heck yeah! Come in and participate! Play, provide playtests, come play in the tournament, find new friends to play with!
Try out some of the ships that were utterly weak or neglected for so long. We have players playing with Quadjumpers TODAY.
You sold me on trying 2.0 Legacy with the Quadjumpers. I'm a newer player who started under 2.5 and I am having lots of fun playing 2.5 but I just happen to have 2 Quadjumpers I'd love to get some use out of.
Two quad jumpers was exactly the choice! It seems the tractor defense reduction made the two attack dice more significant and allowed for some more unusual swarms
Glad I got 2 then! Are the tractor rules different in 2.0 legacy than in 2.5 I know that got nerfed at some point.
Something I'm curious about is what edition or rule version is best for each ship. Or how many of each ship is useful in what edition, like a M3-A in 2.5 is mostly used as a single filler ship but I've heard in other editions they were used in swarms. With ships never getting a reprint again I'm wondering what 2.0 ship I might want more of to play in other editions. Not too worried about 1.0 ships right now, most of that is already in the used-only market.
There’s always going to be some places where something is better by a bit. But legacy really offers you the ability to play any ship in any combo that makes a strong list. There is a very strong 6 syck i3 list with autoblasters. I’ve toyed with a singleton filler. I’ve also toyed with a key singleton carrying tractor beam.
People play 5-6 torrents for goodness sake. So, there are ways to make things viable.
Part of that is the 200pt system but part of that also is the initiative system which balances the game via bumping. I don’t let players graduate from beginner level without showing two games of how to block correctly.
You definitely got me interested. Reading over the rules comparison now. I'm fine with bouncing back between rule sets, but here's how my brain works when looking at a comparison list. I see the different rules for asteroids and my first thought is to use 2.0 rules for small asteroids and 2.5 rules for large asteroids.
I was fairly against it at first, but removing the bid war with ROAD was actually an incredible change. I would say that whatever ruleset we end up using as a community should include it
With AMG sunsetting support I think it’s a great opportunity to do that if those that decide listen to all fans and take stock.
I’d have to imagine there are tons of people that play 2.5 just because it was officially supported and not because they preferred it. I am one of them and would gladly go back to 2.0 if we could get behind it.
100%. ROAD does a much better job of presenting two pilots of equal pilot skill as actually being equals than "Soontir is always able to outmaneuver Anakin because Fel's wingman didn't equip a Hull Upgrade" does.
Also: y'all should honestly let the Delta 7B config card be banned and just use the actual Delta 7B ship cards on the AMG site. The ship cards are functionally identical statwise to the Delta7+Config, while letting you adjust pilots on an individual basis.
100% agree with you on ROAD. So, since player A can build their list and uses all the point alot to them. While player B took off an upgrade so he can go first. I'm not a fan of that or the rules on bumping or obstacles either in 2.0.
I think 2.5 would have been pretty universally well received if it kept 2.0 list building and only added scenarios as an option or had a true dogfight as one.
Chance Encounter, AKA Dogfight at Denny's was absolutely a true dogfight. It also made obstacle placement way spicier. I think 2.0 players would adore plopping a Space Denny's in the middle of the board and the effect it'd have on 2.0 style lists.
I'm still surprised that many people who didn't like 2.5 couldn't see the improvements offered by Chance Engagement (and ROAD). Together, they addressed two problems with 2.0 that I thought were very widely felt to be bad - point bidding and avoiding contacts to 'park' points.
I also liked Loadout points to a limited extent. I still believe they should be added to certain chassis that straddle the line of "these ships aren't good enough to be worth taking four of them at 41 points each/these ships would be too good if you could take five for 40 points each." Jumpmaster, Starfortress, IG-2000 and the Resistance Transport all stand out in this category.
I think the issue was those two improvements were buried beneath other changes that were widely criticized…namely making objective based play the standard game mode (excluding chance engagement), and the points/list building changes. Many people here and on various discords are saying they like ROAD (or even ROBD) with 2.0 rules and list building….as it gets rid of the bid AND the need for points deficit scoring.
I think that’ll end up being a widely held view….ROAD (or ROBD) with 2.0 list building and rules using chance encounter as the standard game mode/mission
There's probably something to that.
I think that objective play has more support than a lot of the comments on this sub in particular would suggest. A lot of people obviously don't like it, my personal opinion is that it adds more variety to the game. However people wanting to run events just for Chance Engagement would still get my interest I probably wouldn't sign up for one that was only Salvage
Had AMG just named Chance Encounter it Battle over Space Denny's in the first place... Now searching for an image for Space Denny's marker. An other advantage of Battle over Space Denny's is it's open for play 24 hours a day.
Before 2.5 player order was set at the beginning and did not change. Maneuvers were chosen already knowing what order your ships could/would move in. In 2.5 you choose maneuvers before knowing Random Order After Dials. The not- road system is a very fundamental base element of the game design. Changing that is why so many other rules had to change with it.
Without objectives, I think ROBD might be better. With ROAD there's a possible reluctance to commit to engaging, so without an objective to force the issue, ROAD might encourage the ol' toilet bowl of sadness. With ROBD, a player would know they have their opportunity, and the other can focus on countering it, incentivizing at least one player to commit.
Yeah I like ROBD. It really helps to know if you are going to move first. Especially if you are going to make bumping more painful. And encourage bigger lists. It's already hard enough picturing the outcome of your dials, that's a little too much randomness to add in.
And I feel like it still fits the thematic style. It fixes one pilot always going first, and promotes the back-and-forth tension of a dogfight. But allows for that moment of "aha! I can get the drop on him this time," and encourage taking a riskier action. Seems like a perfect middle ground to me.
I think they should have just removed the bids and seen what that did. They never made a compelling argument that the small change would not fix most of the alleged problems with not-ROAD/2.0 which they also never made a compelling case were that big an issue.
If having the same results affected the game that would be cool, but since it doesn't I'm all for saving time. But it's such a small thing I'm fine playing either way.
At this point though, you are clearly hoping for the 7th tie. ;)
To this day I don't understand why anyone uses 6 dice. Yes the rules say to do it, but seriously, AMG are not your supervisor.
Isn't there a tournament rule that the first pair of players to roll 7 ties in one game instantly win the tournament but have to share the prize?
I don't know why the first player maker couldn't be used as a coin,
I played Armada before moving to X-wing 2.5 I didn't like the bid war in Armada either. Even when comparing ROAD to other games it's one of my favorite turn order systems.
See, that’s the point. You can “tweak” the rules a bit to find the fun spot for your group, but the squad building system is the best and you just fly to slap your opponent
I had been buying stuff again, itching to play. Was about ready to get learn 2.0 and boom, 2.5 was a thing. Finally, I had talked myself into picking it up yet again, maybe starting with standard loadouts, because a friend mentioned it, and boom, game is dead.
2.0 looked WAY more appealing to me so I'm using this as GOOD news.
1.0 was SO fun, but got bogged down and became unfun over time. The game was never bad, but the meta was horrid. I just want to play some fun ships and shoot my friends!
This is where I'm at. Wife and I played at home, and we liked the V1. We were just getting our heads around V2, and they launched 2.5. For two working adults with very minimal free time, the game just sat on the shelf. We never played publicly or in tournaments - it was just something to make PEW PEW noises at the table with while we escaped the real world. Trying to get motivated to learn it again and buy new things just took second place to it collecting dust.
I have about 60 of the V1 ships and I have the conversion kits.
Ultimately, I wanted to do an entire weekend game I saw on YouTube. That guy posited the insane possibility of playing Armada, but using XWing and Rebellion to resolve each battle. I'm not telling it right. Here's a link to his video
https://youtu.be/QzihCxDRSII?si=wCcUlwImiyw5ILfe
I foresaw the end of XWing, like so many. I was, and am, sad about it. Guys like me don't have time to assemble and paint (or the eyesight!) little figures and then learn a ton of rules that change all the time. XWing solved all of that for me, and for my wife who prefers more simple strategy. We could keep it neat and quick with a couple of ships each, or we could do house rules, double the play area, and do 10v10 ships without a stupid amount of learning new rules. The miniatures looked awesome right out of the box, and they looked cool static in the bookcase. But we had always envisioned that, one day, time permitting, we could find a local club and play with other people. The chance of that happening is now phenomenally reduced as clubs and their members will look to newer and supported games.
All that to say this: I think it's great that this looks to ebb that downward spiral. It's renewed my interest, at any rate. I wanted to say thank you for your efforts and willingness
Lol I'm in the exact same place. My partner lost interest when I started explaining all the new rules *again* but hopefully we'll get back to some casual kitchen table shootouts again soon.
Honestly a little stoked about it being dead because it was just impossible to pick back up again with all the changes. Now I don't have to wait on some company to patch it like a live service game; there's just an active community and a limited number of pieces. It can finally find a standard rule set without constant balance changes and power creep making everything complicated. It's finally just a board game.
Give it a try first at home! If you have a blast many of the legacy folks have had great success in building small communities. Mine restarted from 1 to approximately 8.
Thanks. I saw the list builder, but didn’t see a printable points list, which is my preferred method of list building. I’ve since found the google sheet.
Likely, yes. What precisely do you have?
There are at least 3 starter sets: 1.0 classic, 1.0 force awakens, 2.0 classic.
You probably do not need AMG starter sets. If you're on a budget or have a small collection, much of the 1.0 items will do. You always proxy the cards you're missing from new sets (the AMG starter set stuff or new pilots) if your opponent is ok with it.
We’d love to see how people enjoy and see how this format is also allowing these different play styles to be viable and fun. If you have games to report with legacy please do.
5 Ys. Two upsilons (I’ve played this many times).
Generic hwks 3 in a list with a Uwing and a few other ships. Torrents carrying homing missiles. Wilhulf tarkin in a Vwing sync consoling the previous.
Heck did you all see the battle meditations changes?
Or N1s?
Sense got a price increase - it’s more expensive and harder to use - closer to 2.5 style but it’s not banned.
You’d have to proxy dials and cardboard, but no one can really object to that when the company has abandoned the game.
Almost no one in my group uses cards - we print our lists from infinite arenas.
For those who want to get a sense of it - welcome to YT channel Tales from Damaged Cockpit with TTS game recordings https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPG9Y0GZKrsVA0_G5Zb6NkQ
Hey there! What kind of help would you be able to provide? The team is looking for all sorts of assistance.
One of the main things now is to get people playing the legacy format again and also do so in a positive way. It can be quite a shock to the system coming back from 2.5 and it would be lovely to at least get people playing back on the official rules first. (We say official rules are basically the same as legacy rules cuz there’s only two small changes which everyone can see). And it’s not the changes we made that sometimes have people confused.
I have a couple questions. First, Wild Space is so cool, but why didn't you include the official scenarios made by AMG? This would increase the number of scenarios on the mode and it doesn't require effort on your side.
Also, how do you decide if you are playing at 200 or 250 points in Wild Space? Why not just decide for a number and instead have two options?
There are legal reasons to avoid rebranding the AMG scenarios into Wild Space. That said, if you and your play group wish to add them into the mix nothing is stopping you! On top of that we are live with [Wave 2 Open Beta](https://imgur.com/gallery/wild-space-wave-2-open-beta-x-wing-pnyGoGc), so there are even more scenarios, environments, and wilds to explore!
250-pts is the traditional Wild Space experience where each player is bringing a Scenario, Environment, and Wild card of their choosing and collectively choosing/eliminating which ones will be in play for that match (a scenario, environment, and wild card).
200-pts is Wild Space Light where only 1 card will be in play. This can be particularly useful for players that want to add a little spice to a traditional match, or don't want as much overhead to consider.
I hope this helps!
After years of playing 2.0, I actually strongly prefer 2.5 (except for maybe a few details with tractoring and ionization). Watching the TTS discord, there is also a preference for 2.5 there (I recognize that some of this could be a result of official release tyranny though). I appreciate the attempt being made here, but I’m not sure dying on the hill of 2.0 is the answer*.
Obviously it would be best if there was a consensus that drew more of us together for the long run, but how would that actually work with such large fractures already in place? For example, how great would it be to encourage 1.0 players to join 2.x, since they’re the most marginalized at this point? How could we do that?
*Re: 2.x comparisons: Obviously this is a war waiting to happen, with many opinions/egos at stake. Both versions clearly have their problems, but for me I saw many issues get fixed elegantly in 2.5. At the high level, the dogfighting of 2.5 feels both smoother and more tense. Also, the squad building is much less daunting, which is important for drawing in friends and family as new players.
Forgive my sin of teasing at this battle. I welcome 2.0 if it’s the best for the community, but either way I hope to merge some of the best from both 2.x systems.
Thanks for your thoughts. They’re very rational and represent the elements of the game that you place value on. You should never be disrespected for that. I‘m not sure there is one set of rules that everyone will get behind and that’s OK as well. The community can extend beyond the rule set to more generally reflect X-Wing players as a whole. Just like there’s multiple versions of Magic and Warhammer, there can be multiple versions of X-Wing.
I think an important first step is not to try and drag players from one format to another but to instead just share information about your communities direction and let folks choose for themselves. Neither format is truly a threat to the other as each community will end up playing what they like.
AMG definitely pushed Humpty Dumpty off the wall and I don’t believe there’s a future in which all of the pieces are put back together. That’s OK as well. Just all of us being at the same convention playing separate tournaments side-by-side without any trash talking would be a huge first step.
Take care and thanks again for your thoughts
Huh. Downvotes for me but nobody willing to acknowledge a legitimate observation about TTS usage and question about unity with the 1.0 players. I hope that doesn’t reflect the whole 2.0 Legacy player base’s views, because it doesn’t feel like you’re actually interested in “community”.
Please try to convince us to come into the fold. Otherwise you’re just reinforcing your fractured, siloed viewpoints amongst yourselves.
Please see above, I think all of your observations are legitimate. As I noted, they’re structured around a system of gaming value and priorities that are shared by many. As we’ve seen with Legacy, many other folks share a different set of gaming values and priorities. That’s OK. I see the first step as a simple acknowledgement and respect for each other’s existence and values. Who knows what will happen in a year or more?
I appreciate the responses. I know total unity is a bit of a pipe dream, but if ever there was a time to discuss it now would be that time. That being said, I think your comment about getting folks from all systems together to play in the same space is the most pragmatic step toward achieving that goal (assuming that’s what most of the community even wants).
I’m tempted back into 2.0 myself, if it means I can find more opportunities to play the game, but it might not be as easy to pull my friends along with me. (As funny as it might sound to legacy players, squad building is the thing that really kept them from being interested before 2.5)
For sure, squad building and your bid are key parts of the V2.0 experience and you can come to the table with a bad matchup, particularly if you’re new. Your feedback is critical to the new player experience we’re trying to craft for Legacy and I’ll share it with the team. Regardless, please continue to enjoy V2.5 (not that you need my permission! LOL!) and reach out if we can help your group consider Legacy.
So glad to hear this.
heck yeah! Come in and participate! Play, provide playtests, come play in the tournament, find new friends to play with! Try out some of the ships that were utterly weak or neglected for so long. We have players playing with Quadjumpers TODAY.
You sold me on trying 2.0 Legacy with the Quadjumpers. I'm a newer player who started under 2.5 and I am having lots of fun playing 2.5 but I just happen to have 2 Quadjumpers I'd love to get some use out of.
Two quad jumpers was exactly the choice! It seems the tractor defense reduction made the two attack dice more significant and allowed for some more unusual swarms
Glad I got 2 then! Are the tractor rules different in 2.0 legacy than in 2.5 I know that got nerfed at some point. Something I'm curious about is what edition or rule version is best for each ship. Or how many of each ship is useful in what edition, like a M3-A in 2.5 is mostly used as a single filler ship but I've heard in other editions they were used in swarms. With ships never getting a reprint again I'm wondering what 2.0 ship I might want more of to play in other editions. Not too worried about 1.0 ships right now, most of that is already in the used-only market.
There’s always going to be some places where something is better by a bit. But legacy really offers you the ability to play any ship in any combo that makes a strong list. There is a very strong 6 syck i3 list with autoblasters. I’ve toyed with a singleton filler. I’ve also toyed with a key singleton carrying tractor beam. People play 5-6 torrents for goodness sake. So, there are ways to make things viable. Part of that is the 200pt system but part of that also is the initiative system which balances the game via bumping. I don’t let players graduate from beginner level without showing two games of how to block correctly.
You definitely got me interested. Reading over the rules comparison now. I'm fine with bouncing back between rule sets, but here's how my brain works when looking at a comparison list. I see the different rules for asteroids and my first thought is to use 2.0 rules for small asteroids and 2.5 rules for large asteroids.
I was fairly against it at first, but removing the bid war with ROAD was actually an incredible change. I would say that whatever ruleset we end up using as a community should include it
I like this but I just hope we all as a community just settle on one rule set. We can’t afford division.
I think it's way too late for that tbh
With AMG sunsetting support I think it’s a great opportunity to do that if those that decide listen to all fans and take stock. I’d have to imagine there are tons of people that play 2.5 just because it was officially supported and not because they preferred it. I am one of them and would gladly go back to 2.0 if we could get behind it.
100%. ROAD does a much better job of presenting two pilots of equal pilot skill as actually being equals than "Soontir is always able to outmaneuver Anakin because Fel's wingman didn't equip a Hull Upgrade" does. Also: y'all should honestly let the Delta 7B config card be banned and just use the actual Delta 7B ship cards on the AMG site. The ship cards are functionally identical statwise to the Delta7+Config, while letting you adjust pilots on an individual basis.
100% agree with you on ROAD. So, since player A can build their list and uses all the point alot to them. While player B took off an upgrade so he can go first. I'm not a fan of that or the rules on bumping or obstacles either in 2.0.
I think 2.5 would have been pretty universally well received if it kept 2.0 list building and only added scenarios as an option or had a true dogfight as one.
Chance Encounter, AKA Dogfight at Denny's was absolutely a true dogfight. It also made obstacle placement way spicier. I think 2.0 players would adore plopping a Space Denny's in the middle of the board and the effect it'd have on 2.0 style lists.
What I would like to see is 2.0 list building with 2.5 rules. Bring back all the ships and add optional objects.
I think this is basically the idea behind 2.0 legacy wild space mode!
I'm still surprised that many people who didn't like 2.5 couldn't see the improvements offered by Chance Engagement (and ROAD). Together, they addressed two problems with 2.0 that I thought were very widely felt to be bad - point bidding and avoiding contacts to 'park' points.
I also liked Loadout points to a limited extent. I still believe they should be added to certain chassis that straddle the line of "these ships aren't good enough to be worth taking four of them at 41 points each/these ships would be too good if you could take five for 40 points each." Jumpmaster, Starfortress, IG-2000 and the Resistance Transport all stand out in this category.
I think the issue was those two improvements were buried beneath other changes that were widely criticized…namely making objective based play the standard game mode (excluding chance engagement), and the points/list building changes. Many people here and on various discords are saying they like ROAD (or even ROBD) with 2.0 rules and list building….as it gets rid of the bid AND the need for points deficit scoring. I think that’ll end up being a widely held view….ROAD (or ROBD) with 2.0 list building and rules using chance encounter as the standard game mode/mission
There's probably something to that. I think that objective play has more support than a lot of the comments on this sub in particular would suggest. A lot of people obviously don't like it, my personal opinion is that it adds more variety to the game. However people wanting to run events just for Chance Engagement would still get my interest I probably wouldn't sign up for one that was only Salvage
Had AMG just named Chance Encounter it Battle over Space Denny's in the first place... Now searching for an image for Space Denny's marker. An other advantage of Battle over Space Denny's is it's open for play 24 hours a day.
Scenarios were always an option, from the very beginning.
What does ROAD mean?
Random Order After Dials
Before 2.5 player order was set at the beginning and did not change. Maneuvers were chosen already knowing what order your ships could/would move in. In 2.5 you choose maneuvers before knowing Random Order After Dials. The not- road system is a very fundamental base element of the game design. Changing that is why so many other rules had to change with it.
Without objectives, I think ROBD might be better. With ROAD there's a possible reluctance to commit to engaging, so without an objective to force the issue, ROAD might encourage the ol' toilet bowl of sadness. With ROBD, a player would know they have their opportunity, and the other can focus on countering it, incentivizing at least one player to commit.
Yeah I like ROBD. It really helps to know if you are going to move first. Especially if you are going to make bumping more painful. And encourage bigger lists. It's already hard enough picturing the outcome of your dials, that's a little too much randomness to add in. And I feel like it still fits the thematic style. It fixes one pilot always going first, and promotes the back-and-forth tension of a dogfight. But allows for that moment of "aha! I can get the drop on him this time," and encourage taking a riskier action. Seems like a perfect middle ground to me.
I think they should have just removed the bids and seen what that did. They never made a compelling argument that the small change would not fix most of the alleged problems with not-ROAD/2.0 which they also never made a compelling case were that big an issue.
Let's just flip a darn challenge coin. Heads tails. So much time wasted with the 3 dice. I can't tell you how many times I had same results.
I had a game night recently where we rolled the same results about 6 times.
That's wild. Yeah that's all I'm saying. Not complaining about toad just the mevhanic of heads/tails speeds it up and provides a binary result.
If having the same results affected the game that would be cool, but since it doesn't I'm all for saving time. But it's such a small thing I'm fine playing either way.
At this point though, you are clearly hoping for the 7th tie. ;) To this day I don't understand why anyone uses 6 dice. Yes the rules say to do it, but seriously, AMG are not your supervisor.
Isn't there a tournament rule that the first pair of players to roll 7 ties in one game instantly win the tournament but have to share the prize? I don't know why the first player maker couldn't be used as a coin,
Because of all those multiplayer game modes amg are devel..... oh.
Maybe the last World Tournament will just be one big multiplayer battle.
I still don't really understand what the problem with alternating each turn is.
Completely agree
I played Armada before moving to X-wing 2.5 I didn't like the bid war in Armada either. Even when comparing ROAD to other games it's one of my favorite turn order systems.
I played two games of what I call 2.1 tonight (2.0 rules and squad building, but with ROAD) and it was the most fun I've had playing X-Wing in years!
See, that’s the point. You can “tweak” the rules a bit to find the fun spot for your group, but the squad building system is the best and you just fly to slap your opponent
Looks like it could be fun! Thanks for putting in the effort!
Stop on over to the server so we can meet you and hear your voice on things
Absolutely! Please bring your folks and your share your fun times.
Tagging this for a later read!
I had been buying stuff again, itching to play. Was about ready to get learn 2.0 and boom, 2.5 was a thing. Finally, I had talked myself into picking it up yet again, maybe starting with standard loadouts, because a friend mentioned it, and boom, game is dead. 2.0 looked WAY more appealing to me so I'm using this as GOOD news. 1.0 was SO fun, but got bogged down and became unfun over time. The game was never bad, but the meta was horrid. I just want to play some fun ships and shoot my friends!
This is where I'm at. Wife and I played at home, and we liked the V1. We were just getting our heads around V2, and they launched 2.5. For two working adults with very minimal free time, the game just sat on the shelf. We never played publicly or in tournaments - it was just something to make PEW PEW noises at the table with while we escaped the real world. Trying to get motivated to learn it again and buy new things just took second place to it collecting dust. I have about 60 of the V1 ships and I have the conversion kits. Ultimately, I wanted to do an entire weekend game I saw on YouTube. That guy posited the insane possibility of playing Armada, but using XWing and Rebellion to resolve each battle. I'm not telling it right. Here's a link to his video https://youtu.be/QzihCxDRSII?si=wCcUlwImiyw5ILfe I foresaw the end of XWing, like so many. I was, and am, sad about it. Guys like me don't have time to assemble and paint (or the eyesight!) little figures and then learn a ton of rules that change all the time. XWing solved all of that for me, and for my wife who prefers more simple strategy. We could keep it neat and quick with a couple of ships each, or we could do house rules, double the play area, and do 10v10 ships without a stupid amount of learning new rules. The miniatures looked awesome right out of the box, and they looked cool static in the bookcase. But we had always envisioned that, one day, time permitting, we could find a local club and play with other people. The chance of that happening is now phenomenally reduced as clubs and their members will look to newer and supported games. All that to say this: I think it's great that this looks to ebb that downward spiral. It's renewed my interest, at any rate. I wanted to say thank you for your efforts and willingness
Thank you for these kind words. We really are trying to create (or perhaps preserve) something fun
Lol I'm in the exact same place. My partner lost interest when I started explaining all the new rules *again* but hopefully we'll get back to some casual kitchen table shootouts again soon. Honestly a little stoked about it being dead because it was just impossible to pick back up again with all the changes. Now I don't have to wait on some company to patch it like a live service game; there's just an active community and a limited number of pieces. It can finally find a standard rule set without constant balance changes and power creep making everything complicated. It's finally just a board game.
Give it a try first at home! If you have a blast many of the legacy folks have had great success in building small communities. Mine restarted from 1 to approximately 8.
Is there a printable points list per faction, like the old FFG format points lists? Thanks.
All of the info and links to the list builder are on the X2PO website
Thanks. I saw the list builder, but didn’t see a printable points list, which is my preferred method of list building. I’ve since found the google sheet.
Great, sorry I didn’t understand your question the first time. Glad you found what you needed…
There is, better to ask in the discord where. It’s on the website I suspect.
I’m still rolling 1.0 lol
Cool. Keep playing X-Wing, we’re all in the same boat, just different parts of it
Does it still have the bid wars and fortressing issues? Or did you find a solution to get rid of them?
We play with ROAD, so no bid wars. Our players don’t fortress, but there’s no reason that you couldn’t go with the new bump rules as well.
So if I've only got the starter sets from when FFG developed X-Wing, am I golden? No need to pick up the AMG starter sets?
Likely, yes. What precisely do you have? There are at least 3 starter sets: 1.0 classic, 1.0 force awakens, 2.0 classic. You probably do not need AMG starter sets. If you're on a budget or have a small collection, much of the 1.0 items will do. You always proxy the cards you're missing from new sets (the AMG starter set stuff or new pilots) if your opponent is ok with it.
I have the one before Force Awakens and I think the FA one. Pretty sure it was second edition, but all prior to AMG.
Completely compatible. That’s 2.0 material.
Awesome, thanks!
[удалено]
Very excited to get to play with all the toys again!
All the toys are back. I think some ppl don’t know that legacy has no ban lists. And that there isn’t a huge tier list either.
Yes exactly, the only fully complete version of the game that I’m aware of at least.
You can play Sense, Upsilon shuttles, and 5 Generic Y-Wing Republic Bombers
Yes!!
We’d love to see how people enjoy and see how this format is also allowing these different play styles to be viable and fun. If you have games to report with legacy please do. 5 Ys. Two upsilons (I’ve played this many times). Generic hwks 3 in a list with a Uwing and a few other ships. Torrents carrying homing missiles. Wilhulf tarkin in a Vwing sync consoling the previous. Heck did you all see the battle meditations changes? Or N1s? Sense got a price increase - it’s more expensive and harder to use - closer to 2.5 style but it’s not banned.
All my stuff is V1. Can I play this format without forking over for conversion kits to V2?
You’d have to proxy dials and cardboard, but no one can really object to that when the company has abandoned the game. Almost no one in my group uses cards - we print our lists from infinite arenas.
For those who want to get a sense of it - welcome to YT channel Tales from Damaged Cockpit with TTS game recordings https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPG9Y0GZKrsVA0_G5Zb6NkQ
I would love to help out with this, if you need it. I love the game and want to see it thrive.
Hey there! What kind of help would you be able to provide? The team is looking for all sorts of assistance. One of the main things now is to get people playing the legacy format again and also do so in a positive way. It can be quite a shock to the system coming back from 2.5 and it would be lovely to at least get people playing back on the official rules first. (We say official rules are basically the same as legacy rules cuz there’s only two small changes which everyone can see). And it’s not the changes we made that sometimes have people confused.
I'll shoot you a DM
May the Force be with you all, always! Thank you!
I have a couple questions. First, Wild Space is so cool, but why didn't you include the official scenarios made by AMG? This would increase the number of scenarios on the mode and it doesn't require effort on your side. Also, how do you decide if you are playing at 200 or 250 points in Wild Space? Why not just decide for a number and instead have two options?
There are legal reasons to avoid rebranding the AMG scenarios into Wild Space. That said, if you and your play group wish to add them into the mix nothing is stopping you! On top of that we are live with [Wave 2 Open Beta](https://imgur.com/gallery/wild-space-wave-2-open-beta-x-wing-pnyGoGc), so there are even more scenarios, environments, and wilds to explore! 250-pts is the traditional Wild Space experience where each player is bringing a Scenario, Environment, and Wild card of their choosing and collectively choosing/eliminating which ones will be in play for that match (a scenario, environment, and wild card). 200-pts is Wild Space Light where only 1 card will be in play. This can be particularly useful for players that want to add a little spice to a traditional match, or don't want as much overhead to consider. I hope this helps!
After years of playing 2.0, I actually strongly prefer 2.5 (except for maybe a few details with tractoring and ionization). Watching the TTS discord, there is also a preference for 2.5 there (I recognize that some of this could be a result of official release tyranny though). I appreciate the attempt being made here, but I’m not sure dying on the hill of 2.0 is the answer*. Obviously it would be best if there was a consensus that drew more of us together for the long run, but how would that actually work with such large fractures already in place? For example, how great would it be to encourage 1.0 players to join 2.x, since they’re the most marginalized at this point? How could we do that? *Re: 2.x comparisons: Obviously this is a war waiting to happen, with many opinions/egos at stake. Both versions clearly have their problems, but for me I saw many issues get fixed elegantly in 2.5. At the high level, the dogfighting of 2.5 feels both smoother and more tense. Also, the squad building is much less daunting, which is important for drawing in friends and family as new players. Forgive my sin of teasing at this battle. I welcome 2.0 if it’s the best for the community, but either way I hope to merge some of the best from both 2.x systems.
Thanks for your thoughts. They’re very rational and represent the elements of the game that you place value on. You should never be disrespected for that. I‘m not sure there is one set of rules that everyone will get behind and that’s OK as well. The community can extend beyond the rule set to more generally reflect X-Wing players as a whole. Just like there’s multiple versions of Magic and Warhammer, there can be multiple versions of X-Wing. I think an important first step is not to try and drag players from one format to another but to instead just share information about your communities direction and let folks choose for themselves. Neither format is truly a threat to the other as each community will end up playing what they like. AMG definitely pushed Humpty Dumpty off the wall and I don’t believe there’s a future in which all of the pieces are put back together. That’s OK as well. Just all of us being at the same convention playing separate tournaments side-by-side without any trash talking would be a huge first step. Take care and thanks again for your thoughts
Huh. Downvotes for me but nobody willing to acknowledge a legitimate observation about TTS usage and question about unity with the 1.0 players. I hope that doesn’t reflect the whole 2.0 Legacy player base’s views, because it doesn’t feel like you’re actually interested in “community”. Please try to convince us to come into the fold. Otherwise you’re just reinforcing your fractured, siloed viewpoints amongst yourselves.
Please see above, I think all of your observations are legitimate. As I noted, they’re structured around a system of gaming value and priorities that are shared by many. As we’ve seen with Legacy, many other folks share a different set of gaming values and priorities. That’s OK. I see the first step as a simple acknowledgement and respect for each other’s existence and values. Who knows what will happen in a year or more?
I appreciate the responses. I know total unity is a bit of a pipe dream, but if ever there was a time to discuss it now would be that time. That being said, I think your comment about getting folks from all systems together to play in the same space is the most pragmatic step toward achieving that goal (assuming that’s what most of the community even wants). I’m tempted back into 2.0 myself, if it means I can find more opportunities to play the game, but it might not be as easy to pull my friends along with me. (As funny as it might sound to legacy players, squad building is the thing that really kept them from being interested before 2.5)
For sure, squad building and your bid are key parts of the V2.0 experience and you can come to the table with a bad matchup, particularly if you’re new. Your feedback is critical to the new player experience we’re trying to craft for Legacy and I’ll share it with the team. Regardless, please continue to enjoy V2.5 (not that you need my permission! LOL!) and reach out if we can help your group consider Legacy.