On 31/05/2017 at 8:16 PM, DarthEnderX said:

Well, it is true the Mk. II concept is not completely new to Star Wars. I mean, they did have Imperial-II and Victory-II class Star Destroyers back in the day as a way of just adding tougher versions of those ships to TIE Fighter.

I think West End Games had Imperial I and Imperial II before the TIE Fighter video game did - as an explanation for the differences between the 3ft prop from ANH and the 8 ft prop from TESB.

Actually I was going to say Alliance Overhaul and Special Ops Training was going to be the new standard with 0 point auto-include titles. The Varksi follows that model more than the Star Viper mk 2. The Star Viper mk 2 only has one that isn't really a draw back and that is the curved barrel roll. Actually the -3 is most likely because the Virago title is 1 point (for 2 additional slots) which normally is never worth it even after the release of many 0 point upgrades.

The thing that really baffles me is that it is a title upgrade that doesn't' even take up the title slot. Instead it adds a title slot, again for the Virago. As for the A-wing test pilot and Royal Guard pilots, they work not by giving extra upgrade slots but doubled upgrade slots, which allows you to find combinations that are prevented from the upgrade poll system. The double EPT and double mod slots work great. Now all we need is a double <system> ship.

2 hours ago, Marinealver said:

Actually I was going to say Alliance Overhaul and Special Ops Training was going to be the new standard with 0 point auto-include titles.

Those titles aren't meant to fix underpowered ships though. They're just a way of giving a new ship special abilities they want them to have from the start.

Pretty much any title that gets added to a ship after it's already been released is intended to be a "fix" for said ship.

On 6/2/2017 at 8:32 PM, Kumagoro said:

(And now I want a Whisper movie starring Scarlett Johansson. I bet that would sell a lot of Phantoms). (And Saoirse Ronan as Echo).

Oh god, that would be brilliant. Yes. So much yes.

On 5/31/2017 at 8:22 PM, DarthEnderX said:

That just has me wondering if, like 5 years from now, when the power creep continues far enough, are we going to end up getting "StarViper Mk. III" and "StarViper Mk. IV" titles keep up?

If FFG's option to keep older ships relevant in future meta's is to issue Title cards for versions of a ship which don't exist in the canon... is that a problem?

On 5/31/2017 at 3:22 PM, DarthEnderX said:

That just has me wondering if, like 5 years from now, when the power creep continues far enough, are we going to end up getting "StarViper Mk. III" and "StarViper Mk. IV" titles keep up?

You're pretty optimistic. I tend to wonder if in five years there'll even be an X-Wing scene.

27 minutes ago, boomaster said:

If FFG's option to keep older ships relevant in future meta's is to issue Title cards for versions of a ship which don't exist in the canon... is that a problem?

Not a serious one, no. But it is a tad irksome.

Actually, there was a Mk. II version of the StarViper. The StarViper was designed by MandalMotors based on specifications from Prince Xizor, and was supposed to be exclusive to Black Sun. When Prince Xizor died, MandalMotors wanted a way to make a return on their investment, but the original design was too expensive to sell on the open market. Therefore, they replaced some of the components with cheaper ones and released that. Technically the Mk. II should be inferior to the regular version, but the regular version wasn't good enough, so FFG introduced a flight quirk that could be thought to make the ship worse, when in game terms it actually makes it a little better. Also, technically the Virago was destroyed before the first Mk. IIs we're sold, but again gameplay. :-P

On 5/31/2017 at 11:56 AM, DarthEnderX said:

It's basically like FFG is saying "Sorry this ship sucked. Here's a 2nd pass at it."

This.

I expect more of these over time as long as FFG does not go to 2.0.

I am excited to try this out and personally love maneuvering trickiness, but it still mystifies me why they just won't simply do a ship price errata sheet. If everything gets fixed by adding cards and rules, the games will be crushed by its own weight sooner.

2 hours ago, boomaster said:

If FFG's option to keep older ships relevant in future meta's is to issue Title cards for versions of a ship which don't exist in the canon... is that a problem?

Besides the fact that, as a couple of us pointed out, the starviper MK 2 did exist before this expansion, the starviper itself isn't even canon, so why be bothered by a non-canon fix?

ive never heard of a "chaardan refit" for awings in canon. Does that bother you?

2 hours ago, VanderLegion said:

Besides the fact that, as a couple of us pointed out, the starviper MK 2 did exist before this expansion, the starviper itself isn't even canon, so why be bothered by a non-canon fix?

ive never heard of a "chaardan refit" for awings in canon. Does that bother you?

It never bothered me, you might want to re-read what I actually wrote, addressing the OP's point about the Mk 2 Star Viper not being a "canon" ship.

I think every currently "non-canon" ship we have left which has no title title already either has alternate versions or generations or at least has a model designation which could be treated as a title (Like TIE/D gives the Defender inherent special mechanics it should always have)... except for the K-Wing.

But K-Wings themselves were built to make bombs good I feel like any situation which means we have to "fix" K-Wings means something worse as gone awry in the greater game mechanics we can "fix" first.

9 hours ago, DarthEnderX said:

Those titles aren't meant to fix underpowered ships though. They're just a way of giving a new ship special abilities they want them to have from the start.

Pretty much any title that gets added to a ship after it's already been released is intended to be a "fix" for said ship.

But those titles are a permanent part of the ship, just like the Star Viper mk.II and the Varski. It would be stupid to not include them otherwise. Granted there is a questionable statement how those ships would perform without those "special abilities" given how the titles were designed. As for special rules sure the titles don't do anything really as there is only 1 title for that ship. But then go back to the mkII and there is absolutely no reason why you would want to not include them if you have them.

The fact is auto-include titles are now a part of X-wing. IMHO that is poor design. I don't want to say the phrase pay2win (jumpmasters don' cost much) but these special ability squadron point cost fixes are exactly that. You need those if you want to fly those ships at a competitive level. At a competitive level the Star Viper expansion was just a pair of auto-thrusters. Now it is just the missing part of the G4H expansion pack that lets you take 2 instead of only 1 Star Viper.

I see no controversy here. They do their best to make underpowered ships playable and while they don't always fix the ships we'd love to see fixed the most (cough T-65 cough), it's still way better than doing nothing.

As for the lore:

1. Many of the ships in X-wing, Starviper included, are no longer canon anyway so whatever...

2. Just because no book/comic/film/game/younameit mentions there was an "mk. II" version doesn't mean there couldn't be one. I dare you to name a real life military vessel that was used en masse in the actual military conflicts and stayed exactly the same throughout all of it, with no changes or improvements. It would only happen if it turned out to be such a disaster that it was deemed beyond fixing or if the country using it lost the war before any improvements could be made. In any other situation a ship, fighter or tank that was reasonably successful and mass produced would receive improvements to remain viable in the ever more demanding environment as both sides gradually increased the lethality, mobility or resilience of their weapon platforms. Ironically enough, this is more or less what's happening in X-wing. How realistic!

11 minutes ago, Marinealver said:

But those titles are a permanent part of the ship, just like the Star Viper mk.II and the Varski. It would be stupid to not include them otherwise. Granted there is a questionable statement how those ships would perform without those "special abilities" given how the titles were designed. As for special rules sure the titles don't do anything really as there is only 1 title for that ship. But then go back to the mkII and there is absolutely no reason why you would want to not include them if you have them.

The fact is auto-include titles are now a part of X-wing. IMHO that is poor design. I don't want to say the phrase pay2win (jumpmasters don' cost much) but these special ability squadron point cost fixes are exactly that. You need those if you want to fly those ships at a competitive level. At a competitive level the Star Viper expansion was just a pair of auto-thrusters. Now it is just the missing part of the G4H expansion pack that lets you take 2 instead of only 1 Star Viper.

What's the problem with auto include titles like alliance overhaul and special ops training? How else do you give a ship unique mechanics that ally to the ship as a whole instead of a single pilot?

and I don't see how an auto include title to fix a ship is a problem either. We've had awing test pilot and royal guard titles for years now. This is nothing new. And How are you going to fix a noncompetitive ship WITHOUT making a new autoinclude upgrade for it? If it's a fix, it's not like you're going to run the ship without yet.

0 Point titles really shouldn't be that strange. Like, nobody seems to complain about the concept of TIE/D (except maybe on it's merits vs TIE/x7). While we can call it a "fix" in the meta sense that it was released later in a pack to help Defenders, in terms of a Title it's not really that special. TIE/D is the model designation of the Defender, and it gives the defender an ability it historically has (firing primaries and secondaries at the same time) and perhaps always should have had for how expensive the ship was. It also locks the ship out of being an x7, which makes sense you can't both be the prototype without cannons and missiles and the mass production version. BTL-A4 is technically the same, though there are multiple versions of Y-Wings the ones released in Wave 1 were mostly based on the A4 appearances, but obviously they mechanically offered the Turret slot.

But, ARC-170 and TIE/SF can't really just have title cards which are their designations - those names are the name of the ship already, so could get confusing and hard to understand. And FFG probably couldn't know the TIE Striker was TIE/SK because that was only in a visual guide which was being written the same time they developed the expansion. Even so, cards like ops and overhaul represent features of those ships which theoretically they should always have in the game. Every ARC-170 the rebels are flying should have been overhauled. Every TIE/SF should have the backseat gunner who can do the special ops training effect. You could leave them off, and maybe unique variants of those ships could come up later (but with SV Mk II they've also built in a mechanism for "hey, your ship can still get it's special stuff") but since those are all more recent ships I think the design team has been very on point lately with their design intents so those ships don't necessarily "need" titles to be fixed later. 0 point titles for the baseline models of some ships maybe should always have existed (like TIE/D) to signify their unique abilities which are not just stats, it's only kind of as a later effect that FFG has realized to use titles to "fix" some ships - and even then that's clearly a thing they had to work toward. B-Wing/E2 actually very strongly matches the idea of a generic title, and even has a point cost, yet was released as a modification (much to its detriment).

5 minutes ago, VanderLegion said:

What's the problem with auto include titles like alliance overhaul and special ops training? How else do you give a ship unique mechanics that ally to the ship as a whole instead of a single pilot?

and I don't see how an auto include title to fix a ship is a problem either. We've had awing test pilot and royal guard titles for years now. This is nothing new. And How are you going to fix a noncompetitive ship WITHOUT making a new autoinclude upgrade for it? If it's a fix, it's not like you're going to run the ship without yet.

Well besides the fact it is clunky let me give you a list of reasons why it is bad.

1. Splitting the ship/upgrade across multiple cards. Much like conditions which is (2 cards for 1 upgrade) auto-include titles are that. 2 ship cards for a single ship. Not in a way that is understandable such as corvette sized epic ships. It is inelegant design that adds more the to table clutter.
2. It removes options in ship building. Titles such as these are now a 100% must for every ship. The A-wing test pilot and Royal Guard pilots are not auto-include because you need to have a specific pilot for shoes ships. Star Viper mkII, Varski, Spec Ops, and A. Overhaul are all 100% include for all pilots of that ship. When list building a lot of people start by selecting the ship then the pilot. Now you have to start with pilot not the ship. Fixes like Chardaan refit was an option not a must, you coudl put missiles on it. Now sure that made missiles 2 points more expensive but the option was there. The TIE-D and x7 titles also left room if you did not want to include them. Such as Marek Steel with Mangler Cannon.
3. Expansions are no longer self contained. This is it. Star Viper and Kihraxz are no longer separate ships but more of an Expansion to an Expansion. With the TIE Interceptror you still needed them for the Alpha Squadron pilots. Also the Alpha Squadron pilots didn't miss out if you didn't have Imperial Aces. But for this, you need the G4H first and then the Star Viper.

So we got more reasons to bring printouts and leave cards at home, less build options, and more paying creep. I think those are good enough reasons to be wary of future expansion practices.

20 minutes ago, Lightrock said:

I see no controversy here. They do their best to make underpowered ships playable and while they don't always fix the ships we'd love to see fixed the most (cough T-65 cough), it's still way better than doing nothing.

As for the lore:

1. Many of the ships in X-wing, Starviper included, are no longer canon anyway so whatever...

2. Just because no book/comic/film/game/younameit mentions there was an "mk. II" version doesn't mean there couldn't be one. I dare you to name a real life military vessel that was used en masse in the actual military conflicts and stayed exactly the same throughout all of it, with no changes or improvements. It would only happen if it turned out to be such a disaster that it was deemed beyond fixing or if the country using it lost the war before any improvements could be made. In any other situation a ship, fighter or tank that was reasonably successful and mass produced would receive improvements to remain viable in the ever more demanding environment as both sides gradually increased the lethality, mobility or resilience of their weapon platforms. Ironically enough, this is more or less what's happening in X-wing. How realistic!

Well, I don't think A-10 or Japanese Zero were modified much, but you make a great point. Look at T-65 vs T-70. They remind me of a P-47 Razorback vs a P-47 Bubble canopy.

3 minutes ago, sf1raptor said:

Well, I don't think A-10 or Japanese Zero were modified much, but you make a great point. Look at T-65 vs T-70. They remind me of a P-47 Razorback vs a P-47 Bubble canopy.

Dunno about A-10 but Zero had like 10 different variants IIRC. But yeah, Zeroes weren't modified enough nor replaced by newer fighters in sufficient quantities.

20 minutes ago, UnitOmega said:

0 Point titles really shouldn't be that strange. Like, nobody seems to complain about the concept of TIE/D (except maybe on it's merits vs TIE/x7). While we can call it a "fix" in the meta sense that it was released later in a pack to help Defenders, in terms of a Title it's not really that special. TIE/D is the model designation of the Defender, and it gives the defender an ability it historically has (firing primaries and secondaries at the same time) and perhaps always should have had for how expensive the ship was. It also locks the ship out of being an x7, which makes sense you can't both be the prototype without cannons and missiles and the mass production version. BTL-A4 is technically the same, though there are multiple versions of Y-Wings the ones released in Wave 1 were mostly based on the A4 appearances, but obviously they mechanically offered the Turret slot.

But, ARC-170 and TIE/SF can't really just have title cards which are their designations - those names are the name of the ship already, so could get confusing and hard to understand. And FFG probably couldn't know the TIE Striker was TIE/SK because that was only in a visual guide which was being written the same time they developed the expansion. Even so, cards like ops and overhaul represent features of those ships which theoretically they should always have in the game. Every ARC-170 the rebels are flying should have been overhauled. Every TIE/SF should have the backseat gunner who can do the special ops training effect. You could leave them off, and maybe unique variants of those ships could come up later (but with SV Mk II they've also built in a mechanism for "hey, your ship can still get it's special stuff") but since those are all more recent ships I think the design team has been very on point lately with their design intents so those ships don't necessarily "need" titles to be fixed later. 0 point titles for the baseline models of some ships maybe should always have existed (like TIE/D) to signify their unique abilities which are not just stats, it's only kind of as a later effect that FFG has realized to use titles to "fix" some ships - and even then that's clearly a thing they had to work toward. B-Wing/E2 actually very strongly matches the idea of a generic title, and even has a point cost, yet was released as a modification (much to its detriment).

0 point fixes are not strange at all. 0 point upgrades are not that strange either when they are restricted to certain ships. But 0 point upgrades that are only restricted to the upgrade slot now that puts a value on that upgrade slot, and furthermore widen the gap between pilots/ships that have upgrade slots vs those that do not have upgrade slots.

But the 0 point fix is not the concern it is the unrestricted 0 point fix with no (trade in) drawback. I like my games to have a bit of economy added to them. Much like the Chardaan Refit, you trade a missile slot to squeeze in either another ship, or an upgrade or two. Sure an unused missile slot is a great trade for an extra 2 squadron points. Or maybe for some reason you actually do need to have that missile slot. Well then you don't take the upgrade and keep the 2 points.

In a way I like the Star Viper mk 2 better than the Varski but also it rubs me the wrong way and runs more of the risk of the same mistakes the x7 title had all of a sudden being too powerful. If I were to rewrite it I would have replace the "you may equip another title" section to You must equip the Virago title if it is not yet equipped. Much like the Myst hunter. The 1st Star Viper is -2 points but has additional upgrade slots so have a free collision detector, the 2nd and 3rd and even the 4th come at a much better discount.

Well, everybody already needs like a zillion starvipers, it's still the only pack with Autothrusters in.

The A-Wing is an interesting state, it's effectively double fixed. It has both Test Pilot to give A-Wings a unique design space with the double EPT, then also fixed their overcost problem with Chardan. While technically this has variety because you can only apply Test to certain pilots and may not want to apply Refit to every pilot - but ideally your most optimized A-Wing would equip both (unless you're really gonna make use of the missiles) and assuming you're playing for maximum efficiency in the competitive environment (which is where "fix" cards tend to lean) you will want one or the other. I mean, I very rarely hear people discuss A-Wings where it isn't [application of the double EPT slot] or [use as a cheap blocker] (which logically means you want the ship as points lean as possible).

Now, you might say you don't need Imperial Aces to run Alpha Squadron pilots, and I would tell you that in standard nobody runs Alpha Squadron pilots anyway. Or most generic interceptors at all. You can run a lot in epic, at which point you've bought way more minis and cardstock than just getting the Aces box. I don't really follow this argument. Like, the moment it became possible to run a top tier soontir fel with two mods, that was the way to run Soontir Fel. And technically, other than the restrictions there's no reason not to apply RGI to every Interceptor you can. But you might not... because you're not actually planning on paying for that second mod.

This is where the Vaksai comes in. The Kihraxz is basically so terrible that short of just rebooting the ship (which means all the content the original K-fighter purchasers bought is useless anyway) that yeah, it needs a powerful fix to give you any reason to actually take it over similarly costed ships. But, often people warn you not to overload ships with upgrades. The Vaksai can easily put a player in that trap of investing too many bonus points in a ship. If you will not use the fix, there's no reason to attach it - but the Kihraxz is really bad so you probably want it. I also would argue that while decreasing upgrade cost does make the list cheaper - it still requires you to spend points and also increases opportunity cost. You can afford a lot more upgrades so you must carefully consider which are the relevant ones, you only have so many slots. This is a good and unique design space for the Kihraxz, but should your desire to run naked or minimalist Kihraxzes exist you don't "need" to include the title. (But again, they aren't great why would you?)

Now sure, you have to buy a new pack to make your old pack good. This is technically true of every fix. It's not like they can video game patch all the stuff you already bought - and depending on internal organization or even external rules or arrangements it's entirely possible FFG is not able to drastically edit the composition of a pack once released. They probably can't afford to print giant piles of Vaksai titles to give out to everyone who bought a Kihraxz pack as a "sorry" and may not be able to insert the cards in future printings of the expansion (which again, helps nobody who already bought it - nor does it allow for the often large numbers of new pilots in Aces boxes). If the alternative is "**** you what you bought sucks", the "hey, we know that ship wasn't great or didn't play out like we hoped, if you like it please buy this expansion which will help it" system is way better. Money makes the world go round, X-Wing minis ain't a charity.

But ultimately I think we just have different ideas of game design and may have to agree to disagree, because like, what you said about StarViper Mk II is crazy talk to me. Why on earth should chosing the "more cost-effectively built" version of the StarViper (which does technically add a weird wrinkle already) mean you HAVE to fly the exotic, expensive special version? That's crazy. The fact that the title allows you to take Virago at all is a blessing. It probably really shouldn't, but the StarViper really wants those upgrade slots, so almost anybody running a single SV will equip it like normal anyway. It's the exact opposite of Mist Hunter - a title which forces you to take a specific upgrade but one you cannot normally take to reflect it's uniqueness. It also fits the pattern of many 0 point upgrades in general that they interact with other upgrades which have a cost already.

Like, reading some of your comments it feels like you're not taking into account how some ships are clearly not working as intended or that in order to work as intended they need rulespace which just doesn't exist in the game. The StarViper straight up costs too many points for it's stats, the point reduction is an implicit admission. But FFG doesn't necessarily like to just correct point values for some reason - and in order to keep expanding the design space they need to apply mechanics to ships which the frame doesn't allow and rebooting the entire game to do would probably be way too much work. Nobody put a gun to your head and is forcing you to fly ARCs though.

26 minutes ago, Marinealver said:

Well besides the fact it is clunky let me give you a list of reasons why it is bad.

1. Splitting the ship/upgrade across multiple cards. Much like conditions which is (2 cards for 1 upgrade) auto-include titles are that. 2 ship cards for a single ship. Not in a way that is understandable such as corvette sized epic ships. It is inelegant design that adds more the to table clutter.

How else how do you propose to give the ships those abilities then? It's not like a reference card would be less confusing, and you can't fit it on the pilot card along with pilot abilities for uniques. I actually think a 0 point title is perfect for this. And I find it perfectly "understandable".

26 minutes ago, Marinealver said:

1. It removes options in ship building. Titles such as these are now a 100% must for every ship. The A-wing test pilot and Royal Guard pilots are not auto-include because you need to have a specific pilot for shoes ships. Star Viper mkII, Varski, Spec Ops, and A. Overhaul are all 100% include for all pilots of that ship. When list building a lot of people start by selecting the ship then the pilot. Now you have to start with pilot not the ship. Fixes like Chardaan refit was an option not a must, you coudl put missiles on it. Now sure that made missiles 2 points more expensive but the option was there. The TIE-D and x7 titles also left room if you did not want to include them. Such as Marek Steel with Mangler Cannon.

Awing test pilot is autoinclude on any pilot that isn't a prototype. I don't see how hats "better" than an autoinclude that goes on every pilot. With the advent of 0 point epts, there's literally no reason to ever not take the title on an awing if you're above ps1.

Similar for the royal guard. I don't think I've ever seen someone run an interceptor without it if they were high enough PS to have it.

both of those titles are just as much autoinclude as spec ops or alliance overhaul (or starviper mk2/vaksai). The fact that they're limited so you can't use them on a couple pilots for the ship doesn't change that.

And chaardan is a "choice", but it's only a choice between using more expensive missiles or taking the fix. You're never going to run a list with missile-less a-wings but not take chaardan refit.

And you aren't "removing option" in ship building unless there are other options to choose from. None of the ships in question have other titles (besides virago, which you can still take).

Autothrusters is much closer to something that removes options. You almost never run anything else if you have 3 agility and boost. But there lots of other options you can't take by taking autothrusters. X7 was similar before the nerf. It was so much better than /D that it was pretty much autoinclude and DID remove options.

The fix titles (or 0 point autoincludes for arc and sf) aren't removing any other upgrades you could have used otherwise. And you always COULD choose not to run them. It'd just be a terrible idea.

26 minutes ago, Marinealver said:

1. Expansions are no longer self contained. This is it. Star Viper and Kihraxz are no longer separate ships but more of an Expansion to an Expansion. With the TIE Interceptror you still needed them for the Alpha Squadron pilots. Also the Alpha Squadron pilots didn't miss out if you didn't have Imperial Aces. But for this, you need the G4H first and then the Star Viper.

So we got more reasons to bring printouts and leave cards at home, less build options, and more paying creep. I think those are good enough reasons to be wary of future expansion practices.

Almost no expansion in the game is truly self contained. Omega leader is one of the few pilots that can be run optimally with just his own expansion. Wanna run fenn rau? Need a starviper for autothrusters and either a jumpmaster for mindlink or imp aces or awing for push the limit. Miranda uses Sabine from the ghost (or other crew from other expansions), bombs from other expansions, etc. Almost any other pilot in the game if you look at a competitive list uses upgrades from other packs. This is no different.

As for alphas, yes, technically you still need to buy interceptors to get that. But almost no one flies them anyway. And G4H doesn't come with the ps1 or PS3 starviper pilots or autothrusters. You still need both expansions if you want to run soontir (which was most of interceptors for a long time).

Again, whys that such a big deal? I'd FAR rather buy another expansion to get a fix (and more models) then have them just ignore broken ships and never make them flyable at all. Between buying a nrew expansion to make an old one flyable or the old one never being flyable at all, I'd rather spend extra money for something I enjoy instead of having wasted money on something I won't use.

Just now, VanderLegion said:

How else how do you propose to give the ships those abilities then? It's not like a reference card would be less confusing, and you can't fit it on the pilot card along with pilot abilities for uniques. I actually think a 0 point title is perfect for this. And I find it perfectly "understandable".

...

Because special abilities are not for ships but for pilots. The T-65 and the TIE Fighter didn't have special abilities. The ships that had special abilities was the YT-1300 and the Firespray. They were both a new type of unit (large ships) and one could shoot outside of arc while the other had an additional firing arc. You don't give special abilities through upgrade cards.

Wave 9 was the worst wave to come out and that is part of thee reason. The pilots on all ships should have been knocked down a point an both titles should have been 1 point. however that is not the case and it is not going to change. Some people don't like PWTs and turrets. I am not one of those people, but the PWTs are not going to be changed into Mobile Firing Arcs or banned, or removed from X-wing in any way. Thus so are these 0 point "special abilities" and "auto-include fixes" So it is going to be mechanics that we are all jsut going to have to deal with it.

Doesn't mean that they are any good, or that I have to like them.

1 minute ago, Marinealver said:

Because special abilities are not for ships but for pilots. The T-65 and the TIE Fighter didn't have special abilities. The ships that had special abilities was the YT-1300 and the Firespray. They were both a new type of unit (large ships) and one could shoot outside of arc while the other had an additional firing arc. You don't give special abilities through upgrade cards.

That doesn't really answer my question. Ffg clearly wanted 2 small ships that had a front arc with a 3 attack primary and a rear arc that only had 2 attack dice. How do you propose to do that within the existing framework of the game without the title cards? It's not a special ability of the pilots of the ships, it's an inherent part of the ship itself.

1 minute ago, Marinealver said:

Wave 9 was the worst wave to come out and that is part of thee reason. The pilots on all ships should have been knocked down a point an both titles should have been 1 point. however that is not the case and it is not going to change. Some people don't like PWTs and turrets. I am not one of those people, but the PWTs are not going to be changed into Mobile Firing Arcs or banned, or removed from X-wing in any way. Thus so are these 0 point "special abilities" and "auto-include fixes" So it is going to be mechanics that we are all jsut going to have to deal with it.

Doesn't mean that they are any good, or that I have to like them.

You'd have to knock the cost down by way more than a point. An extra attack die to your primary weapon is worth more a lot more than than 1 point. Knocking the pilots down by 1 point and making the title 1 point would still leave the titles as autoincludes, because the ships are balanced to use the titles, so they'd be WAY overcosted still for 2-attack ships.

Just now, VanderLegion said:

That doesn't really answer my question.

I don't have to.