2 minutes ago, Captain Lackwit said:

CAN WE JUST LET THE GAME RELEASE FIRST!? BY THE FORCE.

This question or concern is not even answered with release.

We need first a game breaking build that can not be fixed by point/slot adjustment and instead requires hard errata.

And even then it will take several iterations of corrections before we can really say that FFG only uses point costs.

So not even the release helps here. That‘s why IMO trying to understand and explain why sparse use of errata is not a problem would be more efficient.

I'm sure this has been mentioned already because it was woefully absent from the original post, but I'm not going to read through the entire thread to check. It's not just points costs that can be adjusted on the fly, is it?

Upgrade slots are also now no longer printed on the cards. Palp too powerful on the Reaper? Remove a crew slot. Defenders running the game? Remove the system slot.

Combine the two variables - points and upgrades - and you've got a much more robust way to control the game than suggested on the OP.

8 minutes ago, FTS Gecko said:

It's  not just points costs that can be adjusted on the fly, is it?

Upgrade slots are a  lso now no longer printed on the cards.

Yes, I argued that we should put slots in the same category as points, and not the same as errata.

I think what most people are getting at with the whole "lets wait for release to see if it works" is that we haven't had enough brains applying their lists against other lists, so we haven't had a chance to see the really broken stuff (and there will be some) rise to the top yet. Jumpmasters were broken several times and in several ways, and honestly, what would have fixed it the fastest would have been a massive points increase (or if not fixed it, at least clipped its nails some).

Other than that, this thread is a trash fire.

Idk, I've tried real hard (and for FAR more time than is any sort of responsible) to find broken ****

Nada. Worst case scenario is we're not paying enough for howlie/Jonus.

Jm5k dominance that you can spot from a preview article, this is not

Course, stuff's risen to the top of my list pretty definitively but

a.) EVERYTHING dies super quick if you misplay/get outplayed, freak green dice excepted

b.) I have horrible neurotic tendencies about what I will even consider for a list. You will find a more complete list of "good stuff" from other players, probably

Of course, too early to tell ... but that in itself is already infinetly more encouraging than anything first ed offered

I love 2.0 so far. Point and slots are the primary ways FFG has planned to "fix" problems, but they've never outruled errata, in fact they've already used it to fix card misprints. The problem with errata is that is gets clumsy very fast, whereas points and slots are easy-peasy with the app-driven system. So, FFG will use whatever easy tools are available first and look at harder tools second. I see no problem with that.

I agree there's plenty that point adjustments can't fix and errata can. So do the developers/designers, apparently, as they've already used errata or iterated on printed cards (e.g. FCS Wave 14). I don't see any controversy there.

In my experience, especially over FFG's LCGs, errata is bad. Very bad. There's a reason they've favoured restricted lists and most-wanted lists where possible; most of these will affect list building, but will not make a list/deck you build work differently than you expected based on the card/cardboard as written. I despise balance errata, and am in the camp that I'd rather see something become illegal/funtionally illegal then re-printed as something fixed than suffer a balance erratum that changes how it works, because I think the printed materials you bring to the table should be accurate. It's an issue of accessibility to newer players, references for returning ones, etc.

Now that the devs have given themselves the tools to manipulate what constitutes a legal (or efficient) list - in theory, far simpler to use and better integrated than any restricted list in any LCG, they should be able to reduce the number of balance-related errata. Hopefully to none. And given how the app is intended to be used by new players and veterans alike, and be able to check list legality, I think they *should* use points tweaks over balance errata. Many here seem to agree, whether it simply be ```to try point tweaks as a first attempt, or to go so far as my own, admitedly extreme position where I```` would be happier with a 30 point FCS and a later reprint of the re-balanced ability on a different card.

7 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

I need some clarification.

The way erratas do work as you describe is if the text becomes more specific. An example is the x7, where the bonus was specified to non-overlaps instead of general.

But erratas also are across the board. These two points are not really related, or are they?

Like how they reworked ADV SLAM, to work with gunboats,but not Kwings.

Card bans are another option on the table other than erratas (which they never said they wouldn't ever do).

If there's no price point where Gunner Luke is OK, they'll just ban it for competitive play. Honestly I prefer doing this to erratas.

10 minutes ago, Commander Kaine said:

Like how they reworked ADV SLAM, to work with gunboats,but not Kwings.

Good point. So erratas really can be much more targeted for upgrades.

So to summarize our discussion so far: Both erratas and point/slot adjustments can be used for both strong and slightly imbalance card corrections. Erratas can be more targeted. Both methods have advantages and disadvantages, but no disadvantages are so strong that they should be categorically dismissed.

I still think that, generally, going with point adjustments as first reaction is better. My reason is that the change is less invasive and works on a range, a combination of point/slot pros and errata cons. But it also seems to be clear that erratas are sometimes simply necessary.

In that sense I still don‘t agree with your title, as I would still prefer points/slot adjusments over errata - with the clear exception of the errata making more sense in a specific case - your x7 and AdvSlam examples are good ones here.

20 hours ago, Commander Kaine said:

So, here's hoping that FFG realizes this and will not lock the mechanics of every card in, however useless or powerful they might be, and will use every tool available to them to make the game right.

seems like a good idea. let's check the RRG...

1 hour ago, GreenDragoon said:

Good point. So erratas really can be much more targeted for upgrades.

So to summarize our discussion so far: Both erratas and point/slot adjustments can be used for both strong and slightly imbalance card corrections. Erratas can be more targeted. Both methods have advantages and disadvantages, but no disadvantages are so strong that they should be categorically dismissed.

I still think that, generally, going with point adjustments as first reaction is better. My reason is that the change is less invasive and works on a range, a combination of point/slot pros and errata cons. But it also seems to be clear that erratas are sometimes simply necessary.

In that sense I still don‘t agree with your title, as I would still prefer points/slot adjusments over errata - with the clear exception of the errata making more sense in a specific case - your x7 and AdvSlam examples are good ones here.

We can agree on that the point adjustments are a more general tool, and in most cases it will be enough.

What I don't want, is trying to fix a card that has a different problem with point adjustments.

Case in point, Luke Gunner is hardly competitive, because of the huge cost, yet some people still argue that it needs to be 200 points or more, because of how it destroys high init arc dodgers.

Obviously, we have a question of opinion here. I don't think that pricing cards out of playability is desirable, because:

- Iconic characters (such as Luke) should be viable cards that can be used frequently.

- Useless cards are not really fun for anyone

21 hours ago, Cgriffith said:

Can we wait a little, before we prejudge the new philosophy the development team believes in. We literally haven’t even had an official release and already we’re getting these posts.

I think he's right (I've said similar things) and enough people are seeing this possibility that it's a good thing to hash it out now, so FFG aren't caught flat footed.

gunner luke should've just been better designed from the start (it's agile gunner with a FORCUS, not that **** hard)

But they're not going to do that because they've decided gunner Luke should be a beginner card. Imo, that argument is full of **** because you won't learn the game by not using its integral mechanics, but FFG did have a justification for making it ****.

And no other card is so awful that a cost reduction couldn't save it. Even the dumpster fire, perceptive-reject Baze would be usable at 4 points (a cost that'd actually offset its massive drawbacks)

40 minutes ago, ficklegreendice said:

Imo  , that argument is full of **** because you wo  n't learn the game by not using its integral mechanics, but  FFG did have a justification for making it ****. 

Yeah, imo you‘re just wrong about that, but we had the discussion often enough

51 minutes ago, ficklegreendice said:

But they're not going to do that because they've decided gunner Luke should be a beginner card. Imo, that argument is full of **** because you won't learn the game by not using its integral mechanics, but FFG did have a justification for making it ****.

They kinda do, baby steps (incrementally introducing elements) is a great way to learn, but beginners can take a hike.

Luke, one of the most iconic characters. HE shouldn't be a beginner card.

3 minutes ago, Commander Kaine said:

Luke, one of the most iconic characters. HE shouldn't be a beginner card.

Why?

4 minutes ago, Commander Kaine said:

They kinda do, baby steps (incrementally introducing elements) is a great way to learn, but beginners can take a hike.

Luke, one of the most iconic characters. HE shouldn't be a beginner card.

He IS a beginner card

That's him in the X-wing

In the core set

Who teaches the players all the central mechanics of the games while providing some forgiving fallback (FORCUS) and somehow NOT utterly ignoring some restrictions integral to learning how to play the game (firing arc)

And who is probably also pretty **** good even outside the "beginner" setting

You know, a well designed luke

Fair

Remember also that while Luke gunner makes life difficult for an expensive arc dodger, he's inevitably on a very expensive ship himself and a one trick pony arc dodger list isn't what 2.0 is about. This version of the game favors every ship, which means a variety of ships may show up. Solid jousters will beat Luke's turret ship senseless. He's a hard counter to one type of ship. That's OK. Have that ship kill some other ship in Luke's list and have your direct approach hitters chase Luke. It's actually wild how they've managed to force list diversity for future tournaments using methods like this. I have no idea if it was intentional but it seems to be working.

In regards to the points for Luke, again, I feel it's pretty fair. He breaks a specific rule but 30 pts is nothing to sneeze at. If they ever drop the points on some PWT ships, I bet they up the points on Luke gunner. I bet there's a balancing act going on there we're not privy to.

1 hour ago, Bad Idea Comics said:

Remember also that while Luke gunner makes life difficult for an expensive arc dodger, he's inevitably on a very expensive ship himself and a one trick pony arc dodger list isn't what 2.0 is about. This version of the game favors every ship, which means a variety of ships may show up. Solid jousters will beat Luke's turret ship senseless. He's a hard counter to one type of ship. That's OK. Have that ship kill some other ship in Luke's list and have your direct approach hitters chase Luke. It's actually wild how they've managed to force list diversity for future tournaments using methods like this. I have no idea if it was intentional but it seems to be working.

In regards to the points for Luke, again, I feel it's pretty fair. He breaks a specific rule but 30 pts is nothing to sneeze at. If they ever drop the points on some PWT ships, I bet they up the points on Luke gunner. I bet there's a balancing act going on there we're not privy to.

We disagree on hard counters (or what hard counters actually mean).

I think even the most one sided game should have some wiggle room allowing mistakes. IN 6 turrets are pretty mean against arc dodgers, but they are not immune to counter play.

Luke does not have that, but I digress.

I don't think his cost is fair. I tend to think he is overpriced, actually, because unless you are playing against a very specific list, his value is nowhere near his cost, but against that very specific list, you can't really price it appropriately.

I see the list diversity point however. I'll have to consider this.

1 hour ago, Commander Kaine said:

I tend to think he is overpriced, actually, because unless you are playing against a very specific list, his value is nowhere near his cost, but against that very specific list, you can't really price it appropriately.

So essentially he's a Fool's Mate, requiring some cooperation from your opponent to pull off.

Oy... I'm not venturing into this place for the argument.. but... Has anybody actually read the Rules Reference book yet? Did you not see the last page (page 22) ERRATA that is there, showing changes to cards in Saw's Renegades and the Reaper? To Norra? To the Outrider title? Is this not evidence that there is in fact an errata for those times where a card is better corrected with words than price numbers?

@Commander Kaine - I think this is case closed on this one. Let's move on, shall we?

On 8/26/2018 at 9:33 PM, Commander Kaine said:

Why use 3 tools, if you can solve the problem just using 1?

Why on Earth would you want fewer tools for fixing things? The saying that "when all you have is a hammer, all problems look like nails" isn't supposed to be a compliment!

In 1.0, FFG wasn't willing to re-price cards through errata, so they only way to change prices was via upgrades (Chardaan Refit, x7 title, etc). I suspect that was because they didn't want people to end up showing up to a tournament and discovering they couldn't play the list they'd brought due to price changes. So they had two tools at their disposal: 1. New ships/upgrades to counter existing old ones. 2. Errata problem cards to change their wording. They'd still be legal in all the same lists, but the effectiveness would change.

They still have those first two tools, but now they've added more: 3. The ability to change point costs. Since they aren't printed on the card, there's no "show up and discover you can't play it" effect - you have to use the app/website, and that gives you the current point costs. 4. The ability to change the upgrade slots. Same deal as with points.

Given that there is already an expectation for tools 3 and 4 to be used, and how much less confusion it will entail, those are going to be the first tools they naturally reach for. Which makes sense. But that doesn't mean they no longer have the first two tools at their disposal anymore. They just have more tools. And more tools is a good thing, not a bad thing.

It's the difference between having both a small hammer and a sledgehammer to work with vs just having a sledgehammer. Errata is a sledgehammer. Sometimes you need it. But if you don't, you're going to cause more damage than you need to when using it.

I'm in agreement that in the end, not all problems will be solvable through point and upgrade slot changes. There's going to be something that slips through the cracks at some point. There are simply too many variables to track. At some point, they'll likely have to bring out the errata sledgehammer. But the new tools give them more options to make more things viable in short term, and to adjust things if only small tweaks are needed.

I like it because the tournament structure doesn't sway far from the physical product. Sure the print erratas didn't disrupt the competitive scene that much but as I and many others have said (including Crabbok) you had a situation where someone buying a product for the first time, then being told that they can't use this or that. 2.0 was built with this in mind so they have to competitive that need an outside resource, an official app, and a prebuild threat card list that can be played right out of the box with no other outside resources needed other than the core/starter set. The threat system is protected from a future upgrade card being broken on a specific ship/pilot but the thing that is at risk is for another prebuild pilot to overly synergize with a previously released pilot in faction. But as far as I can tell both should have fairly good play experiences.

Now there is one concern with the point adjustment for balancing things and that is the initial point cost. 2 things depend on that,

1. FFG's ability to accurately calculate the effective power level and appropriate point cost for future waves.
2. FFG's reaction time to make corrections to underpowered/overpowered options.

Now there is some reason to be concerned. For example FFG could have miss a critical combo, lets call this Deadeye and R4. Deadeye has been fairly week and is now a 2 point combination. R4 comes out and is cost at roughly 8 points, but the comob makes it a steal for 10 points which is less than luke at 30 but way more powerful. After a tournament season where the wave is legal it is clear that every list has that combination. So FFG nerfs R4 making it cost 28 points, but not before the next wave is released. Each wave could have these accidental power items/ships which will have to be corrected by a significant point increase. It could make an appearance that FFG releases overpowered items each wave then nerfs them to make room for the next wave and their overpowered items. Which would be a gross misconception but still will become a common criticism that will drive many players away from the game.

What FFG needs to do is to ensure that through playtesting each component is already accurately priced on the apps and not rely on the post release corrections to keep the game balanced. Will they do that, is a good question and might not be likely to happen.