Is anyone worried that, due to the way that FFG goes about with "fixes", that eventually, we will become so saturated with cards that look to counter overlooked/overpowered aspects of the game, that eventually those cards will be so auto-include that it makes portions of list building pointless? It's already begun with 3 agility boosters. There is almost no reason to run anything other than autothrusters as your mod for these ships. That's one portion of list building that has gone out the window for the sake of a "fix". Now, according to a recent interview with Alex Davy, yet another card which counters an overwhelmingly effective archetype is said to be coming. Will it prove to be the same type of auto-include upgrade autothrusters already is?

I appreciate that FFG revisits ships and helps catch them up to meet the grade. The Aces/Veterans/Heroes/Epic-tag-along treatment should certainly stay. Titles are fantastic and very fun, and I feel that even Chardaan Refit, although not a title, was done in a way that does not make it 100% auto-include. Having said that, I'm starting to think that more erratas would not be an awful option. When it comes to an archetype or upgrade that is transforming the game in a negative way which the designers did not intend, lets just get in an errata to how that upgrade, ship, game mechanic, etc., should work to re-balance the game. The Tie Phantom rework was a fantastic example of how an errata can be done right, so it's not impossible by any means. Yes, erratas aren't desirable, but I think they are a better option than creating a card which is far and away better than any other options, thus crippling a portion of list building.

Now I want to make it clear that I really don't think Uboats are "errata" worthy. At least not yet. And because of that, I'm not sure this "counter" upgrade Alex mentioned will be as much of a sure thing as autothrusters is. But the fact that this seems to be how they have decided to attack issues like this, by limiting list building, is a bit of a downer. But, hey, it will get more people to buy their product, so all in all, I guess it's worth it.

I wonder if titles must be used for large ships would work out? Hmmmm.

The Tie Phantom rework was a fantastic example of how an errata can be done right, so it's not impossible by any means.

The Phantom rework was changing how a rule worked, it's not the same thing as changing the point value or what an upgrade can do. The same for barrel rolling with large ships, or boosting with them if they ever decided they needed to address that.

So where it's appropriate I think they will use errata, but in most cases doing so isn't feasible. So while they could change how a large ship boosts, they can't really change how Engine Upgrade works.

It would be a crazy nightmare trying to figure out how to get "fixed" cards out.

You make a good point Kdubb, however i think erratas can be damaging just as much as physical card fixes. One of the many reasons i play this game is that its very easy once you have your builds to set up and get right into playing it. If FFG releases errata's instead of cards designed to counter other cards or ships this can possibly jeopardize the ease of play. I guess what I'm saying is that whether I'm playing in a tournament or casually, I don't want to have to constantly stop play and use my phone, computer, etc to check a faq to see if the ship or upgrade cards I'm using still work the same way or have the same effect as when they were originally released. Yes, sometimes I have to check to make sure I'm using a card or ship correctly after I know its been "fixed". I just want to do this as little as possible.

It would be a crazy nightmare trying to figure out how to get "fixed" cards out.

That's actually an issue in Imperial Assault and a case where IMO FFG has really dropped the ball.

They actually errataed some of the cards in IA. But the only way you could get new version was from the Store Championship kit.

It would be a crazy nightmare trying to figure out how to get "fixed" cards out.

That's actually an issue in Imperial Assault and a case where IMO FFG has really dropped the ball.

They actually errataed some of the cards in IA. But the only way you could get new version was from the Store Championship kit.

Do you know if new prints of the sets including those cards with have the errataed text?

The Tie Phantom rework was a fantastic example of how an errata can be done right, so it's not impossible by any means.

The Phantom rework was changing how a rule worked, it's not the same thing as changing the point value or what an upgrade can do. The same for barrel rolling with large ships, or boosting with them if they ever decided they needed to address that.

So where it's appropriate I think they will use errata, but in most cases doing so isn't feasible. So while they could change how a large ship boosts, they can't really change how Engine Upgrade works.

Ya I don't think going in to point values and changing those would be the correct way to go about it either. But, much like they are creative in making titles to bring ships up to speed, I believe they could be creative in their erratas to certain parts of an overpowered combo to put things back in order. Your example of a change to how large base ships boost may very well have been enough to keep us from needing autothrusters at all.

And just for the sake of an example, lets say they decide Scouts do need to be nerfed a bit. They would simply need to find what part of the combo that makes them so powerful and, like they have done with cards which they have worded or designed poorly and had to fix in the FAQ, make the change. Maybe "Deadeye should have the unique indication", for example. Not sure if that falls under the true definition of an errata, but I think it's clear what I'm getting at here.

X7 and TIE/D are not auto-include. Neither is chardaan or tie shuttle. I think FFG has a handle on the problem. "Fixes" can hit from multiple directions and pull a ship into multiple roles. As long as that remains true it is better than errata.

Errata: X-wings r gud brah. Go fly em!

Actually the only errata I would like to see is the Scyk title being free or adding a hull.

I agree it's annoying. the mod slot is becoming too crowded with these fixes that might be necessary from a power balance point of view, but at the same time crowd out other interesting options.

To be fair though, most of the 'fix' cards are provided in multiple copies in a pack and you can get them from card re-sellers as well, and in most casual play just agree that you don't need all 4 copies of guidance chips on the table.

But aside from coming out with x-wing 2.0, they are doing about as well as i'd expect with these issues. At least their errata is timely and they at least attempt to fix broken stuff. I will put up with some inconveniences for the sake of that.

I like that the mod slot is crowded, it makes you really think and choose about what to take.

Do you want to fix your ship with something the designers thought was needed on your ship or do you want to take another thing that you fel might be better in maing it perform te way you want it to.

At least we have tites for many of the fixes...which lets people open up the mod slot to different possibilities.

I like that the mod slot is crowded, it makes you really think and choose about what to take.

I agree that the more options, the better, but in the unfortunate case of autothrusters, its a no-brainer. The thought process goes like this- "Hmm... I can take the card which makes this ship competitive... Or something else. Guess I'll take the one card that was created specifically to makes this competitive."

And autothrusters aren't awful in and of themselves. It's the idea that if fixes in the same vain as autothrusters continue, the mod slot will just become the 2nd tier little clean up slot behind titles, at the expense of list building capabilities.

Do you know if new prints of the sets including those cards with have the errataed text?

I don't know. I suppose if they reprint the core set they could fix it. But IMO if they're going to errata cards, they need to find a better way to get it to people then X number at a Store Championship.

Maybe "Deadeye should have the unique indication", for example. Not sure if that falls under the true definition of an errata, but I think it's clear what I'm getting at here.

They've added Limited to cards via errata before, so they could do the same thing again. But the trick is can you suitably nerf something, without making it worthless on other ships.

I don't mind fix cards, problem is they are expensive to get. Most of all the raider, which ironically has the one fix that is auto include.

Also they should include multiples of a fix card which they usually do, but failed with integrated astromech.

It would be a crazy nightmare trying to figure out how to get "fixed" cards out.

Provide a new template to the manufacturer. Ship all new units with fixed versions. Errata on website that players can print out.

Problem solved.

The current version is already a nightmare. But to players. "Oh, you want to fix your $15 TIE Advanced? That will be $100 for this Imperial Raider, please." Not to mention the fact that, aside from Titles, "fixing" these ships actually makes them less competitive because it's taking up a slot they might otherwise use. Chardaan Refit, for example. A-Wings cost too much. Now they cost 2 less. Wait, but if you wanted missiles, now the missiles effectively cost two more points, and ordnance was already too expensive in most cases.

The brilliant part of the TIE Advanced fix is that it created _2_ good build paths for the TIE Advanced. Yes, the X1 title became an auto include, but the ATC isn't needed on every TIE Advanced. Instead, most TIE Advanceds are happy with Accuracy Corrector. That's quite nice.

Similarly: the Defender needs _something_, and FFG is giving us both the TIE/D and X7 titles. Those titles will both play differently, and be used in different kinds of squadrons. That's good list building flexibility!

Having said all that: I don't like needing to buy new ships with new cards in order to make my older ships work right. But I would _hate_ having the values of those cards constantly shifting in order to create a ballanced meta. Keeping up with the ballance changes in (say) League of Legends is already daunting. Having to basically reprint all my X-Wing cards every time I build a new squad would get annoying quickly. And not knowing this week's squad cost of a given card without looking it up in the squad builder? No, thank you.

Now, having said all _that_! If they can reduce or increase the power of a given card or mechanic by some words (rather than numbers) changes. I'm very much for that. I loved the Proximity Mine buff, for instance, and hope they can find new ways to do things like that.

As a for instance of the difficulty of value changes- they fixed the damage deck into something objectively better. And wow did they get a ton of hate for it.

Now, having said all _that_! If they can reduce or increase the power of a given card or mechanic by some words (rather than numbers) changes. I'm very much for that. I loved the Proximity Mine buff, for instance, and hope they can find new ways to do things like that.

Now your final point here is what I am trying to get at. Why forever attach a mod to a certain ship as a fix, destroying a portion of list building, when you can just make clever card changes to get things back in line?

Now your final point here is what I am trying to get at. Why forever attach a mod to a certain ship as a fix, destroying a portion of list building, when you can just make clever card changes to get things back in line?

Oh yes. Quite a bit! I wonder how many of those fixes are still left undone, however?

For instance:

Ideally, all ships with Boost are relying on being out of arc in order to create extra survivability. But turrets remove that. So you _can_ make a ruling that lets you flip a blank to an evade if the boost icon is on the action bar. However: the Engine Upgrade card adds the boost icon to the action bar. So our simple fix gives Fat Han a defensive bonus! Limit it to small ships only? Vader + EU gets yet another defensive boost. As does Corran + EU. Are there ways around this? Yes. But they take a lot of work and the Autothrusters card gets that job done, but with less fuss.

The brilliant part of the TIE Advanced fix is that it created _2_ good build paths for the TIE Advanced. Yes, the X1 title became an auto include, but the ATC isn't needed on every TIE Advanced. Instead, most TIE Advanceds are happy with Accuracy Corrector. That's quite nice.

You still need to buy a Starviper for the Autocorrector though...

OP: I definitely see your point. Were already approaching or at that point with a few ships/pilots, especially those with limited upgrade slots. It's an issue that's inextricably linked to power creep, ship obsolescence and other things like that that are kind of inevitable as a game of this type ages, FFG's best intentions notwithstanding.

But I do think that you're missing one key consideration around this particular issue: As the number of upgrade cards increases, so to do the number of ships and pilots go up. So, while yes, I can definitely imagine a time when certain ships or pilots have a full set of autoinclude upgrades, and therefore an effectively static load out from player to player, list to list, such a default will be less problematic when there are multiple ships in a faction that can fill the same niche. For example, right now, if you want a flanking rebel ace early to much arc dodging abilities, you probably want Jake Farrell, and you probably want to put VI, autothrusters, PtL and Prockets on him, because that's how you make him competitive. But, in a couple of waves, you might find yourself choosing between default Jake, and some really fantastic Episode 8 A Wings, or T Wings, or some other flanky, dodgy ship like that. The upgrades may be autoinclude, but the ship is less common. I think there's some kind of balance there.

The brilliant part of the TIE Advanced fix is that it created _2_ good build paths for the TIE Advanced. Yes, the X1 title became an auto include, but the ATC isn't needed on every TIE Advanced. Instead, most TIE Advanceds are happy with Accuracy Corrector. That's quite nice.

You still need to buy a Starviper for the Autocorrector though...

That's the brilliant part. Fantasy Flight Games gets to sell you $115 worth of models you may or may not even ever use so you can get 5 pieces of worthless cardstock.

FFG.. Keep up the good work... I don't care for the coreogrand maneuver.. I think it's because it doesn't require any skill to do.. I out flew you 10 to 1 but your one was a coreogrand and all my skill just got dumped on.. But that's just me... I deal with it I study the first 3 maneuvers that the opponent does.. I above all enjoy the game...

I think the current most annoying one is the t-65. You have to make the choice between integrated astromech and guidance chips... so either you fix the actual ship or you fix the torps.