Sorry to complain, but are these really any different? I know the Inquisitor's TIE has slightly more rounded wings, but I figured that was just the animation style of Rebels and teh fact that it was an earlier model.... but come on - it didn't need to be a whole new ship. I really hope they treat it like an advanced and allow it to equip the advanced title. Otherwise it just seems silly to have made an all new mold for a ship that is... well, it's the same ship - it just happened to be in a cartoon instead of Episode 4.

The key difference is that one is from a cartoon, and the other one is real .

Weeeeeell... one is from a cartoon... the other one is from a movie... but...

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

I'm going to have to side with Manchu on this one. Just because no title card has been applicable to multiple ships so far, that's not the same thing as a rule saying that title cards CAN'T be applied to multiple ships.

Just FYI, I think FFG intended that the TIE/x1 title should only apply to the TIE Advanced (x1) pilots and not also TIE Adv. Prototype pilots. But I think FFG will need to FAQ that as there is room for ambiguity under rules as currently written.

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.

You want to accuse me of committing a fallacy, go right ahead. It doesn't change the fact that what I said is correct. By arguing that I'm using what you describe as fallacious logic and therefore it cannot be proven true, you're committing the fallacy fallacy (and you're still wrong).

Please read carefully. I did not argue that your claim is false; I observed that your argument is circular. I also described how you could prove that your claim is true. But I do not think the evidence you require to do so exists.

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

I'm going to have to side with Manchu on this one. Just because no title card has been applicable to multiple ships so far, that's not the same thing as a rule saying that title cards CAN'T be applied to multiple ships.

Every title in the game is limited only to the specific ship printed on the card. It isn't a matter of opinion, it's a fact.

How are we on page 11 I thought I'd left rules lawyers behind when I quit 40k, then I realised they left with me >.>

If they'd wanted the pat to have three attack it'd have three attack but as we've seen it has two most likely so it does not make interceptors obsolete while occupying the same price range.

People are bored, Ray.

Please read carefully. I did not argue that your claim is false; I observed that your argument is circular. I also described how you could prove that your claim is true. But I do not think the evidence you require to do so exists.

You agree with me but you're telling that I'm wrong.

So in effect, you're trolling (on two separate forums, no less).

Yes, Adv. is short for Advanced.

This statement is only true as far as fluff is concerned. For the rules they are as close as apples and oranges.

Please read carefully. I did not argue that your claim is false; I observed that your argument is circular. I also described how you could prove that your claim is true. But I do not think the evidence you require to do so exists.

You agree with me but you're telling that I'm wrong.

So in effect, you're trolling (on two separate forums, no less).

It's because you got there the wrong way. Not only do you have to agree, but you have to agree using correct lines of thought.

This statement is only true as far as fluff is concerned. For the rules they are as close as apples and oranges.

Which is exactly what I said.

This statement is only true as far as fluff is concerned. For the rules they are as close as apples and oranges.

Which is exactly what I said.

I thought it could have been clearer.

...or FFG knew about the TAP when creating the x1 title and designed the TAP accordingly.

Listen to yourself. You're suggesting FFG deliberately designed a ship to be unplayably bad out of the box to force you to buy the Raider to make it playable.

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.

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.

In order to arrive at that conclusion, you have to ignore the fact that the TIE Advanced is an in-game ship name. It is exclusive and complete. There is nothing gray about it, except if you want it to sound gray.

Ok then where is the TIE in-game ship name to use the TWIN ION ENGINE Mk.11.

Ok then where is the TIE in-game ship name to use the TWIN ION ENGINE Mk.11.

That's exactly my point and the critical difference. TIE is not a complete ship name, therefore, it is inclusive to multiple ships.

TIE Advanced is a complete ship name and as specific as it can possibly be on the x1 title card when it says TIE Advanced only. Since it is a full ship name, we can safely assume it is exclusive to that one ship type.

I LOVE that this thread has degenerated into a discussion about logic! Logic is a wonderful and cruel mistress! But just to be boring, I might have to get stuck in too...

Manchu would be right if and only if Scooty was employing a deductive argument, but he's clearly not - it's inductive.

All members of X have been Y -> A is X -> A is also Y

And that's fine. Inductive arguments don't have the force of logical necessity behind them, but since they are the central means of scientific proof, they ain't bad. Not 100% necessarily true, but not fallacious either. We can all get along fine again.

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.

So 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.

I'm not making people interpret it my way just saying how I personally see it. And I am sure there will be a FAQ about this saying the Prototype cant use the x1.

Ok then where is the TIE in-game ship name to use the TWIN ION ENGINE Mk.11.

That's exactly my point and the critical difference. TIE is not a complete ship name, therefore, it is inclusive to multiple ships.

TIE Advanced is a complete ship name and as specific as it can possibly be on the x1 title card when it says TIE Advanced only. Since it is a full ship name, we can safely assume it is exclusive to that one ship type.

Yes I agree TIE is not a complete, but why then is TIE ADVANCED a complete one. As for rules about complete ship names I don't think there are any and I would argue against the TIE ADVANCED being one seeing as there is a prototype now.

adv. != advanced

What do you think it stands for then? Advil? Does the Inquisitor have a nasty headache because of those blasted rebels?

Honestly if people are going honestly sit here and say that ADV isn't Advanced then there is no point in even communicating.

Nothing to do with multi ship title. All to do with the dial names.

My argument, and looks like not just mine is that TIE ADVANCED PROTOTYPE is not TIE ADVANCED.

If the next wave added R22 SPEARHEAD or A-WING PROTOTYPE. Then CHAARDAAN REFIT being A-WING ONLY would not apply.

Thematically this is because a TIE Advanced V-1 is not a TIE Advanced X-1.\

We'll be proven right by a faq before release, so i'm not going to lose sleep on this - I believe it to be common sense.

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.