28 minutes ago, Vontoothskie said:

potentially different slam text doesnt prove anything. critical thinking man. they could change every rule in the game through an faq, but if they dont change it the way the "leaker" claims, then its fake. if the faq arrives and all of the "leakers" claims are proven true, then i'll accept that I was wrong. if the faq is significantly different, then it will definitively prove that the leaker was a liar and everyone who swore it was verified was clueless. at present there is no evidence online that supports the claims people have been making. doesnt mean its fake, but Occams Razor sure points to it being a hoax

I'm not sure you understand how playtesting works. Playtesters don't always play with the final product. It's common for feedback to lead to a change just before a game/update goes to production/is released. The leak being partially correct would suggest that the source probably had been playtesting.

It's amazing how in denial some people are about the FAQ.

2 hours ago, Vontoothskie said:

potentially different slam text doesnt prove anything. critical thinking man. they could change every rule in the game through an faq, but if they dont change it the way the "leaker" claims, then its fake. if the faq arrives and all of the "leakers" claims are proven true, then i'll accept that I was wrong. if the faq is significantly different, then it will definitively prove that the leaker was a liar and everyone who swore it was verified was clueless. at present there is no evidence online that supports the claims people have been making. doesnt mean its fake, but Occams Razor sure points to it being a hoax

It's not "potentially" different card text. The text in the spread IS NOT the same as the existing slam card. And if part of the leaked FAQ matches what we get, it's a good indication it was probably a legit leak. Especially if more of it matches when the time comes. If not all of it matches, it could easily mean things were changed since the leak happened

2 hours ago, Vontoothskie said:

potentially different slam text doesnt prove anything. critical thinking man. they could change every rule in the game through an faq, but if they dont change it the way the "leaker" claims, then its fake. if the faq arrives and all of the "leakers" claims are proven true, then i'll accept that I was wrong. if the faq is significantly different, then it will definitively prove that the leaker was a liar and everyone who swore it was verified was clueless. at present there is no evidence online that supports the claims people have been making. doesnt mean its fake, but Occams Razor sure points to it being a hoax

I've been seeing a lot of vitriol from you on this subject. Why? Is something in the leak (whether real or false) not to your liking? Is the idea that other people having insider knowledge about what could be coming down the pipeline getting to you?

eh, people have gotten really strangely invested as to whether or not the FAQ was real

personally doubted (and still doubt) the JM5k changes because they really screw with the pilot cards in a way that's far and away more extreme than anything we've had in x-wing (not as extreme as IA, though) and more extreme than it would have been with just a point cost mark-up

The adv. SLAM changes also seemed to...defeated the whole point and purpose of adv. SLAM, but thankfully the gunboat came along to show us (in theory, anyway) what's up with the idea of action-bar only A-SLAMs

regardless of whether or not the FAQ is real, though, it's kinda completely out of our hands. One way or the other, we're getting what we're getting

I will be sad if they change Attani Mindlink and nullify my Scyk list (Serissu and 3 TPVs, all with Mindlink and Manglers). It's the list I've had the best luck with in tournaments and, for me, the most fun for me to fly right now. However, if it does happen, I will adapt, improvise and overcome in coming up with a new list for a favorite.

2 minutes ago, T70 Driver said:

I will be sad if they change Attani Mindlink and nullify my Scyk list (Serissu and 3 TPVs, all with Mindlink and Manglers). It's the list I've had the best luck with in tournaments and, for me, the most fun for me to fly right now. However, if it does happen, I will adapt, improvise and overcome in coming up with a new list for a favorite.

I've been training up on attani brobots.

Mindlink is made catered for fixing the Syck! and the khiraksjd. But its,... really a bit too powerful. It shouldn't give you focus if you're stressed.

10 hours ago, ficklegreendice said:

eh, people have gotten really strangely invested as to whether or not the FAQ was real

personally doubted (and still doubt) the JM5k changes because they really screw with the pilot cards in a way that's far and away more extreme than anything we've had in x-wing (not as extreme as IA, though) and more extreme than it would have been with just a point cost mark-up

The adv. SLAM changes also seemed to...defeated the whole point and purpose of adv. SLAM, but thankfully the gunboat came along to show us (in theory, anyway) what's up with the idea of action-bar only A-SLAMs

regardless of whether or not the FAQ is real, though, it's kinda completely out of our hands. One way or the other, we're getting what we're getting

What I am almost expecting is a title card to come out for the K-Wing that will add the reload action to the action bar of it. With the proposed "actions on action bar only" nerf, it will be available to use with Adv SLAM.

I suspect that the reload action will allow ships to flip ordinance cards back over, and that the developers are pushing Adv SLAM to be used to do ordinance runs with the Gunboat and K-Wing, where the ship will attack with torps or missiles, then SLAM away out of arc/range and reload, then come back for another run.

13 hours ago, Vontoothskie said:

potentially different slam text doesnt prove anything. critical thinking man. they could change every rule in the game through an faq, but if they dont change it the way the "leaker" claims, then its fake. if the faq arrives and all of the "leakers" claims are proven true, then i'll accept that I was wrong. if the faq is significantly different, then it will definitively prove that the leaker was a liar and everyone who swore it was verified was clueless. at present there is no evidence online that supports the claims people have been making. doesnt mean its fake, but Occams Razor sure points to it being a hoax