It amounts to the same thing,

special missions for experienced pilots,

modifications for special missions,

means modifications for experienced pilots.

Except that it doesn't, as I just justified completely green pilots.

Generally I would agree with you, don't get me wrong. But there is room for exception. There is ALWAYS room for exception.

...

So my dividing line for who gets to use modifications and who does not,

if you have to draw that line, ...

I wouldn't agree you gave any justification,

you suggested green pilots could do the job of specialist pilots/missions,

who would be dumb enough to send green pilots on any special mission.

If it's important to you then you send the right pilots, not the cannon fodder.

You're refusing to acknowledge the reasoning behind this card:

It amounts to the same thing,

special missions for experienced pilots,

modifications for special missions,

means modifications for experienced pilots.

Except that it doesn't, as I just justified completely green pilots.

Generally I would agree with you, don't get me wrong. But there is room for exception. There is ALWAYS room for exception.

...

So my dividing line for who gets to use modifications and who does not,

if you have to draw that line, ...

I wouldn't agree you gave any justification,

you suggested green pilots could do the job of specialist pilots/missions,

who would be dumb enough to send green pilots on any special mission.

If it's important to you then you send the right pilots, not the cannon fodder.

If all you got are rookies you send rookies.

It amounts to the same thing,

special missions for experienced pilots,

modifications for special missions,

means modifications for experienced pilots.

Except that it doesn't, as I just justified completely green pilots.

Generally I would agree with you, don't get me wrong. But there is room for exception. There is ALWAYS room for exception.

...

So my dividing line for who gets to use modifications and who does not,

if you have to draw that line, ...

I wouldn't agree you gave any justification,

you suggested green pilots could do the job of specialist pilots/missions,

who would be dumb enough to send green pilots on any special mission.

If it's important to you then you send the right pilots, not the cannon fodder.

You're refusing to acknowledge the reasoning behind this card:

Rebel Command sent Luke Skywalker on his first combat mission to destroy the Death Star. (If you go into the novelizations, it's justified by his scoring well in some sims). Red Leader barely even knew his name! But it worked out well for them.... Although there must have been more than one pair of soiled space trousers when he turned his targeting computer off in the trench.

Obviously it's a hand-wavy justification, and Luke went up in an X-Wing because that's what worked for the movie. But it's an example of exactly the sort of thing you say shouldn't happen, and it's as pure as pure can get for star wars lore.

Maybe the best the rebels had was Luke's green-as-you-can-get butt, so they sent him up in the ship they had. You could easily justify any X-wing miniatures list the same exact way.

Jeeessshhhh. Did not mean to stir up a hornets nest here...

Let's just agree to disagree. Of course there are numerous examples in history of weapons mods. Low tech stuff wwi and wwii. All these mods were one time special experiments, not general issue.

Again as I stated before did not mean to offend. Just stating an opinion. I thought that is what these forums are for.

Jeeessshhhh. Did not mean to stir up a hornets nest here...

Let's just agree to disagree. Of course there are numerous examples in history of weapons mods. Low tech stuff wwi and wwii. All these mods were one time special experiments, not general issue.

Again as I stated before did not mean to offend. Just stating an opinion. I thought that is what these forums are for.

I'm pretty sure no-ones offended, as you say we agree to disagree on various levels.

you suggested green pilots could do the job of specialist pilots/missions,

who would be dumb enough to send green pilots on any special mission.

That's been covered quite nicely above, there's plenty of examples in Star Wars or even in RL where someone green is given the job because they don't have anyone who can do it in the time frame they have.

You're refusing to acknowledge the reasoning behind this card:

The reasoning behind that card mostly one of game balance. But lore wise, you're also saying that the Interceptor in question is a Royal Guard Interceptor and those are only flown by pilots of a given skill. The limit on double modification isn't based on pilot skill, it's access to what is quite easily recognized as an elite unit. It's a bit like why they limited Green Berets to the US Army Special Forces, to set them apart.

Just stating an opinion. I thought that is what these forums are for.

You're welcome to your opinion, there's just people stating theirs. There was a bit of a being ganged up here, because for most of us, the game is the game, and we don't get too worked up about things like Ties with shields.

In my case it's more attention to fluff detail. I'm one of those guys. If it's justifiable in fluff then within reason it should be justifiable in game. This is also why I like earlier versions of 40K.

Gadge,

To give Stackpole credit .. when I was a young lad I emailed him and said I really enjoyed his X-Wing books. He told me that I should get out and read more. I have had maximum respect for him since.

I just enjoyed them because there was no Jedi nonsense (until later in the series) and no mystic force proof aliens .. or any nonsense of the sort. Fellas in X-wings shooting at fellas in Ties. Re-read them recently. Rubbish words .. but the story adheres to my idea of the star wars universe.

I find your opinion to be a bit extreme. Ships were given modifications, canonically. It's also a way to spice up the game, as opposed to having the same ship all the time. With your logic, why don't we remove unique pilots while we're at it? Ship equality and whatnot.

No. That's not what we do, because they aren't equal. Some pilots are better than others. Some ships are modified. This is reflected in point costs.

I actually couldn't disagree more with the OP on using ship mods.

First, ships were modified, even in the imperial navy, even little ol Tie Fighters. Second, 3, 4 and especially 10 points does mean an awful lot in a 100 pt list.

As others have pointed out, it made sense in the back story, the point costs and uses for mods so far aren't over the top. I don't see how they make you somehow more lazy as a player. Everyone plays their ships closer to bare to see how they run. However, upgrades are there to be taken, they are not all very good and for some builds they end up almost mandatory if your going for a competitive build.

Finally, they are fun, and as with all the other upgrades the combos and interactions are part of what makes this simple game, feel good at the end of the day. It is simple, yet in some areas complex, and enjoyable from it all.

If someone tried to tell me I couldn't/shouldn't use upgrades, I'd listen, tell them they are wrong, and why and if they didn't wish to play against/with me, well I think that would actually be a good thing.

I actually couldn't disagree more with the OP on using ship mods.

First, ships were modified, even in the imperial navy, even little ol Tie Fighters. Second, 3, 4 and especially 10 points does mean an awful lot in a 100 pt list.

As others have pointed out, it made sense in the back story, the point costs and uses for mods so far aren't over the top. I don't see how they make you somehow more lazy as a player. Everyone plays their ships closer to bare to see how they run. However, upgrades are there to be taken, they are not all very good and for some builds they end up almost mandatory if your going for a competitive build.

Finally, they are fun, and as with all the other upgrades the combos and interactions are part of what makes this simple game, feel good at the end of the day. It is simple, yet in some areas complex, and enjoyable from it all.

If someone tried to tell me I couldn't/shouldn't use upgrades, I'd listen, tell them they are wrong, and why and if they didn't wish to play against/with me, well I think that would actually be a good thing.

You're entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to mine.leave it at that

This thread is still on the first page.

Incredibile.

Someone hurry up and fully agree with mikeespo already

Well, colour me amused. There are some hilarious threads popping up lately.

Should only be allowed for pirates and freighters. We have banned them within my group.

Then I'm glad I'm not in your play group.

Points don't matter in certain situations...especially 4 or so. Even 10 in a 100 point game is not much.

Feel free to bring a 90-point list against every 100-point list you face, then. In fact, if the first part is true, why not 100 vs 300?

I am sure the design intent was for mods to be used with pirates "tinkering" ala Solo. Not for general use.

Oh, nevermind, I see. You must be one of the designers, or know them personally. Forget it guys, he knows the game better than the rest of us. Thread closed.

One might be reminded that modifications are the military way. F15A, F15B, F15C and so forth. You modify your equipment to meet new needs and threats. Why would X-Wing be any different. I also have been war gaming 50 years, armies navies, and air forces all modify their equipment. It does not change the flavor of the game it adds to it. I would find it very boring to not be able to upgrade my units in a game to meet changing needs.

I just have to laugh at the thought process of the Designers not intending modifications for general use, even though that is how they were designed...

What struck me was this comment

Of course there are numerous examples in history of weapons mods. Low tech stuff wwi and wwii. All these mods were one time special experiments, not general issue.

Yes, they were one time things, not general issue. That's what a modification card IS, it's a temporary or experimental alteration to the craft. If one of these mods was made general issue it would be incorporated into the ship card itself.

All upgrade cards represent things that are NOT part of the standard configuration for the ship.

That being said, some of you guys need to seriously chill out. He is entitled to his opinion but some of the comments directed at him have been borderline personal attacks and that is seriously uncool.

I kinda get the feeling that the issue isn't so much with the concept itself as with some of your players ALWAYS equipping certain ships with the same modification so that it "feels" more like they are permanent parts of the ship?

As for me, I don't mind mods at all, but I do wish they had thought of them from the beginning and included the modification icon in ship upgrade bars. I really would have liked it if they had had the option to give the falcon and similar ships multiple modification slots. That would have been very thematic.

I totally see where the OP is coming from, and when I was starting the game I felt similarly. Sometimes I still do.

I think he's trying to play the sort of game that I would like to get back to more as well. It's about seeing the game as the telling of a story, rather than a contest of tactical wits.

Now, a problem for that is that it does require a bit of organization; finding a group of people who feel the same way and have the time and head-energy to devote to it. Unfortunately (from my point of view), the default style of play is the 6a100pntDM (6 asteroid 100 point death match), because it's the type of game that's easiest (quicker, more seductive) format the get people to agree on. And, you know what, that's okay. There's more than enough room for people who want to have it be a contest of tactical wits, because that's fun!

I think it would be more fun to have narrative depth and narrative stakes to play around too, and a situation that resembles Star Wars more than the 6a100pntDM does.

I totally see where the OP is coming from, and when I was starting the game I felt similarly. Sometimes I still do.

I think he's trying to play the sort of game that I would like to get back to more as well. It's about seeing the game as the telling of a story, rather than a contest of tactical wits.

Now, a problem for that is that it does require a bit of organization; finding a group of people who feel the same way and have the time and head-energy to devote to it. Unfortunately (from my point of view), the default style of play is the 6a100pntDM (6 asteroid 100 point death match), because it's the type of game that's easiest (quicker, more seductive) format the get people to agree on. And, you know what, that's okay. There's more than enough room for people who want to have it be a contest of tactical wits, because that's fun!

I think it would be more fun to have narrative depth and narrative stakes to play around too, and a situation that resembles Star Wars more than the 6a100pntDM does.

I can definitely sympathize with a desire to play more thematic games. I think thematic play is great, thus my interest in campaigns and scenario-based missions. The standard game is always the lowest common denominator, but there is a lot of potential for thematically interesting play. I've been hard at work on Mission Control trying to write interesting and balanced thematic scenarios (and scenarios that are not trench runs or shuttle capture missions).

It's a little unclear whether mikeespo's original objection to mods was based more on game balance or thematic grounds, but either way, I don't think that there is a solid case for banning mods as his group has done. I think there is plenty of justification for ship modification in the star wars universe. They are of course welcome to play however they please among themselves; I just think banning mods is an overreaction.

Not to say that there aren't some powerful modification cards out there. Engine upgrade is perhaps a little too good on large ships, given how dramatic the boost action is on a large ship base. I wouldn't mind seeing a change to boost similar to the change made to barrel roll on large ships, but I can't really imagine how such a thing would be accomplished.

It's a little unclear whether mikeespo's original objection to mods was based more on game balance or thematic grounds, but either way, I don't think that there is a solid case for banning mods as his group has done. I think there is plenty of justification for ship modification in the star wars universe. They are of course welcome to play however they please among themselves; I just think banning mods is an overreaction.

I'm just speculating as to his rationale. I gave up on being a lore nazi a while ago already. (Though I still refuse to buy into TIE Defenders because of my own head canon.) I'm guessing that mikeespo has a more like-minded group than I do. I wouldn't even call my group a group - just guys who happen to show up at the FLGS.

Hm... now I understand what Ferdinand Tönnies meant by the difference between gesellschaft (society) and gemeinschaft (community). Yay! X-Wing helps me understand German sociology!

Guess I'm alone. A TIE is not a TIE if it has shields a boost and a extra hull.

Might as well call a cow a pig.

Shouldn't one learn how to fly/fight the ship as is?

You can only equip 1 modification per ship, and as for a Tie not being a Tie, Tie stands for TwinIonEngine, so as long it as Twin Ion Engines, it's a Tie.

I just realized something.

The OP's gaming group must NEVER field Z-95s. Canonically the are Atmospheric craft modified to fight in void.

Very disapointed at some of the personal negative attacks been getting here. Seems like nobody can give a non sanctioned opinion here. Chill out. It's a GAME.

Thanks for those who were moderate and civil in their responses.

The rest, grow up.

Very disapointed at some of the personal negative attacks been getting here. Seems like nobody can give a non sanctioned opinion here. Chill out. It's a GAME.

Thanks for those who were moderate and civil in their responses.

The rest, grow up.

I hope I haven't come off as disparaging; that has not been my intent. I will point out that telling people to grow up and chill out is rarely a good way to mellow out a discussion, though.

It's pretty clear your opinion is unpopular, and surprising to a lot of us. Personally, I just don't see anything solid backing up your rationale for coming out against modification upgrades. If I haven't missed anything your main points are:

A: Modifications fundamentally change the characteristics of ships, in a way not intended by the designers

B: Thematically, modifications should only be available to certain ships/pilots, i.e. freighters, smugglers, criminals

C: Modifications are a cheap trick to enhance ship performance, (and break game balance?)

D: Thematically, ship upgrades are not practical given the technological complexity of spaceships

E: Modifications in real military equipment were 'low-tech', and limited run, and were not general issue

Conclusion: Modifications should not be used except in a few specific cases, such as the Falcon and a few others.

Let me know if I missed anything, or misinterpreted you somehow.

Firstly, I think it's a very bold claim to say that the game designers did not intend modifications to be widely used. They are in fact the only class of upgrade that can be equipped by any ship. Unless you had a chat with the game designers you aren't telling us about, this is the least substantial of your arguments.

Mostly, these objections seem to be based on the thematic/lore justification of upgrades. I think that class of objection is pretty thoroughly shot down in many posts already made, but I'll summarize.

If you stay in the Original Trilogy, there is little solid justification to conclude that military ship modifications were ever performed. Likewise there isn't any reason to rule out ship modifications taking place; and to be perfectly honest we are not working within a 'purist' OT environment; not by a long shot.

There are numerous examples of ship modifications being performed in the EU. Rogue Squadron's Verpine mechanic was notorious for tinkering with their ships, for example. On the Imperial side of things, Thrawn apparently had his fighters equipped with shields in order to cut attrition, and we saw TIEs with shield modifications in the popular computer game TIE Fighter. So, modifications were possible, they did sometimes occur in large scale runs, and were performed in military ships. If you are opposed to EU sourcing, I assume you also never play with any other cards sourced from the EU.... (there's a lot of those).

In terms of game balance, most upgrades are actually not well-rated competitively, with the notable exceptions of the Advanced Cloaking Device and Engine Upgrade. I see little reason to treat this category of upgrade cards as being more powerful than any other. Hull and shield upgrades, which you specifically point out as offensive, are not frequently seen in top-tier competitive play, going by the lists posted in the 2014 Nationals Results thread.

So, like I said, I don't think there is any good reason to toss modification cards out the window. Not for lore reasons, and not for balance.

Guess I'm alone. A TIE is not a TIE if it has shields a boost and a extra hull.

Might as well call a cow a pig.

Shouldn't one learn how to fly/fight the ship as is?

While it may be true that a cow is not a pig, I've found in my own experience that they can play nice with one another.

So, as you said:

Chill out. It's a GAME.

P. S. - This is certainly not intended as an attack, merely an attempt to break the tension in this thread.

Very disapointed at some of the personal negative attacks been getting here. Seems like nobody can give a non sanctioned opinion here. Chill out. It's a GAME.

Thanks for those who were moderate and civil in their responses.

The rest, grow up.

I was (IMHO) moderate. You, on the other hand, stated you would not play against a person using Modifications. Stating something so severe is going to get responses.