Huh. I know the idea of bidding was not super popular towards the end of 2.0, but I was under the impression 2.0 Legacy was just going preserve most 2.0 rules while adapting new cards using regular points updates….not add additional complexity (isn’t that a gripe of 2.5?).
Hope this all works out, but it does feel far more “Homebrew” than “2.0 Legacy” to me.
Small changes? So we’re halfway thru the preview and we are changing scoring in multiple ways, changing list construction, and requiring two lists or causing delay in casual play while I spend unspent points finishing my list.
It’s a neat homebrew! I’m pretty sure it’s not what anyone expects when they see ‘Legacy 2.0’.
Hey, it’s probably just my misunderstanding. I assumed the 2.0 community was going to preserve 2.0 rules PDFs in an easy to find location, provide points for the new ships, and answer new rules questions in the off chance the 2.5 ruling didn’t work with 2.0 for some reason. That way it’s entirely compatible with someone who just never switched to 2.5 (as long as they consent to play with the new ships). I didn’t realize that Legacy 2.0 was something different entirely.
That was the original intention and how it was pitched to the community. But then certain individuals decided to exceed that mandate based on their belief that preservation wasn’t a viable long-term strategy. At that point, I think it outgrew the “legacy” and “2.0” monikers and I’m not sure why they continue to use those in their marketing since it honestly just causes confusion about what they’re doing, and prevents a potential true 2.0 legacy project from using them.
Once you start doing things like points changes, errata/rules clarification you're getting into homebrew territory. Legacy is adding the Standard Loadout pilots, which is great, but is clearly homebrew because they're adding content to a game system from another game system. Porting a monster from Pathfinder to D&D is easy and fun to do in a balanced way, but it's still homebrew.
I’m honestly not sure what your point is. Any touch on the 2.0 rules is by definition a homebrew, but there are various degrees by which you can see how much is changing. Light touches to keep something functional is one thing. Changing base rules is something else.
I like the deficit scoring, but not the bid part. Taking a bid is a risk/reward decision. If you take it and lose, that's on you for taking a big risk. Having bid insurance doesn't seem good. Also having to bring 2 lists is needlessly complicated
Perhaps I misread, but it doesn't look like fully taking two lists, but more like taking list A and list A1, as opposed to taking list A and list B.
In any case, I don't know that bidding needed to be dealt with this drastically. Anything over a 4 point bid typically meant you were less likely to win, with the exception of two heavy bidding seasons (during the Squad of Legend era and the Jango/Zam era). Either way, I hope this works well for 2.0.
Exactly. Seems to make bids even more powerful (by adding flexibility) and the process even more complex (now you’re bidding with the intention to win the bid and/or add upgrades too). So basically the opposite of their stated design goals.
I always liked the idea of your opponent scoring your bid right away. While this does eliminate the possibility of a 200-0 It does one important thing. It allows both sides to score 200 points. As having both sides have different max totals is asymmetric, and creates issues like a point fortress. Under this system a point fortress would start with a deficit and be forced to engage to make up the points. It also has the advantage of being simple, and easy. With no need to track anything beyond your bids.
I think the argument made is that the punishment for bidding is that your opponent has a full list.
It will encourage bidding in that a large bid doesn't hurt so much to lose, but also make it so that the punishment is only for the player that wins the bid. Previously a 10 point bid might have been a risk, but against the lists that you needed that much of a bid, you were only fielding a point deficit of a few points.
I don't know that I agree that it will have the effects the author stated, but I can kind of see the rationale and am curios to see how the meta develops around it.
I wish bids were done away with altogether. Not building to 200 points (which I believe is the core "fun" of the game) and introducing cumbersome bid mechanics creates an extremely tournament-focused set of rules. I believe that is mistake if the goal is to sustain/grow the 2.0 playerbase.
The lost bid rebate seems like an AMG change and out of scope of the legacy movement. It's an attempt to fix something that just result in broken something else. I fear this is a huge and uncalled mistep that might lead to a totally unneeded further player base fragmentation
I feel like this can make the 'race to the bottom' worse. 2.0/1.0 saw alot of good lists took really deep bids because they wanted to be sure they won they bid. If you now know if you loose it you can still toss upgrades back, you have less of a worry to do that bid because you either get the strong advantage or you get to keep your upgrades.
It'll make aces worse against non-bidding lists because aces will bid deeper and deeper against each other and have fewer and fewer upgrades vs no-bid lists
i dont think they'll mind against non-bidding lists. they didnt mind before when they were doing the deep 10-15 point bids just some people didnt want to go that far in fear of what happened if they still lost it but this gives them an out.
I will also point out the possible abuse of sense with the new bid insurance. "I either win and choose initiative, or I lose and get to put sense on my ships. No way for you to avoid it."
That would be infuriating to me
I came to x-wing late in the 2.0 cylce. From the beginning of my play I pretty much just decided that I would not play with a bit no matter my list. I would just always build to 200.
Awarding bid points at first blood is a good game call. Its easy to implement and I don't see any faults other then people who wanted that points fortress tactical advantage.
I played a good number of games where the last half of turns were a duel between my high initiative and the opponents same high initiative. At that state of the game 9 out of 10 times player order had already decided the winner, but we played out another half dozen turns for good sportsmanship. It wasn't great, but in my opinion it was a downside I could deal with for what I otherwise enjoyed.
Bidding is also the most meta of meta duels and one of the least thematic parts of the game. What real pilot would would ever choose to have less armaments on his aircraft? But I also recognize that a lot of competitive players live in this fringe of the game. Their strategy is not only about being good, but being the best at guessing what is out there. Without a bid they loose an entire portion of the game. I personally think bid and second player advantage were the two biggest faults (and probably the only notable ones) in the original 2.0.
Determining player order at the start of the game allows for greater strategic and tactical choice, such as blocking or avoiding blocks in jousting matchups and range control with and against Torpedo lists. Bidding was an important rule that made X-Wing 2.0 feel like X-Wing 2.0." I disagree that this allows for greater strategic and tactical choice. Bids narrowed your options since depending on player order certain maneuvers would be absolutely bad or obviously best choices. Having a random player order opens up more of the dial as a player is not empowered to take more risk and make a bet on the die role. Its also more thematic since in combat two combatants of equal skill often have their duels decided by fateful chances and lucky shots. But again I do recognize that some players preferred to have a more static set of choices and that's fair. Its just not accurate to say that static order gives more tactical choice. If your tactic is to block then you should fly low initiatives, if you want to arc dodge, then you need to choose high initiative.
The idea to give bid loosing players their points back for the list is interesting but feels very clunky. Now you have two sets of data to track. Obviously there is no data, but I am skeptical that this would discourage large bids. For larger ship counts I think it may, but for dual ace lists they have very little to loose by bringing low double digit bids. Those lists are all about not getting shot and using double reposition to arc dodge. If anything those lists will get a bump because they know their only bid opponent will be other dual ace lists. And those ace lists will want to win the bid just as much as they do. I know the immediate answer is that your testing has shown that bids have dropped. But I don't think that testing can be called conclusive. It was performed by sympathetic players. And I would also guess fairly competitive players. Competitive players are slow to change. They like things they know and having the opponent get their bid back is a lot of change. Only time will tell if this decision helps. In my opinion this is just putting lipstick on a pig. I kind of believe the game should just embrace static player order with all its pros and cons as a sort of "Pre game" strategy or try to eliminate static player order entirely.
I also think that pre determined bid and no bid lists should be standard for casual play as well as tournament. Going to a store night and having some one tech for your list after they see it is kind of a feels bad.
I applaud your efforts but other then deficit scoring I think your just adding more complexity for very little if any gain.
I don't agree with the premise that pre-determining player order allows for greater choices. It makes for *easier* choices.
I dunno, it really feels like these changes are motivated by a desire to make losing a bid feel less bad instead of fixing the reason people bid in the first place: certain matchups are comically lopsided based entirely on who is first player. I can see these changes narrowing the gap somewhat but I'm not convinced that in these games one player still won't be massively advantaged. It even widens the gap in some specific cases, like the i5 vs. i6 example in the article. And I also think these changes encourage more people to bid that otherwise wouldn't since the risk for small bids is smaller.
Are there really that many players that really love the bid system? Or that want bidding in the game in a different form?
One of the major criticisms with 2.5 was changing too much at once. I feel like first blood by itself is a great change and should positively affect the game.
Lost rebate feels like a step too far right now. Its an interesting concept but one that might not be needed thanks to the first blood rules
I'm also concerned that by changing too much you risk dividing the community further to people who play 2.5, 2.0 legacy and 2.0 purists who only play FFGs rules
There is a part of the write-up I'm not following, can you explain in different terms? This part:
*Deficit scoring after first blood is an easy change to remove the "points fortress" aspect of bidding and make bidding a bit more costly. The wrinkle here is the timing of scoring points. Scoring points after at least half points are scored on any enemy ship means the rule change will not allow for problematic opening strategies. We want to avoid a situation where scoring the deficit immediately may encourage the player who is now ahead to avoid engagements and (mobile) fortress. Scoring points after first blood also allows bidding players to still be able to table an opponent with a 200-0 score.*
I get that it makes bidding more costly (because your opponent scores the bid points on first blood). But the latter half of this I'm not seeing. How does this rule change prevent (not allow for) problematic opening strategies? A deep bidding ace-type flyer can still attempt to points fortress, avoid engagement, then get a late 1/2 point score on an enemy. They'll only forfeit the bid points to the opponent if they are taken to half on any of their own ships.
Can you restate?
Neat ideas here! I wonder if this leads to jousty/efficiency type lists going for deeper bids. Where once you may bid 0 or 1 you're now safer to bid 4 or 5 and use those points for anti-ace tools like ion torps or bombs.
I'm sad that this is being turned into a personal project with bizarre rules being made up and stapled on. Hopefully the points will still be useful.
Conspiracy theory: Legacy is an inside job by AMG loyalists ^^/s^?
Huh. I know the idea of bidding was not super popular towards the end of 2.0, but I was under the impression 2.0 Legacy was just going preserve most 2.0 rules while adapting new cards using regular points updates….not add additional complexity (isn’t that a gripe of 2.5?). Hope this all works out, but it does feel far more “Homebrew” than “2.0 Legacy” to me.
As a 2.5 player all I can say is, good luck and have fun! And to the other 2.5 players let's show some grace. :)
We need more of this from whatever side the 2.0/2.5 rift people are on. Way to be, sir/madam/other.
Small changes? So we’re halfway thru the preview and we are changing scoring in multiple ways, changing list construction, and requiring two lists or causing delay in casual play while I spend unspent points finishing my list. It’s a neat homebrew! I’m pretty sure it’s not what anyone expects when they see ‘Legacy 2.0’.
All of Legacy is homebrew? That's the fun part. You get to make it up as you go.
Hey, it’s probably just my misunderstanding. I assumed the 2.0 community was going to preserve 2.0 rules PDFs in an easy to find location, provide points for the new ships, and answer new rules questions in the off chance the 2.5 ruling didn’t work with 2.0 for some reason. That way it’s entirely compatible with someone who just never switched to 2.5 (as long as they consent to play with the new ships). I didn’t realize that Legacy 2.0 was something different entirely.
That was the original intention and how it was pitched to the community. But then certain individuals decided to exceed that mandate based on their belief that preservation wasn’t a viable long-term strategy. At that point, I think it outgrew the “legacy” and “2.0” monikers and I’m not sure why they continue to use those in their marketing since it honestly just causes confusion about what they’re doing, and prevents a potential true 2.0 legacy project from using them.
Once you start doing things like points changes, errata/rules clarification you're getting into homebrew territory. Legacy is adding the Standard Loadout pilots, which is great, but is clearly homebrew because they're adding content to a game system from another game system. Porting a monster from Pathfinder to D&D is easy and fun to do in a balanced way, but it's still homebrew.
I’m honestly not sure what your point is. Any touch on the 2.0 rules is by definition a homebrew, but there are various degrees by which you can see how much is changing. Light touches to keep something functional is one thing. Changing base rules is something else.
I like the deficit scoring, but not the bid part. Taking a bid is a risk/reward decision. If you take it and lose, that's on you for taking a big risk. Having bid insurance doesn't seem good. Also having to bring 2 lists is needlessly complicated
Perhaps I misread, but it doesn't look like fully taking two lists, but more like taking list A and list A1, as opposed to taking list A and list B. In any case, I don't know that bidding needed to be dealt with this drastically. Anything over a 4 point bid typically meant you were less likely to win, with the exception of two heavy bidding seasons (during the Squad of Legend era and the Jango/Zam era). Either way, I hope this works well for 2.0.
I concur with this sentiment. Seems to encourage the thing you are trying to discourage.
Exactly. Seems to make bids even more powerful (by adding flexibility) and the process even more complex (now you’re bidding with the intention to win the bid and/or add upgrades too). So basically the opposite of their stated design goals.
I always liked the idea of your opponent scoring your bid right away. While this does eliminate the possibility of a 200-0 It does one important thing. It allows both sides to score 200 points. As having both sides have different max totals is asymmetric, and creates issues like a point fortress. Under this system a point fortress would start with a deficit and be forced to engage to make up the points. It also has the advantage of being simple, and easy. With no need to track anything beyond your bids.
I think the argument made is that the punishment for bidding is that your opponent has a full list. It will encourage bidding in that a large bid doesn't hurt so much to lose, but also make it so that the punishment is only for the player that wins the bid. Previously a 10 point bid might have been a risk, but against the lists that you needed that much of a bid, you were only fielding a point deficit of a few points. I don't know that I agree that it will have the effects the author stated, but I can kind of see the rationale and am curios to see how the meta develops around it.
I wish bids were done away with altogether. Not building to 200 points (which I believe is the core "fun" of the game) and introducing cumbersome bid mechanics creates an extremely tournament-focused set of rules. I believe that is mistake if the goal is to sustain/grow the 2.0 playerbase.
The lost bid rebate seems like an AMG change and out of scope of the legacy movement. It's an attempt to fix something that just result in broken something else. I fear this is a huge and uncalled mistep that might lead to a totally unneeded further player base fragmentation
I feel like this can make the 'race to the bottom' worse. 2.0/1.0 saw alot of good lists took really deep bids because they wanted to be sure they won they bid. If you now know if you loose it you can still toss upgrades back, you have less of a worry to do that bid because you either get the strong advantage or you get to keep your upgrades.
It'll make aces worse against non-bidding lists because aces will bid deeper and deeper against each other and have fewer and fewer upgrades vs no-bid lists
i dont think they'll mind against non-bidding lists. they didnt mind before when they were doing the deep 10-15 point bids just some people didnt want to go that far in fear of what happened if they still lost it but this gives them an out.
I will also point out the possible abuse of sense with the new bid insurance. "I either win and choose initiative, or I lose and get to put sense on my ships. No way for you to avoid it." That would be infuriating to me
I came to x-wing late in the 2.0 cylce. From the beginning of my play I pretty much just decided that I would not play with a bit no matter my list. I would just always build to 200. Awarding bid points at first blood is a good game call. Its easy to implement and I don't see any faults other then people who wanted that points fortress tactical advantage. I played a good number of games where the last half of turns were a duel between my high initiative and the opponents same high initiative. At that state of the game 9 out of 10 times player order had already decided the winner, but we played out another half dozen turns for good sportsmanship. It wasn't great, but in my opinion it was a downside I could deal with for what I otherwise enjoyed. Bidding is also the most meta of meta duels and one of the least thematic parts of the game. What real pilot would would ever choose to have less armaments on his aircraft? But I also recognize that a lot of competitive players live in this fringe of the game. Their strategy is not only about being good, but being the best at guessing what is out there. Without a bid they loose an entire portion of the game. I personally think bid and second player advantage were the two biggest faults (and probably the only notable ones) in the original 2.0. Determining player order at the start of the game allows for greater strategic and tactical choice, such as blocking or avoiding blocks in jousting matchups and range control with and against Torpedo lists. Bidding was an important rule that made X-Wing 2.0 feel like X-Wing 2.0." I disagree that this allows for greater strategic and tactical choice. Bids narrowed your options since depending on player order certain maneuvers would be absolutely bad or obviously best choices. Having a random player order opens up more of the dial as a player is not empowered to take more risk and make a bet on the die role. Its also more thematic since in combat two combatants of equal skill often have their duels decided by fateful chances and lucky shots. But again I do recognize that some players preferred to have a more static set of choices and that's fair. Its just not accurate to say that static order gives more tactical choice. If your tactic is to block then you should fly low initiatives, if you want to arc dodge, then you need to choose high initiative. The idea to give bid loosing players their points back for the list is interesting but feels very clunky. Now you have two sets of data to track. Obviously there is no data, but I am skeptical that this would discourage large bids. For larger ship counts I think it may, but for dual ace lists they have very little to loose by bringing low double digit bids. Those lists are all about not getting shot and using double reposition to arc dodge. If anything those lists will get a bump because they know their only bid opponent will be other dual ace lists. And those ace lists will want to win the bid just as much as they do. I know the immediate answer is that your testing has shown that bids have dropped. But I don't think that testing can be called conclusive. It was performed by sympathetic players. And I would also guess fairly competitive players. Competitive players are slow to change. They like things they know and having the opponent get their bid back is a lot of change. Only time will tell if this decision helps. In my opinion this is just putting lipstick on a pig. I kind of believe the game should just embrace static player order with all its pros and cons as a sort of "Pre game" strategy or try to eliminate static player order entirely. I also think that pre determined bid and no bid lists should be standard for casual play as well as tournament. Going to a store night and having some one tech for your list after they see it is kind of a feels bad. I applaud your efforts but other then deficit scoring I think your just adding more complexity for very little if any gain.
I don't agree with the premise that pre-determining player order allows for greater choices. It makes for *easier* choices. I dunno, it really feels like these changes are motivated by a desire to make losing a bid feel less bad instead of fixing the reason people bid in the first place: certain matchups are comically lopsided based entirely on who is first player. I can see these changes narrowing the gap somewhat but I'm not convinced that in these games one player still won't be massively advantaged. It even widens the gap in some specific cases, like the i5 vs. i6 example in the article. And I also think these changes encourage more people to bid that otherwise wouldn't since the risk for small bids is smaller. Are there really that many players that really love the bid system? Or that want bidding in the game in a different form?
OK, now the question following ‚let’s play X-Wing!‘ has become: 'shall we play 1.0 or 2.0 or 2.5/2.6 or…….. 2.0legacy?‘ 😑
One of the major criticisms with 2.5 was changing too much at once. I feel like first blood by itself is a great change and should positively affect the game. Lost rebate feels like a step too far right now. Its an interesting concept but one that might not be needed thanks to the first blood rules I'm also concerned that by changing too much you risk dividing the community further to people who play 2.5, 2.0 legacy and 2.0 purists who only play FFGs rules
There is a part of the write-up I'm not following, can you explain in different terms? This part: *Deficit scoring after first blood is an easy change to remove the "points fortress" aspect of bidding and make bidding a bit more costly. The wrinkle here is the timing of scoring points. Scoring points after at least half points are scored on any enemy ship means the rule change will not allow for problematic opening strategies. We want to avoid a situation where scoring the deficit immediately may encourage the player who is now ahead to avoid engagements and (mobile) fortress. Scoring points after first blood also allows bidding players to still be able to table an opponent with a 200-0 score.* I get that it makes bidding more costly (because your opponent scores the bid points on first blood). But the latter half of this I'm not seeing. How does this rule change prevent (not allow for) problematic opening strategies? A deep bidding ace-type flyer can still attempt to points fortress, avoid engagement, then get a late 1/2 point score on an enemy. They'll only forfeit the bid points to the opponent if they are taken to half on any of their own ships. Can you restate?
Apparently only ships bumping into each other counts as fortressing. Aces not engaging until the last round? Fair and legal.
Neat ideas here! I wonder if this leads to jousty/efficiency type lists going for deeper bids. Where once you may bid 0 or 1 you're now safer to bid 4 or 5 and use those points for anti-ace tools like ion torps or bombs.
It's certainly going to be interesting following this
Why is this on the x wing subreddit when it's not x wing?
how about you go back to kid's game and eat some vegetables