35 minutes ago, lazycomet said:

No matter where you stand on this [missing blue line] issue, telling people to "settle down, lighten up, or chill out," isn't helping at all. If you don't care about quality, consistency, or neglected rules (epic), then do it quietly. Otherwise, you're just trolling people who literally want the Game to be the best it could possibly be.

While I do want X-wing to be a good game, beating on FFG for a minor oversight isn't helping the game either. There is a problem, a fix was made, it's done.

I'm not sure what the complaint about Epic tournament rules is all about. Please be more specific.

I wouldn't quite call it a "minor oversight". This isn't poorly worded card text, it's a mistake that fundamentally changes the way the ship works. I'd say it's actually one of the biggest production oversights they've had with this game to date. Like I said in my OP, in the the long run it doesn't make a huge difference, but the fact remains that FFG chose to make a permanent nerf to the ship via FAQ instead of even offering to correct the misprint later. I understand logistically why they made the decision, but it rubs me the wrong way and doesn't set a good precedent.

As for neglecting rules, the Epic huge ship and tournament rules haven't been updated since 2015. There are a number of things that need to be addressed (like the fact that the Gozanti and C-ROC don't have official Epic point values) but there's no sign of an updated FAQ in the works. The fact that the C-ROC base plate was FAQed to make the ship work a different way than intended shows just how little they care about Epic. If this sort of mistake was made for one of their normal releases, I'm certain it would've been handled differently.

I care about X-wing and I care about the Epic format. I wish FFG cared as much.

3 hours ago, kingargyle said:

You mean the ones that haven't been updated since 2015?

My point exactly. Many people already feel FFG doesn't give a crap about Epic and the fact this happened to an Epic ship only reinforces this opinion.

2 hours ago, Stoneface said:

Don't forget the need for companies to control the balance sheet. It's easy to armchair solutions when you're not paying for them. We only see the mistakes and complain about stuff we think are unbalanced but our view is hampered by tunnel vision. We see only have a very narrow view of the situation. Granted the missing blue line should've been caught before going to the printer but there may have been talk of changing the location or omitting it all together. The reason it's not there may be more complicated than "somebody effed up". We don't know the why and only notice the absence.

We as customers have exactly the perspective we need IMO: we see the final product and judge based on that.

What happens internally in FFG is not our business. At the end of the day FFG delivers a product that people pay for. It's their business how they manage to deliver good products.

Mistakes will happen in any field, that's a fact, but I don't think people should seek excuses for FFG. Even if this did indeed happen because FFG is working on so many things at once as suggested above, somebody is to blame. Somebody made the call to work on more stuff and either assumed quality wouldn't suffer, or he didn't care.

Well the oversight is putting the Gozanti Base in the Article, printing the huge ship movement supplement still including the blue line. Again if the blue line not being included in the C-Roc was intentional (as could be speculated from the production shot) they've done so many other missteps that you have to wonder if it was forgotten about or they really did intend for it to play that way.

On one hand it makes sense as the C-Roc has those big external engines thus the rear section is slightly more exposed than say on the Gozanti. On the other hand they included a screen shot with both the blue line and the green firing arc.

47 minutes ago, Stoneface said:

While I do want X-wing to be a good game, beating on FFG for a minor oversight isn't helping the game either. There is a problem, a fix was made, it's done.

I'm not sure what the complaint about Epic tournament rules is all about. Please be more specific.

Stoneface, I value your input. I enjoy your posts. But Im curious if you even play EPIC much if at all. Epic Rule House-cleaning:

1. The outdated Bumping Rule needs help. And we simply house-rule it for now. This is the case where everytime multiple Epic Ships overlap they are each dealt a faceup crit for the corresponding section. Which sounds fine until you realize that overlap is handle just like small ships (bumped, not true overlap) so each successive round means that two Epics would effectively "start over" in a perpetual bump-n-grind. This was fine when there where far less Epic ships running around, but now I run a 300pt list with (3) CROCs for the price of (1) Raider and all three, with proper positioning, can lock a raider in place for many rounds and the Raider takes 3 faceup crits through shields until it's ground to dust. While only giving the smaller ships 1 crit each. HOUSE RULE: Auto Crit on FIRST overlap only; NO BUMP RESET POSITIONING per small ships (it simply doesn't work here) instead, take both ships off their bases and TRUE overlap them so they make progress in a passing attempt instead of the stationary "woodchipper" approach; 2nd overlap does no dmg as both crews are working to CLEAR each other.

2. Silly Interactions with SmallShip Pilots/Crew. "Use Esege's Focus Token as if it were its own" (which should be completely ineffective per Epic Rules, which are outdated and sloppy). House Rule: Fine. EPICs can spend Esege's Focus Token, but for ZERO effect. "Zuckuss pays in STRESS to force rerolls; cannot force anything if already stressed" (which would be fine if Zuckuss was "Small Ship Only" per Epic's Rules). House Rule: Zuckuss IS small(large)ship only.

2 minutes ago, Marinealver said:

Well the oversight is putting the Gozanti Base in the Article, printing the huge ship movement supplement still including the blue line. Again if the blue line not being included in the C-Roc was intentional (as could be speculated from the production shot) they've done so many other missteps that you have to wonder if it was forgotten about or they really did intend for it to play that way.

On one hand it makes sense as the C-Roc has those big external engines thus the rear section is slightly more exposed than say on the Gozanti. On the other hand they included a screen shot with both the blue line and the green firing arc.

By that logic the CR-90 should've had an oversized aft as well. At this point I'd say it's pretty farfetched to assume the lack of a blue line was intentional. There's no reason to complicate the section-targeting mechanic that's been in place for every huge ship since.

3 minutes ago, lazycomet said:

This was fine when there where far less Epic ships running around, but now I run a 300pt list with (3) CROCs for the price of (1) Raider and all three, with proper positioning, can lock a raider in place for many rounds and the Raider takes 3 faceup crits through shields until it's ground to dust.

Wouldn't that be more Epic points than what's allowed in a game?

Technically, the C-ROC doesn't have an Epic point value assigned to it. Neither does the Gozanti. The tournament rules are so old that only the Transport, CR-90, and Raider have official Epic point values. Everyone has just assumed that the Gozanti has the same value as the Transport.

1 minute ago, DailyRich said:

Wouldn't that be more Epic points than what's allowed in a game?

If we're talking about Epic Tournament Rules... Thankfully, I am not arguing from that position at all. Have zero interest in Epic Tourneys.

16 minutes ago, defkhan1 said:

By that logic the CR-90 should've had an oversized aft as well. At this point I'd say it's pretty farfetched to assume the lack of a blue line was intentional. There's no reason to complicate the section-targeting mechanic that's been in place for every huge ship since.

Here is why I think the omission was intentional. There has to be a design document. In that are templates for all Huge Baseplates. They don't start over completely from scratch, piece-meal. No. When they started preprod on the CROC, they had to take the Gozanti before it and change colors, stats, and maybe randomize the background star pattern. It's at this point that a designer/artist or group of designers/artist could make an executive decision to just drop the blue line. Maybe they didn't like it. Maybe they wanted to see what it looked like without it. IDK. But I do know that it had to be actively removed UNLESS they lost the Gozanti Template and had to start over from scratch... but especially under that scenario, you would think they had plenty of physical baseplates laying around and would make extra sure the Blue Line was represented.

I think we have a rogue element that up and deleted the Blue Line. I simply don't see how it could accidentally vanish.

I've been in publishing for over 20 years.



...

12 minutes ago, lazycomet said:

2. Silly Interactions with SmallShip Pilots/Crew. "Use Esege's Focus Token as if it were its own" (which should be completely ineffective per Epic Rules, which are outdated and sloppy). House Rule: Fine. EPICs can spend Esege's Focus Token, but for ZERO effect. "Zuckuss pays in STRESS to force rerolls; cannot force anything if already stressed" (which would be fine if Zuckuss was "Small Ship Only" per Epic's Rules). House Rule: Zuckuss IS small(large)ship only.

The Esege issue bugs me a lot. The rules clearly state, "Focus, evade, and stress tokens do not affect huge ships." But I guess one of the designers was asked if the CR90 could use Esege's focus token, and jus like an error in an X-wing article, he said, "Sure."

Zuckuss is fine for now. The most it can be abused is Ordnance Tubes + Cluster Missiles on a C-ROC. That's only one target per round, though, so not game-breaking. When Scum gets a big gunship...maybe it should be revisited.

I know you don't care for Epic Tournaments, but those rules still have modified wins listed! Epic play definitely needs some love.

P.S. I never thought that huge ship overlaps needed to be addressed, but if you have that many in play, I can see there being a problem.

13 minutes ago, Parakitor said:

The Esege issue bugs me a lot. The rules clearly state, "Focus, evade, and stress tokens do not affect huge ships." But I guess one of the designers was asked if the CR90 could use Esege's focus token, and jus like an error in an X-wing article, he said, "Sure."

Zuckuss is fine for now. The most it can be abused is Ordnance Tubes + Cluster Missiles on a C-ROC. That's only one target per round, though, so not game-breaking. When Scum gets a big gunship...maybe it should be revisited.

I know you don't care for Epic Tournaments, but those rules still have modified wins listed! Epic play definitely needs some love.

P.S. I never thought that huge ship overlaps needed to be addressed, but if you have that many in play, I can see there being a problem.

Yeah, I think the problem with EPIC bumping is the ZERO OVERLAP / ZERO PROGRESS made to clear. It's as if these ships were crewed by CIRCUS CLOWNS. LOL. Or "Rogue One" writers (silly treatment of Star Destroyers).

I'll give you a scenario where Zuckuss is Space-Jesus on a CROC:

1. CROC with Single Turbo Laser + Zuckuss shoots at Cloaked Whisper Range 5.
2. Whisper rolls 8(!) Green Dice.
3. Zuckuss could force 8(!) rerolls and receive 8(!) Stress.
4. CROC discards 8(!) Stress.

And then could repeat the entire process! Forcing 16(!) rerolls for no cost/penalty what-so-ever (Post-Zuckuss Nerf, yet I'm crazy for banning Zuckuss from Epicships).

Well, TIE phantoms bother me because they completely ruin the CR90 campaign (and several other scenarios) so I'm glad to see that C-ROC pop them a good one with Zuckuss' help. And if any ship can get out of that range 3-5 arc of death, it's a TIE Phantom. If they don't maneuver well, I guess they deserve it.

I understand where you're coming from. It sure is a powerful ability for just one point, but it's minimum 41-47 points to bring one good shot to the table. People often complain that huge ships are too weak, so I'm not in a rush to smack this combo down too hastily. I reserve the right to change my tune after I've eaten Zuckuss lasers for the next few months.

51 minutes ago, defkhan1 said:

By that logic the CR-90 should've had an oversized aft as well. At this point I'd say it's pretty farfetched to assume the lack of a blue line was intentional. There's no reason to complicate the section-targeting mechanic that's been in place for every huge ship since.

The Aft section of the CR-90 had worse crits, to include one that delt 2 damage to the fore section. As for complicating such things? Well it isn't liek they are coming up with the Armada firing arcs for huge ship.

Pretty much every huge ship has worse crits in the rear. That's not unique to the CR-90. It's only natural since the rear is harder to target early game.

But yes it's not a huge complication, however I have a very hard time believing anyone came up with this intentionally. The FAQ was hastily written given the typos and the fact that they don't even mention how to measure LOS without the blue line (it's obvious how, but the rules need to state it explicitly). These aren't pre-written rules, they were hastily made up on the fly.

2 hours ago, lazycomet said:

Here is why I think the omission was intentional. There has to be a design document. In that are templates for all Huge Baseplates. They don't start over completely from scratch, piece-meal. No. When they started preprod on the CROC, they had to take the Gozanti before it and change colors, stats, and maybe randomize the background star pattern. It's at this point that a designer/artist or group of designers/artist could make an executive decision to just drop the blue line. Maybe they didn't like it. Maybe they wanted to see what it looked like without it. IDK. But I do know that it had to be actively removed UNLESS they lost the Gozanti Template and had to start over from scratch... but especially under that scenario, you would think they had plenty of physical baseplates laying around and would make extra sure the Blue Line was represented.

I think we have a rogue element that up and deleted the Blue Line. I simply don't see how it could accidentally vanish.

I've been in publishing for over 20 years.

Gotta disagree. It would be totally easy for the layer the blue line is on to accidentally get hidden or moved below something that hides it, or even delete. The artists I work for have 5-6 separate layers just for the title and copyright notices on their pieces, never mind the actual art. Stuff gets missed all the time.

17 hours ago, Mep said:

FFG must have lost their really good quality assurance person half a year ago, because their games have been plagued with small errors like this for that amount of time. Netrunner is especially hard hit.

FFG can't even produce PEGs in the same size over multiple years. ;-)

I don't think that the QA guy left just recently, I doubt that ever had one, because if they had one, FFG would not selling tournament kits with less quality than 3rd party accessory suppliers. And btw, while I am not really pissed about the mistake, I want to remember everyone that printing these days is extremely cheap. So if they knew about this before packing then they decide actively not to order another print run, delay the product a little bit.

Edit: BTW, my guess is that they did send a file with a hidden layer to printing in china and don't do or did not noticed on the test prints.

3 hours ago, defkhan1 said:

Technically, the C-ROC doesn't have an Epic point value assigned to it. Neither does the Gozanti. The tournament rules are so old that only the Transport, CR-90, and Raider have official Epic point values. Everyone has just assumed that the Gozanti has the same value as the Transport.

The way I account for it is just count the number of <epic> symbols on all the ship items. There is one on every huge ship base, and one on every ship card. So that makes 2 for the ships with a single ship card and 3 for the ships with 2 ship section cards.

Epic symbol can be seen on this card as well as the base.

7 hours ago, LordBlades said:

My point exactly. Many people already feel FFG doesn't give a crap about Epic and the fact this happened to an Epic ship only reinforces this opinion.

We as customers have exactly the perspective we need IMO: we see the final product and judge based on that.

What happens internally in FFG is not our business. At the end of the day FFG delivers a product that people pay for. It's their business how they manage to deliver good products.

Mistakes will happen in any field, that's a fact, but I don't think people should seek excuses for FFG. Even if this did indeed happen because FFG is working on so many things at once as suggested above, somebody is to blame. Somebody made the call to work on more stuff and either assumed quality wouldn't suffer, or he didn't care.

I really like how you admit mistakes will happen, don't care why they happen (as a customer) then say there's only one of two reasons why it did happen. Seriously? If you've worked in any business, other than a sole proprietorship, you know there's a chain of command and a line of communication that goes along with that command structure. Add to that dealing with your production facilities many thousands of miles away and any problem you have is compounded. I wasn't making excuses for FFG, I was merely presenting examples of how and why things can go sideways. Heck, the reason the line wasn't printed could be as simple as a fax machine double feeding a sheet of paper. While there's always a reason it's not always simple to pin the blame on a single person.

You mentioned previously they should hire more people. It's actually more cost effective to run people 7 days a week and pay time and a half and double time than to hire more individuals. While I'm pretty sure that FFG isn't running 7 days a week the developers are probably putting in some long hours when needed. Since we don't know where the bottle neck exists, or even if there is one, a blanket statement of "hire more people" doesn't make much sense. We don't what's needed or even if that needed person is available.

You've complained about Epic not being updated since 2015. In '15' The Force Awakens came out followed by Rogue One and now by The Last Jedi with another installment for each of the next three years. If FFG put out one wave per year it might be a valid criticism for not updating the Epic rules but considering how much content is released per year and that Epic isn't the bread and butter of X-wing, I can understand why it hasn't been updated or promoted more.

Considering all the things that can go wrong in the development of a ship to it's delivery at our flgs, a missing blue line is minor.

I think it's not so much that it happened that people find sloppy and lazy, it's the "fix" they find sloppy and lazy. Accidents happen, most of us get that, saying pretty much you meant to do it so you don't look like tools makes you look even more like a tool. I have more respect for any company that admits mistakes were made and instead of physically fixing it X option can be used to oversight the error but telling people the error doesn't matter is weak.

FFG has pretty much phoned this in with the, epic isn't our money maker screw em, yet they push standard play cards in every epic ship. Why bother making epic at all? Oh yeah we can charge people 60-90 bucks for a card we will nerf or make obsolete so these fools have incentive to buy our next high dollar ship. I wish they wouldn't bother at all or just say it like it is.

I really like epic and want to be able to play it but either care enough about quality to do it right or stop making an excuse to charge people over the $50 cap for standard cards because they don't care about epic. It's a real shame too, those epic ships are some of the best models in the game.

7 hours ago, lazycomet said:

Stoneface, I value your input. I enjoy your posts. But Im curious if you even play EPIC much if at all. Epic Rule House-cleaning:

1. The outdated Bumping Rule needs help. And we simply house-rule it for now. This is the case where everytime multiple Epic Ships overlap they are each dealt a faceup crit for the corresponding section. Which sounds fine until you realize that overlap is handle just like small ships (bumped, not true overlap) so each successive round means that two Epics would effectively "start over" in a perpetual bump-n-grind. This was fine when there where far less Epic ships running around, but now I run a 300pt list with (3) CROCs for the price of (1) Raider and all three, with proper positioning, can lock a raider in place for many rounds and the Raider takes 3 faceup crits through shields until it's ground to dust. While only giving the smaller ships 1 crit each. HOUSE RULE: Auto Crit on FIRST overlap only; NO BUMP RESET POSITIONING per small ships (it simply doesn't work here) instead, take both ships off their bases and TRUE overlap them so they make progress in a passing attempt instead of the stationary "woodchipper" approach; 2nd overlap does no dmg as both crews are working to CLEAR each other.

2. Silly Interactions with SmallShip Pilots/Crew. "Use Esege's Focus Token as if it were its own" (which should be completely ineffective per Epic Rules, which are outdated and sloppy). House Rule: Fine. EPICs can spend Esege's Focus Token, but for ZERO effect. "Zuckuss pays in STRESS to force rerolls; cannot force anything if already stressed" (which would be fine if Zuckuss was "Small Ship Only" per Epic's Rules). House Rule: Zuckuss IS small(large)ship only.

First, thank you for the compliment.

Second, I do play Epic but not as much as I would like. While I have the time (retired) many of my friends are still dealing with life. In the couple of games that K-Wings were used, we went for quantity over PS so Esege's interaction never came up. The same applies to huge ship collisions. Maneuvering is critical to staying alive and if you're locked into a death grip with another huge ship it's not good. We try to avoid wrapping our capital ships up. And by 'we' I mean my friends and I. We still enjoy crushing the odd enemy fighter that got too close.

You have valid points about the ship interactions you mentioned. There's also a thread with the Jam action vs Nien Numb's ability. At least I think it's Nien Numb. You're right that a rewrite of the Epic Rules is needed. FFG might be looking into it but remember there are a crap load of upgrade cards and pilots that have to be gone through to see if there are other impossible combinations. And it might not be obvious which combos result in impossible results.

I'm not making excuses for FFG but they have a lot going on with Star Wars in general at present. We don't know what contractual obligations they have regarding the new movies coming out in the next three years or when they get the information to meet those obligations. This is in addition to their normal wave and veteran releases. They may well have a penalty clause in their contracts for missing release dates which can be substantial and disastrous. We will get our rewrite but it will be on FFG to schedule it.

In the meantime use your best judgement for casual play but be ready with some convincing arguments for the TO when it come to tournament play.

21 minutes ago, LordFajubi said:

I think it's not so much that it happened that people find sloppy and lazy, it's the "fix" they find sloppy and lazy. Accidents happen, most of us get that, saying pretty much you meant to do it so you don't look like tools makes you look even more like a tool. I have more respect for any company that admits mistakes were made and instead of physically fixing it X option can be used to oversight the error but telling people the error doesn't matter is weak.

The thing is, FFG didn't really do that. The FAQ entry doesn't actually make any claims regarding the intention or reason for it. It could just as easily be read as FFG saying "we screwed up and it's too expensive to fix, so we came up with this solution" as it could "um... yeah, that's totally how we meant it to be"

it was obviously a screw up, but I haven't seen anyone from FFG denying that it was a screw up.

2 hours ago, Stoneface said:

I really like how you admit mistakes will happen, don't care why they happen (as a customer) then say there's only one of two reasons why it did happen. Seriously? If you've worked in any business, other than a sole proprietorship, you know there's a chain of command and a line of communication that goes along with that command structure. Add to that dealing with your production facilities many thousands of miles away and any problem you have is compounded. I wasn't making excuses for FFG, I was merely presenting examples of how and why things can go sideways. Heck, the reason the line wasn't printed could be as simple as a fax machine double feeding a sheet of paper. While there's always a reason it's not always simple to pin the blame on a single person.

You mentioned previously they should hire more people. It's actually more cost effective to run people 7 days a week and pay time and a half and double time than to hire more individuals. While I'm pretty sure that FFG isn't running 7 days a week the developers are probably putting in some long hours when needed. Since we don't know where the bottle neck exists, or even if there is one, a blanket statement of "hire more people" doesn't make much sense. We don't what's needed or even if that needed person is available.

You've complained about Epic not being updated since 2015. In '15' The Force Awakens came out followed by Rogue One and now by The Last Jedi with another installment for each of the next three years. If FFG put out one wave per year it might be a valid criticism for not updating the Epic rules but considering how much content is released per year and that Epic isn't the bread and butter of X-wing, I can understand why it hasn't been updated or promoted more.

Considering all the things that can go wrong in the development of a ship to it's delivery at our flgs, a missing blue line is minor.

I never said 'it can only happen because of X and Y'. I merely said that 'even if it did happen because of X or Y (stuff somebody suggested earlier in this thread), probably somebody is responsible'. As I said, in my view, it's really not my problem as a customer why stuff went wrong. I am paying for, and expecting, a quality product, and in this case FFG both failed to deliver and chose to do what IMO is a pretty lazy fix.

2 minutes ago, LordBlades said:

I never said 'it can only happen because of X and Y'. I merely said that 'even if it did happen because of X or Y (stuff somebody suggested earlier in this thread), probably somebody is responsible'. As I said, in my view, it's really not my problem as a customer why stuff went wrong. I am paying for, and expecting, a quality product, and in this case FFG both failed to deliver and chose to do what IMO is a pretty lazy fix.

How would you go about fixing the problem? Here's my thoughts on the situation.

One fix would have them hold shipping, reprint all the bases, open the shrink wrap, replace the misprinted base, repackage and reseal the boxes. This doesn't include reordering the material for the base, rescheduling a print run, and scheduling the labor to replace the base. This is assuming that QC caught it before packaging for shipment and loading in Konex containers. If QC caught it after it was sent to the shipping port add more labor costs and transportation charges.

On the other hand, if the error wasn't found until after shipping and distribution, which is probably what happened, then they could order materials, reschedule the print run, ship the reprinted bases to the states and have us contact them for replacement then mail them out.

In the first scenario the C-ROC would probably be delivered next year or something else would get pushed back which is unlikely given the new Last Jedi movie to be released in December. Given that we don't know how far in advance production and printing needs to be scheduled as well as transportation arrangements, we don't know how soon the reprints would get to us in the second scenario. So the ship is unplayable until the new bases arrive.

A third alternative is to do exactly what FFG did. Call an audible, change how how you determine the fore and aft sections for defensive purposes and the ships, already in our possession, are usable.

So, given that the error wasn't caught unti after distribution, would you rather forego buying the ship, buy it and shelve it waiting for the announcement that the new bases are in, or buy it and live with FFGs fix? For me the answer was a no brainer. I'll mark a midline and field the C-ROC and be able to use it either way. Very little fuss.

What you consider a lazy fix was expedient.

1 hour ago, Stoneface said:

How would you go about fixing the problem? Here's my thoughts on the situation.

One fix would have them hold shipping, reprint all the bases, open the shrink wrap, replace the misprinted base, repackage and reseal the boxes. This doesn't include reordering the material for the base, rescheduling a print run, and scheduling the labor to replace the base. This is assuming that QC caught it before packaging for shipment and loading in Konex containers. If QC caught it after it was sent to the shipping port add more labor costs and transportation charges.

On the other hand, if the error wasn't found until after shipping and distribution, which is probably what happened, then they could order materials, reschedule the print run, ship the reprinted bases to the states and have us contact them for replacement then mail them out.

In the first scenario the C-ROC would probably be delivered next year or something else would get pushed back which is unlikely given the new Last Jedi movie to be released in December. Given that we don't know how far in advance production and printing needs to be scheduled as well as transportation arrangements, we don't know how soon the reprints would get to us in the second scenario. So the ship is unplayable until the new bases arrive.

A third alternative is to do exactly what FFG did. Call an audible, change how how you determine the fore and aft sections for defensive purposes and the ships, already in our possession, are usable.

So, given that the error wasn't caught unti after distribution, would you rather forego buying the ship, buy it and shelve it waiting for the announcement that the new bases are in, or buy it and live with FFGs fix? For me the answer was a no brainer. I'll mark a midline and field the C-ROC and be able to use it either way. Very little fuss.

What you consider a lazy fix was expedient.

The best fix IMO would have been coming out and saying 'guys we're sorry. We screwed up. Here's a temporary FAQ so you can use your ships now. Meanwhile feel free to put in component replacement requests and we'll send you correct bases ASAP'. Meanwhile we got 'we TOTALLY meant to do that! It.s a feature,not a bug'.

Now I get where they're coming from. Replacing all bases takes money. Even if some guys don't buy the C-ROC over this, hell, even if some guys are pissed enough they quit X-Wing, the loss is still likely a tiny fraction of the cost of replacing all bases.

It's a sound business decision (short term at least). What it's not is good customer service.