With we get an act which is awesome with t-roll, they will be dubbed tranrollsaurus X

I'm afraid ffg already clarified the advance title issue

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

Since there is a mismatch between the Raider Title and the Tie Advanced Title there is still room for debate and that is not good.

Removed. I'm too cranky and tired to try to deal with this thread any more today.

I do not care what the ruling will be in the end. I just want a ruling that can not be disputed. And thats what only FFG can do.

It seems to me that the side wishing to avoid targeting Biggs by selecting a weapon that can't target him (ICT when he's outside range 2 for example) are adding a conditional clause to his text that is not there.

Biggs does not say "if the attacker could target you with the selected weapon instead" - it merely says "if the attacker could target you instead."

Granted, however, that might make a mess of the whole targeting step as laid out in the new rule book (which I don't have yet) since you'll have to go back and forth between picking a weapon and declaring a target until you end up with a legal combination. If targeting Biggs were weapon dependent, that weakens him a bit. If not, he stays the same, but muddles with the specific steps involved in picking a target. With the current FAQ in hand, however, the answer is pretty definitive, it just needs to be reworded to account for the new rule book format.

But don't be misled: we already have every scrap of information we need to resolve the "Biggs Issue", and then some.

It's called the FAQ and it explicitly states that if any weapon can target Biggs you have to shoot Biggs instead of his Range 1 friends.

I'm afraid ffg already clarified the advance title issue

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

It is unwise to present your opinion as indisputable fact.

I would generally prefer the Inquisitor's TIE to be ruled as a TIE Advanced Prototype rather than a Tie Adv.(Pronounced Advuhhhhhh)..... Prototype, but I'll accept FFG's ruling on the issue. I don't like that people seem to want to fight about it though. It's a simple discussion.

I'm afraid ffg already clarified the advance title issue

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

It is unwise to present your opinion as indisputable fact.

I would generally prefer the Inquisitor's TIE to be ruled as a TIE Advanced Prototype rather than a Tie Adv.(Pronounced Advuhhhhhh)..... Prototype, but I'll accept FFG's ruling on the issue. I don't like that people seem to want to fight about it though. It's a simple discussion.

Unfortunately this is fact

I did not write the rulebooknor does it express any option

It is a book...of rules

I'm afraid ffg already clarified the advance title issue

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

It is unwise to present your opinion as indisputable fact.

I would generally prefer the Inquisitor's TIE to be ruled as a TIE Advanced Prototype rather than a Tie Adv.(Pronounced Advuhhhhhh)..... Prototype, but I'll accept FFG's ruling on the issue. I don't like that people seem to want to fight about it though. It's a simple discussion.

Unfortunately this is fact

I did not write the rulebooknor does it express any option

It is a book...of rules

Then why is there this mismatch between the raider and the advanced tite? It really is a shame that the new rulebook made this error. But we are lucky that faqs can fix this and will make it undisputable for everyone.

For the first post:

The rules now define how to roll for initiative. One player rolls and if he gets a hit or a crit, its his choice. Its what I and a lot of players were doing all along but I've seen a bunch of different varieties.

I'm afraid ffg already clarified the advance title issue

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

It is unwise to present your opinion as indisputable fact.

I would generally prefer the Inquisitor's TIE to be ruled as a TIE Advanced Prototype rather than a Tie Adv.(Pronounced Advuhhhhhh)..... Prototype, but I'll accept FFG's ruling on the issue. I don't like that people seem to want to fight about it though. It's a simple discussion.

Unfortunately this is fact

I did not write the rulebooknor does it express any option

It is a book...of rules

I suggest you read it then.

Then why is there this mismatch between the raider and the advanced tite?

Pretend neither one is abbreviated. Raider title works fine and Prototype can't get the X1 title per the rule book. Problem solved.

*drops mic*

I'm reversing my opinion again. Biggs' card makes it pretty clear that you CANNOT under any circumstances target a ship at range 1 of Biggs if you could target Biggs instead -- considering all weapons at your disposal. (Not in so many words, of course.) True, the timing is messy because it requires you to constantly check all your weapons to see if you could target Biggs at all, but the fact is that if you can shoot Biggs with primaries and currently have his wingmate targeted by your ICT, that's an illegal condition that has to be fixed by shifting your target to Biggs and switching to primaries.

However, I do think if the attack timing worked differently, this issue would be clear as day.

As Written:

1) Choose a weapon

2) Choose a target

3) See if you can hit the target (range, LoS, etc.)

4) Pay costs

5) Attack

Somewhere in there is this nebulous idea that I have to measure to this Biggs guy and then go through this process for each weapon against Biggs and see if it works and if it doesn't, then I continue with my attack. It's easy to see why someone would say, "Biggs is not a legal target for this attack, so I don't have to shoot him." The truth is that they do because they could if they chose a different weapon.

As it should be written:

1) Declare proposed target

2) Choose Weapon

3) See if you can hit the target (range, Los, etc.)

4) Pay costs

5) Attack

In this case, a read of the rules and a read of Biggs card give you an explicit time at which to look for Biggs' ability. So now you declare your target, and check if it's range 1 to Biggs. If it is, you switch target to Biggs. I feel like this would clean things up tremendously.

Biggs is in the FAQ.

Then why is there this mismatch between the raider and the advanced tite?

Pretend neither one is abbreviated. Raider title works fine and Prototype can't get the X1 title per the rule book. Problem solved.

*drops mic*

According to that logic NO SHIP in the game could take the TIE only modification either.

The debate about the titles is a question of abbreviations. The FAQ needs to address if abbreviations are suitable replacements for printed texts, and if it's a case of "Some are, but some aren't" then they need to identify which are, and which are not. Nowhere in the new rule book does it mention abbreviations.

k

Then why is there this mismatch between the raider and the advanced tite?

Pretend neither one is abbreviated. Raider title works fine and Prototype can't get the X1 title per the rule book. Problem solved.

*drops mic*

According to that logic NO SHIP in the game could take the TIE only modification either.

The debate about the titles is a question of abbreviations. The FAQ needs to address if abbreviations are suitable replacements for printed texts, and if it's a case of "Some are, but some aren't" then they need to identify which are, and which are not. Nowhere in the new rule book does it mention abbreviations.

The TIE punisher comes with a card specifically clarifying what TIE only does.

Then why is there this mismatch between the raider and the advanced tite?

Pretend neither one is abbreviated. Raider title works fine and Prototype can't get the X1 title per the rule book. Problem solved.

*drops mic*

According to that logic NO SHIP in the game could take the TIE only modification either.

The debate about the titles is a question of abbreviations. The FAQ needs to address if abbreviations are suitable replacements for printed texts, and if it's a case of "Some are, but some aren't" then they need to identify which are, and which are not. Nowhere in the new rule book does it mention abbreviations.

The TIE punisher comes with a card specifically clarifying what TIE only does.

Not to mention no ship being able to take TIE Only is exactly the opposite of what happens if you follow my logic.

Any ship with the X in X Only in it's name can take an X Only title.

Therefore TIE Advanced and TIE Advanced (Adv. being an abbreviation for Advanced) Prototype can both use TIE Advanced Only titles because they both include TIE Advanced. Except the rules specifically exclude the Prototype.

TIE Fighter, Phantom, Interceptor, etc. etc. can all use TIE only titles because they all include TIE.

*pics mic up, drops it again*

Then why is there this mismatch between the raider and the advanced tite?

Pretend neither one is abbreviated. Raider title works fine and Prototype can't get the X1 title per the rule book. Problem solved.

*drops mic*

According to that logic NO SHIP in the game could take the TIE only modification either.

The debate about the titles is a question of abbreviations. The FAQ needs to address if abbreviations are suitable replacements for printed texts, and if it's a case of "Some are, but some aren't" then they need to identify which are, and which are not. Nowhere in the new rule book does it mention abbreviations.

The TIE punisher comes with a card specifically clarifying what TIE only does.

Not to mention no ship being able to take TIE Only is exactly the opposite of what happens if you follow my logic.

Any ship with the X in X Only in it's name can take an X Only title.

Therefore TIE Advanced and TIE Advanced (Adv. being an abbreviation for Advanced) Prototype can both use TIE Advanced Only titles because they both include TIE Advanced. Except the rules specifically exclude the Prototype.

TIE Fighter, Phantom, Interceptor, etc. etc. can all use TIE only titles because they all include TIE.

*pics mic up, drops it again*

I'm confused here because I think we are saying the same thing.

If FFG rules that ADV. is synonymous with Advanced, then both ships could take the X1 title.

But you say "Except the rules specifically exclude the Prototype." and nobody has pointed out any such rule. Are you saying that FFG might specifically exclude this ship? It is a possibility.

Except the rules specifically exclude the Prototype.

You know, it would make things waaaaaay quicker if you could just quote this part from the rulebook...

I don't see how FFG would include a rule regarding a ship that's not even in release yet.

• Ship-type only: This upgrade can only be equipped to a ship of the specified type. If the ship’s type includes the entirety of the restricted type, it can equip that upgrade. For example, a TIE/fo fighter can equip an Upgrade card restricted to “TIE Fighter only.”

I don't see anything that specifically excludes the Prototype. You have to imply that "TIE Adv." is not the entirety of "TIE Advanced." But that's just that -- an implication, not anything specific.

Unbelievable one day and the rules are already being endlessly over analysed and complained about.

FFG should state rules dot by dot in a X-Wing for Dummies guide book.

With the improvement of Nightbeast and the "nerf" to Darkcurse, I'll be taking NB even more often.

Initiative is now just a single red die rolled by one player. Hit or crit and that player gets to choose. Blank or focus and other player chooses. Last tourney rules I saw said to use a coin. This makes more sense. We have dice people.

Which is fortunate, because with the Raider, Wave 7 and the Episode 7 stuff being released on top of each other I sure as **** don't have any coins.