I reject the premise.

First, I think it's highly unlikely an effect can be overpowered no matter the cost . It simply doesn't make sense. If Luke is OP at 30 points, but not worth playing at 45 points, there will be a point cost between 30 and 45 points at which Luke is cost-effective.

Second, even in the event it happens (e.g., 1.0 pre-nerf cloak), FFG has not precluded errata. All FFG has done is make balance more easily (and more quickly) adjustable without issuing errata.

On 8/26/2018 at 5:58 PM, 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.

The development philosophy is to sell the game copmponents twice, and we can judge that perfectly fine now.

By the time we see all this play out FFG will already have their money, as they are using Games-Workshops business model. Many of us know where this goes, which is a 4 year re-purchase cycle.

Im more than happy to spend money on new content, but rebuying the old is lame

2 hours ago, Vontoothskie said:

Im more than happy to spend money on new content, but rebuying the old is lame

Which is exactly what I am going to do. 2.0 will be something I do with FO and Republic. The former is only 25 bucks to convert, and the latter is 2.0 only.

On 8/27/2018 at 9:38 AM, miguelj said:

If there's no price point where Gunner Luke is OK,

Is the price losing to Supernatural Reflexes forever?

I think that you all are missing the point of point adjustment. In the defender example the x7 title was created to make the ship viable. With the new system there isn't a need to make a competitve title because the points can be balanced in a fluid way. You get the best of every scenario, the points are now competitive and the ship doesn't have a broken option because the broken option was never made.

3 hours ago, Klink135 said:

the   ship doesn't have a broken option becau   se the broken option was never made. 

That‘s assuming that not a single pilot ability or upgrade is a broken option. Which might be true, but that‘s a curageous claim.

Edit: or stupid, considering that p22 already shows errata.

8 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

That‘s assuming that not a single pilot ability or upgrade is a broken option. Which might be true, but that‘s a curageous claim.

Edit: or stupid, considering that p22 already shows errata.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't most of the errata just dealing Dad's renegades and the Reaper? Anyway, I'm not saying that errata shouldn't happen, I was simply pointing out the flaw in the x7 argument. I think that a balance of both as necessary is the correct way to go about it. Also, a pilot with a broken ability could just have a major point spike compared to the others. An example of this is the Hwk, where Palob is the most expensive pilot without having the highest initiative.

6 minutes ago, Klink135 said:

Also  , a pilot  with a broken ability could just have a major point spike compared to the other

That was also my thinking, but there are examples where the errata really was the better solution because it made the game more interesting

4 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

That was also my thinking, but there are examples where the errata really was the better solution because it made the game more interesting

I feel that errata should really be used to keep cards that don't sit well from becoming irrelevant. In the new system, the 1.0 original Jumpmasters would probably be through the roof on points, that would be when an errata is in order. Otherwise, I wouldn't change too much. However, it ultimately isn't up to me and that is probably a good thing.

1 hour ago, Klink135 said:

I feel that errata should really be used to keep cards that don't sit well from becoming irrelevant. In the new system, the 1.0 original Jumpmasters would probably be through the roof on points, that would be when an errata is in order. Otherwise, I wouldn't change too much. However, it ultimately isn't up to me and that is probably a good thing.

The errata they made to the JumpMasters in 1.0 was to remove the torpedo and salvaged astromech slots. Something they can do in 2.0 without issuing an errata, since upgrade slots are now also controlled by the app/website.

It also would have allowed them to tweak both upgrade options and point costs first without taking the heavy-handed approach.

FFG was very reluctant to make big changes in the past, which has led to various stagnant metas hanging around for too long. They've stated that they plan on doing a quarterly update of the point costs, so hopefully that means they'll be more inclined to make changes when problems start surfacing, instead of waiting long periods of time in hopes of things just working themselves out.

5 minutes ago, Freeptop said:

The errata they made to the JumpMasters in 1.0 was to remove the torpedo and salvaged astromech slots. Something they can do in 2.0 without issuing an errata, since upgrade slots are now also controlled by the app/website.

It also would have allowed them to tweak both upgrade options and point costs first without taking the heavy-handed approach.

FFG was very reluctant to make big changes in the past, which has led to various stagnant metas hanging around for too long. They've stated that they plan on doing a quarterly update of the point costs, so hopefully that means they'll be more inclined to make changes when problems start surfacing, instead of waiting long periods of time in hopes of things just working themselves out.

I meant the original original pre-Manaroo nerf Jumpmaster, but I do suppose that you are right. I think errata will ultimately be the less frequent of the two options.

My concern is that FFG will lean on points cost and upgrade slots (since those are variable and controlled by the list builder app) and take longer (or not at all) on cards that need a fix, regardless of cost.

7 hours ago, Koing907 said:

My concern is that FFG will lean on points cost and upgrade slots (since those are variable and controlled by the list builder app) and take longer (or not at all) on cards that need a fix, regardless of cost.

Considering they already took a long time to errata cards (or didn't do it at all), I'm glad they at least have another option available that they'll hopefully be less reluctant to make use of.

On 8/28/2018 at 10:11 PM, Jeff Wilder said:

I reject the premise.

First, I think it's highly unlikely an effect can be overpowered no matter the cost . It simply doesn't make sense. If Luke is OP at 30 points, but not worth playing at 45 points, there will be a point cost between 30 and 45 points at which Luke is cost-effective.

Second, even in the event it happens (e.g., 1.0 pre-nerf cloak), FFG has not precluded errata. All FFG has done is make balance more easily (and more quickly) adjustable without issuing errata.

Depends on what makes something overpowered.

The problem with this, is to find Balance between the strength of the card, and the cost, and sometimes that is not possible, due strength depending on multiple factors, such as list composition on both sides.

Luke Gunner is overpriced against certain lists, because the benefits it provides are fairly limited in certain matchups. 1 free action (either through the Force or the ability) is not overbearingly powerful, and should cost around 20 points. (Agile Gunner + Force, both priced around 20 points). Luke is still better than AG, but AG is slightly overpriced.

However, that is not all that Luke does. Much like the old X7, aside from the normal benefit (free action in the engagement phase), it also provides unfair advantages...

Namely, it is not an action, thus immune to stress, blocking and obstacles.

The official argument for this, is that the Force makes the impossible possible, which would be fine, but Luke Gunner is the only Force card that ignores normal restrictions. (Vader still can't do actions while stressed, Kaanan requires the ships to fully execute maneuvers, etc.) There is nothing the opponent can do, from preventing Luke rotating the arc. So the Force, in most cases, still does not let you do the impossible. Except if you are Luke Skywalker.

Now, FFG says this is intentional, and with the price tag of Luke, I can see that. It isn't really a competitive card, because the unfair advantages don't matter against most lists. Generic swarms really don't care if you turn your arc on them, while high IN arc dodgers REALLY care about it. I don't think this is good design, because:

A, Competitive players (I imagine) would still like to play Luke (he is Luke afterall), and his current pricing makes that difficult.

B, In the rare cases where Luke is useful, he is too good, and provides an unfair advantage. In this case, the price might be justified, but maybe even too low.

So really, the problem is not that the mechanic is badly priced, the problem is that the mechanic cannot priced well. It's either too cheap, or too expensive.

Now, if you think the problem will be "solved" by increasing Luke's price, so nobody will play him, sure... There is no reason to use errata.

But I think Luke Skywalker, one of the most iconic characters in the franchise, shouldn't be a card that promotes unhealthy mechanics, and nobody ever plays it anyway because of the "solution" of increasing prices. That is not solving the problem, that is creating a new one.

Not to even mention what is the likely outcome of that: Reincarnation of bad mechanics in the form of Powercreep, possibly in different factions and cards, only to sell new boxes, leaving the old card forever forgotten. /RIP Lt. Lorrir/

Which might be fine in the case of a random guy in a 'ceptor, (its not) but it is definitely not fine with Luke.

All upgrades are costed with an assumption that the player taking them is trying to get the most out of them, though. Or at the very least not actively being an idiot. Juke on a ship without Evade, for example, is just wasted points but you can't price it around that eventuality. There might be some matchups where Luke, or any upgrade, is very good. As a designer you can't be 100% accurate in all scenarios. Part of good squad building is basically trying to get more points-worth out of upgrades and ships than you paid. Good design limits the extent to which that's possible but the possibility is still there.

Taking Luke as an example, if he's overcosted at 30 points, but undercosted at 5 points, it's logical to assume there's a price between those where he is balanced. I don't think anything you've shown proves you can't use points to balance Luke. He might not be balanced at the moment (YMMV) but that's not the same thing as saying he fundamentally can't be balanced by changing his points.

7 hours ago, Commander Kaine said:

Depends on what makes something overpowered.

The problem with this, is to find Balance between the strength of the card, and the  cost, and sometimes that is not possible, due strength depending on multiple factors, such as list composition on both sides.

I have issues with this statement. First, if you make a bad list, it isn't going to be balanced. Second, it is not FFG's job to make sure that your bad list is playable. Finding the optimum build is our job, if we rail at that it is not FFG's problem.

7 hours ago, Commander Kaine said:

Which might be fine in the case of a random guy in a 'ceptor, (its not) but it is definitely not fine with Luke.

I mean, it`s not like they can never reprint another Luke card (or even another Luke Gunner) differentiated by a subtitle. There's already an iconic Luke as Red 5. As I said earlier, my views are a little extreme, but IF this luke proves to be a points-unbalancable problem, then I favour pricing him out of competitive play and printing other Lukes and/or other cards that fulfil the game design function he was intended to.

9 minutes ago, -Istaril said:

IF this luke proves to be a points-unbalancable problem, then I favour pricing him out of competitive play

That's already happened.

I think there are going to be a few cases where a card or pilot just has a mechanic that is hard to price, sure. That said, the vast majority can be dealt with through just pricing. Depending on how customizable the variable card costs are, that gives a great many ways to balance things. Even most of the trouble areas with 1.0 could have been greatly reduced with some variable costs.

I think it's worth mentioning that the malleable points cost method also includes variable points costs depending on what ship it goes on. Something that makes an excessively meta defining list can easily be points adjusted to be less potent on a particular ship. For example (purely hypothetical, I'm not suggesting this is a meta defining list), a base TIE Bomber w/ Cluster Missiles is 33 points, so I could in theory get 6 in a list with a 2 point bid. Now, if cluster missiles are "fair" everywhere at 5 points, but being able to run 6 Bombers with them begins to set a meta, then the points cost of cluster missiles could go up 1 point on tie bombers, making 6 in a single list impossible. This assumes that the base tie bomber price isn't the actual problem. And the good news is that with *all* points being on the potential adjustment block, they can tweak things without constantly having to update printed product (i.e. errata).

In short... fluid points costs (including upgrade slots) >>> errata. I'm probably going to be salty the first time or two that I'm running a baller list one week, and the next week it's illegal because it's now 204 points, but that's a price I'm willing to pay twice to not have to play against Fenn/Lothal, or Miranda/Nym ever again, or if I do, probably not for long.

9 hours ago, -Istaril said:

IF this luke proves to be a points-unbalancable problem, then I favour pricing him out of competitive play and printing other Lukes and/or other cards that fulfil the game design function he was intended to.

That is your right and preference.

In my eyes, that is not a solution. I explained why.

There's actually one more method for adjusting the game: FFG can actually limit or even ban cards for tournament play. I doubt they would do this for Luke gunner, at least at first, as it can be the training wheels option for some new players (as has been discussed ad nauseum), but it could happen in the future for balancing issues. They may then introduce a new Luke gunner for gameplay down the road. This would be an interesting way to side-step the errata issue and still provide a permanent solution.

1 hour ago, Bad Idea Comics said:

There's actually one more method for adjusting the game: FFG can actually limit or even ban cards for tournament play. I doubt they would do this for Luke gunner, at least at first, as it can be the training wheels option for some new players (as has been discussed ad nauseum), but it could happen in the future for balancing issues. They may then introduce a new Luke gunner for gameplay down the road. This would be an interesting way to side-step the errata issue and still provide a permanent solution.

How is you paying for a whole new card (coming in a no doubt pricey box, that you might not even need or want) is better than having the old card errataed by 1 word, a better solution in your mind?

I'm honestly curious

14 minutes ago, Commander Kaine said:

How is you paying for a whole new card (coming in a no doubt pricey box, that you might not even need or want) is better than having the old card errataed by 1 word, a better solution in your mind?

I'm honestly curious

I never said "better" - I said "interesting" solution. There will be a 2.0 Falcon coming out, and other ships that have gunners. It's an option and one that hasn't been discussed. I don't think errata for a card like Luke is a bad idea either, but having the option of a new card with the errata or even a new ability on it isn't a bad proposition for new players. I know we already have Falcon models coming out of our ears and we're used to seeing errata, but new players may gain a lot of benefit from a new card.