@Stone37: your argument assumes that "TIE Adv." and "TIE Advanced" are the same thing. I see no reason to agree with that assumption, especially since there are design and balance reasons that FFG probably doesn't want them to be the same.

He's arguing with the literal density that comes with the name. I wouldn't bother at this stage, he'll be wrong eventually.

Wow, that's just uncalled for. Not once have I name called or attacked any person on this forum.

Look, I have stated that FFG very well might rule that TIE Adv. and TIE Advanced are two different names. I could end up being wrong. Right now, I have an argument that gives validity to my stance. (As do those who state, for no other reason, that TIE Adv. and TIE Advanced are literally different)

If ffg wanted to make the tie advanced obsolete why go to the trouble of making the title a bunch of new pilots and a repaint it makes zero sense.

The TAP is not a tie advanced they are different ships.

@Stone37: your argument assumes that "TIE Adv." and "TIE Advanced" are the same thing. I see no reason to agree with that assumption, especially since there are design and balance reasons that FFG probably doesn't want them to be the same.

He's arguing with the literal density that comes with the name. I wouldn't bother at this stage, he'll be wrong eventually.

Wow, that's just uncalled for. Not once have I name called or attacked any person on this forum.

Look, I have stated that FFG very well might rule that TIE Adv. and TIE Advanced are two different names. I could end up being wrong. Right now, I have an argument that gives validity to my stance. (As do those who state, for no other reason, that TIE Adv. and TIE Advanced are literally different)

Laputan machine.

@Stone37: your argument assumes that "TIE Adv." and "TIE Advanced" are the same thing. I see no reason to agree with that assumption, especially since there are design and balance reasons that FFG probably doesn't want them to be the same.

He's arguing with the literal density that comes with the name. I wouldn't bother at this stage, he'll be wrong eventually.

Wow, that's just uncalled for. Not once have I name called or attacked any person on this forum.

Look, I have stated that FFG very well might rule that TIE Adv. and TIE Advanced are two different names. I could end up being wrong. Right now, I have an argument that gives validity to my stance. (As do those who state, for no other reason, that TIE Adv. and TIE Advanced are literally different)

Laputan machine.

No. Ad hominem.

What you wrote is a philosophical fallacy.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/

The main thing is that the TIE/x1 and TIE/v1 cards are titles, not a modifications. There are no titles in the game that can be equipped on multiple types of ships meaning there is no design precedence to do it now.

In terms of the game, the TIE Advanced and TIE Adv. Prototype are two distinctly named ships and therefore could not use titles that don't apply to them. It works just like the Millennium Falcon and Outrider title; both of those ships are part of the YT-series of freighters but in-game they cannot equip the other ship's title despite the fact that they both have the YT designation in their name.

@Stone37: your argument assumes that "TIE Adv." and "TIE Advanced" are the same thing. I see no reason to agree with that assumption, especially since there are design and balance reasons that FFG probably doesn't want them to be the same.

I will again quote from the article:

Personally tasked by Darth Vader to hunt down and eliminate any surviving Jedi Knights, the Inquisitor was provided access to the best of all available Imperial technologies, including his own personal TIE Advanced prototype, which represented a groundbreaking improvement over the TIE fighter designs of its time.

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2015/7/31/xwing-out-of-hiding/

I've read the article, but usually they're not treated as rules text.

But is it not a FFG article that let us know the X1 title will work with Darth Vader's x1?

FFG's ruleset has never been truly iron on wording (even in Wave 7 we get extreme ambiguity from things like Crew Bossk). It's blatantly obvious that the TIE/v1 is not meant to be able to equip TIE/x1. TIE/x1 is heavily undercosted fix card designed to balance out the overcost of the TIE advanced.

If the TIE advanced v1 could equip it then there are two possibilities:

The first is that the TIE advanced v1 does not come overcosted. The TIE/v1 title that comes with it is pointless as it can never compete with the TIE/x1 title. The TIE/x1 title, effectively a five point discount, propels it solidly into utterly broken territory. The Raider is required to get the autoinclude title.

The second is that FFG have decided to go for dirty business practices and TIE advanced v1 comes deliberately overcosted. The TIE/v1 title that comes with it is pointless as it can never compete with the TIE/x1 title. The TIE/x1 title balances out this overcost. The Raider is in effect a compulsory purchase to make the TIE/v1 playable.

Both of these are fairly ludicrous. The only sensible assumption is that TIE Advanced Only refers to the ANH TIE advanced only.

But is it not a FFG article that let us know the X1 title will work with Darth Vader's x1?

What does it say on Vader's dial. You can't have it either way. Either Vader is a seperate ship, or he is an Advanced.

Yeah, no wonder FFG has such aarge FAQ. A couple of cards get spoiled from an expansion that might be available sometime next year and everyone loses their minds.

Personally I think the Prototype is not intended to take the X1 title, but it doesn't matter till those minis hit the states and we can actually buy them.

But is it not a FFG article that let us know the X1 title will work with Darth Vader's x1?

What does it say on Vader's dial. You can't have it either way. Either Vader is a seperate ship, or he is an Advanced.

Vader's card never should have said X1 - but to be fair, FFG didn't know they were going to have to make an X1 title years later, so cut them some slack on that.

However, the Inquisitor's TIE, should honestly have been named something else. I'm really upset that the card says TIE Adv ON IT, yet is likely going to be dissallowed from taking the X1 Title, when we are ABOUT TO SEE a TIE only upgrade. People should complain that there is no ship called TIE, so that upgrade can't go anywhere. It is a serious error I believe. Fortunately, Wave 8 is still not at the printer, so MAYBE, just maybe they can rename the Inquisitor's TIE to something else. Otherwise I think it will make X Wing look dumber, to have blatantly contradicting rules like that.

FFG's ruleset has never been truly iron on wording (even in Wave 7 we get extreme ambiguity from things like Crew Bossk). It's blatantly obvious that the TIE/v1 is not meant to be able to equip TIE/x1. TIE/x1 is heavily undercosted fix card designed to balance out the overcost of the TIE advanced.

If the TIE advanced v1 could equip it then there are two possibilities:

The first is that the TIE advanced v1 does not come overcosted. The TIE/v1 title that comes with it is pointless as it can never compete with the TIE/x1 title. The TIE/x1 title, effectively a five point discount, propels it solidly into utterly broken territory. The Raider is required to get the autoinclude title.

The second is that FFG have decided to go for dirty business practices and TIE advanced v1 comes deliberately overcosted. The TIE/v1 title that comes with it is pointless as it can never compete with the TIE/x1 title. The TIE/x1 title balances out this overcost. The Raider is in effect a compulsory purchase to make the TIE/v1 playable.

Both of these are fairly ludicrous. The only sensible assumption is that TIE Advanced Only refers to the ANH TIE advanced only.

I think many on this thread are forgetting how powerful an evade action is. Try flying an A wing without evade. The v1 title gives the TAP a sporting chance of surviving being shot at. You win the game by destroying your opponent's ships and keeping yours alive. The X1 title is no good on a dead ship.

But is it not a FFG article that let us know the X1 title will work with Darth Vader's x1?

What does it say on Vader's dial. You can't have it either way. Either Vader is a seperate ship, or he is an Advanced.

Vader's card never should have said X1 - but to be fair, FFG didn't know they were going to have to make an X1 title years later, so cut them some slack on that.

However, the Inquisitor's TIE, should honestly have been named something else. I'm really upset that the card says TIE Adv ON IT, yet is likely going to be dissallowed from taking the X1 Title, when we are ABOUT TO SEE a TIE only upgrade. People should complain that there is no ship called TIE, so that upgrade can't go anywhere. It is a serious error I believe. Fortunately, Wave 8 is still not at the printer, so MAYBE, just maybe they can rename the Inquisitor's TIE to something else. Otherwise I think it will make X Wing look dumber, to have blatantly contradicting rules like that.

Well to be fair, the V1 title probably won't ever be taken over the X1 (if legal), unless of course the user doesn't own a raider. The V1 title is great and all, but that isn't the issue. They shouldn't have made another TIE ADVANCED that can't take a TIE Advanced title.

Imagine they made a YT Only Title - and said it could only go on a YT-1300, and NOT a YT-2400. Wouln't that be ludicrous?

Also, suppose they make an Episode 7 X-Wing, and maybe it is an X-Wing V2? Could it in theory take a Rogue Squadron title if that title were X-Wing Only? I really want to see a new FAQ.

Well to be fair, the V1 title probably won't ever be taken over the X1 (if legal), unless of course the user doesn't own a raider. The V1 title is great and all, but that isn't the issue. They shouldn't have made another TIE ADVANCED that can't take a TIE Advanced title.

Imagine they made a YT Only Title - and said it could only go on a YT-1300, and NOT a YT-2400. Wouln't that be ludicrous?

"Tie Advanced" Isn't "Tie Adv. Prototype" stop changing what the card says.

And TIE isn't TIE Fighter.

But TIE Fighter INCLUDES "TIE". So does TIE Defender, etc. In fact, so does TIE Advanced and TIE Adv Prototype. And nobody is honestly arguing against that .

So Why do people have such a rules based opposition to TIE Advanced Prototype including the words TIE Advanced? And we ALL know ADV. is short for Advanced, likely they ran out of room.

And hey, we don't even really know how OP this ship will end up being anyway. Maybe it's dial will be bad and it'll actually NEED the X1 title to be competitive. Maybe other upgrades will allow it to take EXTREME advantage of an Evade Token - giving you some real choice. There is much to learn before complaining about balance.

Tie = Tie
adv. != advanced
Prototype != _____

So Why do people have such a rules based opposition to TIE Advanced Prototype including the words TIE Advanced? And we ALL know ADV. is short for Advanced

Yes, Adv. is short for Advanced. But it does not equal Advanced.

Like PewPewPew said:

TIE = TIE

Adv. ≠ Advanced

There is nothing else to argue. Maybe FFG will rule that not to be the case. But I wouldn't hold my breath.

And TIE isn't TIE Fighter.

But TIE Fighter INCLUDES "TIE". So does TIE Defender, etc. In fact, so does TIE Advanced and TIE Adv Prototype. And nobody is honestly arguing against that .

So Why do people have such a rules based opposition to TIE Advanced Prototype including the words TIE Advanced? And we ALL know ADV. is short for Advanced, likely they ran out of room.

And hey, we don't even really know how OP this ship will end up being anyway. Maybe it's dial will be bad and it'll actually NEED the X1 title to be competitive. Maybe other upgrades will allow it to take EXTREME advantage of an Evade Token - giving you some real choice. There is much to learn before complaining about balance.

No one is arguing the point about "TIE", because "TIE" is not the complete title of a ship model. Everyone agrees because there is no "TIE" Expansion, nor is it the full title of a ship type. It is an acronym for any ship that uses the Twin Ion Engine. TIE allows it to be a catch-all because that word precedes every single TIE variant in the game. If it was intended to be specific, it would say "TIE Fighter". That would be the complete, in-game title of a ship and would omit all other ships from that title. TIE is open-ended. In contrast, TIE Advanced is an iconic ship type that Vader flew on the trench run. You don't have to add or subtract any words to have a complete ship name. That is it.

Therefore, the x1 title can't be more specific or explicit in its intent than it is . It is an exclusive title because it specifies a complete TIE variant name in the card restriction: TIE Advanced.

Done.

This is entirely different from the vague "TIE" on the other title - except that's not a title, but a modification. No title in X-Wing is inclusive to multiple ships. They each refer to one ship model/expansion. There is no precedent in the game for what you are suggesting.

It doesn't matter if Adv. is short for Advanced. Let's assume for a second that the name of the new expansion matches the dial image we saw and is TIE Advanced Prototype (despite the fact that the retail title of the expansion on FFGs web site would suggest otherwise). The x1 title says TIE Advanced only. The end. TIE Advanced Prototype? Nope, doesn't match. That's a different in-game expansion. Easy.

Another way of thinking about it: Let's say you needed to borrow a ship from a friend to complete your squad, and you need one more ship that Vader flies for your game. Ask your friend to bring a TIE Advanced. Will your friend bring the Prototype? Of course not. It's not the same ship. Will you need to clarify further? You can't. You asked for the ship by its complete title. Your friend knows exactly which ship you are referring to and will bring you the ship you asked for.

Honestly, I'm not trying to be punchy. I'm just not sure why this is so confusing.

However, the Inquisitor's TIE, should honestly have been named something else. I'm really upset that the card says TIE Adv ON IT, yet is likely going to be dissallowed from taking the X1 Title, when we are ABOUT TO SEE a TIE only upgrade. People should complain that there is no ship called TIE, so that upgrade can't go anywhere. It is a serious error I believe. Fortunately, Wave 8 is still not at the printer, so MAYBE, just maybe they can rename the Inquisitor's TIE to something else. Otherwise I think it will make X Wing look dumber, to have blatantly contradicting rules like that.

I suspect that FFG had no say on the name.

And are you just now realizing that FFG isn't exactly the best with the rules? Especially for this game, that was designed with a more casual attitude toward the rules (which lead to Vader's little bit of flavor). What the ruling will be vs what the rules says are two different things entirely.

" No title in X-Wing is inclusive to multiple ships."

That's simply begging the question. In order to prove your argument, you must show that there is a rule that title cards cannot be inclusive to multiple ships.

" No title in X-Wing is inclusive to multiple ships."

That's simply begging the question. In order to prove your argument, you must show that there is a rule that title cards cannot be inclusive to multiple ships.

Allow me to show you: no title is inclusive to multiple ships. None.

Not including the TIE/v1 title, there are twenty titles in X-Wing and not a single one is usable on multiple ships because they all say exactly what ship they can be used on and there is only one if each individual ship in the game, as is clearly the intended design.

How anyone could argue otherwise is illogical.

Again, your argument assumes its conclusion. It doesn't prove anything. (And as far as logic goes, it's a fallacy.)

What you need is a rule to the effect of "title cards never apply to more than one model." AFAIK, that rule does not exist in the Core Rules, FAQ, or Tournament Rules.

As far as logic goes, I'm the one using it.

What you need is a rule to the effect of "title cards never apply to more than one model." AFAIK, that rule does not exist in the Core Rules, FAQ, or Tournament Rules.

No we don't. Every title has the only ship is allowed to be equipped on listed, in plain English, on the face of the card.

Why is this such a difficult concept to some people?

Assuming your claim is true does not prove it to be true. You keep saying that no title refers to more than one ship. Okay, that is your claim. But what is your proof? Your proof is that no title refers to more than one ship.

So your argument is: no title refers to more than one ship because no title refers to more than one ship. It's just circular reasoning.