Is the spending of the cost still part of the attack? I wonder if there will be issues with the R4 Agromech Blaster Turret combination.

Yeah that's something I'm wondering about if it does kavil just got less threatening.

R4 Agromech still works just fine with a Blaster Turret because you still spend your focus token in Step 1. By the time you roll dice, you've already spent your focus token and acquired a lock, so the target lock token is available for you to modify your dice.

1) Night Beast can clear stress before his ability triggers

2) You can now target lock a ship you already have a lock on, the old lock is discarded. A minor change to a couple abilities.

3) The rules for attacking now say

Declare target: the attacker may measure range to any number of enemy ships and check which enemy ships are inside his firing dark. And the attacker chooses one of his weapons to attack with that he chooses one and we ship to be the target and pays any costs required for the attack.

You choose weapon then you choose target. This fixes the problem with secondary weapons that the old combat order had. There is some argument about how this effects Biggs, but it will certainly be clarified or errata'ed to work the same as ever in the FAQ that will no be posted any day now.

4) Dice results official have the names everyone uses (Hit, Critical, Blank etc...)

5) If you hit multiple obstacles in one move you suffer the effects of all of them.

1) YES! I hope that didn't break anything else, though.

2) Minor buff to a couple pilots. I was actually just thinking about this the other day and thought the previous rule felt like an arbitrary restriction.

3) Does this allot Blaster Turrets to be fired at "Dark Curse"? EDIT: Already answered. Awesome!

4) Thank god. No more jerks spamming threads with "stop calling it [crit] it's not called [crit]."

5) Can't say I've ever seen that happen, but I think it's a good change.

Sorry for derailing the thread, but...

So wait, why wouldn't a "TIE Advance Only" upgrade apply to the TIE Adv. Prototype? What else do we think "Adv." stands for but "Advance"? It only doesn't have the full word because of spacing issues on the card, right?

I think this is a perfectly reasonable assumption. Abbreviating like this is standard English. It doesn't change what is being described.

No it doesn't have the word specifically to stop the title working on it,.

How do you know this? Your assertion seems less likely to me than the idea that it is for space considerations.

Its ship type is TIE Adv. Prototype, written quite literally like that. For the purposes of rules text, it's called TIE Adv. Prototype, and its title card, TIE/v1, (where space is sufficient) also says TIE Adv. Prototype.

Why? It's a useful way of preventing TIE/x1 from being equipped to a TIE/v1. I wouldn't be surprised at all if it's called TIE Adv. Prototype (FFG doesn't usually go with colloquial names for ships) instead of TIE advanced v1 for specifically that reason.

I could buy the idea that the "prototype" suffix makes it a different ship... but, again, I disagree that "adv." vs "advanced" being anything other than a space-saving issue is less likely.

No, it's because the prototype says TIE Adv. instead of TIE Advanced. And the TIE/x1 card says TIE Advanced only, not TIE Adv. only.

But Adv. == Advanced. it's an abbreviation not a new word.

Yeah it's obvious why they don;t work together. One is for Tie Advanced only, and the ship has 'prototype' in it's title. So those arn't the same thing.

Maybe...

Check out the card, though. There just isn't space for the full name. I guess that when the graphic design was done, they had no idea that a new ship with a super long name would be released.

Are you telling me that the Raider is a "corv." not a "corvette"? Just like the new Inquisitor's ship, the name has been shortened on the card to fit in with the design.

Until I see evidence to the contrary, it seems much more likely that this is a graphic design issue not a rules one.

vs

Even when it's in black and white...

No, the new ruling is clear. It also has to be that way, because the Vanilla V1 would have to be old Advanced level of broken to not be op with the x1 title, which it clearly is not. Would be really stupid to have a new ship that requires a huge purchase to be playable. The ruling is now here and the issue is solved, no way around it.

@Voidstate: it doesn't matter what the abbreviation stands for or why it was shortened. The rules say your ship type has to match the entirety of the ship named in the "Ship-type only" trait, and "TIE Adv. Prototype" doesn't contain the entirety of "TIE Advanced".

Yeah it's obvious why they don;t work together. One is for Tie Advanced only, and the ship has 'prototype' in it's title. So those arn't the same thing.

No, it's because the prototype says TIE Adv. instead of TIE Advanced. And the TIE/x1 card says TIE Advanced only, not TIE Adv. only.

Haha, I'm not taking any position here but you have to admit it is funny that in a game that is supposed to be both casual and fun we are debating whether Adv. is the same as Advanced. Oh well

[...] Would be really stupid to have a new ship that requires a huge purchase to be playable.[...]

I'm not sure of your point here. Are you referring to the TIE Advanced not to be confused with the TIE Adv.

Until I see evidence to the contrary, it seems much more likely that this is a graphic design issue not a rules one.

vs

True, the Raider card says Corv. but the dial, title cards and the rulebook says Corvette.

Interestingly, the TAP's title card also makes the abbreviation when it doesn't need to.

Wouldn't be surprised if FFG used it as a rules reason to prevent the TIE/v1 equipping the TIE/x1's title anyway though.

How/who does the new TL rules buff? Right now, all I can think of is Redline, kinda.

@Voidstate

You just posted a picture of a card that has 2 lines of text in the same futzing space as the Tie Adv. Prototype to make your argument that they didn't have enough space? Seriously?

Also look at this.

They could have gotten Tie Advanced Prototype in that box easily if they wanted to. They also could have called it "Tie Advanced V1" or "Tie Advanced Proto." if they wanted to make the title work for it.

It's deliberately called "Adv." specifically to not make the x1 title work. Yes they mean the same thing, but card text is just card text, it's not English when it comes to rules.

How/who does the new TL rules buff? Right now, all I can think of is Redline, kinda.

Dutch. Overwhelmingly Dutch.

How/who does the new TL rules buff? Right now, all I can think of is Redline, kinda.

Dutch. Overwhelmingly Dutch.

Ahhhh. Yeah, that helps him. Though I would have thought he could do that again previously. At least that's cleared up now!

@Voidstate: it doesn't matter what the abbreviation stands for or why it was shortened. The rules say your ship type has to match the entirety of the ship named in the "Ship-type only" trait, and "TIE Adv. Prototype" doesn't contain the entirety of "TIE Advanced".

While I remain adamant that TAPs can't equip the Vader TIE's fix card, Voidstate does have a point. The Raider's aft card says Raider-class Corv. (Aft), and the Raider's titles say Raider-class Corvette Aft Section only.

@Voidstate: it doesn't matter what the abbreviation stands for or why it was shortened. The rules say your ship type has to match the entirety of the ship named in the "Ship-type only" trait, and "TIE Adv. Prototype" doesn't contain the entirety of "TIE Advanced".

While I remain adamant that TAPs can't equip the Vader TIE's fix card, Voidstate does have a point. The Raider's aft card says Raider-class Corv. (Aft), and the Raider's titles say Raider-class Corvette Aft Section only.

Oops

Yeah it's obvious why they don;t work together. One is for Tie Advanced only, and the ship has 'prototype' in it's title. So those arn't the same thing.

No, it's because the prototype says TIE Adv. instead of TIE Advanced. And the TIE/x1 card says TIE Advanced only, not TIE Adv. only.

Haha, I'm not taking any position here but you have to admit it is funny that in a game that is supposed to be both casual and fun we are debating whether Adv. is the same as Advanced. Oh well

[...] Would be really stupid to have a new ship that requires a huge purchase to be playable.[...]

I'm not sure of your point here. Are you referring to the TIE Advanced not to be confused with the TIE Adv.

I indeed am. Just imagine the idiocy of having to market that: "Yeah it kind of is unusable out of the box, but if you buy this super expensive expansion it might be allright". No. Just no.

@Voidstate: it doesn't matter what the abbreviation stands for or why it was shortened. The rules say your ship type has to match the entirety of the ship named in the "Ship-type only" trait, and "TIE Adv. Prototype" doesn't contain the entirety of "TIE Advanced".

While I remain adamant that TAPs can't equip the Vader TIE's fix card, Voidstate does have a point. The Raider's aft card says Raider-class Corv. (Aft), and the Raider's titles say Raider-class Corvette Aft Section only.

So the RAW mean you cannot equip this card to anything in the game at the minute.

To clarify what Admiral Deathrain said, the TIE/x1 title card is a fix card to the tune of 4 points: it's 4-5 points underpriced to counter the 4-5 points overcost of the TIE advanced x1.

If you stick it on a balanced ship, then that ship becomes 4-5 points undercosted, which in the 10-20 point range the TIE advanced v1 occupies is a huge thing. It'd be a gamebreaking ship: a list spamming TAPs would be vastly more efficient than anything out there.

The only way it wouldn't be broken is if it came 4 points overcosted. However, then you've got a ship that is deliberately unusably bad out of the box and where the Raider is required if you want it to be viable. You'd have to have a very low opinion of FFG to believe they'd pull that one.

Furthermore, the combination of TIE/x1 title and Accuracy Corrector on a 2 attack ship is strictly better than the TIE/v1 title (free evade when you target lock) which costs 1 point. If TIE/x1 is an option then TIE/v1 is redundant on release.

So the RAW mean you cannot equip this card to anything in the game at the minute.

Except you fairly obviously can, leading credence to the belief that an abbreviation is also an abbreviation in the rules.

I would expect the Raider upgrades to get an errata in the next FAQ, that would solve all problems.

Just another of these issues that spring up when the game grows organicaly over time, nothing we can do about it. Luckily it is easily fixed.

And the dial?

I just think ruling that Adv. =/= Advance is an incredibly nitpicky way of looking at it. What else is it? Adventure? Advent? Advil?

I just think ruling that Adv. =/= Advance is an incredibly nitpicky way of looking at it. What else is it? Adventure? Advent? Advil?

Its nitpicky and stupid, but it has to happen for the TAP to be possible to be sold. I know, you probably bought the Raider and wouldn't mind some extra value from it, but for a lot of people that would be really bad. I like the TAP, but I will not buy a Raider just to be able to play it and another ship I have no love for.

I just think ruling that Adv. =/= Advance is an incredibly nitpicky way of looking at it. What else is it? Adventure? Advent? Advil?

Its nitpicky and stupid, but it has to happen for the TAP to be possible to be sold. I know, you probably bought the Raider and wouldn't mind some extra value from it, but for a lot of people that would be really bad. I like the TAP, but I will not buy a Raider just to be able to play it and another ship I have no love for.

Wait, how does this ruling make it possible for the TAP to be sold? Are you saying no one will buy it if the title works on it? I don't understand.

I just think ruling that Adv. =/= Advance is an incredibly nitpicky way of looking at it. What else is it? Adventure? Advent? Advil?

It does mean Advanced. It just doesn't match the text on the title so it's not usable.

Which takes us back to the Corv./Corvette thing with the Raider...