Flying with just the bases I can't say I like much, but at least it's not FLYING A LAMBDA WITH THE WINGS UP.

Because that should be an instant DQ.

I'd ask if you were being intentionally obtuse... But I already know the answer, you are.

So, you disagree? You do not think that someone playing the TIE Advanced or Defender with a title has an, as you put it, "truly unfair advantage" over a player who does not have the titles?

Those are fixes to ships that were severely underpowered. Obviously the post-fix version is superior to the original; but that doesn't make it superior to anything else in the meta.

So if you're going to call those titles anything, it should be pay-to-fix.

If the TIE Advanced expansion and Raider expansion were released simultaneously, then yes - maybe I would call that pay-to-win. But clearly FFG is retroactively trying to pull a ship out from the gutter. That is simply not pay-to-win no matter how you slice it.

And can we all please try to be a bit less rude to each other. It's unnecessary and only Tuesday.

It is superior to the old version of itself which, for some players, is the only version that they will have access to.

Pay-to-fix, pay-to-upgrade, pay-to-win - they all mean the same thing. In X-Wing, it is possible to literally buy an advantage with respect to certain products.

With regard my interaction with the previous poster, why don't we let him answer the question before you step in? Maybe I have a brick wall between my ears and he just needs to set me straight on how a free upgrade for one player isn't an unfair advantage to another. Or, maybe he isn't thinking and deserves to have people be rude to him. Lets find out.

Other Defenders. As the game grows, players who have previously purchased products are being required to make subsequent purchases in order to be competitive against products that they already (with the exception of the fixes) own. I have repeated stated that the game as a whole is not pay-to-win and that only certain aspects fit that term. Buying an a second product significantly improves the TIE Advanced and TIE Defender expansions with no in-game cost. In exchange for money, a players ships objectively get better.

Having to buy the balance patch for a ship you already bought isn't great, but it doesn't fit the definition of Pay To Win. Yes, a player who buys Imperial Veterans will probably beat a player who only runs original blister defenders but to treat X-Wing as a game of TIE defenders only is a completely unrealistic scenario. X-Wing is not a TIE defender only game.

Buying Imperial Veterans does not put you at an advantage against players that do not buy Imperial Veterans because those players can run any non-TIE defender list in the game. To claim Imperial Veterans is Pay To Win against a player that only buys original TIE defenders is like claiming almost every ship in the game is Pay To Win against Scyks.

Your greivance is legitimate but Pay To Win is not the term to describe it. Someone said Pay To Fix a few posts up which'd be a meaningful descriptor, but Pay To Win is not.

Unrealistic or otherwise, which really depends on the people that you play with, the potential for that in X-Wing either exists or it does not. I say that it does. You seem to be saying, "It does, but...." My point is only that it is there. I don't care about the 'but.'

Call it whatever you want. Unless you disagree that one player can have an objective advantage, with no in-game cost, over another based on a purchase, then it is what it is regardless of the label that you attach to it.

Proxying cards for playtest or casual is fine for me.

Vassal is not the same thing as playing on an actual board with the actual ships. (we also had threads about the mm differences between Vassal and the actual game).

Then, for a recent example. If I would like to test Gonk, Dengar or Fett crew right now, I could only do it with proxies, as the JM5000 is sold out everywhere.

That is also a problem for people which not have some 4 shops within an 30minutes drive.

It might be impossible to get certain ships without going to online retailers, thus hurting your FLGS/LGS.

Edit: clarification "cards", which was not immediately clear the way I wrote. Ships and dials is a must (immersion and practical issue).

[...] If you can't afford it or don't want to pay for it, then you can't play with it.[...]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I assume you mean that if someone uses a proxy card when they play, you won't play with them.

I'm good with that and that is your call. But many people do proxy cards while playing and have very enjoyable times.

I also understand you don't play with what you don't have. Again that is your call. I don't play with ships I don't own. But I was some pictures of Wings of Glory WWI being played at PraugeCon. There were using Disney planes from the movie Airplanes. Official proxies there and they still enjoyed themselves.

It is theft. You do not honor the game. I'm okay with proxy is saying... I enjoy watching this game die...Spin it however you like but that's the bottom line...

I think you comment is both harsh and not very accurate. I own, in my humble opinion, a lot of ships and I don't think proxying a few cards is me saying 'I enjoy watching this game die'. Seriously don't you think you're being a little over dramatic or emotional?

While most people both have and share their opinions I doubt some universal undeniable and indisputable truth is being set forth in these shared opinions on this subject. Your's too I'm afraid. They are simple opinions (or emotional feelings) and in this context have the same amount of weight or truth as everyone else's.

Sorry but your phrasing alone will cause many to simply dismiss your comment without even considering it's sentiment.

I don't think I'm being overly dramatic, I'm just stating my first impressions. I think my thoughts on this matter are constantly changing as we continue to discuss the topic. I'm not trying to pass judgement on anyone, I'm just saying that the way I read the rules, cards are necessary to play the game, so without cards you're not really playing the game as it was published. I see the act of using proxies as theft, so I don't use them. As you'll read throughout this thread, I've never told anybody I won't play with them if they proxy. In fact, I usually don't bring it up at all. My view is that ideally we would all own the cards we are using. To that end, I only use cards that I own.

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 can just about understand that argument for cards I don't have any copy of - I'm not sure I agree with it, but I undersatand how you arrive at it. However, it doesn't hold up when it comes to multiple copies of a card I only have one of. I can write out a squadron list on the back of a napkin, using six copies of an upgrade card I only own one physical copy of, and there's no possible IP infringement there.

Actually, it's even better than that. I don't own a copy of the Autothrusters card, but I don't need to. The text of the card is right there in the FAQ on page 2!

During our casual play afternoons?

Proxied upgrades? No problem.

Proxied ships? No. But we'll happily enough lend ships around as needed, so it's not too much of an issue.

Tournaments run official requirements, but I'm trying to get together a swap-meet before the day so people can borrow stuff that others aren't using.

I like my opponent to at least print an image of the cards and have them in front of them, rather than a squad sheet print out, but it really doesn't bother me that much in a casual setting. TBH it wouldn't bother me in a tournament either!

It's a matter of honor.. I chose to have honor.

It's a matter of honor.. I chose to have honor.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

I don't have a problem with proxy cards. Before you plunk down $75-100 on a Raider for palpatine and the TIE Advanced fixes, you may want to try them out first to see if they fit your play style. Now, if you're proxy ing a card for a couple of months, then I might have a problem. I'm pretty sure tournaments don't allow proxy cards, but I guess it's ultimately up to the TO.

It's a matter of honor.. I chose to have honor.

I FULLY agree with Rapture in both his arguments of the game and his various assessments of that other forum user.

Hypothetical situation:

I am a poor student, I am new to x-wing, I like miniatures game and I REALLY like Star Wars: A New Hope. As such I presume that making a simple list of x-wings is at least viable both casually and competitively. I mean why wouldn't it be, it's the name of the game.

As such I buy the core set and 3 other t-65s (maybe later planning to get the transport) and now have a tornement legal list. This is a example of Pay to Play I have payed the amount of money I need to to field the ships that I want to as a trench run x-wing fanboy. Pay to Play is fine, it's how the world works.

This is great... until I start playing. I soon discover that x-wings are horrendously underpowered compared to most competetive lists, this infuriates me and as any good wargamer would I ask around about if and when FFG is going to release the expected re-balance x-wing point pricing list.

I then get told that oh no, it's okay they've already been fixed. You just need to buy 4 copies of the T-70 (which as a originally trilogy fan boy I care not about) and also the new x-wing core set (which I also don't want) because the damage deck won't hate on the pilot ability heavy x-wings as much. I now have to pay more than TWICE! as much much money as I originally did just so that what I presumed to be the basic viable list in a game called X-Wing is actually viable. This is a text book example of Pay to Win.

In doing so I now have five of the new T-70 x-wings (none of which I want) to the 4 classic X-Wings I have. I can't even field five of them in a list, I can barely field four of them. So two of them are in fact dead plastic weight to me.

I then get told by some forum dweller that "Really you should have just gone for this strange imperial list... it's the cheapest way to get a viable list in this game called X-Wing.

This is all hypothetical, I have a $500 + collection of x-wing, and many valid imperial lists... but also four dead weight x-wings until I shell out for five new x-wings three of which will also be dead weight.

X-Wing (especially with x-wings) is both Pay to Play and Pay to Win.

Pay-to-fix, pay-to-upgrade, pay-to-win - they all mean the same thing. In X-Wing, it is possible to literally buy an advantage with respect to certain products.

No, no they don't mean the same thing at all. That's the entire point I'm making. Pay-To-Win is very specific and by nature very difficult to apply to X-Wing. The only scenario in which you can meaningfully say pay-to-win scenario in X-Wing is to have an expansion that is overpowered relative to the metagame. Saying somebody else's squad is pay to win because yours sucks does not make it true.

You clearly know what Pay To Win means as you've defined it correctly multiple times, but then you contort to beyond all recognition to try and make it fit Imperial Veterans. I don't get why.

I then get told that oh no, it's okay they've already been fixed. You just need to buy 4 copies of the T-70 (which as a originally trilogy fan boy I care not about) and also the new x-wing core set (which I also don't want) because the damage deck won't hate on the pilot ability heavy x-wings as much. I now have to pay more than TWICE! as much much money as I originally did just so that what I presumed to be the basic viable list in a game called X-Wing is actually viable. This is a text book example of Pay to Win.

It's a textbook example of Pay To Win as defined by the internet as "stuff I don't like." It is not a textbook example of what Pay To Win actually is.

You demonstrate fairly clearly that you don't know what Pay To Win means with this statement.

X-Wing (especially with x-wings) is both Pay to Play and Pay to Win.

You've just said to to win X-Wing you need to pay for it, that is to say, you've said pretty much nothing but the blindingly obvious.

To be Pay To Win, an element must grant a significant advantage to a player that purchases it (to the point where they are likely to win all else being equal) relative to a player that does not. You pay in order to win.

To describe the whole game as Pay To Win is daft: of course you won't be beaten by someone who hasn't bought the game as they can't even play it in the first place.

Let's go back to your example and look for specific components. The T-70? If the T-70 is Pay To Win, surely if I buy it I should gain a significant advantage over players that do not, yes?

Last time I looked at the metagame Integrated Astromech was hardly making waves. But if it's a Pay To Win card, why aren't the players taking it winning? It's not Pay To Win, it's Pay To Have The Same Chances As Everyone Else.

TIE/x1, the new TIE defender upgrades, Integrated Astromech, these are not buying an advantage over the rest of the playerbase. Yes, if you buy the Raider you have an advantage over players running pre-Raider TIE advanceds, but you didn't buy that advantage in the Raider. You already had it, as does every player running a competitive squadron.

Buying Integrated Astromech for the T-65 isn't Pay To Win because you're not paying to win: if you were we'd have a lot of T-65 Spam complaint threads. Buying Integrated Astromech mitigates the T-65's disadvantage, yes, but you could also mitigate that disadvantage by running just about any correctly balanced ship instead.

Pay To Put One Particular Ship On The Same Level As The Other Ships isn't Pay To Win. Maybe Pay To Not Lose or Pay To Have A Fair Shot With This Ship, but not Pay To Win.

For, say, the TIE/x1 upgrades in the Raider to be Pay-To-Win they'd have to be unbalanced. They aren't. Buying the Raider gives you the option of a competitively viable TIE advanced, but it does not mean you'll crush all the players who didn't buy premium items with ease.

I think you've just made an argument against your own position here. The Raider makes the TIE advanced significantly better, arguably from "uncompetitive" to "competitive". They put these upgrades that make the TIE advanced better at no in-game cost in an epic ship, no doubt to drive sales of the raider. It worked, I for one bought the Raider just for the advanced cards and palp. I've used the actual raider only once.

If you buy the raider you can have the "+12 version" of the advanced instead of the "+6" that comes with the TIE advanced. Isn't this EXACTLY your description of pay to win?

X-Wing (especially with x-wings) is both Pay to Play and Pay to Win.

Mmm. I agree with this.

I think you've just made an argument against your own position here. The Raider makes the TIE advanced significantly better, arguably from "uncompetitive" to "competitive". They put these upgrades that make the TIE advanced better at no in-game cost in an epic ship, no doubt to drive sales of the raider. It worked, I for one bought the Raider just for the advanced cards and palp. I've used the actual raider only once.

If you buy the raider you can have the "+12 version" of the advanced instead of the "+6" that comes with the TIE advanced. Isn't this EXACTLY your description of pay to win?

No, no it is not.

Bundling a ship you want with a ship you don't is anti-consumer. It's bad, but Pay To Win doesn't mean "stuff I don't want to buy." Pay To Win is where buying an expansion grants you an advantage over players that do not buy an expansion.

If you buy the Raider, you're not going to beat all the players that didn't buy the Raider. Yes, their TIE advanceds will suck if they don't buy it, but they'll simply not run TIE advanceds.

You need to buy the Raider to run a viable TIE advanced, but you don't need the Raider yourself to win a game of X-Wing against a player running Raider x1s.

If you take old TIE advanceds against new TIE/x1s then yes, you'll probably lose, but that's because you ran a bad list of bad ships, not because the opponent bought the Raider. If they hadn't bought the Raider they'd probably be running another decent list which would similarly beat the old TIE advanceds, and you don't have to buy the Raider to run a list that can beat the new TIE/x1s.

The Raider would only be Pay To Win if the TIE advanced was the only ship in the game. It's anti-consumer bundling but it is not buying an advantage over the rest of the playerbase.

To use your analogy, yes, you need the Raider for the +12 TIE/x1. But you don't for the +12 TIE fighter or +12 Falcon. If you're running the +6 TIE advanced you'll lose just as surely to the +12 TIE fighter as you would do the +12 TIE/x1. The player with the Raider isn't winning because they bought the Raider, they're winning because you brought a crap squad.

If the Raider were Pay To Win it'd give you a +18 TIE advanced.

Mmm. I agree with this.

Everyone agrees with that. All he's said is that you have to pay for X-Wing to win X-Wing. You can't lose to someone who doesn't have any ships.

I understand everyone's point. But for me it really does "tickle my OCD". Thank you all for your replies.

Thanks for being cool. It's nice when people can make their point, have a civil discussion, and agree to disagree. It is after all a matter of opinion.

Well said Sir!

I've spent a lot of money on X-Wing. I never play with things I don't have. I love playing. When someone plays a list for a few weeks and not get the cards. Drives me nuts. Am I the only one who feels this way? I hope not. Buy the dang ships peeps. I do.

You are … not the only one, but clearly in the minority, I could not give 5 cents about the cards, I want to play the game. I like to have the models, but I will even proxy those if needed and I don't overspend my budget just to buy a card or model.

edit: Basically my financially OCD to not go over budget is bigger than my OCD to have all those cards. Especially when those cards involve epic ships.

I think you've just made an argument against your own position here. The Raider makes the TIE advanced significantly better, arguably from "uncompetitive" to "competitive". They put these upgrades that make the TIE advanced better at no in-game cost in an epic ship, no doubt to drive sales of the raider. It worked, I for one bought the Raider just for the advanced cards and palp. I've used the actual raider only once.

If you buy the raider you can have the "+12 version" of the advanced instead of the "+6" that comes with the TIE advanced. Isn't this EXACTLY your description of pay to win?

No, no it is not.

Bundling a ship you want with a ship you don't is anti-consumer. It's bad, but Pay To Win doesn't mean "stuff I don't want to buy." Pay To Win is where buying an expansion grants you an advantage over players that do not buy an expansion.

If you buy the Raider, you're not going to beat all the players that didn't buy the Raider. Yes, their TIE advanceds will suck if they don't buy it, but they'll simply not run TIE advanceds.

You need to buy the Raider to run a viable TIE advanced, but you don't need the Raider yourself to win a game of X-Wing against a player running Raider x1s.

If you take old TIE advanceds against new TIE/x1s then yes, you'll probably lose, but that's because you ran a bad list of bad ships, not because the opponent bought the Raider. If they hadn't bought the Raider they'd probably be running another decent list which would similarly beat the old TIE advanceds, and you don't have to buy the Raider to run a list that can beat the new TIE/x1s.

The Raider would only be Pay To Win if the TIE advanced was the only ship in the game. It's anti-consumer bundling but it is not buying an advantage over the rest of the playerbase.

Mmm. I agree with this.

Everyone agrees with that. All he's said is that you have to pay for X-Wing to win X-Wing. You can't lose to someone who doesn't have any ships.

Tell me... In the same hypothetical situation as I outlined before except I love the empire and have thus to enter the game I have brought an tie and two tie advanced on top of the core set. Should I then receive these other ships you speak of for free since I "simply not run TIE advanceds"? No? Then that seems that I would need to pay extra on top of what i have played to enter the game to be able to win. As if I am somehow paying... to win.

Now you're counter argument to this is of course: "You can't just buy three random ships as well as the core set and throw them together to expect a viable list."... but these aren't three random ships. It's blatantly obvious from the design of the upgrades in the Tie advanced that they are supposed to complement Tie fighter and three or four x-wings should obviously be a viable list as that's how the rebels win in fiction half the time, not to mention many of the x-wing abilities and astromechs complement each other.

These aren't random lists, they are two lists that many outsiders presume to be viable because they just make sense. And so I have met many a new player to this who almost immediately become disenfranchised from this game because as soon as they try to play in a competitive game they either have to spend twice as much or be ripped to shreds by another new player who does. That there is the textbook definition of pay to win, two players at the same level of skill where winning is decided by who spent more (well and luck cause you know... dice).

And this will keep happening until these new players where allowed to proxy in these simple fix cards that really should have been given out for free in the first place.

Sure "Just play casual". Have you ever played any other miniatures game? In most a new player can join a tourney and expect to have some fun and maybe win a game with what he's got provided it's enough to sensibly fill out a list. And why would they not, it's some extra games of your fav game with the chance of prizes. X-wing is the only game that says "HA no. You can't play competitively until you buy the arbitrarily placed fix cards with these other models."

I think you've just made an argument against your own position here. The Raider makes the TIE advanced significantly better, arguably from "uncompetitive" to "competitive". They put these upgrades that make the TIE advanced better at no in-game cost in an epic ship, no doubt to drive sales of the raider. It worked, I for one bought the Raider just for the advanced cards and palp. I've used the actual raider only once.

If you buy the raider you can have the "+12 version" of the advanced instead of the "+6" that comes with the TIE advanced. Isn't this EXACTLY your description of pay to win?

No, no it is not.

Bundling a ship you want with a ship you don't is anti-consumer. It's bad, but Pay To Win doesn't mean "stuff I don't want to buy." Pay To Win is where buying an expansion grants you an advantage over players that do not buy an expansion.

If you buy the Raider, you're not going to beat all the players that didn't buy the Raider. Yes, their TIE advanceds will suck if they don't buy it, but they'll simply not run TIE advanceds.

You need to buy the Raider to run a viable TIE advanced, but you don't need the Raider yourself to win a game of X-Wing against a player running Raider x1s.

If you take old TIE advanceds against new TIE/x1s then yes, you'll probably lose, but that's because you ran a bad list of bad ships, not because the opponent bought the Raider. If they hadn't bought the Raider they'd probably be running another decent list which would similarly beat the old TIE advanceds, and you don't have to buy the Raider to run a list that can beat the new TIE/x1s.

The Raider would only be Pay To Win if the TIE advanced was the only ship in the game. It's anti-consumer bundling but it is not buying an advantage over the rest of the playerbase.

Mmm. I agree with this.

Everyone agrees with that. All he's said is that you have to pay for X-Wing to win X-Wing. You can't lose to someone who doesn't have any ships.

Tell me... In the same hypothetical situation as I outlined before except I love the empire and have thus to enter the game I have brought an tie and two tie advanced on top of the core set. Should I then receive these other ships you speak of for free since I "simply not run TIE advanceds"? No? Then that seems that I would need to pay extra on top of what i have played to enter the game to be able to win. As if I am somehow paying... to win.

Now you're counter argument to this is of course: "You can't just buy three random ships as well as the core set and throw them together to expect a viable list."... but these aren't three random ships. It's blatantly obvious from the design of the upgrades in the Tie advanced that they are supposed to complement Tie fighter and three or four x-wings should obviously be a viable list as that's how the rebels win in fiction half the time, not to mention many of the x-wing abilities and astromechs complement each other.

These aren't random lists, they are two lists that many outsiders presume to be viable because they just make sense. And so I have met many a new player to this who almost immediately become disenfranchised from this game because as soon as they try to play in a competitive game they either have to spend twice as much or be ripped to shreds by another new player who does. That there is the textbook definition of pay to win, two players at the same level of skill where winning is decided by who spent more (well and luck cause you know... dice).

And this will keep happening until these new players where allowed to proxy in these simple fix cards that really should have been given out for free in the first place.

Sure "Just play casual". Have you ever played any other miniatures game? In most a new player can join a tourney and expect to have some fun and maybe win a game with what he's got provided it's enough to sensibly fill out a list. And why would they not, it's some extra games of your fav game with the chance of prizes. X-wing is the only game that says "HA no. You can't play competitively until you buy the arbitrarily placed fix cards with these other models."

To be fair, for that very reason loaning cards and ships is quite common within the scene, even to your own competition. Which makes the whole "must own" thing silly as well, as very often people do not own, but just have access too. I happens that I have access to a laser printer which makes proxy cards easy and convenient. Others might have 3D Printers as well or tabletop simulator ;-)

Tell me... In the same hypothetical situation as I outlined before except I love the empire and have thus to enter the game I have brought an tie and two tie advanced on top of the core set. Should I then receive these other ships you speak of for free since I "simply not run TIE advanceds"? No? Then that seems that I would need to pay extra on top of what i have played to enter the game to be able to win. As if I am somehow paying... to win.

Again you demonstrate your lack of understanding of what Pay To Win is. You're describing an arguably anti-consumer distribution model and the lamentable balance state of the Wave 1 blisters but not describing Pay To Win. That a highly thematic quad T-65 list isn't viable is sad, but it doesn't make the T-70 Pay To Win.

Pay To Win is not you have to pay for expansions to win the game. Calling the game itself Pay To Win is stating the obvious. You have to play it to win it and to play it you have to pay for it. Pay To Win is when a specific paid expansion gives you an advantage over the best attainable by players that do not buy it. Can you name an expansion which meets that definition?

Tell me... In the same hypothetical situation as I outlined before except I love the empire and have thus to enter the game I have brought an tie and two tie advanced on top of the core set. Should I then receive these other ships you speak of for free since I "simply not run TIE advanceds"? No? Then that seems that I would need to pay extra on top of what i have played to enter the game to be able to win. As if I am somehow paying... to win.

Again you demonstrate your lack of understanding of what Pay To Win is. You're describing an arguably anti-consumer distribution model and the lamentable balance state of the Wave 1 blisters but not describing Pay To Win. That a highly thematic quad T-65 list isn't viable is sad, but it doesn't make the T-70 Pay To Win.

Pay To Win is not you have to pay for expansions to win the game. Calling the game itself Pay To Win is stating the obvious. You have to play it to win it and to play it you have to pay for it. Pay To Win is when a specific paid expansion giving you an advantage over the players that do not buy it. Can you name an expansion which meets that definition?

Well of course balance is the root of the problem, I agree 100%. It's just instead of taking the standard (for many, many good reasons) route of rebalancing the point values of miniatures and upgrades and releasing that in either a single reasonably priced book or a free online resource like every other miniatures game ever they instead choose to include the required fixes to those under powered items in ships that many players did not one explicitly the bolster sales. And as you should know if you aren't talking out your butt, adding something to a game that players are required to buy to stay competitive is by definition pay to win.

As for your last question: Yes. K-wing if I'm playing turrets, Star Viper if i'm playing interceptors, Raider if i'm playing mixed imperial ties, Tie Adv Prototype if I'm playing missiles, T-70 if I'm playing almost any list involving a x-wing, punisher/k-wing if I'm playing any bomber.

For every list in the game involving models more than two years old there is some excess ships you need to by for that list to be viable. Except the tie swarm of course.

As for your last question: Yes. K-wing if I'm playing turrets, Star Viper if i'm playing interceptors, Raider if i'm playing mixed imperial ties, Tie Adv Prototype if I'm playing missiles, T-70 if I'm playing almost any list involving a x-wing, punisher/k-wing if I'm playing any bomber.

So if I buy a K-wing for the TLTs I'll win more often than not against lists without K-wings or TLT? Or if I stick Autothrusters on an Interceptor I'll crunch an equally skilled TIE swarm with ease? Or if I stick Integrated Astromech on my X-wings I'll merrily chew through those Jumpmasters no problem?

Pay To Win is when buying a specific expansion gives you a significant advantage over the best that can be achieved without it, that is to say, you pay for it and you win. You're describing paying to put poorly balanced non-TIE fighter older ships on a fair playing field with the better balanced newer ships which is not the same.

Yes, to stand a chance of winning with an X-wing, a TIE/x1 or a Y-wing you'll probably have to buy those extra expansions, but you won't necessarily win if you do. You're describing paying to eliminate a disadvantage relative to the balance watermark (which in X-Wing is the Wave 1 TIE fighter), not paying to gain an advantage over it.

You're paying for a balance patch, you're not paying for an elevated chance of victory over all your other options. Is that a bad thing? Yes. Is that Pay To Win? No. The upgrade card system has turned into an atrocious mess that provides a very nasty entry barrier to new players, but Pay to Win is the incorrect term to describe it.

I think you've just made an argument against your own position here. The Raider makes the TIE advanced significantly better, arguably from "uncompetitive" to "competitive". They put these upgrades that make the TIE advanced better at no in-game cost in an epic ship, no doubt to drive sales of the raider. It worked, I for one bought the Raider just for the advanced cards and palp. I've used the actual raider only once.

If you buy the raider you can have the "+12 version" of the advanced instead of the "+6" that comes with the TIE advanced. Isn't this EXACTLY your description of pay to win?

No, no it is not.

Bundling a ship you want with a ship you don't is anti-consumer. It's bad, but Pay To Win doesn't mean "stuff I don't want to buy." Pay To Win is where buying an expansion grants you an advantage over players that do not buy an expansion.

Which is exactly the case with the Raider and the Starviper. Your TIE Adv with X1 title will always outperform one with out that title. Your Interceptors with Autothrusters will always outperform the ones without them.

You can call it whatever you want, but in some cases you can improve your chances of winning by paying more money.

Some expansions are better value for money than others, when examined from a 'how much more likely to win am I if I pay for this expansion' point of view, and not all of them will improve your odds at all, but a lot of them do.

As long as it is casual no problem. Never in a tourney.

So if I buy a K-wing for the TLTs I'll win more often than not against lists without K-wings or TLT? Or if I stick Autothrusters on an Interceptor I'll crunch an equally skilled TIE swarm with ease? Or if I stick Integrated Astromech on my X-wings I'll merrily chew through those Jumpmasters no problem?

Consider this from an Imperial perspective:

Interceptors and TIE Adv Prototype require Autothrusters (so Starviper purchase) to be competitive

TIE Advanced requires Raider

TIE Fighters require Crack Shot (except Wampa), which is not found in any current Imperial ship.

By 'requires' I mean there is almost no competitive build for the ship not using that card.

Do you honestly believe that an Imperial player who does not own a Raider, Autothrusters and Crack Shot is not at a disadvantage versus one who does?