Look at how few cards have Errata, and those are fairly small additions or changes, cleaning up the wording of the card so it works like intended.

Yes, and that's exactly my point! So far FFG has only changed a very small number of rules, and only in ways that either clarify something that didn't work properly as-printed...

I'll take "Unexamined Premises" for $800, Alex. What makes you think barrel roll was working properly for large ships as printed--particularly since the fact that they changed it constitutes at least circumstantial evidence that it wasn't?

There is however a rather massive difference between that and changing the printed value on an existing card.

Except it really isn't. In both cases you're completely changing how something works. The printed rules for barrel rolls say one thing, and now this FAQ says something entirely different. That's just as much of a difference as a new point cost.

Look at how few cards have Errata, and those are fairly small additions or changes, cleaning up the wording of the card so it works like intended.

Yes, and that's exactly my point! So far FFG has only changed a very small number of rules, and only in ways that either clarify something that didn't work properly as-printed or make the card work like most people assumed it did (gunner being optional, for example). But this is something completely different, it's a major change to how a rule works, just to re-balance a ship.

That all also assumes that FFG even thinks Howlrunner is under-priced in the first place.

If FFG doesn't then I have to seriously question their understanding of the game they're publishing. Howlrunner is indisputably too cheap for what she does, and would not be 18 points if she had been published in a more recent wave.

Chardaan refit.

Not a valid comparison at all. Chardaan refit doesn't change any rules, it's just another upgrade option.But this does highlight FFG's inconsistency: they knew the a-wing was overpriced, but they couldn't just errata the point cost to fix that balance issue, they had to publish an upgrade card that accomplishes the same result. So why did they change the barrel roll rules to fix a similar balance issue?

FFG has proven that this is a living ruleset being driven by the shifting meta of new releases.

But they haven't done this at all. For example, Blount is clearly a metagame decision intended to shift things away from swarms, but he doesn't change any rules. And so far all metagame shifts have been handled the same way, by new ships/upgrades and not by rule changes.

It really was simply "Howlrunner still borken, y u no fix, FFG?!?"

It's not about Howlrunner being broken, it's about the lack of consistency FFG is showing here. Barrel rolling on large ships wasn't broken, it was just a little too good and this change fine-tunes balance a bit. But FFG refuses to errata older cards to fine-tune balance, based on an assumption that you should be able to play everything as-written. So why is it ok to change the rules for barrel rolls, but not ok to change Howlrunner's point cost to 19? Why single out this one issue for a change?

It's a great change, and says they recognized the limitations the previous Large Ship barrel Roll placed on them. This is a brilliant change. Quit complaining. Enjoy the fact that Dash Rendar isn't going to be quite as ridiculous as people thought.

I get the feeling that FFG purposefully designed the points cost to be proportionally low for Howlrunner, a support ship that in order to be effective must be stacked with numerous other ships.

I don't think so. Howlrunner is a product of the wave-0 design approach, when FFG didn't understand the game yet, and nobody knew if it would sell well enough to have future waves. Back then ship costs were based entirely on base cost + PS, with special abilities never adding extra cost. So you get Biggs at 25 points because he's the PS 5 pilot, Howlrunner at 18, etc. Later waves introduced the idea of special abilities costing additional points. For example, Ten Numb costs 31 (!!!) points, significantly more than his PS alone would justify.

So, the obvious thing to do, if you're willing to change the rules to fine-tune balance, would be to errata Biggs/Howlrunner/etc to have point costs that reflect their actual power instead of an obsolete cost scale.

It's a great change, and says they recognized the limitations the previous Large Ship barrel Roll placed on them. This is a brilliant change. Quit complaining. Enjoy the fact that Dash Rendar isn't going to be quite as ridiculous as people thought.

Whether or not it was a good change in isolation is irrelevant. My objection is that it's GW-style inconsistency in FAQs/errata, not that large ships have been over-nerfed.

I'll take "Unexamined Premises" for $800, Alex. What makes you think barrel roll was working properly for large ships as printed--particularly since the fact that they changed it constitutes at least circumstantial evidence that it wasn't?

I'm talking about working as intended from a "I understand how this card works" perspective, not from a balance perspective. Large ship barrel rolls were clearly working as intended according to the printed rules, there was no confusion about how they were supposed to work. This change isn't because the rules were confusing, it's because FFG decided that the previous rules were too powerful and needed to be nerfed. Compare this to changes like swarm tactics, where many people thought that it was an optional ability and didn't realize that you were required to use it even if you would be lowing a ship's PS.

That all also assumes that FFG even thinks Howlrunner is under-priced in the first place.

If FFG doesn't then I have to seriously question their understanding of the game they're publishing. Howlrunner is indisputably too cheap for what she does, and would not be 18 points if she had been published in a more recent wave.

Or, instead of increasing her cost, the designers could provide a more efficient means of delivering Assault Missiles and a superiority fighter for each faction; both of these solutions reduce her value in the metagame.

Except it really isn't.

Except you're wrong. They added the rules for Large Ships doing a barrel roll, something no large ship can actually do now, without the EPT. So there wasn't much need for them to create a rule for it at this point.

But this is something completely different, it's a major change to how a rule works, just to re-balance a ship.

This is adding a rule not a major change.

It's not about Howlrunner being broken, it's about the lack of consistency FFG is showing here.

They are actually quite consistent. They consistently have refused to change a printed value on a card. That's why they did the refit, so they could adjust the cost of the A-Wing without changing the card itself.

So why is it ok to change the rules for barrel rolls, but not ok to change Howlrunner's point cost to 19?

If you can't see the difference, then nothing anyone says matters.

It's a great change, and says they recognized the limitations the previous Large Ship barrel Roll placed on them. This is a brilliant change. Quit complaining. Enjoy the fact that Dash Rendar isn't going to be quite as ridiculous as people thought.

Whether or not it was a good change in isolation is irrelevant. My objection is that it's GW-style inconsistency in FAQs/errata, not that large ships have been over-nerfed.

I'll take "Unexamined Premises" for $800, Alex. What makes you think barrel roll was working properly for large ships as printed--particularly since the fact that they changed it constitutes at least circumstantial evidence that it wasn't?

I'm talking about working as intended from a "I understand how this card works" perspective, not from a balance perspective. Large ship barrel rolls were clearly working as intended according to the printed rules, there was no confusion about how they were supposed to work. This change isn't because the rules were confusing, it's because FFG decided that the previous rules were too powerful and needed to be nerfed. Compare this to changes like swarm tactics, where many people thought that it was an optional ability and didn't realize that you were required to use it even if you would be lowing a ship's PS.

It's a great change, and says they recognized the limitations the previous Large Ship barrel Roll placed on them. This is a brilliant change. Quit complaining. Enjoy the fact that Dash Rendar isn't going to be quite as ridiculous as people thought.

Whether or not it was a good change in isolation is irrelevant. My objection is that it's GW-style inconsistency in FAQs/errata, not that large ships have been over-nerfed.

In order to be GW-style, they would have needed to make the change in a new rulebook only available through authorized retailers for $70, and they would have done it to enhance the power of a new release rather than dial it back.

I'll take "Unexamined Premises" for $800, Alex. What makes you think barrel roll was working properly for large ships as printed--particularly since the fact that they changed it constitutes at least circumstantial evidence that it wasn't?

I'm talking about working as intended from a "I understand how this card works" perspective, not from a balance perspective.

It was easy to apply the rule as written to Large ships. It was also easy to apply the original text for Expert Handling: you performed a barrel roll as part of the Expert Handling action, which left you perfectly able to perform the barrel roll action later.

It now appears as if the design and development team didn't intend to allow double barrel rolls, but the only way we know that is because they changed the way the card worked.

Large ship barrel rolls were clearly working as intended according to the printed rules...

But when you say "working as intended" what you appear to mean is something like "can be applied as written", and that's a standard that no one is applying to any other ruling.

Except it really isn't. In both cases you're completely changing how something works. The printed rules for barrel rolls say one thing, and now this FAQ says something entirely different. That's just as

We need a Godwin's Law-like term for invoking GW as a comparison for something game companies do.

So let's grant that everything iPeregrine says is right - that FFG made the barrel roll change specifically do nerf the mobility on large ships a bit. Looking through the FAQ, he's actually got a relatively good case that FFG doesn't do a lot of balance errata.

Well... so what? Seriously - so what? They don't do many balance changes, but they felt the need to do it this time. Again, so... freaking... what? FFG isn't obligated to some standard of "Massive changes to try and fix everything" or "Never errata for balance ever". There are mid-points. Theirs is obviously "Errata for balance as rarely as possible". They're not hypocrites for that, or even inconsistent.

Oh for god's sake another thread gone to hell with the semantic's rethoric cr.ap. Seriously, changed, intended, who cares, it is gone.

Oh Buhallin, that's the Kirby's law, whenever someone is going to criticize something related to miniature gaming, GW's name will eventually appear in the discussion.

In order to be GW-style, they would have needed to make the change in a new rulebook only available through authorized retailers for $70, and they would have done it to enhance the power of a new release rather than dial it back.

No, I'm talking about the FAQs, back when they used to do them. What was changed was completely random, you'd get errata to make balance changes for questionable reasons, "FAQs" that go blatantly against the printed text or answer questions that nobody ever asked, and major issues that everyone had a problem with would be completely ignored. This is the same kind of inconsistency: change the barrel roll rules for balance reasons, but printed point values are sacred.

It was easy to apply the rule as written to Large ships. It was also easy to apply the original text for Expert Handling: you performed a barrel roll as part of the Expert Handling action, which left you perfectly able to perform the barrel roll action later.

It now appears as if the design and development team didn't intend to allow double barrel rolls, but the only way we know that is because they changed the way the card worked.

Except the difference here is that the double barrel roll thing on EH was something most people didn't notice. It wasn't an obvious "this is a different type of action", it was the subtle difference between "perform a barrel roll" and "perform a barrel roll action". Whether it was sloppy wording or deliberate intent it was something that didn't match expectations, and the errata just makes it work like many/most people assumed it already did (as demonstrated by the "what did they change about this?" posts).

This new errata, on the other hand, changes something that wasn't ambiguous at all. There was nothing in the rules that even came close to suggesting that large ships worked differently, and nobody expected them to. The only reason for this is concerns about how powerful the ability is, and a desire to nerf it.

Well... so what? Seriously - so what? They don't do many balance changes, but they felt the need to do it this time. Again, so... freaking... what? FFG isn't obligated to some standard of "Massive changes to try and fix everything" or "Never errata for balance ever". There are mid-points. Theirs is obviously "Errata for balance as rarely as possible". They're not hypocrites for that, or even inconsistent.

The issue is that there are other balance issues which have previously been considered off-limits because FFG doesn't change rules for balance reasons (for example, just lowering the cost of the a-wing without the awkward refit card). If this is the start of a trend of fixing balance issues when necessary I'll be perfectly fine with that, what I don't like is GW-style inconsistency where the rules are changed randomly in some cases and sacred law in others.

And no, this is not a case of "errata as rarely as possible" because large ship barrel rolls weren't a major issue. They were arguably a little too effective, but the game could have gone on just fine without this change.

They're not hypocrites for that, or even inconsistent.

Considering the few changes they have made, they're completely consistent. Plus that, there is quite frankly a big difference between Errata and added a new rule to the game.

They didn't change the way barrel roles work on small ships, only on large ships, which again, until the YT-2400 comes out can't BR without an EPT in the first place.

Perhaps they felt that until a ship had a BR action on it's bar, the penalty for using EA was enough that a change wasn't needed. Maybe they've had this in mind the whole time, and just haven't bothered saying anything. But the larger point is that there is a huge difference between adding a rule, that will undoubted be published as part of the Outrighter booklet, and changing the printed value on a card.

They didn't change the way barrel roles work on small ships, only on large ships, which again, until the YT-2400 comes out can't BR without an EPT in the first place.

Whether it is in the action bar or added by an EPT is irrelevant: large ships have been doing barrel rolls and the rules work just fine. Until today there was absolutely no reason to believe that large ships were supposed to follow different rules for barrel rolls, just like there was no reason to believe that large ships are supposed to follow different rules for using focus tokens or rolling attack dice.

But the larger point is that there is a huge difference between adding a rule, that will undoubted be published as part of the Outrighter booklet, and changing the printed value on a card.

There really isn't. It's a rule change that has the same "make sure everyone knows" issues (remember that Howlrunner can always be reprinted just like the new large ship rules).

Well... so what? Seriously - so what? They don't do many balance changes, but they felt the need to do it this time. Again, so... freaking... what? FFG isn't obligated to some standard of "Massive changes to try and fix everything" or "Never errata for balance ever". There are mid-points. Theirs is obviously "Errata for balance as rarely as possible". They're not hypocrites for that, or even inconsistent.

The issue is that there are other balance issues which have previously been considered off-limits because FFG doesn't change rules for balance reasons (for example, just lowering the cost of the a-wing without the awkward refit card). If this is the start of a trend of fixing balance issues when necessary I'll be perfectly fine with that, what I don't like is GW-style inconsistency where the rules are changed randomly in some cases and sacred law in others.And no, this is not a case of "errata as rarely as possible" because large ship barrel rolls weren't a major issue. They were arguably a little too effective, but the game could have gone on just fine without this change.

You're making assumptions about what this means. They've erratad cards and rules before. This time they did so preemptively. That's good. This isn't a start of a trend. It isn't unbalanced. It's good game design. It makes sense. It limited a bizarre and overpowered mechanic. It isn't something to whine about or prognosticate doom about. It's a good thing. D?n't complain about good things.

You honestly can't see the difference between saying a rule works differently on an entire class of ship -- a rule that normally doesn't apply to that class of ship without applying a particular upgrade card -- and changing the printed point cost of a particular card? It sounds more like you've got an ax to grind against Howlrunner and are using this as an excuse to fire up the wheel again.

That all also assumes that FFG even thinks Howlrunner is under-priced in the first place.

If FFG doesn't then I have to seriously question their understanding of the game they're publishing. Howlrunner is indisputably too cheap for what she does, and would not be 18 points if she had been published in a more recent wave.

She also is only a 3 hull ship that will almost always be the number 1 target and the Imperials don't have a Biggs effect to keep her safe if you want her dead she is dead.

As others have mentioned she requires additional ships to be effective her cost isn't in her ability its that you have to have others to be useful. Even then her ability isn't effective 100% of the time, a reroll isn't a guaranteed hit, sometimes you hit with your max dice naturally so the reroll won't help, there is the range issue,

Jonus is the same way, he requires additional ships and you have to pay an additional charge for secondary weapons In light of this yes Jonus could be a point or two cheaper but they gave him 2 dice to compensate vs Howl's 1 die

remember that Howlrunner can always be reprinted just like the new large ship rules.

No, it's not even remotely the same thing.

No one currently has a copy of the rules that come with the Outrider, so the only copy anyone will have is the one with the new Large Ship rules, that list the Large Ship BR rules.

The same can not be said for the pilot card for Holwrunner.

It's also not like there aren't already different rules for Large ships in the first place. Like the fact that it takes 2 Ion tokens for them to suffer the Ion effect. This is simply another case of Large Ships working differently then small ones do.

So it is not a change in the generic barrel rules, any more then 2 ion tokens on large ships is a change in the ion rules.

It was easy to apply the rule as written to Large ships. It was also easy to apply the original text for Expert Handling: you performed a barrel roll as part of the Expert Handling action, which left you perfectly able to perform the barrel roll action later.

It now appears as if the design and development team didn't intend to allow double barrel rolls, but the only way we know that is because they changed the way the card worked.

Except the difference here is that the double barrel roll thing on EH was something most people didn't notice. It wasn't an obvious "this is a different type of action", it was the subtle difference between "perform a barrel roll" and "perform a barrel roll action". Whether it was sloppy wording or deliberate intent it was something that didn't match expectations, and the errata just makes it work like many/most people assumed it already did (as demonstrated by the "what did they change about this?" posts).

This new errata, on the other hand, changes something that wasn't ambiguous at all. There was nothing in the rules that even came close to suggesting that large ships worked differently, and nobody expected them to. The only reason for this is concerns about how powerful the ability is, and a desire to nerf it.

Your definitions of "ambiguous" and "unambiguous" are doing the same job as "working as intended", and they're all a form of special pleading.

I'll go back to the same analogy: we only know that Expert Handling (as one example among many) wasn't originally working as intended because they changed it. But suppose they had held off on the chance--possibly with the rationale that Vader was a special case and double barrel rolls didn't break anything for him. Then Turr showed up, and now Green Squadron + Test Pilot is on the horizon, so FFG concludes that they should really do something about double barrel rolls before every A-wing is zipping merrily across the table.

The change they made in the real world in Wave 1, and in this thought experiment in Wave 4, wasn't strictly necessary. The card wasn't particularly ambiguous, in your sense: "action" is one of the game's best-defined keywords, and it was entirely missing from the original version, so clearly the barrel roll action and the Expert Handling action are different. The rules as written could be applied with no confusion at all.

The text of Expert Handling changed for no better or worse reason than to reflect what the designers wanted the game to look like going forward, and that's exactly what's happening now with Large barrel rolls.

No one currently has a copy of the rules that come with the Outrider, so the only copy anyone will have is the one with the new Large Ship rules, that list the Large Ship BR rules.

Except this doesn't just modify the Outrider, it also applies to the YT-1300 I already own. Before today there was no reason to expect that my YT-1300's rules were going to change, but now they have just like if Howlrunner's point cost was changed.

It's also not like there aren't already different rules for Large ships in the first place. Like the fact that it takes 2 Ion tokens for them to suffer the Ion effect. This is simply another case of Large Ships working differently then small ones do.

Those rules have existed from the beginning. Having large ships with different rules isn't the problem, changing the rules is.

So it is not a change in the generic barrel rules, any more then 2 ion tokens on large ships is a change in the ion rules.

That's not the right comparison. The correct comparison would be if large ships had originally been printed with no different rules for ion tokens and the two token thing was only added a year later after FFG decided ioning large ships was too easy.

The change they made in the real world in Wave 1, and in this thought experiment in Wave 4, wasn't strictly necessary. The card wasn't particularly ambiguous, in your sense: "action" is one of the game's best-defined keywords, and it was entirely missing from the original version, so clearly the barrel roll action and the Expert Handling action are different. The rules as written could be applied with no confusion at all.

You're missing the point here: yes, the original printed rule functioned. But many people didn't realize that the double barrel roll thing existed, as demonstrated by the "what did they change" reactions when the FAQ was published. So while it was technically a change it was a change that brought it in line with how many/most people expected it to work. This is not the same as the large ship errata, where the as-printed version is clear and the change is done for balance reasons.

Or here's a better example: swarm tactics as-printed is clearly a mandatory effect, even if using it will lower a ship's PS. However, many/most people played it as an optional ability because they didn't read it carefully enough and being required to apply your PS 0 to a PS 9 ship didn't make any sense. Changing it to an optional ability was technically a change, but it wasn't a very significant one.

Or here's a better example: swarm tactics as-printed is clearly a mandatory effect, even if using it will lower a ship's PS. However, many/most people played it as an optional ability because they didn't read it carefully enough and being required to apply your PS 0 to a PS 9 ship didn't make any sense. Changing it to an optional ability was technically a change, but it wasn't a very significant one.

Swarm Tactics is a terrible example, because the new language clarifies the way the card already worked. You were always able to choose yourself as a target; the problem was people reading it as mandatory.

But since you haven't managed to grasp what I'm trying to explain, despite multiple attempts and some pitching in from others on the same essential point, I give up. You're right! It's a terrible thing for them to have changed a rule, and now the road is clear for them to make the change you apparently want for Howlrunner, as well as retroactively lowering the cost of all A-wings and recalling the Chardaan Refit upgrade. Or something.

Some of you would not do well playing MMOs....

And no, this is not a case of "errata as rarely as possible" because large ship barrel rolls weren't a major issue. They were arguably a little too effective, but the game could have gone on just fine without this change.

So we're back, again, to no issue of consistency but a disagreement with what they chose to change.

You think Howlrunner needed it, and the barrel roll didn't. Fine. But they aren't inconsistent in how they issue errata because you disagree with what they did choose to act on.

This is getting very close to a "You keep using that word..." moment.

iPeregrine is arguing with everyone again, quelle surprise. I guess you can't be forced to drink hemlock with your own foot wedged firmly in your mouth.

but now they have just like if Howlrunner's point cost was changed.

The fact that you can't see the difference between a new rule for large ships and the point cost of a pilot... I give up.