NickName wrote:
2. You jump to the conclusion that non-flight huges would be effective if they had Stable Footing. I would argue they would not generally be effective (which I'll rephrase as "competetive").
Did I say competitive? I'm actually not jumping to that conclusion at all. As you say, a number of the pieces would likely be used more (Felcor, some savages with good CE support), but I'm not pretending that these pieces would be highly competitive. Is it really the case that errata is only made if the needed adjustment is at GOWK-level proportions? Really? If so, then why start this thread and discussion in the first place?
An errata doesn't need to put a character or squad-concept in the Top 8 of the Championships in order to be worthwhile. The whole reason why I and quite a few others have been arguing for this change for
a few years is that the movement restrictions on huges are SO annoying that these figs become nigh-impossible to use, even in semi-competitive venues.
NickName wrote:
I reject that "Character Tax" is the only alternative to errata.
You make the argument that it is by dismissing or ignoring the possible creative (or obvious in some cases) solutions at the character level.
We have a variety of SAs and CEs that are basically "free" on pieces. That means the only "cost" to them is the opportunity cost of the character itself filling up a portion of your squad....Unlike a pointless (non-competetive characters remain non-competetive) errata, there are many character options that actually could do what's needed rather than be just a "character tax" as described.
And actually, I did describe this exact solution:
thereisnotry wrote:
unless the piece that they put it on is also an undercosted piece that every squad with huge figs will want to include anyway. For instance, if there's a 10pt Fringe piece that has a super-CE for huges and also happens to have a SA (not a CE, because this shouldn't be disruptible) that grants Stable Footing to huge allies, then I guess this wouldn't matter and it wouldn't really be a Character Tax, because everyone would already be wanting to use the character in their huge squads anyway. The Stable Footing SA would really just be one more thing that makes the character undercosted. If this is the route, then I'm sure it would work fine.
So yes, I did argue that it
could work. And I’m sure it will be a good solution, IF it’s on the right piece, and
if that piece would be a shoe-in for any squad with huge figs in it (similar to the BDO in droid squads). A Beast-Tamer as you describe could be a good solution, but only if it’s used for much more than its Stable Footing effect. Anything less than that would be a Character Tax.
But what I've described in my post (and now you in yours) is a whole lot more specific and confidence-building than saying "We'll just make a new piece that solves this problem in the future." Han Rogue was supposedly made to counter Thrawn's dominance, back in the day, and we all know how well that worked out. Leia of Cloud City was supposedly a help vs the Super-Stealth dominance too. My point in all this is that the character carrying the needed change has to be highly competitive long before the new effect is added; otherwise, it's doomed to be a miserable failure.
To jump back qucikly to my DnD example, the Weapon Expertise Feats wouldn't be a Feat Tax if they gave the +1 attack per tier, in addition to also giving the character
something else useful, that every character would want anyway. Then it wouldn't be a Feat Tax...it would be a really good feat. That's the difference between a Character Tax and a good new piece that truly addresses the problem.