My Thoughts on X-wing 2.5 and the Future of the Game

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.
Please consider supporting the channel at
www.patreon.com/HairyNick
Every little bit helps!
Give us a sub over at our side channel, Extra Hairy!
kzbin.info/door/lxb634axs8Q7x89_aeVp7Q
Follow us on Twitter
HairyNickGaming
@HairyNickGaming
Follow us on Reddit
www.reddit.com/user/Hairy_Nick
Like us on Facebook
HairyNick/

[@zehmyan]

when this game launched, I was coaxed into being a store judge. I loved the game, and I have a massive collection. 2.0 killed our scene. when I finally broke down and got the conversion kits, it was literally a week before they made the move to 2.5 while all this was happening, I got engaged, moved, failed to get married, and changed house twice afterwards. Here we are years later.... I still have nearly everything... enough four four players to play at once just using my collection... but there's just nobody to play with. I've also found it impossible to get Legion games too. I've gone back to playing Magic the Gathering Commander, because its a game people play.

[@AJDaun]

I want to start playing in store, but we primarily play family table top. Consequently we played simple lists. It was really fun, but since the points change, we find it makes the list more complicated then what we want.

[@HairyNick]

I think for people in your situation, you should watch out for things like the Battle of Yavin scenario pack. I'm thinking that will go some ways to adress the complexity issue for casual play.

[@HairyNick]

Just a heads up, mate. When 2 commenters are having a civil discussion and someone else slides into the convo essentially shouting down someone's suggestion like you just have, that does not qualify as "being respectful", like I suggested in the video. You've been warned.

[@perthling]

The standardised loadouts in the scenario packs will be great for players feeling overwhelmed with a pile of upgrades stacked under the pilot cards. I'm looking forward to it.

[@cubsnextyear17]

Just got the battle of Yavin scenario so I decided to build some lists using the 20 point structure. It felt very restrictive in the fact that you are definitely encouraged to use the best pilot for each ship and load them with as many upgrades as possible. For a very casual player, I don’t like loading up ships with a bunch of upgrades for fear I will forget to use abilities on the cards. This I think will be the biggest challenge for new players. Quick build cards ok but most of them make for very weak squads.

[@Squirl513]

I have no problem with the scenarios since I used to play Imperial Assault before X-wing. I just have to reiterate that if you take control of a popular product, you have to be very careful about making changes. What if you are changing the very thing that made it popular to begin with?

[@EGOSUMFILMS]

I'M A NEW PLAYER to X-wing, so I have no 1st or pre-2.5 experience but I'm finding the difficulty in knowing what the rules actually are. I pull the new ships out of the box, starter set and expansions, read the rules with from the books and pamphlets included in the game (which are 2.0), and then get online to try to find keep up with 2.5 and all I wind up with is a crazy mishmash of both rules versions. I'm building 2.5 20 point lists, but then filling it out using the 'cheat cards' that come with the game. I'm having fun, it's working for me (I think?) and my also-new-to-the-game friend, but I wish this new company would just send me a new, complete, up-to-date rule set to replace the old. It's frustrating.

[@EGOSUMFILMS]

@@BobbyLCollins Exactly!

[@Squirl513]

The depth of the game under FFG design was fantastic. I literally have no clue how many hours I spent considering setups, approaches, and obstacle layouts. You could start a new player off flying casual then introduce as many elements as you wanted depending on how serious they wanted to be.

[@LLL74123]

I use the new rule changes but the old 200 point system for creating lists. Making generics useless is just dumb and such an avoidable mistake.

[@WeAreFulcrum]

My greatest critique with 2.5 has been 3 main things in regards to list building: (1). I feel like there is less agency and creativity being given to players in favor of "more stuff". Yes each game now has "more stuff" but how much of those decisions were critically thought about rather than just defaulting to "let me just put as many points on this ship as I am allowed to with little to no effect on the rest of the squad". Before in 2.0, every decision you made had an impact not only on the play of that ship but for every other ship in your list. If you put proton missiles on a ship, other ships had an economy cost with that. There was a "sacrifice" (So to say) with that decision and a strategy that you had to develop with that. (2) I simply don't like how generics (for the most part) are now the same price as the ace pilots on a particular chassis. If I wanted to fly more of a certain ship in a match (in 2.0), I could CHOOSE to fly the generic pilot so I could fit more of them on the board. (3) I also don't like how certain pilot cards (generic or aces) don't have access to upgrade slots that are common for the chassis. Why does a I3 Generic Y Wing not have access to a payload slot? The purpose of the Y wing is to bomb things. Why do I now not have the option to decide for myself if I want my initiative 3 ship to carry bombs. It's going from an open-world RPG game format to a Call of Duty style game where all your decisions are pretty much made for you and you just mash down buttons to victory.

[@hunterlopez425]

I'm very conflicted about the point system being online. for new players especially myself who just bought the game. we are not aware of 2 editions. so in this event, I have an even mix of 1st and 2nd editions. on top of that 1 st edition seems friendlier to understand due to the physical cards having points printed on them. being forced to be on your phone to check everything pulled from experience. compared to armada where no one uses their phones and just simply focuses on the game not checking their phones to see what upgrades are on their ships. also in the event of no wifi or service, how are you supposed to know the points of the ships? no casual or new player will remember the points. I've seen most veteran players brush this off and it can make it more discouraging especially if you don't have the finances for it and just wanted to get a couple of extra ships to try out with your friends on a budget.

[@dbzrevenge]

So I know you liked the simplicity of less upgrades, but I think there's one huge positive of the large number of upgrade cards...actually using the upgrades that have been just collecting dust or sitting in a binder somewhere. Now I can actually put R2-D2 on Luke or Chewie with Han and it's something I don't have to weigh the cost of adding another ship against. Granted, I'm not a competitive player and am more likely to play HotAC than play at a store, but it never sat right to me that the "best" way to play was to take a bunch of mostly naked ships so you could get more on the board.

[@Tvboy777]

Except we traded that for a bunch of banned upgrades and pilot cards that will now be collecting dust. Doesn't really seem that solved that problem, yeah?

[@dbzrevenge]

@@Tvboy777 In the grand scheme of things, there are a lot more upgrades seeing the table now than were banned, and they're only banned in Standard. Extended is still the wild west and as I mentioned I don't play in tournaments anyways, so the ban list is a moot point for me. Regardless, the issue I had wasn't that specific upgrades never saw play, it's that upgrades in general didn't get a lot of use, and we had significantly more upgrade cards than ships. I have approximately one of every x-wing product released, plus a few more and minus the vanilla reprints from 2.0. I have 3 very full binders of upgrade cards, and in 2.0 I used maybe 3 or 4 in a list. Now I tend to use that many or more on each ship, which I can generally fit more of in a squad. This is nothing but a positive for me.

[@markpicklesimer75]

I truly think this is one of the better videos about XWing out there right now. You call it rambling but you talk about it with such love and conviction that you help the game in so many different ways. You explain things so that us newer players can understand what you’re talking about and I was able to follow this video from beginning to end. I started playing the game when it switched over to 2.0. I got tabled immediately several times because I didn’t understand how pilot X worked with pilot Y for something incredible. I think this new layout helps with that. Like you said the new players to the game know certain things they need to do in order to get points.

[@HairyNick]

Thanks!

[@Zeromus5555]

Due to covid and the changes the community here completely disappeared. Pretty sad... I think the changes they made were totally unnecessary and scared off a lot of players by making the game way more complicated than it needed to be.

[@0dds388]

Why can’t people just play with the old rules? I just started this week and I’m not sure why everyone is upset. I want local players to exist :(

[@PhanthomMaster]

I played 2.5 once now and I feel not that much has changed. I always enjoyed objectives. (I miss the objectives they would add in 1.0 expansions, and enjoy the epic games expansion). I do agree the lack of granularity is a bit tricky. Especially when trying to not make an undercost list. Overall I enjoy the new rules. I do like each ship having a budget for upgrades. I always found it difficult weighing the value of an upgrade against a ship of equal pointscost.

[@SoranDalawi]

havent played in a while but glad to hear this "2.5" doesn't require us to purchase anything for our existing collection. as long as the game is still a blast to play like it was before, I'll be ok with it im sure

[@TabletopUpgrades]

I really enjoyed that, great nuanced even handed views and well presented- you strike me as the kind of dude I’d love to have across the table at an event. Well done dude, I have subscribed and look forward to more videos! Thanks for all your efforts!

[@Zowednessday]

THE SETUP IS CLASS!! You are actually nailing it, you are one of the KZbinrs I watch where it’s like Auto watch like don’t even look at the title

[@jordanbeard6687]

Legit question because I'm finding it hard to get a succinct answer to it. As an old 2.0 player, other than downloading the new rule book, and the new points sheets, do I NEED anything else? I'm seeing a lot of scenario play involving cargo tokens and obstacles I don't have. If I go to a Con and want to play will people expect me to have those? Will they expect me to have the new cards from Battle of Yavin or the new starter packs? Or can I just use the cards I have now and the printed rules/lists?

[@HairyNick]

My apologies for missing this comment. To answer your question, if you or anyone wants to play any game format post 2.0, then the second edition core set is the only physical thing you need to buy, you just get teh 2.5 rules from the official website. Extra cards and such are used to build out lists, so you only get cards you need in your squad. If there is scenario play at tournament those resources should be provided. I realize that your interest in having this answered may have drastically reduced given current events, but I wanted to be thorough and work through these comments. I appreciate the engagement regardless, and hope you've had a chance to play and enjoy the game.

[@matthiasbeboux1590]

Thank you very much for telling 2.5 is 2.0 with a new rule-set. I am new and was confused because there where upgrade sets from 1.0 to 2.0. And I - falsely - believed now there will be another upgrade needed.

[@johnparker7286]

Great video. A lot of good points. Loving 2.5 so far and I think it's going to keep getting better.

[@fieldmarshall]

I really appreciate that you used specific examples rather than only speaking in theory.

[@sketchartistpg]

Great content as always, Nick. I appreciate how you think things through and have your thoughts reasonably organized. As for who called it 2.5 I believe that is actually AMG - the RRG is labeled as 2.5.X.X.X. While I too love the direction AMG is taking the game (I missed scenarios is 2.0) and the objectives have given a clear indication of what you're supposed to do, they never did address the issues they claimed to have with the game. While they have added clear objectives, you still have to figure out what your opponents list is designed to do and how to fly against it - which was their big complaint about the game. Unless they go all prebuilds that will always be the case - the main draw to the game in my eyes. Honestly, I think if AMG had gone about the communications in a less adversarial way at the outset they likely wouldn't have had so many people up in arms. The changes they've made have been good, reasonably well thought out and when problems become apparent they deal with it quickly. As a company the only issue I have is their communication - beyond that I'm looking forward to where they take it (and Armada once they jump on that train)

[@andrewbeach9097]

Thanks for your well thought out and measured musings.

[@dennisw64]

I'm just curious. Will AMG reissue some of the older (out of production) ships? Will we be able to eventually purchase updated cards from the new errata?

[@HairyNick]

Good timing, we actually just got some info on this today. Stay tuned!

[@perthling]

Nick, another excellent video. Great topic - to bring all the "2.5 emotional adjustment" under one video is a good call. I love your holistic approach to things too. In other videos you've articulated well that this is a hobby, for enjoyment, and not to get worked up over things cos it's not good for our mental health. Great call. The one thing (as a new player) that hasn't really been discussed is the ban list. For me, I received the Ghost on the day the new ruleset was dropped. And suddenly Hera in the Ghost was banned - i.e. the most iconic pilot in the most iconic ship of a Star Wars series; in a Star Wars game about pilots in ships - was unplayable. That sort of thing was a poor move by AMG, and they should have committed to producing an errata card if the ability was so much against the new game philosophy. Just sharing another perspective. But otherwise I'm loving my growing collection, and gravitating toward Epic and huge ships. If I'm over Melbourne way, I'll drop you a line. But if you're heading to Perth anytime, lock in Tuesday night at Northern Boards (Wangara) and let us know you're coming. 😀

[@joshuawatson5195]

I played approximately 100 games in 2.5 - I had decided at about 50 games that it was...broken. And by game 100 I was ready to quit. Fortunately for me, the Legacy Initiative exists. The loss of granularity and the insane loadout assignment makes balance practically impossible. That's the sticking point for me. You mention that you feel that the objectives make it easier for new players by shaping the game, by making it less easy to "trick" a player at set-up. I find that to be quite untrue. The more games I played, the easier it was to see by about Turn 2 whether the game was a foregone conclusion. If you get behind on points, there is practically zero chance to stage a comeback. Let's say I set up a trap wherein my opponent rushes the objectives. Scoring by objectives only at the end of Turn 2, he's ahead 4-1, but I've spent my turns setting up a killbox just like I would have done in 2.0. I destroy two of his ships and lose two shields. I'm now ahead at the start of Turn 3, 8-4. By the end of Turn 3, I've picked up three more objectives because my opponent suddenly has too few ships to hold those objectives, because they spent the early game focused on those objectives rather than on dogfighting. By the end of Turn 4, I'm up 16-6, and the game is effectively over. This happens over and over. My last six games before I quit were all wins, by a total margin of 92-35. At the same time Turn Zero has become exponentially more important, there are perhaps three ships in any given faction that are in fact viable in a competitive sense - and more accurately, perhaps three *pilots*. And because balance is so difficult to achieve with the system they have implemented, this is unlikely to be rectified. It's thematic as all get-out, but it's a gameplay straightjacket. Finally, let's talk about the Battle of Yavin pack due to be released in the next few weeks/months. With its "Standard-legal" quickbuilds. This is a one-for-one match with AMG's only game experience prior to this point - Marvel Crisis Protocol. They are, as you've said, redesigning the game to match what they know. But it will not be X-Wing any more. It will be X-Wing Crisis Protocol. And it may well be a good game. But that isn't the game I want to play. (And man, I ain't even gonna start on AMG's communication skills....) So. I gave it a chance. I gave a good, long try. But the writing is on the wall. And Legacy 2.0 play is the Way forward. At least for this X-Wing player. I do hope that folks enjoy X-Wing Crisis Protocol, as I do want people to have fun. But I will mourn the crippling of the game that I love, and work diligently to support its revival.

[@GeneralBenobi]

Just curious, was this before or after the recent changes to scenarios? I've found that the points snowballing out has dropped dramatically since then and games feel better. If people are still going all in on objectives and not dogfighting (which was a valid strategy initially with the old scenario scoring on turn 1) then they're not really playing X-Wing, you can't ignore the dogfighting aspect anymore

[@joshuawatson5195]

@@GeneralBenobi Those last six games were all post-2.6 changes.

[@jyrlan2596]

Legacy 2.0 is the only path forward imo. I'm hoping the 2.0 crowd can strong-arm AMG into walking some of these changes back, but considering hoe openly hostile they've been to the community.... I won't hold my breath

[@joshuawatson5195]

@@jyrlan2596 Yeah, no. There will be no walking back, not by AMG, nor likely by any company that might someday follow it through whatever vagaries of the business world. I have reliable information, though, that there will soon(tm) be some big announcements from the Legacy Initiative that will demonstrate that 2.0 is alive and well.

[@HairyNick]

Appreciate the input from someone with experience with the new game system. :)

[@steve_w_k1749]

Thank you for a great video. I discovered x-wing in 2019 when second edition was new. I'm not a "gamer," I'm a star wars fan. I found a game by chance that appealed and I reached out. I met a very very small group of people who played at a local store and loved that it was nice people and good fun. Covid hit and x-wing became my escape and kept me sane - I learnt how to use the online methods and loved every minute. But I never forgot the original tactile game. I became invested - both in time and money. I wasn't a 'completionist' but by the fine covid lockdown ended I think there were only maybe 3 ships (including huge ships), in the factions that I played (Rebel, Empire, Scum, Republic) that I didn't have at least one of, or wings of, and I still have a corlllection in the hundreds. Then covid ended. Life changed. Time altered. And amg chose then to change the game - timing was either too soon or too late! So I disengaged. As a non gaming person- who found a game they loved. It pushed me away! My local scene (tiny as it was) was gone too. And the realities of life made my covid found group not easily practical anymore. I have a lovely collection of ships etc. and I'd never be parted from them. This video has inspired me to at least give the new rules a chance.... maybe?

[@banananas42]

I know this is a month later and not really relevant to your comment. I'm a new player but I've yet to buy anything other than the core set as I can't find anyone to play with. I was just wondering how you found the group you played with if you wouldn't mind telling me?

[@thomaslecomte1570]

As someone who wants to try out 2.5 but hasn’t been able to because local players have deserted, my main gripe is with list building. I’m fine with objectives and your last point is spot on. I also feel like big ships are in the best place they’ve ever been. But I cannot find a list that truly excites me and that’s a first in my history with xwing. Lack of granularity means some pilots are objectively better than others, worse than in 1.0. Also I feel actively discouraged from fielding generics, which was always the style of play I gravitated towards, and being forced to use all upgrades make lists bloated. I am not against this game, but everything discourages me while other games bring me joy whenever I think of them.

[@the_freebeard]

So I found your video randomly, and you seem like you engage pretty well with your audience. So I'm hoping I get a response, even though this video is 4 months old. I'm an old school 1.0 player who consciously chose not to upgrade to 2.0. The price of those upgrade kits were prohibitive at the time. Also, my friends and I were happy with the rules and selection of the ships we had. Now I've moved across the country, and I don't play with that group any more. So I've thought about getting back into the current game. You've said the barrier to entry is pretty low now. Does that hold for 1.0 players as well? Do I still have to buy those upgrade kits? I'm curious what you think would be the best way for someone like me to get back into the game.

[@HairyNick]

Realistically, it is equally as hard/ easy to get into the game now as in when 1.0 changed to 2.0. The game still uses all the 2.0 materials so yes, you need the upgrade kits to play the tournament legal version of the current rule set. Depending on how relaxed your local players are, you may be able to use the old materials and just print out lists/ use dials on your phone or something like that, if you just want to proxy the current ruleset to give it a go. Alternatively, you can use TTS and find games with people on Discord. One of the other cool things now is the card packs. If you were in this situation (having not played for a few years) in 1.0, you would have to source various upgrade cards to remain competative. In the current product release, the card packs let you access all the upgrades you need so you don't need to buy out of faction ships. Yeah I know that's one more thing you may feel like you need to buy, but at least it simplifies the process. (and who cares if you are just playing casually. The upgrade kits already give you the dials and tokens you need, and you can just print out lists). In terms of what YOU need right now, I'm sorry to say, I realize you don't like the conversion kits, but realistically it's the cleanest and simplest way of you getting into the current version of the game. Between whatever upgrade kit, and the card packs/ squadron packs (similar to the old ace packs) you've pretty much got everything you need in a realitvely small amount of products. In terms of what an older player would need to lear the new ruleset, the easiest way is to just get games in. Find players who are willing to teach and have casual games. The objective gameplay is a bit of a shift in playstyle, but AMG have balanced it so dogfighting is still very much the main focus. It's not like playing a totally different game, like some people seem to be suggesting. Sorry I'm not great at writing cohesively. I hope that helped.

[@bartdevuyst]

Excellent video, thanks for sharing your thoughts.

[@sunderedpsyche4289]

Gonna start by saying I am a relatively new player and I'm really enjoying the game. But as a new player I think I have a perspective that applies to Nick's video, given he talks about new players a lot. I can't obviously say how my experience was with 1.0, but this is my experience with 2.5. So to start with, I taught myself how to play in 3 evenings at home. That's how easy it is to learn. I'm not a rookie with wargames, I've played many other systems for years and years now. And I found the rules logical and easy to remember after a little practice. Another point I'd like to make is that a lot of the people who comment negatively on videos are the loud minority of tournament players. Not everyone plays tournament, as I've discovered with this and lots of other games. The tournament scene is wildy over estimated because those players are generally the ones with an opinion and want to be heard. Us causal players are not usually fussed by small changes. Also as a casual, we can choose to ignor rules, and I think that's an important point too. It's a table top game, you can easily change or ignor rules. Even local tournaments that don't push on to larger state or national levels can do this. We've done this with tournaments and leagues of other war games in my area. My play group can choose to limit 2 upgrades per ship, or say we won't play with objectives. That second one is how we generally play. Purely as a dog fight, last man standing wins. "That's not the rules now", sorry but come and stop me. I've been playing wargames long enough to know, the rules are what you and your opponent agree on, or you and your play group. Again, unless you're looking at state or nation wide competitive scene, you can do what you want. And most of all, I'd like to note, I havnt chased up the larger local play group in my area. I was disappointed but not surprised to find this negative attitude to change, and at the same time, the way things are. It's prevalent in all war games and especially on line. Take those comments with a grain of salt. Some people just like to complain and they don't represent all of us. So I want to just enjoy the game the way I do, and if that means I play with the same 4 guys and we tweek the rules. The main thing is we have a great time and enjoy the game. That's why we started playing right. If you don't enjoy it, why are you forcing yourself to plat it. And why do you try to force other people not to like it aswell. I've been on the receiving end of many a conversation where someone is trying to tell me why I shouldn't like a game or be okay with the rules update. Sorry but we can all have our own opinions. I'm happy to discuss and hear why you're not happy, but please don't try and make me side with you if I disagree. This isn't politics or religion, it's a game with toy ships. I'm loving this game, as much as i love many other war games. And I really think more casual players need to stop listening and being intimated by the loud tournament backed chatter on the internet. It puts new players off, please try to remember what it was like as a new player, and why you started playing. You can always play the way you want and you can always change the rules to be what you want. The board game police won't come and arrest you.

[@HairyNick]

Very well put. And yes, I always make sure I discuss new players and the barrier of entry. It's a key element in any great game.

[@sunderedpsyche4289]

@@HairyNick thanks for being a rational voice of reason Nick, it's not often we find a youtuber, or any social media influencer who isn't just trying to hype people up with negative opinions. Keep it up.

[@kmervau]

Yeah, I'm quite new to x-wing. I was getting my first ships while the 2.0-2.5 was happening. That was confusing haha. But now that the dust has settled, it's quite nice to have some distinct "this is how the game works" going on. Might be the advantage to coming at this brand new. I still have limited ships for only a few factions, so i do however find that difficult. I find the current state of things still heavily favoring competitive. For people like myself, i just want to have a good time with friends and play some ships and upgrades that look awesome! There is not much content out there for helping people in my situation "build with what you got and it's gonna be awesome". It feels a little hard to get in the community door when so many people are bent towards building the most known, sought out, and efficient lists possible and that's basically what you have to play or don't. So yeah, i'm here for all of it! I like the rules and can't wait for the SL cards to be honest. until then, i'll keep putting The Child on my razor crest piloted by Mando....because that was a fun show and that's all haha.

[@spyhardman]

I'm glad I found this video. I played a little of the first edition casually, and then never kept up with it after that. I was thinking of getting back into it, but I was confounded by the current state of things. My first stop was the vestigial product page on FFG's site, which did not help at all. Thanks for the digestible breakdown.

[@callumsmith9112]

Something I've enjoyed a lot about 2.5 is how close a lot of games are. I've had a vast majority of my games come down to induvidual decisions and being able to point to the exact action that cost, or won me the game. I also really love the way that upgrade points are rolled into the value of ships, it just feels nice not to choose between upgrades and an extra ship. Ultimately all my issues with 2.5 boil down to balance rather than design . Hull upgrade is illustrative here. The fact that it was the only passive, no-brainer upgrade in the mod slot in that price range meant it was hideously over-represented. I think, moving forward, filling out slots with varying price points of simple upgrade cards will be an excellent way of addressing the issues I've been having.

[@suntsutoriden]

I'm a veteran of xwing, been playing it since it was released in 2012. I agree with a lot of your points about how the game play itself has improved with the addition of objectives. My main criticism of the change from 2.0 to 2.5 are in the listbuilding, and in AMG and their lack of a cohesive communication strategy. For listbuilding, the loss of granularity in going from 200 to 20 means that suddenly there are a lot of pilots that are the same cost, and the only difference is their initiative, loadout and ability. So the choice of pilot is no longer about which pilots might synergise well in a list, it's about how many ships can I get into a list that are good for their points cost. The issue of upgrades has been flipped on its head in the move to 2.5. In 2.0, it was more efficient to run only a few upgrades (or even none) on a ship. In 2.5, it seems like the more of a hero you are, the better your loadout value is so the more upgrades you can (and should) take. It's tough luck if your only a middle initiative pilot, you get only a little bit. And they are pricing generic ships completely out of the game. A lot of the times, with the few meaningful upgrades left in certain slots, many pilots don't have the loadout necessary to properly utilise their upgrade slots, or don't have the upgrade slots to properly utilise their loadout value. My issue is that they claim to be making the game simpler, and they have made it a simpler and more engaging game when it gets to the table. However, the changes they have made to list building have the opposite effect, and is them basically saying: you play with the heroes, the way we want you to play, or you'll be penalised. Your example with the razorcrest pilots is a good one, but I prefer the example of Bwings. 4 blade Squadron veterans: 20 points, 24 loadout total, all initiative 3 Gina, Braylen, Ten Numb and Netrem: 20 points, 66 loadout total, initiative from 3 to 5. I and a lot of veteran players keenly feel the loss of the generic pilots as a tactical choice, with AMG saying why use these when you can have these heroes?" Maybe I don't want to, maybe I want matching initiative or to have some generic pilots to leverage a pilot ability or upgrade like Drea or Warthog. A lot of generic pilots have also had their upgrade bar savagely cut, to the point that they no longer have any meaningful options for their loadout. Just look at the generic U-wing, it doesn't even have a crew slot any more. I like the separation of loadout from squad points as a way to encourage some more upgrades and some more heroes on the board; but I don't like the skew it has created where certain pilots are not just arguably better, they are better. I would prefer a system that is more balanced, say each list can take say 50 points of loadout for the whole list. You can still load up your aces, but now generic pilots are a choice rather than a burden. I also take a lot of issue with the way AMG have communicated with the xwing community since being given custodianship of the Star Wars games. They have ignored us a lot, forcing us to crash into their communication streams for other games in order for them to acknowledge us and answer our questions. I get that they are still understaffed and dealing with having 4 games instead of 1, but they are showing a lack of respect for us as people invested in the game and wanting to know what is coming, or why a change was made. Also, they seem to hold anyone outside the US, or anyone interested in the future of OP, with a special kind of contempt.

[@Tvboy777]

Hear hear, if they went back to proper list building rules, I'd jump on 2.5 in a heartbeat. 20 points is unbalanceable unless they start introducing 1 point squad upgrades.

[@Avangion1871]

True especially for the international side of the game. In France, it's blatant. Edge, the French company translating X-Wing in french, didn't succeed to get regular contact with AMG and must struggle to get the material to translate. For AMG, players outside US don't seem to exist. It's really unprofessional.

[@HairyNick]

Oh wow, I had no idea!

[@azlanaddleman2448]

Also keep making videos love it whenever they show up on my feed

[@skaven131313]

Hi Nick. Going to agree and disagree. While there are some things I liked in the beginning of AMG's changes (such as deficit scoring and getting rid of the bid), the list building and objectives feels like they don't know what they doing. Capturing objectives is more along the lines of what Legion should have, because once I fly away from the object, I have no longer captured it. Also, I should be able to fly a generic x-wing with proton torpedoes or a generic vulture with energy shells, but the payload points don't allow for it (as of the last time I looked at point). It is as if they weren't looking at the game as a ship based game, but as some conflict between named pilots.

[@simont1299]

Great objective view as always Nick. Point 2 is the exact reason it shouldn't have happened when it did. It wasn't necessary. What 2.5 did is completely kill the moment that was building in my area. 2E had started to build through covid but then the AMG takeover lack of new ships and then 2.5 release absolutely killed all momentum. It felt like it was a throw away to AMG. And as is evidence by the downturn in content over the last 6 months on not just your channel but many others, the game has taken a massive hit.

[@peternystrom921]

I always go for the Bacon.

[@icholi88]

Its too many changes and too big not to call the system 2.5. If this were any other TT miniatures game, like warhammer, this would just be called 3rd edition (even if the cards and models are identical). If they wanted to add objectives to prevent degenerative play, great but I dont believe the old points system required an overhaul... at all. I'd have loved if they kept the old points system so people could take their old lists into the new game and just figured out what worked and what didn't naturally.

[@Tsotanga2]

Hey Nick, I wonder if it might be useful to do a recurring 'State of the Game' segment where folks can try to focus discussion on how they're feeling pos/neg about the current game state. With strong IPs like Star Wars that get integrated with our identities, change can be really hard on our mental health some days and we all need an outlet. I've always appreciated your push towards positivity and I think there's a way to healthily vent without exploding like a pressure cooker. Anywho, 2.5 is still in a weird spot for me personally - that said, I've only played simulator due to Covid/parenting time constraints. Super agree on the loss of granularity - removing options never feels great and no longer being able to justify running 'naked' ships just feels bad. I dont hate the loadout idea, but I would like to see them try 40-50 pts and see if that helps smooth any curves. Certainly still a dogfighting game, but I'm not sure that it's really easier to identify win conditions/strategies with 2.5. I'm not worried about fishbowling or fortressing as much, but now I've got a whole new set of objective variables that can be difficult to balance w/ ship destruction. When do I ever pursue an enemy ship instead of an objective? I find that quandry quite strategically difficult in a manner that's near on-par with guessing where the hell the Imperial Phantoms are going to go. I love the idea of objective play, but most of the scenarios seem unnecessarily themeless. Why are we going after satellites and not shield generators or bothan spy escape pods? I want to push AMG into getting more creative with the variety of play - revamped scenarios w/ thematic tie-ins, and I'd really love to see asymmetrical objectives, where say one side scores points primarily for objectives, the other for ship destruction. The potential is there for greatness and I'm excited to see where the AMG team eventually goes.

[@leifsorensen352]

The biggest issue I have with 2.5 is the random objectives. I would love any way to let the players choose what objective they want to play.

[@HairyNick]

I mean, in a casual setting you can just do whatever you want. But the intention for tournament play is you don't design lists designed to crush one specific objective.

[@PsychJ7]

For #3. I do agree the loss of granularity really does affect the value of ships as it feels very uneven between pilots at the same price cost and different loadout value. If they were able to at minimum double the points to 40, we can see that resolved a bit. I do enjoy the loadout value being separate as it can serve a tool to surgically balance a particular pilot with their points and slots without affect the rest of the pilots in that chassis. It is not balanced currently, but the last points update did bring that to light in balancing the game more without sweeping changes. #6 I do agree with your point that the flow of the game is easier to comprehend for newer players. I have found myself enjoying the scenario play and wished there was more scenarios to choose from to add more variety for tourney play. Im sure with time we will get there. 2.5 is still in its infancy and still has elements that have not been fully flushed out. End of the day, I accept that 2.5 it isnt everyone's cup of tea and that is ok. Maybe they will comeback when the game is in a better state for their tastes. In the meantime, I am here for the log haul.

[@matthewcary615]

Hey Nick! In their December stream revealing the new rules, Atomic Mass coined the term 2.5 for this new version. It's about 30 seconds into the stream.

[@MarcusLeese]

I'm a newbie trying to decide whether or not I'm going to pick up the X-Wing starter set. I only just found out about the existence of a "2.5" and I found your video very helpful in understanding the state of the game right now and whether or not to get into it. Thank you!

I would say that the 2nd edition is very fun, I've played it only with friends and cousins. It has a learning curve, but it's fun. And once you start to surf the forums you'll realize that there is a lot you can do with the game with the custom campaigns and scenarios, as well as customizing the ships can be a hobby of itself, you can also have homebrew rules with the people you play with, so I would say go for it. The game also include some "prebuild" ships so you don't worry about learning what every possible upgrade combination can do at the beginning and just have fun, also every ship you buy includes some prebuilts. Of course, it is entirely a different matter if you are aiming for more of a serious play in tournaments and such. Edit: You can also buy 2 startere sets, 'cause that gives you more value for you money for the ships it includes, and also that way you can have 2 sets of rulers and also the extra dice that come very very handy when playing with some ships you can buy later on. Or you can just buy the extra dice and rules separately, that is also an option if you don't want more TIEs or X-wings and prefer the other factions.

[@brandoncurtis1636]

I was absolutely one of the people who got discouraged and put away my ships when 2.5 started because I was already a casual player and then there were gonna be new rules and I just said “Ah forget it”. I’m guilty of doing that before even seriously reading the rule changes. Having seen this, I feel much more inspired to actually pick it up again and go find some local games! Well said, Nick!

[@willmendoza8498]

I am waiting for things to stabilize before I go too deep into 2.5. I see some things I like, some things I don’t, and some stuff I can’t quite grok yet.

[@danialjelkin9128]

My brother and I are learning this game together and We haven't tried any of the objectives yet we went into just a plain dogfight. I had trouble with getting confused with the different rule sets because i picked up a core set, we played right out of the box but then when doing some research i found these all new rules. but I do like objective gameplay overall so I think I will enjoy it. I feel like I got into this game at both a great and awful time. it's great because I can learn the new ruleset as my first go and not have to try and "relearn" the game but its also kind of rough because all of my physical documents that I reference if I have a question aren't matching the new ruleset. I didn't have the experience of someone doing a bunch of things I don't understand because my opponent new as little as I did about the game

[@HairyNick]

In all honesty, %90 of the changes from 2.0 > 2.5 can be learned in a tournament setting. Having the 2.0 rules out of the box is still a great way to pick up the game and learn the core mechanics. The quickbuild cards with threat levels were never tournament legal anyway, they were always a learning tool and are just as relevant now as they were previously. The only important thing to change in the fundament game (before you look at the new points system and scenarios) is the way you interact with asteroids and bump ships. In terms of learning complex interactions ect, honestly that isn't anything new for the game. I learned in tournament settings (the hard way) how to deal with spicy tournament lists, but if you want a more freindly approach, best thing to do is sit down with a more experienced player in a casual settings.

[@cosyprobably]

I definitely was one of the skeptics. Didn’t rage online about it but fumed for a good couple months. Finally gave it a chance this weekend and my takeaway was a lot more hopeful than I expected. Scenarios are great. I love the interesting choices they force and the gameplay wrinkles presented. Obstacle damage makes sense- it should hurt to run into stuff. I don’t love range 0 and list building changes, however. I’m teaching a friend tonight and I can’t put together a 3 ship no upgrade teach list like I used to and not just deviate from the rule set. I suppose in all this time will tell.

[@AudioAnode]

Just a thought: there's nothing to say that you can't build simple lists when teaching the core mechanics of the game. You could start with 12 Squad Points and just use generic pilots, or basically just do whatever you want to teach dials, maneuvering, actions, and combat. Once the core is there, you can expand the game from there!

[@matthewrice7539]

My biggest issue with how AMG rolled this out was making changes that conflicted with the reasons they gave for making the changes, and instead of rolling out the changes incrementally, threw these contradictions all out at once. The biggest among them is deficit scoring. If that change was made to 2.0 in a vacuum, it fixes/balances initiative bids, but then they made the points less granular while stating 'we want you to be able to bring the ships you want'. But now what happens when I have the ships I want, but its only 19 pts? I can't fill that last point with upgrades etc. and its now forcing me to edit my list because that 1 point given to my opponent straight away is a much bigger advantage. This forces me, usually, to take one of a very limited number of two point ships. Overall segregating loadout points from squad points was a major fail.

[@HairyNick]

Ah yes, the 19 point conundrum. Completely agree that a player shouldn't be punished for feilding 19 or even 18 points.

[@jonathanmartin3767]

The "make it simpler and easier for new players" was complete BS. So many more rules and different list building system. AMG seems to treat the Stars Wars properties as the step child. It wont be long till we see Legion turn I to, Crisis Protocol: Legion.

[@johnnyrazo1806]

I used to play 1st edition and it was loads of fun. Although starting a family and Covid made it difficult to come back to xwing. Finding out I need to buy bunch of updated items and new starter kits I feel I should look at other type of table top

[@ianglasson8068]

Great comments Nick - but for one thing - since the change try finding somewhere to play now that the drop off in players has happened. Brisbane north side

[@wildkatze69]

10 minutes in and I'm so loving what you're saying Nick. I'm in the unfortunate group that doesn't like the change in the ethos of the game. Great if not the best video reflecting what happened. One of the biggest problem the game had/has is the double or triple conditional text on pilot skills or upgrades. A sign that the design space for a game has been exhausted. I however do not agree that objectives add to the game, make it easier, are good for it or were needed. For once their addition actually created the 20 point idea and therefore split between pilot and equipment currency. This is probably the biggest put off for many at turn 0 that then do not get motivation to try the revised game. There are many games that have objectives embedded into the game design from the start without the feel that it has been retro fitted. Armada is a good example. X-WING has been a game without objectives for a long time and filled that niche elegantly. Arguably the new X-WING objectives are also little thematic to a space fighter game. They all appear more like ground combat with the wording converted. Where are the fighter escorts or bombing runs? As said before the thought of do I want an objectives game and turn 0 is where player motivation starts. Also having a saturation of other games and little time is a fact. So let's be careful dissing ex players not wanting to give it try. A lot of the ex-X-WING players in North Melbourne are now playing Armada.

[@casualdadgames]

I'm late to the party, but really enjoyed/appreciated this!

[@HairyNick]

This party never stops.

[@casualdadgames]

@@HairyNick that's what I like to hear :D

[@zaffytaffy7412]

I feel like the drastic changes, as much as they needn't have happened, strictly speaking, might have been a way for AMG to "Rip off the bandaid", so to speak. Working on a game that was designed by another team with other sensibilities would likely have caused some strain between game elemnents designed by one company and the other's. Honestly, if that's the case, I certainly prefer 2.5 now than an eventual 3.0 that might have been required if we hadn't had that adjustment. I'm kinda bummed that so many generic pilots feel strictly inferior to named alternatives in the same points band, even if it does make sense from a game design (generics are supposed to fill holes in a list) and marketing (we want see iconic pilots on the table) way. Then again, this is mostly an artefact of me mostly playing in a scenario and role-play driven thing. Honestly, it'd be all solved if I had a list-building resource that allows for me to "uncap" loadout points for a given pilot to help me plot scenarios. I certainly don't envy the folks at YASB who have had to explain the rules changes to folks who didn't know about them and thought the site was bugged.

[@talhaiqbal6798]

I am interested in getting X-wing but the slew of comments and reviews in youtube videos, BGG, etc. really confuse potential new players like myself. I understand the shift from 1.0 to 2.0 but the one from 2.0 to 2.5 is really strange (some are even calling it 3.0). I don't know whether I should wait for new packs to come out or if there will be erratad'd packs coming out (like the upgrade card collection in armada). I personally hate buying packs just to find out that like 1/4 of them have their wording changed or a rules set in the core box that has major differences from the new rules. So at times the game just seems unstable but I really do want to try it. Some have suggested I stick with the regular rules for 2.0 and that the "2.5" rules are just for tournaments. But there's also the fact that points and the game systems are digital, always referenced on a third party app and will they be changing to 2.5 or holding back? So like where do I begin or do I hold off till things have settled?

[@HairyNick]

Yeah. Basically if you are getting into the game now the core set and basic rules that come with it are all good to dive into for learning, but you'll need to use the 2.5 rules reference document if you want to get into tournament play and use YASB to build lists. My advice for any new player at this point is not to worry about trying to learn EVERYTHING before going into an LGS, but go into a game store on a casual night and sit down for a demo game with an expierienced player.

[@talhaiqbal6798]

@@HairyNick Yeah, unfortunately there aren't really any stores or places where I am that I can just hop over to for such a thing so the internet is my way of seeing more.

[@Vigilante9033]

Miss ya Nick

[@franciscojaviergonzalez3700]

Hi Nick I was very upset about AMG changes in xwing. But now I uderstand some things about why these changes have been done. All of us, with an old game "mature product", big community and an important competitive circuit, will do the same: try to push the game up for more sellings and save our jobs. With better or worse decissions than AMG took. AMG has done them as better and professional they could be. And they have my respect for this. We continue to play dogfight, because is our "scenario". And we continue having fun with the game.

[@a_sethhale]

Seeing Xwing 2.5 on googles autofill gave me a heart attack when I started getting back into the game. Thought I was gonna have to get conversions kits and I was so sad. Glad to hear thats not the case

[@brianjones3321]

Hey Hairy did you see that 2.5 nixed autoblaster? Sad times.

[@tedpeterson8842]

I was a heavy at home player of x-wing player till 2017...I moved out of state and didn't really have anyone to play with...I never saw a reason to invest in second edition or the need to buy all those conversion kits...if it came asca complete single conversion kit I would have been more apt to try second edion...I do miss playing though and found this video informative

[@BA-1991]

In first time by coming out of '2.5' i was disappointed due to the way how amg brought the changes, but my friends convinced me to play and for my own surprise the game made me more confidence and now i like it very much. IT is not easier as 2.0 but a new challenge for longtime gamers like me. So for all x wing players i can say make some games first before blocking IT.

[@azlanaddleman2448]

I didn’t like the changes at first. However, after a change in mindset and forcing myself to play with the new mindset. I actually really like the new stuff, I’m having so much fun with it.

[@Arcon1337]

I wish you didn't miss out on the huge aspect of upgrading from 1.0 to 2.5. It's not incredibly expensive for us who still have 1.0 sets to upgrade as the conversion kits are barely available and being sold at extortionate prices. I have a collection of the majority of 1.0 ships, and some in multiples. It's going to cost me about £200-400 to upgrade my collection. And I don't even know if I want to get back into it. Maybe for new players, but I feel like those of us who haven't upgraded yet and want to get back into the game, have been royally screwed over. I really want to play x wing again. But there isn't anyone playing 1.0 and only a handful playing 2.5. Splitting the community really sucks. I wish they still printed more of the conversion kits for those of us who got left behind.

[@Duncecap64]

The issue from what I hear is this made Xwing more into a traditional war game more than its own thing, which is a case of institutional inertia. Like just as a base concept having Aces and dedicated fighter platforms do the role of transport duty (get to and secure an objective) just feels wrong fundamentally. The other issue i see is that this goes in the other direction with Balance as more generic lists with less upgrades suddenly become obsolete, which was an issue specifically after clone wars era was introduced (before we had Mixed lists much more frequently, 2019 Finals really showed that). The Vulture was probably the biggest shake up since a swarm platform cheaper than the swarm platform the game was designed around kind of breaks your design space since now its "ok what upgrades can this thing take and cost the same as the balance point" is hard to design around. Now we are in a state where generic swarm lists suffer if pilots who worked well enough without upgrades (Grand Inquisitor comes to mind) replace generic chaff for 0 cost. Less upgrades doesn't negate that they now get upgrades when they worked fine without them, a fully kited Wedge or Vader is way more dangerous now than before as sure you could get that in FFG days and then some, but that painted a very big "Shoot them off the table first" target on them. It feels though more at a fundamental level the new design wasn't make Xwing its own thing but make Xwing more like traditional war games, which is Def a case of making the game more generic.

[@andrewmrozek5778]

2 things Mr. Hairy 1. I think your comments are pretty spot on for my take on the game right now. My play group 🦢 dived right into 2.5 and noticed a lot of pros and cons. Mostly pros and were pumped to see AMG take some course corrections with things we saw as cons. 2. Super excited to see you got a bigger space! Also for people who love 2.0, give chance engagement a try, a little dip your toe in the water to see how you might like it.

[@suntsutoriden]

A few more thoughts: About the naming convention of 2.5. Its probably a relic of the infamous 3.5 edition of DnD. Its to refer to the fact that, while in name its still the same game/edition; there have been some fundamental changes to the game that dramatically alter the way the game is played, the way its viewed by the community and how its supported going forward. Yes it still retains a lot of the original mechanics and play on the table, but there are a lot of things that have changed from the design ethos to the scoring to the listbuilding that to call it the same game as 2.0 released under FFG is no longer accurate, hence 2.5. I suspect that if AMG ever do a complete redo of the game from the ground up, it will be officially called the 3rd edition, but until then the community will probably refer to it as 2.5, and they will be stuck with that.

[@mattg5852]

Right now my biggest issues with AMG is with the huge changes they made to their second (or third?) points release. I’m not saying all the points changed they made were bad, many of the ship point changes feel good. My issue is with the lowering of ship load out costs while the increase in many of the upgrade cards.

[@mandomerlie1997]

Can you make a video on the end of X-wing development??? Please!!!

[@HairyNick]

Yeah I will. I am currently dealing with a bout of covid, so it might take a little while.

[@mandomerlie1997]

@@HairyNick sorry to hear about the Covid take your time. Thank you for always being the knowledgeable, level headed leader that this community needs.

[@dvdhthsctt]

I have to say that I large agree with every point here, but I think that one thing that is overlooked/not factored when thinking about the 2.0 > 2.5 transition and the reasoning behind it and it's quite simply, the business case. The reprints of ships for 2.0 didn't sell to the level that Asmodee hoped. Retailers still had dead stock from 1.0 and so a reprinted Z95 isn't going anywhere any time soon. Asmodee will also have dead stock and that's something that any business hates. So, you look at why aren't these ships selling? One line of thought is that the game isn't attracting new players who will need to buy those products, and that, in my opinion was AMG's charge - get new players coming into the game. Make it simpler, mix things up. The Star Wars IP isn't cheap, it's got to start pulling its weight financially and we are now hitting peak Disney commodification of the brand, so there's going to be no shortage of new ships/designs/characters.There was some changes made for the sake of changes, in my honest opinion, but it's all a net positive. Also, the comms strategy from AMG is very flawed/non-apparent. That's really compounded a lot of frustrations from people who were already not looking to give AMG/2.5 the benefit of the doubt. Thanks for a well reasoned and rational argument on 2.5.

[@michaelcacchillo7003]

I've been 1 of those people saying "they ruined Xwing" without having played since 1st edition. I have a game scheduled tonight because I'm tired of seeing all my ships collecting dust.

[@nickdavis6350]

I’m down in the south east suburbs an pretty new to the game. Managed to spend too much money but not been able to play many games.

[@HairyNick]

Make sure you jump on the X-wing Melbourne group on Facebook so you can get info on the local events. Also, feel free to message me there through my page and I'd be happy to point you in the direction of where to get some casual games. :) (Don't want to state that publicly here so I don't dox myself)

[@PabsEI]

Nice vid Nick, 2.5.1 been great

[@fatpad00]

I thunk if they slowly introduced the changes over a year or two, they would have been better recieved. Like if they introduced ROAD, R0, and obstacle changes, then 6 months later added objectives, then another year later changed list building, it would have caused less drama in the playerbase. Instead, they make sweeping changes all at once without seeing how the players react.

[@HairyNick]

Hmmmm I think it would have been better for the game, yes. But also I feel that there would be a risk of people reacting badly each time it happened. You could argue that one big change, ie, one negative audeince reaction might be better. Who's to say.

[@gpodgorzak]

You basically pesented of what I think about the game. Seeing people leaving game makes me sad because it still isa really good game. You are also right that the biggest "mistake" is the upgrade overload problem. Exellent summary.

[@miller1172]

ive only played 1.0 and i seem to be de incentivized to play 2.0 and 2.5 i used to be a gereric pilot spammer and it seems that the current gameplay wants you to ignore generic characters and only play characters with 8 abilities to keep track of.

[@joehendrson3815]

Nick what's up hope you are good we need some new vids what you think about the state of X wing you are the best at least explainig the games.

[@LegionaireSiggi]

Honestly, for my community, which seemed small pre-covid, the changes seem to be a death stroke. For myself as a returning player, the changes to list building just don't seem right. Upgrades feeling like they are free would not be so bad if the was greater granularity. It really felt like they were trying out the Warmachine Mk2 points system in X-wing.

[@kaisquared90]

Haven't played since covid and coming back to the new rules yesterday, list building seems a lot simpler and they seem to be making a lot more effort in having a balanced meta. The scenarios also prevent a lot of the playstyles that made the game very unfun to play when 2.0 was first released.

[@theunseloff9520]

We are 35 people in our club. No one is playing it any more, most people are really frustrated with amg

[@bardylon]

I think AMG might be onto something with the upcoming Battle of Yavin scenario pack. I’ve never been into the tournament scene but love narrative/thematic games so these scenario packs have me very interested again.

[@HairyNick]

Yeah it's gotten me hype. The new pilot cards certainly seem to be a good answer to upgrade bloat.

[@nerfherderpictures92]

i dropped x-wing for shatterpoint, best decision ive made in years

[@HairyNick]

The game looks awesome, but I wish X-wing was getting the amount of content Shatterpoint is getting. Kinda sucks going this long without a new ship.

[@sebastianromero113]

Killing swarms and generic pilots is a problem. Bumping friendlys and cost points needs to change. I mean whats the point in bringing Blue Squad Pilot, if you can take Braylen for the just the same price, its unbelievable BS. Named pilots are even cheaper, then generic, I mean what? Point of 2.0 was to bring actual x-wings and ties to the game, right? Now what?

[@chucktyler4057]

Star Wars X Wing is blessed. Just look at what AMG did to the Armada crowd

[@HairyNick]

I sucks what has happened to Armada. However that fact doesn't make what's happened to X-wing better. If anything it's just further evidence of poor decision making.

[@danteunknown2108]

This comment aged like milk lol

[@jasonrhoads3908]

I really enjoyed your candid opinions on this video and thank you for this! First off, I am generally a supporter of AMG's "2.5". I am a "new" player of 7 months and I have been trying to recruit new players as well so take this FWIW. However, here is where I have to vent my frustrations to AMG/Asmodee whoever... How can you market/promote/retain a game where you have a Core Set that is being sold with rules that are outdated, a website that a new player would want to come to (the official source) that hardly mentions the game beyond several clicks and the reliance solely upon the great work that 3rd party apps/websites do (YASB, LBN Infinite Arenas)?! Add in the non-existence of local store tourney prize support and I have to ask AMG "What do you do here?" I've just seen a high barrier of entry for the new players that I have tried to take on and I sometimes feel like I should send an Invoice to AMG for my time on the phone trying to explain to them what should have been their job to release as a product.

[@HairyNick]

Agreed. AMG's communication has been terrible on this front.

[@Dassenkop]

I don’t agree with a lot of your points. Still playing as the core of hidden dials, maneuvering and the tension of rolling dice are what keeps me with the game.

[@Wh0isTh3D0ct0r]

X-Wing was already dying in my area by Fall 2019 because the game was hemorrhaging players without replacing them. The pandemic was just the final nail in the coffin. But what really ticks me off is that our local game store still uses all of their tables for displaying all the products that they don't have room for on their shelves, so they still don't allow any in-person gaming........except for MtG. They clear off the tables every Friday for FNM.

[@HairyNick]

That's rough :/

[@Wh0isTh3D0ct0r]

@@HairyNick Exactly. And I have TONS of X-Wing content lying around because I am a freelancer who helped with the whole production line under FFG, but I literally haven't opened ANY new X-Wing product since Fall 2019. :-(

[@JamesW6179]

I feel like the "not dogfighting" is less the objectives, and more the cards. The game has moved away a good bit from dials and positioning and now more a card game. This is why I hated late 1.0, because it started to feel like some kind of deck builder. With the "Hey, have every upgrade possible", we're going back to the days of card combos over flying.

[@HairyNick]

Yeah I think something needs to be done to curtail the level of complexity in upgrade bloat atm.

[@andreazanetti7667]

Stall and fortressing in 2.0 are simlply the only things that some squad can do against certain archetipes... is not frustrating... it's a simple strategy. These strategies allow to balance different situations. This is not possible in 2.5. The result in fact is a flatness of list building. Listbuilding that is impossible to balance. So Everybody choose ships that are convenient more than what they like. Meh! Thanks but i stay with 2.0

[@joehendrson3815]

Good to see ya Nick!!! First thing Do no get it twisted I love playing X wing 2.5 but I not feeling objective based play. I like dogfights trying to get points and be close to an objects to get points is hard for me dogfights is my thing my list against your list nothing to think about just try to out fly each other.in fact I have not won a game yet in new format talk a bout negative play experience, but I do not quit I would hope they may revisit the dogfight and leave it up to local stores so we can have a choice to dogfights or to do objective based tournaments or both. I do not like the pre build direction they maybe trying to go for me half the fun is building and managing my point and building a list that play to my skill set so I remember my triggers. last thing is ships and cards how can a non Ace ship be the same amount as an Ace I cannot put the same a mount of upgrades points on it. if I pay for the ace I WANT the ace if I pay for a filler ship I should not pay ace prices and do not have the same upgrade points. In my mind x wing only needed minor fixes and as a Military man I "say if its not broke don't try to fix it" AND" KISS" KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID". LOL

[@legodovakin]

Rules are fine don't mind, I don't mind the scenarios etc. But, holy cow do I not care for the entire list building aspect. The floor of building a list is way higher but the ceiling is way lower imo. Simple casual games with people who play a few times a year are harder to balance because before using generics with little to no upgrades was the way to go, but now your upgrades are baked into the ship cost. On the more experienced level (but still casual) the load out is so unfun, I loved running a few super upgraded ships especially when trying to use bombs, I adored thematic lists where I used the entire ghost crew. You bring up tournaments and matched play a lot, but how many people actually go to those things? I'm not sure myself because not only is my area completely devoid of x-wing players (who are also not rude people) my social anxiety would prevent me from ever going to such an event. I literally don't care at all about tournaments, hell I don't even care if the game is super balanced because we're not net decking lists because we're flying what we think is cool. The only thing I care about is if the game is fun and if it's easy to teach someone, and I'd say both of those things took a major hit from the list building changes alone. That's why I'm thrilled to have found a community on discord that has brought back 2.0 list building including making points for new cards/ships! It's called 2.0 legacy and they even have a squad builder built on YASB. Personally when I play with friends and family it will be with 2.5 rules and 2.0 legacy points because not only is it easier it's more fun.

[@Ty-yy7zr]

The only thing I, myself, have a bit of a problem with is the banned list. From a certain point of view, it is not necessary at all. There is already a format of play (standard) that restricts cards. Why implement this in everything, including extended, where you should be able to play with everything. I, personally, don't see a reason to have it, and really don't pay attention to it, unless it's the rare opportunity that I go to a tourney.

[@dbzrevenge]

Apart from Delta 7B (which was errata-ed into its own ship), nothing is banned in Extended. The Ban list only applies to Standard, unless you go out of your way to apply it to Extended. Officially, Extended is still the Wild West.

[@Ty-yy7zr]

@@dbzrevenge and yet I have heard of extended tournaments with the banned list in effect.

[@TheReiver1599]

What i hate most about the game now is the amount if ships that are excluded from Standartd play. I'm a Scum player and have 30 odd ships , only six of them are in Standard format(4 Fang Fighters, 2 Firesprays) I've playted a few lists with them but il;m bored now, i want my Triple casters list back, 5 Khirakz list back, 4 Scurgs list back, I mean Starvipers ffs arent Standard, along with Tug Boats and 4-LOM in his G1A. AMG need to gt their s**t toigether and either release these ships in 2nd edition, or make them Standard format.

[@Tanglangfa]

I got into xwing for a couple of months and then 2.0 was announced with it’s new bases etc. I loved the game but I didn’t want to rebuy stuff. Games Workshop does the same bs with Warhammer and WH 40k. About the time you get a good army going, they release a new edition with new models etc etc. It feels like a cash grab every time.

[@eppursimuoveeppursimuove7111]

2.0 live!

[@JS-mp7fy]

I want to add the caveat that I have not been able to play 2.5 yet due to working full time, studying and having a family. So take the following with a pinch of salt I guess. I have mostly liked the changes that 2.5 made. I have thought for a very long time that initiative being set pre game was a feels bad moment, the same skilled pilots should have equal opportunity in moving second, not I am going to mega low ball initiative bid and now I have the high ground, such as Boba/+1 did. With the combo of cards that Boba could have, you could have exactly the same load out on 2 Boba's and the one that moved second was vastly superior. I am glad of the random order and the initiative bid crutch is gone. I like the idea of the scenarios, I was bored of dog fights, I like the variety, but never played them, I don't know if they have been implemented well, but from what I have heard, most people like them. The things I don't like and the first is an FFG thing too, was that if I wanted to fly IG Aggressors...too bad. The game formats are supposed to be inclusive, but if I want to try out FO with Kylo and Upsilon etc, I cant because they haven't had a second release and there isn't a road map of anything X Wing from AMG. Rob Munro from ReconPaint Gaming loves K Wings, he doesnt care about meta gaming, but because K Wings haven't had a 2nd release, he can't fly what he loves. I also do not like the 20 point system... How is it easier to balance 20 points over 200? You telling me a shield upgrade on Bossk and Fenn are worth the same? I think that part of the game is poorly implemented. Overall, AMG's communication has been worse than poor. I went to the first Aus System Open in 2019, was pumped for the next open and more competitive gameplay..... But with AMG's hand over, I don't even know what is coming next wave, or what it even might be. There is zero hype generation from AMG and they suck massively creating interest in this game. Well...that was a lot longer than i intended... I love X Wing, I just want to see it flourish.

[@timthurston3877]

I am sorry Nick, but I have to disagree with you that 2.5 is as good as the older game. I am happy that you did mention that it was necessary for them to say that it wasn't necessarily needed to change the game. All I know is none of my players are going to play 2.5 and we as a store will not play the new 2.5 ever.

[@HairyNick]

I did not, at any point, say that 2.5 is better/ worse than 2.0.

[@azlanaddleman2448]

I also think AMG’s main issue is how they word things and their communication. They worded stuff to be new player friendly when it’s actually more complex to certain degrees than it was before. That said as I stated before I really am not enjoying this new setup. As I was super critical of it before.

[@HairyNick]

Yeah communication isn't their strong point. Was going to talk about the lack of article ect, but decided this video would be long enough as is.

[@danterminater6363]

I've recently been getting back into 2.5 and I am still not a fan of some aspects. Old ace play is dead imo, 2.5 feels like joust central. I used to be a triple silencer player, and that archetype is dead. the game has taken high agility ships with good action suites and forced them to contest objectives to the point that you cant wait for the right time to engage. there is not the same level of patient play. I miss ffg 2.0 x wing. I feel like I need to keep playing 2.5 though as Ive sunk several thousands into the game. The game has become bitter sweet.

[@jonathanmartin3767]

The 20 point system is the biggest problem. If you look at ships across any faction, at a certain poi t value, it is unbalanced. For example, why pay 5 for a Skull Squadron Pilot when I can get Cad Bane at the same points, with better loadout? The 200 point system allowed for finer adjustments to level the different ships. If AMG would go to 40 points and fine tune the ship poi ts, it would therefore have to adjust the victory condition. I think objective games are.okay, but it is forced into a game not designed for that. I play 2.5 because that is what is played locally. Am I happy about.2.5? No. Is it an improvement? Not really.

[@mikea5562]

Hi. I like the new rules. The fighters are so unbalanced now. 20 pionts for a squad should be 20 points for squadron upgrades so you would have to see what fighter you are going to put the upgrades on. I like playing x-wing i'm not into a card game. You put on all the upgrades and you forget to use over half of them.

[@HairyNick]

Yup upgrade complexity is certainly an issue atm.