Jump to content
TheOz

For those who are not excited for hyperspace(imperial players? Rebel players? “Variety” players?) can ffg change your mind?

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Lace Jetstreamer said:

I can tell you, I would never have purchased the conversion kits if I knew ahead of time that most of my collection would be banned in hyperspace.  I tend to think there are many veterans in the same position.  I certainly feel like I have been screwed over by FFG on this one.  Seems like many of us here feel that way which is ultimately bad for business.  There just aren't enough new players to fill the shoes of the screwed over old players.

If you bought the kits to play extended, then—f%@& it—just play extended.

I understand wanting to go to certain tournaments, and wanting to prepare for them. But if those tournaments are going to ruin your fun, and you’re still going to play in those tournaments, and you’re only going to play with those tournaments in mind, then aren’t you the one ruining your fun?

Honestly, I feel like too many people have forgotten that—while expensive and competitive—its still just a f$#%ing game.

Edited by SpiderMana
Reworded to match punctuation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hm...now that I think about it, maybe one reason I don't mind list-building restrictions and multiple formats is because I come from a card game background (in particular L5R CCG), where there are often restricted or banned lists, and in the case of games like L5R, even regular rotation requiring massive deck changes.  I wonder if there's any correlation between those who play such games and those who are fine with Hyperspace format.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

Hm...now that I think about it, maybe one reason I don't mind list-building restrictions and multiple formats is because I come from a card game background (in particular L5R CCG), where there are often restricted or banned lists, and in the case of games like L5R, even regular rotation requiring massive deck changes.  I wonder if there's any correlation between those who play such games and those who are fine with Hyperspace format.

Hmm. Interesting theory. 🤔

I myself don't have much experience in multiple formats. I dabble in MTG, but mostly in Commander, with my brother getting me into a few casual drafts. I'm not against Hyperspace, but I do see it as a side thing and Extended as the full X-Wing experience. 

I would be very interested in more responses to this. It would be interesting to see if there is a correlation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

even regular rotation requiring massive deck changes

If FFG is going to keep making X-Wing, they need to sell new ships

If FFG are going to sell new ships, new ships need to be good on the table

If new ships are going to be good on the table, they have to either power creep or rotate old ships

If you think that power creep is a better solution, then you are lost 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Embir82 said:

FFG well and trully surprassed GW when it comes to skill of skinning their customers.

QFT.

"Conversion" = "1.0 ships are now legal in 2.0, PERIOD."  Any other construction is Clintonesque ("It depends on what the meaning of "is" is!").

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Firebird TMK said:

QFT.

"Conversion" = "1.0 ships are now legal in 2.0, PERIOD."  Any other construction is Clintonesque ("It depends on what the meaning of "is" is!").

First, please prove that statement.  Simply saying, "I'm right, and everyone who disagrees is wrong," isn't proof.

Second, what's being claimed is closer to:  "Conversion" = "100% of 1.0 ships are legal in every single 2.0 format 100% of the time"--which is an even sketchier claim.

Edited by JJ48

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gadwag said:

If new ships are going to be good on the table, they have to either power creep or rotate old ships

If new ships are going to be good on the table, they have to be GOOD SHIPS. 

GOOD SHIPS =/= power creep.  They can have different abilities and characteristics, while still being roughly equivalent to existing ships.  There will be plenty of customers for such ships: collectors, completists, those who have to get that latest hotness, and those who just want to pad FFG's bottom line.

Power creep is GW's mechanism for pushing plastic crack.  FFG adopts that mechanism at its peril.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

First, please prove that statement.  Simply saying, "I'm right, and everyone who disagrees is wrong," isn't proof.

Second, what's being claimed is closer to:  "Conversion" = "100% of 1.0 ships are legal in every single 2.0 format 100% of the time"--which is an even sketchier claim.

First: Adequate support for that statement has been produced in numerous posts in this thread.  You don't accept that proffer of support.  Nothing anyone can say, and no FFG citations, will change your position.  Fine.  We will differ.

Second: What's being claimed is what I wrote.  You are engaging in Clintonesque sophistry and obfuscation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gadwag said:

If FFG is going to keep making X-Wing, they need to sell new ships

If FFG are going to sell new ships, new ships need to be good on the table

If new ships are going to be good on the table, they have to either power creep or rotate old ships

If you think that power creep is a better solution, then you are lost 

I disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Firebird TMK said:

First: Adequate support for that statement has been produced in numerous posts in this thread.  You don't accept that proffer of support.  Nothing anyone can say, and no FFG citations, will change your position.  Fine.  We will differ.

Second: What's being claimed is what I wrote.  You are engaging in Clintonesque sophistry and obfuscation.

But 100% of 1.0 ships are legal in 2.0.  Just not in Hyperspace.  So, if you are, as you say, simply claiming that 1.0 ships are legal, then there is no disagreement whatsoever.  If you think there is disagreement, then logically, you mean more than what you wrote.

I'm sorry that you can't tell the difference between logic and obfuscation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Firebird TMK said:

If new ships are going to be good on the table, they have to be GOOD SHIPS. 

GOOD SHIPS =/= power creep.  They can have different abilities and characteristics, while still being roughly equivalent to existing ships.  There will be plenty of customers for such ships: collectors, completists, those who have to get that latest hotness, and those who just want to pad FFG's bottom line.

Power creep is GW's mechanism for pushing plastic crack.  FFG adopts that mechanism at its peril.

It's why I got out of 40k. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

I'm not against Hyperspace, but I do see it as a side thing and Extended as the full X-Wing experience.

I think that is an interesting remark that's worth talking about (and yes, I'm back in this... thread, but still following your advice!). I'll pick up the card game idea at the very end. But it's a long read...

Your comment makes sense in several aspects: extended offers more ships, more choices, more interactions, more combinations. Clearly, that is the more comprehensive experience then.
But I disagree. Possibly because I value something else much higher that I would call the true X-wing experience, but that is obviously a biased choice of words: the relevance of options, choice and decisions on the board.

This type of experience does not benefit as much from more ships, more choices in listbuilding, more ability interactions, more card combinations, . Suddenly, with the addition of these qualifiers, the extended experience is not as much the full experience anymore because the previous reasons fall flat. And if a player values decisions on the board more than in the app, the new Xwing becomes the "truer" one, in a sense, because it adheres more to what X-wing is supposedly about.

These viewpoints have to clash, on several levels.

And several questions open up, for example:

  • Why would an increase in abilities interactions reduce the choices on the board?
  • Who said that X-wing was supposedly about maneuvering and board decisions, and not list building?

I think they have clear answers. More abilities lead to less meaningful choices because there is an optimal combination, and because you are more likely to reach the perfect result (e.g.: all red dice as hits/crits) that is desired. And while X-wing is obviously always also about list building, it should be predominantly about the choices on the board because to suggest otherwise opens questions about balance between components. The better balanced a game the less list building. So inversely, it should not be about list building because that implies that the game is badly balanced. And that has the consequence that my success with list X is due to that imbalance and not my skill in playing.

But these answers might differ for the two of us.

There are now several possibilities:
First, trying to show the light, that hyperspace is amazing. But it's not, not necessarily. More emphasis on choices makes it also more frustrating. It is similar to the difference between MOBAs and Starcraft. The former gives you a reason to blame for your failure, the latter doesn't. Similarly, extended gives an excuse with meta lists. Hyperspace however blames you, and you alone, because the power curve is flatter and your decisions are more meaningful. That is the more challenging but also more frustrating one, with a higher burden of execution. I do think that it is part of the reason why it is the better competitive format for higher level play. For example worlds (if there's just one format) should then be using this one. Another reason to make it the main competitive format is the possibly easier balancing, which would again put more emphasis on skill on the board instead of list building. Competitive here is meant as means to determine the best player in a test of skill, not a blanket for all organized play.

Second, I/we don't bother, and say the formats can coexist. This will lead into the various discussions about

  • whether players are willing to play both formats or will limit themselves to just one.
    • a reason to limit yourself can be that you want to train as much as possible to maximize your chance of success, and for that you need experience against other hyperspace lists.
      • my counter would be that hyperspace is gradually increasing anyway. Playing against extended lists, too, lets you stay ahead of the curve and test whether your list will still be viable.
    • if they for some reason play exclusively one or the other, that the community is too small to support both
      • exclusive hyperspace players can (and should, see above) compete in both.
      • exclusive extended players have more limited tournaments, that is true.
        • I have no real answer. I hope that they play against hyperspace lists and get curious about their strengths as soon as they get beaten by it
  • whether FFG will balance both formats at the same time
    • we don't know yet.
    • And we also won't know in a month because it is the first ever points change that can't be generalized to be "the rule".
    • we also don't know whether that will change
    • the argument against balancing both is that FFG wasn't even able to balance one format, how could they balance two?
      • The reply is that balancing extended balances hyperspace, too
      • Or that extended should be left alone for a bit and that would be quite healthy for the format
  • whether Extended has enough organized play events
    • System Opens
    • No regionals/nationals
    • Store champs can be
      • yes, but they won't if hyperspace is more popular
  • whether FFG will eventually turn Hyperspace into Extended
    • nobody knows
    • the argument for it is, that so far that was the case. I.e., hyperspace only increased by extended ships.
    • the argument against is, that there are (or will be) exceptions in both directions (Z95, YT1300), and that voids the inductive argument.
  • whether FFG will include some form of rotation for Hyperspace
    • nobody knows
    • there is no reason yet to believe so
      • exception of Z95 shows that not all rereleased ships are part of hyperspace
    • If there's no reason for rotation then hyperspace has to turn into extended, eventually
    • There is a reason: the alternative to rotation is power creep. That's an argument from consequence. Hopefully FFG agrees on the consequence...
      • power creep is worse, so rotation would be better.
  • whether Hyperspace is more welcoming for newer players
    • yes because only hyperspace is sold on shelves
      • but secondary market is large and healthy
        • but for how long?
        • also, requires larger initial interest by potential buyer
    • yes because fewer pilots and upgrades is easier to understand
      • but lack of favorite ships is sad
        • but *snide remark about favorite movie pilot Redline*
        • these favorite ships are barely played at tournaments now, so why should that be considered?
    • yes because fewer choices for list building is easier to just play with less frustration about great meta/netlists
      • but lack of easier lists and more burden of execution on player means more frustration

That escalated a bit. What branch of the discussion did I miss? I think those were the most important points?

In Sum: It all comes back to that different value on listbuilding (often demeaningly called the card game) versus playing the list on the board. I argue that this rift is a tragic result cemented by wave 11-13, but started wave 8 or so. The trend to excessive passive mods and turret usage attracted players who do not enjoy the decisions on the board as much as previous players did, who do not enjoy variance as much. It coincided with low ship number and high defense, whether health or regen (rarer: extreme damage mitigation). Those players, who were correctly and understandably attracted by 1.0 because that's how 1.0 was, are now put off by a game that is more swinging back to its roots. But on top that their preferred way to play was just partially conserved, that way is now also deemed inferior by a large part of the community and apparently FFG, too, if they declare Hyperspace the primary official format.

TL;DR: To quote Dee Yun from around 1,5-2 years ago: "I don't recognize X-wing anymore". Well, he probably does. But the people who joined in the meantime don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JJ48 said:

Hm...now that I think about it, maybe one reason I don't mind list-building restrictions and multiple formats is because I come from a card game background (in particular L5R CCG), where there are often restricted or banned lists, and in the case of games like L5R, even regular rotation requiring massive deck changes.  I wonder if there's any correlation between those who play such games and those who are fine with Hyperspace format.

My background is video games.  Dota 2 being one of the games I was competative in.  Dota 2 has zero Pay 2 Win mechanics.  Bans happen on heroes when they are found to be OP and need balance work. Banning doesn't hit anyone's monetary investment other than in skins.  The company only bans when there is a balance issue and 99% of heroes are available in competative play all the time.

x-wing is by default pay 2 win/advantage.  I feel the conversion kits really helped to reduce the barrier to entry for new players by giving them everything they needed to play a complete faction (sans the plastic models).  Its actually the first time in x-wing history players could purchase a faction in a box.  It evens the play field so to speak.  Its actually 1 way to reduce the Pay 2 Win mechanics of the game (if ffg removed the rule requiring a plastic model).

I see the banning of ships not for balance, but for monetary gains. Dota 2 has 116 heroes all with different abilities (~x-wing pilots) with over 150 items (ship upgrades).  Dota 2 again doesn't need to ban the majority of its heroes to have a balanced game.  The whole idea of a hyperspace format for 'balance' is nonsense when comparing to other game systems that have more complexity and have more balance then existing x-wing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a lot to unpack there @GreenDragoon and I don’t have the time to break it down fully. But here’s my thoughts as an Empire primary player who is very much preferring Extended to Hyperspace as it currently exists (But is not against the idea of hyperspace! I just think the 4 ship limit is far too restricting!)

My primary objection is to the notion that Extended is less about flying than Hyperspace, due to the inherent limits of the format. This is because I do not agree with the idea of a more limited pool being of an inherently flatter power curve due to the lack of interaction combos. Which is to say, in a limited format if there is one or two items significantly above the curve, there are fewer available tools to deal with it. Theoretically it should be easier to balance, sure, but it is also more sensitive to small imbalances. It’s one of those things where the difficulty of finding balance is not linearly related to the number of options available.

It also plays the other way, if one ship or set of pilots is far below the curve, it has disproportionate impact on that faction as well. See: non Vader X1, and poor Kath Scarlet who I think is one of the more fun Firespray pilots.

For me if the format was 6-7 ships per faction I’d be far more enthused. In a year or so when I speculate it may be just that? I’d fully welcome it as an alternate format. Heck, just make all Battle of Endor ships legal for their respective factions and I’d pretty much be willing to play in perpetuity.

Admittedly some of it is me being tweaked by the Silencer and RZ-2. The style of ships I like best, and the only way to get them is with two factions I am not going to be playing. Also: the RZ-2 being everything I’d wanted the RZ-1 to be. I just want Rebel A-wings to be decent, that’s not too much to ask!

Im willing to give it a chance. I’m just not particularly optimistic that it’ll be something I’ll enjoy too much at this time. If triple Strikers + friend isn’t any good in Hyperspace I’ll be one sad panda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Lace Jetstreamer said:

\x-wing is by default pay 2 win/advantage.  I feel the conversion kits really helped to reduce the barrier to entry for new players by giving them everything they needed to play a complete faction (sans the plastic models).  Its actually the first time in x-wing history players could purchase a faction in a box.  It evens the play field so to speak.  Its actually 1 way to reduce the Pay 2 Win mechanics of the game (if ffg removed the rule requiring a plastic model).\

That makes sense for now, but I think there is quickly coming a time when this no longer works.  The conversion kits don't show as being up for reprint, and eventually conversion kit and 1.0 stock will run out.  At that point, a smaller pool like Hyperspace could be easier entry for newer players.  Personally, I read this as FFG wanting to set up Hyperspace early and get people used to it, rather than waiting until lack of 1.0 product becomes a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Lace Jetstreamer said:

My background is video games.  Dota 2 being one of the games I was competative in.  Dota 2 has zero Pay 2 Win mechanics.  Bans happen on heroes when they are found to be OP and need balance work. Banning doesn't hit anyone's monetary investment other than in skins.  The company only bans when there is a balance issue and 99% of heroes are available in competative play all the time.

x-wing is by default pay 2 win/advantage.  I feel the conversion kits really helped to reduce the barrier to entry for new players by giving them everything they needed to play a complete faction (sans the plastic models).  Its actually the first time in x-wing history players could purchase a faction in a box.  It evens the play field so to speak.  Its actually 1 way to reduce the Pay 2 Win mechanics of the game (if ffg removed the rule requiring a plastic model).

I see the banning of ships not for balance, but for monetary gains. Dota 2 has 116 heroes all with different abilities (~x-wing pilots) with over 150 items (ship upgrades).  Dota 2 again doesn't need to ban the majority of its heroes to have a balanced game.  The whole idea of a hyperspace format for 'balance' is nonsense when comparing to other game systems that have more complexity and have more balance then existing x-wing.

 

It's a fair comparison, but misses a bit since individual heroes are comparable to a ship chassis and abilities are analogous  to ship upgrades/pilot abilities. Imagine the headaches you'd see if the default format for Dota 2 was choose a hero, then choose your 3 abilities + ult from all available abilities, with a few locked to faction / hero type / attack range / etc.. Now that I think of it, I would've been excited to play a Quick Build-only format, but official tournament support for it is non-existent. 

Tabletop games like X-Wing, by design, encourage players to buy at least one of everything, whether it be within a faction or the entire game. What upsets people the most is FFG making decisions that drastically alter the competitive landscape after people have bought in, where if they had known about it from the onset maybe they wouldn't have bought in. I played SW:Destiny for the first three sets, and had they announced that set rotation/Trilogy format would have been a thing before release, I probably wouldn't have gotten as involved as I did, and this is the same sort of 'betrayal' players are feeling now with the Hyperspace announcement.

That and Hyperspace isn't a well curated format. I'll play it, but my expectations on it being a better format than Extended are low, and will probably remain low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Firebird TMK said:

If new ships are going to be good on the table, they have to be GOOD SHIPS. 

GOOD SHIPS =/= power creep

I want to agree with you, because all ships being viable and interesting would be great. In reality, I don't think it's possible for every ship to be good. It certainly wasn't the case during 1.0, and it isn't currently the case in extended.

If not all ships are good, then either new ships have to be better (power creep, very bad) or old ships have to rotate out (which I'm fine with). Rotation allows FFG to keep the power level more even across a smaller pool of ships and upgrades, and allows them to rotate out problematic cards or ships. With a more even power level, the game is less about building an OP list and more about flying well.

Players have to keep paying to have new ships each wave, but that's ok, because if they don't do that then the game ends.

24 minutes ago, Lace Jetstreamer said:

x-wing is by default pay 2 win/advantage.  I feel the conversion kits really helped to reduce the barrier to entry for new players by giving them everything they needed to play a complete faction (sans the plastic models).  Its actually the first time in x-wing history players could purchase a faction in a box.  It evens the play field so to speak.  Its actually 1 way to reduce the Pay 2 Win mechanics of the game (if ffg removed the rule requiring a plastic model).

I disagree that X-Wing is pay2win (because player skill is so important), but extended is much more pay2win than hyperspace. Hyperspace has a smaller pool (less stuff to buy to be competitive) and doesn't have meta-dominating monster lists, so you can't drop lots of cash and get an extremely strong list like you can in extended.

For example: to build a strong hyperspace list, you need a core set, an x-wing and a y-wing. To build a strong extended list, you need to buy a conversion kit and at least 3 rare, out-of-print ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ConomeOnTheVine said:

That and Hyperspace isn't a well curated format. I'll play it, but my expectations on it being a better format than Extended are low, and will probably remain low.

This is a fair statement. I sure hope that FFG curate hyperspace carefully to be a fun and interesting format, but odds are that it will be controlled by the marketing department and will be terrible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@GreenDragoon (We'll go with mentioning because OH NELLY, LOOK AT THAT LONG POST!)

Good write up! It really highlights what I feel is at the core of this debate: expectations. We all have different view points and desires about what we want from the game. That has a whole gambit of variables to consider from preference for listing building or flying more, to ship and faction preferences. Plenty of people on the forums prefer the casual scene while other prefer the challenge they face at high tier play. 

While it would be nice if we could all get what we want out of the game without stepping on each other's toes, it can't always be so. You presented some good arguments for Hyperspace and it's necessity (particularly when it comes to new players and the potential for rotation helping with power creep). I don't necessarily agree that Hyperspace will net more options. It might be pessimism based on FFG's track record, but I'm expecting the same old problems in Hyperspace as in extended, just slightly different flavors and a smaller pool. This isn't based on experience in the format, so we'll have to see how more data will change that perception. 

 I think you are spot on in the last paragraph about that rift in the last waves of 1.0. It changed things in a way that both turned some people off while others got into it. Depending on when you started kind of dictates what you consider the "good old days".  It's yet another factor that shapes expectations. 

I guess even though the safer and easier route is balancing Hyperspace, the potential benefit to both formats of balancing Extended seems more worthwhile to me. More risks, but also more rewards. Not that FFG has a great track record to base this bet on, but my somewhat fatalistic view on the life of games has me lean towards the long odds because it's more fun.

*sigh* It's a tangled web trying to make different people happy. I don't think there is a perfect solution. But I am interested to see if the introduction of Hyperspace is the right one. I got hope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gadwag said:

 

I disagree that X-Wing is pay2win (because player skill is so important), but extended is much more pay2win than hyperspace. Hyperspace has a smaller pool (less stuff to buy to be competitive) and doesn't have meta-dominating monster lists, so you can't drop lots of cash and get an extremely strong list like you can in extended.

 

X-wing is more 'pay for an advantage' than pay-2-win (you still need to be a good player to win, but playing certain powerful lists definitely helps) , but in that regard, you might not be right about Hyperspace being less so in the long run. 

Looking at FFG's entire X-wing track record, it's a reasonable assumption IMO that Hyperspace won't be really well balanced (no incarnation of x-wing ever was). As such, Hyperspace will likely always have some top and some bottom factions. Depending on how FFG handles rebalances and how often Hyperspace pools change, if you want to stay on top of the meta, you might be required to make radical faction changes pretty often. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, millertime059 said:

But here’s my thoughts as an Empire primary player who is very much preferring Extended to Hyperspace as it currently exists (But is not against the idea of hyperspace! I just think the 4 ship limit is far too restricting!)

My primary objection is to the notion that Extended is less about flying than Hyperspace, due to the inherent limits of the format.

My initial reaction to 2e format was: there is nothing I want to put on the table! So I shared your sentiment. I might still do, but A-wings are my passion and that got me. I think and hope that I would seriously have tried a 6-7 TIE swarm, or 5 strikers instead. But the games with those A2-wings were so much fun and challenging, and allowed me a lot to work on my approach! Which brings me to your primary objection. You are right that a limited pool does not lead to an inherently flatter curve. I think it does at least currently though, and that is also based on my experience with the A2-wings. Of course, one possibility is that 5 A2-wings are at the top and that skews my perception, but I really doubt that. However, most of the games were with a hyperpsace list against "extended" opponents.

But I also think that Hyperspace is necessary as format for FFG. The way I see it, it was never a realistic option that we only get a format that relies heavily on the secondary market and conversion kits. Even having extended as a second format is a bonus, not the baseline. I'm surprised that we had so many extended tournaments between September and December. The alternative would be hyperspace only, not extended only.

With that in mind, I don't think I would have played as frequently if it was just 2e/Hyperspace, and I would also wait a bit (read: months) until something was released that got my interest for hyperspace, or at least play less frequently. Releasing something interesting to me happened with the Resistance, but it is "a" if not "the" best point against hyperspace if you prefer to play a ship that already exists but is just restricted to extended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, SpiderMana said:

If you bought the kits to play extended, then—f%@& it—just play extended.

I understand wanting to go to certain tournaments, and wanting to prepare for them. But if those tournaments are going to ruin your fun, and you’re still going to play in those tournaments, and you’re only going to play with those tournaments in mind, then aren’t you the one ruining your fun?

The problem isn’t when you say “I have to go to these tournaments.” The problem is when a local community doesn’t have the capacity to support more than one format and the try-hards all want to “get in the reps” before the next big event. Then you basically get the choice to play Hyperspace, or not play at all.

Right now, I’m running an underground extended format once a month “just show up and take over empty LGS floor space”.... That’s what I get. The one event I signed up for? Was extended when I signed up but has since released due to pressure from the players for more practice it will be Hyperspace. I’ll go, and bring FO since that’s the only faction with lists I can make Hyperspace compatible easily enough.... but that was most certainly not my doing and I’d have probably not signed up had it been billed as Hyperspace on the onset.

I am happy to play extended.... where I can. 2.0 was awesome pretty much until the Hyperspace drop came. Now the try hards are taking over the LGS and it’s their way or the highway - at least in 1.0 if you brought something outside the box you could play.

10 hours ago, Firebird TMK said:

QFT.

"Conversion" = "1.0 ships are now legal in 2.0, PERIOD."  Any other construction is Clintonesque ("It depends on what the meaning of "is" is!").

This. We were promised full compatibility. What we were given was second class citizen treatment (it’s compatible.... at your kitchen table. Not with us, outside of a very limited number of events/places).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×