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 if you do not have the "new" Howlrunner then the old one does not do you any good. Anyways not the point the point was redoing an existing card from a current product vs adding an additional one to an as of now unreleased product

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.

It is relevant because an on the action bar means that ship is expected to be able to barrel roll and needs the rules for doing so when combined with the large ship. An EPT that it can be an addon to an existing ship and that the rules would most likely be packaged with the addon and not the thing being added too. Barrel rolling Falcons while popular were probably seen as having paid the appropriate price (taking a stress, losing your EPT and paying 2 points) to where FFG decided a little extra movement was acceptable but the YT-2400 having to deal with none of these penalties is the reason for the change and Falcons and Firesprays are just collateral damage (like how Squints are to all of the turrets around for Phantoms)

.

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.

If you like the change you should be happy they made it and then hope they get around to the other one. Rather than claim they are like GW and don't fix their rules when things become issues acknowledge that at least they are fixing some problems (unlike GW)and hope that the others get solved when FFG has an appropriate solution. The worst possible thing for them to do is rush any such fix and have that result be worse than the original "problem" Some of your problems could be in the pipes for changes but due to Rebel Aces/Wave 5(/Hopefully Wave 6/Imperial Huge Ships/etc) they prioritized their play-testing resources for things the community as a whole would rather see first

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".

They didn't re-print an old card for this change, nor have they had to for any of the other FAQ updates.

You answered your own question and there is your consistency.

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

Done now.

So, another exciting thing. They could make a large ship cloak that works like this so that the change in position is more limited(and thus less broken). Could be fun.

Link?

edit, nm found it http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=4950

Reading through all of this the first time in one sitting... was going to quote a bunch of stuff and respond to a bunch of stuff but ya'll have it covered quite nicely...I'll just say this and go resurrect a very important thread.

Everyone else seems to be grasping this but IPeregrine. Carry on folks and allow him to wear himself out typing in silence.

Everyone else seems to be grasping this but iPeregrine. Carry on folks and allow him to wear himself out typing in silence.

That's pretty much what happens in most threads he pops up in, eventually...

So. I've never really understood why FFG would errata cards, but wouldn't change the points cost of cards that need adjustment. Chardaan Refit bothered me because I felt they were trying to use it as a fix without actually owning up and saying - we messed up.

But a couple pages back, VanorDM said something that explains everything to me.

It's about people being ignorant of the FAQ. If I show up to a tournament without having read the FAQ and I barrel roll a large ship the old way, someone will tell me, and we will fix it on the spot. But if they change Howlrunner's cost to 20 and I miss that, then my entire list is valid and I become completely disqualified from the tournament.

That's it. Makes sense. The potential downside for Errata'ing points costs is far more severe than merely missing how a gameplay rule has been changed.

Reading through all of this the first time in one sitting... was going to quote a bunch of stuff and respond to a bunch of stuff but ya'll have it covered quite nicely...I'll just say this and go resurrect a very important thread.

Everyone else seems to be grasping this but IPeregrine. Carry on folks and allow him to wear himself out typing in silence.

Perhaps he'll declare someone else the king of the internet this time around.

Perhaps ffg feels that the cost if Biggs and Howlrunner are just. Just because you don't agree with their logic doesn't make them wrong. Is anyone really beating the Howlrunner is too cheap drum? And the refit forces you to drop the missle for the point reduction. "But I never took missles." Ok but now you can't if you want the point reduction.

Some people can never be happy. This ruling was never made explicit with large ships, and when they starting designing a ship with a barrel roll, they probably realized that it was too much. So they fixed it.

The rule change is official, time to stop complaining and start coping.

Although it does make the Outrider title a lot less attractive...especially for five points.

you wont get any complaints out of me :D:D:D:D

you wont get any complaints out of me :D:D:D:D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BulXil2ROy4

Yeah, I can do this all day.

you wont get any complaints out of me :D:D:D:D

Yeah, I can do this all day.

Man, you are just FILLED with Frozen references...

I think the guys at GMI are getting sick of them, so this is my new outlet.

you wont get any complaints out of me :D:D:D:D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BulXil2ROy4

Yeah, I can do this all day.

I promise your girlfriend has nothing on my daughters.

Oh... Let It Go you guys.

It's like hanging out with my girlfriend. Whelp, time for a new forum.(The movie was fine, referencing it ia fine. My girlfriend is a little obsessed...

If only it were that easy to get rid of some posters.

Oh... Let It Go you guys.

Someone's late to the party.

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.

Not sure if either of you had a chance to listen to novasquadron's podcast where they interview Alex Davy, but he does give some insight into the process you two are discussing.

Not sure if either of you had a chance to listen to novasquadron's podcast where they interview Alex Davy, but he does give some insight into the process you two are discussing.

Yeah I was thinking of mentioning something about that myself. It's clear they have a design process and philosophy they work with, and part of that includes not changing things if they can avoid it.

That's why we got the Refit, because that's something they could add to the game without making a fundamental change to existing cards.

The BR change is really the same thing, it doesn't change how BR's actually work, only the amount of movement you get with Large Ships. It's something that you could keep playing the old way and not have any real issues. As pointed out before going to a tournament and doing it the old way wouldn't cause a huge issue, easy for the other guy to show the new rules and go from there.

Changing the point value on a ship on the other hand would cause massive problems. Whole lists no longer valid and you'd not find out until you get there.

This change is also completely consistent with FFG's methods. That being that they don't want to change things unless they really, really need to.

Also the change itself is pretty minor, you lose half a base in movement left/right and half a base up/down.

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".

What about Daredevil?

FFG probably didn't think barrel-rolling with the short side was that much of an issue, and, let's be honest, it wasn't: EH is kinda niche. However, when they designed a large ship that could barrel roll by default and playtested it they figured it looked kinda silly and due to base size was moving huge amounts laterally. So they made some specific rules for larges. It could also be related to the VT-49, if EH gives it such a big maneuverability buff they may want to change it.

To me, it's a through non-issue. It's not contradicting themselves, it's putting a new rule in that didn't exist before.

What about Daredevil?

When you come right down to it, Daredevil still works pretty much the same way. What they really did is remove some possible interactions. Before you counted the 1 turn as a red maneuver, which meant you got stress from it. Now it's a white maneuver, but the action itself gives you a stress. So the change is pretty subtle really.

What about Daredevil?

When you come right down to it, Daredevil still works pretty much the same way. What they really did is remove some possible interactions. Before you counted the 1 turn as a red maneuver, which meant you got stress from it. Now it's a white maneuver, but the action itself gives you a stress. So the change is pretty subtle really.

More it works as intended. The old wording wouldn't have given stress due to an oddity in the rulebook. And it interacted oddly with Tycho...

What about Daredevil?

When you come right down to it, Daredevil still works pretty much the same way. What they really did is remove some possible interactions. Before you counted the 1 turn as a red maneuver, which meant you got stress from it. Now it's a white maneuver, but the action itself gives you a stress. So the change is pretty subtle really.

Not to re-litigate that argument, but the problem was that performing a red maneuver during your "perform action" step meant you never actually got the stress.