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...

Exactly, the raider also cannot use that title.

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

it's not nitpicky at all

you simply have to think about it terms of programming rather than linguistics

if you type in an abbreviated name for a variable, the computer is not going to fill in the blanks by itself unless you've previously defined the abbreviation as being equal to the variable you abbreviated

basically, i.t.o actual text Adv. != Advance

to us, it's still the Tie Advance Prototype

to the game its the Tie Adv. Prototype, its own separate entity which is exactly what it is from a game design perspective

it's simple to understand and the best way to craft two distinct ships from the same ship base (and not horribly overpowering the prototype with ATC; just imagine the inq with that thing )

Yeah that's why I think it'll be the 'prototype' part of the TAP that stops you, not that Adv/Advanced thing.

That's clearly just an abbreviation.

@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".

I propose we start a new field of scholarship. We shall call it X-egesis. It will be based on the firm belief that the rules of the X-Wing Miniatures Game can always be logically interpreted in only one way, no matter how absurd.

And the thing is, they won't FAQ on a ship that hasn't been released yet, so we might have to wait for Wave 8 to be released before we know for sure.

@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".

By that logic, the Raider's titles cannot be applied, since the title cards refer to a 'corvette' but the ship cards contain the word 'corv.', which is not the entirety of 'corvette'.

I propose we start a new field of scholarship. We shall call it X-egesis. It will be based on the firm belief that the rules of the X-Wing Miniatures Game can always be logically interpreted in only one way, no matter how absurd.

Yes the rules explicitly state that the raider is not allowed to take it's own title card.

Yeah that's why I think it'll be the 'prototype' part of the TAP that stops you, not that Adv/Advanced thing.

That's clearly just an abbreviation.

"Ship-type only" is now defined as a trait upgrade cards can have: "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."

Good. Confimration that the X1 title can go on the TIE Advanced prototype.

"Ship-type only" is now defined as a trait upgrade cards can have: "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."

Good. Confimration that the X1 title can go on the TIE Advanced prototype.

Are you... like...what... how did... did you read any of this thread? Or even just the most recent few posts?

And the thing is, they won't FAQ on a ship that hasn't been released yet, so we might have to wait for Wave 8 to be released before we know for sure.

If you mean the only way to be sure is if FFG itself clarifies, then yes, they likely won't clarify until aftetr release.

However, the intent's fairly obvious when you look at the rest of the facts. The new TAP isn't going to be able to equip a card which is effectively costed at minus four points and non-detrimental.

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.

Yes, that is what I am saying. A lot of people do not buy a Raider, because it is expensive as hell for something that you won't use most of the time. As someone else already said, the TAP, if the title were to work, would either be OP with the x1 title or UP without it. This issue exists because the fix is so radical as the old Advanced was so bad. No one would buy something that is UP out of the box, so purchases would be limited to people who bought the Raider AND like the TAP. Alternatively something OP would enter the game. Neither option is appealing or good for the game, so the x1 title must not be useable by the TAP.

"Ship-type only" is now defined as a trait upgrade cards can have: "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."

Good. Confimration that the X1 title can go on the TIE Advanced prototype.

"Ship-type only" is now defined as a trait upgrade cards can have: "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."

Good. Confimration that the X1 title can go on the TIE Advanced prototype.

Are you... like...what... how did... did you read any of this thread? Or even just the most recent few posts?

Actually I had only read the first few posts then made that. I hadn't even caught up to the fact that this same argument was taking place already.

But that is certainly my take.

Adv. is an abbreviation for Advanced. Therefore, TIE ADV. Prototype DOES contain "advanced". I know some of you would disagree, but it is my stance that ADV does include prototype, as evidenced by the article which clearly states that it is a "TIE Advanced prototype", and evidenced further by the fact that the Raider has CORV., but that includes "Corvette". We now know intent for what ADV means, and we have precedent that an abbreviation CAN and DOES include the full word.

I think somebody is very close to having to eat a hat or something....

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.

Would you buy a ship deliberately four points overpriced out of the box?

Yeah that's why I think it'll be the 'prototype' part of the TAP that stops you, not that Adv/Advanced thing.

That's clearly just an abbreviation.

incorrect

the new rulebook specifies that the ship-type must contain the entirety of the specified ship

Tie Advance Prototype would be eligible for Tie/x1

Tie Adv. prototype is not

there is a reason why FFG made it ADV. and it wasn't to keep their big-ass font size

There's no reason to call it adv. unless it's specifically for making sure they can't take that upgrade. They would just have written Advanced on it.

Are you... like...what... how did... did you read any of this thread? Or even just the most recent few posts?

He read it. He's just intentionally misinterpreting it so that it still says what he wants it to say.

Would you buy a ship deliberately four points overpriced out of the box?

I might if I already owned a bunch of the 4 point fixes for it.

I'm sure there's people out there that didn't buy the Advanced at all until AFTER they got a Raider.

Edit: Double post

There's no reason to call it adv. unless it's specifically for making sure they can't take that upgrade. They would just have written Advanced on it.

You mean they couldn't have just missed this and there's no way they made a simple human error?

Oops

Yeah that's why I think it'll be the 'prototype' part of the TAP that stops you, not that Adv/Advanced thing.

That's clearly just an abbreviation.

incorrect

the new rulebook specifies that the ship-type must contain the entirety of the specified ship

Tie Advance Prototype would be eligible for Tie/x1

Tie Adv. prototype is not

there is a reason why FFG made it ADV. and it wasn't to keep their big-ass font size

There's no reason to call it adv. unless it's specifically for making sure they can't take that upgrade. They would just have written Advanced on it.

So why do you guys think FFG made the Raider a "corv."?

I mean c'mon, if that isn't the final nail in the coffin of your argument than I dunno what to tell you.

There's no reason to call it adv. unless it's specifically for making sure they can't take that upgrade. They would just have written Advanced on it.

You mean they couldn't have just missed this and there's no way they made a simple human error?

Oops

Human error to accidentally abbreviate card text?

Yeah that's why I think it'll be the 'prototype' part of the TAP that stops you, not that Adv/Advanced thing.

That's clearly just an abbreviation.

incorrect

the new rulebook specifies that the ship-type must contain the entirety of the specified ship

Tie Advance Prototype would be eligible for Tie/x1

Tie Adv. prototype is not

there is a reason why FFG made it ADV. and it wasn't to keep their big-ass font size

There's no reason to call it adv. unless it's specifically for making sure they can't take that upgrade. They would just have written Advanced on it.

So why do you guys think FFG made the Raider a "corv."?

I mean c'mon, if that isn't the final nail in the coffin of your argument than I dunno what to tell you.

Human error. .. Wait.

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.

Either way because of this clear ambiguity I'm fairly certain we'll see something in a FAQ. And I'm sure this will clear this up or confusing something in the future.

There's no reason to call it adv. unless it's specifically for making sure they can't take that upgrade. They would just have written Advanced on it.

You mean they couldn't have just missed this and there's no way they made a simple human error?

Oops

Human error to accidentally abbreviate card text?

Human error to not realize the implications to future models by abbreviating this card now. Sorry I wasn't clear enough.

Question - what does the Raider's dial call it?