Відео

Ha! Yeah, too bad, that's one thing to call it XD This is how I saw the actions they were taking at the time/had up to then, and I still stand by that part - even if my optimism about the immediate future was off :/

Oh NO! I'm not sure what the issue is there, I set TTS up years ago and haven't touched it. I can basically guarantee though that any issue is temporary, and it's going to be fixed up - somehow. I'll see what I can find out!

I just checked in on the TTS Discord, and they said the error you're getting is most likely a server hiccup and temporary. Give it another shot when you have a minute, and if you get more errors send me the details and I'll get them to the mod team!

With Wedge/Luke vs. a baseline X-wing, my god yes it does 😂 But you're also right that Initiative is one of the key pricing factors, so an I4 Generic is closer in price to an I4 Named, which makes sense considering the power of Initiative in 2.0 Since one of the biggest cases for Generics is the whole build-a-bear aspect of making your own characters, I would like to see them at least playable in 2.5 - but they would need a *lot* of loadout to really compete, which gets problematic very quickly when they're spammable. But hey, we'll see what happens!

Very true, in this game there were two full initiative overlaps too

You can Lock any in-game "Object," but the only card effects I can think of that have any interaction with it are Qi'ra Crew, Padric Y-wing, and - of course - Jam Now that we're about to enter a community-run Wild West, you could suggest banning it?

@@casualdadgamesya, go the easy AMG developer decision, that should go well… You did just give me an idea for my homebrew, ‘Galactic Civil War’, AKA XWing! 🤗

You definitely have to be in the mood for it, but it works! Let's you directly test two lists at once and avoid the somewhat silly stuff AI will do. I guess I didn't wrestle too much flipping the board around in the recording then, I sure felt it a few times XD

To balance the 16 and 24pt pilots, you either do things like slap a Cannon slot on one and give the other one a good bit more Loadout. Ways to give them both advantages that are different and differently weighted - or, you don't, and points changes make each one relevant at different times. That's not any different than 1.0 or 2.0... except that there are more levers to pull. I recently went back and built an equivalent list in both 2.5 and 2.0, then Legacy, and I really didn't miss shaving off Upgrades to squeeze in more ships, or the building pressure to trade named pilots down to generics. I would be much more on board with just upping the base number from 20. 40 is interesting, but I saw even 24* being thrown around as a little more directly translatable. As for dogfighting and predicting your opponent's moves - that's still THE core of the game. Arguably more so with dial peeking and changing being banned. There's just also conflicting priorities and counterplay that make for more nail-biting turns, and it makes for (I think) much more interesting endgames

I wonder - generally, yes, of course you're right. But this community is BIG, international, and both motivated and well organized (not to mention fairly well funded). I would be on the list-builders being maintained indefinitely. "Indefinitely" doing a lot of work as a Null field of course.

Full disclosure, I do these without notes - which you're absolutely right, I need at least an outline if I'm going to keep doing this. Also on this particular video I did three takes and this was the "best" one. I DO appreciate the corrections, I'm not making mistakes on purpose - just scrambling three editions (two of which I haven't played in years) live on camera. Flying over obstacles wasn't *always* a viable strategy, and you're right it was mostly gas clouds, but it's not an exaggeration to say it was much more common in 1.0 and 2.0 than in 2.5. Risky, sure, but that doesn't make it not viable. Empire going First - that was changed in tournament documents, was it ever changed in the written rules of the game? There was enough less incentive to look anywhere but the box in 1.0 that tournament-specific adjustments affected very few players, but I could see that having been added in the TFA Starter. Still, I appreciate being called on that, because I couldn't remember how initiative was called in 1.0 and there wasn't a quick reference available. Definitely appreciated the note on the changed rules in x2po. On that, I was relying on a conversation I saw maybe a week ago where it was clearly stated by multiple sources that there were no significant rules changes to Legacy 2.0. Obviously that's false, and those are very positive changes I'll be sure to highlight in future. HOWEVER, that doesn't change that initiative is still decided, in part, by bidding - and everything I said about the in-game importance of that is still true. It's also important to note that the focus of the video was talking about 2.0 as it was when FFG ran it and I dipped in and out of Legacy, but certainly could have made more clear distinctions. Toilet bowling and fortressing are game design problems. I experienced them personally, I have regularly heard other long-time players talk about how happy they are that they're gone, and even if they weren't all the time, every game, holy crap did they suck the fun out of games - that's opinion. Pure, biased, off-the-cuff opinion, but that one I'll stand by with no apology. Deliberately not engaging and giving yourself maneuver options that aren't on a ship's dial should come with significant costs, which in 1.0, 2.0 and 2.0 Legacy they don't. Frankly I don't care who disagrees on that point, that's their opinion which they're fully entitled to. Just to be thorough, one thing I missed completely was the bump-focus/calc, which is new in 2.5, so we can add that to the mistakes list too ;)

@@casualdadgames Flying over obstacles being touted as "viable" really should be further qualified is what I really want to get across here. I'm not arguing that it happened more often in the first two editions, that's obvious. But you still have to add to that declaration that if you were going to make a move over an obstacle, it was more than likely because your earlier flight plan from a turn before or so was disrupted and you're looking for a way out of a problem, and there's no other real option. It's one thing for someone to say "flying through rocks was a viable strategy" as a catch all statement that implies no consequences as though you could plan a whole approach around it, and something completely different to say "if you're really stuck you can throw this move as a */viable/* last ditch effort to get out of trouble, but it comes at a moderate price." The latter statement is clearly more accurate about the old version. Nobody was just winging it over rocks to try to get shots whenever they felt like it. The AMG edition upped the price and risk to the point of just removing the option entirely for better or worse. Personally I thought it an overcorrection, but whatever. Try telling an Aces player in an older edition they can absolutely send Soontir or the like over that debris, trust me it's "viable" :/ X2po is stuck with bidding and the only thing in their structure they can do to change it is points adjustment and scoring modification which they have. There are plenty of voices inside their community that push for all manner of different initiative systems. Unfortunately because they're trying hard to not just rewrite the game into a fan edit entirely, the core structure of the game is left in its artifact state. But even they will tell you to by all means use a house rule for init if you want. It's a huge reach to lump them all together and throw shade at them the way you did. Especially to then retreat to "oh well I heard from secondary sources a week ago which is why I was misinformed". Like I heard this one time, from that one guy, who read in this one thing,... Do better as you said you would and you won't get a complaint from me. On empire-first. The general rule reference book and the tournament document were often updated in synch, but I don't think it was always. It's been a long time but I think the general Rules Reference was updated close to the tournament docs in those early years. And I want to say that some rules were duplicated across both the tournament docs and the rules docs back then as well, they might've even been merged? Again my memory is fuzzy. Considering the Most Wanted box came out in '14 as well, that might've had the first printed hard copy rules insert for initiative in the box to account for the new faction. The little like two page or foldout ones those boxes often came with. So I'm sure the TFA box(Dec 2015) would've had it as well in a full book version. And the online PDF rules would've all had it in that time period. Unfortunately my Google Fu was weak and I could not find the PDF for any of those, generally searches only come up with the last revision. If anyone had shown up to a game night or event around that time I'm sure that's about when they would've found it without looking themselves. Those online rule docs were also where the FAQ were so they were easy enough for even kitchen table folk to find. Now admittedly this is anecdotal, but I'd add here that often I had players come to the store doing the coin flip anyway because the first rule book had a weird phrasing that in one part implied you ignore the empire-first rule entirely if playing your own lists, and many assumed you then randomly determined and never read the rest of the rule like two pages later. Your experience may vary. It really wasn't intuitively written in the first pass, to the point many never noticed it changed. I saw you had corrected yourself in the comments about bump focus, so I had not included it

The whole point of the so-called X-wing Alliance is to guarantee Organized Play, points balancing, and maaaaaybe even some physical product support moving forward. They're also a lot more likely to support 2.0 (Legacy) and even 1.0 on some level than formal developers ever were. That potentially *is* a single banner, which would be the first time since the game launched. I don't think any single version of the game could ever hope to be a unifying one, that ship has long since sailed.

2.0 really improved on that power creep. 1.0 went deep into cane-toading balance issues, unleashing crazy unintended consequences - and since there were no card packs or way to change values on the cards... Yeah. 2.0 improved a *ton* in that regard. Errata, ban lists, adjustable points and upgrade slots - absolutely huge. It's still fundamentally the same, just maybe grown up a bit. My next video (barring more disturbances in the Force) should be a "Play & Chat" where I'll play a game and compare how the editions would differ in each situation. As part of the prep for that I've gone back to 2.0 list-building and I'll definitely have commentary on exactly that. Also, welcome! I'm glad you're enjoying my content!

Just a quick addition on Wild Space is that it's Rules Agnostic too. It's an addendum to whichever rule set you are using. If using the 2.5 Loadout squad building, simply build to 20 as normal and just shift the decimal over for scoring for scenario points. -Happy Flying!

@@CaptainTruelove Yup Wild Space is a great success as is - and I encourage current 2.0/2.5 folks to both try it out! It's *because* of that success that I think it provides some good scaffolding to build out a potential 3.0 ruleset.

@@Tsotanga2 Hey, I'm glad you think so! If you find anything in Wave 2 Open Beta, please let me know! We've identified a few small ticket things to fix/change in part to better align with both rule sets (one big ticket item that is easily rectified, and a few smaller ones to better align both rulesets).

I must have said something really wrong in this video, because I never meant to imply that *anyone* who didn't like the 2.5 rules was toxic and not worth listening to. I've said all along that too many people were WAY too toxic, and that they were active advocates/members of Legacy. My impression - incorrect it seems - was that they were the leadership of Legacy. I'm very pleased to hear that that's not the leadership, or the feeling within the community. Buuuut on some level it has been the impression people got from the outside. I'm far from the only X-wing player who has felt this way. I am sorry people have felt targeted as individuals, that was never my intention. I'm excited to have Legacy as one of the main formats moving forward so that everyone has opportunities to play the way(s) they want to.

@@casualdadgames​​⁠​⁠​⁠no, you didn’t say anything wrong. You told the truth, it’s just a prickly community. Shocking that a group of people that pitched a fit and left the game hoping the developers would fail might not be that awesome to deal with, and they refuse to acknowledge the very real competitive problems that players developed in 2.0. They don’t have AMG to complain about anymore so they’re going to complain about everyone else. I don’t envy anyone who thinks they’re going to be received well trying to keep the game “alive” moving forward. The behavior of the community since AMG took over (regardless of legitimate complaints about the rules) has been absolutely horrifying. And almost 100% of that toxicity found its way into Legacy. And just look at the comments here. Not “hey, give legacy a chance.” Just coming in slagging you. Not a good sign.

Guten abend, freund! You and other commenters are correct in this point, and I fully intend to dial back the criticism of Legacy as a community and focus on the specific individual experiences. I also appreciate Legacy folks' patience and taking the time to reach out to me about that part of the video. Happy flying!

@@casualdadgames That's wonderful to read, and I'm glad that we can consider this from different perspectives. I've also noticed in your work that you make an effort to highlight various viewpoints. This is an important contribution, and I'm very pleased to see how you fulfill your responsibilities as a content creator. Keep up the good work and know that you can count me as one of your viewers! :)

Honestly as a new player coming into it, I just find the self bumping penalties to be super funny and leads to a more chaotic play experience, had a guaranteed win in my game yesterday… until I forgot my initiative 5 fang moved before my initiative 6 one, and collided into the back of the 2ed one, killing the first

That's a new take! What kind of campaign did you have in mind?

@@casualdadgames its really limited to the ability and imagination of the community to come up with story driven campaigns. if they have experience in D&D or other miniature systems it will of course be easier. a simple story campaign can be a rebel fleet is trying to escape from the imperial fleet but they are held back because a secret EMP weapon has disabled most of their jump capabilities. hence they have to wait till most of them get it fixed and then make the jump. or a small rebel fleet has managed to steal a secret weapon from an imperial research outpost. the fleet has to survive X turns and jump away before the imperial reinforcement star destroyers arrive. other parameters include no special character ships unless they are part of the story etc. you can even have rescue missions as part of the story campaign. usually the final game in the campaign is a big battle.

I’d say AMG should invest in some 3-D printers lol ever design your own starship for a 3-D printer? (Walking away whistling) Enjoy your models AND your starship combat game!

Don't tempt me, I'll do the action figure thing XD To be clear, Legacy absolutely did not kill the game, or even the community. I never meant to say or even imply that. I'm also very surprised to hear that some toxic personalities have been... unaffiliated? I had no idea there had been anything like that (and would like to know where I could find exactly that for future research). I was going to say "Of course I'm not threatened!" but on some level, yeah. The Subreddit and FLGS' are the first stops for a lot of prospective new players, and there have been times where I'm sure a whole lot of new players wanted nothing to do with X-wing and returned it/left it on the shelf. You could say that's "threatened," yes. I'm genuinely hopeful about where Legacy continues on, and becomes a core part of the life of X-wing moving forward. Y'all have done a great job of building out the resources and tools. I'll do my level best to move on from the criticism I expressed here.

That's a common opinion, and likely to be one of the key middle ground versions we end up with

Amen brother. 😉👍 I think that’s the secret…I like the Alpharius reference floating around hehehehe (‘…Alpharious…I AM…’

You, your buddies, and nearly everyone in Legacy is definitely not a raging asshole (...I think. Clearly we've never met, but based on your comment that's a sturdy limb to go out on). I quit playing in-store because of COVID. I never went back because of Legacy. The friendliest, kindest, most dedicated X-wing fans I ever knew flat-out refused to touch the 2.5 rules or points changes. Wouldn't even try them. And even this past week, those same people have been actively posting about the game again - much like the big marketing posts in the Discords - more or less saying "thank goodness, now you all can stop drinking the kool-aid and come back to your senses," with a healthy dose curses on AMG's name and spitting on all of the changes they ever made. Zero recognition that a ton (maybe even the majority) of new and current players actually like the bulk of the new rules. Reddit on the whole is actually remarkably positive. It's one of the (weirdly) friendliest social media channels, in general. Especially in the fan bases where people talk about their favorite games. The X-wing Sub is not. More to the point it *used to be,* but changed around COVID. Is that all Legacy's fault? AMG's fault? No, but it's driven a huge number of people away from the channel and the game. That's new, and a lot of that goes back to some extremely active, negative, regulars who happen also to be big parts of Legacy. That's not you, or your buddies. That's not all of Legacy. That IS what most of the rest of the community thinks of when Legacy as a group comes up. Not the individual players, but the bad stuff, and the places where the bad stuff happened and continues to happen. But yes, the big part of my goal with this wasn't to shame anyone or any edition, but to highlight the differences between the three, especially for new players trying to figure out where to go. That I DID strike a nerve and published what felt like a personal attack on you and your group - for that I am genuinely sorry

@@casualdadgames you have the right to your opinion, as we all do. We really just don’t want to obfuscate facts from fiction as AMG did very well from its 2/22/22 statement to us… I stay off discord and most public Xwing forums, better to rub elbows and socialize and stay arms length yet aware I’m dealing with actual people. Our want for instant gratification causes half our woes these days, in my opinion. Btw, not part of ANY ‘1’ group, from my standards, I go where I go lol ‘…just a man trying to make his way through the galaxy’ Legacy allows use of generics ships and customization, AMG 2.5, not so much. I believe one is incomplete and I believe the other never had enough to justify banning cards for the pushing of the mixed card ‘dynamic’ and I don’t expect anyone to think how I think, I can only HOPE that assertive decisions for gameplay by a community who care’s about the game comes out ahead in all of this. Honestly don’t care who that is though the XWA will probably be closer to ‘home base’ for me BECAUSE I’m 51% casual, 49% competitive. Peace to you and yours! 🤗 (AMG seems too high in the clouds for me to even give them a little credit, Dont like the false advertising/obfuscated nonsensical jargon on 2/22/22, and sadly, since)

I think this is a fair point. I got in with 1.0 and the prospect of needing to get several conversion packs to convert over to 2.0 was a bit of a turnoff. I always had planned to "one day" change to 2.0 (as there are a lot of ships I like only in 2.0), but as stock of the conversion sets started to dry up it got harder and harder to justify paying over RRP for the conversion kits. Now I don't see myself ever moving over to 2.0/2.5, it'd involve rebuying a chunk of my collection, and with the game being discontinued that is only going to get more expensive.

1.0 up to wave 10 plus some careful additions - it's all you need for a wonderful game. Nobody I know moved to 2.0, I think the great majority of players only own 1.0 stuff, fracture is assured unfortunately.

I'm fairly sure that ship has sailed. One game for major tournaments, two, at least, is more likely. But different communities are probably irrevocably divided beyond that already, let alone a year or two from now.

I also wonder how the 3d printing scene will adapt and make the ships and flight stands available. As well as scanning the cardboard and making available to print at home 🤔

Are we talking the old plain text black cards? If so, yup, pick the ship and grab the upgrades. Those are pretty old, so chances are some slots/points won't work anymore. Buuuuut, if that's the route you want to go, Infinite Arenas makes decks of exactly those cards, with pilot abilities and upgrade text all printed out: infinitearenas.com/

I was talking about the plain text cards with the red X-wing model on the back of them that comes with the Ship packs :)

2.5 "replaced" these with the new Standard Loadout versions, which look just like Infinite Arenas' versions - large, Tarot-sized cards with all of the pilot and upgrade text on one card - but often have unique abilities and upgrades that don't appear on any standalone upgrade cards (see the Battle over Endor pilots here: www.atomicmassgames.com/transmission/star-wars-x-wing-battle-over-endor-rebel-preview/)

@@bernhardeisl7382 actively being worked on, stay tuned :D

I really want to get past it, not be petty and set the stage for a friendlier community moving forward... But those latest big recruitment posts have really rubbed me the wrong way, I couldn't help it XD

Oh yeah. I'm, personally (and I think I said so?) coming around to something as simple as doubling squad points up to 40, and making Objectives worth 2/4 instead of 1/2 To limit upgrade bloat, you could also make upgrades across the board a little more expensive, but some of the stuff for key pilots (I'm always thinking of how to fix Dengar) a bit more affordable.

@@casualdadgames personally as a new player, I find it very digestible with 20 points, you can very easily tell if you’re getting 3-5 (or even 7, for CIS) ships just based on who you’re building around. I find that you tend to build around a particular leader pilot or whatever abilities you like sorta like subfactions in other games, then the strength of said leader is increased or decreased based on the amount of upgrades they can take. As a result of having more rules and higher initiative built in though, I feel like named pilots should have less of a pool than unnamed pilots or something. (Base cost depending of course) but it’s ridiculous how some unnamed pilots (Jedi Generals looking at you) are just expensive and have no upgrade pool

Also not sure why in 2.5 gauntlets have the ability to take drop seats when you will NEVER have points to take the dudes who go in said seats.

@@NinjatoBlade both kind of relics of the active balancing 2.5 was going through. Drop-seat and Commandos both got nerfed really hard because the Commando tokens just made a total mess of play areas - as I understand it - but there was always room for things to come back in in a later update. Generics have been a hot-button topic too, and the experimental community points I've seen do exactly that: shave down the squad cost of key Generics and the lv of some Named equivalents, then bump the cheaper generics LV a reasonable amount.

I sense…suicidal empathy….but that’s just me… AMG needed(s) to study the game a little more instead of just dismantling and cherry picking. Good luck, I’ll say no more. Peace.

"We ARE the Senate. And Alpharius" (please say that, at least once!) Thank you for the update! As much as I'm eager for next steps, I do appreciate the slow and steady approach. Like you've all said already, there's an active tournament season going on for half a year yet that a whole lot of community work has gone in to. Plus, after the "farewell tour," who knows what further official announcements we'll get? Really enjoying the approach, appreciate all y'all's work, and the prototype points are very promising!

😂’…slaughter…’

I mean - anyone with any love for Republic or Separatists probably isn't going to go for that XD I also think while 2.0 folks are on to something about granularity, I'm not ready to completely abandon Loadout Value. Or ROAD.

I Play Republic

Also, I can understand how there were clearly innapropriate comments made at the time, towards AMG and towards players making the switch to 2.5, but I can personally attest to the opposite as well. While vitriolic comments by a few make the whole community look bad, I think all camps came out of that transition looking really bad. Some people not liking 2.5 were being treated pretty poorly by the 2.5 community as well… I don’t see a clear path to bring everyone together again

@@RemisRandR all fair takes. 2.5 is quite different, and does feel at times like an unfinished variation of the game. Playing in tournaments where I learned key tips about how to quickly place Objectives, cool markers, and 3rd party stuff like a Scenario D6 really helped me fit my X-wing play in with the new rules. I also won't pretend that 2.5 fans have always been polite and friendly, there is bad blood on both sides. We're unlikely to get a single unified edition agreed on... But a side-by-side of 2.5 and 2.0 with 1-3 crossover formats in between, that seems totally doable (and healthier anyway).

As a new player coming into it, I found the awkward nature of objectives not being too impactful somewhat of a good thing - you should only win this game with objectives if your opponent is doing nothing, otherwise if you’re both playing the game in a natural way, it still really does come down to the dogfight. I’ll admit the first time I played with objectives it devolved into flying circles around each other not shooting to score points, but the player who’s behind can very quickly math out that they’ll lose with that strategy after a round or two of that sort of action. I mostly like how it exists as an incentive and offers alternative win conditions And then as I lack years of a 2.0 play experience, I find both 2.5 and 2.0 list building basically boils down to “I have a few fun lists I want to try at both sets of points” so 200 vs 20 is just like swapping languages to say the same sort of thing…. But I can totally see upgrade bloat of 2.5 being it’s own grievance, it’s especially an issue that slows down the game when setting up and while explaining lists at the start

@@NinjatoBlade yeah all fair points. My comment about the objectives is purposefully not very specific because I can’t in all honesty remember the scenarios now… I only remember that they didn’t feel properly integrated in the game. They may even have changed since then and I wouldn’t know. The listbuilding for me was the biggest thing. I remember, when I was very involved in the game, just making lists to see what I could manage to fit that looked like fun. I tried a couple times in 2.5 to do the same, but the process wasn’t interesting for me. Always liked trying to find the balance between more upgrades or more/better ships. Also, with 200pts to work with, if some cards are 2-3 pts off (in my opinion), unless it’s at very specific numbers, it doesn’t super matter. But with only 20pts, being off by 1 is huge. Overall 2.5 felt to me like x-wing 3.0, but they chose not to risk actually re-working everything to properly make their ruleset work with existing ships, so the risk they took was having them work weird instead.

It's going to be up to individual groups and players. For my part, I like Objectives and don't really understand (but do respect) the resistance to doing anything but dogfighting. I couldn't think of a single Star Wars space battle that wasn't about some mission first, dogfighting second. Part of the conversation is that even with a "few" moving parts here, there's a hilarious number of possible combinations, so community consensus on a few variants could go a long way towards supporting a game for all players

@@casualdadgames I completely agree and think objectives are fun for playing at home or at your local store, I was thinking more competitively. just stick to a point system and fight it out. at the end of the day I don't really mind as I love the game so just want to see it do well and continue to grow

@@19EightySixINC amen to that :D

@@19EightySixINC Competitive play is where you saw\see the most issues come up - self bumping\fortressing in a corner. Points fortressing (especially with bidding in play). If there is a boring yet effective way to win... it will be used. We all forget how we very very rarely saw a slew of those mid-range pilots that sits in the I2 to I4 initiative slot. It was more beneficial to just spend a bit more for that I5 or I6 Ace to arc dodge or shoot first, or both or a little less to get multiples of those generics to block or just have so much for your opponent to chew through. I recall even when 2.0 came out, there was a lot of talk about scenario play. It just adds to much to a game.

Homebrew is open season ladies & gents…combine rules, personally, I’m using my huge ships, AMG can’t put the kings stamp on my C-ROC! Nor should anyone stop figuring out ‘ways’ to enjoy your models. Just look at HotAC. Good luck space cowboys…

I would start with the one you know - 1.0. If I'm not mistaken, HotAC was originally designed for 1.0 anyway, and it sounds like it's the bulk of your collection. Then, I would try (or watch) a game or two each of 2.0 and 2.5, see if either one "speaks" to you enough to fully convert. No matter which you go with, HotAC will work just fine! My next X-wing video is (planned anyway) going to be a TTS "Play and Chat" of 2.5, so maybe that will help :D

@@casualdadgames Thanks! That helps!

Follow up for you - how old were your kids when you introduced them, and how did you introduce them?

@@casualdadgames Pretty young, around 7-9. Probably too young, but I just simplified things as much as possible, and was really forgiving about bumps and the like. Just enjoyed the basic concept of flying around, trying to get shots off. Didn't use any advanced builds. Focused on simplicity. It's on the radar to reintroduce now that they are teens...

"Good," maybe not. It's always been messy, a little weird, and I had a hell of a time literally finding it until the Discord and official website. But enthusiastic, frequent, and open? That it was, for a brief shining bit right in the beginning. When they were doing rules revisions and talking game design philosophy, we heard from them a lot, and it was great, and that's a period of their stewardship we do all seem to forget - since more recently it has been dramatically worse. AMG seems to sell Legion and, at least at first, Shatterpoint, just fine ;)

"Way-too-complete" ha! Same team! Thank you for the kind words, happy to be in the same circles as you!

I can't fault you for disagreeing with me on that, not in the least. One of my biggest frustrations with the announcement is it's *still* the Black Box it's been for years, to where we still have no idea at all what really was/wasn't developed or planned. It's up to every individual to insert whatever they believe, which sets up a landslide of more negative opinions than necessary. I have played MCP, some Shatterpoint, and a good bit of Legion. Legion is the most "my style," coming from 40k, but outside of X-wing the games I enjoyed most were the Shatterpoint ones. I still like the design of the game - but of course get that that's not everyone's experience. I also fully agree, the move to cancel development with so much left up in the air doesn't make sense on the face of it. I expect there's more there that's going to come out after AMG's run is complete.

It's hard to know without the actual sales numbers, but I believe the jump from 1.0 to 2.0 was cataclysmic. That knocked out almost all casual players and a good number of older players. 2.0 made some strong rules revisions, and won a good number of players back, but never held a candle to 1.0 in terms of raw sales, and really screwed retailers because they were stuck with mountains of 1.0 boxes they couldn't sell for years. Then... COVID hit, and basically torpedoed the whole thing. So we had two major dings before AMG took over. Still, AMG was on a path to making the game appealing for new players AND retailers in ways 2.0 never did - but then died in the crib. No new ships and not enough points couldn't last forever, and whether we believe it's straight production costs that never worked out or not, without new stuff it was only a matter of time.

You're not wrong - I should absolutely have known that. I'll make more of an effort to check myself in future, and I always appreciate getting called out when I make a mistake!

Thank you! It's probably no surprise, but I have a lot of faith in the community at large, and there are already groups getting together to figure out what's next after the official "farewell tour" I'll still be here :D holler if there's anything you want to see!

Thank you for the clarification, I was confused about that and thought FFG was a step above AMG all along!

​@@casualdadgamesyep. You are not "confused". Just don't know shit about you talk. Making a video without pre research, just to talk shit

I agree that the best future for this game would be in the hands of another company like WizKids.

It's all still fun, no matter the edition. And the cards and models are satisfying by themselves! I don't believe they didn't care, I just don't. Every single panel, every single product, they're a bunch of nerds that love games and Star Wars. I remember how excited they were to tease the Gunboat reprint - that's a fan-favorite that you have to be deep in the fandom to even know about, let alone get excited about. And then... It never happened. Which had to really suck for them too, regardless of the reason.

May they be the first three weeks of many more!

@@casualdadgames game has been a total blast for sure, I’ve lost nearly every time I’ve put models on the table lol, I think trying to force battle meditation to work in 2.5 has been a mistake

@@NinjatoBlade oh god, yes, I could have told you that. It's like flying Yoda ETA at all ;) But, no better way to learn than trying it XD

@@casualdadgamesmy opponents all fly resistance/first order aces while my republic/sep lists are all initiative 3 lol, (they’re all 4-5) it’s been a wild “I love first but you shoot first” last 6 games

@@NinjatoBlade great time to practice your blocking! But maybe not with expensive Jedi

It ain't over 'till the last player is dead! ...Or something less extreme that gets the point across that this announcement hardly means the game is actually dead.

@@casualdadgames True, I was just really hoping for a Scum starter kit as my entry point.

@@Pilt117 geez, me too. Maybe in a next life? (As in, whatever form X-wing takes from here)

Eh, for now ;) There's plenty of $$ to be made yet, we'll just have to see how, when, and by who

@@casualdadgames I agree. I did't mean to be mean.

This might be a lesson to games designers... not to build a single game around one IP. Build a new mythology/IP, and then connect a GOOD game to a successful IP. Then, if the fandom feel abandoned or mistreated... then the game still continues - in its own right. Perhaps?