It's a simple enough thought process.

We want a ship with these Stats in our game. We want it's arcs to have a cool asymetric imbalance. How do we achieve this in the framework we have created.

Q - Can we change the framework?

A - Let's save that as a last resort, becasue that's always messy and can become cumbersome.

Q - OK what do we have that allows all ships of a specific type to get a universal ability.
A - Titles.

Q - So we want the forward arc to have 3 dice and rear 2 dice and a special ability. So do we make the ships attack 3 basic?
A - No becasue then if people opt to not use the title they don't get the rear nerf.

Q - OK so the ships base attack is 2 and the title will give you an extra die in the forward arc and allow for eyes to be crits in the rear?

A - Yes that's the plan.

Q - how much should the title cost then?

A - Weeeeeeeel we have an issue here becasue the perceived cost of an upgrade that gives us an extra attack die is high, if we make it cost lots the 2 attack value ship will be quite cheap and we don't really want that cheap utility ship in out game.

Q - So what are you saying?
A - I'm saying lets bake the cost in to the pilots and make the title 0 points so that the ships all get the same cool arc rules but we don't have 2 different ships.

Q - Are we geniuses or what?
A - Yes I think we are, we have made a cool way to add a ship wide rule that fits within our existing frame work.

Q - doesn't this 0 point title feel a little odd though?
A - it does indeed but what are the alternatives. We want this **** to work this way.

Q - What about writing new rules?

A - That's what I said earlier, you said it was messy and remember there's 2 ships in this wave with different aux arc mechanics, and we can solve both of them in the same way, which is much neater and easier to pick up and play than anything else I can think off.

Q - Cool, fancy a game?
A - Totes, shotgun Rebels!

I really want to see the nay-sayers come up with a better method of accomplishing what FFG wanted to do, or they should just shut up.

I mean seriously if you're going to make comments that this is the wrong way to do it or lazy then you better be able to back that up with a superior method.

Oh and Talonbane Cobra completely nails why the title as is, is a completely acceptable way of doing 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.

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?

Just because they didn't want to do it, doesn't mean they shouldn't have done it anyway. That assumes that every choice FFG makes is automatically correct, which is simply not true.

It's a simple enough thought process.

If a guy shoots his neighbor's dog and says, "It's barking was really annoying me." I can understand why he chose that course of action. But I don't have to agree with it.

I absolutely agree that how they handled it is the best way to make an autoincluded special ability on a ship. I'm saying they shouldn't have been trying to make an autoinclude special ability on a ship in the first place.

Nah.

Prove it. Show us the better way.

Prove it. Show us the better way.

I think X-wing has significantly benefitted from ships being less modular and having it be a 0 point title makes sense to me.

On second thought... It would be more effective try to break down a brick wall with a pillow then continue this discussion.

Prove it. Show us the better way.

I did. You don't agree that it's better. And I can't force you to not be wrong.

...Which is ironic, seeing as you were completely and utterly wrong. You're pissing and moaning over nothing - and hell, I'm autistic as well, just like the other guy who said the same damned thing, and WE understand why they did it this way! I mean FFS, it feels like you're complaining for the sake of complaining now! You said they could have done it better - now show us that "better" way, or shut the hell up already!

It's a simple enough thought process.

One that I completely understood from the beginning. But that still doesn't mean I agree with it.

If a guy shoots his neighbor's dog and says, "It's barking was really annoying me." I can understand why he chose that course of action. But I don't have to agree with it.

I absolutely agree that how they handled it is the best way to make an autoincluded special ability on a ship. I'm saying they shouldn't have been trying to make an autoinclude special ability on a ship in the first place.

That's a hell of an analogy. On one hand we have FFG making an executive decision (in their game I might add) which you disagree with (and don't have to use).

On the other hand we have a man shooting a dog.

At least it doesn't prove Godwin's law (unless that just did)...

On one hand we have FFG making an executive decision (in their game I might add) which you disagree with (and don't have to use).

And it proves just how poorly he understands the whole point behind those ships.

Which is to have the special abilities FFG wants them to have, but don't have room on the pilot card to include, and would make for a huge mess if they tried to do them via a rule card.

As I understand it, he wanted it to be a X point upgrade so he could have cheaper ships.

Heck, let's make EVERY ship 1,1,1,0 with no actions costing 1pt. Then you can just pay points for any upgrade you want. That way, everybody gets what they want and no-body is upset. Heck, FFG don't even need to pay a design team anymore.

For any casual game, you could make up your own title. "Unrestored Junker" - your maneuver dial has no green banks. -5 points.

Hey maybe every statline point could be 2 points! Itll be like that other very good flightpath game!

As I understand it, he wanted it to be a X point upgrade so he could have cheaper ships.

To steal his own analogy... He wants to shoot the barking dog because he is either incapable or unwilling to understand why it's barking in the first place.

I'm fairly sure that FFG actually tried it his way already and realized it was a bad idea.

How many points is the ARC-1790 title worth? How many points is the TIE/sf tile worth?

Because you'd have to lower the value of those ships by that much to achieve the same result. Only in that case you likely have ships that are no longer balanced correctly at that point value. But you have two ships that are at least believed to be well balanced at that point value with those abilities.

But some people either can't or refuse to see that.

Which is ironic, seeing as you were completely and utterly wrong.

As I understand it, he wanted it to be a X point upgrade so he could have cheaper ships.

All I want is for every card to be costed correctly for the power it provides.

These cards provide more power than their 0-point cost warrants. The ARC-170 provides less power than it's base cost warrants.

Ergo, these cards are costed incorrectly. And intentionally so. Thus, they are wrong.

People want to assign motives to my argument beyond this point, but there simply are none. It's just a way for people to try and argue a point I was never making. They keep trying to reframe it into "come up with a better way to add an autoinclude ability to a ship", and continually ignore that is outside the scope of my argument, because if you are trying to create an autoinclude ability on a ship, you are already screwing up.

To steal his own analogy... He wants to shoot the barking dog because he is either incapable or unwilling to understand why it's barking in the first place.

I'm fairly sure that FFG actually tried it his way already and realized it was a bad idea.

I'm glad we've finally cleared that up.

It's a way to add a special rule to EVERY ship of that type, since they don't print ship abilities on pilot cards.

That said, I wish it WASN'T a 0 point title. As it's clearly an ability that's worth more than 0 points. Which means the base ARC-170 is intentionally overcosted, because it's assumed that you would take this card.

I'd have preferred it if the ship, and the title, were both appropriately costed for their power. Same with the TIE/sf.

poor poor YV and Firespray, it seems they're not suffering enough in the horrible meta

Only if these guys get 4-dice primary. then yeah, sure, make all non-primary-arc attacks -1 die

As I understand it, he wanted it to be a X point upgrade so he could have cheaper ships.

Then you understood it incorrectly.

All I want is for every card to be costed correctly for the power it provides.

These cards provide more power than their 0-point cost warrants. The ARC-170 provides less power than it's base cost warrants.

Ergo, these cards are costed incorrectly. And intentionally so. Thus, they are wrong.

People want to assign motives to my argument beyond this point, but there simply are none. It's just a way for people to try and argue a point I was never making. They keep trying to reframe it into "come up with a better way to add an autoinclude ability to a ship", and continually ignore that is outside the scope of my argument, because if you are trying to create an autoinclude ability on a ship, you are already screwing up.

Here's the point though. Would you have been happy if FFG had made it so that all the ARCs came with the rule that appears on the title card, cost the same points and the title didn't exist - i.e. though a reference card. If so, you're frankly an idiot. It makes not one jot of difference. The cards are CLEARLY costed appropriately because they go together. If you DON'T take them together, it makes you bad at list building, it doesn't make FFG bad at creating ships. No-one is forcing you to take the title.

In fact, if they were a rule reference, you'd have less scope for choices than you currently do!

If you didn't want that, I fail to see what your complaint can be. The ARC is what it is. It's title is what it is. If you're worried about over/under costed cards, I trust you'll never fly some of the more popular cards out there that can be argued as undercosted.

I mean, if we were to take a card that some could consider overcosted for comparison. Let's take autothrusters seen as they are so prevalent in the meta (I'm not saying they are, just using them as an example). They ave lots of uses, good effects and make ships like Imp Aces much more powerful than their cards suggest. Same with deadeye - not undercosted, but very much so when you look at how they interact with jumpmasters.

The title for the ARC is NOT overcosted, because it can ONLY be taken with the ARC. There is no flexibility there, you can't apply it to anything you like. And with the inherent overcosting of the ARC (your words not mine), the title is NOT overvaluing itself, or the ship it is attached to.

Obviously this is a waste of time because you seem to have decided this is your vendetta, but ho hum.

Here's the point though. Would you have been happy if FFG had made it so that all the ARCs came with the rule that appears on the title card, cost the same points and the title didn't exist - i.e. though a reference card. If so, you're frankly an idiot. It makes not one jot of difference.

Really? "Not one jot"?

So if it were done via a reference card, the Title slot wouldn't be open for other, flavorful, things? Pretty sure it would be, and that seems like a jot of difference.

So if it were done via a reference card, Boba Fett would still be able to steal the ship's front- and rear-arc abilities? Pretty sure he wouldn't be able to, and that seems like a jot of difference, too.

Yes, doing it as a Title (as opposed to a reference card (or, conceptually, teensy-tiny type on the pilot card)) does present fairly significant differences, and those differences are all negative. No, it doesn't break the game. It's not a deal-breaker. Nobody's threatening to quit over it.

But it's a lesser way to have done it. The only benefit it has going for it is that it's not any sort of change to how it's been done to this point ... and some folks just can't handle change, even for the better.

The title for the ARC is NOT overcosted, because it can ONLY be taken with the ARC.

I assume you meant undercosted there. Since the 0-point upgrade is obviously not overcosted.

There is no flexibility there, you can't apply it to anything you like. And with the inherent overcosting of the ARC (your words not mine), the title is NOT overvaluing itself, or the ship it is attached to.

But that's just it. There IS flexibility there, as there is with any Title card. The option to not take it.

Granted, they make it pointless to not take it, but it's still possible to do so. And as long as it's possible to fly an ARC-170 without the title, the ship itself is overcosted for it's points value.

And at the end of the day, that's the real problem. Is a ship that was designed broken, and then packaged with it's own fix. And if you guys don't see why that's sh*tty game design, I really can't help you.

Here's the point though. Would you have been happy if FFG had made it so that all the ARCs came with the rule that appears on the title card, cost the same points and the title didn't exist - i.e. though a reference card. If so, you're frankly an idiot. It makes not one jot of difference.

Really? "Not one jot"?

So if it were done via a reference card, the Title slot wouldn't be open for other, flavorful, things? Pretty sure it would be, and that seems like a jot of difference.

So if it were done via a reference card, Boba Fett would still be able to steal the ship's front- and rear-arc abilities? Pretty sure he wouldn't be able to, and that seems like a jot of difference, too.

Yes, doing it as a Title (as opposed to a reference card (or, conceptually, teensy-tiny type on the pilot card)) does present fairly significant differences, and those differences are all negative. No, it doesn't break the game. It's not a deal-breaker. Nobody's threatening to quit over it.

But it's a lesser way to have done it. The only benefit it has going for it is that it's not any sort of change to how it's been done to this point ... and some folks just can't handle change, even for the better.

You make a fair point, but the reference would easily have said 'ARC Only', so in that sense it doesn't make a difference. And currently the title is a flavourful thing. They can always add a different title a-la the defender, but I would think that is unlikely in the foreseeable future.

And a reference card would be impractical IMO.

The title for the ARC is NOT overcosted, because it can ONLY be taken with the ARC.

I assume you meant undercosted there. Since the 0-point upgrade is obviously not overcosted.

There is no flexibility there, you can't apply it to anything you like. And with the inherent overcosting of the ARC (your words not mine), the title is NOT overvaluing itself, or the ship it is attached to.

But that's just it. There IS flexibility there, as there is with any Title card. The option to not take it.

Granted, they make it pointless to not take it, but it's still possible to do so. And as long as it's possible to fly an ARC-170 without the title, the ship itself is overcosted for it's points value.

I did mean undercosted.

But if it's possible to do, and you do, it makes you look pretty silly, doesn't it.

No. They should have just had a cheaper ship with an optional appropriately costed title.

You could say this of any ship. Why can't I run a cheaper B-wing with some shields stripped off?

All I want is for every card to be costed correctly for the power it provides.

Then how would you add special rules to a base ship?

Then you understood it incorrectly.

All I want is for every card to be costed correctly for the power it provides.

These cards provide more power than their 0-point cost warrants. The ARC-170 provides less power than it's base cost warrants.

Ergo, these cards are costed incorrectly. And intentionally so. Thus, they are wrong.

a simple solution

You make a fair point, but the reference would easily have said 'ARC Only', so in that sense it doesn't make a difference.

[...]

And a reference card would be impractical IMO.

Okay, cool. I agree that in that sense, it doesn't make a difference. In other senses, it does. So we've already gotten somewhere.

What is impractical, as you see it, about ship classes having reference cards, as the intended functioning of base ships gets more complex? It actually seems to me inarguably more practical than the current model, reasons listed below.

What I would like to see -- it won't happen, clearly, at least not until X-Wing 2.0, but it could be done now -- would be for every ship class to have a reference card.

The TIE Advanced Reference Card, for example, would include what is currently on the Pilot Cards (stats, for completeness' sake) and on the TIE/x1 title. Same for the ARC-170 and the TIE/sf. There would be slight differences, but it could have been done for the TIE Interceptor or the A-wing. (Would it really break an Alpha to have two Modification slots, or a Prototype to have an EPT?) And so on.

This would do three fairly major things:

(1) Because Reference Cards are printed and updated in the FAQ, it would mean that somebody who purchased a TIE Advanced expansion pack gets the actual, usable, TIE Advanced.

(2) Because FFG has demonstrated vastly more willingness to errata reference cards, it would mean that the ability to perform fixes -- and the lag-time between deciding it needed doing and doing it! -- would be improved unbelievably.

(3) It would leave the Title open for flavorful additions, instead of -- as now -- being used as simply more room for text the designers clearly intend to always be a part of the ship. Think the TIE Defender Titles, which are flavorful and competing upgrades ... not just additional rules text for all TIE Defenders.

From a player-facing perspective, there is no down-side to this. There are fewer cards needed, not more. There's no NPE from buying a ship and then finding out that for it to be as competitive as currently intended by the ddesigners, you have to purchase another card or expansion, which may well be in a Huge expansion project.

(From the manufacturer's perspective, it would probably mean fewer sales of things like the Raider, at least as a direct consequence. Arguing against "fewer sales" would be "the good-will of the player-base," which I would think would lead to increased sales, but I'm not a Marketing or Business guy, so I have no idea how to even make a stab at that calculus.)

i fixed the arc too