10 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

A: 1.0 and 2.0 are fundamentally incompatible, so they are not the same game. PS and Init don't mesh, ordnance does not work the same at all, the Force was added, dials were changed, EPTs are based off of bulleye arcs for many  ships; and I could g  o on. It's l   ike saying chess and checkers are fundamentally the same game because they use the same board.

B: FTFY. And given that no one save the devs has actually played 2.0, its VERY subjective.  

C. It's not money, it's value. I have the money, I would not miss the money, I will probably spend the money elsewhere. But why spend money that does not add value to my XWM experience?

D                    . I'm not s  o sure abou  t  t  h  at. @weisguy119 has still got plenty of passion f  or      1.0, just like m  e. I'll probably be p  laying 1.0  for a couple o  f years because (a) no support for Epic, (b) there is still no sign of a conversion for First Order and Resistance; I'm not about to shelve my brand new TIE Silencer, (c) I don't expect to see any new ships while Wave and after Wave of 2.0 reprints comes to market, and (d) I don't trust the 2.0 isn't going to devolve into the same stupid meta clap-trap* of 1.0.

*Instead of whining about broken cards, people are just going to whine that FFG got the points wrong. S  ame ****, different target. 

Well, since you want to play the obnoxious semantics game:

A. 1.0 and 2.0 are fundamentally ( adverb ; in central or primary respects) the same game. That does not mean it is compatible, it mean, they use the same dice mechanics, the same movement, same stat-lines (even if they re-named one of them)... There is no "I stick with 3.5 D&D because i don't like how 4 became a mmo" argument here.

B. M ost ( determent & pronoun; greatest in amount or degree [dose not necessarily include you]) people agree ( verb; have the same opinion about something; concur) , it it is objectively (from the perspective of the concurring majority) a better game.

C. "It's not money, it's value" -> I'm not getting my moneys worth -> it is to expansive

D. well, that's two. keep me posted on what you come up with.

47 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

(b) there is still no sign of a conversion for First Order and Resistance; I'm not about to shelve my brand new TIE Silencer,

They've already said these would arrive in wave two. Which, based on the deluxe wave tournament kits, will be out by the end of the year. Look for a reveal tonight. I'd be kinda surprised if they don't announce anything about wave two tonight.

My intention was to build a community support group for 1.0, and i think it would be very easy to make the new 2.0 ships like Lando Falcon backwards compatible into 1.0. The base is the same, the stats are the same, the abilities tend to be something you can make work in 1.0 with little difficulty, just halve the costs and you're in the ballpark. It's absolutely not an insurmountable problem.

I don't blame anyone for wanting to stay with 1.0, especially if you're not really tournament players because I think for casual play 1.0 may well actually be the better version of the game.

But personally I'm fully into jumping to 2.0. It's where the players local to me are going to be.

3 hours ago, SOTL said:

My intention was to build a community support group for 1.0, and i think it would be very easy to make the new 2.0 ships like Lando Falcon backwards compatible into 1.0. The base is the same, the stats are the same, the abilities tend to be something you can make work in 1.0 with little difficulty, just halve the costs and you're in the ballpark. It's absolutely not an insurmountable problem.

I don't blame anyone for wanting to stay with 1.0, especially if you're not really tournament players because I think for casual play 1.0 may well actually be the better version of the game.

And if someone tucked those into an unofficial online builder, I think a lot of people would be very happy.

So, I know, of course, you're thinking "but 2.0 has an app!!"

For me, it's more than the online builder vs. PDF.

I am going to miss having more than 4 TIE Interceptor pilots. I am going to miss having a Scyk with 3 variants based on Titles. I am going to miss choosing between the x7 and the /D.

I never played all the broken stuff you all say ruined the game. But broken could have been fixed with a ban hammer and rules changes. FFG made a choice on how to do it, and they remade the game.

So, knowing that a switch to 2.0 involves sending all the pounds of cardboard from 1.0 into landfill bothers me. I hate how disposable everything has become.

4 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

A: 1.0 and 2.0 are fundamentally incompatible, so they are not the same game. PS and Init don't mesh, ordnance does not work the same at all, the Force was added, dials were changed, EPTs are based off of bulleye arcs for many ships; and I could go on. It's like saying chess and checkers are fundamentally the same game because they use the same board.

There's a lot more overlap than that. It's more like saying D&D 3.5 and D&D 5e are fundamentally the same game. They're not identical, but at the end of the day you're still choosing a race and class, then rolling dice so you can steal treasure from some poor kobold tribe.

3 hours ago, Duskwalker said:

it it is objectively (from the perspective of the concurring majority) a better game.

I have to agree with Darth here. If something is objectively true, it means that it is true regardless of who makes the claim or counter-claim. "The Earth's atmosphere contains more nitrogen than oxygen" is objectively true.

"2.0 is better" is subjective. For many, possibly even most, the statement is true. However there are some for whom 2.0 will be worse. Since the truth of the statement depends on the person, it's subjective.

9 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

There's a lot more overlap than that. It's more like saying D&D 3.5 and D&D 5e are fundamentally the same game. They're not identical, but at the end of the day you're still choosing a race and class, then rolling dice so you can steal treasure from some poor kobold tribe.

I suppose I should have been more clear. While the fundamentals are the same, the incompatibility between versions makes it hard for me to call them "the same game." If I can't easily mix and match, they are not the same game, IMHO, despite numerous similarities.

That's more what I disagreed with originally.

3 hours ago, SOTL said:

I don't blame anyone for wanting to stay with 1.0, especially if you're not really tournament players because I think for casual play 1.0 may well actually be the better version of the game.

Really? I'm a strict casual and 2e sounds like it will be lightyears ahead of 1e to me. It sounds like they're encouraging more diversity and tactics in 2e, which I find much more appealing than, "Pick a ship or two and stack as many tokens as you can on them."

I can honestly understand the resistance to saying goodbye to 1.0. ALL of your fond X wing memories are with 1.0.

However, 2.0 is being marketed as being more friendly to homebrews and solid fundamental flying. The idea here is that you can just bring some ships that you like and still have a chance. You can finally be CREATIVE with your list and not just focus on jousting efficiency and trying to win a PS war.

They have also tried to fix some of the devestatingly strong combinations that made for some really bad games. [Watching your list get destroyed by harpoon splash that was fired from tripple PS10 ships (VI can rot in ****) was a NPE that will not be missed.]

There will still be some broken combos in 2.0 (X wing players make it their job to FIND these combos) and there are already some pilots that are basically designed to be powerhouses. But, the super ships seem to be costed right, and they can always go back to make sure that the abuse is limited.

The point is, it looks like they atleast tried to make a more sustainable game that still kept all of the fun aspects of the first eddition of the game. Why not at least try 2.0 and see if you can make it work?

49 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

So, knowing that a switch to 2.0 involves sending all the pounds of cardboard from 1.0 into landfill bothers me. I hate how disposable everything has become.

You could recycle it.

Here's my experience with another game:

In Blood Bowl, which I've played on and off for 25 years, whenever GW stops supporting the game, there's a huge movement amongst the community to keep things going, even to the point of developing new teams and new rules to drive out the cheesy NPE play.

However, whenever GW remembers that they have the IP to this great game and prints a new version (about every 10 years or so), all that gets thrown out and almost everyone moves over to the new rules. And then GW wanders off and the cycle repeats.

This is able to perpetuate because when a new person wants to get into Blood Bowl, regardless of whether there's an official GW offering on the shelves, there is a large(ish) community of people who have all agreed to play under the same rules, which means they keep some momentum going and get de facto control over the game for a while. With X-Wing having no "lag time" and being continuously in print, new players will naturally be drawn to what the larger community is playing, which will probably be 2.0, which will leech players away from the "grassroots 1.0" community.

I just don't see it doing that well until FFG moves on to something else. And even then, the grassroots X-Wing community will probably develop on from wherever FFG leaves it at that time.

You may wish that FFG keeps support going, but I think we all know in our heart-of-hearts that there will be no more first edition support. And you can tell yourself that first edition is a better game, but (outside of epic, only because it doesn’t exist yet) I don’t believe you, and honestly I’m not sure that you believe you either. *

There are absolutely valid reasons that you wouldn’t want to convert, but they’re not predicated on the game itself. Similar to another FFG game, I loved Twilight Imperium third edition, and considered it my favorite game... until fourth edition came out. I can understand that people don’t want to drop $150 on a game, or can’t, but TI4 is obviously a better game overall and I couldn’t be happier with it. If your local group can’t (or won’t) convert, it’s obviously fine to play the older version, but let’s not assert that’s because the older version is intrinsically better gameplay.

*caveat: the alternative is that we don’t want to play the same kind of game. I joined this one just before wave 10, but I’m not sure I would have bought in had I realized that even casual play nights would only be against turrets and 180 arcs.

2 hours ago, JJ48 said:

I have to agree with Darth here. If something is objectively true, it means that it is true regardless of who makes the claim or counter-claim. "The Earth's atmosphere contains more nitrogen than oxygen" is objectively true.

"2.0 is better" is subjective. For many, possibly even most, the statement is true. However there are some for whom 2.0 will be worse. Since the truth of the statement depends on the person, it's subjective.

C+

As the statement does no t describes factual true, but the opinions of individuals, who have, after evaluating all information given to them made a decision, which can, for all intents and purposes be described objective from there perspective.

If you have further questions on this topic, see me after class.

6 hours ago, SOTL said:

My intention was to build a community support group for 1.0, and i think it would be very easy to make the new 2.0 ships like Lando Falcon backwards compatible into 1.0. The base is the same, the stats are the same, the abilities tend to be something you can make work in 1.0 with little difficulty, just halve the costs and you're in the ballpark. It's absolutely not an insurmountable problem.

I don't blame anyone for wanting to stay with 1.0, especially if you're not really tournament players because I think for casual play 1.0 may well actually be the better version of the game.

But personally I'm fully into jumping to 2.0. It's where the players local to me are going to be.

What made you change your mind?

12 hours ago, Duskwalker said:

The people that don't want to convert primarily cite money as their main reason.

It's the app/pdf requirement, here. Just annoys the heck out of me - not just the requirement for external things to build the list, and inability to tell at a glance what a ship/card costs (I mean how many times have we picked a target on the board based on its cost when it's near the last round in a match...easy to see, now...have to open an app or find the list printout to tell in 2nd edition), but also the idea that it WILL change ships more frequently or substantially than they currently are. (For reference - the Jumpmaster nerf that will be the first thing everyone brings up is 'Exhibit A' in why I hate this. I mean, sure, the Jumpmaster at release was broken - but the post-FAQ Jump is bizarrely not the same ship as the retail one...indeed, cannot even use all the upgrades it SHIPS with, which is something that will now instead of being a ridiculous one-off, happen all the time ...)

The 'refer to this external list' for pricing was half of what got me to dump a fairly large Sails of Glory collection, I already know I hate it enough to not bother with 2nd edition X-Wing.

3 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

So, knowing that a switch to 2.0 involves sending all the pounds of cardboard from 1.0 into landfill bothers me. I hate how disposable everything has become.

Also: this.

So 1.0 for HOTAC will be around for a long time. The creator has a different job and no longer has time to work on the system for it. The community is still strong and there will still be a basis for it.

The creator of HOTAC was approached by FFG and asked if he would sell everything to them, he declined which results in us having usage for the old ships as 2.0 does not work for it yet.

I think until Epic comes out people will play that and until the official 2.0 release in Sept we still have 1.0. Next year I would think though 1.0 will be limited to circles of people that make their own rules and do whatever they want in a friendly way like how people make up their own rules for Monopoly AKA free parking does not give you money.

Hey let’s talk about cost super quick,

The year the force awakens core came out, buying all of the Expansions along with the core came out to be about 240ish for one of everything.

This year if you buy one of everything Its 300. Wave 14, core conversion kits, and scum fal.

Honestly that’s really good seeing that most people bought at least 2 of everything if not more that year the Force Awakens came out.

Pro Tip Budget 240 a year for x-wing (5 a week) and it generally covers 1 of everything exception every 7 years add 60 ?

3 hours ago, JasonCole said:

You could recycle it.

I am using Acetone on cotton balls then apply to the card for 4 seconds to remove the ink. It works really well to make new cards and keep the art.

45 minutes ago, AlexW said:

What made you change your mind?

http://stayontheleader.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-force-can-have-strong-effect-on.html

Funny you should ask...

1 hour ago, Duskwalker said:

As the statement does no t describes factual true, but the opinions of individuals, who have, after evaluating all information given to them made a decision, which can, for all intents and purposes be described objective from there perspective.

If you have further questions on this topic, see me after class.

All I can say is you and I have vastly different definitions of objective.

As a medical professional, everything is subjective except TPRs and lab results. Despite years of experience and "knowing that's a mast cell tumor," it's still a subjective assessment, even if I call 3 other colleagues into the room who agree that dog needs surgery.

I find the "group think makes it real" notion very disturbing.

4 hours ago, JasonCole said:

You could recycle it.

Reconsider, Refuse, Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. It's last in line for ways to save the planet from rampant consumerism.

Moreover, with China no longer buying America's trash, only about 10% of what you put in a blue bin gets recycled. 10% more gets incinerated, and 80% goes to landfill.

If a recycling bin is 1% contaminated with non-recyclables (99 people do it right, 1 guy throws in greasy pizza boxes), it goes to landfill.

49 minutes ago, Cubanboy said:

The creator of HOTAC was approached by FFG and asked if he would sell everything to them, he declined which results in us having usage for the old ships as 2.0 does not work for it yet.

Why not? Other than the AI if the dial changed, couldn't you just carry on as before with new cards?

9 hours ago, comawhite said:

1 hour ago, Duskwalker said:

C+

As the statement does no t describes factual true, but the opinions of individuals, who have, after evaluating all information given to them made a decision, which can, for all intents and purposes be described objective from there perspective.

If you have further questions on this topic, see me after class.

The statement in question was: "... most people agree, it is objectively better then 1.0."

If most people do, in fact, agree on that, then most people are wrong as better or worse in this instance are subjective.

No.

/Topic

9 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

All I can say is you and I have vastly different definitions of objective.

As a medical professional, everything is subjective except TPRs and lab results. Despite years of experience and "knowing that's a mast cell tumor," it's still a subjective assessment, even if I call 3 other colleagues into the room who agree that dog needs surgery.

  I find the "group think makes it real" notion very disturbing.

9 hours ago, JJ48 said:

The statement in question was: "... most people agree, it is objectively better then 1.0."

If most people do, in fact, agree on that, then most people are wrong as better or worse in this instance are subjective.

As what we perceive as "reality" is ultimately always defined by the information given to us, true objectivity is not humanly possible. For example: The statement "lab results are objective" is based on the rather subjective assumption that the lab is real, the results are real and this is not all just a dream your having because you hit your head last year and have been in a coma since (then again that would mean 2.0 is also not real so yeah for your I suppose?).

Therefor "a decision based not on emotions, but on rational thought under consideration of all available information" is the closest humans can ever get to true objectivity.

1 hour ago, Duskwalker said:

As what we perceive as "reality" is ultimately always defined by the information given to us, true objectivity is not humanly possible. For example: The statement "lab results are objective" is based on the rather subjective assumption that the lab is real, the results are real and this is not all just a dream your having because you hit your head last year and have been in a coma since (then again that would mean 2.0 is also not real so yeah for your I suppose?).

Therefor "a decision based not on emotions, but on rational thought under consideration of all available information" is the closest humans can ever get to true objectivity.

This is possibly the dumbest argument for bad linguisitics I've ever seen.

"Words have specific meanings"

"But we might all be in the Matrix so nothing is real and nothing means anything"

"...K"

5 minutes ago, GuacCousteau said:

This is possibly the dumbest argument for bad linguisitics I've ever seen.

"Words have specific meanings"

"But we might all be in the Matrix so nothing is real and nothing means anything"

"...K"

Word means "based on facts" -> facts are bested on information -> information are based observation -> observations are based on perception

Seriously, this is base-level philosophy.