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.

Which just goes back to the "are you at range 1 of yourself" debate. A debate that the Jan crew card demonstrates is far from settled. So either way it wasn't working the way people expected it to work, and the errata just brings it in line with what most people already thought it did.

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

It's an issue of consistency because the only reason for not making those other changes has been "no errata/FAQs for balance reasons". This is probably the main reason the a-wing gets an awkward upgrade card to reduce its point cost instead of just a straightforward point reduction. This is the reason FFG has to keep printing swarm counters instead of just making Howlrunner more expensive. Etc.

And, again, I'll be happy if this is just the first step in using errata/FAQs to fine-tune balance issues. If they just singled out this one thing for GW-style errata and ignore everything else then I have a problem with it.

A debate that the Jan crew card demonstrates is far from settled.

Really? I think that one is quite settled, since Frank said that Jan (crew) can effect the ship she's on. Which is how about half of us were saying it should of worked. But even those who didn't think so, agreed that it very well could of, because the Range 1 of yourself wasn't defined anywhere.

It's an issue of consistency because the only reason for not making those other changes has been "no errata/FAQs for balance reasons".

There is no such thing. They are hesitant to change things, but that is not the same thing as saying they won't do it. Listen to Alex in the NOVA podcast he talks about this a fair amount. One of the things he says is that they don't want to change the product if they can avoid it.

That means there is quite a large difference between adding a rule and changing the value printed on a card.

This is the reason FFG has to keep printing swarm counters instead of just making Howlrunner more expensive. Etc.

They're adding incremental balance adjustments by giving people more and more options on how to play the game. Rather then taking the hamfisted approach you seem to want them to take.

If they just singled out this one thing for GW-style errata and ignore everything else then I have a problem with it.

And here we go, apparently it's GW-Style if it's something that iPeregrine doesn't agree with.

It is entirely possible that looking at the upcoming ships being designed, possibly more large ships other than the 2 in Wave 5, and they realized they didn't want to keep on denying Elite Talents to large ships just to prevent barrel rolls. It might not just be Wave 5 that caused this change, but up to whatever wave they are in in design.

If you change the rule for barrel rolls, I don't feel like I have to buy a new Falcon or Firespray. FFG prints the FAQ, that's the rule, done. They print it in the rule book for a ship that's coming out anyway, and that's that.

Now you change the point cost on a ship, sure, technically, I don't have to buy a new Howlrunner or A-Wing for it to cost what it now does. But I'll feel like I have to. After all, my current cards won't look right. And I'll be ticked off at FFG for making me buy something I already bought. Plus, FFG would face the prospect of having TIE expansions with both costs on them on shelves at the same time.

It might not just be Wave 5 that caused this change, but up to whatever wave they are in in design.

I'm inclined to think that the stress that EA caused was balance enough, and now that a Large ship can do it without getting stressed they decided this was the time to do something about it.

There probably is a lot to it. I mean, a shuttle being able to barrel roll as it was previously was a little silly.

I'm inclined to think that the stress that EA caused was balance enough, and now that a Large ship can do it without getting stressed they decided this was the time to do something about it.

To be honest, I didn't even really feel like that makes (or would have made) the YT-2400 broken. I've done numerous barrel rolls in HLC equipped B-Wings, and the lack of an offensive action takes its toll, even with 4 red dice. Rolling the YT's primary attack value after a stressless barrel roll isn't going to be particularly worrisome.

Besides, as I said above, that all assumes that FFG feels that Howlrunner is actually the wrong cost.

I know that running Howlrunner next to the Rebel huge ship

I'm using as a proxy for an Imperial Huge ship it is pretty darn wicked.

Now you change the point cost on a ship, sure, technically, I don't have to buy a new Howlrunner or A-Wing for it to cost what it now does. But I'll feel like I have to. After all, my current cards won't look right. And I'll be ticked off at FFG for making me buy something I already bought.

I really don't see how FFG is forcing you to buy anything when the only reason you're buying it is your personal aesthetic preferences. The rule change is communicated to you, just like the new barrel rules are.

Plus, FFG would face the prospect of having TIE expansions with both costs on them on shelves at the same time.

How is that any different than having YT-2400s with the new barrel roll rules on the shelf next to YT-1300s that don't have any special barrel roll rules?

Really? I think that one is quite settled, since Frank said that Jan (crew) can effect the ship she's on.

Can you provide an official source for this? And, more importantly, can you provide an official source that was available at the time the swarm tactics errata was published?

One of the things he says is that they don't want to change the product if they can avoid it.

Then why was this change made? This is the point I keep making, "minimize rule changes" is a fine policy, but not one that is consistent with changing how barrel rolls work for balance reasons.

And here we go, apparently it's GW-Style if it's something that iPeregrine doesn't agree with.

No, it's GW-style if it's like how GW used to handle FAQs/errata (now they just print broken rules and don't bother fixing anything). And that's what this looks like right now: change one random rule for questionable reasons, ignore everything else that would have similar justification for being changed.

Plus, FFG would face the prospect of having TIE expansions with both costs on them on shelves at the same time.

How is that any different than having YT-2400s with the new barrel roll rules on the shelf next to YT-1300s that don't have any special barrel roll rules?

Oh god, this is so close to the loaded dice argument that I'm tingling with amusement all over again. Seriously, how can you not see the difference?

Can't say I like this change. Balance-wise it's probably not hurting anything, but I don't really like the precedent of randomly changing rules like this while simultaneously considering other rules/point costs/etc impossible to change. Why is it ok to have a rule that you'll only learn about if you read the tournament FAQ, but not ok to change Howlrunner's point cost to something more appropriate?

I call this "inconsistency!" I've found FFG's approach to rules and rule writing to be "inconsistent" but since it's a sci-fi game, they can get away with it. If this was a historical game, the inconsistencies would kill the future of the game! Hence, I've learned to live with it and enjoy the game because it's "Star Wars!" If it was WWII, PANZERS, I'd be looking for another system!

Plus, FFG would face the prospect of having TIE expansions with both costs on them on shelves at the same time.

How is that any different than having YT-2400s with the new barrel roll rules on the shelf next to YT-1300s that don't have any special barrel roll rules?

I would say its 1100 YTs worth of difference

Also of course a serious answer would be that a YT-1300 can not barrel roll naturally with the contents of its expansion while the YT-2400 can hence why the YT-2400 comes with a rules card dealing with large ships and Barrel Roll whereas the YT-1300 does not need a BR rules card added (now if the YT-1300 came with the EH card then you might be borderline close to having a point)

Howlrunner on the other hand can be Equipped with the "Old" Tie Expansion just fine and you would have no way of knowing whether a Tie Expansion is "New" or "Old" short of opening it up and checking pilot costs at which point too late you lost the wonderful lottery of did I get that one card I need to make my list legal and you need to buy another pack

Edit: Ninja'd

Where's the FAQ?

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_minisite_sec.asp?eidm=174&esem=4

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?

The key word that you have repeated, "inconsistency!" It can ruin everything in the long run if not addressed!

Howlrunner on the other hand can be Equipped with the "Old" Tie Expansion just fine and you would have no way of knowing whether a Tie Expansion is "New" or "Old" short of opening it up and checking pilot costs at which point too late you lost the wonderful lottery of did I get that one card I need to make my list legal and you need to buy another pack

Why would you need to buy another ship? Did you need to buy new copies of swarm tactics or gunner when FFG changed the rules on those cards? Obviously not. Howlrunner (or other point changes) would work the same way, if you have the old cards you continue to use them and maybe have a copy of the FAQ available in case anyone asks for proof of the rule change.

Because the YT-2400 has Barrel Roll on it's action bar, therefore has printed rules for how it works differently. Doesn't it look more like FFG hadn't really considered that Large ships would be barrel rolling with Expert Handling and when they came to give a large ship the action as standard they thought a bit more about how to implement it more fairly.

Action bar vs. EPT is irrelevant, and if FFG didn't think that a large ship with an EPT might use the "add a barrel roll option to your ship" EPT then I seriously have to question their skill at game design and playtesting.

And yes, I'm sure the YT-2400 made them reevaluate how barrel rolls work on large ships. The issue I have with it is that it was an existing rule that didn't need to be changed and fine-tuning a balance issue like this isn't consistent with FFG's "only the absolutely necessary changes" policy with everything else.

It's sort of like if someone found a way to hack the game so the Falcon got a cloaking device, ffg might then release large ship cloaking rules to address the issue.

No, it's not at all the same. Putting a cloak on a Falcon would require some kind of unexpected exploit that was clearly not intended to happen. Putting a barrel roll on a Falcon just requires using the "add a barrel roll to your ship even if you don't already have it" EPT for its intended purpose.

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

It's an issue of consistency because the only reason for not making those other changes has been "no errata/FAQs for balance reasons". This is probably the main reason the a-wing gets an awkward upgrade card to reduce its point cost instead of just a straightforward point reduction. This is the reason FFG has to keep printing swarm counters instead of just making Howlrunner more expensive. Etc.

Really? Would you care to provide a source for this?

Because it sounds to me a lot like you've invented a standard out of whole cloth, and are now accusing FFG for not following the standard you invented.

Aren't you already doing that exact thing?

I'm expressing concern about their latest FAQ, and what it might mean for the future. If FFG genuinely never thought that people would use the "add a barrel roll" upgrade on large ships then that goes way beyond concern and into "holy **** how can you be that stupid" territory.

Would you care to provide a source for this?

I don't have a source because I don't know if FFG have every explicitly stated that this is their policy. It just very accurately predicts their actions before today, and is the conventional answer for why FFG can't adjust point costs on Biggs/Howlrunner, add an EPT to Salm, do something to make torps a viable option, etc. It's always "the cards are already printed, and FFG doesn't change rules once they're published".

Would you care to provide a source for this?

I don't have a source because I don't know if FFG have every explicitly stated that this is their policy. It just very accurately predicts their actions before today, and is the conventional answer for why FFG can't adjust point costs on Biggs/Howlrunner, add an EPT to Salm, do something to make torps a viable option, etc. It's always "the cards are already printed, and FFG doesn't change rules once they're published".

It's also a perfectly convincing reason for refraining from fixing barrel rolls on Large ships until there was a Large ship that could do it by default, but the difference is that (for unexplained reasons) you don't like the new change, so you're still flailing around looking for a way to explain how their process is now tainted.

I don't have a source because I don't know if FFG have every explicitly stated that this is their policy. It just very accurately predicts their actions before today, and is the conventional answer for why FFG can't adjust point costs on Biggs/Howlrunner, add an EPT to Salm, do something to make torps a viable option, etc. It's always "the cards are already printed, and FFG doesn't change rules once they're published".

In other words, you do have a source: Your ass. As in pulled directly from.

Done now.

In other words, you do have a source: Your ass. As in pulled directly from.

Done now.

This might be the only post I've ever wanted to give more than one like to.

It's also a perfectly convincing reason for refraining from fixing barrel rolls on Large ships until there was a Large ship that could do it by default

I still don't see why having it on an action bar vs. having it on an EPT is relevant. It's the same action, and barrel rolling Falcons were already pretty popular. And I still haven't seen any explanation for why this is such an essential change and not just a case of fine-tuning balance.

but the difference is that (for unexplained reasons) you don't like the new change, so you're still flailing around looking for a way to explain how their process is now tainted.

No, actually I like the change overall, I just disagree with the inconsistency in making this change while ignoring all the other similar changes that could be made to existing rules/cards.

In other words, you do have a source: Your ass. As in pulled directly from.

IOW, you're the kind of person who puts "citation needed" notes on wikipedia every time someone says that the sky is blue or that 1+1=2. Not having explicit confirmation from FFG doesn't make it any less obvious that they were following some kind of "only make absolutely necessary changes to existing rules" policy.

How is that any different than having YT-2400s with the new barrel roll rules on the shelf next to YT-1300s that don't have any special barrel roll rules?

Um, vastly?

IOW, you're the kind of person who puts "citation needed" notes on wikipedia every time someone says that the sky is blue or that 1+1=2. Not having explicit confirmation from FFG doesn't make it any less obvious that they were following some kind of "only make absolutely necessary changes to existing rules" policy.

So the problem is you and FFG seem to disagree as to what is "absolutely necessary." As in they think Howlrunner is fine and barrel roll needed to be changed for large ships. And you don't. Sorry, but I'll take the word of the people who've been designing and playtesting this for the better part of three years.

We also don't know the other Outrider pilots - so we could have had some pilot who has something wild like "After your perform a barrel roll action, you may perform one additional barrel roll. Or something wild like that

I like the barrel roll change, it's now functioning more like it does on the small ships, with the half a base forward or backward.