Jump to content
joyrock

I really wish FFG would take some cues from other miniature games for a 2.0 version.

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Admiral Deathrain said:

For the game it is time, but not for FFG. With Legion coming out, this year will be dedicated to getting that established. A sizeable portion of Legions potential customer base is frustrated X-Wing players. An overhaul that pulls those back into the game too close to that games early waves would be detrimental. So instead, FFG will seek to get Legion established and then offer a way to reawaken dormant collections in a way that has Legion players pick it up out of curiosity. Or they will just let X-Wing die, because they're FFG.

As for the format of that eventual overhaul, I would suggest most wanted style boxes for each faction, maybe two ships and a boatload of cards, every upgrade in the game rewritten, with the old versions still legal as tokens.  Along with that I wish for a repackaging change to the Runewars model where buying a single faction is viable, but FFG knows that so far they have gotten away with the current scummy tactics, so barring a crash from X-Wing (in which case it is honestly more likely they can the game rather than overhaul it), I don't see that happening. 

Indeed, it may even be for the best that FFG take some ideas from Legion (as well as from Armada).   I believe multiple types of dice could help, but also the turn zero setup of legion, where you jockey for deployment and environmental factors could be quite refreshing.   Imagine if you built a list based around utilizing asteroids or other obstacles, and there was jockeying for the option of None that the opponent put forth.   You may have to concede a different deployment zone to get that.

That, along some other changes (mobile arc assigned to all turrets) could make for a more tactical and, I feel, a better game in the long run.   

There are some of us that feel that a 2.0 is needed, not to nerf or boost a given faction,  but to implement across the board changes to the game that would hopefully bring more variety of units fielded and tactical play styles.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, D34d guru said:

Bloodbowl teams concist of 13-14 models? Baught in a pack after puchasing starter set?

40k/30k.... another update..; another investment in models.... 5+ models/ squad extra.... and some new additions that already started new problems....

FFG will give us an updated rulebook, as per last one, since there is no other way off changing the main rules as they do now. 

The more variables you add to a game , the more the older things become "really old". Trying to breathe some new life into the oldies can be done.... with more expansions.

 

As for your b-wing story, well, i bow to thee, you play b-wings, you can win, you have fun. That is the main purpose of the game. You want to enter a competitive scene, compare it to a tennis player having fun on a court going to Wimbledon".

 

X-Wing is not a professional game, nobody makes money from winning tournaments. Comparing it to a professional sport is bound to fall flat. The purpose of tournaments for X-Wing is bringing players together and promoting the game to new players - that is a lot easier if the ships on the table are actually recognizable Star Wars.

And no, "breathing new life into oldies" is not universaly possible (and also not quite the point). Some ships just suffer from being created before the addition of new mechanics. Interceptors should have S-Loops. More ships should have T-Rolls. Most important of all primary weapon turrets should not exist and be mobile arcs instead. Their existance unbalances the game on a fundamental level, as every ship, no matter how maneuverable, needs to be able to stand up to constant attacks. This means that maneuverable ships are either broken (against arced ships), because they are both the most efficient and easiest to keep out of arc at the same time, or useless, because they are countered so hard by turret ships. PWTs aren't seen much these days, but they are a root cause of many of todays balance issues, exaggerated through the "fix through upgrades" policy you advocate.

The TIE Phantom back in wave 4 first unearthed this whole problem by forcing out the development of point fortress/high mobility/high efficiency builds for the Falcon. This made Interceptors disappear and many people unhappy, because it is a fan favourite ship. As a response, after making the problem worse with 2 new turret ships of which one mitigated the option of being outmaneuvered with stupendous maneuverability of its own, wave 6 brought Autothrusters, which in turn put the Interceptor at the top of ships, putting the final nail into 'classic' generic ships coffin. TLT revamped a lot of the meta and thrashed PWT cores, but also kept a lot of the problems around. To cope, new ships are a lot more efficient. Finally, to combat steel green dice autodamage options were introduced or given superior platforms. And that leads to tournament tables consisting of Scurrgs, K-Wings, Shadowcasters, Ghosts...more efficient ships using upgrades that were stop gap measures in a problem chain kicked off by the fundamental unbalance efficient PWTs created.

There is a lot of simplification in here, but the fundamental issue has become ever more clear over the years. X-Wing was not created to last. If it is supposed to, it has to change by clearing up problems at their root instead of adding bandaid after bandaid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Vargas79 said:

I can’t see a 2.0 happen as there’s no justification to sell more miniatures. The effort for FFG would outweigh the potential profit.

If there’s a healthy future for the game it’ll be community led. 

I’ve not played GW games for many years but back in the day, they had a re-re-re-release cycle for games that attempted to capitalize off players needing new boxed sets etc.  

I don’t have the impression that Warmachine/Hordes or Malifaux suffered from sales slumps that spurred revamps.  I believe the devs just felt it was time.

In both examples, there were a few players who posted their “rage quit” venom, but on the whole each community seemed to appreciate the changes and I believe both games grew from that point.

I anticipate that players who were drawn to the game because this is SW will love a revamp that gets iconic ships on the table. Some power gamers will hate it because they see their favorite broken mechanic go away. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Admiral Deathrain said:

X-Wing is not a professional game, nobody makes money from winning tournaments. Comparing it to a professional sport is bound to fall flat. The purpose of tournaments for X-Wing is bringing players together and promoting the game to new players - that is a lot easier if the ships on the table are actually recognizable Star Wars.

And no, "breathing new life into oldies" is not universaly possible (and also not quite the point). Some ships just suffer from being created before the addition of new mechanics. Interceptors should have S-Loops. More ships should have T-Rolls. Most important of all primary weapon turrets should not exist and be mobile arcs instead. Their existance unbalances the game on a fundamental level, as every ship, no matter how maneuverable, needs to be able to stand up to constant attacks. This means that maneuverable ships are either broken (against arced ships), because they are both the most efficient and easiest to keep out of arc at the same time, or useless, because they are countered so hard by turret ships. PWTs aren't seen much these days, but they are a root cause of many of todays balance issues, exaggerated through the "fix through upgrades" policy you advocate.

The TIE Phantom back in wave 4 first unearthed this whole problem by forcing out the development of point fortress/high mobility/high efficiency builds for the Falcon. This made Interceptors disappear and many people unhappy, because it is a fan favourite ship. As a response, after making the problem worse with 2 new turret ships of which one mitigated the option of being outmaneuvered with stupendous maneuverability of its own, wave 6 brought Autothrusters, which in turn put the Interceptor at the top of ships, putting the final nail into 'classic' generic ships coffin. TLT revamped a lot of the meta and thrashed PWT cores, but also kept a lot of the problems around. To cope, new ships are a lot more efficient. Finally, to combat steel green dice autodamage options were introduced or given superior platforms. And that leads to tournament tables consisting of Scurrgs, K-Wings, Shadowcasters, Ghosts...more efficient ships using upgrades that were stop gap measures in a problem chain kicked off by the fundamental unbalance efficient PWTs created.

There is a lot of simplification in here, but the fundamental issue has become ever more clear over the years. X-Wing was not created to last. If it is supposed to, it has to change by clearing up problems at their root instead of adding bandaid after bandaid.

I understand your frustrations. But take it from me, if they aught to launch a 2.0 new problems Will arise and new frustration Will build up, since it is impossible to please all. It is better to work with the tools at hand and make it better then to reinvent something that could have been fixed.

And yes, your turret, missile,auto damage arguments may have a Point. Still, adding  more variables to a game will make those things happen. 

No game is fully developed at launch. Letting it grow is a good way of handling it. Destroying, rebuilding, isn't  the best option.

So keep faq'ing and "grow with the flow"

Edited by D34d guru

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@D34d guru The problem with X-Wing that, at its very core, was not designed to be balanced or anywhere near as expandable as it has been treated as. That is was as balanced as it was in the early days (a massive selling point back then) is a happy accident and at this point has collapsed. This fundamental flaw could be fixed, making future design much easier and less likely to spiral out of controll again. Some things will naturaly be better than others, but it would take a long time and wouldn't be as extreme as it is right now (assuming it is done properly of course).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2.0 seems extreme.

Errata harpoons to require you to spend your target lock to attack

And

Have TLT errata so that if you are attacking a small base ship with 3 agility or higher they may add one evade result to their roll each time a TLT attack is performed. (TLT was supposed to be an answer to hull heavy ships with low agility so... it shouldn't be as effective against small high agility ships)

I would also say the same for 3 agility ships and bombs. They should be able to roll evade dice against bomb damage instead of automatically getting it. So if you roll one die for bomb damage the 3 agility ship gets to roll one evade die and be able to modify it if able. Etc.

Outside of those three things and a Miranda Nerf so her ability doesn't work with TLT the game is actually pretty balanced now.

Then FFG just needs to make the old ships relevant and at least a little competitive with corrective titles to bring them up to current ship levels.

This may all seem like a tall order but it's much easier than implementing a 2.0

This is all strictly for competitive play of course...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Admiral Deathrain said:

X-Wing is not a professional game, nobody makes money from winning tournaments. Comparing it to a professional sport is bound to fall flat. The purpose of tournaments for X-Wing is bringing players together and promoting the game to new players - that is a lot easier if the ships on the table are actually recognizable Star Wars.

As if.  Because if everything you said was true, this guy:

5 hours ago, Admiral Deathrain said:

Now, for me personally my favourite ship is the B-Wing. The B-Wing is bad, though. Can I make it work? Sure, kind of. Can I win games? Easily. But will I have fun entering a tournament with them? After a thrashing second game maybe if I made it to the bottom tables. But honestly, that second game I could do without, I'd rather have it like the good old days, where every game was fun. So I have to play a list that's capable to compete at the very top and that means no B-Wings for me. Sadness.

would just take his B-Wings to tournament and have a little fun with his X-Wing buddies using recognizable ships.

It doesn't matter that there is no cash at stake, people want to win, and people want to take home baubles.  The game scene is designed entirely around that notion, to the point we have been told the only official product we'll see is ships (no campaigns, no objectives).

It's like saying the Olympics are just a fun get together to represent a little national spirit, because all you take home is a chunk of metal on a ribbon.

Edited by Darth Meanie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Managarmr said:

But an app which changes RULES back and forth and simultaneously having a cardboard versions can lead to very different games played. Making it difficult to switch between the 2. 

I'd like to see rather an app with a ban-list of forbidden combos (further advantage does not kill of janky B-tier in casual because some certain card is a problem at Waac tourney play and thus nerfed to the ground, making it completely unplayable for everyone). Apart from possible squad compositions with a ban app still the same games are played, with the same rules for everyone. And no need for smartbphine at home.

We already have 2 versions of the game.  1 Version is the printed cards/rule books/etc, the other is the FAQs, tournament pdf, rules pdf, etc (plural).  Having an APP doesn't change this.  However, an APP means that the players that use the FAQ WILL ALL have an updated version and all be playing on the SAME VERSION.  

What is the process RIGHT NOW for getting updates to the game?

  • Go to FFG's x-wing page on their web site.  Scroll down and look under support and then under FAQ.
  • Download the PDF
  • Read through the PDF
  • Maybe print the PDF (waste of paper) and bring it with you to the tournament? or download the PDF to your mobile and bring that to the tournament

If FFG had a mobile app for x-wing, what would the process be?

Installation (1 time process)

  • Go to google play or IOS store
  • Search for x-wing
  • #1 hit will be FFG's app (most likely)
  • Click the download/install button

How do you get updates?

  • Automatically
  • Just open the app and if there are any changes, there should be a notice window letting you know the changes; otherwise, all the cards will be the up2date version

So lets just make this very clear, WE ARE ALREADY living in a world where the text on the card is not correct for tournament play.  Since FFG has already made x-wing a digital game via the FAQ, we as a community should demand and FFG embrace a full digital experience.  X-Wing is not pioneering anything here.  There are plenty of examples of how to bridge tabletop w/ mobile that FFG can draw from.

I really do not see any disadvantages OR drawbacks to FFG maintaining an x-wing mobile app that is a squad builder and tournament resource.  

Note - for those that do not have mobile phones, I think there should be a way (via a web site) to build a squad with the updated FAQ and can be printed

Why is there resistance in this community against a mobile app supported by FFG which FAQs (patches) can be easily rolled out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Rexler Brath said:

I don't understand the need to make a 2.0.  I think a squad builder app is a separate issue from fundamentaly changing the rules of the game.

I think an app with frequent FAQs/patches is the right way to go for tournament play.  It also won't effect casual players if they don't want it to.

I've been out of the loop and initially left the game because I couldn't keep up with the expansions and was tired of not seeing ships from the OG trilogy.

A 2.0 could do wonders in streamlining the game and allowing folks like me an easy way to get back in.

And as someone who has now watched the game from a distance, it feels like the game is getting too combo-heavy with upgrades, and that accretion is making it harder to get reacquainted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JonasBenz said:

I've been out of the loop and initially left the game because I couldn't keep up with the expansions and was tired of not seeing ships from the OG trilogy.

A 2.0 could do wonders in streamlining the game and allowing folks like me an easy way to get back in.

And as someone who has now watched the game from a distance, it feels like the game is getting too combo-heavy with upgrades, and that accretion is making it harder to get reacquainted.

No need for a 2.0.  FFG is attempting to fix the older wave ships.  Look at Saw’s Renegades Expansion Pack with what looks to be a major fix to the T-65 x-wing.  In the previous wave, we got Flight Assist Astromech which again was a buf to the T-65.  If you are out of the game, a 2.0 isn't going to fix your problem.  You will still need to buy the 2.0 expansions (ie spend money), rule books, updated card board, etc, etc, etc.  Again, I don't think a 2.0 is necessary nor even a smart business decision.

I think a smart business decision is to create an app and web site that can be used to build lists, keep everyone updated of changes, possibly even a way to submit lists for tournaments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Rexler Brath said:

No need for a 2.0.  FFG is attempting to fix the older wave ships.  Look at Saw’s Renegades Expansion Pack with what looks to be a major fix to the T-65 x-wing.  In the previous wave, we got Flight Assist Astromech which again was a buf to the T-65.  If you are out of the game, a 2.0 isn't going to fix your problem.  You will still need to buy the 2.0 expansions (ie spend money), rule books, updated card board, etc, etc, etc.  Again, I don't think a 2.0 is necessary nor even a smart business decision.

I think a smart business decision is to create an app and web site that can be used to build lists, keep everyone updated of changes, possibly even a way to submit lists for tournaments.

1000 times this. An app where we could submit tournament lists instead of TOs using cryodex would be amazing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Rexler Brath said:

No need for a 2.0.  FFG is attempting to fix the older wave ships.  Look at Saw’s Renegades Expansion Pack with what looks to be a major fix to the T-65 x-wing.  In the previous wave, we got Flight Assist Astromech which again was a buf to the T-65.  If you are out of the game, a 2.0 isn't going to fix your problem.  You will still need to buy the 2.0 expansions (ie spend money), rule books, updated card board, etc, etc, etc.  Again, I don't think a 2.0 is necessary nor even a smart business decision.

I think a smart business decision is to create an app and web site that can be used to build lists, keep everyone updated of changes, possibly even a way to submit lists for tournaments.

Yeah but to get expansions that fix the ships I like I have to spend money. A 2.0 is a reset. Otherwise, they are going to keep shelling out expansions until kingdom come, and eventually somethings got to give.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, JonasBenz said:

Yeah but to get expansions that fix the ships I like I have to spend money. A 2.0 is a reset. Otherwise, they are going to keep shelling out expansions until kingdom come, and eventually somethings got to give.

I don't understand your point.  A 2.0 is going to cost you money as well.  Can you explain why you think a 2.0 will be more suitable for you verse purchasing expansions?  And yes, FFG makes money by selling expansions; I don't see them changing this business model any time soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Rexler Brath said:

I don't understand your point.  A 2.0 is going to cost you money as well.  Can you explain why you think a 2.0 will be more suitable for you verse purchasing expansions?  And yes, FFG makes money by selling expansions; I don't see them changing this business model any time soon.

I'd rather spend money on a newer game system than the same old same old. A 2.0 has the potential to fine-tune the game and provide a starting point for people who want to use the OG ships, instead of buying Wookie ships and gun boats, which are cool, but the game ain't Star Wars Gun Boat. There are fixes for ships in expansions, I know that, but part of the reason I left was because of the combo-heavy upgrades. You have to buy expansions to improve ships you've already purchased and that may have become obsolete.

FFG making expansions is how they make money, but how different is every ship really when we have 30+? It seems so shortsighted, eventually the foundation underneath the tower of ships is gonna give way. The game has had to errata numerous cards, so why not have a clean slate? I loved the game 4 waves ago, but I'm sick of buying ships I'm not interested in for everything but the ship included and keeping up with altered card texts.  2.0 is after the breakup, when your ex says "I can change!" and you say "Really? Prove it." Currently, I don't like what the game has to offer. The only way I would come back is if the game was revamped, and that requires a 2.0 version, not erratas and countless band-aids.

You guys can enjoy the game, fine. But I'm not dipping back in until the water's my temperature. If that never happens, my loss.

I want to love X-wing again, but that would not happen in its current state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, JonasBenz said:

I'd rather spend money on a newer game system than the same old same old. A 2.0 has the potential to fine-tune the game and provide a starting point for people who want to use the OG ships, instead of buying Wookie ships and gun boats, which are cool, but the game ain't Star Wars Gun Boat. There are fixes for ships in expansions, I know that, but part of the reason I left was because of the combo-heavy upgrades. You have to buy expansions to improve ships you've already purchased and that may have become obsolete.

Its not the same old system.  The FAQ has changed the game a lot since wave I.  Also, there are plenty of builds that are not combo heavy.  Look at the 4 wookie build for instance.  Also, with 2.0 x-wing, the game will eventually have the exact SAME problems that we have now.  Balance will always be an issue.  There will always be new ships and upgrades in which the player can purchase.  It doesn't change anything.

8 minutes ago, JonasBenz said:

FFG making expansions is how they make money, but how different is every ship really when we have 30+?

Dota 2 has over 112 heroes where 111 are allowed in tournament play.  Its certainly possible to make an x-wing game with over 100 ships and it still be balanced (however, balance is for another discussion).

 

11 minutes ago, JonasBenz said:

It seems so shortsighted, eventually the foundation underneath the tower of ships is gonna give way. The game has had to errata numerous cards, so why not have a clean slate?

Dota 2, League of Legends, Overwatch, and pretty much all of these newish moba/hero shooters have a huge selection of unique playable characters in a competitive multiplayer game.  The problem is not having alot of unique ships nor is the foundation going to crumble by adding new ships.  Patches/Errats are the LIFE BLOOD of the digital counterpart.  Adding new stuff is going to make the game inbalanced.  I argu that in order to address this problem, FFG needs a quick way to react to such problems.  An app where changes can be quickly rolled out is the answer (just like in the digital games).  Also, a clean slate doesn't fix the fundamental problem and that is updating the game (balancing).  X-Wing 2.0 will have balance issues after the first wave guaranteed.  That is the nature of these types of games.

15 minutes ago, JonasBenz said:

I loved the game 4 waves ago, but I'm sick of buying ships I'm not interested in for everything but the ship included and keeping up with altered card texts.  

2.0 isn't going to fix this problem.  This is a fundamental FFG business problem which I think is not good for the game.  I personally think that FFG should sell the ships separate from Upgrade cards for the following reasons:

  • Allows FFG to have more TIME to balance upgrades with existing ships and upgrades before releasing
  • Allows FFG to have more TIME to balance new ships & pilots with existing ships and upgrades before releasing
  • Allows FFG to sell repaints of ships only which is an untapped revenue stream
  • Provides sales data of ships that the players DO NOT LIKE or have problems with (IE the TIE Punisher) b/c the players don't purchase the ship.  This will give FFG motivation to come out with fixes for the ship.
  • A more welcoming environment for NEW PLAYERS
  • Increase in player retention
20 minutes ago, JonasBenz said:

2.0 is after the breakup, when your ex says "I can change!" and you say "Really? Prove it." Currently, I don't like what the game has to offer. The only way I would come back is if the game was revamped, and that requires a 2.0 version, not erratas and countless band-aids.

I am sorry you feel this way.  However, I think if FFG creates an APP for aggressive patches and sells upgrade cards separately this will be the best for everyone.  I think they can do this without creating a 2.0.  Also, patches are not band-aids, they are a legitimate method of balancing games.

 

29 minutes ago, JonasBenz said:

You guys can enjoy the game, fine. But I'm not dipping back in until the water's my temperature. If that never happens, my loss.

I think you might struggle to play long term any game that is actively being developed as active development means patches.  If you want to stick with any game long term, you may need to adjust your expectations.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Rexler Brath said:

Its not the same old system.  The FAQ has changed the game a lot since wave I.  Also, there are plenty of builds that are not combo heavy.  Look at the 4 wookie build for instance.  Also, with 2.0 x-wing, the game will eventually have the exact SAME problems that we have now.  Balance will always be an issue.  There will always be new ships and upgrades in which the player can purchase.  It doesn't change anything.

Dota 2 has over 112 heroes where 111 are allowed in tournament play.  Its certainly possible to make an x-wing game with over 100 ships and it still be balanced (however, balance is for another discussion).

 

Dota 2, League of Legends, Overwatch, and pretty much all of these newish moba/hero shooters have a huge selection of unique playable characters in a competitive multiplayer game.  The problem is not having alot of unique ships nor is the foundation going to crumble by adding new ships.  Patches/Errats are the LIFE BLOOD of the digital counterpart.  Adding new stuff is going to make the game inbalanced.  I argu that in order to address this problem, FFG needs a quick way to react to such problems.  An app where changes can be quickly rolled out is the answer (just like in the digital games).  Also, a clean slate doesn't fix the fundamental problem and that is updating the game (balancing).  X-Wing 2.0 will have balance issues after the first wave guaranteed.  That is the nature of these types of games.

2.0 isn't going to fix this problem.  This is a fundamental FFG business problem which I think is not good for the game.  I personally think that FFG should sell the ships separate from Upgrade cards for the following reasons:

  • Allows FFG to have more TIME to balance upgrades with existing ships and upgrades before releasing
  • Allows FFG to have more TIME to balance new ships & pilots with existing ships and upgrades before releasing
  • Allows FFG to sell repaints of ships only which is an untapped revenue stream
  • Provides sales data of ships that the players DO NOT LIKE or have problems with (IE the TIE Punisher) b/c the players don't purchase the ship.  This will give FFG motivation to come out with fixes for the ship.
  • A more welcoming environment for NEW PLAYERS
  • Increase in player retention

I am sorry you feel this way.  However, I think if FFG creates an APP for aggressive patches and sells upgrade cards separately this will be the best for everyone.  I think they can do this without creating a 2.0.  Also, patches are not band-aids, they are a legitimate method of balancing games.

 

I think you might struggle to play long term any game that is actively being developed as active development means patches.  If you want to stick with any game long term, you may need to adjust your expectations.

 

Ok, you win. Brb going to go buy an auzituck and contemplate my inability to commit to a board game for 3+ years

Edited by JonasBenz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, D34d guru said:

I understand your frustrations. But take it from me, if they aught to launch a 2.0 new problems Will arise and new frustration Will build up, since it is impossible to please all. It is better to work with the tools at hand and make it better then to reinvent something that could have been fixed.

And yes, your turret, missile,auto damage arguments may have a Point. Still, adding  more variables to a game will make those things happen. 

No game is fully developed at launch. Letting it grow is a good way of handling it. Destroying, rebuilding, isn't  the best option.

So keep faq'ing and "grow with the flow"

alas W14, i rest my case , knowing all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, D34d guru said:

alas W14, i rest my case , knowing all

And if that fix fails? Will FFG have to repackage the T-65 a fifth time? At this point, if you want all the options for the T-65, you need 4 products. As many players have two core sets, this will already push them over the limits of what is legal within 100 points. If this fix isn't good enough (you know, like many of those we got are proven to be, see: light Scyck, A-Wing, Integrated Astromech, to some degree Guns for Hire, TIE Shuttle...) we'd need a fifth box. FFG knows this, though, so instead we might have a TIE/x7 situation on hands...

It's just more bandaids, and much more likely to leave problems as they are or create new ones rather than fix things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Admiral Deathrain said:

And if that fix fails? Will FFG have to repackage the T-65 a fifth time? At this point, if you want all the options for the T-65, you need 4 products. As many players have two core sets, this will already push them over the limits of what is legal within 100 points. If this fix isn't good enough (you know, like many of those we got are proven to be, see: light Scyck, A-Wing, Integrated Astromech, to some degree Guns for Hire, TIE Shuttle...) we'd need a fifth box. FFG knows this, though, so instead we might have a TIE/x7 situation on hands...

It's just more bandaids, and much more likely to leave problems as they are or create new ones rather than fix things.

You do not seem to be mad about them rules... you just can't handle the moneymaking business by the looks of it.

And as a person mentioned above, comparing to pc games where patches are not a bandaid, but a means to balance toys.

So , considder new cards and faq's as patches and "grow with the flow" :)

 

If it fails.... when does somethig fail? Nothing fails, it gets updated

Edited by D34d guru

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, D34d guru said:

You do not seem to be mad about them rules... you just can't handle the moneymaking business by the looks of it.

And as a person mentioned above, comparing to pc games where patches are not a bandaid, but a means to balance toys.

So , considder new cards and faq's as patches and "grow with the flow" :)

 

If it fails.... when does somethig fail? Nothing fails, it gets updated

No it doesn't, because the 5th or 6th repackage is going to have a hard time being a viable product. And still the fundamental flaws won't be adressed this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...