1 hour ago, Asvaldir said:

Yeah bit more of a difficult choice for us imperial players, I'm not sure I'd take them on speeders. However, against CIS I will definetly be taking them, messing up their order chain will be real handy.

Very true. I was reworking some lists for my son and it’s a much more difficult decision now that Long Range Comms are also only 5 pts.

3 hours ago, R3dReVenge said:

Because casual players don't want to use the re-balanced point values.

A silly excuse by FFG, but in the end, we have army builder websites, so it isn't an issue.

Why would casual players want balanced armies? It's not like any casuals really want to field the AT-ST or T47! Those who do clearly want to do so to handicap themselves.

What bugs me more though is that all the pages have stupid graphical backgrounds which makes printing them costly and makes scrolling through it on a tablet slower than it should be.

Could someone at FFG please release a printer friendly edition of the rules, especially the points changes and errata sections. Just removing the background would be a start.

3 minutes ago, DwainDibbly said:

Why would casual players want balanced armies? It's not like any casuals really want to field the AT-ST or T47! Those who do clearly want to do so to handicap themselves.

What bugs me more though is that all the pages have stupid graphical backgrounds which makes printing them costly and makes scrolling through it on a tablet slower than it should be.

Could someone at FFG please release a printer friendly edition of the rules, especially the points changes and errata sections. Just removing the background would be a start.

The easy answer is that they were balanced, this is purely a set temporary changes to get the competitive players to try something outside their comfort zones.

I don't believe that easy answer is accurate though. The errata is to fix issues with the game imo and I doubt you'll find many players who will choose to ignore it (fair enough if they do, I just expect them even amongst casuals, to be in the minority)

5 hours ago, FSD said:

Comm Jammer coming down to 5 points is going to be interesting. I had already been considering them for Tauntauns but now it's almost a no-brainer.

My droids don't know what to do now

9 minutes ago, TheHoosh said:

My droids don't know what to do now

Sure they do; they know to shoot first and ask questions later. Whether or not that's the right answer is up for debate however.

Just now, Alpha17 said:

Sure they do; they know to shoot first and ask questions later. Whether or not that's the right answer is up for debate however.

roger roger

Hurrah for the Fleets MPL cost reduction!

1 hour ago, DwainDibbly said:

I don't believe that easy answer is accurate though. The errata is to fix issues with the game imo and I doubt you'll find many players who will choose to ignore it (fair enough if they do, I just expect them even amongst casuals, to be in the minority)

The points changes are temporary, which belies your theory.

9 minutes ago, Derrault said:

The points changes are temporary, which belies your theory.

You are really trying to suggest the game, as is, is perfectly balanced and these point changes and rule errata are not addressing the imbalance that has been talked about all over this forum for the last year, has been mentioned in the FFG announcement for why they're tweaking and refining the game and is why competitive lists have developed a meta that does not include certain units? That instead it's to unbalance the game just so competitive players can field some different lists?

More variety of units should happen as a result of point changes, but the reason for the lack of variety and the way to get there is to ensure those last little bits of imbalance are addressed. That's what this points rebalance and errata is doing. It's only temporary in so far as by next year there'll be a new meta and a realisation that the game isn't quite balanced and needs another minor tweak and the year after that. Perhaps some of the point adjustments were too far, perhaps they were not far enough,perhaps as a result of them we'll see a new meta and interplay of units that wasn't expected and throws out the unit balance.

Balance tweaks are an ongoing process and will likely never be perfect, but they are made for one reason and that's to "balance" the game.

5 minutes ago, DwainDibbly said:

You are really trying to suggest the game, as is, is perfectly balanced and these point changes and rule errata are not addressing the imbalance that has been talked about all over this forum for the last year, has been mentioned in the FFG announcement for why they're tweaking and refining the game and is why competitive lists have developed a meta that does not include certain units? That instead it's just to let competitive players field some different lists?

More variety of units should happen as a result of point changes, but the reason for the lack of variety and the way to get there is to ensure those last little bits of imbalance are addressed. That's what this points rebalance and errata is doing. It's only temporary in so far as by next year there'll be a new meta and a realisation that the game isn't quite balanced and needs another minor tweak and the year after that. Perhaps some of the point adjustments were too far, perhaps they were not far enough,perhaps as a result of them we'll see a new meta and interplay of units that wasn't expected and throws out the unit balance.

Balance tweaks are an ongoing process and will likely never be perfect, but they are made for one reason and that's to "balance" the game.

I’m suggesting that the points tweaks are temporary, not errata worthy, and purely a measure of the prevailing winds in tourney play.

These tweaks are to encourage a greater array of unit/upgrade choices, and not indicative of actual balance issues.

edit: And, and in most systems run by people, there’s a measure of group think (monkey see, monkey do behavior), unequal access to resources (not every player can afford to own the maximum number of units that can be fielded), and basic resistance to trying the unknown (risk aversion)

Why do you think it took so long for Palpatine and Sapper lists to get represented? It wasn’t because they weren’t good options, it’s because of the three reasons above.

Just now, Derrault said:

I’m suggesting that the points tweaks are temporary, not errata worthy, and purely a measure of the prevailing winds in tourney play.

These tweaks are to encourage a greater array of unit/upgrade choices, and not indicative of actual balance issues.

but the ONLY reason we do not have a wider variety of units played in competitive play right now IS because of balance issues. Why else do you think people are not playing the T47 in tournys?

4 minutes ago, DwainDibbly said:

but the ONLY reason we do not have a wider variety of units played in competitive play right now IS because of balance issues. Why else do you think people are not playing the T47 in tournys?

As I said above: Groupthink, Resource limitations of potential players, Aversion to risk.

edit: And conversely (as I said above) ask yourself the same question about proven to be good lists like Palp and Sappers.

3 minutes ago, Derrault said:

As I said above: Groupthink, Resource limitations of potential players, Aversion to risk.

Plenty of players have tried to make the T47 work though. Players have likewise tried to counter sniper spam. These are two issues that I do not believe are due to group think, they're due to balance issues. The amount of imbalance might be small, but it exists. I mean even the game designers have not been able to come up with a good reason to keep the T47 at a high price and neither has anyone in the player base. That is a strong indicator that there's a balance problem.

All of which is beside the point, because FFG have stated they're doing a point change to balance the game e.g

Quote

The vast majority of our adjustments are aimed at improving under-utilized units so that they can compete at the same level as many of the army-building staples players reach for time and time again.

They've said the units cannot compete at the same level as other units. i.e they are not balanced enough.

10 hours ago, Alpha17 said:

I thought this wasn't supposed to be out until tomorrow? Odd that they preempted their own schedule.

Its friday here!

2 hours ago, TheHoosh said:

My droids don't know what to do now

Sure they do, leave orders for your long range hitters, staple binos to the b1s and hand around the aim tokens before they activate

57 minutes ago, DwainDibbly said:

Plenty of players have tried to make the T47 work though. Players have likewise tried to counter sniper spam. These are two issues that I do not believe are due to group think, they're due to balance issues. The amount of imbalance might be small, but it exists. I mean even the game designers have not been able to come up with a good reason to keep the T47 at a high price and neither has anyone in the player base. That is a strong indicator that there's a balance problem.

All of which is beside the point, because FFG have stated they're doing a point change to balance the game e.g

They've said the units cannot compete at the same level as other units. i.e they are not balanced enough.

Don't bother with Derrault. It's pretty clear that the developers disagree with him regarding the T-47 aswell.

Remember, no matter how much evidence you put in front of an anti-vaxxer, they still won't vaccinate their kids......

55 minutes ago, Derrault said:

As I said above: Groupthink, Resource limitations of potential players, Aversion to risk.

Ive tried the T-47, it was severly imbalanced based on its cost. The fact of the mater was it couldn't do as much as it costed.

My own personal experience backs this, the testimony of others backs this, and of course, tournament results back that the T-47 was in fact, an overcosted, ie; bad unit.

My question to you is why do you defend it so much as a good unit? Do you have personal good results using it?

3 minutes ago, gothound said:

Ive tried the T-47, it was severly imbalanced based on its cost. The fact of the mater was it couldn't do as much as it costed.

My own personal experience backs this, the testimony of others backs this, and of course, tournament results back that the T-47 was in fact, an overcosted, ie; bad unit.

My question to you is why do you defend it so much as a good unit? Do you have personal good results using it?

Probably a combination of him liking the model / playstyle and him getting good results with it.

Who knows the level of competition he plays at. Maybe his opponents are new? Maybe they aren't good? Maybe they struggle with countering it? Maybe the T-47 is in a good spot in his meta?

Tons of variables, but when we have so much evidence showing that the T-47 isn't efficient in competitive play AND the developers have come to the same conclusion, it leads one to believe that the T-47 isn't good for it's past pricetag.

3 hours ago, Derrault said:

The easy answer is that they were balanced, this is purely a set temporary changes to get the competitive players to try something outside their comfort zones.

Where has it ever been said by FFG that these changes are "temporary?" The articles stats they will be releasing points changes once a year, not that any of them have a set expiration date.

Balance is also called out as a reason for the changes by the designer of the game. When competitive play is constantly the same lists/units, that's because competitive players have found those units to be the most effective.

13 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Where has it ever been said by FFG that these changes are "temporary?" The articles stats they will be releasing points changes once a year, not that any of them have a set expiration date.

Balance is also called out as a reason for the changes by the designer of the game. When competitive play is constantly the same lists/units, that's because competitive players have found those units to be the most effective.

Not entirely true. Most effective and easiest to be effective with are 2 very different beasts, and one commonly overlooked.

Short of them becoming ridiculously effective we won't see anything with compulsory moves in competitive play regards of if they are on par with the meta or not because the mental pre planning strain required to keep them at full effectiveness for several games straight isn't a risk a competitive player will take.

They are temporary, because they are not permanent. Why nominally I have personally been against hard point changes is because once you start the point changes, you can't ever stop. Because who says you got the math right the first time? They didn't ballpark this to the wider legion community first, so who knows, maybe 140 is too few, it was costed so high initially because at some point the T-47 was pretty scary in playtesting. While they've committed to trying not to do it often (as opposed to X-Wing), they've still admitted they will have to do it more than once. Stuff will go up, will go down. If you have to rebuild your prints, especially for generic upgrades, that's a real pain in the butt and it won't even be correct anyway! This table is a much better system. BUT, it's a "may" rule. You do not have to do it, if you are some luddite unplugged who can't dare look at a tablet screen on his day off at the games shoppe. In a casual game, you can just as easily go "hey, why can't we play a 900 or 1000 point game?" right, it's casual, so it's flexible. For competitive balance and to promote healthy choices since OP is such a big scene, they can mandate these points values are correct - but since they can and WILL AGAIN edit points, it's not practical for them to invade all our houses with the whiteout. These exact point changes entirely likely will not remain indefinitely. They just said they'd remain for probably about a year because they don't want to make the re-mathening such a pain in the butt.

And honestly, I'd be surprised if FFG... however you want to say "believed in" some of these edits. Like obviously, exhaust is a way better balance than the high points ever were, and maybe some keywords are not that expensive, but I don't think they necessarily think all AT-RT weapons have identical mathematical value, but when you make all of some upgrades have the same points (like say the Comms do now) then people actually make choices, as opposed to "I need more activations in my list I will always choose the lowest point value and shape my list around it" which has dominated Legion OP at points.

Does anyone have a pdf of photoshopped cards + competitive pricing? I'm just costing everything as competitive and keeping errata copies next to the originals.

34 minutes ago, docForsaken said:

Does anyone have a pdf of photoshopped cards + competitive pricing? I'm just costing everything as competitive and keeping errata copies next to the originals.

New Rrg has them in the "errata" section

Edit: my apologies, it's mostly just the rule and range changes, not points

19 minutes ago, Ralgon said:

Edit: my apologies, it's mostly just the rule and range changes, not points

I get it/don't get it. 99% of folks are just going to use the new points. Don't publish errata with the wrong points? I'm going to have to get little stickers to put the real values on or something