How is that Space Marine example different in any way than the Advanced Targeting Computer?

I'm not going to even bother... This statement says it better than I ever could.

But FWIW... Topics like these are really little different then discussing religion or politics. Most everyone is going to have an opinion on the subject and nothing anyone says is going to change it.

How is that Space Marine example different in any way than the Advanced Targeting Computer?

I'm not going to even bother... This statement says it better than I ever could.

But FWIW... Topics like these are really little different then discussing religion or politics. Most everyone is going to have an opinion on the subject and nothing anyone says is going to change it.

Some stop in to leave opinions, even if there is no changing their mind, and others stop in to leave thoughtless arguments. For what it is worth, I prefer the latter.

Are you seriously stating that being able to buy the Raider to improve the performance of the TIE Advanced other identical models without that purchased improvement, without any in-game cost, is different than being able to buy a limited edition Space Marine model that has an improved performance over other Space Marine models without any in-game cost? If one is pay-to-win, then the other is too.

But, feel free to pretend that you did not say something stupid and walk away with an ambiguous line about how people just don't understand. Or, you can tell me what you actually meant and why it makes sense. It is your choice.

I come from a video gamer background and we've got a clear term for the way X-Wing deals with cards: pay-to-win.

It's not like you don't get an Epic ship that you can actually play in Epic or Cinematic games. Yeah, everyone is so into the tournament scene and heaven forbid you actually play a non-tournament game. That's your issue, though. It's not like you are spending x amount of money on just a card.

I come from a video gamer background and we've got a clear term for the way X-Wing deals with cards: pay-to-win.

It's not even remotely the same thing.

In a Pay-to-Win thing, you have to pay real money for an item or power that is clearly better than anything else you can get in the game.

Again, I personally nee had no real issue with this in any of the games I've played. I just express a personal opinion on the matter.

To proxy upgrades is fine and dandy. In fact, I don't really care if it was done in a tournament. Most of us use squad builders anyways, which reduces clutter on the table.

To proxy ships is a little different. Does the person have the actual dial? There are so many ways that a proxied ship will add confusion (and time) to a game. Like someone before mentioned, I don't want to have a table set up with some ships and some gobs of blue tack stuck to a ship base!

I come from a video gamer background and we've got a clear term for the way X-Wing deals with cards: pay-to-win.

It's not like you don't get an Epic ship that you can actually play in Epic or Cinematic games. Yeah, everyone is so into the tournament scene and heaven forbid you actually play a non-tournament game. That's your issue, though. It's not like you are spending x amount of money on just a card. You actually get a really cool product and mini campaign. If you refuse to actually use it, then the onus is on you.

What does getting some form of value, which you seem content to ignore that some people do not want, have to do with whether or not something is pay-to-win?

I come from a video gamer background and we've got a clear term for the way X-Wing deals with cards: pay-to-win.

It's not like you don't get an Epic ship that you can actually play in Epic or Cinematic games. Yeah, everyone is so into the tournament scene and heaven forbid you actually play a non-tournament game. That's your issue, though. It's not like you are spending x amount of money on just a card.

But that's exactly what I'm saying. I don't mind buying a ship if I want to play it, of course! Be it a Epic or not. But this should be my own choice. If I don't want to fly Scum (for any of my own personal stupid motives), why should I have to buy several Scum ships??

OK....let's define what "pay-to-play" means. I think this might clear up some confusion. Pay-to-play usually refers to a free game that has all these awesome upgrades that you can get if you spend a lot of money. It gets to the point that these upgrades are so amazing that you can't really compete in the game unless you shell out real cash for similar upgrades. While the game is free, you have to pay to be any good at playing it.

X-wing has always had set cards in each package. If you want Tactician, you have to buy the Tie Phantom. You get the Tie Phantom, as well. You are buying a product that comes with upgrade cards. Maybe you don't like the Tie Phantom or you don't even play Imperials, but if you want Tactician, you have to buy the Tie Phantom. There are some really good upgrade cards in the epic ships.

Having to buy legitimate ships with upgrade cards is not really pay-to-play. Yes, X-wing requires you to buy ships to play the game. that's kind of a given, to be honest, because you have to buy the blasted ships to play the game. That doesn't make it a pay-to-play set up, though. Just because awesome netlist #147 requires you to buy a ship that you don't want to buy doesn't make it a pay-to-play game. Just because you don't like epic, you aren't forced to buy the Imperial Raider to be competitive. You can build a competitive list without that product. Just because you don't play epic isn't a good reason to bash a product and claim pay-to-play. Just like buying the Tie Phantom for Tactician, you have to buy the Raider for the Emperor and X1 titles. You still get the ship that is awesome to play with. It's your choice if you decide to not play with it.

Pay-to-play X-wing would be cards sold individually that have huge price tags on them. Instead of getting the awesome Raider, you buy each X1 title for $20 in a little single pack. That's pay-to-play.

To the people that say proxying cards is stealing, it's not. If I go on a test drive before I buy my car, then is that stealing? No, it's a test drive. People who proxy cards do it for multiple reasons, main one is testing before buying. The second one is they can't afford the card. I don't know about you guys, but if I proxy a card I can't afford and I really like it, the likelihood of me buying the card goes up higher than if I didn't proxy at all and will make it a priority to save for it.

The only confused party in the current conversation is you. The word for that is "freemium." Pay-to-play, which is not what anyone else is talking about, is typically the opposite. Freemium games do sometimes sell access to more powerful items, some of the most popular example allows players who do not pay to access all of the content while selling the ability to progress more quickly or to counter random aspects of the game.

Perhaps we have different views of pay-to-play games. The way I've heard the expression used is different than what you are saying. Difference of perspective is all. I'll be fine to switch to your vernacular, though.

Finally, you claim that players are not required to buy the Raider to be competitive. That is a stupid claim to make. A player who does not have access to the title who, flying all TIE Advanceds, plays against a player, with an identical list that is utilizing the title and the free upgrades that it provides (meaning up to a 16% advantage in the points utilized by the opponent), will not be competitive. Or maybe you disagree?

I'm not arguing that someone who doesn't have the X1 title can compete with someone who does have the title. What I'm saying is you don't have to have the Tie Advanced with X1 to be competitive. Just like you don't have to have Tactician to be competitive. Or FCS...or PTL....or Soontir Fel for that matter.

FFG always does fixes via extra products instead of heavy handed FAQ's. That's just they way they do it. They put out things like Auto Thrusters, X1 titles, Extra Munitions, and other cards in with regular upgrade cards in products. What makes the X1 title different than a regular title that pushes it from pay-to-play (using your wording) to pay-to-win? How is it different than any other upgrade card? Or are you saying that FFG's method of fixing cards jumps it into pay-to-win categories because if you play with the fix vs. someone without the fix you have an advantage?

Just a quick one to clarify: I'm only talking about proxying upgrades cards of course, not the ships!

Buying ships to play is pay-to-play and is obviously the normal way of doing things.

Buying ships for cards (ie: 2 lines of text) is pay-to-win (in my own personal view).

And to reply to the previous post: I think you're missing the point: of course you can play something else than a Tie Advanced if you don't have the cards fixing it. But why would you do that if you've bought it and want to play Vader (because, well, it's Vader!!!).

Buying ships for cards (ie: 2 lines of text) is pay-to-win (in my own personal view).

And to reply to the previous post: I think you're missing the point: of course you can play something else than a Tie Advanced if you don't have the cards fixing it. But why would you do that if you've bought it and want to play Vader (because, well, it's Vader!!!).

The way I see the X1 title is the way I see any upgrade. You buy a ship that can be used in a game and it comes with upgrade cards. I see no difference between having to buy the Raider vs. having to buy the Tie Phantom for Tactician.

You say buying a ship for the cards. That's a bit personal, though. If they were selling the cards on their own for a huge amount, then that would be pay-to-win. Just because you don't like to play with the ship that you buy doesn't mean it's pay-to-win. That's my point.

I see no difference between having to buy the Raider vs. having to buy the Tie Phantom for Tactician.

If they were selling the cards on their own for a huge amount, then that would be pay-to-win. Just because you don't like to play with the ship that you buy doesn't mean it's pay-to-win. That's my point.

They could sell cards needed to fly ships that I've bought with computers or even a nice car, I'd classified it as pay to win as well (even if you could argue you get a nice car in the package ).

Cheers

To the people that say proxying cards is stealing, it's not. If I go on a test drive before I buy my car, then is that stealing? No, it's a test drive. People who proxy cards do it for multiple reasons, main one is testing before buying. The second one is they can't afford the card. I don't know about you guys, but if I proxy a card I can't afford and I really like it, the likelihood of me buying the card goes up higher than if I didn't proxy at all and will make it a priority to save for it.

So if I download a hacked version of a PC game because I want to test it before I buy it or I cant afford retail, am I not stealing?

To the people that say proxying cards is stealing, it's not. If I go on a test drive before I buy my car, then is that stealing? No, it's a test drive. People who proxy cards do it for multiple reasons, main one is testing before buying. The second one is they can't afford the card. I don't know about you guys, but if I proxy a card I can't afford and I really like it, the likelihood of me buying the card goes up higher than if I didn't proxy at all and will make it a priority to save for it.

So if I download a hacked version of a PC game because I want to test it before I buy it or I cant afford retail, am I not stealing?

That hits a grey area for many people. Some would say no because if the game didn't suck, you will buy it. One can argue that if the industry didn't pay off the review companies then it would be alright to trust a review. I won't stick my own opinion in here, though.

For me, if I happen to fly an Epic game with six T-65's, but don't own six T-70's, I see no problem with just proxying the cards. It's especially true if it's just me and a friend in my kitchen.

To the people that say proxying cards is stealing, it's not. If I go on a test drive before I buy my car, then is that stealing? No, it's a test drive. People who proxy cards do it for multiple reasons, main one is testing before buying. The second one is they can't afford the card. I don't know about you guys, but if I proxy a card I can't afford and I really like it, the likelihood of me buying the card goes up higher than if I didn't proxy at all and will make it a priority to save for it.

So if I download a hacked version of a PC game because I want to test it before I buy it or I cant afford retail, am I not stealing?

I hardly play PC games, but normally there's a demo version that you can get right? That'd be where you test it. You would also be taking the entire game and once you have the entire game there is no incentive to buy the game, you have all of the parts. When one proxy's there's still an incentive to buy.

I don´t get the way proxy have a bad influence on the game .

That is not true.

In my case i bought myself a second Jumpmaster because i have seen a list on Stele open i really wanted to play and its never wrong to have two of this lovely boats .

So ,to play the list as intended i needed a extra munition proxy .

And playing this list with the extra munition proxy showed me, that if i want to play tournaments with this list and its my new favorite list , i have to and i will buy another expansion the tie Punisher for example.

So using the proxy had not such magnificent negative influence as a lot of u guys think. And its not dishonorable . :/

Its not morally and economically questionable its just a way to figure out what u really need for a list u want to play on tournament .

And I think a lot of the anti-proxy folks are on board with that. It makes sense to test something out before you make a big purchase. But I don't think it's right to play with list after list of proxy material with no intention of buying the cards.

I, too, proxied once to see what it was like. I wanted to try a Feedback Array Z swarm. I knew I'd need two more Most Wanted and another IG-2000 in addition to ships I was already planning on getting. It was an alright list, but I decided I'm not ready to pay for that much new stuff for one list, so I haven't flown that list since that one game.

I don't disagree with proxies for testing, but I don't like the flippant attitude of just printing lists out instead of making sure you have the cards.

The only confused party in the current conversation is you. The word for that is "freemium." Pay-to-play, which is not what anyone else is talking about, is typically the opposite. Freemium games do sometimes sell access to more powerful items, some of the most popular example allows players who do not pay to access all of the content while selling the ability to progress more quickly or to counter random aspects of the game.

Perhaps we have different views of pay-to-play games. The way I've heard the expression used is different than what you are saying. Difference of perspective is all. I'll be fine to switch to your vernacular, though.

Finally, you claim that players are not required to buy the Raider to be competitive. That is a stupid claim to make. A player who does not have access to the title who, flying all TIE Advanceds, plays against a player, with an identical list that is utilizing the title and the free upgrades that it provides (meaning up to a 16% advantage in the points utilized by the opponent), will not be competitive. Or maybe you disagree?

I'm not arguing that someone who doesn't have the X1 title can compete with someone who does have the title. What I'm saying is you don't have to have the Tie Advanced with X1 to be competitive. Just like you don't have to have Tactician to be competitive. Or FCS...or PTL....or Soontir Fel for that matter.

FFG always does fixes via extra products instead of heavy handed FAQ's. That's just they way they do it. They put out things like Auto Thrusters, X1 titles, Extra Munitions, and other cards in with regular upgrade cards in products. What makes the X1 title different than a regular title that pushes it from pay-to-play (using your wording) to pay-to-win? How is it different than any other upgrade card? Or are you saying that FFG's method of fixing cards jumps it into pay-to-win categories because if you play with the fix vs. someone without the fix you have an advantage?

It depends on what the card does. If a card, which must be purchased separately, provides an improvement to a ship with no cost, meaning no opportunity cost and no points cost, then it is pay-to-win and there is not argument to make to the contrary. The TIE Advanced and Defender titles fall into this category.

If the same card has some opportunity cost (i.e. must be taken to the exclusion of another option), then it can at least be argued that it is not a pay-to-win situation. Chardaan Refit is the only one where a credible argument can be made as it is at least debatable whether an A-Wing with the Refit is objectively better than an A-Wing armed with missiles. Integrated Astromech also falls into this category, but the benefit of that card pretty clearly outshines an Engine Upgrade on the T-65s.

The final category is for cards that have an actual point cost. These can be pay-to-win depending on how powerful the upgrade is. Autothruster is probably the best example as it dramatically improves certain ships in a way that a Hull Upgrade or Shield Upgrade cannot match. I do not think that it would be unreasonable to suggest that a TIE Interceptor with Autothrusters would, over time, outperform a TIE Interceptor with any other upgrade.

Whether card that fall into the categories above are good or bad for the game depends on how players balance the progression of the game, FFG's need to profit, and the barrier to entry. However, X-Wing certainly has pay-to-win aspects to it.

I don't disagree with proxies for testing, but I don't like the flippant attitude of just printing lists out instead of making sure you have the cards.

But you have not given any good reasons for it. You suggested that it is stealing from FFG, meaning that FFG's profits would suffer, but there is nothing that suggests that the number of purchases that would not occur because players did not have to buy entire expansions that they would otherwise not purchase would have a meaningful impact on FFG's bottom line.

The reality is that using a printed list with card names on it or only having one card when multiple ships in your list have the upgrade has a very limited, if any, impact on the game.

You don't need to proxy to "play test" because of that online game thing.

Just buy their products so they keep making products so we can buy the new products already.

In a casual match, I'm fine with it most of the time. A lot of new players especially don't have Autothrusters or Integrated Astromech and those are kinda must-have upgrades that have become the standard. You'd assume they'll pick it up eventually.

In tournaments, I would hope no TOs allow proxying.

I made myself some proxy cards out of some extra photon torps. I use em whenever I want and I say 'Hey, I'm gonna proxy this card today. We can reference the actual card if you need to.' Or as someone else pointed out, it's on some kind of PD so really there is no need for cards at all. It's usually not an issue. Then they see that my AC adds three hits! Lol, just kidding!

Which cards do I proxy? Autothrusters was one I made but didn't use too much. I also did a X1 title an AC and an ATC. Now I don't use the AT or the AC since I own those cards now and the amount of times I've run Vader with his title I can count on one hand so... There was another bloke who was proxying C3P0 for a bit so he could get used to it when his copy arrived from ebay.

Not every proxy is a direct attack on the foundations of social gaming. Most times, it's just to try stuff out. If you don't want to play someone because they are using a proxy just say you don't want to play against proxies. We'll understand.

Just buy their products so they keep making products so we can buy the new products already.

Why should the players be responsible for pretending that the actual product has value when it sometimes does not? If players stop using actual cards and begin using printed lists and referencing either a single copy of the card or an image of the card provided by FFG, then FFG needs to change something to make owning the actual expansion more desirable.

Do not feel bad for FFG. It is a faceless entity that is capable of adapting to meet the needs of its customers. If FFG's profits fall, then it needs to change. Anything else will be unsustainable.

It depends on what the card does. If a card, which must be purchased separately, provides an improvement to a ship with no cost, meaning no opportunity cost and no points cost, then it is pay-to-win and there is not argument to make to the contrary. The TIE Advanced and Defender titles fall into this category.

This makes no sense. No argument can be made to the contrary? I disagree. Just saying so doesn't make it so.

If the card was sold on it's own, it would be a pay-to-win scenario. If you happen to get at least one ship with that upgrade, then it's not pay-to-win. How do you see that you are buying a valid ship that has something for another ship in it as a pay-to-win?

If the same card has some opportunity cost (i.e. must be taken to the exclusion of another option), then it can at least be argued that it is not a pay-to-win situation. Chardaan Refit is the only one where a credible argument can be made as it is at least debatable whether an A-Wing with the Refit is objectively better than an A-Wing armed with missiles. Integrated Astromech also falls into this category, but the benefit of that card pretty clearly outshines an Engine Upgrade on the T-65s.

The final category is for cards that have an actual point cost. These can be pay-to-win depending on how powerful the upgrade is. Autothruster is probably the best example as it dramatically improves certain ships in a way that a Hull Upgrade or Shield Upgrade cannot match. I do not think that it would be unreasonable to suggest that a TIE Interceptor with Autothrusters would, over time, outperform a TIE Interceptor with any other upgrade.

I don't see how you can argue Chardaan Refit is acceptable when the X/7 title is pretty much the same thing. Your logic is flawed.

By your logic, you are saying that if you have to buy a card that comes in another pack than the ship it works with, then it's pay-to-win. So, if you happen to think Fire Control System really works on your Starviper...or Lamda Shuttle....then it's pay-to-win to have to buy the B-wing or Tie Phantom pack to make your other ship good. That's about the same thing as what you are saying about Auto Thrusters.

FFG probably wants people to proxy.

It allows players to experiment with builds, alleviates stagnation, and translates to sales as soon as these players attend tournaments with those builds.

If proxying was heavily frowned upon, I'm almost positive the game wouldn't have as much interest or sales.

It depends on what the card does. If a card, which must be purchased separately, provides an improvement to a ship with no cost, meaning no opportunity cost and no points cost, then it is pay-to-win and there is not argument to make to the contrary. The TIE Advanced and Defender titles fall into this category.

This makes no sense. No argument can be made to the contrary? I disagree. Just saying so doesn't make it so.

If the card was sold on it's own, it would be a pay-to-win scenario. If you happen to get at least one ship with that upgrade, then it's not pay-to-win. How do you see that you are buying a valid ship that has something for another ship in it as a pay-to-win?

When I say that no argument can be made, it should be clear that I mean no reasonable argument can be made. You may disagree, but you have no basis to disagree. You disagree because you have already chosen a position and, for some reason, do not want to acknowledge that you are wrong. What is describes perfectly fits the definition of pay-to-win. If you disagree, then tell me why it does not.

If the card was sold on it's own, it would be a pay-to-win scenario. If you happen to get at least one ship with that upgrade, then it's not pay-to-win.

That is stupid. A pay-to-win mechanic is not reliefed of that label because purchasing that mechanic also provides some other value. Pay-to-win only requires that a product be offered for sale that provides an advantage over other who do not purchase that product.

How do you see that you are buying a valid ship that has something for another ship in it as a pay-to-win?

That is completely irrelevant. How are you still not grasping what "pay-to-win" means? Go do some research. It is a simple concept and I have already explained it.

I don't see how you can argue Chardaan Refit is acceptable when the X/7 title is pretty much the same thing. Your logic is flawed.

My logic is not flawed. Your thought process is flawed. I explicitly stated that Chardaan Refit is different because it has an opportunity cost. The Defender title does not. Read my post again.

By your logic, you are saying that if you have to buy a card that comes in another pack than the ship it works with, then it's pay-to-win. So, if you happen to think Fire Control System really works on your Starviper...or Lamda Shuttle....then it's pay-to-win to have to buy the B-wing or Tie Phantom pack to make your other ship good. That's about the same thing as what you are saying about Auto Thrusters.

You are close. I will state it explicitly - having to purchase an addition product to make another product competitive is pay-to-win. The TIE Advanced and the Raider are two product that are a perfect example. What you are getting wrong is that you believe that pay-to-win is subjective. It is not. Because there are builds that come out of the Lambda Shuttle box that are as effective as a Lambda with FCS, then it is not pay-to-win, but pay-to-play (specifically pay-to-play with different options).

What I said about Autothrusters is completely different (and I was very clear). Again, Autothrusters is a better option for a TIE Interceptor than any other modification and even costs fewer points than most of them. Because of that and the fact that it comes with a product other than the TIE Interceptor, it is pay-to-win.

Let's dispel this "I'm anti-proxy to help FFG" charade.

FFG is not worried about people proxying upgrade cards, because those people are buying ships. If FFG thought upgrade card proxies were a threat to their sustainability they'd do something. They haven't. They're selling a ton of ships (which is what they care about) and they want to retain customer loyalty by keeping their customers happy. Note the U-turn on needing Scum Dials in Most Wanted.

FFG is a sizeable corporation in the business of turning a profit and is pretty good at it, they can look after themselves. They don't allow proxies in official tournaments because that'd be a major mixed message (they don't want to tell people not to buy their products), but do they care about what casual players do with their ships? No. For all they care you could make your own upgrade cards with different rules on them (they actually encourage it). They're in the business of selling plastic ships here. Their profitability does not hinge on people buying StarVipers just to get Autothrusters.

Being anti-proxy is not about FFG. It is about you.

It's pretty much "I spent circa £70 on six TIE defenders I don't want because I felt pressured to have six physical cards, now I'm going to pressure you to do the same so I don't feel like an idiot." It's the human need to pressure others to conform to them so they feel happier about their own choices.

Being anti-proxy is not about FFG. It is about you.

It's pretty much "I spent circa £70 on six TIE defenders I don't want because I felt pressured to have six physical cards, now I'm going to pressure you to do the same so I don't feel like an idiot." It's the human need to pressure others to conform to them so they feel happier about their own choices.

Preach!