Actually I would have preferred they had not yet released the pdf yet. Again, lots of "this is DOA/garbage, " this is the best", "poor Empire" flooding the forum. And people are going to play most of the stuff to death on Vassal...so when the non GenCon and non US people finally have the dials and stuff in hand, the meta is more or less shaped and a lot of excitement gone.

Alas, here we are. Is this really the final form of the pdf?

A) No version number or dates on the sheets (or I am blind). FFG has done already at least one revision, but you can only tell when comparing fine details

B) Graded costing was promised. There is a little bit of this. Eg base size deoendency, extra overhead for IN6 and force. But I had hoped to see - just one example with arbitrary point value, this is not a Genius discussion - Genius "0*", where * means either like 12ts when on Nym, or non deployable when Nym is the pilot. I really hope the app can do this. Would enable design space, and also avoid some of the strange point costs, overly complicated card restrictions on the cards themselves and heavy handed nerfs killing innocent by standing cards like back in the JM5K desaster.

So is this just a precursor for GenCon, or is going to look like this, curious indeed.

I think the idea of graded costing was another one of those things people thought was promised but I'm not sure FFG ever actually said they were going to do it. It looks like they're going to restrict things more along the lines of Engine Upgrade, where only 1-2 big ships can take it so when you see a cost for EU on a big ship that might as well read "Millennium Falcon" instead of Large Ship. They should definitely add version numbers though.

As far as the meta goes, it does take a little bit away from the excitement of having everything drop on the 13th but with a community as large as we have the meta was always going to be shaped pretty quickly anyway. If more ships are viable than previously I think we might see more variety though and it is still my hope that flying skill will matter more than it does in 1st edition so everything won't just be about putting as many broken upgrades on the most broken ship.

A is a good piece of constructive criticism. A document like this desperately needs version numbering, or at least publication dates, to confirm when revisions are happening - but to some extent, until the game is actually out (at least at GenCon) it can be somewhat in flux anyway.

B is not something FFG ever promised to the best of my knowledge. They may have said it could be done IF the combination of upgrades on $whatever proved to be problematic, but I'm not sure they even said that.

22 minutes ago, Managarmr said:

lots  of "this is DOA/garbage, " this is the b  est", "po   or Empire" fl  ooding the forum.   

In fact I feel that there is less of that now. I may be wrong. Costing solved A LOT of pointless discussions

24 minutes ago, Managarmr said:

when  the non GenCon and non US people finally have t  h  e dials and stuff in hand, the meta is mo  re or les  s sh  ape   d   

The game balance is very good, I think the meta game will be less dominant in v2 ( it was the goal). There will always be dominant archetype but remember that costing is able to change, only to correct this problem.

Sur I see what you mean and obviously excitement will fade, but now v2 is on! I can wait September cos I can prepare my squads and so, I am already enjoying the game!!!

4 hours ago, Jike said:

I think the idea of graded costing was another one of those things people thought was promised but I'm not sure FFG ever actually said they were going to do it.

Actually, they did say it. Don't forget that this is their slapped together point system only via PDF for their first events. The App is going to come out and will be the real point system. This is just the easy version. Consider it 1.5.

FFG will surely change a lot of stuff when the app comes out. They are probably going to be using the first events as a last Beta. So, any meta that comes out of this will be changed when the App comes out.

I think releasing point costs now is a very good idea for a couple reasons:

1) for all the lucky folks who do get to go to gen con, it let's them properly use the stuff they bought, instead of only being able to play quick builds (which I can guarantee will not be very balanced for competitive people)
2) hopefully they can use player feedback between now and september to do a first cost update, meaning that all the real 2.0 events in Sept get a more balanced game (this is basically an open beta!)
3) even those of us who can't make it gen con can start playing 2.0 now... There is an app out there that does all the new dials, so you don't actually need them. And there is another app out there that tracks the new damage deck. Other than that you can really just play with 1.0 components.

As to your criticisms:
A) yes, this is very valid and I suspect will be fixed soon (FFG has always done version numbers on FAQs, not sure why they didn't here)
B) I wouldn't say they promised this. They did say they had this capability if needed. I suspect we will see it get used more as they need to balance OP combos, but they probably want to minimize this to start. It's complex to keep track of for anyone who decides to use the PDFs (which is everyone for now). God, even using the app, it's going to be an adjustment when list building if you can't really memorize point costs because a lot of them vary between different ships.

47 minutes ago, heychadwick said:

Actually, they did say it. Don't forget that this is their slapped together point system only via PDF for their first events. The App is going to come out and will be the real point system. This is just the easy version. Consider it 1.5.

FFG will surely change a lot of stuff when the app comes out. They are probably going to be using the first events as a last Beta. So, any meta that comes out of this will be changed when the App comes out.

The most they said is they have the capability, not that they will definitely do it. Even then, the system we have now with split points depending on agility or base size might well be what they were describing. Your point about the app being the "real point system" with presumably extra refinements is exactly the kind of rumour that seems to rapidly become fact around here. There's no evidence there will be any difference whatsoever between how the app works versus how the PDFs do. In fact, it would probably be a bad PR move for FFG were that the case since they've been saying you don't need the app to play since it was announced.

14 minutes ago, evcameron said:

B) I wouldn't say they promised this. They did say they had this capability if needed. I suspect we will see it get used more as they need to balance OP combos, but they probably want to minimize this to start.

This is my guess. They have that option should they need it, but it's not meant to be the norm.

Just so you know, vassals implementation of 2.0 elements has no time table for completion. It could still be in the works by official release time for all we know.

Also, unless something specific is bonkers busted, the way engine and stealth device are costed is surely what they are going to do for graded costing. I don’t expect to see a “this card costs x more when used with this pilot” until much much later in the life of the game, if at all.

2 minutes ago, Kdubb said:

Just so you know, vassals implementation of 2.0 elements has no time table for completion. It could still be in the works by official release time for all we know.

Also, unless something specific is bonkers busted, the way engine and stealth device are costed is surely what they are going to do for graded costing. I don’t expect to see a “this card costs x more when used with this pilot” until much much later in the life of the game, if at all.

I could see them implementing higher costs for higher Initiatives in much the same way, but there's no reason to expect them to, in particular.

For instance, I could see Genius costing more the higher your PS is.

1 hour ago, heychadwick said:

Actually, they did say it. Don't forget that this is their slapped together point system only via PDF for their first events. The App is going to come out and will be the real point system. This is just the easy version. Consider it 1.5.

FFG will surely change a lot of stuff when the app comes out. They are probably going to be using the first events as a last Beta. So, any meta that comes out of this will be changed when the App comes out.

I don't agree.

Do you actually have a quote of them specifically saying that?

I have always assumed the sliding points system would be much more along the lines of what we're getting in the current pdf. There is a very simple reason for this - clarity.

Yes, with an app that holds a big database of upgrade/pilot interactions and floating point costs, you could in theory have every upgrade be worth different amounts in different configurations without relying on the user to remember it. But I strongly believe we would need to see clear justification for why that is the case.

If I put Afterburners on Wampa and I see it costs 3 points, and then I put it on Vader and it costs 8 points I need to know why because it's going to inform future list building. The current pdf shows very clear rules for some upgrades on why their cost changes. That is good, that is predictable and easily applied.

I don't want list building to be random trial and error where you can't predict point costs in your head without going into the app. Where you have to keep trying different combinations over and over again just to see what fits.

Variable points work great in cases where a single metric easily defines the effectiveness of an upgrade. Obviously stealth device is more effective the more base green dice you have, that's why it was only ever taken on ships that had 3 agility. Now that ships that don't benefit as much get a discount, it's a better upgrade.

Variable point costs designed to target one specific combination sounds like an exercise in list building frustration to me, and a way to cover for bad design oversights rather than encourage thorough balance testing before release.

they stated several times that the point of the app was so they could adjust costs and even slots more freely.

The PDF isnt final. Nothing is "final" in 2.0

1 minute ago, thespaceinvader said:

I could see them implementing higher costs for higher Initiatives in much the same way, but there's no reason to expect them to, in particular.

For instance, I could see Genius costing more the higher your PS is.

That’s another potential grading scale for sure.

This idea that they were going to have varied costs for each specific pilot and upgrade combo though was a bit insane. FFG will never have the man power to test each and every pilot with every combination of possible upgrades and then to cost each accurately. The most we should probably ever expect is 2 or 3 specific pilot and upgrade increased costings, and that only if after the meta forms there is a specific interaction that creates an unintended power curve shift.

5 minutes ago, GuacCousteau said:

Variable point costs designed to target one specific combination sounds like an exercise in list building frustration to me, and a way to cover for bad design oversights rather than encourage thorough balance testing before release.

I don't wholly disagree, which is why I think it'll be rare, but assuming the game runs long enough, there will eventually be some broken combo that needs to be addressed. Playtesting simply can't cover every single possibility once things grow past a certain point. Now, I'm sure that other options will be pursued if possible, but I'd rather they have the option and never use it than see them beating their heads against the wall when simply breaking a particular combination is an option.

3 minutes ago, Kdubb said:

That’s another potential grading scale for sure.

This idea that they were going to have varied costs for each specific pilot and upgrade combo though was a bit insane. FFG will never have the man power to test each and every pilot with every combination of possible upgrades and then to cost each accurately. The most we should probably ever expect is 2 or 3 specific pilot and upgrade increased costings, and that only if after the meta forms there is a specific interaction that creates an unintended power curve shift.

Exactly. If they know in advance that it'll be problematic, they'll change the design. The point changes would be a possible solution after the fact.

19 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

I don't wholly disagree, which is why I think it'll be rare, but assuming the game runs long enough, there will eventually be some broken combo that needs to be addressed. Playtesting simply can't cover every single possibility once things grow past a certain point. Now, I'm sure that other options will be pursued if possible, but I'd rather they have the option and never use it than see them beating their heads against the wall when simply breaking a particular combination is an option.

In those cases, I'd massively prefer that they just errata some element that breaks in combination, just as they do in 1e.

Let's not forget that errata are easier to push out now, as well as costs, thanks to the app. It feels more consistent to me. The idea that you could put an upgrade on a certain pilot, then see the cost of your list suddenly jump when you add another, specific upgrade just makes points feel so... arbitrary to me.

If they need to target a certain combination and errata are deemed too inelegant, then I'd much rather they just introduce a new sliding scale that applies universally so there is at least some systemic consistency.

Like when Deadeye became a problem on JM5ks in 1e; if they didn't want to errata Deadeye to be small ship only, I would much prefer an increased points cost on all large base ships rather than just on the JM5k - it feels more consistent.

If it really is a last resort to correct for a problem combo, when erratas aren't desired and universal or systemic points cost changes would unfairly nerf the ships who don't have access to the broken combo, then I guess I'd be okay with it.

I just don't want it to be the norm that every ship operates in its own little points world. You shouldn't need to understand statistical distribution curves just to optimise and balance your lists.

I think FFG were right to release the costs. The game will be availiable to some in about 2-3 days. While most of us must wait till a month and a half, some can start playing.

24 minutes ago, That Blasted Samophlange said:

I think FFG were right to release the costs. The game will be availiable to some in about 2-3 days. While most of us must wait till a month and a half, some can start playing.

And hopefully that play will feedback to FFG, resulting in them publishing a revised points cost PDF sooner, rather than later. #Help the Jumpmaster ?

7 minutes ago, Scum4Life said:

And hopefully that play will feedback to FFG, resulting in them publishing a revised points cost PDF sooner, rather than later. #Help the Jumpmaster ?

How does the jumpmaster need help now? It has already gotten its crew back.

1 hour ago, Jike said:

The most they said is they have the capability, not that they will definitely do it. Even then, the system we have now with split points depending on agility or base size might well be what they were describing. Your point about the app being the "real point system" with presumably extra refinements is exactly the kind of rumour that seems to rapidly become fact around here. There's no evidence there will be any difference whatsoever between how the app works versus how the PDFs do. In fact, it would probably be a bad PR move for FFG were that the case since they've been saying you don't need the app to play since it was announced.

We can disagree or wait to see who is right when the app comes out. It won't be that far. Best to just wait and see.

As for bad PR move....I don't think you are understanding what I'm saying. Recall that they will ALWAYS have a PDF version of the points. I'm not suggesting that they won't.

I am suggesting that this first list is a "get by" list and they can easily change the points once the app is out. They would put different points in the app and publish a new PDF on their website with the new points, too. Every time they update anything they will publish a new PDF. Going from first ever list to the next one in Nov. is not that far a stretch to think they might revamp the points then. Yes, they haven't said that they are, but it makes sense to do so. Guess we will have to wait and see.

There is also the possibility that they made this list pretty simple for ease of use, but once the app comes out that it gets more complicated. It might be rough to use the PDF at that point, but easy for someone with the app. It's quite possible they set it up that way. Different points for specific ships for upgrades.

1 hour ago, GuacCousteau said:

I don't agree.

Do you actually have a quote of them specifically saying that?

I have always assumed the sliding points system would be much more along the lines of what we're getting in the current pdf. There is a very simple reason for this - clarity.

I have zero interest in digging through all their statements to see exactly what they said. Maybe you are right. Maybe I'm wrong. I figure we can just wait until November.

Just now, Scum4Life said:

And hopefully that play will feedback to FFG, resulting in them publishing a revised points cost PDF sooner, rather than later. #Help the Jumpmaster ?

#****thejumpmaster

1 hour ago, That Blasted Samophlange said:

How does the jumpmaster need help now? It has already gotten its crew back.

Well, with absolutley no playtesting of 2.0 under my belt...

It's the only turreted primary that must get stressed trying to turn it's turret. And it lost greens, gained reds lost its white sloop. It's turret is single arc not bowtie, so it will want repositioning more often. And crew generally are weaker / more expensive than before. Lost the talent slot. No gunner slot. It's barrel roll is red. And it's more expensive. Title only increases the attack die in forward arc.

I t gained the Torpedo slot, or at least got it back.

The ship got wacked hard with the nerf stick. I just hoped the price was going to be reduced as well.

Compared to scum falcon it's definitely looking worse.

Compared to y wing with Dorsal turret it's worse, most of the time.

Compared to a Hwk it's better but worse value.

But obviously I haven't play tested it so what do I know. I just predict it will get cheaper over time.

3 minutes ago, Scum4Life said:

It's the only turreted primary that must get stressed trying to turn it's turret.

People keep bringing this up, but this is also, iirc, the only turreted ship that can get mods when it rotates as well. Sure, you get stressed when you rotate, but you're also going to have lock or focus as well.

9 hours ago, Managarmr said:

Alas, here we are. Is this really the final form of the pdf?

X-Wing's point cost PDF in 2.0 is just going to effectively be this:

I really think people are deluding themselves that some of these costs won’t change by launch. FFG is doing what they do best, making players beta testers. Between vassal and gencon several broken things will emerge and hopefully be dealt with. Have fun beta testing, I’m not touching this game till launch.