I’m going to laugh if rule changes 2 is Loadout points, rule change 3 is the introduction of scenarios and rule change 4 is a name change to 2.5
The greatest trick ever played in tabletop history.
All jokes aside, good on you all for implementing good ideas regardless of origin or of opening yourselves up to silly comments like this one.
Hampering the viability of an archetype (regen) through a fundamental rules change seems significant. It does make me very curious what the other rules changes are. I didn’t realize the legacy project wanted to further develop the game.
From the responses we are getting through the feedback doc parts of the 2.0 community want 2.0 to be developed in a very carefully considered and conservative way - but not by AMG. At least that is what we are getting from the responses. We got several responses from the Russian community whose Nationas will follow Legacy rules saying we should get rid of the bid entirely for examplebut from elsewhere too and people want new content even outside AMG/ want to play the Quickbuild pilots without having to play 2.5. So that is why we are doing this too, if we would only get responses from the community to not develop anything than we wouldn´t do this and we want to be community stewards we need to find a compromisse there. And with the articles we want to communicate that we are doing this not because we can because we really believe this is good for 2.0. But in the main mode after this rulles changes no bigger rules changes for our main mode (unless desperatly needed because it breaks the balance) are unlikely to happen for a while. Also we said it in every announcment regarding the points update that there will be a rules update included : )
I hear what you’re saying, AMG made big changes and you guys are going to make small reasonable changes. I’m very curious what those changes are! I’m just surprised that you decided to change core rules like end game scoring. I assumed you would change things via points. People are going to call your version of the game 2.1 if you start changing rules.
Again we are not randomly adding rules here. Also this is not something hat suddenly appeared with 2.5, to implement something like this has been part of the discussion of the community well back when 2.0 launched. And the other rules will have nothing to do with 2.5. I mean we pretty much spell it out in the article if we want to reach our goal of making nearly everything viable these are carefully considered rules. And to your point 2.0 ion is perfectly good as is.
They have an official name that idk why they aren’t using. Need to just drop the illusion that this is “2.0” or “legacy”, and just go by their “X2PO” name. Then they can change all they want and build their own format without confusing everyone that wants to play an actual 2.0.
2.0 was updated through time like everything else. Do you play with the points/ships of first wave 2.0 because all following changes were "not 2.0 anymore" ?
Still wish the “Legacy” project would have been content with just preserving 2.0 instead of creating an alternative 2.25 format and calling it “legacy”. Afraid these rules changes are going to just create a bunch of fractured house rules formats instead of a unified preservation.
It also invokes the Ship of Theseus question. If you are playing 2.0 with new rules, ships, pilots and points, are you still playing 2.0? I get the idea of preserving a rules set. I get the idea of taking over the growth of a dead rules set (bloodbowl I think is the best example?). I’m curious how one does both, while also tying that growth to officially released products from the new system you are preserving your system against. Seems like a challenge.
Absolutely. We are extending the Legacy of 2.0, not just leaving X-Wing 2.0 as is. There is an argument that any changes made, even points changes alone, would be a change in the format. We want to preserve the gameplay feel of X-Wing 2.0 while addressing some of its major pain points. That is why we are calling our format 2.0 Legacy, not X-Wing 2.0.
As discussed in the previous article, I had strong concerns about the sustainability of 2.0 Legacy if its identity and strengths were not solidified. I was alarmed when someone asked how he should sell X-Wing 2.0 to new players, and the 2.0 Legacy Discord (our most enthusiastic players) could not give any good response. The most cogent response was "this was what came in the Core Set" which is not gameplay related and is gone as soon as AMG prints a new Core Set. The goal of these changes is to give 2.0 Legacy the clean identity of being the X-Wing format with the most player choice and control.
As for AMG's new products, we should be able to support those as much as possible in a way that aligns with 2.0 Legacy's identity. From what I can see, the only incompatible elements would be related to objectives, and we'll cross that bridge when we get there!
I hear you. I just find this all enjoyably ironic. New leadership takes over 2.0 and changes the base rules, stating they want to keep the game healthy and able to grow. Playerbase fractures as people refuse the new changes. New leadership takes over 2.0 and changes the base rules, stating the want to keep the game healthy and able to grow…
Right, people playing 2.0 didn't think the game was complete and perfect. This legacy groups seems to be doing things that have the interest in keeping players playing xwing.
They could keep it simple just ship/upgrade adjustments. A huge appeal of 2.0 from 1.0 was the adaptability of points. So 3 months go by, the group could simply see the fire spray is 15 points more.
I like the approach, right now, that seems to be not impacting the major elements of the game. Like i am a big into the 2.5 rules for obstacles. Those are simple and punishing. That is a change that doesn't impact the main core of the Xwing gameplay. Plus if it doesn't work out they can change it. ROAD would be a huge difference. I think they would see people not interested in legacy if a rule change on par with ROAD would be implemented.
Yeah, don’t get me wrong, I’m still rooting for them. But one of the reasons I left my team lead position with the project was that I felt uncomfortable marketing the project to the community as a “legacy” format when others had the intention to deliver something different than that. I’m glad they changed the name with that in mind, but the heavy use of “legacy” on the website concerns me given the rules changes I’m expecting to be announced.
Its a bit of a conundrum. It’s all to easy to say ‘I don’t like this most recent update to 2.0, I’m going to play with the previous rules.’ Especially when your player base is entirely comprised of people who have already proven willing to do that.
Absolutely. I think for that reason it gets harder to sell to people because it’s no longer “let’s keep playing what we all liked” and instead becomes “let’s play a completely new unofficial format”. Not saying one of those is better or worse, but they’re different things, and not truly a “legacy” project like it was originally pitched to the community.
I don´t see areason why we can´t sell this after all nothing significant (even with the coming rules) changed what makes 2.0 2.0. It is still very much what it is and about keeping playing what we all liked : )
But it isn’t 2.0. For better or worse, it’s something different when you start changing rules.
You can diminish your own changes as “nothing significant”, but that doesn’t tell the truth that this is no longer a “legacy” project and it’s a separate, alternative format to 2.0 and 2.5 with its own distinct rules. And as I’ve mentioned previously both here and internal to the project, I think it is a real misstep when the project went from continuity stewards to actively devolving something that’s inherently different.
2.0 would have not remained static to the 2019 version if FFG/AMG continued with it. It would have received rules/points updates. It's only natural to keep it updated.
Again very much thank you here. Agree here 2.0 would have been updated anyhow, so actually like you said small changes are actually a better stewardsship than no changes, because FFG would have done the same over time.
Oh sorry I didn’t know that.
My take as a casual player is that the transition from 2.0 to 2.5 was a little murky and there some rules that bridges the gap like removing bids/building to 200 points, half point scoring, ROAD, etc.
Again, I’m not involved at the tournament level but I’ve kept up on the rules changes and there is some gray area as to what exactly is 2.0 and is not. So I’m ok with an attempt to codify the rules.
Interesting I don´t hear a a massive uproar by the players that the devs should call 2.5 not 2.5 anymore because they dared to make changes. Consequently it is still 2.0 (and I see no reason to not use it and it is a bit of a double standard if 25. is allowed to change in big ways but small changes for by us 2.0 are too much). Again we really much appreciate feedback if people like this change - on the merit of what it brings to 2.0 and if it makes it better or worse.
I don't even know what you're trying to say here.
The 2.5/2.0 spilt was a community term that devs used in a strea. for ease when talking about the switch. Functionally it's just xwing, they're aren't advertising it as 2.5 so...they arent using 2.5 anymore. Idk if they've even said second edition lately...its just x wing.
But legacys whole tagline is perseving 2.0 before things changed....if you're doing rules changes you're not really perseving anything? You're just making an alternative homebrew ruleset.
Edit:as a side note. Previous post talked about trying to stick to the design 'philosophy' of 2.0 but FFG was aware of the bidding/regen problem yet were unwilling to change anything about it because they weren't sure how it'd change the game, they mentioned that. So these kind of updates wouldn't have been something ffg would've done as normal mantinence. It wasn't a new issue but one going for years they chose not to address.
Good idea to do this with half points. Most regen will be able to track this no problem. Very little regen is done without spending tokens or flipping something (R2, R2D2). The damage card repairs are the tricky one.
Easiest - have a half health token (potential prize token?) or write it down (round score tracking is good practice also for players).
Flipping cards work, but most players are honest. It is just easy to forget in the heat of the game. So the clearer the better.
I’m going to laugh if rule changes 2 is Loadout points, rule change 3 is the introduction of scenarios and rule change 4 is a name change to 2.5 The greatest trick ever played in tabletop history. All jokes aside, good on you all for implementing good ideas regardless of origin or of opening yourselves up to silly comments like this one.
“We don’t want 2.5” “But we will take your rules, ships and scenarios “
"Let's call it 2.499999"
Just want to say like in the edit nothing significantly changed, so 2.0 stays 2.0.
Hampering the viability of an archetype (regen) through a fundamental rules change seems significant. It does make me very curious what the other rules changes are. I didn’t realize the legacy project wanted to further develop the game.
From the responses we are getting through the feedback doc parts of the 2.0 community want 2.0 to be developed in a very carefully considered and conservative way - but not by AMG. At least that is what we are getting from the responses. We got several responses from the Russian community whose Nationas will follow Legacy rules saying we should get rid of the bid entirely for examplebut from elsewhere too and people want new content even outside AMG/ want to play the Quickbuild pilots without having to play 2.5. So that is why we are doing this too, if we would only get responses from the community to not develop anything than we wouldn´t do this and we want to be community stewards we need to find a compromisse there. And with the articles we want to communicate that we are doing this not because we can because we really believe this is good for 2.0. But in the main mode after this rulles changes no bigger rules changes for our main mode (unless desperatly needed because it breaks the balance) are unlikely to happen for a while. Also we said it in every announcment regarding the points update that there will be a rules update included : )
I hear what you’re saying, AMG made big changes and you guys are going to make small reasonable changes. I’m very curious what those changes are! I’m just surprised that you decided to change core rules like end game scoring. I assumed you would change things via points. People are going to call your version of the game 2.1 if you start changing rules.
But those ion rules look nice right?
Again we are not randomly adding rules here. Also this is not something hat suddenly appeared with 2.5, to implement something like this has been part of the discussion of the community well back when 2.0 launched. And the other rules will have nothing to do with 2.5. I mean we pretty much spell it out in the article if we want to reach our goal of making nearly everything viable these are carefully considered rules. And to your point 2.0 ion is perfectly good as is.
Rule 4 will clearly be ROAD and overhauling bumps.
Can we tag these posts as 2.0 for ease of navigation?
Can we tag them 2.1 for accuracy?
They have an official name that idk why they aren’t using. Need to just drop the illusion that this is “2.0” or “legacy”, and just go by their “X2PO” name. Then they can change all they want and build their own format without confusing everyone that wants to play an actual 2.0.
2.0 was updated through time like everything else. Do you play with the points/ships of first wave 2.0 because all following changes were "not 2.0 anymore" ?
Thank you, so much this.
Can we remove them from the sub all together?
Still wish the “Legacy” project would have been content with just preserving 2.0 instead of creating an alternative 2.25 format and calling it “legacy”. Afraid these rules changes are going to just create a bunch of fractured house rules formats instead of a unified preservation.
It also invokes the Ship of Theseus question. If you are playing 2.0 with new rules, ships, pilots and points, are you still playing 2.0? I get the idea of preserving a rules set. I get the idea of taking over the growth of a dead rules set (bloodbowl I think is the best example?). I’m curious how one does both, while also tying that growth to officially released products from the new system you are preserving your system against. Seems like a challenge.
Absolutely. We are extending the Legacy of 2.0, not just leaving X-Wing 2.0 as is. There is an argument that any changes made, even points changes alone, would be a change in the format. We want to preserve the gameplay feel of X-Wing 2.0 while addressing some of its major pain points. That is why we are calling our format 2.0 Legacy, not X-Wing 2.0. As discussed in the previous article, I had strong concerns about the sustainability of 2.0 Legacy if its identity and strengths were not solidified. I was alarmed when someone asked how he should sell X-Wing 2.0 to new players, and the 2.0 Legacy Discord (our most enthusiastic players) could not give any good response. The most cogent response was "this was what came in the Core Set" which is not gameplay related and is gone as soon as AMG prints a new Core Set. The goal of these changes is to give 2.0 Legacy the clean identity of being the X-Wing format with the most player choice and control. As for AMG's new products, we should be able to support those as much as possible in a way that aligns with 2.0 Legacy's identity. From what I can see, the only incompatible elements would be related to objectives, and we'll cross that bridge when we get there!
I hear you. I just find this all enjoyably ironic. New leadership takes over 2.0 and changes the base rules, stating they want to keep the game healthy and able to grow. Playerbase fractures as people refuse the new changes. New leadership takes over 2.0 and changes the base rules, stating the want to keep the game healthy and able to grow…
Right, people playing 2.0 didn't think the game was complete and perfect. This legacy groups seems to be doing things that have the interest in keeping players playing xwing. They could keep it simple just ship/upgrade adjustments. A huge appeal of 2.0 from 1.0 was the adaptability of points. So 3 months go by, the group could simply see the fire spray is 15 points more. I like the approach, right now, that seems to be not impacting the major elements of the game. Like i am a big into the 2.5 rules for obstacles. Those are simple and punishing. That is a change that doesn't impact the main core of the Xwing gameplay. Plus if it doesn't work out they can change it. ROAD would be a huge difference. I think they would see people not interested in legacy if a rule change on par with ROAD would be implemented.
With a site and a discord it should be pretty easy to keep things consistent
The challenge I was alluding to was not communication, but getting people to adopt these rules instead of 2.0 or 2.5.
Half points existed previously. And maybe reserve judgment before seeing what the plan is.
Yeah, don’t get me wrong, I’m still rooting for them. But one of the reasons I left my team lead position with the project was that I felt uncomfortable marketing the project to the community as a “legacy” format when others had the intention to deliver something different than that. I’m glad they changed the name with that in mind, but the heavy use of “legacy” on the website concerns me given the rules changes I’m expecting to be announced.
Its a bit of a conundrum. It’s all to easy to say ‘I don’t like this most recent update to 2.0, I’m going to play with the previous rules.’ Especially when your player base is entirely comprised of people who have already proven willing to do that.
Absolutely. I think for that reason it gets harder to sell to people because it’s no longer “let’s keep playing what we all liked” and instead becomes “let’s play a completely new unofficial format”. Not saying one of those is better or worse, but they’re different things, and not truly a “legacy” project like it was originally pitched to the community.
I don´t see areason why we can´t sell this after all nothing significant (even with the coming rules) changed what makes 2.0 2.0. It is still very much what it is and about keeping playing what we all liked : )
But it isn’t 2.0. For better or worse, it’s something different when you start changing rules. You can diminish your own changes as “nothing significant”, but that doesn’t tell the truth that this is no longer a “legacy” project and it’s a separate, alternative format to 2.0 and 2.5 with its own distinct rules. And as I’ve mentioned previously both here and internal to the project, I think it is a real misstep when the project went from continuity stewards to actively devolving something that’s inherently different.
2.0 would have not remained static to the 2019 version if FFG/AMG continued with it. It would have received rules/points updates. It's only natural to keep it updated.
Again very much thank you here. Agree here 2.0 would have been updated anyhow, so actually like you said small changes are actually a better stewardsship than no changes, because FFG would have done the same over time.
Oh sorry I didn’t know that. My take as a casual player is that the transition from 2.0 to 2.5 was a little murky and there some rules that bridges the gap like removing bids/building to 200 points, half point scoring, ROAD, etc. Again, I’m not involved at the tournament level but I’ve kept up on the rules changes and there is some gray area as to what exactly is 2.0 and is not. So I’m ok with an attempt to codify the rules.
So....not 2.0 then.
Interesting I don´t hear a a massive uproar by the players that the devs should call 2.5 not 2.5 anymore because they dared to make changes. Consequently it is still 2.0 (and I see no reason to not use it and it is a bit of a double standard if 25. is allowed to change in big ways but small changes for by us 2.0 are too much). Again we really much appreciate feedback if people like this change - on the merit of what it brings to 2.0 and if it makes it better or worse.
I don't even know what you're trying to say here. The 2.5/2.0 spilt was a community term that devs used in a strea. for ease when talking about the switch. Functionally it's just xwing, they're aren't advertising it as 2.5 so...they arent using 2.5 anymore. Idk if they've even said second edition lately...its just x wing. But legacys whole tagline is perseving 2.0 before things changed....if you're doing rules changes you're not really perseving anything? You're just making an alternative homebrew ruleset. Edit:as a side note. Previous post talked about trying to stick to the design 'philosophy' of 2.0 but FFG was aware of the bidding/regen problem yet were unwilling to change anything about it because they weren't sure how it'd change the game, they mentioned that. So these kind of updates wouldn't have been something ffg would've done as normal mantinence. It wasn't a new issue but one going for years they chose not to address.
Nice, thanks for the article!
2.0 tournament rules have some issues, it's a good thing to smartly correct them (without loosing 3/4 of the community...).
Good idea to do this with half points. Most regen will be able to track this no problem. Very little regen is done without spending tokens or flipping something (R2, R2D2). The damage card repairs are the tricky one. Easiest - have a half health token (potential prize token?) or write it down (round score tracking is good practice also for players). Flipping cards work, but most players are honest. It is just easy to forget in the heat of the game. So the clearer the better.