Why does a ship having access to certain upgrade slots affect the cost of that ship? Why isn't it built-in to the cost of the upgrade? If a missile slot is worth 2 points (making this up, I don't know the real value), then why not make all missile upgrades cost 2 more points and all ships with a missile slot 2 points less?

Does this mean any ship I'm flying with unused upgrade slots is inherently inefficient?

Can someone explain why it needs to work the way it does from a game-design perspective?

upgrades that would otherwise render a specific ship too powerful for its price must cost more than normal, and making those specific ships pay for the slot is far more efficient than driving up the cost for everyone else as well. Different ships possess different capabilities that make certain ships utilize the same upgrade to wildly different ends (large ship boost being the obvious example, but also stuff like PTL on Soontir versus Wedge or Predator in the same example).

We're seeing this more explicitly in scum with the StarViper and Styx titles, and the opposite effect with the Advance title (the advance is too weak as a base ship) and a different effect with the A-wing (the anti-cost upgrade) where ships are actively given the option to modify their cost based on access to upgrade types.

As for the upgrades printed on the card proper, there should be no loss or gain from simply utilizing a slot (it depends on the interaction between specific upgrades and the ship). For example, FFG themselves explicitly stated that the Bomber was never designed to fill out all its slots, but that it had slots to give the player a variety of options.

In an ideal game case, all formats of a ship would be viable in all possible configurations regardless of upgrade slots utilized. The ideal case does not exist in any game, obviously, but that's the theory.

In certain cases where FFG believed they erred (such as with the perceived power of ordinance and the ships initially priced around having access to it) they have issued fixes where so far deemed appropriate (Refit being the obvious example). In cases where they apparently have not (YT-1300 missile slot), they have not issued any fixes.

Of course, the announcement of the Advance fix came waaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy after Aces and the preview for the Advance suggests the FFG believed ordnance would relieve its offense-related inadequacies (missile slot). Who knows what's on the backlog?

For the most part, upgrade slots don't cost more. At least, there's no consensus that X slot should cost Y points, nor any reason to suspect that FFG assigns point costs that way.

Oh, I believe FFG did price some ships according to access to upgrade slots (definitely the As and Advance)

Thing is, we don't know their methods and how exactly they determined ship X would cost Y because it interacted with upgrade Z in such a way...

Best we can do is guestimate and claim either that ship A costs too much and must cost too much because of this upgrade slot, or ship B is too powerful because it doesn't pay enough to have access to this upgrade slot.

Ideally, every thing different about a ship modifies the ship's cost to some degree.

However, no individual stat is a static +X points. Frustratingly, each individual difference between ships should be individual variables, rather than 1/0 toggle.

Ideally, every thing different about a ship modifies the ship's cost to some degree.

However, no individual stat is a static +X points. Frustratingly, each individual difference between ships should be individual variables, rather than 1/0 toggle.

Which is why games with "create your own unit" systems never work quite as well other games. There are just too many variables to account for.

Ideally, every thing different about a ship modifies the ship's cost to some degree.

However, no individual stat is a static +X points. Frustratingly, each individual difference between ships should be individual variables, rather than 1/0 toggle.

Which is why games with "create your own unit" systems never work quite as well other games. There are just too many variables to account for.

The create your own unit rules in Full Thrust work fine.

Its getting to be an older game now but still a great set of rules

Different ships possess different capabilities that make certain ships utilize the same upgrade to wildly different ends (large ship boost being the obvious example, but also stuff like PTL on Soontir versus Wedge or Predator in the same example).

This was perfect, thank you. And thanks for all the other responses as well.

In general, I do not think upgrades slots actually cost any points in the the cost of a ship card. One easy way to see this is the EPTs. The EPT slots do not ever seem to increase the cost of the ship (Avenger Squadron v Saber Squadron, Obsidian v Black). Design wise, it wouldn't make sense since it would be best to build that cost into the upgrade card.

That being said, it does appear that they may charge a cost for the turret upgrade or at least lessen the price break of a suboptimal dial when you have a turret option. With only 2 data points, its hard to tell.

Also some upgrade cards that do grant or take away upgrades do cost points, but thats a different deal.

The models that I use to predict total ship value (what its worth, not its printed cost) treat each upgrade as improving the value of each ship by a certain percentage, not a fixed cost. So for example, an EPT slot is worth more on a ship that is already more expensive to begin with like a VT-49 vs a TIE Fighter, because the VT-49 will get more mileage out of the same upgrade.

Other slots like system slots are the same deal, but as mentioned above, the cost of the upgrade is mostly built into the upgrade itself, so the percentage increase for most upgrades is fairly small. Crew slots are almost certainly the most universally useful upgrade.

As an almost comical reference point, the PS1 E-wing should only cost about 22 points without including its upgrades.

The models that I use to predict total ship value (what its worth, not its printed cost) treat each upgrade as improving the value of each ship by a certain percentage, not a fixed cost. So for example, an EPT slot is worth more on a ship that is already more expensive to begin with like a VT-49 vs a TIE Fighter, because the VT-49 will get more mileage out of the same upgrade.

Other slots like system slots are the same deal, but as mentioned above, the cost of the upgrade is mostly built into the upgrade itself, so the percentage increase for most upgrades is fairly small. Crew slots are almost certainly the most universally useful upgrade.

As an almost comical reference point, the PS1 E-wing should only cost about 22 points without including its upgrades.

Because System + Astromech + Torpedo = 5 points now?

No, the E-wing is just overcosted.

Certain potential of combinations of upgrades probably should cost more. The Scyk title has the 2 pt cost, not because of the Torpedoes or Missiles, but because of the Cannon option. We will never quite know what is going on in the mind of the designers.

Ships are costed by playtesting, there's no formula. No ship is a sum of the individual costs of its parts. Even though a Hull Upgrade is a three point card, a hull point is not worth three points. Even if you could divide a ship up into how much it pays for each component it wouldn't be consistent between ships.

MajorJuggler has a very in depth model of ship point costs, but once again it models by the statistical efficiency of a ship's whole statline relative to the rest of the game rather than "Hull Point costs X, Agility costs Y, Attack Die costs Z". It also doesn't model costs: it takes the 12pt TIE fighter as a reference point and then compares how statistically efficient other statlines are compared to it. His model is mainly to identify inefficient ships: if a ship costs more than its statline predicts then it's either got something unmodellable (good, bad or unique dials for example) to make up for it or its cost isn't representative of its capability.

If a ship costs more points than it would be predicted to have and doesn't have anything special other than, say, a few nice upgrade slots, then the reasoning is that it's paying for those upgrade slots. However, even if you could pin down the cost of an EPT on one ship it wouldn't hold true for other ships.

Pilot Skill is another easily demonstrated example. An Academy Pilot for two points gets +3 pilot skill and an EPT. An A-wing for two points gets +2 pilot skill and an EPT. An X-wing for two points gets +2 pilot skill.

Is it inefficient not to fill all the slots? Usually I'd say no. There are a couple of cases such as the Y-wing where the (turret) slot is, intentionally or not, heavily incentivised by the inefficacy of the ship without it.

There was actually a fairly accurate formula for Waves 1-2. Wave 3 pretty much scrapped it, though.

For pilot skill and abilities, yes, but statlines?

I think older ships like the X-Wing, Y-Wing, TIE Advanced and A-Wing were paying for their upgrade slots, which I think is what made the TIE Fighter so dominant, since it had no upgrade slots and was therefore operating at full efficiency without any upgrades. I think the newer ships the designers have realized that upgrades tend to be a liability more than an asset and gave ships a break.

Although I don't know what the E-Wing is paying so many points for. Barrel Roll and Evade actions, +1 PS, 1 more agility, a very slightly improved dial and a hull-turned-shield is a lot of small upgrades, but don't really seem to add up to the 8 point increase over the already inefficient Rookie.