"Adv." only stands for "Advanced" according to us squishy humans

in pure game terms, no. Adv != Advance

Then how does the Raider equip the titles that it comes with?

You know what? At the moment, I am 100% okay with the prospect that the Raider titles can't be equipped to any ship. Because the Raider still works fine without its titles, while the TIE Adv. Prototype is completely busted with the TIE/x1 title.

We don't really know that though. Well you might, but I don't.

Let me elaborate. I'm not in the position to evaluate accurately, how well the Inquisitor's TIE is balanced based on it's point cost. I THINK it's overcosted as is... but that is really a guess, because I'm comparing it to many other 2-attack ships, like regular TIEs, or the new FO TIEs. But the truth is there is a ton of information about this ship that I simply do not have. Maybe it has a TERRIBLE dial. Maybe it has no K-Turn. Maybe it's dial is so bad, that people would think twice about fielding it, EVEN WITH the X1 title.

I doubt that specific example to be true, because it looks like a fairly agile ship - but the point remains that there is plenty of information we simply don't have. Maybe the 2nd pilot has a really good ability and it makes the ship easily worthwhile. Personally I don't like the inquisitor's ability at all - because I'd just rather fly an Interceptor and have even better attack options... So maybe it's overcosted... maybe it's balanced. All I know right now is that we don't really have enough information to say that a discounted system slot item would "break" a ship we know so little about.

How is Biggs still being discussed a dozen pages into this?

Biggs' ability has ALWAYS screwed with secondary weapons. In the old rules, you picked a target during Step 1, and the weapon you were using in Step 2. But Biggs forced you to use a weapon that could hit him, even though weapon selection was way after targeting. Now, you choose a target and weapon at slightly different points in Step 1. What makes anything think that changes how Biggs is going to work? I mean, it's possible, but the new window for him to work is actually smaller than the old one.

Biggs' ability has always been a very broad, almost meta-gamey one. If you can target Biggs you have to, by any means necessary (or another ship farther away from him, of course). I don't see anything in the new rules that'll change that.

How is Biggs still being discussed a dozen pages into this?

Biggs' ability has ALWAYS screwed with secondary weapons. In the old rules, you picked a target during Step 1, and the weapon you were using in Step 2. But Biggs forced you to use a weapon that could hit him, even though weapon selection was way after targeting. Now, you choose a target and weapon at slightly different points in Step 1. What makes anything think that changes how Biggs is going to work? I mean, it's possible, but the new window for him to work is actually smaller than the old one.

Biggs' ability has always been a very broad, almost meta-gamey one. If you can target Biggs you have to, by any means necessary (or another ship farther away from him, of course). I don't see anything in the new rules that'll change that.

Umm..if you CHOOSE to use a Blaster Turret before you select a target, and Biggs is at range 3, he can't exactly be a legal target.

In other news, under Difficulty:

"If two game effects conflict in changing the difficulty of a maneuver, the effect that makes the maneuver more difficult takes priority. The other effect is ignored."

This seems to resolve the Daredevil action white maneuver with critical damage effect making all turns red.

FAQ forces Daredevil to always white.

BTW, Shaken Pilot and Ion. Ship can't execute a maneuver, and going nowhere is a maneuver. Universe implodes.

In other news, under Difficulty:

"If two game effects conflict in changing the difficulty of a maneuver, the effect that makes the maneuver more difficult takes priority. The other effect is ignored."

This seems to resolve the Daredevil action white maneuver with critical damage effect making all turns red.

This is nothing new, just an FAQ entry that got moved to the main rules.

FAQ forces Daredevil to always white.

BTW, Shaken Pilot and Ion. Ship can't execute a maneuver, and going nowhere is a maneuver. Universe implodes.

a white go nowhere! NERF TOO STRONK

How is Biggs still being discussed a dozen pages into this?

Biggs' ability has ALWAYS screwed with secondary weapons. In the old rules, you picked a target during Step 1, and the weapon you were using in Step 2. But Biggs forced you to use a weapon that could hit him, even though weapon selection was way after targeting. Now, you choose a target and weapon at slightly different points in Step 1. What makes anything think that changes how Biggs is going to work? I mean, it's possible, but the new window for him to work is actually smaller than the old one.

Biggs' ability has always been a very broad, almost meta-gamey one. If you can target Biggs you have to, by any means necessary (or another ship farther away from him, of course). I don't see anything in the new rules that'll change that.

Umm..if you CHOOSE to use a Blaster Turret before you select a target, and Biggs is at range 3, he can't exactly be a legal target.

And before, you chose a target before you chose a weapon so you could pick someone in your main arc, because if Biggs was out of your arc he couldn't exactly be a legal target.

Again, this actually changes nothing - you may reverse the order of selection, but Biggs has always applied to both pieces, and you couldn't make a choice in one part that stops you from targeting him in the other. It's not going to be anything new.

"Adv." only stands for "Advanced" according to us squishy humans

in pure game terms, no. Adv != Advance

Then how does the Raider equip the titles that it comes with?

You know what? At the moment, I am 100% okay with the prospect that the Raider titles can't be equipped to any ship. Because the Raider still works fine without its titles, while the TIE Adv. Prototype is completely busted with the TIE/x1 title.

We don't really know that though. Well you might, but I don't.

Let me elaborate. I'm not in the position to evaluate accurately, how well the Inquisitor's TIE is balanced based on it's point cost. I THINK it's overcosted as is... but that is really a guess, because I'm comparing it to many other 2-attack ships, like regular TIEs, or the new FO TIEs. But the truth is there is a ton of information about this ship that I simply do not have. Maybe it has a TERRIBLE dial. Maybe it has no K-Turn. Maybe it's dial is so bad, that people would think twice about fielding it, EVEN WITH the X1 title.

I doubt that specific example to be true, because it looks like a fairly agile ship - but the point remains that there is plenty of information we simply don't have. Maybe the 2nd pilot has a really good ability and it makes the ship easily worthwhile. Personally I don't like the inquisitor's ability at all - because I'd just rather fly an Interceptor and have even better attack options... So maybe it's overcosted... maybe it's balanced. All I know right now is that we don't really have enough information to say that a discounted system slot item would "break" a ship we know so little about.

there's a very simple litmus test to show how the Tie Adv. Prototype is not priced according to Tie/x1

step 1: is the Inquisitor 26 points with atc?

yes

step 2: is that ******* bonkers stupid crazy!?!?!?!

also yes

it's 3 dice + 1 crit at all ranges for less than bloody soontir NAKED, also ignoring range 3 bonus + thrusters like some HLC gone completely off its meds, and that's just not good for the game

it's pretty much a done deal that the v1 was not priced according to the x1, just as it's a done deal (not even pretty much) that the "Adv." portion was worded specifically to avoid it taking that title

So just to clarify, if Biggs is in arc at range 3, and a ship friendly to Biggs is at range 2 (and within range 1 of Biggs), you can select a secondary with only a max of range 2 to attack the second ship without being forced to attack Biggs. Right?

So just to clarify, if Biggs is in arc at range 3, and a ship friendly to Biggs is at range 2 (and within range 1 of Biggs), you can select a secondary with only a max of range 2 to attack the second ship without being forced to attack Biggs. Right?

No. No, no and no.

Seriously - just no.

Biggs' ability is, as currently interpreted, very holistic - it applies to the entire process. Until we get an FAQ that changes that, there's no reason to think it changed.

Edit: Honestly, the FAQ wording still addressed this, DIRECTLY:

So just to clarify, if Biggs is in arc at range 3, and a ship friendly to Biggs is at range 2 (and within range 1 of Biggs), you can select a secondary with only a max of range 2 to attack the second ship without being forced to attack Biggs. Right?

No. You have never been able to do this, and you still can't.

It's possible that the rules in the New Core (which I don't have) is future proofing against the TIE Adv. Prototype and they forget about the Raider. Oops.

I believe this to be the case.

And he's saying you can't choose a weapon that is unable to target Biggs if you have a weapon that can. Biggs says you have to attack him if you can. This ability is in play before you choose your weapon, which means you have to choose the weapon that can attack him if only one weapon can attack him.

So just to clarify, if Biggs is in arc at range 3, and a ship friendly to Biggs is at range 2 (and within range 1 of Biggs), you can select a secondary with only a max of range 2 to attack the second ship without being forced to attack Biggs. Right?

No. No, no and no.

Seriously - just no.

Biggs' ability is, as currently interpreted, very holistic - it applies to the entire process. Until we get an FAQ that changes that, there's no reason to think it changed.

Edit: Honestly, the FAQ wording still addressed this, DIRECTLY:

If the attacker has more than one weapon available, it must use a weapon that can target Biggs Darklighter, if possible, instead of any other ship at Range 1 of Biggs Darklighter.

How does changing the order of weapon/target selection alter that?

Good call. I forgot completely about the FAQ about him.

This is just too painful to read... I had to stop at around page 6 or 7, but I just had to say that I can't believe how many times on this forum there are people supporting the obviously incorrect interpretation on things...

begin sarcastic rant

Because it just makes total sense for FFG to release a new ship which would only be competitively viable or, conversely, insanely overpowered, by taking a title which was intended as a fix for a 4 point over costed ship, which also happens to come in a $100 SHIP EXPANSION.

rant over.

Talk about the raider corv/corvette issue all you want. The error was clearly in their failure to take that into consideration when implementing the new rule. You'd really have to believe FFG hated all of us if they intended the prototype to take the tie /x1 title.

has anyone bothered emailing the FFG guys about "abbreviation gate?"

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/contact/rules/

has anyone bothered emailing the FFG guys about "abbreviation gate?"

They will not comment on unreleased items.

The Raider is not unreleased...

Oh, and I hate every little potential controversy or conspiracy theory wackiness becoming "-gate"...

#hategate

Well i think we will need a faq for both the Title Issue and the Biggs Issue. Just to be clear.

Right now there are arguments for both sides and that is not good.

Well i think we will need a faq for both the Title Issue

ffs, there is no title issue.

Well i think we will need a faq for both the Title Issue and the Biggs Issue. Just to be clear.

Right now there are arguments for both sides and that is not good.

The two issues are different. The "Title Issue" is facially absurd but, because the Raider titles don't match the name on the Raider card, probably do need a note. (That is, it looks to me as if the Raider titles can't be used under the new rules regardless of what happens with the TIE/x1 title and the TIE Adv. Prototype.)

The "Biggs issue" is the result of a group of people attempting to resurrect something that was thoroughly squashed years ago. I'm just repeating myself at this point, but the only change is that there's now a more plausible explanation under the rules for the way we've treated Biggs for years.

Yes you are both repeating yourself and still have not managed to clarify the issue as you can see in this thread.

And the only entity that can clarify this issue is FFG and thats why we need the faq.

I'm afraid ffg already clarified the advance title issue

Its in the ep7 core rulebook and beyond any of our ability to dispute

Not that anybody cares, but now that I've seen the actual text instead of the paraphrase, I'm changing my stance. I now read rules as written as supporting the idea that you can play around Biggs by choosing a weapon with restricted range and the only thing allowing his ability to shine is the FAQ. But I'm cool with that. Let Biggs continue to be awesome and let's move on.

All that aside, Talon Rolls are awesome.

T-Roll is also an alright prison name.