Alright "whiners" (as we are now being labeled)! We all are aware of the FAQ changes "we" made happen (we being the "loud minority who post constantly on these forums", as we are also being labeled), so how about we make some other changes to the game since FFG bends to our every whim??

/sarcasm

But seriously, if FFG really does listen to these forums, lets see if we can make a positive impact on the other side of the spectrum. Nerfs are pretty polarizing, and it's clear that in nerf situations, there is a good chance a number of players are going to think a) it wasn't necessary, or b) it went overboard.

But you know what we can all agree on? SABOTEUR SUCKS.

So, let's flip this around and see if FFG will make any changes if we all complain "LOUDLY" about cards that suck instead of about cards that are "too good" (feel free to complain about your own choice! Might I suggest Fel's Wrath?).

Alright FFG here's the lowdown,

Since I'm sure you have forgotten (don't worry, it's an easy card to forget), I'll kindly remind you of just what Saboteur does. The 2 point crew card Saboteur reads,

Action: Choose 1 enemy ship at Range 1 and roll 1 attack die. On a <hit> or <crit> result, choose 1 random facedown Damage card assigned to that ship, flip it faceup, and resolve it.

This is quite possibly the worst card in the game. Let's look at all the ways it sucks.

1) overcosted for its effect

2) takes up one of the most valuable upgrade slots in the game (crew)

3) has a highly restrictive range restriction

4) Is RNG based

5) Has a prerequisite to work (enemy ship must have a facedown damage card)

6) IT TAKES AN ACTION FOR A 50/50 CHANCE TO GET IT TO TRIGGER EVEN AFTER YOU MEET ALL THE PREREQUISITES

...Ahem. Sorry about that.

Yes, this card is that bad. Even if it was 0 points, I still think it would likely see little to no use due to the opportunity cost of filling the crew slot.

So, FFG, please show mercy on this card and errata it in such a way that it can be playable. Perhaps make it an end of combat trigger instead of an action? Just a thought.

Oh, and one more thing,

OMFG THIS CARD SUXXXXXXX FFG PLZ FIX OR IMMA QUIT NOW*

Thank you.

*FFG always bites on these types of comments. This is how they know something is a real issue.

FFG pay minimal attention to these forums, which is exactly as it should be.

As a case of ordnance shows, it is sometimes better when some cards are niche or straight up doesn't work.

2 minutes ago, Kdubb said:

Alright "whiners" (as we are now being labeled)! We all are aware of the FAQ changes "we" made happen (we being the "loud minority who post constantly on these forums", as we are also being labeled), so how about we make some other changes to the game since FFG bends to our every whim??

/sarcasm

But seriously, if FFG really does listen to these forums, lets see if we can make a positive impact on the other side of the spectrum. Nerfs are pretty polarizing, and it's clear that in nerf situations, there is a good chance a number of players are going to think a) it wasn't necessary, or b) it went overboard.

But you know what we can all agree on? SABOTEUR SUCKS.

So, let's flip this around and see if FFG will make any changes if we all complain "LOUDLY" about cards that suck instead of about cards that are "too good" (feel free to complain about your own choice! Might I suggest Fel's Wrath?).

Alright FFG here's the lowdown,

Since I'm sure you have forgotten (don't worry, it's an easy card to forget), I'll kindly remind you of just what Saboteur does. The 2 point crew card Saboteur reads,

Action: Choose 1 enemy ship at Range 1 and roll 1 attack die. On a <hit> or <crit> result, choose 1 random facedown Damage card assigned to that ship, flip it faceup, and resolve it.

This is quite possibly the worst card in the game. Let's look at all the ways it sucks.

1) overcosted for its effect

2) takes up one of the most valuable upgrade slots in the game (crew)

3) has a highly restrictive range restriction

4) Is RNG based

5) Has a prerequisite to work (enemy ship must have a facedown damage card)

6) IT TAKES AN ACTION FOR A 50/50 CHANCE TO GET IT TO TRIGGER EVEN AFTER YOU MEET ALL THE PREREQUISITES

...Ahem. Sorry about that.

Yes, this card is that bad. Even if it was 0 points, I still think it would likely see little to no use due to the opportunity cost of filling the crew slot.

So, FFG, please show mercy on this card and errata it in such a way that it can be playable. Perhaps make it an end of combat trigger instead of an action? Just a thought.

Oh, and one more thing,

OMFG THIS CARD SUXXXXXXX FFG PLZ FIX OR IMMA QUIT NOW*

Thank you.

*FFG always bites on these types of comments. This is how they know something is a real issue.

This post made me lol, though I wouldn't mind seeing "fel's wrath" being competitive for once in history

if it wasnt an action or wasnt a die roll it would be an awesome card.

2 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

FFG pay minimal attention to these forums, which is exactly as it should be.

Not according to those who are upset with the latest FAQ! They've made me realize that, as long as I grab enough buddies to post about the cards I want changed on these forums, it's pretty much guaranteed the changes will happen! Join in on the fun SotL! You were one of the ones who made this last FAQ happen! In fact, I'm pretty sure FFG takes your posts into account more than others because you even have a nifty blog! Don't you want to take some credit??

The lack of anything to address cards that are so woefully lacking like Saboteur in the current FAQ gives yet another reason to be displeased with it. Hard errata for card text is no longer forbidden or even deployed only when necessary, and so there is no longer an excuse for any card to be so lacking.
I won't list all the cards that should now be errated in the same way, suffice it to say there's probably more of them than things people **** and moan about.

if anything they pay attention to the tournament lists. When more than half of the lists are essentially the SAME THING it kinda raises a red flag.

Seems to me then that they need to change perspective and look at the other end. When absolutely none of the lists ever include a card, that should raise a red flag as well.

Unless they intentionally design cards that suck as filler to meet the required card counts in the x-pac (we already know they intentionally make OP cards to sell big-buck boxes with the intent to nerf those cards once they've made their money... according to some people out of touch with reality).

14 minutes ago, DeathstarII said:

This post made me lol, though I wouldn't mind seeing "fel's wrath" being competitive for once in history

Or the rest of the squad mates:

Fel's Wraith

Fel's Wreath

Fel's Wroth (sometimes called Angry Fel)

Fel's Wrench

Fel's Fell

Fel's Down

and

Fel's Over.

13 minutes ago, Vineheart01 said:

if it wasnt an action or wasnt a die roll it would be an awesome card.

I think if it weren't an Action, the card would be useful. If you want to look at it "logically," the Action is what the pilot is doing; the crew should not distract from that.

8 minutes ago, MalusCalibur said:

The lack of anything to address cards that are so woefully lacking like Saboteur in the current FAQ gives yet another reason to be displeased with it. Hard errata for card text is no longer forbidden or even deployed only when necessary, and so there is no longer an excuse for any card to be so lacking.
I won't list all the cards that should now be errated in the same way, suffice it to say there's probably more of them than things people **** and moan about.

This is absolutely the truth. If they would hunker down on the whole "errata to nerf/buff" thing, I wouldn't be surprised if the FAQ was 5-10 pages longer. I think ships that are failing as a whole probably wouldn't be touched even in such a case since they like their ace packs. But individual pilots that struggle, as well as upgrades? Ya, that is a loooooooooooong list.

23 minutes ago, Embir82 said:

As a case of ordnance shows, it is sometimes better when some cards are niche or straight up doesn't work.

What's is that supposed to mean?

Actually, Saboteur tie shuttles with kylo deci gunner seem to be a pretty grim combo. Especially if you removed the random component. You give the enemy blinded pilot crits and flip them every round...

FFG hates errata and avoid it wherever possible. They nerfed the quadrumvirate because they thought it necessary. Buffing Saboteur isn't necessary. We'd all like it but the health of the metagame doesn't rely on it.

1 minute ago, MaxPower said:

Actually, Saboteur tie shuttles with kylo deci gunner seem to be a pretty grim combo. Especially if you removed the random component. You give the enemy blinded pilot crits and flip them every round...

There is an Advanced pilot that is much better at doing that trick than Saboteur. I believe his name is Lt. colzet or something.

You should've gone for Expose. Not only is it a worse card, but you can expose the horrible card that is Expose. Then you can have an expose' on it.

You should've gone for Expose. Not only is it a worse card, but you can expose the horrible card that is Expose. Then you can have an expose' on it.

triple post

7 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

What's is that supposed to mean?

So that you don't even bother wasting points on them. Versus something that *might* be useful, say against a certain opponent ship, but if your opponent isn't playing said cards, you've wasted your points. Off the top of my head, lets say you equip Kallus as a crew member, and your opponents drops 8 academy TIES. Not as useful as when he might deploy RAC/Fel or something

16 minutes ago, Kharnvor said:

Seems to me then that they need to change perspective and look at the other end. When absolutely none of the lists ever include a card, that should raise a red flag as well.

Unless they intentionally design cards that suck as filler to meet the required card counts in the x-pac (we already know they intentionally make OP cards to sell big-buck boxes with the intent to nerf those cards once they've made their money... according to some people out of touch with reality).

There has to be good and bad upgrades on a sliding scale because it's skill-testing to recognise that Predator gives you much more than Marksmanship (for example).

9 minutes ago, Blue Five said:

FFG hates errata and avoid it wherever possible. They nerfed the quadrumvirate because they thought it necessary. Buffing Saboteur isn't necessary. We'd all like it but the health of the metagame doesn't rely on it.

Ya this does seem to be the way they do things, but the Heavy Scyk and Cluster Mines erratas were a thing, so they have shown that in certain cases they will make changes to buff cards.

And doesn't buffing weak cards improve the health of the metagame as well? Addition by addition... Instead of a nerf, which is addition by subtraction... right?

4 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

There has to be good and bad upgrades on a sliding scale because it's skill-testing to recognise that Predator gives you much more than Marksmanship (for example).

In an optimal scenario though, Predator would be better in some scenarios, and Marksmanship better in others. There shouldn't ever be cards that are always worse.

Is it really skill testing? Maybe in the sense that it requires at least one person to notice and post it on the forums. After that point, it's group knowledge and taken for granted. It's a component of the dreaded "netlisting."

I guess my question is, why does there have to be a scale, or rather a scale as broad as we have now? Shouldn't all cards be nearly equivalent for the most diversity and balance? If something warps the meta, it can now be nerfed. Why can something that has absolutely no impact or presence on the meta not be buffed? Surely all the card designers want their cards to be used and their efforts appreciated.

My fixes:

Saboteur

At the end of the combat phase, you may choose 1 enemy ship at Range 1 and roll 1 attack die. On a <hit> or <crit> result, receive 1 stress token and choose 1 random facedown Damage card assigned to that ship, flip it faceup, and resolve it.

Explanation: Makes saboteur a non action card, which we all think it should be. The stress is to limit cheese that may result in spam somehow like an Upsilon with two Saboteurs or something.

Fel's Wrath

When the number of Damage cards assigned to you equals or exceeds your hull value, you may perform an attack equal to the number of Damage cards assigned to your ship. You are not destroyed until the end of the Combat phase.

Explanation: Gives Fel an extra attack once he is destroyed, and at minimum it is 3 attack dice, and could be 4,5,6+ depending on how he dies. If he has 1 hull remaining, and your opponent is at range 1 and rolls hit/hit/eye/eye. Do they spend the focus to guarantee Fel's death, but risk a possible 6 dice attack back at them, plus his normal attack if he hasnt attacked yet? This also can give him an attack in the activation phase if say a cluster mine or asteroid kills him. And then he still sticks around until the end of combat phase. Truly Fel's Wrath now.

8 minutes ago, Kdubb said:

Ya this does seem to be the way they do things, but the Heavy Scyk and Cluster Mines erratas were a thing, so they have shown that in certain cases they will make changes to buff cards.

And doesn't buffing weak cards improve the health of the metagame as well? Addition by addition... Instead of a nerf, which is addition by subtraction... right?

Cluster Mines was a reference card change. FFG has no issues with those.

Heavy Scyk was buffing a ship back into the game.