My argument, and looks like not just mine is that TIE ADVANCED PROTOTYPE is not TIE ADVANCED.
This would be fine, if they didn't have a title that said TIE only. That is the lynchpin of my argument here. This title sets a precedent that the ship NEED ONLY CONTAIN the words, but MAY have MORE words.
As for Titles. TIE Advanced and TIE Advanced prototype are two different ships. X1 is for the former, V1 for the latter. This will likely be faq'ed but we should treat that as a given.
It's even worse than that, because there is no such ship as the TIE Advanced Prototype. There's an upcoming ship that, in the preview images, is labeled a TIE Adv. Prototype.
If the ship were the TIE Advanced Prototype, it would be able to take the TIE/x1 title and ATC. But it isn't, because the ship's name in every piece of game text we have so far is TIE Adv. Prototype. And accordingly, the very powerful fixes for the TIE Advanced are going to stay on the TIE Advanced.
C'mon man it's not the TIE ADVIL Prototype. Why do people keep pretending like they don't know what ADV means?
And to be fair, I DO see your point. Maybe FFG though by abbreviating Advanced then it would eliminate any confusion. I view it as they simply didn't have room. And I feel like they are insulting our intelligence by assuming that nobody is going to try and put the X1 title on the Advil. All they have to do is change the wording.
Edited by CrabbokSo now the anti x1 title argument is because FFG has never released a multi ship title they never will?
That's an assumption that could never be proven, short of FFG actually stating this.
If you think that FFG intend to let the Inquisitior have a strictly-better-than-an-HLC attack at PS 8 for 26 points then... Okay. Let's agree to disagree.
This would be fine, if they didn't have a title that said TIE only. That is the lynchpin of my argument here. This title sets a precedent that the ship NEED ONLY CONTAIN the words, but MAY have MORE words.My argument, and looks like not just mine is that TIE ADVANCED PROTOTYPE is not TIE ADVANCED.
If the ship were the TIE Advanced Prototype, it would be able to take the TIE/x1 title and ATC. But it isn't, because the ship's name in every piece of game text we have so far is TIE Adv. Prototype.
Exactly this.
C'mon man it's not the TIE ADVIL Prototype. Why do people keep pretending like they don't know what ADV means?
Nobody is pretending they don't know what Adv. means! But what it "means" is not the same as what the card says!
The upgrade says TIE Advanced. The new ship says TIE Adv. and even though that means TIE Advanced, it still doesn't SAY TIE Advanced. And rules go by what cards say, not what they mean, unless FFG specifically says otherwise.
As for Titles. TIE Advanced and TIE Advanced prototype are two different ships. X1 is for the former, V1 for the latter. This will likely be faq'ed but we should treat that as a given.
It's even worse than that, because there is no such ship as the TIE Advanced Prototype. There's an upcoming ship that, in the preview images, is labeled a TIE Adv. Prototype.
If the ship were the TIE Advanced Prototype, it would be able to take the TIE/x1 title and ATC. But it isn't, because the ship's name in every piece of game text we have so far is TIE Adv. Prototype. And accordingly, the very powerful fixes for the TIE Advanced are going to stay on the TIE Advanced.
C'mon man it's not the TIE ADVIL Prototype. Why do people keep pretending like they don't know what ADV means?
My point is that it doesn't matter what it stands for. (I know you know this, but I'll spell it out anyway.) If the rule is that TIE Only refers to anything that starts with "TIE", then okay, fine--TIE Advanced Only refers to anything that starts with "TIE Advanced", which means one ship.
As I said above, if all people were saying is that it's potentially confusing to people who don't read carefully, I'm on board with that. If the argument is that it would have been better to call it somehing else, I agree--although I think Lucasfilm gets to make the final call on how ships are named. In fact, I've already written FFG a note to say the name could be confusing, and suggested they either change it or FAQ it.
But it's not actually ambiguous.
If I were a TO I would have to allow the Tie ADV prototype to use the Tie/x1 title. This is based on specific wording on 3 cards with a grey area on one card specifically one acronym.
Twin Ion Engine Mk.11
Tie only. Modification
This means any ship with Tie in the ship type bar can use it, may seem a bit obvious.
TIE/x1
TIE ADVANCED only. Title
This means any ship with TIE ADVANCED in the ship type bar can use it. This is the grey area because another obvious point is that ADV. means advanced.
TIE/v1
TIE ADV. PROTOTYPE only. Title
This is also obvious only ships with TIE ADV.(yes means advanced) PROTOTYPE in the ship type bar are allowed to use it.
I can see how it can be interpreted to not allow the prototype to use it because on the TIE/x1 it has the whole word ADVANCED. But there are a lot of wording/ambiguity in this game and I am using my common sense(probably not common to anyone else and doesn't make sense either) to make this ruling. I do believe either FFG made a mistake or wasn't clear enough in the particular case. It has happened in the past and probably will in the future but overall with the huge scope of rules and releases. Then combine this with regional/national/international level competition where 1 mm could make a difference I think they have done an amazing job.
Well if we're going to simply change the text on cards because we think it feels better then I don't see why you don't allow any ship to be a prototype pilot. I mean it says "A-Wing" which as we all know is just a slurring of "An Entire Wing". Just so so happens my fighter wing is all Tie Interceptors. Or perhaps because "X" is commonly used as a variable I can put Wedge inside any ship that ends in "Wing"? X is short for anything currently unknown and I haven't decided which ship yet.
Kinda Tangential, but Rebels is pre-GCW-GCW era right, there is no true GCW going on at the time of Rebels, = we are seeing a number of clone wars vehicles/ships in Rebels, the Aquitans, Gozanti, Police cruiser...
Guess what I am trying to say is that with the prequel ships, all we need to see is a single ARC or V-wing in Imperial Grey in Rebels and prequel ships are officially in. (To be clear, I don't believe we'll see them before this, but it's not unrealistic that the Rebels will have to deal with older ships either having to use them or contending with Imperials who still use them). The TIE Advanced V1 is not a GCW ship.
As for Titles. TIE Advanced and TIE Advanced prototype are two different ships. X1 is for the former, V1 for the latter. This will likely be faq'ed but we should treat that as a given.
The thing is, it is far, far closer to ANH than it is to the Clone Wars. Not exactly sure of the timeline, but I think it is one or two years out from the formal Alliance right now.
My argument, and looks like not just mine is that TIE ADVANCED PROTOTYPE is not TIE ADVANCED.
This would be fine, if they didn't have a title that said TIE only. That is the lynchpin of my argument here. This title sets a precedent that the ship NEED ONLY CONTAIN the words, but MAY have MORE words.
The lnchpin of your argument first requires you to change the printed text of the card from "." to "anced." Which should tell you right then you have made a mistake. You are not allowed to change the text of the cards you play!
TIE Adv. Prototype... Could the Adv. be AdvancE, not AdvanceD? That would end this debate real quick.
Wow, these are some of the dumbest discussions I've seen outside MMO forums...
I have no idea how people believe some of their arguments. Like its OK to assume the TIE only is for all TIE's, which I agree. But then assume that TIE ADVANCED is different to TIE ADV. doesn't make sense. Even in the FFG Out of Hiding spoiler it states it is called the TIE advanced prototype so they probably used ADV. to save room. And I really have no idea about the changing text on cards, who is doing that? If you mean ADV. to ADVANCED so that's not OK but changing TIE to TIE FIGHTER/DEFENDER etc is OK?
I'm done with this thread. I guess I'll have to start a thread that wants to talk about the Tie Advanced Prototype V1 without the stupid X1 title and just expect this one to get shut down.
Wow, these are some of the dumbest discussions I've seen outside MMO forums...
Indeed. No one knows for sure. FFG ruling plox.
I have no idea how people believe some of their arguments. Like its OK to assume the TIE only is for all TIE's, which I agree. But then assume that TIE ADVANCED is different to TIE ADV. doesn't make sense. Even in the FFG Out of Hiding spoiler it states it is called the TIE advanced prototype so they probably used ADV. to save room. And I really have no idea about the changing text on cards, who is doing that? If you mean ADV. to ADVANCED so that's not OK but changing TIE to TIE FIGHTER/DEFENDER etc is OK?
Does the TIE fighter/defender have all of the words printed on it that the modification requires? Y/N
Does the Inquisitors TIE have the words "TIE Advanced" printed on the card? Y/N.
You'll notice the answers were Y and N respectively, which means in the later case you have to change the printed text of the card in order to make it fit the words printed on the X1. Words have meaning.
Wow, these are some of the dumbest discussions I've seen outside MMO forums...
Indeed. No one knows for sure. FFG ruling plox.
If the TIE/x1 and Adv. Targeting Computer end up being usable on the Prototype, I'll let the forum vote on whether:
(1) I eat an actual hat, on camera, or
(2) I buy Crabbok a Raider.
Words have meaning.
Indeed!
And in this case, Adv. would mean Advanced.
I don't get how anyone can get it to mean anything else.
Now, I don't play X-wing, so I couldn't say, but if a card said "can only be used on the TIE Advanced", I would hold off on a decision (in either direction of this discussion) until FFG comes out and states that this includes the prototype of that model or not (which, I gather, is what this whole discussion is about).
But to claim that Adv. does not mean Advanced is... well... moronic.
However, the TIE Advanced is also the complete name of a ship type.
So anthing that can only be applied to a TIE Advanced would be in limbo as to whether it would work on the prototype or not.
Until word is handed down from FFG (either on a card with the model, or in an FAQ) there's really no point to having this discussion.
Unless, of course, you really want to discuss whether Adv. stands for Advanced, Advil, Adversary or Advocate.
But that discussion is pretty pointless, since it's apparantly stated otherwhere that it does stand for Advanced
Edited by OddballE8If the TIE/x1 and Adv. Targeting Computer end up being usable on the Prototype, I'll let the forum vote on whether:
(1) I eat an actual hat, on camera, or(2) I buy Crabbok a Raider.
I say you buy him a Raider. Cause he'll need those x1 and ATC cards for his Prototypes.
Wow, this thread just went goofy shoes. I guess what I don't understand about people's arguments here is that if you were going to try to put the TIE X/1 title on the TIE Adv. Prototype you are actively ignoring the words in the title of the ship. Lets break this down for a moment:
TIE Advanced
Okay, I see two words there. One says TIE, which if I recall correctly is an acronym for Twin Ion Engine, the other says Advanced.
TIE Adv. Prototype
Three words here, so we are already different out of the gate. We have the standard TIE to start with, then Adv. (which is an abbreviation for what I assume is Advanced), and finally the extra word Prototype.
TIE/x1
This is a nifty title card for sure but the first thing it says on the card is TIE Advanced Only. Title.
TIE/v1
Same thing here, lovely title and I am going to use the snot out of it. First thing this card says however is TIE Adv. Prototype only. Title. Notice they call out 'prototype' as part of the title meaning that on some level the use of 'prototype' has importance and was an intended addition to the title of the ship.
When I started writing this I didn't mean to come off sounding like a jerk but I feel this is just going to spiral into the "Can Vader take the new title?" argument all over again and that is incredibly frustrating. Sure, there are going to be players out there who are going to throw titles around on different ships or make assumptions (one guy I played against just assumed that because he has a YT-2000 he could shoot his cannon in a 360 degree arc without the 'Outrider' title).
This is nothing new but I feel like I need to point out the above because this is a debate where there are no winners. The ship is going to come out, someone might try to fly it with the wrong title and the entire discussion to resolve it should just be: There are three words in the name of one ship and two in the other.
Words have meaning.
Indeed!
And in this case, Adv. would mean Advanced.
I don't get how anyone can get it to mean anything else.
Now, I don't play X-wing, so I couldn't say, but if a card said "can only be used on the TIE Advanced", I would hold off on a decision (in either direction of this discussion) until FFG comes out and states that this includes the prototype of that model or not (which, I gather, is what this whole discussion is about).
But to claim that Adv. does not mean Advanced is... well... moronic.
What games do you play where the rules let you use similar names in place of exact matches?
Frankly I find that to be a little more moronic, but c'est le vie.
I say you buy him a Raider. Cause he'll need those x1 and ATC cards for his Prototypes.If the TIE/x1 and Adv. Targeting Computer end up being usable on the Prototype, I'll let the forum vote on whether:
(1) I eat an actual hat, on camera, or
(2) I buy Crabbok a Raider.
Vorpal Sword and DarthEnderX for the thread win!
Why are we debating phrasing again? FFG's rules don't work on iron wording. The only thing we need to work out is what they intend it to do. They'll FAQ it to that.
Words have meaning.
Indeed!
And in this case, Adv. would mean Advanced.
I don't get how anyone can get it to mean anything else.
Now, I don't play X-wing, so I couldn't say, but if a card said "can only be used on the TIE Advanced", I would hold off on a decision (in either direction of this discussion) until FFG comes out and states that this includes the prototype of that model or not (which, I gather, is what this whole discussion is about).
But to claim that Adv. does not mean Advanced is... well... moronic.
What games do you play where the rules let you use similar names in place of exact matches?
Frankly I find that to be a little more moronic, but c'est le vie.
Which is why I said, wait for FFG to give their word on it.
Especially if the card for the TIE Advanced was printed before the TIE Adv. Prototype existed. In that case, they might update the rules for that card to include the prototype.
And to answer your question, I've played plenty of games where rules have changed as the game evolved and new units were introduced.
There's no point to making the FAQ longer if we all know how they will rule.
No one here would actually pack a squad of the new TIEs equipped with the X1 title and seriously submit the list for a competition. You know it would get thrown out.
Why are we debating phrasing again? FFG's rules don't work on iron wording. The only thing we need to work out is what they intend it to do. They'll FAQ it to that.
I don't necessarily agree--FFG tries to work on literal wording, at least--but if you were right, it would be open and shut. The Advanced got a fix, or rather a pair of fixes, because it was woefully underpowered. Those fixes take a ship that offered about 4 points less in value than it cost the player and make it competitive. In fact it looks like they'll make it very competitive.
So what do you--meaning those pulling for the X1 title and the ATC to be usable on the Prototype--suppose happens when you apply those fixes to a ship that isn't underpowered by 4 points? You're left either arguing that FFG wants the Prototype to blow past almost every other ship in the game or that it was designed to be underpowered by about 4 points so that it would be balanced after the Advanced fixes were applied. (Which in turn requires you to explain why The Inquisitor is so much cheaper than Vader, or for that matter, cheaper than Fel.)