Let's Tweak Afew Things Here..... Adressing lower point cost ships in X-wing 2.5

X-wing the miniatures game is a tabletop game designed for and marketed to adults 14 years old and above. The videos on this channel covering X-wing are entirely designed to be viewed by the same adult audiences, and are not intended to be viewed by children.
I assert that each faction in the game of X-wing should have viable, competative ship options at both 2 and 3 points. Let's look at some key pilots that could help fill this need;
0:00 - Intro Rambling
5:00 - The Vulture Droid
11:56 - The Z-95
17:20 - The TIE Fighter
20:00 - The Resistance and First Order
22:00 - The Torrent Fighter
23:30 - Deficit Scoring / Outro Rambling
Please consider supporting the channel at
/ hairynick
Every little bit helps!
Give us a sub over at our side channel, Extra Hairy!
/ @extrahairy9455
Follow us on Twitter
/ hairynickgaming
@HairyNickGaming
Follow us on Reddit
/ hairy_nick
Like us on Facebook
/ hairynick

[@HairyNick]

Apologies for the rambly nature of this video. It's been a while since I did a theory brain-vomitty video, I'll try to be more consise in the future. :) Also the random tapping is birds on the tin roof... still need to work out the kinks of this recording space.

[@fieldmarshall]

The birds add a nice ambience.

[@belligerentoctopus5240]

Wow! We have pretty much the exact same list building frustrations!

[@andrewmrozek5778]

I would love to see them address the Granularity issues, I think that was a big reason why fantasy flight games went to 2.0, to get the increase granularity from 100 points to 200 points.

[@jonathanmartin3767]

The issue is that AMG paid ted themselves into a corner with the 20 point victory condition. If they increase to 40 point list build, then 40 victory points is the win condition. Do the objective points increase?

[@icholi88]

@@jonathanmartin3767 You could just assign every ship a capture value independent of their points.... it would even add nuance to weaker but expensive pilots who might just be more desirable to sit on objectives.

[@hoodaguy]

Yep. I'm not really sure what the reasoning was to abandon the point system for a completely new one that doesn't really simplify list building and actually restricts it much more than before. I mean, the entire purpose of shifting from 100 to 200 points from 1.0 to 2.0 respectively was exactly for the reasons you have explained -- it made more ships/upgrades relevant. Maybe if ships went back to 100 and kept the predetermined upgrade points it would be better, I don't know. On one hand I do like that ships have upgrade points "built in" to a certain extent, but on the other it's making the game much less diversified. Before you could fly Wedge naked so that you could use the points you have saved on something else, but now there's no reason not to load him up and we are going to end up with "optimum" loadouts making things same-y. I also think if someone wants to spend 40+ points to upgrade one ship they should have that option. Sure, that's putting a lot of eggs in one basket but that made list building fun. I'm finding that the joys of list building has dissipated because by the time you grab the one or two upgrades that you want for a certain ship you either don't have many points left or sometimes might not even be able to take both. And some ships needed all the help they could get, for example the IGs. They have never really become fully competitive in 2.0 but in 2.5 they are kicked while they are already down. I can understand the introduction of objectives to change things up and prevent turtling and encourage engagement, but the decision to mess with the points was not a good one. So many people are quitting/leaving the game, all of the squad builders needed to be overhauled and I'm not sure if Fly Casual is ready yet with the new stuff, and for what really? I just don't get why a gigantic change such as revamping the entire points system wasn't researched more first. A simple poll posted on the website asking for player feedback could have avoided a lot of these issues.

[@HairyNick]

The reason for the new points system (whether you like it or not) is to remove the bid, and have ship costs directly relate to the new scoring system. "I also think if someone wants to spend 40+ points to upgrade one ship they should have that option. Sure, that's putting a lot of eggs in one basket but that made list building fun." I agree choice is always fun. I will play devil's advocate here for a second and point out that restricting newer players from getting all exciting and overstacking ships will lead to less feel bads. But yes, ultimately I like the flexibility, too.

[@hoodaguy]

@@HairyNick But was the bid really that big of a deal? And player initiative is no longer constant with 2.5 making it even less of an issue. I'd rather have the bid and flexibility back than have a bunch of ships that have absolutely no incentive for taking them now when you can get the same chassis with a higher pilot initiative/more upgrades for the same cost. It took some tweaking here and there but the points for 2.0 were getting to a pretty balanced place. Now all that hard work is out the window and reset. It was also a lot easier for new players before because you could help them make a squad consisting of big named characters that they are familiar with along with relatively few or no upgrades to get their feet wet. We can't do that now. The new system pretty much forces them to load up every ship and that can be overwhelming. I totally get that change is often difficult to accept. 1.0 was definitely in a place where 2.0 was necessary but it still took some getting used to. 2.5 is a harder pill to swallow though because it's so much change at once and a fair portion of it begs the question...why? Why not introduce objectives and maybe change how player initiative functions and see how that goes first? That may have been enough, and if not then start revamping the point structure if necessary. But at least that way there wouldn't be so many jumping ship out of frustration and lack of enjoyment with something that likely didn't need a fix.

[@HairyNick]

"But was the bid really that big of a deal?" Again, thats the reasoning whether or not you personally agree with it. It's easy as a more intrenched player to think that wasn't an issue, but I completely understand from the point of view of new players.

[@hoodaguy]

@@HairyNick A super easy fix - Round 1 random, then alternate. Fixing the bid didn't require a whole new point system though, and all it's doing is alienating a lot of players who have been here since Wave 1 of 1.0. It's like AMG is determined to make it work no matter how long it takes instead of just admitting that this new points structure was a mistake. And unfortunately the longer they take doing that, there won't be much of a base left.

[@ethanallen8471]

Deadman switch on isb jingoists and ruthless on the other ships has won me games. That extra unavoidable damage that you can trigger is pretty nice on 2 point ships

[@michaelchorney2941]

Deadman’s Switch is a great upgrade. Throwing ISB Jingoists as Kamikaze’s, particularly with Ruthless on other Tie’s is great fun.

[@jonathanmartin3767]

That ship/pilot shows how bad AMG has figured things out. 2 points, I4, great ability, good loud out option. For 2 points. Bounce that outside of faction and no other faction has something this good at 2 points. Even restrictions of only 2 per list does not take it. Should be 3 points.

[@electronsympathy]

6:18 Since I main faction Separatists, I can tell you that there's a solid reason for the i1 Trade Fed Drone to be kinda worse than the i3 Separatist Drone. Low Initiative matters more now than ever with objective play and the more restricted obstacle fields we're seeing in X-Wing 2.5. Bumping is easier than ever before, and on certain objectives, can effectively create a 1-2 point swing by stopping an objective rom being captured/converted. By 2.0 rules, there was a time where i1 and i3 generic Vultures were the same cost, and the i1 swarm was still heavily favored over the i3 because bumping was (and still is) devastating to a thick formation of Vultures. So now the i1 generic is there to be an effective blocker, and the i3 generic is there to be a Discord launcher. Granted, the i1 Haor Chall Prototype steps on the Trade Federation Drone's purpose a little bit as it's also an i1, but has enough loadout to equip a Cluster Missile. While I'm not saying that Vulture balance is perfect yet (considering how much harder it is for them to survive in the much more aggressive 2.5 environment), I do think the Vulture's generic balance is closest to "correct" compared to most other chassis. Let's also consider 2.0's Vulture balance which basically consisted of players only using DFS-311 and Trade Federation Drones, and that's it. That granularity and the cost of upgrades being part of the highly granular system led to a hyper-efficiency case where only the Trade Federation Drone was taken because saving that 1 point over 6-7 ships meant your swarm could have a better force multiplier applied to it. While 2.5 is far from perfect, it does aim to give each ship reasons to take them above others, even it it's not always successful. Like the Precise Hunter can carry a cannon instead of a missile, the Separatist Drone has just enough points to pick up a Discord Missile, Haor Chall Prototypes can bring Energy Shell Charges or other missiles, and Trade Federation Drone is the ideal blocker. 12:50 It's 3 points because the first points draft showed that 2-point pilots are incredibly dangerous to the meta. When everyone had 2-point pilots, everyone used one or two because the effect of having more ships on the field was huge for 3 out of the 4 scenarios, and is still pretty big. That's why the only 2 point ships left are TIE/ln and Vultures; they're designed to be a tight cluster by nature and can't take advantage of their higher numbers as easily in objective play. While I do think 2/0'ing a Z-95 generic would be fine for game balance, I can see why AMG hasn't done so yet. Each point cost below 7 represents a different "gate" for how many bodies you can put on the field. With 6 points, the most you can have of a chassis is 3, which is why there's no 6-point Firespray. 5 gets 4, ships 4 gets 5, 3 gets 6 and a bit left over, **but** 2 gets 10 ships! Crossing a ship point threshold is a big, big deal as you go lower and lower. We can see this in action with the dreaded Spamtex Swarm. When FFG reduced the points of a generic Stagalsin Hive Guard down to the point where not only 6 of them could be fielded, but they'd have enough left over to take a talent for their formidable bullseye gun. Soon as the points got up to the point where you could only put down 5, they basically disappeared from the meta in a week or two. The power of "just one more chassis" is not to be underestimated. 19:35 I think AMG wanted the first meta of 2.5 to be defined by big named pilots and sort of stick it's best foot forward, so generics were intentionally nerfed. As the makes of Marvel Crisis Protocol and sort of formerly Warmachine/Hordes, they have it pretty ingrained that big name guys making big time plays was more exciting than just a swarm of Bob, Kyle, Matt, Chris, and Matt... Especially to outsiders who might look into the game. But now that they've had the first meta basically act as a huge beta test for them, they've dialed back on a lot of the core design decisions like how objectives work and how ship count affects the game. With that we got a lot of tuning for the extreme ends of the point spectrum like Vaderfender and the Fetts, as well as the deluge of 2/0's. But they also saw that certain iconic archetypes had gotten absolutely dunked on by the emergent meta; TIE swarms and Vulture swarms. So I think they hard focused on making sure those were in a good place before using them as a baseline for working on other generics to find a comfortable place for them. 22:00 I got no defense for the Torrent. I can only assume something went horribly, horribly wrong in playtesting and AMG overreacted when they made them all 4 point ships. Now with the V-Wing and the Z-95's at 3 points, even just making them 3 points might not be enough to bring the chassis into the game in any meaningful way. My best guess is that the Sinker Swarm was uniquely capable of going wide on the board and covering a bigger area than the Vulture and TIE swarms, letting them have their objective play benefits while still having their offensive benefits. But I think the best solution here would be making them 3 point ships across the board, but keeping them flush with double-digit loadout points. Give them access to missiles, talents, modifications aplenty to give them purpose over the more nimble V-Wings and the torpedo-carrying, boosting, Z-95s. 23:40 Deficit scoring still needs to be in the game, as lamentable as it might feel. With the way scoring works, one point matters a lot for the similar reasons points fortressing was a problem in 2.0. Each player puts an equal number of collectible objective points on the table: 20 points of ship and 0-2 objective tokens. If someone puts down 19 points of ship instead, they've essentially protected that 1 point from being scored. Games end on points scored (due to hitting 20 or time) far more often than list destruction now, and without the granularity of the 200 point scoring system, that one point can shift wins into ties, and ties into losses. So by removing deficit scoring, you may remove the feels bad of 19-point lists, but you also add the feels bad of losing by one point against lists that you may have been able to tie or defeat if that one extra point had been somewhere on the board to score. Personally, I can see them bringing in a system similar to the Infinity Gems from MCP. Imagine an upgrade that costs squad points rather than loadout and grants you something like +10 loadout or some other unique effect. That way you can fill out your squad's points, and they're still there on the field to be scored.

[@Dasharr]

I'm agreed, the granularity is a real problem especially at the low end. I don't understand why AMG are so determined to make generics unviable. They've decided that only factions with "swarming" as part of their faction identity (Empire and Separatist) are allowed to have viable generics, and even then it's just barely viability. Generic TIE/ln are still worse than the 2-point uniques, and as you pointed out the vultures aren't any better. That's one of my (many) frustrations with current squad building. The basic framework of squad points being its own thing and loadout being bundled with the pilot isn't inherently bad, but the way it's being used is bad. They could use loadouts to fine-tune pilot costings, so the differences that would've been 1 or 2 points in 2.0 can be 1 or 2 loadout in 2.5... but they're not doing that. Beyond even the named vs generic issue, very often the best pilot gets better loadout than their peers on the same ship for the same price, because AMG are so hell-bent on pushing players to play the hero units that they're sacrificing balance for it. Granularity issues still haunt ships, especially cheap ships, even with named pilots. Scum Z-95s have little purpose at 3 points when you can get most M3-As for 3 points, which are just plain better unless you specifically want a particular Z-95s pilot ability (and I don't see any being worth it over an M3-A's third green die, better dial, white barrel roll instead of red, and better secondary weapon options). As an aside, N'Dru might be one pilot who might actually want deadman switch. His 7 loadout can get lone wolf for 5 to double down on his soloist shtick from his pilot ability, and the 2 points left only gets you a deadman switch. If you're flying him separately from your other ships, splash damage from him dying is no threat to your other ships.

[@fatpad00]

I've had some meme-y success with dead-mans switch in casual games. I tooootally agree it's a trap for competitive play, but its fun to field 4 Zs in formation, all with DMS, in an epic game, and then flying them super aggressively. The risk of the chain reaction creates some interesting gameplay. You have to fly it carefully, keeping plenty of range to make sure your opponent doesnt blow them up while they're too far away, then dashing in at the right time to engage at R1. Your opponent has to carefully maneuver their formations, because 4xDMS can really soften up some otherwise hardy ships.

[@suntsutoriden]

Listbuilding is the biggest reason for my dislike of 2.5. AMG (Plummer and Pagani at least) confirmed in an interview on the Fly Better podcast that they want generics pushed out of the game. So instead of making all pilots valuable, they decided that they would rather you take pilots with niche/difficult/borderline garbage abilities than simpler generics. Effectively trading one binder filler for another. And I also don't like the way they have 'balanced upgrade slots and limits on pilots. It has made listbuilding from a fun exercise to a cookie cutter "this is the current best way to fly this pilot, so that's all I'm going to do" They might as well say that going forward the standard pilots that are coming out in the Battle of Yavin kit are the only legal products and stop leaving us with the illusion of choice.

[@azlanaddleman2448]

I love the new studio

[@victorjarmusz6210]

Other games systems with similar issues achieve balance by either (1) placing a limit on named pilots used in a squad, or (2) force players to run a minimum number of generic ships. It doesn't need any points tweaking in this case.

[@conan257]

Imagine if there were never any generics in the game…. So from day 1 we only had named pilots, aces, elites, everyone has a theme…. AMGs changes would probably have been accepted as an improvement to the game.

[@icholi88]

Too bad we've spend almost a decade enjoying generics as a viable and fun option of play then... darn, if only Xwing wasn't designed like Xwing then AMG would have been rightfully praised for their decision making.

[@fatpad00]

I won't be surprised too see a variety of points on a single pilot. E.g. for 2 squad points you get a binyare with zero loadout, OR for 3 squad points, you get a binyare with 4 loadout

[@HairyNick]

It'd certainly work, but that might complicate things a bit too much. Having constant pilot costs means its easier to track in game scoring.

[@jonathanmartin3767]

The only possible list with generic z-95 for scum is the following: New Squadron (5) Drea Renthal [BTL-A4 Y-wing] (3) False Transponder Codes (4) XX-23 S-Thread Tracers (0) Tierfon Belly Run (2) Dorsal Turret Points: 5 (3) Black Sun Soldier [Z-95-AF4 Headhunter] (2) Deadman's Switch (2) Electronic Baffle Points: 3 (3) Black Sun Soldier [Z-95-AF4 Headhunter] (2) Deadman's Switch (2) Electronic Baffle Points: 3 (3) Black Sun Soldier [Z-95-AF4 Headhunter] (2) Deadman's Switch (2) Electronic Baffle Points: 3 (3) Black Sun Soldier [Z-95-AF4 Headhunter] (2) Deadman's Switch (2) Electronic Baffle Points: 3 (3) Black Sun Soldier [Z-95-AF4 Headhunter] (2) Deadman's Switch (2) Electronic Baffle Points: 3 Total points: 20 Would not expect to win often. But could.chew up imperial lists.

[@mrjediknight]

I agree that AMG need to do something to make generics more viable but I think it needs to be acknowledged that FFG struggled with this as well. Most ships in 2.0 had an unviable generic you would never see on the table because it was better to either save points on a cheaper generic or spend more for a named pilot. For example on the z 95 the Black Sun ace seemed to be overshadowed by the binarie pirate. They also costed both the i1 and i3 vultures at 21 points to try and make the i3 more viable.

[@HairyNick]

Perhaps, but at the least I felt like FFGs system allowed for an environment where generics could function. There are some unique balancing challenges in 2.5.

[@JS-mp7fy]

A frustration I have atm is that as a scum player, I can’t run vipers competitively. Players who have been playing a long time are being ‘punished’, it’s just a plastic space ship game I know, for starting years ago. I want to test out Aggressors and vipers, fly Fenn, Teroch and Guri, I wanted to try 2 Aggressors and 4-LOM….. but I can’t. My old ships are collecting dust and it’s a feels bad scenario. Great video Nick, here’s to hoping someone is listening.

[@HairyNick]

Yeah the starvipers are just slightly too pricey atm, imo also.

[@heroldthiele]

You dont HAVE to play the Standard format! For your reasons we somtimes play Extended - but although using the ban-list and scenarios! X-Wing is quite balanced, including the 'old' (extended) ships. IMHO. Give it a try! Alas, as there are quite a few new players around: be a little bit more carefull when you bring niche and/or powerfull extended lists, to not create fells-bad moments for the new players. (Almost all 'new' players I know 'accept' extended, because they realise that there're veterans out there that want to play with their 'old and outdated plastic toy ships.... ;-)

[@HairyNick]

Hey Herold, I saw you tried to comment earlier but I think they were removed cause you attempted to do it afew times in a row. Sorry, that wasn't me that took it down.

[@JS-mp7fy]

@@heroldthiele I am meaning on the competitive scene. I know I can do extended anytime I like, but as this video alludes to, lists are a bit stale as if you want X chassis, you know that pilot Y is the primo choice. Most competitive play is standard atm

[@toewoe]

As annoying as it would be, I think we need a higher point total again, I think its the cleanest solution. Or, instead of giving the best pilots the most loadout points, give more to the generics

[@HairyNick]

Long term, I think you are right.

[@lowscore1972]

I don't mind the new list building format. I do mind how they costed eveything. e.g. A M12-L Kimogila Fighter piloted by a Cartel Executioner cost the same as the named pilots, has a loadout value of 3 with only the missile slot available to it. Keep in mind the cheapest missile upgrade costs 4 point and the ship has the reload action! That's just ZERO effort on AMG's part.

[@marshallbravestarr2117]

Still waiting for a firespray for 6 points (for 6+7+7) :D. I always played 3 of them in 2nd ed.

[@Tvboy777]

I think you're a bit confused about granularity Nick. Granularity isn't really about giving players more options. It's about giving the designers more options to to correctly cost a ship. But yeah I'm basically not touching 2.5 until they switch back to 200 point lists. The list building in 2.5 was just so frustrating to deal with before even putting any ships on the table.

[@HairyNick]

Actually, both of those things are true. No confusion here. If you're still keen on the 200 points system, you should check out the legacy project. www.reddit.com/r/XWingTMG2_0/ Gotta say I'm pretty impressed with what the team here are doing, so far. I should make a video on it.

[@Ty-yy7zr]

I think amg should be watching this video and take notes

[@HairyNick]

I mean it'd be awefully flattering. :P

[@Ty-yy7zr]

@@HairyNick being a republic player, I feel that the republic got screwed over the most. The republic has reasons for having unique and generic pilots. Warthog on either the gunship or the z 95, battle meditation, and pre errataed dedicated (which sure the change made it better, but it also takes away some of what the faction wants to be doing). I don't think making the generic torrents and z95s 2 points is going to be a big deal in reality. I have friends who just disagree and I can't convince them.

[@dandyx12]

Still om the fence, going with wait and see, and if not I still got 7-8 years so pewpew spacesheeps funs

[@whittaker007]

AMG are on record in saying that they want to disincentivise generics. Which is fine, so long as they come out with a bunch more named pilots at the low end that fill that role, which I guess they are slowly doing with card packs like the Battle of Yavin pack. But adding options to two factions at a time a couple of times a year is going to be too slow. Really the simplest thing to do at the moment would be to release some faction-specific card packs. The impression I get is that 2.5 is a stop-gap while we wait for an eventual 3.0 at which time they can do away with the existing pilots and upgrades and replace them with a bunch of reworked and rebalanced new ones. Part of this will be dropping all the generics, adding some new pilots, and ideally having several versions of some named pilots with different points cost, load outs, and maybe even abilities. That would solve almost all the problems, but that could be a long way off.

[@jonathanmartin3767]

But there was absolutely no reason for a 2.5. Objectives just dont work with 2.0 though, with victory condition. It seems AMG wanted objectives more at the cost of the 2.0 system. Every reason why the change was made has pretty much been proven wrong. Not any easier, not simple.

[@whittaker007]

@@jonathanmartin3767 True, 2.0 was fine and 2.5 wasn't really needed. However it changed hands to a new developer, one that's experienced in successful miniature games design. It's totally understandable that they want to put their own spin on it. It's in an awkward phase at the moment while they work out the kinks and gear up for actual component production. The game in it's current state though is still fun, and getting better all the time. By the time it's ready for 3.0 it will probably be the best it has ever been. We're just not there yet.

[@jbuzzsaw79]

I would point out that the reason why tie is bench and not z95 is tie has to hope its extra green die is good while the z95 has 2 shield to shrugg off criticals. Also would like to point out to everyone who might not like having only certain ships to play atm while others on shelve whating to be played that I have be playing xwing for 12 years and have played several other games that have banned and restrictioned lists for them. Its part of the game and is not really issue cause at some point you will be able to and by them waiting to release not only dose it help new players but reduce cost on secondary market. As an example look at imperial gunship, over $80 in most cases which is outrageous.

[@Squirl513]

You could defeat the arguments about deficit point scoring by giving each faction a unique 1 point ship. At least give the player the illusion of choice in the matter.

[@HairyNick]

I mean, it'd work. But you'd cause more harm than good doing something like that.

[@thejittermoose2880]

22:30 The reason the generics in the republic are so pricey is because the republic get a lot of access to abilities like Battle Meditation and other such abilities that directly gives a large benefit for using generics. Should they be priced at 4/4? No. But I think they should either be something like 3/2 (2 points for dedication), or 4/10, so that you are having to pay for ability to triple coordinate but you do get some compensation for it.

[@HairyNick]

We had this discussion way way back in 1.0 when Scum ships were being critisized because "well they NEED to be more expensive because they can fly next to Jumpmasters". Once we start saying something should be x cost because y in the faction exists, the balancing act starts to fall apart. This should be address by rebalancing those upgrades, not the ships I'm referring to.

[@thejittermoose2880]

@@HairyNick That's a fair point. I don't particularly like the idea of rebalancing the upgrade cards because you either just A)make them more expensive, which in 2.5 just means only the ace pilots can get them which I just don't like the idea of or B) change the wording on the card which can become extremely confusing since they are already printed off.

[@MaxAlias]

New player here- it’s been nearly a year since this vid was released, are these issues still very present? Or mostly fixed? Obviously the 20pt list seems to be here to stay - for better or worse.

[@legodovakin]

I think you've got some good ideas on how to make this system better. However, I'd say even with your changes I'd still prefer the old list building. How do you feel they compare? Do you think loadout values are better than being incorporated into the main list cost? Have you ran into any types of lists that are simply no longer possible because of the changes? Do you think there's more or less creativity in the games now?

[@HairyNick]

It's a hard thing to answer, which is why I didn't definitively say in the last video that I prefer 2 or 2.5. Reason being that I like that the bid has been removed and that the ship points now work seemlessly with the objective scoring, which doesn't quite work with the old system. "Have you ran into any types of lists that are simply no longer possible because of the changes?" I've not had the chance to fly against the bulk of options in 2.5 just yet, but suffice to say I know that Vultures are hurting right now (which I why I mentioned them at the top of this video). "Do you think there's more or less creativity in the games now?" Right now, a bit less. But we were several years into 2.0 when the switch was made and months into 2.5 at this point. I'm confident this can be addressed.

[@legodovakin]

I appreciate your insight! I've never been a competitive player but I've always valued your outlook on the game since I found your channel. For me I like a lot of jank (including dead man's switch, fight me) and I know I've been a little salty because a lot of my janky lists are invalidated by the load out system. I look forward to any changes they make to help make most ships playable if I ever find myself playing with strangers, but I think for the kitchen table we'll homebrew something up to continue to do dumb things. Thanks for all you do! Looking forward to future uploads!

[@Jonathan-zo4bf]

With regards to the generics, I'm a bit bothered by the way the Republic faction seems to dissuade players from fielding the same type of ship next to your jedi. If you're out of named clones, it is usually a good idea to go for a different ship rather than a generic clone pilot in the same ship type. Which is thematically not the best choice IMO. So I wish there was some way they would fix that, it would be better for the faction's identity.

[@jonathanmartin3767]

AMG had an idea, and poorly developed this through thier "extensive" playtesting. I play 2.5/2.6, however it is inferior to 2.0. I

[@kilroy987]

I played XWing 1.0 for a bit. I was thinking of looking at XWing 2.0, but the accepted ruleset seems to have splintered the playerbase a bit - not good.

[@thomaslardinois6383]

6:42 And bumping isn't even quite as strong as it was before now with range 0 attacks and bump actions

[@HairyNick]

Yeah I know... just trying to find some justification I suppose.

[@thomaslardinois6383]

@@HairyNick Ultimately, I agree with you. You make really good points and as a separatist player, I'd love to see more options when it comes to vulture swarms instead of always windmill slamming sep drones and haor challs

[@deedoublejay]

Commenting.

[@jeromekentz6616]

I think we all need to stop trying to compare this latest version with past versions. It is simply a different game. As for squad points for "generic" ships, nothing is stopping you from playing them. There are just better choices with "named" pilots. You also don't have to use the "named" pilot abilities or upgrades, but they are there if you want them. Deficit scoring exists more for tournament play. Even 1 or 2 points can affect standings with current "mission points" being used for players with the same win-loss scores. Though it might be a "feels bad" moment for list building, many games are also often decided by just a point or 2.

[@HairyNick]

This comment seems oddly defeatist. Why should we not strive for a more balanced system where more options are possible?

[@elliottweights3046]

I don't see a problem with the list building

[@elliottweights3046]

@@lloydpowell5683 I see words but you're either drunk or high. Stay safe

[@HairyNick]

Ok, enjoy then.

[@HairyNick]

Yeah my bad, that wasn't totally fair. (I can see comments after you delete them). I'm glad you've found to be list building to be positive in 2.5. :)