I honestly think that had the title been free there wouldn't have been a problem with it. You still have to pay for the cannon/missile.

Even a one point title would have made it the cheapest torp carrier in the game. For 2 points it should have given missile, torp AND cannon slots

[...]

They seem to spend (almost) as much time fixing things as developing new stuff...

[...]

This is too funny.

You disagree?

So far this year we've had 4 ships from wave 8, we're about to get 4 more ships from wave 9, and we might get 2-6 ships from wave 10. Meanwhile for fixes we've had 2 ships in imperial veterans. Then we have htr which is more of a "heres all the extra stuff from tfa for resistance" than a fix pack. Even if you call it fixes thats 4!ships vs 10-14

Perhaps I was too hyperbolic in my "almost" statement but each of the releases you're talking about contain various fixes/balances/changes, many of which are specifically geared at certain ships (IA), others that just expand or balance the game. I guess not all fixes are bundled in "Most Wanted" type packs but I see a constant evolution of the game - be it fixes or balances or errata - from FFG.

Again, Billy Mumphrey disclaimer.

[...]

They seem to spend (almost) as much time fixing things as developing new stuff...

[...]

This is too funny.

You disagree?

So far this year we've had 4 ships from wave 8, we're about to get 4 more ships from wave 9, and we might get 2-6 ships from wave 10. Meanwhile for fixes we've had 2 ships in imperial veterans. Then we have htr which is more of a "heres all the extra stuff from tfa for resistance" than a fix pack. Even if you call it fixes thats 4!ships vs 10-14

Perhaps I was too hyperbolic in my "almost" statement but each of the releases you're talking about contain various fixes/balances/changes, many of which are specifically geared at certain ships (IA), others that just expand or balance the game. I guess not all fixes are bundled in "Most Wanted" type packs but I see a constant evolution of the game - be it fixes or balances or errata - from FFG.

Again, Billy Mumphrey disclaimer.

IA was a buff for xwings, yes, but technically also isnt in any of the ships from this year I was talking about . Im curious what other cards in the 14 ships between wave 8 (excluding the t70 and fo that came out last year), wave 9, and wave 10 are "fixes" for existing ships

I want a 10 point ship.

Let's give this a 4 point cost reduction title!

IA was a buff for xwings, yes, but technically also isnt in any of the ships from this year I was talking about .

my discussion points were agnostic, not specific to your arguments and, as you spotted, I wasn't talking about the same ships I think you were

Im curious what other cards in the 14 ships between wave 8 (excluding the t70 and fo that came out last year), wave 9, and wave 10 are "fixes" for existing ships

So, my comment was "but I see a constant evolution of the game - be it fixes or balances or errata - from FFG" - whilst I don't have the time or inclination to figure out specific examples from releases that would fit that time fame (you arbitrarily picked!) and fall into the the quoted fixes" you asked for, I do believe EVERY FAQ provides balances/fixes and each new ship release has cards that can be used with older ships to either hone current abilities or bring new life into them (ordinance fixes, new upgrades that can be used with existing ships, etc).

Let me turn this around - are you saying that you don't see any changes or fixes or balancing for ANYTHING in any of the releases or errata in the time-frame you referenced?

And to put it another way - if FFG weren't constantly trying to fix/balance, wouldn't each wave, at best, be of no use to any previous releases or at worst, completely invalidate any previous waves?

To put it even another way - I STILL maintain TLT's will be the death of this game

I still maintain that if you edit the Heavy Scyk title card's cost to be '-2' instead of '2' you wouldn't need another fix.

20pt TVP with Mangler cannon and Mindlink. Yep, sounds very nice.

yeah... Maybe too nice?

Too expensive.

Lacking a green turn.

The problem with so many Scum ships.

Mind-Link makes green-turns irrelevant as long as your opponent does not bring stress control to the table. The white turns are good, 1 and 2 hards, all banks, two till four straights and a barrel roll. The TIE/N loses the 1-banks and gains the 3-turns.

The Scyk is still the cheapest cannon carrier. It'll be good as soon as a new awesome cannon comes out. Any mega-OP cannon will help the Scyk because the Scyk will be the cheapest way to get four or five of said cannon in the game!

So, my comment was "but I see a constant evolution of the game - be it fixes or balances or errata - from FFG" - whilst I don't have the time or inclination to figure out specific examples from releases that would fit that time fame (you arbitrarily picked!) and fall into the the quoted fixes" you asked for, I do believe EVERY FAQ provides balances/fixes and each new ship release has cards that can be used with older ships to either hone current abilities or bring new life into them (ordinance fixes, new upgrades that can be used with existing ships, etc).

Let me turn this around - are you saying that you don't see any changes or fixes or balancing for ANYTHING in any of the releases or errata in the time-frame you referenced?

The discussion started talking about "as much time fixing things as developing new stuff". Your other quote: "but I see a constant evolution of the game - be it fixes or balances or errata - from FFG" didn't come until later, and completely changes the context of what we're talking about. The term "fixes" from your original post has a very specific connotation in x-wing - taking a non-competitive ship and releasing new cards to make it better. Balance changes and errata are a completely different question. You even alluded to that specific meaning in you original post:

and the lack of this ship in competitive lists at a high level can't have escaped FFG's notice.

I was pointing out that FFG has done far more "developing new stuff" than they have "fixing" things, since the only true fix this year is Imperial Veterans. IA is a partial fix for xwings that did come out at the end of last year, and guidance chips is a fix for ordnance, but outside of that, the new content pretty much just that, "new stuff". Some new cards work well with old ships (they'd sell a lot less and there'd be a lot more disappointment if new stuf fonly worked with the new ships), but that doesn't make them fixes.

We do see balances and occasional erratas (though true erratas are extremely rare. Only 16 cards and 3 reference cards have erratas, and most of those are changing wording to clarify how something was supposed to work). And I would still argue that balances/erratas are different from fixes. Most faq changes are either clarifying existing interactions, or occasionally toning something down. The biggest change in the faq in a long time is the new timing chart. Before that the biggest was probably the phantom nerf. But those are few and far between.

And to put it another way - if FFG weren't constantly trying to fix/balance, wouldn't each wave, at best, be of no use to any previous releases or at worst, completely invalidate any previous waves?

One could argue that this WAS the case in a lot of ways for wave 8. A lot of lists in the current meta either used new ships (like jumpmasters, inquistior, ghost) or were designed to kill those, but few of them really use new upgrades on old ships that make them vastly better than before

I would praise the syck so much if all the pilots were reduced -2 points. I like the dial, it's got barrel roll, it's got evade. You wouldn't even have to give it a different title, cause taking any cannon is worth around 2 points.

I've always loved the idea of a cheap Ion Cannon flanker. This is the build I've run the most.

PS2 Syck / Ion Cannon / hull upgrade = 22 points

Sadly, it's outclassed by nearly everything in this point range, even an X-wing!

An upgrade that lets you shoot an Ion Cannon or Tractor Beam and not cancel results so damage goes through would be terrific.

I still maintain that if you edit the Heavy Scyk title card's cost to be '-2' instead of '2' you wouldn't need another fix.

...

A wee points reduction...

You and I have a different perspective on that quaint Scottish word

- - -

I too like the Scyk - currently my favourite Scum model (on looks) - I have 4, and don't yet have more purely in the hope that there will be an alt-paint expansion (with fix), and I'll double-down.

I've already contributed to older threads with my thoughts on fixes, so won't regurgitate them here, except to say I'd like them to have their own characteristic feel.

Something that emphasises a zippy or pesky (like a persistent mosquito) style. The Striker title already nabbed one of the fixes I had in mind, and a slightly earlier card claimed one too.

... And package it with 2x Mindlink as well - make that one of its signature builds.

The eventually fix for the Scyk will be not a title, but a modify slot. We don't need a title competition, we need something that will boost our title.

The eventually fix for the Scyk will be not a title, but a modify slot. We don't need a title competition, we need something that will boost our title.

Some of us also want them to be viable without the title

The eventually fix for the Scyk will be not a title, but a modify slot. We don't need a title competition, we need something that will boost our title.

Some of us also want them to be viable without the title

If a mod makes it better with the title and without then this covers your concerns.

However, I hope ffg is careful as the m3a is not that as bad as the insane people on this forum think and if they implement some of the solutions mentioned here it would be absolutely insane. (-2 points for the same title it has now for one... holy **** it would be the best ship in the game )

The eventually fix for the Scyk will be not a title, but a modify slot. We don't need a title competition, we need something that will boost our title.

Some of us also want them to be viable without the title

If a mod makes it better with the title and without then this covers your concerns. .

However, I hope ffg is careful as the m3a is not that as bad as the insane people on this forum think and if they implement some of the solutions mentioned here it would be absolutely insane. (-2 points for the same title it has now for one... holy **** it would be the best ship in the game )

If it makes it better with or without the title either one thats fine. I was just responding to the comment saying we needed a mod which boosts the title, and saying we dont want JUST that.

I agree making the current title -2 points would be ridiculously overpowered. 19 points for a spacer with hlc? 5 in a list?

I would like to see more titles, actually. And not just a boost to the Heavy Scyk.

As for the current title, it really does not need that much (they are good snipers). The idea above about a rng-extra munition was nice. Or a hull integrated.

A fix which rewards grren maneuvers will probably only lead to people again trying to ptl them.

I boight two Scyls purely on aesthetics, though sadly I can only play obe now (my dial got chewed up by my dog :/ ). I still think that these two mods have potential:

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/196271-a-possible-scyk-tweak/

Maybe as zero points (certainly zero for the Racing Scyk mod, probably for the Combat mod as well), and given the clarification about spending evade tokens, I'd add "When defending, you may spend multiple evade tokens."

They're both tweaks rather than full on fixes, and they emphasize the Scyl's glass cannon archetype - it's all about dodging, either dodging arcs or dodging shots with evade tokens. Makes Laetin potentially viable again, Swedish becomes at least as good as Howlrunner, which is all you need. Toss in a few more swarmy efficient pilots, and you could see Scyk cracks warms becoming a thing.

What I don't understand is how Scum large said have 3-Turns yet the M3-A does not. So confusing.

Otherwise it is fine if the title was 0 points as cannons are expensive. A lower cost but less capable cannon might be an option. Example, 2 points for a double firing range 1-2.

What I don't understand is how Scum large said have 3-Turns yet the M3-A does not. So confusing.

Otherwise it is fine if the title was 0 points as cannons are expensive. A lower cost but less capable cannon might be an option. Example, 2 points for a double firing range 1-2.

Bigger ship, wider turn radius

What I don't understand is how Scum large said have 3-Turns yet the M3-A does not. So confusing.

Otherwise it is fine if the title was 0 points as cannons are expensive. A lower cost but less capable cannon might be an option. Example, 2 points for a double firing range 1-2.

Bigger ship, wider turn radius

If you want that wider turn radius, do two 2-Banks, now that is a wider, slower turn radius. From a lore perspective it really makes no sense as a faster more agile ship should be able to widen its turn as much as it pleases. You just pull that stick soft instead of hard.

And a faster, wider turn will cause actually even more g than the sharp slow turn, assuming that the 1T and 3T take just as long.

Now from a game perspective I understand why they still understand their angle, but to be completely honest, as the 3 turn is a even faster on a large ship … I think the fast ship are in general to fast. But I get why they did not want the M3A to have that fast turn. I still think it would have been a lot better if it got that as well as a white.

Ultimately:

1. FFG do not, as a rule, 'FAQ' existing cards - certainly not to change points costs.
2. The Scyk isn't 'bad' so much as 'over-costed'.
3. The 'Fix' will invariably come in the form of an additional rules card
4. Since the Scyk already has a title (and it's arguably the Heavy Scyk most in need of help), the fix cannot be a title
5. The Scyk has no slots on its upgrade bar - aside from the ones granted by the title - to attach said card to, and losing the cannon slot to an 'auto-choice' would drastically reduce the ship's flexibility.
6. Therefore the 'fix' needs to come in the form of a modification card.
7. The easy modification card is a cut price or free hull upgrade (as the fragility is something people complain about), but +1 hull is a 'hull upgrade', and integrated astromech exists, and FFG seem to dislike duplicating card effects.
8. If you can't increase durability by increasing hull value, or by adding a shield token, or by discarding a damage card, or by adding an agility, what's left? If it's going to be free (or nearly free) it can't be very powerful. Maybe a one-use discard to add an evade result to a defence roll?

Ultimately:

1. FFG do not, as a rule, 'FAQ' existing cards - certainly not to change points costs.
2. The Scyk isn't 'bad' so much as 'over-costed'.
3. The 'Fix' will invariably come in the form of an additional rules card
4. Since the Scyk already has a title (and it's arguably the Heavy Scyk most in need of help), the fix cannot be a title
5. The Scyk has no slots on its upgrade bar - aside from the ones granted by the title - to attach said card to, and losing the cannon slot to an 'auto-choice' would drastically reduce the ship's flexibility.
6. Therefore the 'fix' needs to come in the form of a modification card.
7. The easy modification card is a cut price or free hull upgrade (as the fragility is something people complain about), but +1 hull is a 'hull upgrade', and integrated astromech exists, and FFG seem to dislike duplicating card effects.
8. If you can't increase durability by increasing hull value, or by adding a shield token, or by discarding a damage card, or by adding an agility, what's left? If it's going to be free (or nearly free) it can't be very powerful. Maybe a one-use discard to add an evade result to a defence roll?

They could also make a title that allows you to equip a second title in addition if desired (they let interceptors have 2 mods, awings have 2 epts, no reason they couldn't do the same for title here)

4 and 5 is wrong. With Snuggling Compartments we have already an example of an upgrade card which add another slot to be used. A fix via title or secondary weapon can still allow to take another secondary weapon.

For example they could add a M3A only secondary weapon card which can be equipt to any missile, torpedo or cannon slot, is called "Linked" and allows to fire any secondary weapon twice per turn. Now obviously that would be total OP for heavy laser cannons, so we might restricted it to weapons costing 6 points or less. ;-)

Zero Points, adding a free double tap to missile and torpedoes and making Manglers still totally OP.

So I doubt they will do something as powerful as that, but the basic option to add an uprade which adds a slot is there, the M3A titles itself are a precedence for that.

Ultimately:

• FFG do not, as a rule, 'FAQ' existing cards - certainly not to change points costs.
• The Scyk isn't 'bad' so much as 'over-costed'.
• The 'Fix' will invariably come in the form of an additional rules card
• Since the Scyk already has a title (and it's arguably the Heavy Scyk most in need of help), the fix cannot be a title
• The Scyk has no slots on its upgrade bar - aside from the ones granted by the title - to attach said card to, and losing the cannon slot to an 'auto-choice' would drastically reduce the ship's flexibility.
• Therefore the 'fix' needs to come in the form of a modification card.
• The easy modification card is a cut price or free hull upgrade (as the fragility is something people complain about), but +1 hull is a 'hull upgrade', and integrated astromech exists, and FFG seem to dislike duplicating card effects.
• If you can't increase durability by increasing hull value, or by adding a shield token, or by discarding a damage card, or by adding an agility, what's left? If it's going to be free (or nearly free) it can't be very powerful. Maybe a one-use discard to add an evade result to a defence roll?

The best fix is the FAQ point reduction on the title. I know it's messy but really the other options aren't simple and easy either. It would be a first although I'm sure I've heard Alex say he doesn't like that idea.

The best fix is the FAQ point reduction on the title. I know it's messy but really the other options aren't simple and easy either. It would be a first although I'm sure I've heard Alex say he doesn't like that idea.

I agree the title is probably overcosted. I'm not sure if the best way of achieving this is via an FAQ (especially given FFGs aversion to it). A cleaner way of doing it would be to have a second title doing roughly the same thing (either adding those slots at 0 points, or maybe adding the slots plus a shield/hull upgrade at say 3 points).

Yes, you end up with the original title being essentially redundant, but at least you don't have to keep track of points via some mechanism other than cards.

Having said that, if we are going down the title route I would probably rather see one that does something completely different (and which is more appropriately costed). Maybe a Light Syck - something giving some sort of evasive effect