I also believe that the free title is a bad design decision. My reasons are as follows.

In the case of a ship under performing like the A-wing did, and then later receiving a title to bring it back to par, which is free, marginal, or negative in cost, it can be a reasonable corrective move. TIE advanced went the same way. I'm not as approving of this decision as I would have been a errata, but it serves its purpose well enough. But this sets the tone that a ships titles are to do two things at the end of the day: provide abilities to specific ships in the lore like the Falcon, and correct the base line design of any others. When we use the design block to do anything else, we lose the first two. If a unique named ARC is ever made, the title can't be applied as the slot is already in use. If the ship doesn't perform well, again we can't repair it with a title with our relegating the old one to the trash. Future design around this ship is now hampered. Which is just a bone head move.

You are going to have to adjust, because this type of thing is going to be necessary the longer the game goes on. We are pretty much at the limitation of how much pure stats and dials can differentiate a ship.

Granted. But also, I'm not saying you shouldn't add additional stuff to differentiate the ship, just that you charge for it.

It-...I-....THE CHARGE IS ALREADY THERE IN THE COST OF THE SHIP.

He knows that. He's saying that because it's printed on an upgrade card they have to charge for it (reducing the unupgraded ship's cost proportionally) for the simple reason that it's using the upgrade card system. He's saying that they can't use an autoinclude title to adjust the basic behaviours of a ship because -

And that's where I get stuck.

Because they can and it works.

I also believe that the free title is a bad design decision. My reasons are as follows.

In the case of a ship under performing like the A-wing did, and then later receiving a title to bring it back to par, which is free, marginal, or negative in cost, it can be a reasonable corrective move. TIE advanced went the same way. I'm not as approving of this decision as I would have been a errata, but it serves its purpose well enough. But this sets the tone that a ships titles are to do two things at the end of the day: provide abilities to specific ships in the lore like the Falcon, and correct the base line design of any others. When we use the design block to do anything else, we lose the first two. If a unique named ARC is ever made, the title can't be applied as the slot is already in use. If the ship doesn't perform well, again we can't repair it with a title with our relegating the old one to the trash. Future design around this ship is now hampered. Which is just a bone head move.

Nah, on the contrary.

First of all, as we saw already, it's not only and not always title. Hello charidan refit!

Second thing to consider is that title isn't only for underperformers, it's for variable behavior.

Two titles for TY-1300 change it's behavior 180' (no pun intended)

Titles for Firespray would have done the same had they not been both useless bantacrap.

Title on Scyk makes it an overpriced cannon carrier instead of overpriced cannon fodder.

Title on JM5k turns Torp carrier into PWT.

and so forth.

If they wish to, they might include different titles. ARC Ordnance flavour, with missile and torp slots (instead of current extra die) ARC HLK flavour, with discounted cannon (instead of current extra die)

ANYTHIIING!

just because it's your opinion doesn't mean it's right.

No. But the fact that it's my opinion means it's right. Because I know better than everyone.

Hahahahahahahaaa

Anyone who take the bait after this post deserves the trolling they get.

I also believe that the free title is a bad design decision. My reasons are as follows.

In the case of a ship under performing like the A-wing did, and then later receiving a title to bring it back to par, which is free, marginal, or negative in cost, it can be a reasonable corrective move. TIE advanced went the same way. I'm not as approving of this decision as I would have been a errata, but it serves its purpose well enough. But this sets the tone that a ships titles are to do two things at the end of the day: provide abilities to specific ships in the lore like the Falcon, and correct the base line design of any others. When we use the design block to do anything else, we lose the first two. If a unique named ARC is ever made, the title can't be applied as the slot is already in use. If the ship doesn't perform well, again we can't repair it with a title with our relegating the old one to the trash. Future design around this ship is now hampered. Which is just a bone head move.

Why would they ever make a unique named ARC? There aren't any.

As for patching the ship, there are other ways to do that, the title is just the most convenient. The main patch to the A-wing used the missile slot. (Test Pilot expanded its options but wasn't a rebalance).

Furthermore, if they really wanted to make another ARC title they could simply incorporate the bonus forward attack die (which is the important part) into the new title.

I also believe that the free title is a bad design decision. My reasons are as follows.

In the case of a ship under performing like the A-wing did, and then later receiving a title to bring it back to par, which is free, marginal, or negative in cost, it can be a reasonable corrective move. TIE advanced went the same way. I'm not as approving of this decision as I would have been a errata, but it serves its purpose well enough. But this sets the tone that a ships titles are to do two things at the end of the day: provide abilities to specific ships in the lore like the Falcon, and correct the base line design of any others. When we use the design block to do anything else, we lose the first two. If a unique named ARC is ever made, the title can't be applied as the slot is already in use. If the ship doesn't perform well, again we can't repair it with a title with our relegating the old one to the trash. Future design around this ship is now hampered. Which is just a bone head move.

Why would they ever make a unique named ARC? There aren't any.

sure there are!

there's "Vermilion Ace" and "Vermilion Leader", "Crimson Ace" and "Crimson Leader!"

The ship itself, not the pilots.

with names that generic, I'm sure you could make them ships or pilots. might have to replace "ace/leader" with "one" though

case in point, "black one"

But why would you want to? His argument was that using a title to create the basic state of the ship closes the door on unique and fix titles for it. If they screw it up they can fix it in other ways and they don't need to make a unique ARC title.

I mean, how likely are we going to see any of those anyway?

it's not a wave 1 ship (well...it is, and the fix comes with the ship instead of in another pack), it doesn't have a member distinctive enough to warrant a distinctive title (ala Slave 1) and it's got plenty of other avenue for fixes (hell, the mod slot would suffice. not like it'll take thrusters, probably not even the vector variety)

now what they could've done is made "Alliance Overhaul" a mod, and that would have been far more limiting

plus, not like there isn't still room for titles that change its playstyle. You could throw alliance overhaul away to get a title that gives you a 4 dice primary but disallows aux arc shots for example. Or you could get some ordnance boat refit that lets you fart torps out the butt like a ghost and gives extra munition's effect for free.

just because it's your opinion doesn't mean it's right.

No. But the fact that it's my opinion means it's right. Because I know better than everyone.