thematic elements and explicit casual-play elements in addition to the usual competitive elements.

They're making a real effort to improve this aspect.

But yeah, they're clearly not trying at all and it's all terrible.

I didn't say that. I just have my doubts for reasons explained above.

22 hours ago, Jadotch said:

Taking a step back and reading other threads. I think a lot of the ‘app’ dislike comes down to the list building aspect of the game. At least for me.

I like this strategic element of the game. Having ever shifting mushy stats takes away from it. It’s also one of the reasons I have been against most nerfs as well. I enjoy the prep work and strategic list building aspect of the game as much as the tactical play part.

2.0 heavily takes away from this with mushy stats that can be changed on a whim and the threat cards all point to the designers trying to move away from this aspect. It seems like the designers are trying to force the player to play with ‘acceptable lists’ of what they think the player should play.

I know not all agree with this, and everything should be determined on the play board. But I digress.

I agree with the "mushy stats" sentiment. It just feels weird. I can imaging conversations with new players that go something like:

Noob: Great game. X-wings are cool, right?

Pro: You bet. X-Wings rock. It's that name of the game, after all.

Noob: Wow, what are its stats?

Pro: Uh, in 1.0 it was ABC, but they sucked. So, in 2.0 is was ABD. Then the Defender was too powerful, so in early 2019 they made X-Wings BDE.

Noob: BDE sounds good.

Pro: Well, they wanted to emphasize torpedoes so they changed it again in Q4 2020.

Noob: So what are the stats of the X-Wing, then??

Pro: Um. . . *pulls out cellphone to check the app. . .*

22 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:

You're reading WAY too much into this.

Yeah, probably, but it just feels goofy.

I would rather have a rock solid baseline for a ship that can be modified with title/mods/configurations.

Most of all, it would give the game a sense of history. If the X-Wing had multiple values, you could talk about the T-65 from 2018, the T-65B from 2019, the T-65XJ for 2020. You could have things like the "Lothal Campaign Refit" that was good for a tournament year and then rotated out of play.

And, with the app, these could even be "E-Cards" that players aren't forced to buy but would allow FFG to play the "emphasis of the year" game.

But I also agree with @Jadotch . I worry that mushy stats will simply lead to FFG forcing players to choose lists based on the generic principle of "well, we looked at the meta and wanted to manipulate it."

Lastly, I find it hilarious that the 2.0 crowd is POSITIVE that this is the best game upgrade ever that no one has ever played. It looks good. . .but as I said elsewhere, I worry it is going to become a game about a game.* And this is more likely to happen in a game that has no fixed stats for its base components.

*And I'm sure some people are just fine with this, since they just want to play "the balanced space game battle du jour." But as a Star Wars fan, I'd like to see something more grounded in the world of SW--and in that world, the Incom T-65B X-Wing has just one set of stats.

I find it interesting and annoying that there are so many extreme opinions being thrown around that are based on a combination of supposition and fear/anger with no room for common sense and facts that we have trickling in about 2.0.

Having played for a few years I have experienced broken game play in tournaments as well as local "frienndly" games. 1.0 has a lot of issues with it that a few tweaks here and there won't fix. In my opinion, saying it was near perfection is a fairly delusional statement.

That being said saying that 2.0 is the best thing since sliced bread without having been able to play a game of it also seems rather devoid of common sensense and reason. How can one make such a statement without having actually played a game of 5 of it?

With all of these grandiose claims being make from both sides, toxic environments take hold and sour the game for most (the exception being the lurking trolls who love a good feeding).

It seems as though you have to be all in on one side or the other. God forbid you state you have issues with 1.0 but also have a few reservations about 2.0.

From what I have seen, many attempts to fix issues I had with 1.0 have been made. It also appears that by doing so, other issues may have been created. That being said it is hard to say how accurate my observations are as the concerns I have are based on a small part of the overall picture in 2.0, as the only background I have to draw from is 1.0 as a whole. I haven't played 2.0 so I don't know what impact the many subtle changes will have on the game as a whole.

I am cautiously optimistic. I am hoping that the feel of all of the changes together with create an experience that I am able to enjoy more than in 1.0. However, it is entirely possible that I could hate it.

2 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

I would rather have a rock solid baseline for a ship that can be modified with title/mods/configurations.

As 1e pretty conclusively proved though, a rock solid baseline does not remain rock solid, and the development cycle for fixes often winds up fishtailing wildly because they design fixes for problems that stopped being problems a year and a half ago, or design fixes that worked for a meta a year and a half ago but are awful today and only getting worse.

FFG already forces (competitive) players to play only a small set of very specific lists if they want to do well. Again, 2e doesn't change this.

X Wing has always had a game about the game - or as most people discussing it call it, a metagame. 1e is no exception - indeed, playing the metagame is (and has historically been) often more important than playing the game itself.

I'm not confident it'll be perfect.

I'm confident it'll be light years better than 1e, because honestly, that's really not that difficult with the state 1e is in at the moment.

In short: the ability to vary points and slots flexibly and responsively should be useful to actually improve a lot of the things you mention over the currect state of 1e.