I'm going to have to seriously search my feelings for whether or not I'll continue to play. Or at least fo to tournaments. For as many things as the FAQ did as I consider 'right'. The cap and table rules were the two that do not address the problems caused as much as they sweep it under the rug.

If you had said flottilas only get half rounded up of their squad value. Cool.

Errata the GR-75 to only have a base squadron value of one. Sweet.

Errata that flottilas can only activate squads at close range. Great.

But this bs of two different formats and preemptively nerfing not just future development but also your own sales as a company? For the record it's usually around the eighth expansion that I jump from a game by this company. And it's gotten to the point where I don't readily want to buy new product lines by them since I've been burned so many times. Not looking forward to being a gamer refugee again.

11 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:

Can someone get a confirmation that this isn't just an oversight?

Feel free. You are just as qualified and connected as anyone else ?

Just now, Drasnighta said:

Feel free. You are just as qualified and connected as anyone else ?

I mean I e-mailed them, but I have no idea "how connected" anyone is.

2 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

Hera is awesome.

Lancers are not, but mostly just because they're so totally outclassed by the broken-tier YT-2400 for one point more.

Lancers do quite well in my Commander Leia Hammerhead fleet. They are great finishers. You do have to hold them back until the time is right, though.

2 minutes ago, ForceSensitive said:

If you had said flottilas only get half rounded up of their squad value. Cool.

Errata the GR-75 to only have a base squadron value of one. Sweet.

Errata that flottilas can only activate squads at close range. Great.

-_______-

3 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:

I mean I e-mailed them, but I have no idea "how connected" anyone is.

That’s just it ?

My point was. All ANYONE can do is email them like that.

Ive been informed by known play testers that FAQ is handled in-house by FFG development and FFG OP... Playtesters don’t get any specific info or indeed — any lead time on what is put into them. They find out when it drops just like everyone else.

At best they are consulted on what topics are needed, and that’s all... just an ask and that’s it.

I like most of the changes.

There is ambiguity where you could kill the last enemy combat ship and be behind on points - do you still count as winning?

I don’t agree that this makes more fleets viable. I think we just end up with more Christmas tree ISDs and Defiance.

5 activations is the new 6.

1 minute ago, LTD said:

5 activations is the new 6.

I think it really just was laser-targeted on the fish farm.

I mean, combat MSU lists aren't phased at all by this. Ditto MC30 swarms. Neither was seeing much play because fish farm was just so bonkers ridiculously powerful, but it isn't that they aren't very strong lists, and nothing in this errata touches them. So high-activations will remain a thing, just...not "empty" high activations.

3 minutes ago, LTD said:

I like most of the changes.

There is ambiguity where you could kill the last enemy combat ship and be behind on points - do you still count as winning?

I don’t agree that this makes more fleets viable. I think we just end up with more Christmas tree ISDs and Defiance.

5 activations is the new 6.

There is no ambiguity there, the rule and ruling has existed... because it happens now.

You win. You scored a win.

Your margin of victory however, would be 0

So you only 6-5 win.

3 hours ago, Ginkapo said:

Why did they nerf Toryn so much?

I don't think she appears anywhere in the FAQ.

Also, everyone keeps talking about the Flotillas having a hard cap, and I don't see any mention of that at all.

Am I taking crazy pills?

6 minutes ago, JgzMan said:

I don't think she appears anywhere in the FAQ.

Also, everyone keeps talking about the Flotillas having a hard cap, and I don't see any mention of that at all.

Am I taking crazy pills?

It’s in the tournament regulations not the FAQs

Just now, Drasnighta said:

It’s in the tournament regulations not the FAQs

Ah, fair enough. Thanks.

And of course, the devs did give a reason (for those who jumped to faq and didn’t read the articke)

Card Errata

The card errata introduced in FAQ v4.1.1 are updates for balance. These changes are intended to help promote greater list parity and fleet diversity and to increase opportunities for player interaction during a game.

The NEXT FAQ should do something to address some of the over/underused objectives.

2 minutes ago, Green Knight said:

The NEXT FAQ should do something to address some of the over/underused objectives.

Hopefully. Some space might open up with these current changes as well. Most Wanted is still likely king though for reds

12 minutes ago, Green Knight said:

The NEXT FAQ should do something to address some of the over/underused objectives.

That would be nice. I could be down for that.

Just now, draco193 said:

Hopefully. Some space might open up with these current changes as well. Most Wanted is still likely king though for reds

Yes, still the king. Sadly.

Avenger -based fleets have the ability to destroy any ship in the game in a single activation.

This bugs me.

My initial meta observations.

Losers:
GH+Y+3/4. Basically every nerf hits it.
2+X. The rest of the 2+X builds are going to get hit hard too. They don't really have anywhere else to sink the points they gain from losing flotillas
BTA. Similar to the change to demo, this is to make it more "fun and interactive"

Neutral(IMO):
1+X. Losing two or three activations doesn't hurt much when everyone else is losing them too, SA just becomes that much more attractive. They have places to use the points in a productive manner.

Winner:
Swarms. Mostly because they should be able to trade more efficiently, the table isn't as clogged with flotillas.

Big Winner:
Medium ships (in point cost). Expensive small ships and medium base ships will now be much more attractive to run, mostly due to lack of anything else to run. This category is basically every list that isn't listed above.

The changes could almost read as a change of season list. So if that was just built into the competitive play rules, we could have avoided a whole bunch of hassle.

13 minutes ago, AdmiralYor said:

My initial meta observations.

Losers:
GH+Y+3/4. Basically every nerf hits it.
2+X. The rest of the 2+X builds are going to get hit hard too. They don't really have anywhere else to sink the points they gain from losing flotillas
BTA. Similar to the change to demo, this is to make it more "fun and interactive"

Neutral(IMO):
1+X. Losing two or three activations doesn't hurt much when everyone else is losing them too, SA just becomes that much more attractive. They have places to use the points in a productive manner.

Winner:
Swarms. Mostly because they should be able to trade more efficiently, the table isn't as clogged with flotillas.

Big Winner:
Medium ships (in point cost). Expensive small ships and medium base ships will now be much more attractive to run, mostly due to lack of anything else to run. This category is basically every list that isn't listed above.

The changes could almost read as a change of season list. So if that was just built into the competitive play rules, we could have avoided a whole bunch of hassle.

1+X is in deep **** if the large one dies...

About time, but too late -- I basically dropped the game (and picked up Legion) because I got tired of flotilla spam and Relay cheese (well, and tournament scoring).

Not sure it's enough to bring me back, but it's positive -- and not a single change affects anything I played in the last 18 months.

Good changes!

14 minutes ago, Hawkstrike said:

About time, but too late -- I basically dropped the game (and picked up Legion) because I got tired of flotilla spam and Relay cheese (well, and tournament scoring).

Not sure it's enough to bring me back, but it's positive -- and not a single change affects anything I played in the last 18 months.

I was at a legion event the other day and i mentioned armada and i was pretty shocked by the hysterical reaction. A lot of people apparently REALLY despise armadas tourney scoring. Ive never really been bothered by it but given the strength of reaction there and the number of potential players that (claim to) be alienated by it i agree there is something to do there.

3 minutes ago, Ophion said:

I was at a legion event the other day and i mentioned armada and i was pretty shocked by the hysterical reaction. A lot of people apparently REALLY despise armadas tourney scoring. Ive never really been bothered by it but given the strength of reaction there and the number of potential players that (claim to) be alienated by it i agree there is something to do there.

Yeah, but what? It'd be hard to do a true swiss format given time restrictions.

2 minutes ago, Ophion said:

I was at a legion event the other day and i mentioned armada and i was pretty shocked by the hysterical reaction. A lot of people apparently REALLY despise armadas tourney scoring. Ive never really been bothered by it but given the strength of reaction there and the number of potential players that (claim to) be alienated by it i agree there is something to do there.

Yeah, my frustration is that it rewards baby seal clubbing over closely fought battles between equally skilled players, meaning that matchup luck is a bigger thing than it should be.

And I'm bitter because despite a 3-1 record, I was 13th at our Regionals, with 2-2 records ahead of me.

Possible fix: Score wins first, *then* victory points. Not perfect, but better.