6 hours ago, Fuzzywookie said:

Wow!!! Those poor Chinese kids aren't gonna eat for a week after this fiasco.

You mean the American employee at FFG who signed off on the artwork?

They should have seen that in play testing and probably in many other phases..

Playtesting?!? This is an Epic ship. Think they playtest those?

10 minutes ago, Zazaa said:

They should have seen that in play testing and probably in many other phases..

5 hours ago, ghotio said:

so much for rigorous play testing

While this certainly should have been caught in advance, this has absolutely nothing, not a single thing, to do with playtesting. This product could have been in playtest for decades and this issue would have nothing to do with playtesting. These quotes represent a complete lack of understanding of how a product is developed. By the time a product has reached the point where this piece of cardboard was actually designed playtesting was probably already long over. Its not uncommon for playtesters to have word documents that they print out on the office HP to represent pilot and upgrade cards. For the miniature for this they were probably using an imperial gozanti, if they bothered with a miniature at all. Playtesters don't get anywhere close to using the finished product, which is what would be needed to notice something like this (because, you know, the product can't be made until it is done, and it can't be done until the playtesting is done first.

Yes, someone in the development chain should have spotted the mistake, but not playtesters.

Reading some of these posts it sounds like it's the end of the world. Relax! It's a small hiccup in production.

Most of us know about FFGs great customer service, so it's no biggie.

Well as I said before this could be for one of two reasons:

1. The Blue line was supposed to be in the base and it wasn't caught by QA in the production cycle, most likely early on since even the production shot does not have it.
2. The Blue line is not supposed to be on the base and players are supposed to use the firing arc to determine fore and aft sections. Thus the rule supplement is in error and is in need of an immediate errata.

So one or the other is wrong, question is which one?

Almost certainly the former. The latter is just so much of a reach.

18 minutes ago, Marinealver said:

Well as I said before this could be for one of two reasons:

1. The Blue line was supposed to be in the base and it wasn't caught by QA in the production cycle, most likely early on since even the production shot does not have it.
2. The Blue line is not supposed to be on the base and players are supposed to use the firing arc to determine fore and aft sections. Thus the rule supplement is in error and is in need of an immediate errata.

So one or the other is wrong, question is which one?

The new rules reference for the reinforce token with the wookie ship already makes use of the arc of fire to determine which section of the ship is reinforced. So this could just be the same.

Just now, Azrapse said:

The new rules reference for the reinforce token with the wookie ship already makes use of the arc of fire to determine which section of the ship is reinforced. So this could just be the same.

Pretty much what I said. Scenario #2 but not just for reinforce but for damage deck as well. However in that case it is still the rule supplement that comes in the box is still in error. Regardless FFG made a mistake somewhere, now if it is with the printing or with the rules supplement there is something that needs to be cleared.

As someone else pointed out, the dividing line is also used for aligning the move template (for straight moves), so #2 scenario much less likely.

And, as for any play-testing - they simply would've used a Goz as a proxy.

I will still be purchasing one. Easy fix to just draw on the line myself using a paint pen or a marker and a straight edge. I only play Epic casually anyway so this really has no effect on me as long as the Scyck stuff is all good.

Still, FFG did not need this right now. Dial-gate at worlds, messed up wording on Jabba the Hutt. People are going to mad.

I hope people just keep things in perspective.

I still love you FFG! Keep up the good work and learn from your mistakes.

23 minutes ago, ABXY said:

As someone else pointed out, the dividing line is also used for aligning the move template (for straight moves), so #2 scenario much less likely.

And, as for any play-testing - they simply would've used a Goz as a proxy.

You could still use the front of the base. Sure the blue line does make it easier but as for straight moves it isn't that necessary.

I am not aware of the inner workings of FFG development and design - but having worked with graphic production in industry, one usually employ graphic-templates and layers in the graphical tools used to build this with, to make the design more efficent. Thus to produce this base, you would start with the Assault carrier artwork, import/draw the new firing arc, and switch from the Green (Galactic Empire) to the Orange (Scum) color scheme.

The C-ROC base as it is presented here, requires you to actively deactivate or hide the blue base partition line (possibly by mistake). Or build everything from scratch everytime...

Awesome I know how to fix this with a new rule

No more Blue lines on single ship card epic ships

I hate the fact on a Single ship card I place the reinforce token on one side and my opponent shoots the other side ignoring it completely when I fly the 2 ship card epic ships if I place the reinforce token on the fore then my opponent has to choose to shoot a reinforced Fore missing shields or a fully shielded Aft. this gives the reinforce action more weight on a single ship card. It will also change how Target Locks work as well but I could live with that

what do you all think?

13 hours ago, defkhan1 said:

Posted this to Reddit earlier but I figured I would get the word out here too. My C-ROC came in last night and the ship's baseplate is missing the blue line that divides the fore and aft sections of the ship.

How did you get yours last night, all site online still have its status to preorder?
Are you sure you did not get a pre-production copy?
What you see in your model might be the reason the C-ROC was "on-the boat" for that long.
They were fixing this misprint mistake although some early production kits were already produced.
Myself I will wait till I get a notification mail that my preorder is shipped and see whats in the box when it arrives.

2 hours ago, Sciencius said:

I am not aware of the inner workings of FFG development and design - but having worked with graphic production in industry, one usually employ graphic-templates and layers in the graphical tools used to build this with, to make the design more efficent. Thus to produce this base, you would start with the Assault carrier artwork, import/draw the new firing arc, and switch from the Green (Galactic Empire) to the Orange (Scum) color scheme.

The C-ROC base as it is presented here, requires you to actively deactivate or hide the blue base partition line (possibly by mistake). Or build everything from scratch everytime...

Yeah, the line element probably got hidden, or the layer it was on moved below something it shouldn't have. A simp,e mistake to make, but one that should have been caught. I work for an artist and it's amazing how 6 people can miss that a word in the title of a piece is spelled wrong, or the file is missing the copyright notice.

12 minutes ago, X Wing Nut said:

Awesome I know how to fix this with a new rule

No more Blue lines on single ship card epic ships

I hate the fact on a Single ship card I place the reinforce token on one side and my opponent shoots the other side ignoring it completely when I fly the 2 ship card epic ships if I place the reinforce token on the fore then my opponent has to choose to shoot a reinforced Fore missing shields or a fully shielded Aft. this gives the reinforce action more weight on a single ship card. It will also change how Target Locks work as well but I could live with that

what do you all think?

You mean like this?

The problem with making reinforce work for both sides is that it has no way to be countered (well TLT can counter it, but TLT also counters coms relay and just about everything else). Sure it would be nice if Reinforced was a little stronger, such as reducing damage suffered by 1 instead of just adding an evade result that can be bypassed.

Oops. This is just like the scum firesprays missing their aux arcs in the initial printing of the Most Wanted kits. How did FFG handle that one?

7 hours ago, Forgottenlore said:

While this certainly should have been caught in advance, this has absolutely nothing, not a single thing, to do with playtesting. This product could have been in playtest for decades and this issue would have nothing to do with playtesting. These quotes represent a complete lack of understanding of how a product is developed. By the time a product has reached the point where this piece of cardboard was actually designed playtesting was probably already long over. Its not uncommon for playtesters to have word documents that they print out on the office HP to represent pilot and upgrade cards. For the miniature for this they were probably using an imperial gozanti, if they bothered with a miniature at all. Playtesters don't get anywhere close to using the finished product, which is what would be needed to notice something like this (because, you know, the product can't be made until it is done, and it can't be done until the playtesting is done first.

Yes, someone in the development chain should have spotted the mistake, but not playtesters.

I'm sorry to have implied that it was "play testers" at fault. Not my intention.

I meant that if a Production-Prototype has not been "played" with, in a "testing" fashion, by a third person then you are deluding yourself as a designer to your abilities to spot mistakes on computer displays. I cannot count the number of times I have had a typo on a report and have only seen it as the paper is being fed from the printer.

8 hours ago, ABXY said:

As someone else pointed out, the dividing line is also used for aligning the move template (for straight moves), so #2 scenario much less likely.

And, as for any play-testing - they simply would've used a Goz as a proxy.

According to the rulebook you're supposed to use the back of the front base, not the blue line to move.

Furthermore, the reinforce rule referencing the arc is for non-huge ships. Huge ships reference the blue line.

They could just FAQ to say there is no aft/fore. The damage decks are mixed together. When a reinforced token is placed on the ship, it reinforces the entire ship. Considering Epic isn't playtested because this would had easily been caught, Epic isn't balanced in the first place.

12 hours ago, Forgottenlore said:

While this certainly should have been caught in advance, this has absolutely nothing, not a single thing, to do with playtesting. This product could have been in playtest for decades and this issue would have nothing to do with playtesting. These quotes represent a complete lack of understanding of how a product is developed. By the time a product has reached the point where this piece of cardboard was actually designed playtesting was probably already long over. Its not uncommon for playtesters to have word documents that they print out on the office HP to represent pilot and upgrade cards. For the miniature for this they were probably using an imperial gozanti, if they bothered with a miniature at all. Playtesters don't get anywhere close to using the finished product, which is what would be needed to notice something like this (because, you know, the product can't be made until it is done, and it can't be done until the playtesting is done first.

Yes, someone in the development chain should have spotted the mistake, but not playtesters.

Im sure that most of use who said about them not spotting this mistake in play testing mentioned that they have had time to recognize that there while playing, would imagine that they would need that line to distinguish between those front and rear sides, I'm sure that they are not going to be looking these ones but could imagine that they would just spot it though.

20 hours ago, Fuzzywookie said:

Wow!!! Those poor Chinese kids aren't gonna eat for a week after this fiasco.

This is almost certainly the result of FFG sending the manufacturer a master template without the blue line, so unlikely to have occurred due to manufacturer's error.

1 hour ago, Tbetts94 said:

They could just FAQ to say there is no aft/fore. The damage decks are mixed together. When a reinforced token is placed on the ship, it reinforces the entire ship. Considering Epic isn't playtested because this would had easily been caught, Epic isn't balanced in the first place.

Uh, I don't have a C-ROC yet but past Epic Ships have all listed playtesters involved in the product on the rules insert credits, so I assume Epic is playtested. Also, it's unlikely playtesters would have had any involvement with actual physical product or finalized-for-production files sent to distributors, so this was presumably playtested in the same way as past Epic ships and playtesters probably used proxy materials that included a division line.

Keep calm. Draw a blue line and move on.