Hi, I'm new to the game and have just read something about the A-Wing and TIE Advanced having had changes made to balance them better, do these changes only show up in the FAQ or will there be a new print run so if I but either ship in the future it'll have the updated rules?

Cheers

There is no 'updated' rules for them.

The way FFG 'updates' or 'fixes' existing content for the game is by releasing new options or upgrades in subsequent expansions. Thus, the new upgrades can benefit all of the previously existing ships, or specifically a few of them, according to the nature of the new upgrade.

In the case of A-Wings, there is an expansion box, "Rebel Aces", that contains new upgrades especifically tailored for the A-Wing, along with new pilots. So, if you like A-Wings you should consider buying it. However, you can find in other expansions upgrades that benefit the A-Wing, like in the "Imperial Aces" Box, which has upgrades like 'Hull upgrade' or 'Opportunist' wich also benefit its playstyle.

Regarding the TIE-Advanced, its specific 'upgrades' will come with the future expansion "Imperial Raider Corvette". However, in the 'Rebel Aces' expansion box you can also find upgrades like 'Proton Rockets' wich also improve the TIE-Advanced's efficiency.

Ah, excellent, thanks for the very detailed reply! Time to start saving for more purchases!

Some folks tend to think it's a marketing ploy to make sure you keep buying more ships, but the fact is that it ensures that the ships you've bought in the past aren't being made redundant. Some may become a little less used, but with upgrades released later on, they can generally get a new lease of life. One of the biggest gripes I've heard from 40K gamers is the large armies that they've bought and lovingly painted have been sometimes rendered useless or redundant with the release of yet another updated codex which has removed troop types or abilities or things to that affect.

Plus buying more ships, sometimes isn't that bad anyway.

Some folks tend to think it's a marketing ploy to make sure you keep buying more ships, but the fact is that it ensures that the ships you've bought in the past aren't being made redundant. Some may become a little less used, but with upgrades released later on, they can generally get a new lease of life. One of the biggest gripes I've heard from 40K gamers is the large armies that they've bought and lovingly painted have been sometimes rendered useless or redundant with the release of yet another updated codex which has removed troop types or abilities or things to that affect.

None of these things really has anything to do with the other, though.

FFG could fix the cost of the A-wing via errata rather than a new upgrade, if they wanted to.

GW could release new Codex...es? Codixes? Codices?... which didn't invalidate large swaths of owned models, if they wanted to.

FFG and GW both have their exploitive ways to keep you buying shiny new boxes. Neither presents the only possible way to implement a revision path.

GW could release new Codex...es? Codixes? Codices?

Codices.

Some folks tend to think it's a marketing ploy to make sure you keep buying more ships, but the fact is that it ensures that the ships you've bought in the past aren't being made redundant. Some may become a little less used, but with upgrades released later on, they can generally get a new lease of life. One of the biggest gripes I've heard from 40K gamers is the large armies that they've bought and lovingly painted have been sometimes rendered useless or redundant with the release of yet another updated codex which has removed troop types or abilities or things to that affect.

None of these things really has anything to do with the other, though.

FFG could fix the cost of the A-wing via errata rather than a new upgrade, if they wanted to.

GW could release new Codex...es? Codixes? Codices?... which didn't invalidate large swaths of owned models, if they wanted to.

And when have you seen either company do this? I have yet to see FFG errata a ship cost as a fix. And I have yet to see GW release another wave of codices that don't make a lot models redundant.

My point is FFG seems quite happy to leave existing ships unchanged and rely on upgrades as their form of fix. Which I see as a good thing, especially for new players. The last thing you want a new player to do is to buy into a game system only to have someone tell them that a particular ship they've just bought is useless now because FFG changed it. This way if they buy an earlier wave ship, they're more likely to hear that if they get a particular expansion, the ship they bought gets even better. I've got a drawer full of 40K models that, because they're no longer up to date, they're now worthless as no one wants to buy them, or play an older set of rules.

Yes they both have their ways to keep the gamers buying their product, but at least FFG's first releases still get used.

First of all, no 40k models are worthless. That game has an exceptionally liberal environment for proxies and count-as models.

On point, FFG uses subsequent kits packaged with necessary fixes as a means of generating profit - there is no room for argument against that.

Nothing is better for a consumer than an internet errata. It is free and accessible. Saying that new players could be duped by buying 'bad' ships does not make sense. That would require the new player to research the new ship and get an idea of its capabilities on the table while somehow not seeing the official errata. Also, pretending that erratas have the unique ability to need ships does not make sense. Every time one ship gets stronger, whether through upgrades or an errata, every other ship get weaker (as none of their capabilities have any value without comparison to the others).

That said, FFG is a business and requiring subsequent purchases to continue playing the up to date version an ever-expanding game is fine. The only questionable aspect is releasing content for the popular sub-species of the game inside of kits for the infinitely less popular offshoot.

OP:

The A-wing refit is a flat -2 points to the total cost of the ship, but it removes the missile slot. I own the Aces kit that comes with these cards, but I never take them out of my deck box as anyone that you play against will assume that the -2 is in play unless you have missiles equipped.

My point is FFG seems quite happy to leave existing ships unchanged and rely on upgrades as their form of fix.

Well, you started with this:

Some folks tend to think it's a marketing ploy to make sure you keep buying more ships, but the fact is that it ensures that the ships you've bought in the past aren't being made redundant.

My point is that this may have the effect of avoiding making ships redundant, but their approach is by no means the only way to accomplish that. Saying "If they don't do upgrades then they become GW" is a pretty hefty straw man.

There are a number of ways they could fix underpowered ships which wouldn't require you to keep buying more ships. Picking the option that does require you to buy more ships from the many that don't is kinda the root point in the "It's a marketing ploy" view of things.

If you're unsure where to go next with your upgrades for A-Wing, Tie Adv or any other ship, I would advise using this link to see exactly which cards come with which set.

Additionally, you can proxy the cards in a friendly game or 2 to see if they suit your play style. If so, I would strongly recommend purchasing the relevant expansion(s) as they all come with additional upgrades which will better service your current and new ships.

Now that site is brilliant! Thanks for that, very useful!