I was just briefly wondering why FFG implemented the upgrade cards the way they did. It seems to me that the cost of upgrade cards could have been baked into the cost of the ship/pilot instead, with the exception of modifications and titles that cost extra.

To clarify, why not cost ships to assume that they equip an upgrade in every slot? E.g. Red squadron pilot could equip an astromech and torpedo for free. This would mean that every ship capable of carrying ordnance can do so for free, and that every elite pilot would have a talent. Games would become far more complex for sure, maybe a little slower, but think of the variety.

It would make combat more deadly perhaps, but maybe that would have been a reason to balance green dice with red. This would mean that attack and agility are valued equally, opening up more possibilities.

I don't have a super in-depth understanding of the maths of this game so there may be glaring reasons why this would not work. Would love some insight or discussion into this,

the upgrade cards add more variety to the game. Sure we have the top meta archetypes (Fat Han, Whisper ACD, Tie Swarm) but even if you take a look at those archetypes no two list are exactly alike. There are numerous Han Solo builds as well as different escort combinations for Whisper.

Also it is hard enough to fill out the points with only ships. Many times you end up with 105 points where you got to take out a ship. You then have only 10 points to spend after removing the pilot. You cant put in an academy pilot as they cost 12 so upgrades are a great way to fill out your list.

the upgrade cards add more variety to the game. Sure we have the top meta archetypes (Fat Han, Whisper ACD, Tie Swarm) but even if you take a look at those archetypes no two list are exactly alike. There are numerous Han Solo builds as well as different escort combinations for Whisper.

Also it is hard enough to fill out the points with only ships. Many times you end up with 105 points where you got to take out a ship. You then have only 10 points to spend after removing the pilot. You cant put in an academy pilot as they cost 12 so upgrades are a great way to fill out your list.

I'm not sure you understood my post. What I meant was, why are upgrade cards not equipped for free on ships/pilots that have the slots for them (exception being mods and titles which don't have slots on the card).

Because then ships would have a set cost and list diversity would drop.

Also determination should not cost the same as ptl. Under this system it would. That would be awful because again lost diversity would drop.

I'm not sure you understood my post. What I meant was, why are upgrade cards not equipped for free on ships/pilots that have the slots for them (exception being mods and titles which don't have slots on the card).

He/She gets you, just doesn't agree with you. Neither do I.

Let us imagine for a moment that we are talking about a B-Wing.

Nice ship and gets nicer with upgrades.

So you have a Cannon cost already build into your ship, so you can pick whatever cannon you want.

Ok, in this scenario what possible reason could there be to equip anything other than a HLC?

The Damage output is superior to any other cannon upgrade, though the lack of crits is a minor trade off.

Currently the 3 points extra to have one over the next expensive cannon is what keep people from running multiple B-Wings with HLC and other upgrades.

So effectively it is the unique cost of the specific upgrade card prevents people from being able to spam them in lists.

I have very little doubt that if there was a singular cost for a ship and all the upgrades were free you would only see a couple of builds for every ship, basically causing what happens to Fat Han to happen to every ship as people would see the other options as "sub-optimal"

This issue is severely reduced when you can choose not put points on your Ship-A and instead put more points on Ship-B to cover any gaps in offense/defence/preferred play-style. Alternatively, if you dont put as many points on those ships you might be able to afford a Ship-Z for those last 12 points and give the opponent a whole other target to focus on.

If they could've done anything different I would've liked to see pilots boought for ships.

IE you could purchase a tie fighter & put soontir in it.

Provided they restricted to stop silly crap I think it woulda been cooler to have more options pilot/ship wise.

Because then ships would have a set cost and list diversity would drop.

Also determination should not cost the same as ptl. Under this system it would. That would be awful because again lost diversity would drop.

Pilots provide the varying costs per ship. Diversity wouldn't drop because you'd still have the choice of what to equip each ship with - if anything diversity would increase as more cards overall would be used. As for the second point regarding determination, see below:

I'm not sure you understood my post. What I meant was, why are upgrade cards not equipped for free on ships/pilots that have the slots for them (exception being mods and titles which don't have slots on the card).

He/She gets you, just doesn't agree with you. Neither do I.

Let us imagine for a moment that we are talking about a B-Wing.

Nice ship and gets nicer with upgrades.

So you have a Cannon cost already build into your ship, so you can pick whatever cannon you want.

Ok, in this scenario what possible reason could there be to equip anything other than a HLC?

The Damage output is superior to any other cannon upgrade, though the lack of crits is a minor trade off.

Currently the 3 points extra to have one over the next expensive cannon is what keep people from running multiple B-Wings with HLC and other upgrades.

So effectively it is the unique cost of the specific upgrade card prevents people from being able to spam them in lists.

I have very little doubt that if there was a singular cost for a ship and all the upgrades were free you would only see a couple of builds for every ship, basically causing what happens to Fat Han to happen to every ship as people would see the other options as "sub-optimal"

This issue is severely reduced when you can choose not put points on your Ship-A and instead put more points on Ship-B to cover any gaps in offense/defence/preferred play-style. Alternatively, if you dont put as many points on those ships you might be able to afford a Ship-Z for those last 12 points and give the opponent a whole other target to focus on.

I'm not asking for game changes, just wondering what the alternative could have been. If the upgrade system was free then all the upgrades would be different, so the point regarding the HLC (and Determination as above) is moot. The upgrade cards would have been designed differently - to provide alternate ways of attacking/moving etc. rather than better ways.

Ordnance (and other one-use upgrades) would be the exception: these would be better attacks or abilities, at the cost of using them once per card per game. Could that work?

It still creates a problem where you only went 3 points over, but you can't just drop an upgrade to get your 100 points. Costing ships would actually be more difficult for them, because then they would have to factor in the possible combinations of upgrades they could use just to cost the ship itself. The way they actually did it, they can just cost any potentially broken upgrades a bit high.

For example, the way you're suggesting means that to decide the cost of two different B-Wing pilots, they need to factor in the pilot skill, every possible combination of two torpedoes, every systems upgrade, and every cannon and then they have to balance those out with each unique pilot ability. On ships with a lot of different upgrades (Bombers, Phantoms, Falcons) this becomes a huge number because every upgrade card must then be balanced to play alongside every other upgrade card that can possibly be on the same ship. And then they have to go through and carefully examine all the possible combinations whenever they want to release a new ship with an unprecedented upgrade combination.

This would result in the balance of the game falling apart quite quickly. It would also do nothing to change the issue with some upgrades being just better than others (Push the Limit vs Expose for example). There's a reason they gave each upgrade a point value and told us to apply the upgrades we wanted.

It still creates a problem where you only went 3 points over, but you can't just drop an upgrade to get your 100 points. Costing ships would actually be more difficult for them, because then they would have to factor in the possible combinations of upgrades they could use just to cost the ship itself. The way they actually did it, they can just cost any potentially broken upgrades a bit high.

For example, the way you're suggesting means that to decide the cost of two different B-Wing pilots, they need to factor in the pilot skill, every possible combination of two torpedoes, every systems upgrade, and every cannon and then they have to balance those out with each unique pilot ability. On ships with a lot of different upgrades (Bombers, Phantoms, Falcons) this becomes a huge number because every upgrade card must then be balanced to play alongside every other upgrade card that can possibly be on the same ship. And then they have to go through and carefully examine all the possible combinations whenever they want to release a new ship with an unprecedented upgrade combination.

This would result in the balance of the game falling apart quite quickly. It would also do nothing to change the issue with some upgrades being just better than others (Push the Limit vs Expose for example). There's a reason they gave each upgrade a point value and told us to apply the upgrades we wanted.

I see what you mean. The problem does exist already, but you're saying that the upgrades are deliberately priced high to narrow down the number of overpowered combinations?

The problem is that the pricing system still hasn't eliminated this possibility. Just look at the Fat Han builds. From what you're saying, the upgrades cost extra to avoid bloating a ship with extras that break the balance of the game ... except that's exactly what happened in this case, no?

Short answer: because all upgrade cards of a type are not equal in utility, and therefore should not be treated equally.

Frankly, I think one of the things X-wing missed was the opportunity to separate pilot from ship. All ships should have a base cost at PS 1 and a pilot slot. You then buy a pilot to fill the pilot slot -- the pilot may just be a PS boost (Red Squadron Pilot) or a PS boost plus an ability (Luke Skywalker). Then all ship cards are the same and there's a greater ability to mix/match ships and pilots. To restrict certain combos, pilots could have had faction and/or ship limitations.

@OP:

It all boils down to variable power levels of upgrades. If you included the cost of an ET card in every pilot with access to one, which price level do you use? 2? That makes things like Marksmanship, Predator, etc., extra good. 3? It makes things like Veteran Instincts, Lone Wolf, etc., not as good as they should be.

Likewise, if you priced every bomb slot as if it were filled, what price do you use? Proton bomb pricing? That overcosts people using Seismic Charges.

Having upgrades priced separately allows for much finer balancing of both ships and upgrades, making for a more nuanced game and a more interesting metagame.

That would make a Flechette Cannon and a Heavy Laser Cannon cost the same.

Nien Nunb would be as expensive as Luke Skywalker or a Gunner as cheap as an Intelligence Agent.

It would kill list creativity really.

It still creates a problem where you only went 3 points over, but you can't just drop an upgrade to get your 100 points. Costing ships would actually be more difficult for them, because then they would have to factor in the possible combinations of upgrades they could use just to cost the ship itself. The way they actually did it, they can just cost any potentially broken upgrades a bit high.

I see what you mean. The problem does exist already, but you're saying that the upgrades are deliberately priced high to narrow down the number of overpowered combinations?

The problem with the scheme described in the OP is that it assumes a single price for each slot. That is, the price of an EPT is baked in at (say) 3 points, so the effect of an EPT has to be something that's worth 3 points--no more, and no less. It restricts the design space much more than assigning separate prices to upgrades.

The problem is that the pricing system still hasn't eliminated this possibility. Just look at the Fat Han builds. From what you're saying, the upgrades cost extra to avoid bloating a ship with extras that break the balance of the game ... except that's exactly what happened in this case, no?

I don't think that's what Hockeyzombie was saying--or, at least, I disagree with it if he was--and Fat Han doesn't break the balance of the game.

What if the cheapest upgrades were free but the better ones were extra? Would it be game-breaking if any ship that could equip proton torpedoes could do so for free, with advanced torpedoes costing points? Or that any pilot with an EPT can choose one of the 1 or 2 point EPTs for free (they would need to be rebalanced to be of equal value, but that is true of the current game anyway e.g. expose, daredevil are frequently avoided).

It seems a shame that many upgrades are never (or very rarely) used because players in general believe they are not worth the cost. This is generally true of most ordnance and some of the weaker EPTs.

You just described the system that is currently in place. Some upgrade cards cost more points because they are more useful or "powerful".

Also, making upgrades free will not enhance how often they are played...you still have to spend that one slot (another cost) for a useful card...and if the useful card costs more than "free" it is going to get played. PtL is going to get used more often than Determination even if Determination is free.

What if the cheapest upgrades were free but the better ones were extra? Would it be game-breaking if any ship that could equip proton torpedoes could do so for free, with advanced torpedoes costing points? Or that any pilot with an EPT can choose one of the 1 or 2 point EPTs for free (they would need to be rebalanced to be of equal value, but that is true of the current game anyway e.g. expose, daredevil are frequently avoided).

It seems a shame that many upgrades are never (or very rarely) used because players in general believe they are not worth the cost. This is generally true of most ordnance and some of the weaker EPTs.

This is exactly what I thought of when I read through the initial post. For the moment, I'm going to ignore the Flechette Torp because it was designed after the X wing.

But imagine if you had it such that a rookie pilot in an X wing cost 25 points (21 point based adjusted to the 20 point that it should have been but they made it 21 so you couldn't fit 5 in a list, + 4 points for PT, +1 point for R2), and then PT cost 0 points and APT cost 2 points... R2-D2 costs 3 points, and R3-A2 costs 1...

You wouldn't run into the problem that others were describing where you'd have 10 points left over and nothing could fit because you could still add/remove upgrades, you wouldn't run into the problem of list diversity since pretty much all of the diversity is left in tact.

The one change would be that you would start to see ordnance, and you'd see more "1" point EPTs and what not since they'd be free (as would FCS, and AdvS would be 1pt, etc).

What if the cheapest upgrades were free but the better ones were extra? Would it be game-breaking if any ship that could equip proton torpedoes could do so for free, with advanced torpedoes costing points? Or that any pilot with an EPT can choose one of the 1 or 2 point EPTs for free (they would need to be rebalanced to be of equal value, but that is true of the current game anyway e.g. expose, daredevil are frequently avoided).

It seems a shame that many upgrades are never (or very rarely) used because players in general believe they are not worth the cost. This is generally true of most ordnance and some of the weaker EPTs.

At which point, you are in the EXACT same situation we are in now. You are adding in variable costs again, except now you are eliminating the option of going "naked", thus increasing the Academy Pilot's power. If you eliminate the cost from the upgrades, you limit what each one can do, and in essence make certain upgrades even less usable. In fact, by making an upgrade free, you are encouraging lazy choices. Certain upgrades are already "must have", so why add a bunch that are "why not". Just because you want to see more upgrades doesn't mean you need to make it a lazy choice for everyone.

I mean, you can see this in the X1 title. There are good ways to compare Fire Control System and Accuracy Corrector. But, now that they cost the same with the X1, the arguments for Fire Control System shrinks.

Thought was actually wasted on this idea....

What if the cheapest upgrades were free but the better ones were extra? Would it be game-breaking if any ship that could equip proton torpedoes could do so for free, with advanced torpedoes costing points? Or that any pilot with an EPT can choose one of the 1 or 2 point EPTs for free (they would need to be rebalanced to be of equal value, but that is true of the current game anyway e.g. expose, daredevil are frequently avoided).

It seems a shame that many upgrades are never (or very rarely) used because players in general believe they are not worth the cost. This is generally true of most ordnance and some of the weaker EPTs.

That's pretty much the same thing as of right now, except that you can't take a ship without upgrades. In that sense, just upgrade your casual game to 150pts games and force everyone to fully upgrades every ship they take, except for modification and titles like you said. Then live with the fact that some ships just won't see the table anymore.

-Tie Fighter is back as the only ship costing 12pts, I expect you will see a lot of them since their value will just go up since every other ship will cost more while not always getting a good enough benefit.

-Bandit Squadron is now equal in value to the A-Wing since they must take at least a Ion Pulse Missiles.

-Y-Wing will go as low as 25pts with a R2 unit, 2 flechette torpedoes and a Autoblaster turret, for that cost and those upgrades, I don't think it would be very competitive.

-X-Wing would not be that bad at 24pts... while B-Wing at 29pts with Enhanced Scope, Flechette Cannon and 2 Flechette Torpedoes would be better to be left at home.

-Say goodbye to Bombers since the lowest one will start at 28pts!

-ect, ect, ect....

Not every ship are meant to be fully upgraded, some just have more options so you can actually customize them to your liking. Forcing to fill up all upgrade slots just bring more unbalanced between ships while keeping them at the same price and just giving them free upgrades to fill their slots bring other kind of troubles, Why take an Academy Pilot when a fully equiped Scimitar squadron just cost 4 more points?

One solution to resolve your personal problem would be to separate your points for ship and upgrades when building a team, like 85 pts for ships and 15 pts for upgrades. Or just say that at least X number of points must be spent on upgrades so if someone want to go crazy with upgrades, he still can.