Because you can't go back and edit every card. Their current method means that card text is always correct.

As the games moves forward into the expanded U, are the older ships less relevant? Will the x-wing and Tie- fighter become obsolete ?

Or do we always have to rebalance the game?

Does a 52 Chevy need to be rebalanced in GMs terms in comparison to a 2014 Chevy Vette?

At some point an older ship is just that, obsolete.

Just my opinion.

Balance and having every ship "viable" in each potential game comes strictly from a 'tournament' aspect and 100pt games only! Whereas having imbalanced ships cam be countered through varying the points and having mission specific scenarios!

Everybody doesn't play the same so all should work for some at different times for different reasons! Hence, I dont care about the balance in the same way some here 'stress' over it.

Didnt i just say a few posts up that a lot of people dont use the interent, especially older gamers.

Having all your fixs online is great until you get someone 'not online'.

The cost of FFG doing a quarterly printed FFG, putting in all the articles from the website etc etc would pay for itself easily if it were say a tenner.

GW made a mint doing this with 'warhammer annuals' and 'chapter approved' suppplements that basically updated rules between editions, contained errata, scenarios and tactics articles.

Those had no advertising, they sold well.

A strong working precedent exists.

No. No, no, no, HELL no! For the love of all that is good in this world please don't ever suggest FFG does something in line with games workshop practices!! The problem with adding supplements and continuing to update in weekly or monthly magazines is it FORCES you to buy them to keep up. That is one of the very reason so quit 40k after playing for close to a decade. If FFG goes the GW route of updating units that way then I along with some other people I know are out of this game. I have never once felt like I HAD to buy anything to stay competitive in this game and I would like it to stay that way. FFG has gotten a ton of money out of me and will get a ton more if they keep on the path they are on.

in essence obsolescence is built into the points system.

The problem we have is that FFG seem to have a policy of not 'repointing' to address balance but instead to give 'free upgrades' to give balance.

I've had this complaint for years.

Radzap, on 09 May 2015 - 3:03 PM, said:

I've had this complaint for years.

Personally I think it works better this way. I don't want to have to go look up for point changes every time I buikf a list and try to remember changing points. That's just annoying.

For me it's far more annoying to have a bunch of overpriced (and therefore, deprecated) ships. If you're upset about record keeping, so am I. The game has so many tiny chits, tokens, cards of all sizes, bases and mounts to keep track of. Keeping record of the ships actual point costs in say...an online database might be the thing that solves the balance issues we have right now. (hint hint FFG)

Why not let every ship become outdated then toss it? Would make FFG way more money overall. Im sure the 90% of loudmouths on here that whined about having to buy rebel and scum Z 95s for their dials cards etc would love that. I am kinda surprised most of them can afford to pay their internet bills really.

But ya lets follow your idea and let ships become outdated with every new expansion.