(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.)

If it were in the company's best interest to do it. They'd do it.

Ergo, as they do not do it, it must not be.

If it were in the company's best interest to do it. They'd do it.

Ergo, as they do not do it, it must not be.

In a Capitalistopia, that would be true. (Hint: It is not true.)

feel free to print of the unofficial official moon cards to play with and simplify your x wing experience

If it were in the company's best interest to do it. They'd do it.

Ergo, as they do not do it, it must not be.

And that's why research in motion remains the undisputed king of the phone market

And that's why research in motion remains the undisputed king of the phone market

Clearly geniuses, thinking years ahead! I mean, nobody at my firm with an old-style BlackBerry has to install MobileIron! Winning!

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

I wouldn't. Ever.

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

I wouldn't. Ever.

...And that's why A: you're a damned idiot, and B: why FFG's team are the ones designing the game, and not you.

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

I wouldn't. Ever.

All ships are equal, but some are more equal than others.

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.

That's certainly no more practical than having an upgrade title. It also makes it easier for FFG to avoid combos breaking the game. The tie defender, for example, is benefitting from two different titles. Couldn't do that with a reference card. Unless you have two, and pick on to bring. Then it's an upgrade card. Which they have.

... man, just imagine what happens if they decide to balance the Missile Boat by giving it 2 attack, a Systems slot (For FCS, obviously)... and a title that gives unlimited ammo for 0pts, because they want the ship to be the ultimate ordnance doom-vessel, not a spammy accuracy-corrected TIE fighter?

As the ships they try to design get more complex/finicky, and their design goals become more focused, I suspect we're going to see more of this kind of thing, not less - and it will be in places where the designers had a clear ship design in mind, and didn't want you to play a different 'version' of it. Y-wings don't always have Ion Turrets, and that's fine. But TIE/FOs, apparently, always have a swivel-gun on their underside that can shoot in two directions. C'est la vie.

... man, just imagine what happens if they decide to balance the Missile Boat by giving it 2 attack, a Systems slot (For FCS, obviously)... and a title that gives unlimited ammo for 0pts, because they want the ship to be the ultimate ordnance doom-vessel, not a spammy accuracy-corrected TIE fighter?

As the ships they try to design get more complex/finicky, and their design goals become more focused, I suspect we're going to see more of this kind of thing, not less - and it will be in places where the designers had a clear ship design in mind, and didn't want you to play a different 'version' of it. Y-wings don't always have Ion Turrets, and that's fine. But TIE/FOs, apparently, always have a swivel-gun on their underside that can shoot in two directions. C'est la vie.

...That's...because the TIE/sf Actually DOES have the swivel-gun in lore..

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

I wouldn't. Ever.

Then you're locked into the constraints of the pilot cards when designing a new ship. You simply couldn't make an accurate ARC, your TIE/sf would be as much of a mess as some of the proposed designs I've seen appear on the forums, and you'd struggle endlessly with design space.

I don't get why you're so adamant the incomplete ARC or incomplete TIE/sf has to be a thing. I've yet to see a justification as to why FFG doing it this way is a bad thing. It's not taking choice away from the player as it's a choice they never had just as not releasing downgrade modifications isn't taking choice away from the player. If it's creating an unviable build welcome to X-wing, the majority of builds aren't. If it's issue with an autoinclude upgrade card it's meant to be autoinclude: autoinclude is only a problem when the autoinclude upgrade is in a different pack.

As the ships they try to design get more complex/finicky, and their design goals become more focused, I suspect we're going to see more of this kind of thing, not less - and it will be in places where the designers had a clear ship design in mind, and didn't want you to play a different 'version' of it. Y-wings don't always have Ion Turrets, and that's fine. But TIE/FOs, apparently, always have a swivel-gun on their underside that can shoot in two directions. C'est la vie.

But they did have something. The naked Y-wing isn't and never has been a viable build choice. You're talking like you're locked into one build on these ships, you're not. You just don't have to pay additional points for the special rules on their primary weapons.

For these two ships, the pilot card mechanics alone don't represent the ship.

For the TIE/fo, not including the title would actually mean not mounting the frontal guns, unless you believe the guns on the front can shoot backwards. This I could perhaps understand but it's not the ship FFG wanted to make. They wanted a ship that rewarded skillfull manuevering to line up two arcs at once. Encouraging players to turn it into a simple aux arc with a points cost reduction is not conducive to that goal.

For the ARC-170, however, not having the title equipped means its frontal attack is 2 dice. What FFG were going for here was a 3 dice jouster with a tailgun that had reduced firepower relative. That means they had a choice between a 3 die aux arc and somehow forcefully "downgrading" the tailgun or a 2 die aux arc and buffing the giant cannons on the wings to their actual power for free.

These titles are free because they're fundamental to the nature of the ships. Yes, you can't viably remove the primary on the TIE/sf leaving only its swivel turret and you can't viably downgrade the forward primary on the ARC. You can't do this on any other ship in the game either though.

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

I wouldn't. Ever.

Then you're locked into the constraints of the pilot cards when designing a new ship. You simply couldn't make an accurate ARC, your TIE/sf would be as much of a mess as some of the proposed designs I've seen appear on the forums, and you'd struggle endlessly with design space.

I don't get why you're so adamant the incomplete ARC or incomplete TIE/sf has to be a thing. I've yet to see a justification as to why FFG doing it this way is a bad thing. It's not taking choice away from the player as it's a choice they never had just as not releasing downgrade modifications isn't taking choice away from the player. If it's creating an unviable build welcome to X-wing, the majority of builds aren't. If it's issue with an autoinclude upgrade card it's meant to be autoinclude: autoinclude is only a problem when the autoinclude upgrade is in a different pack.

As the ships they try to design get more complex/finicky, and their design goals become more focused, I suspect we're going to see more of this kind of thing, not less - and it will be in places where the designers had a clear ship design in mind, and didn't want you to play a different 'version' of it. Y-wings don't always have Ion Turrets, and that's fine. But TIE/FOs, apparently, always have a swivel-gun on their underside that can shoot in two directions. C'est la vie.

But they did have something. The naked Y-wing isn't and never has been a viable build choice. You're talking like you're locked into one build on these ships, you're not. You just don't have to pay additional points for the special rules on their primary weapons.

For these two ships, the pilot card mechanics alone don't represent the ship.

For the TIE/fo, not including the title would actually mean not mounting the frontal guns, unless you believe the guns on the front can shoot backwards. This I could perhaps understand but it's not the ship FFG wanted to make. They wanted a ship that rewarded skillfull manuevering to line up two arcs at once. Encouraging players to turn it into a simple aux arc with a points cost reduction is not conducive to that goal.

For the ARC-170, however, not having the title equipped means its frontal attack is 2 dice. What FFG were going for here was a 3 dice jouster with a tailgun that had reduced firepower relative. That means they had a choice between a 3 die aux arc and somehow forcefully "downgrading" the tailgun or a 2 die aux arc and buffing the giant cannons on the wings to their actual power for free.

These titles are free because they're fundamental to the nature of the ships. Yes, you can't viably remove the primary on the TIE/sf leaving only its swivel turret and you can't viably downgrade the forward primary on the ARC. You can't do this on any other ship in the game either though.

Thank you!

What irks me is the lack of any opportunity cost for taking these upgrades.

With very few exceptions (all thus far being retroactive fixes) every single upgrade card has an opportunity cost.

Be that in the form of points you have to pay, upgrade slot(s) that you can't use for anything else, or (in only a few cases) not being able to use that upgrade card on other ships because it's unique.

I would have been happy with a token points cost that presented the illusion of choice whilst still making the upgrade the obviously better choice...

As it is they should have just printed the text "you must purchase and equip a title card for this ship" on the pilot cards. Maybe not strictly necessary to put on the cards, but I think it would have appeased people somewhat.

I don't have a problem with upgrade cards that are designed to be auto-includes, unless they are designed in such a way that they actively reduce design space and agency in terms of how players build their lists.

Then you're locked into the constraints of the pilot cards when designing a new ship. You simply couldn't make an accurate ARC

Of course you can. You use a Title card that costs what it's worth. With the option to take a non-accurate ARC for less points.

You know, just like how, say, a Defender(or any ship with a Turret or Cannon) is only accurate when equipped with an Ion Cannon. But the player has the option of not making an accurate Defender, for less points, just by not taking the cannon.

Bottom line is still, the ARC-170 is more powerful with it's Title than without, so it should cost more points with it's Title than it does without.

Well it doesn't. Suck it up.

Then you're locked into the constraints of the pilot cards when designing a new ship. You simply couldn't make an accurate ARC

Of course you can. You use a Title card that costs what it's worth. With the option to take a non-accurate ARC for less points.

You know, just like how, say, a Defender(or any ship with a Turret or Cannon) is only accurate when equipped with an Ion Cannon. But the player has the option of not making an accurate Defender, for less points, just by not taking the cannon.

Bottom line is still, the ARC-170 is more powerful with it's Title than without, so it should cost more points with it's Title than it does without.

Holy ****. The title is costed 0 because it's basically additional rules meant to be included. If you don't want to take it and have it be under-powered, then by all means, do so. There's ZERO reason to have to try and shoehorn in new rules and abilities for a single ship. You also STILL have yet to give the "better" way of doing it, so will you please shut the hell up already? You've lost this argument, and quite handily.

I don't have a problem with upgrade cards that are designed to be auto-includes, unless they are designed in such a way that they actively reduce design space and agency in terms of how players build their lists.

I think people need to get over the idea that everything that uses the upgrade card mechanic has to be an optional enhancement to the ship for a cost in points and opportunity. These aren't. They're a way of adding additional rules text to the two ships.

They could have radically redesigned the pilot cards instead to the same (albeit less elegant) effect.

As it is they should have just printed the text "you must purchase and equip a title card for this ship" on the pilot cards.

Why write that when you don't need to? If you're going to write that, no point charging for the card. And if you're charging for the card, no point writing that.

I agree, the intent is that you're meant to equip the card and would be daft not to. But given that the text is redundant.

The titles make the ships mechanically representative of the starfighters they're meant to represent. Adding the rules by title card allowed them to do this in the existing framework rather than radically overhauling the pilot cards for the benefit of one ship.

Of course you can. You use a Title card that costs what it's worth. With the option to take a non-accurate ARC for less points.

Then why can't I take a non-accurate TIE fighter for less points?

Alliance Overhaul is NOT AN UPGRADE. You have to get over this fixation that every upgrade card has to be an enhancement to a ship with a point cost according to the benefit it provides. That is not what FFG are trying to do. They could have redesigned the pilot cards to incorporate this, but that would have been silly to do for one ship. Alliance Overhaul and Special Operations Training achieve the same result within the existing framework of the game.

note that it IS true that the arc title could have costed points and the arc could have been cheaper at the base

problem is that opens up some game design problems where you'd get a hilariously cheap platform for certain combos

the benefits given by the title, even just the +1 die out the front, can't be cheap. The points it'd shave off a pilot that doesn't need to attack to be useful (Poe's mom) using a potent build that doesn't need to attack to be useful (sabine + seismics + bb-8; r3-a2) could result in silliness

mind you, I'd leap at the chance for that silliness, but I'm not designing the rest of the game either

You have to get over this fixation that every upgrade card has to be an enhancement to a ship with a point cost according to the benefit it provides.

That is not what FFG are trying to do.

As a matter of fact, I don't have to do that. At all. I can simply complain for the rest of time instead.

Even though it's completely irrational?

problem is that opens up some game design problems where you'd get a hilariously cheap platform for certain combos

where have I already seen it.... hm...

maybe a certain super overcosted title that makes a torpboat a PWT?

I don't see your point. Are you trying to say that the Jumpmaster should have been flat out three dice? Because then it'd just be another Falcon.

I don't see your point. Are you trying to say that the Jumpmaster should have been flat out three dice? Because then it'd just be another Falcon.

I just say it's not a game design flaw, it's a modular ship design, when you have multiple ways of "cooking" the ship.

Why pay extra for 3att when you're aiming at torp-massacre?

We already pay extra for slots (as seen in rebel vs merc Z-95, where illicit costed us the PS)

so this time we get to choose if we want some piece of goodness.

and in the future they might give us ARC "Heavy assault refit" or something like that

yeah, you don't get the "super accurate" tailgunner nor the 3rd die up front.

but you might get an extra missile slot.

\

And POOF, we get other builds with the ship.

I say HELL YEAH, MOAR MODULAR SYSTEMS!

nor the 3rd die up front.

There's a reason it has three dice up front. They're huge and bolted to the ends of the main wing.

The inclusion of the titles for these two ships hasn't reduced the sensible upgrade possibilities at all. Had they not included a title, those two ships simply wouldn't have title upgrades.