I think we're talking past teacher at this point my man. You seem to be making all my points for me now.

It would be a drastic change to the game for sure. I wasn't offering/supporting this as a change we should make now, but rather as an oddity that they didn't in the 2.0 build, and would be a nice thing to see in say ten years in a 3.0. At that point you might not even have the same Chop as you rebuild the whole game again anyway, so what token it references (or not) gets reworked then and your fine.

Again, making my same point for me, yes energy is different in how it functions. But first Ed saw epic have individual tokens assigned first to the ship, then distributed to it's cards. Charge tokens could have filled that same role if they had wanted to do that again. Thank goodness they didn't.

Even the current previewed energy could have been tracked with charge tokens(or a charge token spin dial, whatever) with no change. You could have flipped up multiple charge tokens on the ship at the start of round, then turned them back down to use the upgrades. Functionally it would have worked just fine, until they start interacting. Which is why they have to remain split. "Attack: spend one charge from your ship." Or,"spend up to three charges from your ship, then do X" Would have been all it took. Literally, just change the word and it still functions. Ironically Chop would have been the precedent here as he breaks the charge token restriction of 'on card only' that they generally have, as you point out.

1 hour ago, ForceSensitive said:

I think we're talking past teacher at this point my man. You seem to be making all my points for me now.

If you ignore absolutely everything that's actually been said, sure. I guess the big question is, functionally, how would munitions tokens be any different from charges?

1 hour ago, ForceSensitive said:

Ironically Chop would have been the precedent here as he breaks the charge token restriction of 'on card only' that they generally have, as you point out.

Doesn't Jabba or some other Scum upgrade also add charges, or something? Also, Spare Parts Canister? Anyway, even those rely on the charges being assigned to specific upgrades rather than pooled together.

I suppose they could have just used charge tokens instead of energy for Huge ships, but considering it works differently, doing so would have been needlessly confusing (as well as requiring tokens instead of a dial).

I haven't ignored you J, I've addressed every point we've made together. To answer your question, what does having munitions tokens do for you: It gives you a designer tool. I've already explained this earlier but maybe not well? If you seperate them you don't have to use as many qualifying lines of text to make certain effects work with only specific other objects.

You also gain a clear identifier that calls attention to specific upgrades visually. Like if you have a charge on your pilot, their talent, their system, and on their weapon, it's easy for them to get bumped around and it's not as clear which upgrade has what charges and in what state. If they were different, you take a glance and you see different tokens, even just on the pile of a ships cards enough toeasily differentiate them from across the table as to what they go to, and make your decisions. Without tipping your hand and asking your opponent about their board or then having to ask you. Like you once again demonstrate my point in your noting that energy and charges could have been the same thing BUT... It's needlessly confusing as it is. Functionally, it would be preferable to have across the board clear readability.

Functionally, they would probably operate the same as all the other tokens. Like Shield, Force, Charge, whatever. There's a ready and a spent side, spent is red. They don't ready unless your instructed. Maybe they indicate some connection to the ordnance icon that turns off range bonuses? That would be an option. The old Munition token from 1e had the same missile logo as I recall.

And yes indeed, there are a few other cards that set the precedent like Chop. Not that you really need a precedent I suppose anyway If you're in the design process you can just make a new precedent.

1 hour ago, ForceSensitive said:

I haven't ignored you J, I've addressed every point we've made together. To answer your question, what does having munitions tokens do for you: It gives you a designer tool. I've already explained this earlier but maybe not well? If you seperate them you don't have to use as many qualifying lines of text to make certain effects work with only specific other objects.

But it seems that the designers don't want to treat the tokens differently. The difference is between recurring and non-recurring charges; not between charges on munitions and charges on other upgrades. If you make Munitions non-recurring, would all Charges be recurring, then? Would Afterburners be recurring, or would it be based on a Munitions token (despite having nothing to do with Munitions)? Or would some Charges be recurring and others non-recurring (and possibly at some point make some Munitions recurring)?

1 hour ago, ForceSensitive said:

Like you once again demonstrate my point in your noting that energy and charges could have been the same thing

I'm not sure why you keep repeating this.

Me: Charges and Munitions accomplish the same thing in the same way, and therefore they're the same token. Energy is rather different and would be horribly convoluted to treat the same way, and therefore is not the same token (or even a token at all).

You: Aha! That proves that Charges and Munitions should be different tokens!

Hey guys! What about Illicit tokens? They're Charges now too! Just think of all the crazy little symbols we could have had!

/runs

I mean...I still use some old acrylic extra munitions to mark charges on ordnance just cause. Same with illicit tokens. Haven’t had a problem.

@JJ48 I think your argument is dangerously close to theoretical semantics. To answer it anyway, recurring or not would probably still be on a card by card basis. An 'engine' card might need charges to indicate fuel that's limited, and therefore not recur. Where another piece of equipment may just need to have the limitation of once a round that a single recurring charge accomplishes. And yes you could have a recurring Munition card. Perhaps something that takes a while to load and requires two Munition tokens to fire, like a giant missile pod with plenty of ammo or something. Outside of that, to your second item, I think you missed my point. It's not that they operate with the same basic functional wording. It's that you don't have a typing to them that can be quickly referenced by your other mechanics. I think the horse is dead either way. I've made my point. Several times now. Moving on.

@FTS Gecko lol yeah technically 😆 . I mean, this IS FFG were talking about. They will make a specific token for a single card like Listening Device or pilot like Kylo. They LOVE tokens, Why not! 🤣

@SabineKey I have a bunch of those as well, and like I said, I chose not to use them Problem I run into is I hang with a diverse enough crowd of old and new players that some don't (ironically) always know what token is what, when their not 'standard'(hey look, the thread topic). Add in a touch of my own OCD to have things that match and well there you have it. Heck I get confused by some of the third party tokens out there. One guy I play with has an old acrylic target lock that's shaped like the state of Ohio, somehow I keep thinking it's a stress token. 🤔

8 minutes ago, ForceSensitive said:

It's not that they operate with the same basic functional wording. It's that you don't have a typing to them that can be quickly referenced by your other mechanics. I think the horse is dead either way. I've made my point. Several times now.

Well, I've certainly missed something , because as far as I could tell, you didn't make a point, but rather several points, all different and some even conflicting.

For instance, you point to Chopper's wording as proof that the current system needs improvement, and yet you now say that the both types would allow for recurring and non-recurring variants, meaning Chopper would still need similar wording (possibly more, if we wanted him to work with both charges and munitions).

I guess one thing we can agree on: further discussion on this matter is pointless.

2 hours ago, ForceSensitive said:

@JJ48 I think your argument is dangerously close to theoretical semantics. To answer it anyway, recurring or not would probably still be on a card by card basis. An 'engine' card might need charges to indicate fuel that's limited, and therefore not recur. Where another piece of equipment may just need to have the limitation of once a round that a single recurring charge accomplishes. And yes you could have a recurring Munition card. Perhaps something that takes a while to load and requires two Munition tokens to fire, like a giant missile pod with plenty of ammo or something. Outside of that, to your second item, I think you missed my point. It's not that they operate with the same basic functional wording. It's that you don't have a typing to them that can be quickly referenced by your other mechanics. I think the horse is dead either way. I've made my point. Several times now. Moving on.

@FTS Gecko lol yeah technically 😆 . I mean, this IS FFG were talking about. They will make a specific token for a single card like Listening Device or pilot like Kylo. They LOVE tokens, Why not! 🤣

@SabineKey I have a bunch of those as well, and like I said, I chose not to use them Problem I run into is I hang with a diverse enough crowd of old and new players that some don't (ironically) always know what token is what, when their not 'standard'(hey look, the thread topic). Add in a touch of my own OCD to have things that match and well there you have it. Heck I get confused by some of the third party tokens out there. One guy I play with has an old acrylic target lock that's shaped like the state of Ohio, somehow I keep thinking it's a stress token. 🤔

I’ve dealt with old and new players as well and not come across this problem. Most of the time, they see a token on a card that requires charges and understand what’s going on. I’ve had to explain it once or twice, but it can be quickly resolved.

Sure. But you did have to explain it one or twice right? I got tired of explaining it every week myself. Your experience may differ and all that.

26 minutes ago, ForceSensitive said:

Sure. But you did have to explain it one or twice right? I got tired of explaining it every week myself. Your experience may differ and all that.

In hindsight, explain is a strong word. When it comes up, it takes the form of “using those as charge tokens? Cool.”

I totally figured. All good.