That leads to things like GW never stable unit costs. Space Marines go from 9pts a model to 16, to 13, to 14. And every change necessitates other changes, which necessitate further changes, which ....

There is a reason FFG doesn't do what GW does, and I approve. Plus I shouldn't need to constantly check a pdf to see if all my units and upgrades are the same cost.

What GW does is release stuff, then balance it.

FFG Balances, then releases. Sometimes there are little errors, but they are fixed by future releases, not by continually changing the 'codex' every few months.

Alternatively, people might like to know what fleets they can build with their minis without having to look up this website every time. They might want to know that they can build a fleet and keep it together, without worrying that FFG ups the points on a Star Destroyer next month. Tournament players might like being able to plan more than a month ahead, which is difficult to do if the meta can shift that quickly. New players might like to be able to play the game without an internet connection. FFG might want to try just balancing their ships well enough on first release that they don't need to granularly affect every card they print.

Honestly, I wouldn't be in favour even if there was no logistical cost, because with such an ability, there would be a temptation to use it, and I want a complete game provided to me, not one that is constantly shifting as I play. At tournament play, there are always going to be fleet builds that are "the best" and ships that are considered sub-par, no matter what you point them at. And at the kitchen table, players can agree to house-rule point costs if they all agree something to be underpowered, although I doubt most kitchen tables will see enough play of this game (due to its length) to effectively determine such small-scale balance issues.

However, since organizing this would require FFG to maintain such a list (and how exactly would they know that Wedge Antillies should be lowered by 2 points? It's not like they have the resources to keep playtesting product after it's released), would require the players to be invested enough to know about it, to continually check it, and to be okay with the need to have an added step before they could play, and the threat of their favourite fleet being altered...I think such a venture would be far beyond the benefit it would provide.

Lastly, while FFG may elect to produce new minis rather than errata old ones (since this is likely the most profitable business practice), the lack of such a list would not prevent them from printing an "alternate" pack of ship cards, if they were so inclined, or even putting up a PDF "errata'd" fleet card for the one ship that proved woefully underpowered.

That leads to things like GW never stable unit costs. Space Marines go from 9pts a model to 16, to 13, to 14. And every change necessitates other changes, which necessitate further changes, which ....

There is a reason FFG doesn't do what GW does, and I approve. Plus I shouldn't need to constantly check a pdf to see if all my units and upgrades are the same cost.

What GW does is release stuff, then balance it.

FFG Balances, then releases. Sometimes there are little errors, but they are fixed by future releases, not by continually changing the 'codex' every few months.

I agree with what you're saying, the approach of "balance first, then release" would always be superior... if humans weren't human and you could be assured of getting it right the first time, every time. Plus, with the "balance first, then release" approach, your only approach to balance is then to come up with something new, since you can't go back and make changes. That means that even if you achieve functional balance, you're doing so by making something else obsolete (even if that's just a card). What happens if I bought a TIE Advanced, and then didn't want to buy the Imperial Raider? They can't even re-release the TIE Advanced with updated cards/cost without screwing the people who already bought the thing.

Honestly neither approach is perfect. Ideally it would be a mix of the two, where things would be well tested and balanced before release, but also able to be fixed after release without making people buy something else.

Also updating the list "every month" was just a suggestion. It could be every year, every six months, whatever.

I've heard there was some bull$%@# regarding the TIE Advanced in X-Wing that way, where they had no way of making it cheaper/better than to get players to buy an unrelated model to get new cards for the TIA Advanced.

The Raider comes with a TIE advanced.

I've heard there was some bull$%@# regarding the TIE Advanced in X-Wing that way, where they had no way of making it cheaper/better than to get players to buy an unrelated model to get new cards for the TIA Advanced.

The Raider comes with a TIE advanced.

I'm sure that $70 Wave 7 expansion really soothed the folks who bought the Wave 1 TIE Advanced between waves 2-6.

As somebody that bought an Advanced in Wave 1, yes it actually did.

FFGs model for X-wing works, don't fix what isn't broken.

FFGs model for X-wing works, don't fix what isn't broken.

What isn't broken just doesn't have enough features yet!

As has already been stated, points on the cards decrease "volatility."

If it becomes necessary to tweak a ship, FFG can release low or zero cost upgrades targeted at that hull.

Also, in know very few people who play tournaments. For friendly games, we don't force people to physically have / own the X-1 upgrade card. (Kids and bills have dibs on our money.)

Edit: "in know???" (Must not post when tired ) I meant "I know."

One of the big things with X-Wing and Armada is the ability to mix and match, not just ships, but also the upgrades and crew members. Having the points on the cards that you can easily count "46,52, 78, 99" etc to get to your points cost is far quicker and more flexible then having to refer to a seperate document that may or may not be out of date, or may or may not contain the latest released expansions. (as you can use the upgrades from most ships with other ships).

If you find yourself with 4 or 5 points spare, its dead easy to flip through your card folder looking for anything that has 5 or less in the bottom corner. Many times I have actually made a list that perfect bit better by spotting a cheap upgrade that I wouldnt have normally thought of simply by scanning the point costs of cards and going "Ooh, that could be handy on that ship".

Id like to point ot that warhammer is several devades old. While x wing is only 3? years old.

Warhammer has plenty of editions. And nothing is stopping x wing from getting a second edition. But i dint think that will be any time soon. I quite like FFG and their way of doing things. As a GW refugee i hate how they did things. FFG makes it much more stable

It is to make it easier to put together your armies, as well as calculate victory points at the end, without having to consult a manual. FFG has a different way of balancing rather than screwing around with point costs, such as releasing upgrade cards (some of which modify point cost) or other models that have synergy with the under-performing ones.

Please don't turn this into a GW game.

There is still the possibility of official erata directly changing point costs of something.

Also it would be honorable and much liked practice of the company if they include reprints of updated cards with the next wave if there is somehing to change by i.e. official FAQ. Honestly those cards dont cost them much. If you already pay 15 bucks for something 3 free cards in the box is not of any impact. If there would be a better free distribution method then to put them in another products box i would prefer that, but i guess its difficult to controll for costs in that case.

i like the streamlined things FFG did to theire products in comparison to i.e. GW and older boardgames. One thing with armada that i noticed and realy disliked is the way the upgrade cards are limited as someone mentioned earlier. You get one upgrade type X card and you might want to install that on multiple ships. I do pay cash for the added content of the upgrade the first time, but im for sure not buying multiple i.e. nebulon B`s just to have multiple copies of a card also contained in the pack if i dont want the model. As i like to have the tokens or card on the table instead of just keeping that in mind or writing it on paper i would proxy those cards to have something physical to place on the ship card. One of the games selling arguments is that it looks realy cool. So am i now forced to do proxies of things that i already bought for a game that sells as "it looks realy cool" ? That just cant be a thing and i realy think that handing out more copies of those cards than you might need wouldnt cost them much but would instead be largely percived as a cool move. The product is expansive and it is good, but if i buy one of each i do not want to be annoyed by such half working things.

I would also dislike if expansions sell by the "its better than the old stuff" (comming back to the stone paper scissor thing mentioned earlier) factor instead of beeing just more exciting and new and shiny. If the new things are more powerfull i believe the companies image is slowly beeing damaged as people notice and think of it as a ripoff. so far i havnt noticed that with theire other products though