1 hour ago, Mangostrike said:

Just black out the text on the back with a sharpie. Keep the printed arc and other markings. Problem solved.

Negative.

Gina's Initiative will be wrong for a generic. Which is the only printed data on the base besides the name, and probably even more important than the actual name for game play.

And if I scribble that out too, I may as well just use a base from anything else as a surrogate.

Which, of course, is exactly what we did last night. All of those "Blue Squadron" x-wings at IN2 were actually IN3 Red Squadron.

I can manage a DIY fix. I'm trying to let @FFGDesignTeam in on a little product tweak that might be player-friendly.

4 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

*sigh*

I forget that some people won't play without cards.

Last night neither of us could put the right bases on our wings because we are not going to buy 5 flipping conversion kits to make a wing. I opened my Aces pack to discover that the base for Gina it utterly useless to make up the gap. Thought adding a generic flip side would make Aces packs helpful to the casual Epic crowd. Ran into a wall of rigid game design "requirements."

1 hour ago, Darth Meanie said:

Yeah, that's really what the *sigh* was about; you reminded me it would be "breaking the rules."

But in that case, I'd prefer they actually toss in the generic cards too for us folks with larger, poorly converted collections.

As stated above, Wings. Dials no longer matter, just models, bases, and (technically} cards.

And as also stated above, you can use the wrong bases.

BUT.

In general, I can't see my opponent's (possibly printed} list/cards. What I can see is the ship bases. So, if I would want anything to be accurate, it would be the ship's base out in the middle of the table.

I just want to make sure I've got this right:

1. You're playing a variant of the game that requires you to have purchased a larger number of ships than normal.
2. You're not willing to purchase a larger number of conversion kits than normal to accommodate that.
3. You're already fine with playing without a full complement of pilot cards and dials.
4. But the ship tile is apparently a step too far?

You're playing casual, so official tournament rules don't matter here, and you're asking for a generic, so pilot abilities don't matter either, so why should it matter if the base says "Red Squadron Veteran" instead of "Blade Squadron Veteran"? (There is no Dagger Squadron pilot in 2.0, so I'm assuming you meant the IN 3 Blade Squadron). The IN and arc would match, and it should be obvious what type of ship it is from the model used. Presto - you don't need to spend any more money at all!

For that matter, wouldn't FFG have been more likely to have made the reverse side the IN 2 "Blue Squadron Pilot" if they were going to choose a generic pilot for the reverse side anyway? Wouldn't that have still left you without the right tile for what you wanted?

The "reinforcements" pack wasn't meant to be a conversion kit, so there never should have been an expectation of getting tiles or cards for existing pilots in the first place.

2 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

Negative.

Gina's Initiative will be wrong for a generic. Which is the only printed data on the base besides the name, and probably even more important than the actual name for game play.

And if I scribble that out too, I may as well just use a base from anything else as a surrogate.

Which, of course, is exactly what we did last night. All of those "Blue Squadron" x-wings at IN2 were actually IN3 Red Squadron.

I can manage a DIY fix. I'm trying to let @FFGDesignTeam in on a little product tweak that might be player-friendly.

One could also just sharpie out the whole thing and use the extra side to make one's own pilot templates.

4 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

Negative.

Gina's Initiative will be wrong for a generic. Which is the only printed data on the base besides the name, and probably even more important than the actual name for game play.

And if I scribble that out too, I may as well just use a base from anything else as a surrogate.

Which, of course, is exactly what we did last night. All of those "Blue Squadron" x-wings at IN2 were actually IN3 Red Squadron.

I can manage a DIY fix. I'm trying to let @FFGDesignTeam in on a little product tweak that might be player-friendly.

It would be "player-friendly" for the group of customers who:
1. Need just one more tile for a generic pilot
2. Don't feel the need to have an accompanying pilot card
3. Wouldn't be irritated to get the tile without the pilot card

Alternately, they need to accommodate enough space in the pack for generic pilot cards for all the ships they gave a new pilot to, thus doubling (at least!) the number of pilot cards they include, increasing the size of the packaging they use, all to give most players another copy of a pilot they already have, and don't need.

I'd like the back to be a generic base, even if it doesn't come with a card.

Alternatively, one can print a paper slip to cover the unique side here.

29 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Alternatively:

"I have an idea."

"No, that's contrary to the way things are, and I personally see no need."

"I think it's a pretty good idea to make things better."

"Enough of your filth. Burn the heretic at the stake for non-conformist thinking."

2 hours ago, Freeptop said:

I just want to make sure I've got this right:

1. You're playing a variant of the game that requires you to have purchased a larger number of ships than normal.
2. You're not willing to purchase a larger number of conversion kits than normal to accommodate that.
3. You're already fine with playing without a full complement of pilot cards and dials.
4. But the ship tile is apparently a step too far?

2 hours ago, Freeptop said:

It would be "player-friendly" for the group of customers who:
1. Need just one more tile for a generic pilot
2. Don't feel the need to have an accompanying pilot card
3. Wouldn't be irritated to get the tile without the pilot card

EXACTLY!! And:

4. Adds $0 to the cost of the pack.

5. Would be "player-unfriendly" to absolutely no one!

*scratches his head, wondering how someone can understand the idea, not actually be negatively affected by it, and yet be obstinately opposed anyways*

I'm with Darth Meanie.

Even if the tiles to cards ratio isn't exact with such a release, it makes it easier to find an I2 (or whatever) when digging through piles.
It seems more flexible to have a different pilot on the back of the tile than the same thing.

6 hours ago, TasteTheRainbow said:

E-wings.

Rest in peace, new republic.

All hail the... Uh.... New new Jedi order or new new republic or something.

Blue Squadron Scouts are sad

44 minutes ago, Bucknife said:

Rest in peace, new republic.

All hail the... Uh.... New new Jedi order or new new republic or something.

The Reconstituted Rebels Resisting for the Reconstruction of a Refurbished Republic!

It's

7 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

Gina/Gina is 1/2 as useful as Gina/Dagger Squadron.

At this point, since the same observations and requests were made in other circumstances, FFG has a reason for doing this in this incredibly dumb way. I'm 99% sure it isn't a good reason, but they have a reason.

2 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

Come on, man. That's beneath you.

Darth Meanie is 100% right ... there is simply no good reason not to print a different pilot on the back of these ship-tokens. (There's not even a good reason not to do so and throw in the pilot card, but given his perfectly reasonable ask garnered so much stupid resistance, I can barely imagine what kind of dumbness would happen if he were to earnestly suggest a pilot card. Gee whiz!)

14 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Come on, man. That's beneath you.

Darth Meanie is 100% right ... there is simply no good reason not to print a different pilot on the back of these ship-tokens. (There's not even a good reason not to do so and throw in the pilot card, but given his perfectly reasonable ask garnered so much stupid resistance, I can barely imagine what kind of dumbness would happen if he were to earnestly suggest a pilot card. Gee whiz!)

It's a complete non-issue with a very simple, practical solution on our side as players, while at the same time we don't know how adding a second, different print might raise costs on their side, and as possible consequence lower the justification towards the new bosses who clearly do not fret.

Which generic would you add? There are usually several, so *someone* will still be mad that theirs was not added.

There is nothing to gain with this topic, not really.

Just now, GreenDragoon said:

Which generic would you add? There are usually several, so *someone* will still be mad that theirs was not added.

Then be mad at your hypothetical idiot, not dismissive of someone making a perfectly reasonable request ... because of your concern for your hypothetical idiot.

Again, it's beneath you. I suspect, from your tone in other threads, you're having a bad day. I'm genuinely sorry, if that's true. (Mine also sucks.) But I expect dumbness from a few ... several ... many ... almost all of the people who reject reasonableness with the reflexiveness of a slug being salted. It's disappointing when I see it in you, if that's worth anything at all.

I mean, @Darth Meanie is right that it'd be nice of these tiles were double-sided with spare generics. That's 100% correct. It'd be an all-upside, no-downside proposal.

7 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

Can't you then just pick any other i1/i2 rebel tile? I used LtBastian in place of Ronith yesterday.

Why are you willing to "break" the rules, but only to a certain point and not more where FFG should accomodate your specific kind of rule breaking?

But this here is also true. Like, if you're going to bend the rules, there's wicked easy ways to handle it.

2 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Then be mad at your hypothetical idiot, not dismissive of someone making a perfectly reasonable request ... because of your concern for your hypothetical idiot.

Again, it's beneath you. I suspect, from your tone in other threads, you're having a bad day. I'm genuinely sorry, if that's true. (Mine also sucks.) But I expect dumbness from a few ... several ... many ... almost all of the people who reject reasonableness with the reflexiveness of a slug being salted. It's disappointing when I see it in you, if that's worth anything at all.

They proxied IN3 pilots with IN2 plates. What more can I say...?

In all seriousness and grumpy day aside, I do not see the problem. I do not deny that it would be convenient, even customer friendly. Of course, but so would be extra plates, or more copies of generic upgrades. At the same time, we do not know why they decided against it. Maybe it saves them a tiny amount, maybe a lot. We don't know. I assume that the cost is non-zero, while you guys apparently don't think so.

If cost is that much of an issue, leave the back blank. It will be just as much use.

wishlist for the second card pack: "soldiers and mercenaries"

• multi-dotted init 1-4 pilots/generics for every faction
• new "non-limited-only" set of faction talents
• new generic crew/gunner options?
• new generic mod/talent/illicit options?

4 minutes ago, svelok said:

wishlist for the second card pack: "soldiers and mercenaries"

• multi-dotted init 1-4 pilots/generics for every faction
• new "non-limited-only" set of faction talents
• new generic crew/gunner options?
• new generic mod/talent/illicit options?

Niiice, some love for our rank-and-file brothers and sisters! Power to the nameless heroes!

2 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

It's a complete non-issue with a very simple, practical solution on our side as players, while at the same time we don't know how adding a second, different print might raise costs on their side, and as possible consequence lower the justification towards the new bosses who clearly do not fret.

Which generic would you add? There are usually several, so *someone* will still be mad that theirs was not added.

There is nothing to gain with this topic, not really.

I going to agree meanie has the right idea here barring us knowing somehow it costs a lot more to print something else. (Which it probably doesn’t)

your picture was disrespectful and a jerk group-think way of telling people to conform.

You have some reasonable points but please never ever use that picture this type of argument ever again.

2 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

I mean, @Darth Meanie is right that it'd be nice of these tiles were double-sided with spare generics. That's 100% correct. It'd be an all-upside, no-downside proposal.

Thanks.

Quote

But this here is also true. Like, if you're going to bend the rules, there's wicked easy ways to handle it.

Of course. And at no point was I asking for a solution, I was offering an idea/suggestion. As I pointed out up thread, last night I ran 5 IN 2 Blue X-Wings and told my brother, "dude, these guys are IN 3 Reds."

The annoying bit of the dissenting posts is being handed a "solution" as a way to say "your idea is stupid and you should feel bad for not accepting my alternative."

2 hours ago, Jeff Wilder said:

At this point, since the same observations and requests were made in other circumstances, FFG has a reason for doing this in this incredibly dumb way. I'm 99% sure it isn't a good reason, but they have a reason.

Well, I think @GuacCousteau is probably on to something. If they offered the tile, they might feel obliged to offer the corresponding card, which then would increase the price of the packs.

Then again, the whole point of this thread is to tell FFG, "Hey, we are all cool with Base/No Card." And from the response to my OP, I'd say the response is overall pretty positive.

2 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

It's a complete non-issue with a very simple, practical solution on our side as players, while at the same time we don't know how adding a second, different print might raise costs on their side, and as possible consequence lower the justification towards the new bosses who clearly do not fret.

So I don't have a right to ask FFG? If I can fix it with a Sharpie I should just go on, never knowing if FFG would be willing to make a change that might make me (and others} happier customers??

I also find it very, very hard to imaging changing the names of pilots on the backsides of bases in the graphic draft costs anything, if done during the design phase. How would Gina Moonsong/Dagger Squadron cost more than Gina Moonsong/Gina Moonsong, if we accept there will be no extra card for the generic pilot?

Quote

Which generic would you add? There are usually several, so *someone* will still be mad that theirs was not added.

I do not accept that the inability to find the perfect solution does not mean improvements can be made. This is a lame excuse just to shoot the idea down.

Quote

There is nothing to gain with this topic, not really.

I also do not accept this. Two threads later, the X-Wing community has a new policy for Convention Repaints.

4 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

EXACTLY!! And:

4. Adds $0 to the cost of the pack.

5. Would be "player-unfriendly" to absolutely no one!

*scratches his head, wondering how someone can understand the idea, not actually be negatively affected by it, and yet be obstinately opposed anyways*

I'll take my lumps on this one. I think I read an attitude into your original posts that wasn't there, and reacted poorly. I really should have followed my "write the post, then just delete it without posting it" rule.

Sorry for getting argumentative with you. Not enough sleep lately, I think!

I think this is a good exercise for everyone here who reacted to vitriol to understand other peoples attempts at making a system better with a nicer response or no response at all.

The lack of willingness to allow chances for improvement and critique on a common maybe beloved object is a systematic ailment of destructive societal thinking.

The next time one reacts negatively could have significantly higher consequences for the one raising the concern, generally a different type of human than the one dismissing the suggestion. Check your privileges please.

No harm was done here, but you’re assured 100% to do harm in the future continuing with this mindset.