The important detail is that the Alliance Overhaul and the Special Operations Training equipped ARCs and /sfs are the base ships. Making their inclusion a no-brainer is far more elegant than writing a load of new rules for one ship twice or forcing them to be equipped.

That only solves the different strength issue, it doesn't give them the crit rule, and it doesn't allow the Tie S/F to fire from both arcs in one turn at strength 2 or just one at 3.

Sometimes I swear people complain about things like this just for the sake of complaining, because so far I've yet to see anyone come up with an idea that is even remotely better, and in fact most of them are worse because they seem to ignore half of what the title does.

Then it's not additional rules text, it's an upgrade option. The ARC has a tailgun that's less powerful than the frontal guns and the TIE/sf has an underslung turret that can fire link with the forward guns. That's not an upgrade, it's the basic state of the ship.

How would you achieve that?

What you're describing is lore. It's not how this game works mechanically.

A Y-Wing's basic state is to have an Ion Cannon turret. Does the game include the cost of an Ion Cannon turret in the Y-Wings cost, then give you a 0-point Ion Cannon turret card? No. It charges you separately for both of those things, then lets you, the player, decide whether that's how you want to spend your points.

And that's the problem in a nutshell. The player isn't being given the choice of whether they want to pay for that special rule or not. And you know what? I'd be down with that decision, even approved of it, if that's how the game had been designed from the start. But that's not how they designed the game from the start. So I see no reason why they should start doing it that way now.

Then you'd potentially have unbalanced ships. This is better how?

Lots of people have very oddly rigid views of how things "should" be.

I myself am autistic and should in theory be worse in that regard, but as a software developer with a lot of design experience there are lots of "concepts" that I think about differently and that I think apply to this game.

I saw a thread on BGG recently about what to do if you have to shuffle a deck of 0 cards and if this was possible. 50/50 split of people being cool guys that "knew" how it was definitely possibly to shuffle a deck of 0 (or 1) cards, because shuffling was an operation you perform in the rules and therefore even with 0 cards you can do a shuffle to then move on to the next step of whatever you are doing, and the people that don't think you can possible shuffle 1 or less cards because they can't change the order of something that only has 1 possible order.

Anyway my point is that it's unlikely either camp will see the others view on if it should be a title or a pile of dirty rules, the camp of (FFG are lazy and stupid for not giving them a points cost) those are the guys I got beef with, becasue you don't know!

Let's look at the fang and it's 1 point title. Are you annoyed about this too becasue the fang is too expensive without that title? That ability is surely not worth only 1 point?

I personally see this title as proof that FFG did look at costing upgrades to allow the option or not, but found that there really was no point in doing that with the Arc and Tie /SF

I wouldn't. Because there's no reason to.

What you're describing is lore. It's not how this game works mechanically.

A Y-Wing's basic state is to have an Ion Cannon turret. Does the game include the cost of an Ion Cannon turret in the Y-Wings cost, then give you a 0-point Ion Cannon turret card? No. It charges you separately for both of those things, then lets you, the player, decide whether that's how you want to spend your points.

I'm describing the design FFG were aiming for. They're not making a basic 2/1/6/3 aux arc ship or a 2/2/3/3 aux arc ship. They're making a ship with different attacks from each arc and a ship with multiple attacks from each arc.

The Ion Cannon turret can be applied to other ships. Alliance Overhaul cannot.

Besides, when was the last time you saw a naked Y-wing?

And that's the problem in a nutshell. The player isn't being given the choice of whether they want to pay for that special rule or not. And you know what? I'd be down with that decision, even approved of it, if that's how the game had been designed from the start. But that's not how they designed the game from the start. So I see no reason why they should start doing it that way now.

The player also isn't given the choice of not paying for the TIE phantom's fourth red die. Why can't I run it for less with only three dice? Is that not taking choice away from me?

This is what you're arguing with the ARC: you want to be able to downgrade it to reduce its cost.

I wouldn't. Because there's no reason to.

You don't even know what we're talking about do you? Do you even know what the title does? Because based on everything you're saying you sure don't seem to.

You don't even know what we're talking about do you? Do you even know what the title does? Because based on everything you're saying you sure don't seem to.

No, I do. You're just wrong is all.

Given FFG wanted to design two ships with asymmetric arcs as standard this was the best way to do it.

No, I do. You're just wrong is all.

I guess I can understand why you think I'm wrong, since you don't actually understand what we're talking about.

There is no simple way to do what they're trying to do with these ships, and a title is not only the best, but perhaps only way to effective do what they want.

Besides, when was the last time you saw a naked Y-wing?

Given FFG wanted to design two ships with asymmetric arcs as standard this was the best way to do it.

It's an upgrade card. It should cost what it's abilities are actually worth.

I guess I can understand why you think I'm wrong, since you don't actually understand what we're talking about.

If they JUST wanted asymmetric arcs, why the extra rules about extra attack or switching focus to hits?

Again you prove you just don't get it. I honestly don't see how you can miss the point so badly.

The point being they wanted both things. They wanted the ARC to have three dice in the front, two in the aux plus a special ability that only applies to attacks from the aux arc.

For the TIE/sf they wanted it to be able to either use three dice from the front, or two dice from both the primary and aux arc.

You can't just change the Aux arc rules to make those things work, they require something unique to that ship

It should cost what it's abilities are actually worth.

If they charged 5 points for the upgrade and so the ARC and TIE/sf cost 5 points less. Then there are potential balance issues with ships at that cost, they no doubt tried it and found it didn't work well that way and changed it.

If they charged 5 points for the upgrade and so the ARC and TIE/sf cost 5 points less. Then there are potential balance issues with ships at that cost

A ship might perform differently if you change it's upgrades? Well no ****, that's how THE ENTIRE GAME WORKS!

If there's balance issues at that cost, then it's not the right cost.

This is a RIDICULOUS argument because

You think that because you clearly don't get it, and I'm done trying to make you understand. Feel free to rail against it all you want I simply have better things to do, and I'm not going to continue tilting at this windmill.

I get that. I just don't agree. Especially since both of those cards do other things as well. If they JUST wanted asymmetric arcs, why the extra rules about switching focus to hits and whatnot?

It's an upgrade card. It should cost what it's abilities are actually worth.

But it's not an upgrade. It's using an upgrade card to add additional rules text, but it's the basic state of the ship.

It's costed at zero to avoid ever creating a situation where you wouldn't want to take it. The ship they want to add to the game is the Alliance Overhaul ARC.

This is a RIDICULOUS argument because it's true of EVERY SINGLE SHIP and EVERY SINGLE UPGRADE in the entire game!

A ship might perform differently if you change it's upgrades? Well no ****, that's how THE ENTIRE GAME WORKS!

What he's saying is given the upgrade options on the ARC-170, allowing it to be that cheap could potentially create a spam list they didn't want to see.

For example, what if the turret on the Jumpmaster was an eight point upgrade card? Discard the turret and run four Deadeye missile boats. That, or what if TIEs were 2/3/2/0 with a three point upgrade card to put them to three hull (such a Hull Upgrade)? I'd sacrifice a hull point to run an 11 TIE swarm.

So instead they put the cost at zero and make the titles autoinclude. This is what they did with the Jumpmaster and TIE fighter also. Yes, they put it on the pilot card instead of as a zero cost title but that's because they could. With the ARC they can't, so they used an upgrade card to the same effect.

If they charged 5 points for the upgrade and so the ARC and TIE/sf cost 5 points less. Then there are potential balance issues with ships at that cost

This is a RIDICULOUS argument because it's true of EVERY SINGLE SHIP and EVERY SINGLE UPGRADE in the entire game!

A ship might perform differently if you change it's upgrades? Well no ****, that's how THE ENTIRE GAME WORKS!

If there's balance issues at that cost, then it's not the right cost.

It's really simple. FFG don't want a 5 point less costing 2 attack ship in their game. THEIR game. They want the ship they created in their game.

It's an upgrade card. It should cost what it's abilities are actually worth.

The PS2 generic T-70 is 3 points more than a PS1 generic T-65.

the t-70 has a hull upgrade an engine upgrade without the opportunity cost, more dial options. The Hull and engine alone are "worth" more than that.

Do you think the 1 point Fang title is "worth" 1 point or the 1 point Tie/v1 is "worth" 1 point. there's not a massive difference between this and the 0 point title other than your perception of "0" being something more significant than any other number.

the t-70 has a hull upgrade an engine upgrade without the opportunity cost, more dial options. The Hull and engine alone are "worth" more than that.

Hull Upgrade and Engine Upgrade are not the prices of Boost and a Hull point.

Five Shield Upgrades are 20 points. Would you argue a Lambda Shuttle without shields is worth 1 point?

the t-70 has a hull upgrade an engine upgrade without the opportunity cost, more dial options. The Hull and engine alone are "worth" more than that.

Hull Upgrade and Engine Upgrade are not the prices of Boost and a Hull point.

Five Shield Upgrades are 20 points. Would you argue a Lambda Shuttle without shields is worth 1 point?

I'm literally making that exact same argument. Why are you trying to argue with me?

pfft if boba takes off with my 0pt title on my tie/sf instead of kicking palpy out the airlock thats fine by me

And I'd be equally fine if spending Boba in this way permanently dropped you from a 3-dice primary to a 2-dice primary. It's functionally the same as taking out the Punishing One title, or an Outrider's cannon.

And it would be even better if the crit that triggered Boba was a Weapons Malfunction. Have fun flying your HWK!

It just occurred to me, if Boba Fett removed the Outrider's cannon, but not the title, would the outrider be unable to perform primary attacks still?

Edit: Maybe I should have read the Outrider title, oops.

But it's not an upgrade. It's using an upgrade card to add additional rules text, but it's the basic state of the ship.

It's costed at zero to avoid ever creating a situation where you wouldn't want to take it. The ship they want to add to the game is the Alliance Overhaul ARC.

THEIR game. They want the ship they created in their game.

No because the card says "while you have a <cannon> equipped" which you wouldn't.

And every time they make something wrong, I'm going to complain about it.

Cool. But they haven't made anything wrong they made it exactly how they wanted, and it's the best way they could have done it by far.

I'm not entirely sure whether your issue is that the ARC-170 without its arc asymmetry isn't a viable choice or that an upgrade card exists that doesn't behave in the traditional sense.

• If your issue is that the symmetric ARC-170 isn't a viable choice I could point you to any number of non-viable choices. Naked TIE punishers and naked Y-wings spring to mind, or the naked HWK.

• If it's the other you simply need to let go of your preconceptions of what an upgrade card is.

An upgrade card isn't a piece of additional rules text that can be added to an empty slot on a ship for a point cost appropriate to its added utility.

It's a piece of additional rules text that can be added to an empty slot on a ship. Just that.

Now most upgrade cards are costed appropriate to their maximum utility or are meant to be, but that doesn't mean all upgrade cards have to be. There's nothing intrinsic to them that dictates how they are to be costed.

TIE/x1, TIE/x7 and TIE/D are all upgrade cards that don't have costs according to their utility: they're priced to iron out a costing imbalance in the original ships, but they also add additional depth to the otherwise simplistic ships they fix. The TIE/x1 post fix is arguably a much more interesting ship than it was originally, and the same can be said about the TIE defender. If FFG wishes to add similar depth to a ship from the get go why can't they? It's a method for adding additional complexity to a ship that isn't supported by the limitations of the pilot card.

I'm literally making that exact same argument. Why are you trying to argue with me?

Your argument seems to be that the T-70 is not priced according to the worth of Hull Upgrade and Engien Upgrade over the T-65, which bears the implication that Hull Upgrade and Engine Upgrade are the worths of the abilities they add as opposed to the T-65 - T-70 gap being the worth of those abilities to that ship.

If you're trying to illustrate that Hull and Engine are not priced according to the worth of the abilities they add in order to demonstrate a case where a card is priced at more than its "worth" you've written your argument backwards.

It's a way to pander to WAAC players who care not about fluff and feel. I'll totally field clone war only ARC-170s. Totally...

If they charged 5 points for the upgrade and so the ARC and TIE/sf cost 5 points less. Then there are potential balance issues with ships at that cost

This is a RIDICULOUS argument because it's true of EVERY SINGLE SHIP and EVERY SINGLE UPGRADE in the entire game!

A ship might perform differently if you change it's upgrades? Well no ****, that's how THE ENTIRE GAME WORKS!

If there's balance issues at that cost, then it's not the right cost.

You do realize you just argued VanorDM's point for them? "If there's balance issues at that cost, then it's not the right cost." Which reads as precisely why they went with a 0 point title, with no reduction of cost for the base unit...

But it's not an upgrade. It's using an upgrade card to add additional rules text, but it's the basic state of the ship.

It's costed at zero to avoid ever creating a situation where you wouldn't want to take it. The ship they want to add to the game is the Alliance Overhaul ARC.

Again, I understand why they're doing it. But I don't agree with the decision.

So are you arguing 2 different points really? By trying to say that they shouldn't have made what they wanted to make by having a 0 point title you've got yourself caught in an argument about the title itself costing points.

If you are conceding that FFG did not want to have a cheaper ship with an optional "appropriately costed" title, and that's up to them, then you are instead saying these rules shouldn't be a title at all? But then what should they because in that situation a title is the nicest way to achieve it isn't it?

It's a way to pander to WAAC players who care not about fluff and feel. I'll totally field clone war only ARC-170s. Totally...

um what