If anything the panels are in better proportion to the body. It's just that we're used to the TIE fighter's massive jumbo wings.

To your first point, I think the Inquisitor's TIE is significantly overpriced right out of the box, considering that I'd rather take an 18 point interceptor over any of the new versions of this ship. It stinks right out of the box IMO.

25 points for a PS8 with a good statline with a 3 dice cannon? His ability is so good it's probably more than 1 point. And you think that'd be balanced with TIE/x1 and ATC on top of it? Range 1-3 autocritting Phantom cannon for 26 points?

Furthermore, your judgements of a ship you've seen pretty much nothing of don't change the fact that if the TIE/v1 can equip TIE/x1 then either Inquistor's TIE + Raider is broken or the Inquisitor's TIE is deliberately overpriced.

2nd point - It's own title does not disprove the availability of another optional title. Many considered the Slave 1 Title to be redundant, especially when teh Andrasta title came out.

Then they fail to understand the definition of redundant (maybe confusing it with obsolete). Slave 1 and Andrasta have completely different effects. tIE/x1 and Accuracy Corrector for 0 points gives you a strictly better effect than TIE/v1 for 1 point. Free Evade with your Target Lock, or free choice of action and autohitting whenever you shoot?

3rd point - The TAP isn't an x1 or a v1. it is titles that make it either way. Maybe you mean the version we saw in Rebels? I'd be willing to concede that THAT was a V1, but that doesn't preclude the possibility of there being other variants in the universe.

The ship is a TIE advanced v1. The TIE fighter with funny armoured folding wings? TIE/v1. The Inquisitor flies a TIE advanced v1, aka a TIE/v1. A TIE advanced x1 or TIE/x1 is the ship Vader flies at Yavin. The Inquistor's TIE can no more be a TIE/x1 than an X-wing can.

4th point - Wouldn't be the first time we've seen a "Mandatory upgrade in a huge ship box". C-3PO ring any bells? At least we get 4 titles with the raider as opposed to just one.

C-3PO isn't a mandatory upgrade for anything. Maybe he's a bit cheap for what he does, but he's not a deliberately undercosted fix card like TIE/x1.

So none of what you said is really "Common sense", it's just bias and speculation. Your BEST point is that it woudl seem odd for the Inquisitor's TIE to be overcosted right out of the box - and I will agree to a point, that it seems odd for them to do that. But I think it's certainly a distinct possibility for them to have done that. Perhaps the original plan was for the inquisitor to cost 21, and his cost was inflated when they realized he'd be able to get a free X1 title.

You actually think they'd inflate the price of a ship when they found an unintentional rules loophole rather than close the loophole?

1- Yeah I think it is deliberately overpriced. Howlrunner is also PS 8, has a phenominally amazing ability, and costs 7 points less, for example. I realize we are comparing apples and oranges, but thats really all we can do before we know ALL the facts about this ship, like dial and other pilots, etc.

2- Yes I meant to say obsolete. Redundant was an error on my part. (I was camping outside ToysRUs all night and then got up early to go to Target this morning so I'm tired as heck LOL!). The V1Title might not see much usage, but I think it is there for those who don't have the Raider, and those who may want to field more than 4 Advanced ships. Also to make the argument that the X1 isn't "Mandatory" because you forfeit the opportunity of the V1 title... but yeah I wouldn't ever take the V1 over the X1 - unless I simply didn't have an X1. The V1 title should have been better regardless. This is a realistic observation and I totally get where you are coming from. I won't argue that the V1 is worth 1 MORE point than the X1.... I think it's crap if you compare them, but I didn't design it so I dunno what they were thinking. Maybe a cash grab for the Raider?

3- I'm unclear here - Are you talking about the show "Rebels" here? Because I'm really just talking about the game. These ships are configurable. You can load out a regular academy pilot TIE with extra Hull, or Shields, or an Angine Upgrade if you want... then suddenly it's not the same as a TIE we saw on screen. I think weather we make our TIE a V1 or an X1 has no reflection of what happens on the shows we watch... it's simply from a game-play perspective. If the Inquisitor flew a "V1" on the show thats fine... but it's the same as Vader having an X1 in the film, and me having the option to fly him without the X1 title in this game.

4- I guess it depends on your definition of Mandatory. A ton of people cried about him being mandatory when the Tantive came out. I'll agree it's not the SAME thing, but it certainly would be a similar situation if the FAQ rules in favor of the X1 going on the Inquisitor. What would make it more fair in this case is that you get 4 of them instead of just one, so people have significantly better options of being able to buy an after-market X1 title if they refuse to buy a raider.

Clearly we are going to still need an FAQ ruling on the situation though. The abbreviation with the Raider is probably the biggest things throwing additional confusion on an argument that's been going on for awhile now. I really HOPE the prototype can take the X1 title, not just for the rules part, but I love the idea of having more options to customize. And I also don't want to have to explain to some newer player down the road why his title is illegal,during a tournament. I'd just rather have an FAQ to point to and be done with it.

If anything the panels are in better proportion to the body. It's just that we're used to the TIE fighter's massive jumbo wings.

I know I am

I mean, I can appreciate the pilot being able to have peripheral vision but I'm too conditioned by the iconic, impractical design

Holy ****, I cannot believe this debate is going on this long. The issue isn't whether or not "TIE Adv." is short for "TIE Advanced". It's the fact that

THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO SPECIFY "TIE ADVANCED ONLY" OTHER THAN SAYING "TIE ADVANCED ONLY".

Unfortunately, linguistically, that kinda includes "TIE Advanced Prorotype." Again, nothing to do with whether or not it's abbreviated. Your options are either put "TIE Advanced Only, But Not TIE Adv. Prototype" on the card, or write it explicitly in the rule book. Which they've done.

Now, please, kindly stfu about it.

Holy ****, I cannot believe this debate is going on this long. The issue isn't whether or not "TIE Adv." is short for "TIE Advanced". It's the fact that

THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO SPECIFY "TIE ADVANCED ONLY" OTHER THAN SAYING "TIE ADVANCED ONLY".

Unfortunately, linguistically, that kinda includes "TIE Advanced Prorotype." Again, nothing to do with whether or not it's abbreviated. Your options are either put "TIE Advanced Only, But Not TIE Adv. Prototype" on the card, or write it explicitly in the rule book. Which they've done.

Now, please, kindly stfu about it.

Yeah but what about the raider title?

Holy ****, I cannot believe this debate is going on this long. The issue isn't whether or not "TIE Adv." is short for "TIE Advanced". It's the fact that

THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO SPECIFY "TIE ADVANCED ONLY" OTHER THAN SAYING "TIE ADVANCED ONLY".

Unfortunately, linguistically, that kinda includes "TIE Advanced Prorotype." Again, nothing to do with whether or not it's abbreviated. Your options are either put "TIE Advanced Only, But Not TIE Adv. Prototype" on the card, or write it explicitly in the rule book. Which they've done.

Now, please, kindly stfu about it.

Yeah but what about the raider title?

It seems to me that:

1) The intention of FFG is clear: they want the TIE advanced to be able to equip the TIE/x1 title and they DON'T want the TIE advanced prototype to be able to equip it - hence the new ruling - they're just clarifying that whilst "TIE advanced prototype" contains the words "TIE advanced" they're two different ships as far as the rules are concerned. And we all know they are different ships

2) They messed up with the Raider. Either they needlessly abbreviated it's name on the pilot cards, forgetting they was doing this rule change (or they didn't even know they needed to make this rule change when they were doing the Raider)

...

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

...

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

This actually happened last night. A Decimator's template went over one asteroid and it landed on a different asteroid. Seeing as the Decimator was at 1 hull point when it destroyed my last scyk, this rule had a 50% chance of changing the outcome of the game!

god **** the v1 looks incredibly silly, like it's just a premature x1 with growing pains

hopefully ffg will work its modeling wizardry like it did with the K and punisher

I think that's exactly how it should look, though, right? The designers hadn't figured out how to make it work so it's just a prototype. I guess it's a prototype of a prototype since Vader's ship used to be caused a prototype.

god **** the v1 looks incredibly silly, like it's just a premature x1 with growing pains

hopefully ffg will work its modeling wizardry like it did with the K and punisher

How does it look silly?

GIANT head

itty-bitty panels

like a reverse crobat

You get a gold star for mentioning crobat.

Holy ****. Are we approaching the source code of Groundhog Day on the edge of a white hole or something?

1- Yeah I think it is deliberately overpriced.

...

I'm not even going to bother. If you think this you're a completely lost cause.

3- I'm unclear here - Are you talking about the show "Rebels" here? Because I'm really just talking about the game. These ships are configurable. You can load out a regular academy pilot TIE with extra Hull, or Shields, or an Angine Upgrade if you want... then suddenly it's not the same as a TIE we saw on screen. I think weather we make our TIE a V1 or an X1 has no reflection of what happens on the shows we watch... it's simply from a game-play perspective. If the Inquisitor flew a "V1" on the show thats fine... but it's the same as Vader having an X1 in the film, and me having the option to fly him without the X1 title in this game.

Stick an Engine Upgrade on a TIE fighter and it's still a TIE fighter, just with an upgraded engine. Remove the TIE/x1 title from a TIE advanced x1 and it doesn't cease to be a TIE advanced x1.

Vader's TIE is a TIE advanced x1. The title is called TIE/x1 because it needed a name, but not equipping it doesn't make Vader's TIE not a TIE advanced x1. Not equipping the TIE/v1 title to the Inquistor doesn't make his ship not a TIE advanced v1. The big brick of a fighter is a TIE/x1, and what FGD calls the "reverse crowbat" is a TIE/v1.

This makes the intent is blindingly obvious.

Anyone one want to bring up a different new rule than this one?

Anyone one want to bring up a different new rule than this one?

well "this one" isn't new, it's been the way things worked from the beginning

it's just made explicit, though apparently not explicit enough

I found the Biggs-targeting-order-change-debate much more interesting and actually questionable.

It's a rule book not a friendly conversation. You target ships after you pick a weapon, therefore when you come to pick a target you are unable to target Biggs.

First you measure, then declare target......then choose weapon.

Biggs must be declared before you choose a weapon. Thus, you must then choose a weapon that can attack him

No, the new rules change that. You pick your weapon then declare.

If you are using a weapon that cannot be used at range 3 and Biggs is at range 3, you cannot shoot Biggs. Therefore you select a valid target.

YOU DO NOT HAVE TO CHANGE YOUR WEAPON WHEN ATTACKING IF IT MEANS HITTING BIGGS. it shouldn't even be a debate. Its laid out pretty clearly.

It's a rule book not a friendly conversation. You target ships after you pick a weapon, therefore when you come to pick a target you are unable to target Biggs.

First you measure, then declare target......then choose weapon.

Biggs must be declared before you choose a weapon. Thus, you must then choose a weapon that can attack him

No, the new rules change that. You pick your weapon then declare.

If you are using a weapon that cannot be used at range 3 and Biggs is at range 3, you cannot shoot Biggs. Therefore you select a valid target.

YOU DO NOT HAVE TO CHANGE YOUR WEAPON WHEN ATTACKING IF IT MEANS HITTING BIGGS. it shouldn't even be a debate. Its laid out pretty clearly.

It is laid out clearly, but not in the direction you think. Biggs says "if the attacker could target you instead." Biggs doesn't say "if the attacker could target you with the chosen weapon."

If you select a weapon that can't target Biggs, Biggs still works to narrow the set of valid targets. It's possible that Biggs leaves you with no valid targets for whatever weapon you chose, in which case the rules say you have to go back to the beginning.

(Waiting for Vizzini remains optional.)

This was always painfully obvious, I still can't believe we had that thread.

Someone is still going to argue that since "Adv." obviously stands for "Advance" therefore it DOES have the whole name and can take the X1 title.

Yes, but Carbok is wrong.

EDIT: LOL I didn't think you guys would go on about this for 9 pages, or that he even found this honeypot.

You can't Target Biggs becasue you've chosen a weapon before you pick a target and you can't target him becasue the weapon you've chosen can't target him and you are now at the choose target stage and you can't target him.

First you measure, then declare target......then choose weapon.

Biggs must be declared before you choose a weapon. Thus, you must then choose a weapon that can attack him

No, the new rules change that. You pick your weapon then declare.

If you are using a weapon that cannot be used at range 3 and Biggs is at range 3, you cannot shoot Biggs. Therefore you select a valid target.

YOU DO NOT HAVE TO CHANGE YOUR WEAPON WHEN ATTACKING IF IT MEANS HITTING BIGGS. it shouldn't even be a debate. Its laid out pretty clearly.

It is laid out clearly, but not in the direction you think. Biggs says "if the attacker could target you instead." Biggs doesn't say "if the attacker could target you with the chosen weapon."

If you select a weapon that can't target Biggs, Biggs still works to narrow the set of valid targets. It's possible that Biggs leaves you with no valid targets for whatever weapon you chose, in which case the rules say you have to go back to the beginning.

(Waiting for Vizzini remains optional.)

You can't Target Biggs becasue you've chosen a weapon before you pick a target and you can't target him becasue the weapon you've chosen can't target him and you are now at the choose target stage and you can't target him.

The problem is I could actually buy both of these arguments.

When I see arguments like the new rules and Biggs or the new rules and Titles, it kind of makes me like read the rules as they were intended unless clear. I know this just opens more doors/ issues but still

Oh wait. Do we know what was intended with Biggs?

I think the card specifically mentions that you MUST target Biggs.

Other friendly ships at Range 1 cannot be targeted by attacks if the attacker could target you instead.

Your claim that you could pick a weapon deliberately to exclude Biggs seems flawed to me.

I think the card specifically mentions that you MUST target Biggs.

Other friendly ships at Range 1 cannot be targeted by attacks if the attacker could target you instead.

Your claim that you could pick a weapon deliberately to exclude Biggs seems flawed to me.

I would agree, except for the explicit change to the rules to put Weapon Selection prior to Target Selection, which implies that Weapon Selection limits the targets you can choose.

You can't Target Biggs becasue you've chosen a weapon before you pick a target and you can't target him becasue the weapon you've chosen can't target him and you are now at the choose target stage and you can't target him.

Again, Biggs exists throughout the entire process.

Let me break this down another way: there's a set of valid weapon-target pairs. Before you choose a target, you enumerate all of those pairs, and then you choose one. Biggs' ability, in this explanation, removes every friendly ship at Range 1 from each opponent's set of valid weapon-target pairs.

What's left is the union of (1) any otherwise valid weapon-target pairs that include Biggs, and (2) any valid weapon-target pair that includes a ship at Range 2 or greater from Biggs.

...I don't know how far back you go with this game, but this is literally the same argument the community had in Wave 1 about how Biggs worked. The only difference is now there's actually an explanation for the ruling that's already in the FAQ, rather than having it backed by "because we said so".

Can someone share a screenshot of the language in the new rulebook, or just verify that this is the explicit quoted language:

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 one ship to be the target and pays any costs required for the attack.

I think the card specifically mentions that you MUST target Biggs.

Other friendly ships at Range 1 cannot be targeted by attacks if the attacker could target you instead.

Your claim that you could pick a weapon deliberately to exclude Biggs seems flawed to me.

No but what I'm saying is that since you've chosen a weapon that is unable to target Biggs he isn't a valid target so his ability doesn't stop other targets from being valid.

You can't Target Biggs becasue you've chosen a weapon before you pick a target and you can't target him becasue the weapon you've chosen can't target him and you are now at the choose target stage and you can't target him.

Again, Biggs exists throughout the entire process.

Let me break this down another way: there's a set of valid weapon-target pairs. Before you choose a target, you enumerate all of those pairs, and then you choose one. Biggs' ability, in this explanation, removes every friendly ship at Range 1 from each opponent's set of valid weapon-target pairs.

What's left is the union of (1) any otherwise valid weapon-target pairs that include Biggs, and (2) any valid weapon-target pair that includes a ship at Range 2 or greater from Biggs.

...I don't know how far back you go with this game, but this is literally the same argument the community had in Wave 1 about how Biggs worked. The only difference is now there's actually an explanation for the ruling that's already in the FAQ, rather than having it backed by "because we said so".

Will you type the picking weapon and target rules out of photo them please? I'm assuming they look different to how I think they are for you to be saying this.