Now, if you're proxy ing a card for a couple of months, then I might have a problem.

Why? It affects the game not a whit whether I've gone out and bought four Star Vipers I don't want or if I just print out the page of the FAQ with the card image and write down "I'm using this 4 times".

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.

Does the game consist only to TIE advanceds? No. The pre-Raider TIE advanceds will lose to the Raider ones but they'll also lose to pretty much everything. Buying the Raider hasn't improved your chances of winning above the norm, it's simply put it back to the norm. Read the rest of that post.

Pay To Win is not "improving your chances by paying more money". It is paying to win. The autothrustersless interceptors are completely and utterly irrelevant here. The Autothruster Interceptors are Pay To Win if they have a significant advantage over the rest of the game such that if I run them I will win most of the time. Comparing them to pre-autothrusters interceptors is like comparing them to Scyks, of course it's going to be better if you compare it to a subpar list.

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?

That's again not what Pay To Win means. Autothruster Interceptors, TIE/x1 TIE advanceds, Crackswarms, none of these give me an advantage over those who do not buy them. The Raider x1s have an advantage over the pre-Raider x1s, but so do Jumpmasters, Brobots, Fat Falcons and even Wave 3 XXBB.

Having to pay extra to make a bad ship competitive is not Pay To Win. It's bad, but it isn't Pay To Win because you're not paying to win. Paying for a fair chance of winning, sure, but not Paying To Win.

If something is Pay To Win then I should win most of the time if I run it player skill being equal. You can't restrict the players you're paying to win against here to crappy subpar lists (just Wave 1 TIE advanceds, just Wave 1 T-65s, just original TIE defenders, Scyks) in an attempt to make Pay To Win fit, you have to compare it to the whole field. I could argue the Wave 1 T-65 is Pay To Win against players who only buy Scyks.

If something is Pay To Win I should be able to win by paying. I should be able to pay to win. Nobody has provided an example of that yet.

Pay To Win comes from games that have a standard benchmark, a standard level of player. If you're going to use Pay To Win in X-Wing you have to assign that benchmark somewhere, and the only sensible place to put it is the metagame standard: the TIE fighter balance watermark the designers aim for. The power level they're trying to put all the ships at. Put it anywhere below that and you turn everything that's not crying out for fix cards in the Pay To Win bracket.

Pay To Win isn't you have to pay in order to compete with everything else, it's if you pay you beat everything else. A Pay To Win expansion would have to exceed that balance watermark in power.

Relax a bit, people. Playing casual you can do.what you want. These are toys, nothing else.

Playing tournament goes by the Book, prize involved.

And when some people cry YOU PROXY AT HOME, YOU ARE A CHEEEEEATER remember that there are guys out there than want to blow you to win a ticket to paradise. Or.that argue that you are a killer because you eat bistecs.

Simply play

Pay To Win isn't you have to pay in order to compete with everything else, it's if you pay you beat everything else. A Pay To Win expansion would have to exceed that balance watermark in power.

But what about this?

Pay-to-win is a term from MMOs where premium items are more powerful than standard items to the point of imbalance. It means what it says: you buy the item and you gain a significant advantage over players who didn't.

Which one is it now? It pay-to-win when a player can buy an advantage over other players, or when a player literally pays and instantly wins? Judging by the articles and forum discussions that are returned through a search of the terms, it seem like the much more common usage of the term is to discuss the latter.

You have shifted the goal posts and now say that pay-to-win can only describe a situation where a player purchases an advantage over every other player. Because many high-end games, particularly computer games, include complex player interactions, that definition will only apply in a very limited number of circumstances. Imagine a game where a player can acquire an bonus/item for $5.00 that increases all of their attributes, which come into play when players compete, by 10%. But, that same bonus/item is available to be randomly acquired/awarded through the normal game progressions by any player. Is that pay-to-win?

What if the probability of a player randomly acquiring/receiving that item is .000001%? Then is that pay-to-win? If so, how do you reconcile the fact that this does not satisfy the new definition that you have provided? If not, then what would you call a situation where payment is not necessary for an advantage over other players, but makes it easier to have an advantage over other players?

The problem with the definition that you are attempting to force everyone to adopt is that it does not fit the common usage and it is so restrictive that it leaves a hole where many games that deserve a title that indicates that spending real money on subsequent purchases may be necessary to be on the same level as other players. You try to break and down and say that games where players pay for an advantage are not pay-to-win, but a win is never guaranteed. In-game advantages are how players win in many games where players compete directly.

Pay-to-win is a term from MMOs where premium items are more powerful than standard items to the point of imbalance. It means what it says: you buy the item and you gain a significant advantage over players who didn't.

As I said before, Imperial Veterans and The Raider are pay-to-win if we utilize the definition that you yourself provided. You are getting caught up on the fact that those expansions do not provide an expansion over every other player, but it is objective fact that it provides an advantage over some.

When ffg starts selling gold ammo then x-wing becomes pay to win.

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

Well my OCD had me buying far too many ships that to date have never seen play. Getting to the point of proxying my own squads was quite a change for me.

But honestly, Like I said I prefer printed squads anyway. So the cards normally stayed in the box anyway.

[...] To that end, I only use cards that I own.

Well for my part, as I have said, I own at least one of every ship released so far and in most case quite a bit more. So I own the model and cards. But just not enough of all of them. I know that isn't the same for some. But it'll do for me. In my perfect little fantasy world Fantasy Flight would sell the upgrade cards separately. They way we could buy the ships we only wanted. But that would most likely impact their sales negatively and it really isn't my decision.

Give me two. FFG named them "Crackshot", if I remember it well

Skipping five pages...

This is always a heated discussion.

If you're using a proxy of anything to test before you buy, and your opponent approves, this is really the best case use of proxies.

If you're in your own home and can use whatever rules you like then internet opinions don't make one bit of difference.

When you start allowing proxies in other situations where does it stop and why should it stop there?

1. If you have a legal copy of something you can proxy any number of other copies you may need to finish your squadron.

2. Feel free to proxy anything that's out.

3. Feel free to proxy anything that's even been mentioned.

4. Proxy something that looks official even if it's not. Also could include making a small change to some other card that is out.

Then if there are proxies what can be done? Cards? It seems some think allowing proxies of these is a god given right! Cardboard? Wait, what? It's just a little bit thicker cards so why not. Plastic pieces? Now we're to a point where it seems people would recommend physical violence against someone who just suggests it. Of course the game can be played without those plastic models sitting on pegs far easier than it can be played without the information on the cards but to suggest removing one is seems to get a pass while the other is crucified.

This is always a heated discussion.

Do you think that it has anything to do with the fact that people present rediculous arguments, like slippery slope arguments?

A road in my neighborhood just increased the speed limit from 15mph to 20mph. How can the municipality do that? Next thing we know, it will be 40mph! Then 65mph! Then, we will be livimg adjacent to the Autobahn! Where does it stop? They are going to be trying to break the land speed record there by next year!

Do you see why that is not a reasonable argument?

You have shifted the goal posts and now say that pay-to-win can only describe a situation where a player purchases an advantage over every other player. Because many high-end games, particularly computer games, include complex player interactions, that definition will only apply in a very limited number of circumstances. Imagine a game where a player can acquire an bonus/item for $5.00 that increases all of their attributes, which come into play when players compete, by 10%. But, that same bonus/item is available to be randomly acquired/awarded through the normal game progressions by any player. Is that pay-to-win?

I've said from the start that Pay To Win is what it says on the tin: where buying a premium item gives you an advantage over the players that do not. The players that do not covers everyone who doesn't buy the Raider.

As I said before, Imperial Veterans and The Raider are pay-to-win if we utilize the definition that you yourself provided. You are getting caught up on the fact that those expansions do not provide an expansion over every other player, but it is objective fact that it provides an advantage over some.

Every expansion provides an advantage over some players.

The problem with the definition that you are attempting to force everyone to adopt is that it does not fit the common usage and it is so restrictive that it leaves a hole where many games that deserve a title that indicates that spending real money on subsequent purchases may be necessary to be on the same level as other players.

I'm using it correctly and I'm trying to get other people to use it correctly. There are plenty of terms to describe the situation where you have to get three separate expansions to get the TIE interceptor up to a competitive level, Pay To Win just isn't one of them.

I'm not defending any of these practices by FFG, I'm taking issue with the incorrect use of the term Pay To Win, a term that the "common usage" for on the internet is as a perjorative to describe any distribution model the speaker doesn't like.

For something to be accurately described as Pay To Win it must parallel an actual Pay To Win scenario, such as an Free To Play where you can buy premium swords to give yourself a significant advantage over non-paying players. X-Wing doesn't have a "normal player", and to declare something Pay to Win you have to define who you're paying to win against.

We're in agreement that for Imperial Veterans to be Pay To Win buying Imperial Veterans must give you a significant advantage over players that do not. Where we differ is I'm reading this as every player that does not and you're reading this as any player that does not.

If you define an expansion as Pay To Win based on if they gain an advantage over any player that doesn't own it then every expansion becomes Pay To Win. They all provide an advantage over a player trying to play with just the Core Set. Pay To Win then applies to everything and it ceases to be a meaningful criticism.

If we go back to the Free To Play example it also breaks down if you go with Any instead of Every. Take our premium sword. Even if it's slightly worse than the best stuff you can without paying it will still give you an advantage over players with terrible gear.

For something to be Pay To Win it has to give you an advantage other players cannot reasonably attain without buying it.

An example of something that could be Pay To Win in X-Wing could be Palpatine. Let's say for the purposes of argument that he's incredibly poorly balanced and if you run a Palp Aces squad you're probably going to win. The Raider then becomes Pay To Win because if you buy Palpatine and run a good Palp Aces squad because players that don't buy Palpatine and make their own Palp Aces squads have great difficulty beating you.

But having all the parts to make a particular ship on par with everything else split across an array of different expansions isn't Pay To Win, because you can't pay to win. If you assemble all the parts of the TIE interceptor triforce you get a TIE interceptor balanced to the rest of the game, not an unbalanced power piece that'll make you win solely by merit of purchase. It's an anti-consumer distribution model, a negative customer experience, an entry barrier to new players, and f***ing annoying, but it isn't Pay to Win.

remember that there are guys out there than want to blow you to win a ticket to paradise.

I'm not quite sure that is the ideology you are referring to, because that doesn't sound too bad.

When I was starting out, I would not look favorably at someone proxing cards even in casual play. I figured, if you wanted to beat with C3PO on the Falcon, you better have the C3PO card. I would never proxy a card.

Now that I am a regular tournament player, I have no issue at all at someone proxing cards in casual play. I proxy cards in casual play because I like to try different things but I have a printout of the card, put it in a sleeve over an upgrade card of the same type. My opponent does not know that I have one proxied Sensor Jammer card and the other official on my wired IGs. I don't ell them because it does not affect their enjoyment of the game. Its an issue that will not even get raised because my opponent can see the card, touch the card and read the card. My experience is that less serious tournament players have more issue with proxies than casuals.

In tournament play (even seasonal kits) I feel you should follow the rules as written and only use proper cards.

I've said from the start that Pay To Win is what it says on the tin: where buying a premium item gives you an advantage over the players that do not. The players that do not covers everyone who doesn't buy the Raider.

You have given a few different definitions. My last post addressed to you directly quoted two that contradict each other.

Every expansion provides an advantage over some players.

I disagree. You have stated that before and I asked you to prove it by responding to my questions. You either conveniently overlooked those questions or failed to respond. You seem reluctant to respond directly to any questions.

But having all the parts to make a particular ship on par with everything else split across an array of different expansions isn't Pay To Win, because you can't pay to win. If you assemble all the parts of the TIE interceptor triforce you get a TIE interceptor balanced to the rest of the game, not an unbalanced power piece that'll make you win solely by merit of purchase. It's an anti-consumer distribution model, a negative customer experience, an entry barrier to new players, and f***ing annoying, but it isn't Pay to Win.

How would one "assemble all of the parts of the TIE Interceptor triforce?" By paying money. Are there players who do not pay money to have a more powerful TIE Interceptor? Yes, there are.

Regardless, you are really hammering down on the fact that X-Wing is balanced to what upgrades are available. That can be claimed of any game. Using the example of the sword that costs $5.00 in a web browser MMO and kills anyone in one hit, your argument would require us to arrive at the conclusion that that game is not pay-to-win because the game is balanced around that sword which anyone can buy.

Look, if you can buy an advantage, the game is pay-to-win. In X-Wing, you can buy an advantage. You weird crusade against people using "pay-to-win" to describe things that they do not like is fine, but you will have to provide an actual definition from a authoritative source if you want us to agree with you. The truth is that, as demonstrated by your inability to stick to a single definition, "pay-to-win" does not have a strict definition. I see it commonly used to refer to purchasing an in-game advantage. Go look at some articles that utilize the term if you think that I am lying.

How would one "assemble all of the parts of the TIE Interceptor triforce?" By paying money. Are there players who do not pay money to have a more powerful TIE Interceptor? Yes, there are.

Regardles, you are really hammering down on the fact that the game is balanced to what upgrades are available. That can be claimed of any game. Using the example of the sword that costs $5.00 in a web browser MMO and kills anyone in one hit, your argument would requires us to arrive at the conclusion that that game is not pay-to-win because the game is balanced around that sword which anyone can buy.

Look, if you can buy an advantage, the game is pay-to-win. In X-Wing, you can buy an advantage.

In tournament play (even seasonal kits) I feel you should follow the rules as written and only use proper cards.

But the reason can be more important than the conclusion. What is the difference between casual play and tournaments that makes whether or not you opponent has the actual card important?

In tournament play (even seasonal kits) I feel you should follow the rules as written and only use proper cards.

But the reason can be more important than the conclusion. What is the difference between casual play and tournaments that makes whether or not you opponent has the actual card important?

I guess it is that in a tournament you win prizes so the rules should be followed as written. In casual, no real consequences on whether you win or lose other than how it makes you feel.

In tournament play (even seasonal kits) I feel you should follow the rules as written and only use proper cards.

But the reason can be more important than the conclusion. What is the difference between casual play and tournaments that makes whether or not you opponent has the actual card important?

I guess it is that in a tournament you win prizes so the rules should be followed as written. In casual, no real consequences on whether you win or lose other than how it makes you feel.

Even the bad rules? To really test your conclusion, what if the game had a rule that all players must stand on one foot when declaring an attach with Dash Rendar? Should that rule be followed?

Rules change in this game. Sometimes they change because the game needs to evolve or because the game faces an unforeseen problem. Other time, they change because the provide no benefit while also limiting players (i.e. the old faction dial rule). If no one can state a compelling reason to require an original version of a card for each upgrade on a ship, then we have a restriction that does not provide a benefit.

So, why do you think that proxies create a problem in a tournament setting?

I think in a tournament you shouldn't proxy ships, however I find it ridiculous that to field 5 A-wings with their title I need to buy 3 rebel aces boxes because I only get 2 titles in each. I still acquired the cards somehow because I don't want to risk a player calling the TO to disqualify me, but I would hope that no player would ask to see all 5 of my titles and would instead be satisfied with me having one. I mean the only reason the rules say you need 5 copies is for FFG to make extra money. If the khiraxz had 5 crackshot (a trivial cost for FFG to add the cards), how many would buy multiple boxes to get multiple crackshots, when the ship is mostly subpar and overcosted?

I don't understand why players would insist you need all 5 titles but it seems someone might, just to blindly follow the rules, or perhaps because of "I spent $ to buy all boxes, you have to as well".

Leaving aside what my opponent does, for me the important part is I never want to win a game due to my opponent being confused about my stuff. Be it due to a proxy, or a counter out of place, or another mistake.I want to win due to my still, not by putting my opponent in a position where they didn't have all the information and I win due to confusion.

I do very life proxy in casual games, and its generally a single unreleased card that my opponent and I will discuss before hand. Long Range Scanners for example.

Given the choice of army building software there's zero need to be confused.

Regardless, you are really hammering down on the fact that X-Wing is balanced to what upgrades are available. That can be claimed of any game. Using the example of the sword that costs $5.00 in a web browser MMO and kills anyone in one hit, your argument would require us to arrive at the conclusion that that game is not pay-to-win because the game is balanced around that sword which anyone can buy.

Look, if you can buy an advantage, the game is pay-to-win. In X-Wing, you can buy an advantage. You weird crusade against people using "pay-to-win" to describe things that they do not like is fine, but you will have to provide an actual definition from a authoritative source if you want us to agree with you. The truth is that, as demonstrated by your inability to stick to a single definition, "pay-to-win" does not have a strict definition. I see it commonly used to refer to purchasing an in-game advantage. Go look at some articles that utilize the term if you think that I am lying.

I have never changed my definition. I've rephrased it in the belief that I was not communicating it to you effectively, but I have not changed it. If the definition you intepreted changed then that'd suggest I suceeded, no?

If you consider it only to be gaining an advantage in any situation through a purchase then every expansion except maybe the weaker Scum ones give you an advantage over the Core Set simply through being able to run more ships.

Using the example of the sword that costs $5.00 in a web browser MMO and kills anyone in one hit, your argument would requires us to arrive at the conclusion that that game is not pay-to-win because the game is balanced around that sword which anyone can buy.

No, it would not. My argument leads to the conclusion that the player that does buy the OHK sword is at an advantage over every player that does not buy the OHK sword and therefore the hypothetical browser game is Pay To Win.

Let's come at this from another angle.

Name a few expansions that aren't Pay To Win.

Pay-to-Win based on where it comes from. Presumes that there are at least two classes of players. The 'pure' player who only uses gear that can be earned from playing the game. Or the Play-to-Win player who buys gear that is unavailable to the 'pure' player because it can never be earned in game, but is only available in a cash store.

Now seeing how there isn't a single expansion in X-Wing that I can earn by simply playing the game, the expression simply doesn't work in this environment.

For it to work here, you'd have to show us a list of expansions you can earn by playing the game, as opposed to expansions you can only get by buying them. Any other definition of the phrase is simply twisting it to mean something it never did.

I disagree. You have stated that before and I asked you to prove it by responding to my questions. You either conveniently overlooked those questions or failed to respond. You seem reluctant to respond directly to any questions.

You asked me to go through every individual expansion. That is not worth my time, especially when it'd inevitably devolve into a pointless pedantic argument over whether one or two cards give an advantage or not that completely misses the point.

I asked you about three expansions (see #137). You did not even address one. Now you are being disingenuous.

I have never changed my definition. I've rephrased it in the belief that I was not communicating it to you effectively, but I have not changed it. If the definition you intepreted changed then that'd suggest I suceeded, no?

Ha. Did you forget what you said?

Pay To Win isn't you have to pay in order to compete with everything else, it's if you pay you beat everything else. A Pay To Win expansion would have to exceed that balance watermark in power.

Pay-to-win is a term from MMOs where premium items are more powerful than standard items to the point of imbalance. It means what it says: you buy the item and you gain a significant advantage over players who didn't.

Rephrasing a definition to make it mean something else is changing the definition. Now you are being ridiculous.

If you consider it only to be gaining an advantage in any situation through a purchase then every expansion except maybe the weaker Scum ones give you an advantage over the Core Set simply through being able to run more ships.

You keep making the comparison of an individual ship verses its unfixed form. Yes, buying the fix makes that ship better, but only players who insist on running that ship in its unfixed form are at a disadvantage relative to a player running a fixed ship. That is to say, the player is at a disadvantage because they're running a crap list.

I emphasized the important part. Who says that a player who purchase a core set and a pair of TIE Advanced expansions, without any intention of making subsequent purchases, is insisting on flying anything? That is just what that player has. But, it doesn't matter. You are trying to deflect the conclusion that X-Wing has pay-to-win elements by arguing that those play-to-win elements do not have a significant impact on the game. Those are actually, and obviously, two different conclusions and are not necessarily related. Again, you are being disingenuous.

Using the example of the sword that costs $5.00 in a web browser MMO and kills anyone in one hit, your argument would requires us to arrive at the conclusion that that game is not pay-to-win because the game is balanced around that sword which anyone can buy.

No, it would not. My argument leads to the conclusion that the player that does buy the OHK sword is at an advantage over every player that does not buy the OHK sword and therefore the hypothetical browser game is Pay To Win.

Let's come at this from another angle.

Name a few expansions that aren't Pay To Win.

Ah. But now the game introduces a shield that players can randomly find. There is a .000000000000000001% chance that it will be in the chest that each player can access once when playing through the game. The shield prevents all damage caused by the OHK sword. Now, your definition no longer applies. The OHK sword does not provide an advantage over every other player that does not buy the OHK sword. So, according to your definition, the game is no longer pay-to-win. Do you still think that your definition is reasonable one?

You do not get to ask questions after ignoring the question of the person that you are speaking with. How about we go in order? You will answer the questions that you were previously asked and then I will answer the questions that you are currently asking.

Or, I suppose I could humor you. The X-Wing expansion is not pay to win. It provide no advantage that is not comparable to any other option for any other ship, which include X-Wings acquired through the core set and the Rebel Transport.

Now it is your turn to actually answer questions.

If I earned a blister for playing I'd have all of them. Plus extra. But for me I have to buy some blisters to get cards so I won't get me arse handed to me every time I play.

It's feeling like it's starting to get ugly in here. Let's keep it civil please. I don't want this discussion locked. Thanks.

Welcome back. Feel free to keep dropping arguments and not responding when they are questioned, but I do not see what you get out of it.

Pay-to-Win based on where it comes from. Presumes that there are at least two classes of players. The 'pure' player who only uses gear that can be earned from playing the game. Or the Play-to-Win player who buys gear that is unavailable to the 'pure' player because it can never be earned in game, but is only available in a cash store.

Now seeing how there isn't a single expansion in X-Wing that I can earn by simply playing the game, the expression simply doesn't work in this environment.

For it to work here, you'd have to show us a list of expansions you can earn by playing the game, as opposed to expansions you can only get by buying them. Any other definition of the phrase is simply twisting it to mean something it never did.

That is stupid.

Consider a game that costs $15.00. Once players begin that game, they are assigned a set of potential chest armor and weapons choices. Two months later, an expansion is released for that game. It costs $90.00 dollars. Purchasing that expansion provides access to hats, which improve one's abilities just like chest armor and weapons. Is that game, where players have the option of paying for an advantage over other players, not pay-to-win?

So, a game being pay-to-win has nothing to do with "earning" anything in the game. Unless you disagree and think that the example above is not pay-to-win?

Ah. But now the game introduces a shield that players can randomly find. There is a .000000000000000001% chance that it will be in the chest that each player can access once when playing through the game. The shield prevents all damage caused by the OHK sword. Now, your definition no longer applies.

Since when did X-Wing have random drops?

As for whether or not that'd be Pay To Win, that's a debate in the Free To Play industry: at what point is the barrier of time and energy to acquire the same level of strength as paying players so excessive such that the game is still considered to be Pay To Win? Some would argue that it is still Pay To Win because the OHK sword is in excess of what a non-paying player can reasonably achieve, others (probably the devs) would argue that it is not Pay To Win because you can match the power of the OHK sword without paying. It's a whole discussion unto itself and completely irrelevant to a discussion about X-Wing. For it to be relevant X-Wing would have to give you content for free for playing it.

Or, I suppose I could humor you. The X-Wing expansion is not pay to win. It provide no advantage that is not comparable to any other option for any other ship, which include X-Wings acquired through the core set and the Rebel Transport.

It provides an advantage over a player that buys only the Core Set. You can make a legal list with just the Core Set. Yes, it's either two TIE aces or a lone T-65, but it's legal.

If you buy the X-wing expansion you can run two X-wings. That gives you twice as many ships relative to the Core Set only player, giving the player who paid for the X-wing a huge advantage solely through paying. Two X-wings beats one.

If that sounds ridiculous that's because it is, but it's based on exactly the same reasoning as your Imperial Vets is Pay To Win. It provides an advantage over a player running pre-Vets Defenders: that a player bought an expansion and thus gained an advantage over a player that did not.

The M-3A is the only expansion where one can't give an example of a player who A: didn't buy the expansion in question and 2: is at a disadvantage versus a player who did.

Now it is your turn to actually answer questions.

If you're referring to doing the above with every single expansion released thus far I'm not going to do that because it'd be hugely time consuming for very little gain.

If you had any other questions I missed, please reiterate them.