3 hours ago, Marinealver said:

Then in that case I am putting TLT on firespray. Why not the cards don't matter and I can put any upgrade on any pilot I want.

Do you even read the rules, or understand anything about the game at all? I'm guessing not, so I am going to try and explain that your model has a selection of pilot cards which has a initial point value and on the bottom of that card is a series of symbols that tells you you can attach upgrade icons to the matching symbol. The only exception is modification and titles and it is assumed each pilot card automatically has one. Add up all the points and you get 100.

Start messing with that then the cards now have no use. Use a list builder sure does FFG have an official one or more of the point do you really want FFG to make an official one (before answering look at Mission Control and TOME).

You know what, now that upgrades are no longer useful go ahead and change point values. After the last FAQ the cards are now worthless.

I honestly don't know why I try to back FFG on some points when they just go around and do something more stupid then what people on the forums suggest.

Well that was fun. Glad you came around.

If you want to argue that original cards should be held sacred and stats on them shouldn't be changed, there are absolutely cogent arguments for that, just really not any of the ones you raised (FFG doesn't regularly enforce their own rule on them and I'd love for you to find me a competitive player that doesn't use an online squad builder).

My point wasn't that they aren't necessary at all (they are, of course, the way that FFG packages the rules with the ships) but after they are released, the rules on them are more often referenced in other places, whether via squad builders or wikis, than they are actually referenced on the original card. That being the case, it's really not earth shattering for them to change a rule on the card when it makes the game better.

Just now, AlexW said:

Well that was fun. Glad you came around.

If you want to argue that original cards should be held sacred and stats on them shouldn't be changed, there are absolutely cogent arguments for that, just really not any of the ones you raised (FFG doesn't regularly enforce their own rule on them and I'd love for you to find me a competitive player that doesn't use an online squad builder).

My point wasn't that they aren't necessary at all (they are, of course, the way that FFG packages the rules with the ships) but after they are released, the rules on them are more often referenced in other places, whether via squad builders or wikis, than they are actually referenced on the original card. That being the case, it's really not earth shattering for them to change a rule on the card when it makes the game better.

I'm not arguing over that, I'm trying to argue over the difference between print and digital mediums. I know this is the always online age where everyone has the internet (via Max Headroom smart phones) and that the lines can be blurred or even interchangeable in some components. That doesn't mean that the two are perfectly interchangeable. Not recognizing that fact will lead to more problems than just your little competitive meta imbalance.

Still in the end this is FFG's product that they sell to us and FFG is well within their right to do anything the want, doesn't mean it is the right thing though.

8 minutes ago, Marinealver said:

That doesn't mean that the two are perfectly interchangeable. Not recognizing that fact will lead to more problems than just your little competitive meta imbalance.

I don't disagree completely and think there is a balance that should be struck, or at least a tipping point where it gets to be too much. For the record I think they are pretty far from that.

So with today’s FAQ, are we really under the impression these sort of heavy erratas are more appropriate than a simple point increase?

Surely a mix of both point changes in some cases and ability errata would be most reasonable, no?

Different. Better at solving big problems in your machinery that were clogging it up, worse at ensuring its all running as smoothly as possible.

24 minutes ago, Kdubb said:

So with today’s FAQ, are we really under the impression these sort of heavy erratas are more appropriate than a simple point increase?

Surely a mix of both point changes in some cases and ability errata would be most reasonable, no?

eh........

FFG has clearly demonstrated since wave 0 that they don't really know how to balance point costs (re: X-wing v TIE fighter)

they also clearly demonstrated that they don't know how some (incredibly obvious) upgrade combinations can catapult a chassis into a position of utter domination

it's a lot easier to deal with hard erratas when you don't do well with numbers

1 hour ago, Kdubb said:

So with today’s FAQ, are we really under the impression these sort of heavy erratas are more appropriate than a simple point increase?

Surely a mix of both point changes in some cases and ability errata would be most reasonable, no?

At this point, they could start to errata the dials and I'll be like ...