5 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

As in, you're getting everything you want out of the game, so it isn't FFG's problem that I'm not.

Well yes, exactly. You will know perfectly well what you're getting into.
If you then don't like it then don't support it. If you then don't want to put in the extra work to change it into the thing you like, then don't support it.

5 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

FFG shouldn't be bothered by the notion of catering to someone who doesn't care about competitive play.

I'd be happy if FFG would do the work instead. I'd be happy to have official modes that are not just 200/6. And you know what? We are getting them! FFG explained that the QuickBuild events allow them to do builds that are normally not legal due to balance.

But that is not really the topic here. The question was whether stats and numbers can be part of the game. And they absolutely are part of the game that FFG promotes with the currently dominating and only format.

13 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Well yes, exactly. You will know perfectly well what you're getting into.

FFG explained that the QuickBuild events allow them to do builds that are normally not legal due to balance.

It's true. And that's why I really won't be supporting 2.0. They gutted streamlined the game to make ( wait for it) tournament play even better!

And I strongly suspect QuildBuild events are going to look an awful lot like 400/6.

So, unless FFG makes the app useful to folks who would like to homebrew/play unofficial lists (which I highly doubt), they are yet again ignoring an entire class of players.

Quote

But that is not really the topic here. The question was whether stats and numbers can be part of the game. And they absolutely are part of the game that FFG promotes with the currently dominating and only format.

The topic also included the notion of lore. And the fluff is routinely ignored in favor of a myopic notion of what the game should be about.

8 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

It's true. And that's why I really won't be supporting 2.0. They gutted streamlined the game to make ( wait for it) tournament play even better!

And I strongly suspect QuildBuild events are going to look an awful lot like 400/6.

So, unless FFG makes the app useful to folks who would like to homebrew (which I highly doubt), they are yet again ignoring an entire class of players.

I guess you'd like more something like the narrative event of the Tydirium guys? I'm sure you are aware that the only prize support for such a format can be participation prizes. Which means more prizes overall, which means more expensive (or less exciting), which can result in a net loss or higher entry barrier due to higher cost and thus less popularity.

If you don't want prize support, what do you want? And how can FFG support what you want? Customized ships in the app. What else?

Edit to answer your edit:

8 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

The topic also included the notion of lore. And the fluff is routinely ignored in favor of a myopic notion of what the game should be about.

Myopic to you . I'm not sure though how fluff is ignored? I'm all for fluff, but it is out of question that gameplay and balance have to be prioritized higher.

What would be considered "flavorful" or "on theme" or "true to lore" isn't going to be a static thing for all players. This whole thread feels like "this game doesn't feel designed specifically to target me and that is a problem" that you see in a lot of videogames.

You can't possibly think that you can say "Lore is equally important to game balance" and actually have that work in game design. Just looking at the Rebel ships in the OP, you can clearly see that the spirit of each ship design is rooted in lore and then refined to be balanced, which I think is appropriate for a game that aspires to have organized, supported competitive play.

24 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

So, unless FFG makes the app useful to folks who would like to homebrew/play unofficial lists (which I highly doubt), they are yet again ignoring an entire class of players.

The topic also included the notion of lore. And the fluff is routinely ignored in favor of a myopic notion of what the game should be about.

I mean you can always print out the point costs, use the app, or use Yet Another Squad Builder 2.0 to make lists for casual games, or even use the costs there as a baseline to play around with when doing casual play. Heck, if it is casual play you can do whatever you and the person or people you are playing with/against want.

40 minutes ago, Animewarsdude said:

I mean you can always print out the point costs, use the app, or use Yet Another Squad Builder 2.0 to make lists for casual games, or even use the costs there as a baseline to play around with when doing casual play. Heck, if it is casual play you can do whatever you and the person or people you are playing with/against want .

Yeah, it's the ol' DIY argument again. Which again makes me state: then why give FFG my money? Shouldn't I want to support something I love to do??

YSAB 2.0, 1.0 and other online 3rd part builders only parrot what is officially FFG anyways. It's not like they allow you increased flexibility to DIY.

49 minutes ago, Micanthropyre said:

You can't possibly think that you can say "Lore is equally important to game balance" and actually have that work in game design. Just looking at the Rebel ships in the OP, you can clearly see that the spirit of each ship design is rooted in lore and then refined to be balanced, which I think is appropriate for a game that aspires to have organized, supported competitive play.

I disagree that these things are mutually exclusive. Hence the point of this thread. . .others also disagree.

1 hour ago, GreenDragoon said:

I guess you'd like more something like the narrative event of the Tydirium guys?

I'm sure you are aware that the only prize support for such a format can be participation prizes. Which means more prizes overall, which means more expensive (or less exciting), which can result in a net loss or higher entry barrier due to higher cost and thus less popularity.

If you don't want prize support, what do you want? And how can FFG support what you want? Customized ships in the app. What else?

Myopic to you . I'm not sure though how fluff is ignored? I'm all for fluff, but it is out of question that gameplay and balance have to be prioritized higher.

A. Exactly. And one the things that makes events like that fun are using the "filler bits" in the game. So, 2.0 paring out all the "non-essential" pilots from each of the chassis really hurts games/events like that. Also, for example, having elements in the game like "Blue Squadron X-Wing" be official yet redundant allows non-FFG hosts to create events where the components of play are not in dispute. The hosts only need to balance a scenario, not DIY every single ship, character, and weapon that might/should appear in "The Battle of Scarif" event. This is important not only to lower the work load on the hosts, but to also allow players to approach such an event knowing that at least 50% of the idea (components vs. scenario) has been tested.

B. I don't play for prizes.

C. Customized ships in the App would be amaze-balls. Cross-faction list building would be awesome. Filling out the ranks of pilots (still no Tiree, Pops, loss of most of the Squint pilots) would be awesome. Because again, events like Grayskull need lots of unique pilots to (a) spread around to the players of an event like that, (b) allow for things like Pilot Mortality in storyline play.

D. I am not the only one that wants to see more out of this game than 400/6 play. The fluff is ignored every time a ship or upgrade isn't produced because "that design space is filled," "it would not be competitive," or "it only creates game bloat" is invoked. Because none of those things actually mean that the new idea would affect gameplay or balance. It would only mean that tournament players miss out on a SKU for a change.

13 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

A.

But FFG made mission control for this, no? To provide the community with the opportunity to create and share scenarios. That looks like support to me.

14 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

B. I don't play for prizes.

Neither do I. I'm happy to pay a fee for the organization and FLGS-occupation. But we are the odd ones out, and FFG needs to take that into consideration.

15 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

C. Customized ships in the App would be amaze-balls. Cross-faction list building would be awesome. Filling out the ranks of pilots (still no Tiree, Pops, loss of most of the Squint pilots) would be awesome.

Initial rumors mentioned customized ships, but I don't know. I agree on cross-faction list building, too. Filling out the ranks is very likely tied to expansion packs and 400/6 competitive play in some sort.

16 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

D. I am not the only one that wants to see more out of this game than 400/6 play. The fluff is ignored every time a ship or upgrade isn't produced because "that design space is filled," "it would not be competitive," or "it only creates game bloat" is invoked. Because none of those things actually mean that the new idea would affect gameplay or balance.

Now here I don't believe you. Or rather, I think we both don't know what the designers invoke. And frankly it doesn't matter the least bit what others - including me - invoke.

Sort of reminds me when Extra Credits tried a colab with some channel called PBS Idea Channel on his series Digging Deeper on the whole idea of mechanics getting in the way of a good story or otherwise. That being said I think Errant Signal nailed that topic with his video on it The Debate That Never Took Place . You can watch it here on the argument of story vs gameplay.

24 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

Yeah, it's the ol' DIY argument again. Which again makes me state: then why give FFG my money? Shouldn't I want to support something I love to do??

YSAB 2.0, 1.0 and other online 3rd part builders only parrot what is officially FFG anyways. It's not like they allow you increased flexibility to DIY.

I mean, you don't have to. As a consumer you have the choice about what you do and don't buy. And I sort of assumed your issue was the fact that the points are online, in which case there are some work arounds. But, there isn't anything stopping you from running a Lambda shuttle for the Rebels with the idea being that they stole it or the like. Casual is what you want it to be, and can be very different from one player group to the next, which is why I could see there being difficulty trying to balance that when the obvious main focus of the game is competitive death match.

That said, I'd love if FFG ended up releasing a mission or objective play option, or even a campaign similar to the one that Armada dropped.

36 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

But FFG made mission control for this, no? To provide the community with the opportunity to create and share scenarios. That looks like support to me.

Have you been in that subforum? Actual thread titles below. That **** is even less supported than Epic.

Will Mission Control Be Updated?

Another plea to update Mission Control with more ships and tokens

47 minutes ago, Animewarsdude said:

I mean, you don't have to. As a consumer you have the choice about what you do and don't buy. And I sort of assumed your issue was the fact that the points are online, in which case there are some work arounds. But, there isn't anything stopping you from running a Lambda shuttle for the Rebels with the idea being that they stole it or the like. Casual is what you want it to be, and can be very different from one player group to the next, which is why I could see there being difficulty trying to balance that when the obvious main focus of the game is competitive death match.

Um. So this thread is about letting the lore push game design.

The fact that the SHUTTLE TYDIRIUM is not an official component in this game is exactly (as an example) the complaint being leveled in this thread. Ergo, there is no reason I should have to privately create a ship that 100% exists in the lore, and is about 95% of the way to completion if only FFG would design it for the game. Cries of "diluting faction identity" notwithstanding. Because sometimes Lore Should Push Game Design.

Quote

I'd love if FFG ended up releasing a mission or objective play option, or even a campaign similar to the one that Armada dropped.

In which case, you should say it's something we need rather than something people can DIY.

“Eww, don’t get RPG elements in my board game.”

8 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

Um. So this thread is about letting the lore push game design.

To an extent it should, the ships should feel and fly like they do in their other appearances, as best as possible. Some of the stuff is sort of up in the air considering the X-Wing according to ROTJ reference notes was outright faster than the Tie Fighter. Though with it now having access to boost while in its closed S-foils configuration I guess it sort of is.

9 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

The fact that the SHUTTLE TYDIRIUM is not an official component in this game is exactly (as an example) the complaint being leveled in this thread. Ergo, there is no reason I should have to privately create a ship that 100% exists in the lore, and is about 95% of the way to completion if only FFG would design it for the game. Cries of "diluting faction identity" notwithstanding. Because sometimes Lore Should Push Game Design.

See, for me I'm fine with not getting a Shuttle Tydirium expansion, I don't much want the Empire losing even more than it already has to the other factions, and I think they might have a harder sale for a release which would just be a Lambda Shuttle with red rebel logos on it, since they'd have to differentiate the model from the Imperial version. And considering that 2.0 is moving away from cross faction ships, for the most part, I just don't see it being added. But just because they don't add it doesn't mean that people can't do what they want in casual play.

14 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

In which case, you should say it's something we need rather than something people can DIY.

See the thing is, even if they did come out with a campaign or objective play it wouldn't change the fact that I could still do whatever the heck I wanted with the game. Part of the fun of the game is the DIY stuff, be it painting the ships, making events to play out the events from the films, using the ships in the RPG, or even running cool personal campaigns. I view X-Wing, and the other FFG Star Wars minis games as pieces, or toys that can be used however the players want, be it to play the game as is or to use them as they see fit.

20 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

Um  . So this thread is about letting the lore push game  design.

[...] Because     sometimes Lore Should Push Game Desig  n.    

Lore should always inform and push game design. My/our point is that it should never take priority. Do we agree there?

I still don‘t understand an example where lore/fluff is ignored or dismissed for game design. You claim that this is the reason we don‘t have a shuttle tydirium when there could be plenty of reasons.

Furthermore, any campaign set could give you the shuttle without releasing a new model as expansion - all you need is some cardboard anyway. A campaign set would be great - I‘ll say necessary if that helps - but even there gameplay/balance would have to get priority. I don‘t want to spend weekends going through the movements when my decisions don‘t matter due to imbalance. Thus, the fluff/lore has to be adjusted by using game balance.

1 hour ago, Darth Meanie said:

I disagree that these things are mutually exclusive. Hence the point of this thread. . .others also disagree.

I never said they were mutually exclusive. I said that when a conflict arises, balance should take priority over lore.

4 hours ago, Zeoinx said:

This isnt a game about stats, numbers, movement bars, this is a starwars game, and should feel like it is Representative of that fact.

Oh of course. Yeah, you're absolutely right.

We shouldn't even bother having numbers, really. Because they just get in the way of the Star Wars.

We should just plonk the ships down, move them around and then whoever yells "pew pew pew I shot you first I shot your first" the loudest wins. And if an X-Wing is pew pew-ing against a TIE Bomber, it should always win even without the yelling because that's what would happen in the books. And Darth Vader can come with a bit of cardboard that says 'if your opponent has any A-Wings, remove them immediately from the play area'. Or is that too much of a 'rule' in a game that's obviously not about rules?

To try and address this more seriously, representative is exactly right.

This game is, and always will be an abstraction. Star Wars battles were not actually fought in fixed ship by ship turn order, nor did Wedge Antilles have 5 minutes to plan which direction to pull the flightstick when he was chasing that TIE Interceptor in RotJ. They weren't fought in a 2D plane and the effective range of the weapons was a lot longer than a few ship lengths.

Anyone who plays this game must accept the concession that the lore, fluff, whatever has been abstracted into a set of mechanics to make the game fun for both players. And for the game to function in a way that is fun and fair for all players, the balance of these mechanics must be maintained even if you have to tweak elements of the fluff to make them fit better. If you are able to accept the abstraction that firing accuracy is dependent on a random dice roll, if you accept the abstraction that maneuvers are confined to limited templates and if you accept the abstraction that concepts like 'focus' are a tangible resource to be generated or stripped by specific actions then why is it so hard to accept that the TIE Phantom's cloaking is an abstraction meant to be representative of the fluff version of the cloaking device that has been abstracted into the mechanics in such a way as to also be fair and balanced for both players?

51 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

The fact that the SHUTTLE TYDIRIUM is not an official component in this game is exactly (as an example) the complaint being leveled in this thread.

Why should it be? What would it add to the game?

What about its use in RotJ would make you think it's a good fit for a dogfighting game? The Rebels stole the Tydirium for one specific purpose, and that whole purpose was precisely to avoid a fight.

Like, I honestly can't imagine there's any desire to 'recreate its scenes from RotJ' like you might say with the Battle of Endor. So if it's not to do that, it must be for some gameplay reason. But wouldn't that be... doing it for gameplay reasons rather than lore?

Idk, I'm just really not sure why a Rebel shuttle Tydirium would be a thing you'd even want.

39 minutes ago, Flavorabledeez said:

“Eww, don’t get RPG elements in my board game.”

Yeah, that's the problem. But how 'bout we put some extra Star Wars in my Star Wars board game.

38 minutes ago, Animewarsdude said:

See, for me I'm fine with not getting a Shuttle Tydirium expansion, I don't much want the Empire losing even more than it already has to the other factions , and I think they might have a harder sale for a release which would just be a Lambda Shuttle with red rebel logos on it, since they'd have to differentiate the model from the Imperial version. And considering that 2.0 is moving away from cross faction ships, for the most part, I just don't see it being added . But just because they don't add it doesn't mean that people can't do what they want in casual play.

And you've just let game design screw over the lore.

29 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Lore should always inform and push game design. My/our point is that it should never take priority. Do we agree there?

I still don‘t understand an example where lore/fluff is ignored or dismissed for game design . You claim that this is the reason we don‘t have a shuttle tydirium when there could be plenty of reasons.

Furthermore, any campaign set could give you the shuttle without releasing a new model as expansion - all you need is some cardboard anyway . A campaign set would be great - I‘ll say necessary if that helps - but even there gameplay/balance would have to get priority. I don‘t want to spend weekends going through the movements when my decisions don‘t matter due to imbalance. Thus, the fluff/lore has to be adjusted by using game balance.

A. Yes. It should be a good game 1st.

B. See above.

C. Exactly. There would be three great ways to get Shuttle Tydirium in the game, that would have no impact at all on "tournament play" and the purity of said game.

1. Add the appropriate cardboard to the new 2.0 expac. This is the perfect opportunity!! Unfortunately, @Animewarsdude is wrong about the model--it is exactly the same as the Imperial. If you don't want to "dilute faction identity," make it Epic Only.
2. Put it in a campaign set, just like you said.
3. Add it to the App only. Lame, but boom, instantly in the game with no SKU at all.

The enormous success of competitive side of X-Wing shows what overwhelming majority players actually want from the game.

Also I believe the most competitve players are the most important factor when it comes to development of the game. It is their passion that during all those years created streams, podcasts. tournaments or on-line X-Wing tools.
I know it is only anecdotical evidence, so make out of it what you want, but in my LGS the players that fuels X-Wing passion and local community are hardcore tournament players. We help organize events, tournament trips and game presentations in our local gaming community. All casuals were just that, casuals, that bored with the game and jumped to the next new shiny toy. In my case those hardcore tournament players are the ones maintaining X-Wing alive.

2 minutes ago, Embir82 said:

The enormous success of competitive side of X-Wing shows what overwhelming majority players actually want from the game.

Also I believe the most competitve players are the most important factor when it comes to development of the game. It is their passion that during all those years created streams, podcasts. tournaments or on-line X-Wing tools.
I know it is only anecdotical evidence, so make out of it what you want, but in my LGS the players that fuels X-Wing passion and local community are hardcore tournament players. We help organize events, tournament trips and game presentations in our local gaming community. All casuals were just that, casuals, that bored with the game and jumped to the next new shiny toy. In my case those hardcore tournament players are the ones maintaining X-Wing alive.

Not to mention buying expansions just for upgrades to stay competitive. I don't like that practice, but I bet people competing in official events if they couldn't get the upgrades another way ended up buying more.

6 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

And you've just let game design screw over the lore.

Well, let me ask would you prefer the game to just let the Rebels fly every single ship from the Republic and Imperial factions? The show Rebels shows them steal tons of different ties and the like. But, in lore they did steal it so it makes sense then, right? Or, have it so that Scum can be used by every single faction since they could have paid for their services. Lore is important but the factions do need to play differently and have distinct feels to them.

20 minutes ago, GuacCousteau said:

Why should it be? What would it add to the game?

What about its use in RotJ would make you think it's a good fit for a dogfighting game? The Rebels stole the Tydirium for one specific purpose, and that whole purpose was precisely to avoid a fight.

Like, I honestly can't imagine there's any desire to 'recreate its scenes from RotJ' like you might say with the Battle of Endor. So if it's not to do that, it must be for some gameplay reason. But wouldn't that be... doing it for gameplay reasons rather than lore?

Idk, I'm just really not sure why a Rebel shuttle Tydirium would be a thing you'd even want.

Based on what you just said, why the **** is the ship in the game at all?

It NEVER EVER got into any dogfight in any scene ever. It's an armored limousine. If we are going to limit this game to "dogfight only" then a whole lot of other ships need to get tossed. Like basically anything labeled "shuttle."

And if you honestly can't think of a way to use such a ship, well, sorry about that. I have written up a number of scenarios where it would fit in nicely.

6 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

Based on what you just said, why the **** is the ship in the game at all?

It NEVER EVER got into any dogfight in any scene ever. It's an armored limousine. If we are going to limit this game to "dogfight only" then a whole lot of other ships need to get tossed. Like basically anything labeled "shuttle."

And if you honestly can't think of a way to use such a ship, well, sorry about that. I have written up a number of scenarios where it would fit in nicely.

Oh my god how obtuse are you trying to be? Of course I don't think the game should be dogfighting ships only.

The game isn't about only doing things from the movies. Obviously. It's perfectly plausible that in some event not shown in the movies, an Imperial Lambda class shuttle was involved in a battle with Rebel fighters, and that it used its onboard systems to support its escorts.

It's not the fact it's a shuttle I was questioning, I'm talking specifically about the Tydirium. The whole reason the Rebels had it was to avoid a fight . Why would you want it to play out its movie role? And if you don't want to play it's movie role, what scenario makes it fun?

12 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

And if you honestly can't think of a way to use such a ship, well, sorry about that.

Obviously I can't. I literally said just that.

13 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

I have written up a number of scenarios where it would fit in nicely.

Well... could you elaborate? That's kinda what I was asking for.

1 hour ago, Embir82 said:

The enormous success of competitive side of X-Wing shows what overwhelming majority players actually want from the game.

Also I believe the most competitve players are the most important factor when it comes to development of the game . It is their passion that during all those years created streams, podcasts. tournaments or on-line X-Wing tools.
I know it is only anecdotical evidence, so make out of it what you want, but in my LGS the players that fuels X-Wing passion and local community are hardcore tournament players. We help organize events, tournament trips and game presentations in our local gaming community. All casuals were just that, casuals, that bored with the game and jumped to the next new shiny toy. In my case those hardcore tournament players are the ones maintaining X-Wing alive.

And the enormous success of the Westminster must show that the overwhelming majority of dog owners want a pure bred that can win a ribbon?

Well, I can't deny that competitive play is the only thing driving game development. . .that's what I'm pissing and moaning about. But until someone can show me that FFG makes all their XWM money on tournament-only players, I find it hard to believe that Dedicated Casuals are not a significant (and underserved) demographic.

Maybe you don't see all those dedicated casual players because, well, they are at home around the kitchen table??

I mean, neither one of us can say for sure because we don't have FFG's sales numbers. But none of the 10 people I know who play this game have been to a tournament or a FLGS to play, so my anecdotal evidence is exactly the opposite of yours.

1 hour ago, Animewarsdude said:

Not to mention buying expansions just for upgrades to stay competitive. I don't like that practice, but I bet people competing in official events if they couldn't get the upgrades another way ended up buying more.

Well, let me ask would you prefer the game to just let the Rebels fly every single ship from the Republic and Imperial factions? The show Rebels shows them steal tons of different ties and the like. But, in lore they did steal it so it makes sense then, right? Or, have it so that Scum can be used by every single faction since they could have paid for their services. Lore is important but the factions do need to play differently and have distinct feels to them.

I have already concurred that balance and design (which would include faction identity) are important.

And there are a lot of people who have proposed the Mercenary mechanic, so yeah, that could be a thing.

Again, if the idea is a bit wonky for tournament purists, make the concept EPIC ONLY.

52 minutes ago, GuacCousteau said:

Well... could you elaborate? That's kinda what I was asking for.

Give me a couple hours. I need to get to my home computer.

11 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

And the enormous success of the Westminster must show that the overwhelming majority of people are dog owners?

SOS tournament in my country (Poland) gathered over 200 participants, in UK it was over 300 people. Live streams from X-Wing tournaments watched hundred of people on Twitch. I think my assumption that tournament play is the most popular aspect of X-Wing are much better grounded than your analogy.

15 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

Well, I can't deny that competitive play is the only thing driving game development. . .that's what I'm pissing and moaning about. But until someone can show me that FFG makes all their XWM money on tournament-only players, I find it hard to believe that Dedicated Casuals are not a significant (and underserved) demographic.

I mean, neither one of us can say for sure because we don't have FFG's sales numbers. But none of the 10 people I know who play this game have been to a tournament or a FLGS to play, so my anecdotal evidence is exactly the opposite of yours.

Well FFG are not amateurs, I am willing to bet that they made a research before realasing 2.0. And from things we know about 2.0 one can conclude that balance and tournament play are the most important factors when it comes to X-Wing 2.0. I doubt they choose this path blindly. I assume they got data indicating that tournament play and LGS organized play are the most important aspects of X-Wing.

19 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

Maybe you don't see all those dedicated casual players because, well, they are at home around the kitchen table??

Well this is part of the problem, casual players don't drive or create communities, they don't show up at LGS to participate in weekly store tournaments regularly and they don't push forward game and it's community. Just look at MtG, it is the tournament scene and weekly tournaments that drive this game forward and makes people gather around it.

46 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

But none of the 10 people I know who play this game have been to a tournament or a FLGS to play,

well, they should give it a try! It's loads of fun! And who knows, you just might make some new friends that share your passion for epic and scenario play. It's amazing to me how a table top game has brought really good friends into my life, that I never would have met otherwise, cause I was interested in trying to win some acrylics and that sounded like fun.

24 minutes ago, Embir82 said:

Well this is part of the problem, casual players don't drive or create communities, they don't show up at LGS to participate in weekly store tournaments regularly and they don't push forward game and it's community. Just look at MtG, it is the tournament scene and weekly tournaments that drive this game forward and makes people gather around it.

Well, you conflating community with sales, and in the end, the latter is the more important factor.

So, as long as casuals are driving sales, they are important. Again, neither one of us have the info to support our POV.

OTOH, since FFG has never created a casual only product (and I am going to exclude Huge ships because the the price point--they are not a casual investment), they probably don't have a strong grasp on the influence of casuals, either.