4 hours ago, viedit said:

I'll only go so far as to say that I think it was rushed as a result of the state of competitive play. I think they had plans for it but they pumped it out earlier than planned as an emergency response to the community.

This game is always about competitive play.

And that why it fails, over and over.

The chances this game withstands the balance nit-picking of hyper-competitive players is about the same as crops withstanding a swarm of locust.

This game should be designed to be about Star Wars, beer, and pretzels. End of story.

Then, if desired, the ban hammer should be used to remove egregious balance problems from tournament play only.

*****

To be honest, I really thought people would actually have to have the game in hand before they decided the honeymoon was over.

5 hours ago, PenguinBonaparte said:

You know, I just logged on to this forum after a while, so thanks for reminding my why I'd stopped. I was going to write a response, but really, just this:

This guy gets it.

30 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

This game is always about competitive play.

And that why it fails, over and over.

The chances this game withstands the balance nit-picking of hyper-competitive players is about the same as crops withstanding a swarm of locust.

This game should be designed to be about Star Wars, beer, and pretzels. End of story.

Then, if desired, the ban hammer should be used to remove egregious balance problems from tournament play only.

*****

To be honest, I really thought people would actually have to have the game in hand before they decided the honeymoon was over.

FFS. So we're replacing a "flawed" game with an update/patch that also is flawed? Methinks we have 2.0 because of the lamentations, ADD, need to "have something new all the time", and angst that this forum has become.

This, if accurate, and I suspect it is, is why I'm not going to 2.0. I've spent enough money. I like 1.0 even though I hate the Scum faction and harpoon missiles. I am absolultely loving this list:

Garven/R2D6/PTL/RenRef/SSF/IA

Jek/PTL/R2 Astro/RenRef/SSF/IA

Dutch/R2 Astro/Title/ICT

AP-5/R2 Astro/Insp Recruit

Although I disagree about the ban hammer, I think I see/understand your point.

5 hours ago, Commander Kaine said:

Already have. This is not a post about hating 2.0. It's about realizing that 2.0 isn't going to be the promised land. Apparently some people can't tell the difference between these two positions.

Great. Have fun paying for 3.0, I guess.

FWIW, I actually agree with your post. Just frustrated that it's even had to be mentioned.

4 hours ago, CrippleCrit said:

At this point I'm pretty sure X-Wing 2.0 was not meant to be out by now. The whole thing feels rushed and looks like it would have needed just one more year to finish. No idea what happened.

Here's what happened: people can't just wait; they HAVE to have something new every day/week/month or so (check out the Armada forum...) or there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

I mean, the development of 2.0 was hampered by them being unable to turn off the money faucet that is X-wing.

4 minutes ago, Scopes said:

Although I disagree about the ban hammer, I think I see/understand your point.

I really don't understand why people are so adverse to the idea of bans.

I mean, in 2.0 there is no VI, TLT, Adapt, Harpoons etc. They got banned, for all effective purposes. If FFG had been willing to do that in 1.0, 2.0 may not have been necessary from a balance perspective. Or, they could have worked on it another year.

Furthermore, the way to "adjust points" in 1.0 would have been to ban a card, and release a new concept that was better costed. It could have been done.

The best part of 2.0 is the design space they have created: Force, Calculate, base quadrants, mobile arcs, et. al. But if you are expecting a radically different experience with this game from a balance POV, I'm pretty sure you are going to be disappointed.

9 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

Furthermore, the way to "adjust points" in 1.0 would have been to ban a card, and release a new concept that was better costed. It could have been done.

Yeah. That happened several times.

The new, better priced stuff usually was scum exclusive, or came in a scum box.

5 hours ago, PenguinBonaparte said:

You know, I just logged on to this forum after a while, so thanks for reminding my why I'd stopped. I was going to write a response, but really, just this:

Ditto!!

21 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

I mean, in 2.0 there is no VI, TLT, Adapt, Harpoons etc. They got banned, for all effective purposes. If FFG had been willing to do that in 1.0, 2.0 may not have been necessary from a balance perspective. Or, they could have worked on it another year.

**

The best part of 2.0 is the design space they have created: Force, Calculate, base quadrants, mobile arcs, et. al. But if you are expecting a radically different experience with this game from a balance POV, I'm pretty sure you are going to be disappointed.

I get it - bans could have happened (and in semi funsy tournaments they did). In fairness, the one thing they couldn’t easily do in 1.0 is variable cost for the same card. Engine upgrade was worth way more to large base than small, for example.

I still think 2.0 was the right way to go. I really like the overhaul and the new mechanics. I’m sure competitive players will crack the code and force revisions to be made.

2 minutes ago, ScummyRebel said:

I get it - bans could have happened (and in semi funsy tournaments they did). In fairness, the one thing they couldn’t easily do in 1.0 is variable cost for the same card. Engine upgrade was worth way more to large base than small, for example.

Well, they could have. It would have just been more tedious to have 2 versions of the same mechanic based on base size.

Quote

I still think 2.0 was the right way to go. I really like the overhaul and the new mechanics.

Yeah, I don't disagree from a design overhaul point of view. I think the biggest thing I hate is the PS to Init collapse (so that I can't play 1.0 with 2.0 very easily, because I think that would have been possible (and still is, but more fiddling required)), and I hate the half-baked card format (don't worry, we'll finish it later!).

Quote

I’m sure competitive players will crack the code and force revisions to be made.

Crack the code? Pshah, this is a tournament player "working on" XWM:

I both agree and disagree.

I agree that the wording is still iffy. The grammar nazi in me has winced at a few cards I've seen so far, but I don't think I've had a "what the ****?" moment yet so that's a plus EDIT:(actually no; Caption Rex was that moment). With some common sense and a 4th grade comprehension level (that's not a jab at you, I just can't stand people that try to abuse poor wording even though its clear what its supposed to mean), you can understand what they mean by it.

Nothing can be futureproof, there may be something in the future that breaks this just as it happened in 1.0, that much is true. They have however, made allowances for a lot more future design space and balancing. Breaking down turrets, the medium base, the squad builder, the charge mechanism, adding the [8] quadrants and utilising the centrelines, a more comprehensive rules reference, and adding in the new factions to diversify the meta, are all fantastic fundamental changes that will lessen the impact of a mistake in comparison to 1.0.

Personally the only thing on my wishlist for a new edition they missed was keywords. I hate errata as much as the next guy and keywords make the mess of errata much cleaner, but I guess it also makes the day to day game more reliant on the rules reference too. I don't want to be playing with a rulebook in hand like 40K so I'm happy to concede that one point.

I think it’s a damned hot mess! The point pricing doesn’t bother me, because they got a lot of it right and can adjust as needed when needed.

Guys, holy crap get off Kaine's cargo hatch.

He's not that bad, just an opinionated dude.

47 minutes ago, BVRCH said:

I both agree and disagree.

I agree that the wording is still iffy. The grammar nazi in me has winced at a few cards I've seen so far, but I don't think I've had a "what the ****?" moment yet so that's a plus EDIT:(actually no; Caption Rex was that moment). With some common sense and a 4th grade comprehension level (that's not a jab at you, I just can't stand people that try to abuse poor wording even though its clear what its supposed to mean), you can understand what they mean by it.

I think Han Gunner shows us that it's not a comprehension problem. I've seen valid arguments for both sides. None of them had tiki torches either, so they really do have a point for either opinion.

Even if with a full explanation it makes sense, the wording does make it quite ambiguous

2 minutes ago, Captain Lackwit said:

Guys, holy crap get off Kaine's cargo hatch.

He's not that bad, just an opinionated dude.

1 minute ago, Commander Kaine said:

I think Han Gunner shows us that it's not a comprehension problem. I've seen valid arguments for both sides. None of them had tiki torches either, so they really do have a point for either opinion.

Even if with a full explanation it makes sense, the wording does make it quite ambiguous

Yeah actually Han gunner is a fair call, I can see both sides of that argument.

90% of the ones I've seen on here so far are comprehension issues though. That or people just blatantly trying to pull a fast one.

8 hours ago, Commander Kaine said:

Jam is weird (read: utterly useless), and was likely also changed relatively late in the design process.

Forgive my ignorance if the forums have already discussed this, but what's wrong with the new Jam?

24 minutes ago, Commander Kaine said:

I think Han Gunner shows us that it's not a comprehension problem. I've seen valid arguments for both sides. None of them had tiki torches either, so they really do have a point for either opinion.

Even if with a full explanation it makes sense, the wording does make it quite ambiguous

Yeah, I saw a discussion about Chopper, where it was clear what the intent was, even if no one could agree on how to properly word it. With Gunner Han, it's not even necessarily clear what they were going for.

Eh, gunner Han is pretty clear

It's just an additional attack, but not "Bonus Attack" because you only get 1 Bonus Attack (as explicitly defined in the rules)

So if you gunner Han and then want to cluster missiles, a Bonus Attack Han would shut them down

For no real balance or thematic purpose, rendering him exceedingly counter-intuitive

1 minute ago, JJ48 said:

Forgive my ignorance if the forums have already discussed this, but what's wrong with the new Jam?

Well... arguably it could be a feature, but Jam is just really bad at doing stuff.

It falls off at the end of the round

The action is extremely limited in the range 1 buble

And it is limited by initiative

However those are not the reasons I mentioned it, I just forgot to put this in an extra paragraph

But the issue that made me bring it up, is that it looks to me (pure speculation) as if at least some of those limitations were put there later in the design period, because it seems like some cards (Genius) have laughably bad interactions.

I know about the argument that the Devs wanted less prevalent control options, but if anything, Jam is the waste of ink, with limitations like this.

1 minute ago, Commander Kaine said:

And it is limited by initiative

How so? Against lower-initiative pilots, I can strip off one of their tokens. Against a higher-initiative pilot, they may well choose an action not affected by the token, but forcing them to do so is itself a way of controlling what the opponent is doing. I get that it's not the most potent of abilities, but to me it certainly sounds like a fun mechanic to play around with!

Just now, JJ48 said:

How so? Against lower-initiative pilots, I can strip off one of their tokens. Against a higher-initiative pilot, they may well choose an action not affected by the token, but forcing them to do so is itself a way of controlling what the opponent is doing. I get that it's not the most potent of abilities, but to me it certainly sounds like a fun mechanic to play around with!

Well. if you get to. Not super easy to control range.

I played with 1.0 Reaper a lot, and THAT was a bit too strong. This is a bit too weak. Somewhere in the middle, it should be fine. Either larger range (even if arc only), or having it stick would make it much more fun, and still relatively easy to outplay.

1 hour ago, Commander Kaine said:

dammit just like superdude i can't do nothin'

I've been cautiously optimistic about 2e since its announcement but some things still worry me.

1). Wording on cards. For several years there have been complaints about the wording on the cards and the lack of templating. We still have that. Not a very auspicious beginning.

2). A lot of posters commented on the benefits of the player base acting as the playtesters. I think we got it. Not sure if that's a good thing but we're stuck with it now.

3). The ability to change point costs on the fly. At first blush this seems like a great idea. I can also being used to influence player purchases. As in, "We have a surplus of (Insert ship here), least drop the point cost to make it OP for the next quarter to get rid of the extra inventory". I'm not saying FFG would do this only that they could do it.

There's a couple of other things that concern me but I'll wait for the actual release before passing judgement. In the meantime, please keep it civil. At one time we were known by the mantra of fly casual. That laidback attitude seems to have gone the way of the Dodo and civility in American politics.

15 hours ago, TasteTheRainbow said:

Whining about meaningless errors in an early-released 2.0 box is not constructive, lol. Every single person playing this game will have a copy of the correct advanced sensors. Nobody will be harmed by it. We just got some free stuff early.

...

And if you think a post equating web-based points with web-based ABILITIES deserves more than an eye roll gif I think you underestimate the average age of our players. They were also not serious with that nonsense.

It's not about the misprints in the early released cards in Saw/Reaper, although that is a red flag that YES, this edition was rushed to print ahead of schedule.

It's about stuff like they forgot that ships can do obstructions and Outrider is only intended to work with obstacles so there's already an entry in the errata.

Explain to me how abilities being online-only is ANY different than what we already have in 1.0 with errata'd cards. And somehow not an improvement. Or dismiss it outright as you've already done, that's your prerogative, but it's far more trollish behavior than what you want to attribute to OP.