23 minutes ago, heychadwick said:

I have not seen this before. Most of the casual types just quietly drop the game. I also talk to friends who bring their casual lists to play at different times and constantly get bombarded with comments like, "why are flying a Punisher? They are terrible. You should fly a better ship."

As for telling people how to play, I have seen many competitive players saying that taking a not optimized list is just asking to get curb stomped. It's their fault for bringing a sub standard list. That's telling someone how to play the game.

I never said that there weren’t competitive players who didn’t fall into this trap too. In fact, I specifically said it was individuals that were the problem, not the play style.

And while you may have never seen it doesn’t mean it isn’t out there. Just like I haven’t witnessed competitive players as bad as some make out all competitive players to be. The vast majority of competitive players I know will ask why not an optimized build, but will accept and understand an explanation of “this is what I wanted to fly”. There are plenty of competitive players (myself included) who will still take a suboptimal list for the simple joy of flying those ships. And yeah, it’s my fault if my list is crap because it was my decision to fly it and I own that. It’s part of being free to choose: the responsibility to accept the outcome.

39 minutes ago, heychadwick said:

As for telling people how to play, I have seen many competitive players saying that taking a not optimized list is just asking to get curb stomped. It's their fault for bringing a sub standard list. That's telling someone how to play the game.

It also just is an issue with the game when some elements are so vastly under/overpowered that putting them in a game against each other inevitably decides the games outcome. In the final months of 1.0 I didn't do a single game on game night where we didn't coordinate lists before, so we wouldn't have the situation of one player wanting to try out a good ship and the other wanting to fly some movie ships. We didn't need to do that before and I'm very much hoping (and also expecting from what I've seen) we won't with 2.0.

1 hour ago, heychadwick said:

As for telling people how to play, I have seen many competitive players saying that taking a not optimized list is just asking to get curb stomped. It's their fault for bringing a sub standard list. That's telling someone how to play the game.

You mix two different aspects of the game.

Experienced players telling others what they should play are just sharing the knowledge about ships or squads that will get you higher chance of winning, thus in context of game rules, they tell you how you can improve your gameplay or list building "objectively".

On the other hand telling someone that he is "filthy competitive player" and should play in a casual or fun way is nothing nore than "subjective" opinion. There is no definition of fun, fun is something that can bring you joy - and for competitive players it is high level flying. For the others it could be fluffy pew-pewing around the table.

1 hour ago, heychadwick said:

FFG has only supported the tournament types in 1st Ed and it looks like they are gearing to support more than that for 2nd ed.

Could you elaborate on that a little please? Not saying you're wrong...I'm just not getting the same vibe and wondering what I'm missing!

1 hour ago, heychadwick said:

I have not seen this before. Most of the casual types just quietly drop the game. I also talk to friends who bring their casual lists to play at different times and constantly get bombarded with comments like, "why are flying a Punisher? They are terrible. You should fly a better ship."

As for telling people how to play, I have seen many competitive players saying that taking a not optimized list is just asking to get curb stomped. It's their fault for bringing a sub standard list. That's telling someone how to play the game.

Pointing out that someone brought a horribly unoptimized list and that's part of the reason they got stomped is probably better than telling them they got stomped because they sucked.

There is also a giant difference from a "casual list" and a "bad list". I am a strong believer in every ship being viable if you build with it correctly. but putting in anti-synergistic upgrades and useless equipment is not flying a casual list it's just flying a bad list. I try to point out to new players when they show up with a bad list what parts of it just don't work with the list and how they could improve it.

1 hour ago, Embir82 said:

On the other hand telling someone that he is "filthy competitive player" and should play in a casual or fun way is nothing nore than "subjective" opinion. There is no definition of fun, fun is something that can bring you joy - and for competitive players it is high level flying. For the others it could be fluffy pew-pewing around the table.

Anyone calling anyone a "filthy _____" is just bad. I've never heard anyone call someone else a "filthy competitive player", but I HAVE heard "filthy casual" on more than one occasion (not in jest).

44 minutes ago, Dobbs Mottley said:

Could you elaborate on that a little please? Not saying you're wrong...I'm just not getting the same vibe and wondering what I'm missing!

Which part do you want me to elaborate on? How FFG only supported tournaments? Or that they look like they will do more? If it's the later, they have already stated they will have 2 different "tracks" of events. One is tournament and the other will be around the quick build lists. That isn't exactly what I prefer, but it isn't the first. We don't really know what they are going to do, but they have stated they can do different things and want to do different things.

18 minutes ago, Icelom said:

Pointing out that someone brought a horribly unoptimized list and that's part of the reason they got stomped is probably better than telling them they got stomped because they sucked.

Yeah, but this was all before the game starts. The funny thing is the Tie Punisher player ended up winning more of his games than lost, but people would walk by and ask him why he was running such a terrible ship. This player just got sick of hearing it and didn't say anything, but just doesn't go to that store anymore.

4 hours ago, heychadwick said:

FFG has only supported the tournament types in 1st Ed and it looks like they are gearing to support more than that for 2nd ed. This is a good thing.

Yeah, it's the "looks like" part that bothers me.

2 hours ago, Dobbs Mottley said:

Could you elaborate on that a little please? Not saying you're wrong...I'm just not getting the same vibe and wondering what I'm missing!

I won't speak for heychadwick, but for myself, it's been 4 more months since the announcement of 2.0 and still no info about support for Epic. In my mind, none of the changes I have seen so far are about Epic play, a Campaign Set, or Missions. The app exists to make changes to the game based on tournament results and the meta. It's more of a tool for FFG; players being able to use it to list build is more of a secondary benefit I suspect.

12 hours ago, Handler said:

But did you read the replies? What joyous statements about the health of the game!

The health of the game based on 3rd party efforts. NOT the health of FFG's base game.

6 hours ago, Tlfj200 said:

I'm sure they'll get around to making 2.0 epic. I hope you find something to enjoy until such time, and wish you luck.

When? I'm tired of no news from FFG about what and when my favorite version of XWM will see for 2.0. And if they will ever get around to more offerings for people who are uninterested in standard play. With 2 more factions to convert in Wave 2 announced, Wave 3 announced, 2 non-existent factions announced, and still no word about Epic, let alone the idea the might do a campaign or something non-standard-play, I'm pretty dubious FFG has plans to support anything but the usual Release Wave/Watch Tournament Meta/Rebalance App business model.

Digging out the Magic cards.

Which means that for me, the game is quite unhealthy.

I haven't really seen much from FFG in the last 4 months to make me think that 2.0 going to be any different of an approach to their offerings and product line than 1.0. I have been waiting for a campaign, a 2-section Scum huge, and anything that doesn't focus pretty much solely on 400/6 "standard" play.

If it takes them 2 years to get back around to Epic, I'll be long gone.

1 hour ago, Darth Meanie said:

In my mind, none of the changes I have seen so far are about Epic play, a Campaign Set, or Missions.

I haven't really seen much from FFG in the last 4 months to make me think that 2.0 going to be any different of an approach to their offerings and product line than 1.0. I have been waiting for a campaign, a 2-section Scum huge, and anything that doesn't focus pretty much solely on 400/6 "standard" play.

So....the game isn't even officially out yet. Of course you won't hear anything about Epic. Also, they need to come out with the new factions for A Force Awakens before they will touch Epic. So, they are pushing those. They won't say anything about Epic yet as it's still at least 6 months away. It's way too early for them to jump on it.

Still, you can always play Epic as it is now. There is also that guy in the Epic forums who is doing all his own conversion stuff.

9 minutes ago, heychadwick said:

So....the game isn't even officially out yet. Of course you won't hear anything about Epic. Also, they need to come out with the new factions for A Force Awakens before they will touch Epic. So, they are pushing those. They won't say anything about Epic yet as it's still at least 6 months away. It's way too early for them to jump on it.

Well, that's kinda my point. FFG has announced:

Wave 2

Wave 3

Prequel Factions

and needs to release all the 1.0 ships.

***

Nothing has happened for Epic in over a year. Nothing will happen for Epic for at least another year.

And even that will really not actually involve anything new, just getting all the old ships up to speed.

By 2020 I wonder if I'll be playing this game anymore.

Just now, Darth Meanie said:

Well, that's kinda my point. FFG has announced:

Wave 2

Wave 3

Prequel Factions

and needs to release all the 1.0 ships.

***

Nothing has happened for Epic in over a year. Nothing will happen for Epic for at least another year.

And even that will really not actually involve anything new, just getting all the old ships up to speed.

By 2020 I wonder if I'll be playing this game anymore.

They just might announce new rules without new products. What they have announced is new products. That doesn't disqualify the idea that rules might come out in the meantime.

2 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

Yeah, it's the "looks like" part that bothers me.

I won't speak for heychadwick, but for myself, it's been 4 more months since the announcement of 2.0 and still no info about support for Epic. In my mind, none of the changes I have seen so far are about Epic play, a Campaign Set, or Missions. The app exists to make changes to the game based on tournament results and the meta. It's more of a tool for FFG; players being able to use it to list build is more of a secondary benefit I suspect.

The health of the game based on 3rd party efforts. NOT the health of FFG's base game.

When? I'm tired of no news from FFG about what and when my favorite version of XWM will see for 2.0. And if they will ever get around to more offerings for people who are uninterested in standard play. With 2 more factions to convert in Wave 2 announced, Wave 3 announced, 2 non-existent factions announced, and still no word about Epic, let alone the idea the might do a campaign or something non-standard-play, I'm pretty dubious FFG has plans to support anything but the usual Release Wave/Watch Tournament Meta/Rebalance App business model.

Digging out the Magic cards.

Which means that for me, the game is quite unhealthy.

I haven't really seen much from FFG in the last 4 months to make me think that 2.0 going to be any different of an approach to their offerings and product line than 1.0. I have been waiting for a campaign, a 2-section Scum huge, and anything that doesn't focus pretty much solely on 400/6 "standard" play.

If it takes them 2 years to get back around to Epic, I'll be long gone.

Exactly.

The toxic tournament players whined loudest, so they got their version of 2.0, but everyone else gets a half finished product.

For the very high cost of the conversion kits they could easily have thrown a few epic components in. Even just a few more generic fighter chits and epic crew, with a note explaining how to use existing epic ships with the new rules

6 minutes ago, heychadwick said:

They just might announce new rules without new products. What they have announced is new products. That doesn't disqualify the idea that rules might come out in the meantime.

There arent any epic cards or chits though for 2.0. Without the physical components we cant play

2 minutes ago, Vontoothskie said:

Exactly.

The toxic tournament players whined loudest, so they got their version of 2.0, but everyone else gets a half finished product.

For the very high cost of the conversion kits they could easily have thrown a few epic components in. Even just a few more generic fighter chits and epic crew, with a note explaining how to use existing epic ships with the new rules

As usual, you are ascribing one trait to groups of players and seem to be deliberately ignoring the actual facts of the situation. You are insinuating that only toxic tournament players want 2.0, which is false. I know many players that don't fall into the definition of toxic player that are quite happy with 2.0 (at least for the most part).

You are also making claims that FFG could just pack Epic stuff in without a problem, but haven't shown facts to back up your claim. Where are your facts? Do you have experience in game design and/or production that gives you insight into this? How about experience running a business? Do you actually know that the Epic rules are ready?

27 minutes ago, Vontoothskie said:

For the very high cost of the conversion kits they could easily have thrown a few epic components in. Even just a few more generic fighter chits and epic crew, with a note explaining how to use existing epic ships with the new rules

I'm sorry, but the conversion kits really aren't that expensive. I've played other game systems and I've had to fork out a lot more than just $50 per faction. Each kit comes down to only 50 cents per ship.

4 hours ago, heychadwick said:

They just might announce new rules without new products. What they have announced is new products. That doesn't disqualify the idea that rules might come out in the meantime.

I admire your optimism, but that's not FFG'S general MO.

4 hours ago, Vontoothskie said:

The toxic tournament players whined loudest,

I don't know. I've been whining pretty loudly, and still no Epic.

The problem is that Epic is something like a tertiary market. There is pro 100/6, casual 100/6, then "oh, yeah, epic, right, we'll get back to you."

2 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

As usual, you are ascribing one trait to groups of players and seem to be deliberately ignoring the actual facts of the situation. You are insinuating that only toxic tournament players want 2.0, which is false. I know many players that don't fall into the definition of toxic player that are quite happy with 2.0 (at least for the most part).

You are also making claims that FFG could just pack Epic stuff in without a problem, but haven't shown facts to back up your claim. Where are your facts? Do you have experience in game design and/or production that gives you insight into this? How about experience running a business? Do you actually know that the Epic rules are ready?

An Ad hominem attack, a straw man fallacy, AND demanding an unreasonable burden of proof at the same time? Thats completely innapropriate

FFG released a second edition of X-wing, claiming all first edition ships would be playable. This claim did not have any exceptions or omissions. We were told a new rules system would replace all aspects of first edition.

It is therefore reasonable to wonder when the CR-90 Corvette, GR-75 Rebel Transport, Imperial assault carreir, Imperial Raider, and C-ROC cruiser expansions will become playable in 2.0.

It is also reasonable to expect FFG to create their own system for using epic ships in X-wing 2.0, as it is their product which they both produce and design. expecting me (a consumer on the message board) to dictate FFG corporate policy is unreasonable.

It is also reasonable to expect FFG to have developed a plan for Epic play BEFORE releasing 2.0, or to at least have begun development. Either way they should be able to ballpark a release date in an announcement. The only reasons not to announce when it will release is because they are not planning a release, because its on hold, or because it is dependent on a seperate release which is still in development.

To be clear the statement one might expect from them is something like "epic will return Q3 2019" or "be patient, we're working on it". Any tid bit so we know its coming. Its a huge part of the game to simply ignore

5 minutes ago, TheRabidAardvark said:

Quit being a toxic whining luddite.

It helps to just put him on ignore. My forum reading is much less annoying since I did that.

39 minutes ago, Vontoothskie said:

An Ad hominem attack, a straw man fallacy, AND demanding an unreasonable burden of proof at the same time? Thats completely innapropriate

FFG released a second edition of X-wing, claiming all first edition ships would be playable. This claim did not have any exceptions or omissions. We were told a new rules system would replace all aspects of first edition.

It is therefore reasonable to wonder when the CR-90 Corvette, GR-75 Rebel Transport, Imperial assault carreir, Imperial Raider, and C-ROC cruiser expansions will become playable in 2.0.

It is also reasonable to expect FFG to create their own system for using epic ships in X-wing 2.0, as it is their product which they both produce and design. expecting me (a consumer on the message board) to dictate FFG corporate policy is unreasonable.

It is also reasonable to expect FFG to have developed a plan for Epic play BEFORE releasing 2.0, or to at least have begun development. Either way they should be able to ballpark a release date in an announcement. The only reasons not to announce when it will release is because they are not planning a release, because its on hold, or because it is dependent on a seperate release which is still in development.

To be clear the statement one might expect from them is something like "epic will return Q3 2019" or "be patient, we're working on it". Any tid bit so we know its coming. Its a huge part of the game to simply ignore

A well reasoned defense on why you think there should be word on Epic. There is actually that “be patient, we’re working on it” you wanted in the 2.0 FAQ. It says:

“What about Epic Mode?

Epic will continue to be a supported X-Wing format in future releases! Stay tuned to future X-Wing Second Edition announcements for more information”

To be clear, I’m not calling into question your want for Epic. I am, however, questioning your conclusions that Epic could have been put in the conversion packs. That would increase cost of the conversion kits, requiring people to pay for an addition that isn’t universally needed. There are already questions on the decision process of how many of each ship got in. Adding epic ships on top of that would have sparked more. I guess the “TL;dr” of this is “citation needed.”

And I still find it amusing that you accuse others of committing fallacies while you yourself are guilty of faulty generalization and the fallacy of opposition. If people think oppositely of you (like 2.0 and think it’s a good idea) then they must be a toxic tournament player. All of them. You have made no room for other viewpoints, yet expect yours to be protected. That’s not how that works.

In short, you are well in your right to question business practices and wish for more information about something you care about. But when you use faulty generalizations and make baseless assertions, you hurt your arguments and become something more like the toxic tournament player stereotype you abhor.

2 hours ago, TheRabidAardvark said:

Quit being a toxic whining luddite.

That's a bit too harsh, man.

13 hours ago, heychadwick said:

Which part do you want me to elaborate on? How FFG only supported tournaments? Or that they look like they will do more? If it's the later, they have already stated they will have 2 different "tracks" of events. One is tournament and the other will be around the quick build lists. That isn't exactly what I prefer, but it isn't the first. We don't really know what they are going to do, but they have stated they can do different things and want to do different things.

I was asking about the latter. I agree with you that it's early days and good to keep an open mind, but so far, I find their approach is 1) a bit gimmicky and 2) misses the point of what narrative (that seems a better description than "casual") players seem to be asking for. FFG's ideas for non-standard events seem to revolve around using the app/quick build system to tweak lists (for example, limiting or requiring certain cards) rather than introducing more fundamental changes to the way the game is approached. The lists may differ, but it's still a deathmatch where the only real goal is to table your opponent...which is all very well, but it's not going to do a lot to attract the people who want variant formats, i.e. missions and campaigns.

But we'll see!

12 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

I won't speak for heychadwick, but for myself, it's been 4 more months since the announcement of 2.0 and still no info about support for Epic. In my mind, none of the changes I have seen so far are about Epic play, a Campaign Set, or Missions. The app exists to make changes to the game based on tournament results and the meta. It's more of a tool for FFG; players being able to use it to list build is more of a secondary benefit I suspect.

I'd tend to agree with you.

That's not to say that the counter-argument- that FFG needs to get the basic mechanics sorted out and new factions bedded in first- isn't also true; the tournament/standard-format is an important part of the X-wing scene and needs to be sorted out. My concern is that the narrative play side felt increasingly sidelined during the life of 1.0, to the point where FFG stopped bothering to come up with fresh missions of the sort that used to find their way in every large ship expansion, and that, in my view, 2.0 hasn't done as much as it could to correct that.

2.0 was the reboot that many, maybe most, tournament players wanted. Positioning is back, turrets and cheese are dialled down..."iconic" and underperforming ships seem to be relatively stronger. But another section of the playerbase has been equally forceful about wanting new missions, a campaign and objective-based play; so far, 2.0 hasn't offered them much and that is why some now feel ignored and angry.

Circular arguments over which "side" is more toxic ignores the reality that both groups are important to the long-term health of the game and I really do hope that FFG throws the narrative camp a few bones in the not-too-distant future.

11 hours ago, Vontoothskie said:

An Ad hominem attack, a straw man fallacy, AND demanding an unreasonable burden of proof at the same time? Thats completely innapropriate

FFG released a second edition of X-wing, claiming all first edition ships would be playable. This claim did not have any exceptions or omissions. We were told a new rules system would replace all aspects of first edition.

It is therefore reasonable to wonder when the CR-90 Corvette, GR-75 Rebel Transport, Imperial assault carreir, Imperial Raider, and C-ROC cruiser expansions will become playable in 2.0.

It is also reasonable to expect FFG to create their own system for using epic ships in X-wing 2.0, as it is their product which they both produce and design. expecting me (a consumer on the message board) to dictate FFG corporate policy is unreasonable.

It is also reasonable to expect FFG to have developed a plan for Epic play BEFORE releasing 2.0, or to at least have begun development. Either way they should be able to ballpark a release date in an announcement. The only reasons not to announce when it will release is because they are not planning a release, because its on hold, or because it is dependent on a seperate release which is still in development.

To be clear the statement one might expect from them is something like "epic will return Q3 2019" or "be patient, we're working on it". Any tid bit so we know its coming. Its a huge part of the game to simply ignore

I'm not seeing an ad hominem. Looks like a completely reasonable summary of your attitude in this thread. The other two are debateable as well.

Your claims about Epic aren't correct either. FFG have stated rules for 2nd edition will be coming. There is currently no timescale. That's disappointing, for sure. The reality is they need to prioritise their development time and I strongly suspect Epic is too niche a play style to prioritise at this time. That's not a good situation if you really want Epic but it may be just reflecting the reality that Epic play didn't really take off in 1st edition. I don't agree that Epic is a "huge part of the game to ignore". My experience has been the opposite - it's actually a very, very small part of the game and I've met players who've been playing for quite a while who weren't even aware of its existence.

As for adding Epic stuff to the Conversion Kits, weren't you one of the people complaining that the Conversion Kits didn't allow you to take your entire 1st edition collection over to the new edition because the composition of the parts didn't cover your collection? I know that is something that's been pointed out previously by some people at least. So which components would you have them drop form the Conversion Kits to fit in the Epic pieces? It's not just a case of saying "it wouldn't cost them that much to do it". There are numerous finite resources in play, ranging from money to space on the cardboard to development time to achieving the best value for the largest number of people and all of those have to be balanced by FFG.

50 minutes ago, Jike said:

That's not a good situation if you really want Epic but it may be just reflecting the reality that Epic play didn't really take off in 1st edition. I don't agree that Epic is a "huge part of the game to ignore". My experience has been the opposite - it's actually a very, very small part of the game and I've met players who've been playing for quite a while who weren't even aware of its existence.

To what extent is that down to FFG's promotion of Epic though?

I'm not sure Epic was well handled. The fact that the Raider came bundled with both a classic ship fix and a very strong card usable in standard format suggests they weren't convinced by their product's ability to sell on its own merits. It's a sort of chicken-and-egg scenario...was Epic under supported because it wasn't a big hit or was it not a big hit because it was under-supported?

56 minutes ago, Jike said:

There are numerous finite resources in play, ranging from money to space on the cardboard to development time to achieving the best value for the largest number of people and all of those have to be balanced by FFG.

Agreed, but it's also an unfortunate reality that corporations often give us what they think the majority of us want and ignore evidence to the contrary. Just look at the film industry! And even if they are genuinely trying to give the largest number of people the best value product, it's a fiendishly difficult task to work out what that actually is. People are always making claims on behalf of "most people" or the "majority", but how do you measure the proportion of casual/narrative to tournament players? We struggle here to even define those groups (and there is likely huge overlap). I suppose you could compare tournament attendance to sales, but there will still be a lot of serious, standard format players who don't attend many official events.

There's evidence to suggest that a not insignificant number of players would welcome something beyond the standard format...HotAC's apparent popularity at least points in that direction. But if that market isn't given any encouragement, then it's going to be hard for FFG to exploit it.

3 hours ago, Dobbs Mottley said:

I was asking about the latter. I agree with you that it's early days and good to keep an open mind, but so far, I find their approach is 1) a bit gimmicky and 2) misses the point of what narrative (that seems a better description than "casual") players seem to be asking for. FFG's ideas for non-standard events seem to revolve around using the app/quick build system to tweak lists (for example, limiting or requiring certain cards) rather than introducing more fundamental changes to the way the game is approached. The lists may differ, but it's still a deathmatch where the only real goal is to table your opponent...which is all very well, but it's not going to do a lot to attract the people who want variant formats, i.e. missions and campaigns.

But we'll see!

We will have to see. I admit I'm more an optimist, but there are signs that could turn into something. It could just be nothing. I have a friend who likes to point towards other FFG games and what they haven't done yet as proof that they might not. I always counter that X-wing is their meal ticket and they will put the majority of their effort into that stuff. You can point towards their work with Descent and say that they have done work to make the game better/more interesting with an AI run game.

My podcast interviewed the guy running the HotAC Facebook page recently and he (and the guy who started HotAC) thinks FFG will come out with something HotAC related....or at least an AI app....within a year. Their opinion could have some weight and who knows what might be behind the covers for that. It's a big unknown. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm right.

It will take some time to go through the old missions and find what is playable still.

38 minutes ago, heychadwick said:

It will take some time to go through the old missions and find what is playable still.

For the majority of them just doubling points should be fine, right? I'm actually very curious about the GR75 and Gonzanti campaigns, specificaly how robust they are towards new munitions.

1 hour ago, heychadwick said:

You can point towards their work with Descent and say that they have done work to make the game better/more interesting with an AI run game.

I'd definitely agree with that...which is why I'd be both surprised (and disappointed) if they didn't capitalise on the popularity of HotAC and produce an AI app. I really do hope that you (and our sources) are right!