sure

doesn't mean he can take the Colonel Sanders Only 10-piece chicken title, though. That's reserved for the new version.

If we're type-checking there's nothing to stop him, not unless his err... Commander in ChieFAQ decides to pull rank and deny him.

Language rules don't just get thrown out of the window for gaming.

Yes they do. Especially if the game says they do.

The x-wing in of it self is, yes.

TIE Advanced / Adv. Prototype though. You must admit that demands absolute clarification. Because someone is going to argue for an X1 title being put on a V.

"TIE Adv." does not equal "TIE Advanced" and the new rules are pretty explicit. If we're going down the slippery slope of, "Obviously 'Adv.' means 'Advanced", who's to say it doesn't stand for "Adventure", "Advice" or "Advertisement"?

Language rules don't just get thrown out of the window for gaming.

Yes they do. Especially if the game says they do.

Sure, the moment FFG tell us that they don't this will all be moot. But considering they haven't and have actually followed proper use already it isn't much of a consideration.

Some of us, me included, do however point out, that technicaly the Raider equipping its titles is illegal if you follow the rules from the new core set word by word

Not at all. Abbreviations don't change the word they represent.

• Arthur McPlinkongton esq. is still Arthur McPlinkongton esquire.
• Col. Sanders is still Colonel Sanders.
• Corv. is still Corvette

Language rules don't just get thrown out of the window for gaming.

...which is why the TIE Adv. Prototype should be able to take the TIE/x1 title. Right?

Some of us, me included, do however point out, that technicaly the Raider equipping its titles is illegal if you follow the rules from the new core set word by word

Not at all. Abbreviations don't change the word they represent.

• Arthur McPlinkongton esq. is still Arthur McPlinkongton esquire.
• Col. Sanders is still Colonel Sanders.
• Corv. is still Corvette

Language rules don't just get thrown out of the window for gaming.

The wording "entirety" in the new rules does suggest that to me, though.

...which is why the Raider can't take the Raider title cards. Right?

FFG has created a paradox in the rules and needs to fix it. Do we assume that abbreviated ship names can be spelled out for the purposes of an upgrade card, or do we not?

The TFA Core Set's new rulebook does seem to confirm that the (T-65) X-Wing and the T-70 X-Wing both can take upgrades that say "X-Wing only." Likewise, it confirms that TIE Fighters, TIE/FO Fighters, TIE Interceptors, TIE Bombers, TIE Phantoms, TIE Defenders, TIE Punishers and TIE Adv. Prototypes all can take the upgrade card that specifies "TIE only." It also seems to suggest that the TIE Adv. Prototype can't take an upgrade card that specifies "TIE Advanced only," and that the Raider-class Corv. (aft) can't take title cards that specify "Raider-class corvette aft section." Or does it? It isn't actually clear.

...which is why the TIE Adv. Prototype should be able to take the TIE/x1 title. Right?

RAW I don't see a reason why not. Game balance wise I hope they just tell us explicitly that we can't.

...which is why the TIE Adv. Prototype should be able to take the TIE/x1 title. Right?

RAW I don't see a reason why not. Game balance wise I hope they just tell us explicitly that we can't.

Based on RAW, you CAN'T. If anything, the Raider needs an entry even though we all know how it will work anyway.

Based on RAW, you CAN'T. If anything, the Raider needs an entry even though we all know how it will work anyway.

You can because a dot after a contraction means it's the same word.

But considering they haven't

They won't until the Tie Adv Prototype comes out. They have a policy about not addressing rules regarding ships that haven't actually been released.

I suppose the Raider could create a FAQ entry to cover this, but seeing how there's been no FAQ since it came out, we can't say if one will or will not be in there.

But has anyone emailed FFG asking them about this?

Not again! The new rulebook says that in order to use a restricted title the entirety of the restriction has to appear on the ships name. Even the TAP dial says "Adv." so RAW is covered. It should also be clear that this is the intention, because if the TAP would be able to use the x1 title that would mean it was unplayable out of the box, which is idiotic.

Then explain how these titles, which say "Raider-class corvette aft section" ...

...can be played on this pilot card, which says "Raider-class Corv. (aft)":

Either those titles can't be played on any ship that currently exists in the game, or the TIE/x1 title can be played on the forthcoming "TIE Adv. Prototype." It can't be both and still be logical.

I am assuming now that this sort of post is just trolling.

I don't understand how such a simple card can cause so much confusion.

Thankfully both FFG and most people understand English enough to not be confused.

What is it with these forums and people twisting rules to be what they want them to be instead of what they actually are?

In this, I can see the argument going for both sides.

IMO, people is percieveing too much 'exclusivity' than necessary on the X1 title. The fact that it was introduced as a way to improve the TIE Advanced, doesn't mean that you'll compromise your beliefs, moral and faith on the game if it happens to apply to another ship. Many other upgrades have been introoduced as a way of improving a particular ship and ended benefitting others.

And please, "Adv." clearly means Advanced. Period. You can exercise all the verbal juggling, mirrors and smoke you are capable of to dismiss that fact, but personally, I won't waste any of my time on it, because even their most fierce detractors know on their inside what it truly means, and what it implies... Even if they don't admit it for the sake of their argument. Be honest to yourselves on that, and admit that the current RAW simply favors the other side of the argument.

However, it may not be the intention of the developers to allow the X1 title being applied to the prototype, which is also totally and perfectly possible. If that's the case, I'm sure that FFG will leave it clear in the FAQ... But since the prototype is not available yet, and consequently with FFG's policies, this particular reason won't be answered until its release, I think you people should just play with what miniatures and upgrades you have, which by the last count were more than enough to provide an exciting game experience without resorting to 'beta testing' whatever incomplete info falls on your hands.

But considering they haven't

They won't until the Tie Adv Prototype comes out. They have a policy about not addressing rules regarding ships that haven't actually been released.

I suppose the Raider could create a FAQ entry to cover this, but seeing how there's been no FAQ since it came out, we can't say if one will or will not be in there.

But has anyone emailed FFG asking them about this?

Well, if FFG would say that the abbreviations should count as separate ships (thus, the TIE Adv. Prototype cannot take the TIE/x1 title) then they've already released a ship that has a problem: the Imperial Raider. It's named "Raider-class Corv. (aft)" and "Raider-class Corv. (fore)" but its title cards require that they be attached to a pilot card named "Raider-class corvette aft section." So they need to release an FAQ as soon as possible to address that, or else they just released three title cards that can't be used on anything.

Alternatively, if FFG would say that the Raider title cards can be used on the "Raider-class Corv. (aft)" because you can use English rules and logic to determine that "Corv. (aft)" is the same as "corvette aft section" then you're right, FFG doesn't need to release an FAQ until the TIE Adv. Prototype comes out, at which point they ought to clarify that the TIE Adv. Prototype can indeed take the TIE/x1 title using the logic used with the Raider. If for some reason they release an FAQ that says that the TIE Adv. Prototype cannot take the TIE/x1 title because "Adv." isn't the same as "Advanced" while not addressing the Raider problem at all then they're being hypocritical and negligent.

I am assuming now that this sort of post is just trolling.

I don't understand how such a simple card can cause so much confusion.

Thankfully both FFG and most people understand English enough to not be confused.

I was not trolling and I'm kind of offended.

So you would say that the TIE Adv. Prototype should be able to take the TIE/x1 title since the TIE/x1 specifies "TIE Advanced only" and one can easily expand the abbreviation in TIE Adv. Prototype to TIE Advanced Prototype? Because if that were true, The Inquisitor running around with a 1-point Advanced Targeting Computer is gonna be bonkers.

Many other upgrades have been introoduced as a way of improving a particular ship and ended benefitting others.

But allowing that title on the TAP would make it OP'ed. It's already 3 points less then a Tie Advanced, with one less hull, but comes with boost.

This isn't just about people not wanting to have the title because. It's due to balance issues. The X1 title was designed to fix a clearly underpowered ship. As such you can't simply throw it on a correctly balanced one without something becoming broken.

Be honest to yourselves on that, and admit that the current RAW simply favors the other side of the argument.

No actually it doesn't. Especially when you consider the V1 title states "TIE Adv. Prototype only." Unless you want to argue that the title from that fits on the Tie Advanced. But RAW do not have to follow the rules of grammar any more then Javascript does. That means unless the ship says "Advanced" with the whole word spelled out, it may not fulfill the rules.

We have two possible ways for this to be ruled, but the RAI seems pretty clear to me, and the TAP will not get to use the X1 title.

But RAW do not have to follow the rules of grammar any more then Javascript does.

They do when that's that's the language they're written in. You don't stick C++ into Javascript and expect it to work.

Edit: I mean, FFG can get around it by just saying so, no argument there. But that's just a demonstration that they got their 'syntax' a bit wrong.

Many other upgrades have been introoduced as a way of improving a particular ship and ended benefitting others.

But allowing that title on the TAP would make it OP'ed. It's already 3 points less then a Tie Advanced, with one less hull, but comes with boost.

This isn't just about people not wanting to have the title because. It's due to balance issues. The X1 title was designed to fix a clearly underpowered ship. As such you can't simply throw it on a correctly balanced one without something becoming broken.

Be honest to yourselves on that, and admit that the current RAW simply favors the other side of the argument.

No actually it doesn't. Especially when you consider the V1 title states "TIE Adv. Prototype only." Unless you want to argue that the title from that fits on the Tie Advanced. But RAW do not have to follow the rules of grammar any more then Javascript does. That means unless the ship says "Advanced" with the whole word spelled out, it may not fulfill the rules.

We have two possible ways for this to be ruled, but the RAI seems pretty clear to me, and the TAP will not get to use the X1 title.

For what it's worth, I agree with you. They'll need an FAQ entry to point out that the TIE Adv. Prototype can't take the TIE/x1, and they'll need to errata the Raider titles to be consistent with the Raider pilot cards.

In this, I can see the argument going for both sides.

IMO, people is percieveing too much 'exclusivity' than necessary on the X1 title. The fact that it was introduced as a way to improve the TIE Advanced, doesn't mean that you'll compromise your beliefs, moral and faith on the game if it happens to apply to another ship. Many other upgrades have been introoduced as a way of improving a particular ship and ended benefitting others.

And please, "Adv." clearly means Advanced. Period. You can exercise all the verbal juggling, mirrors and smoke you are capable of to dismiss that fact, but personally, I won't waste any of my time on it, because even their most fierce detractors know on their inside what it truly means, and what it implies... Even if they don't admit it for the sake of their argument. Be honest to yourselves on that, and admit that the current RAW simply favors the other side of the argument.

first of all, no one is arguing that "Adv." is not an abbreviation for "Advance" (unless the prototype comes with a little safari hat, in which case it is the Tie Adventure Protoype) we're just arguing that it's irrelvent

the rules don't give half a **** that Adv is an abbreviation for Advance. If the ship-type does not contain the entirety of the restrictions specified in the title, it can't take the **** title. That's all there is to it.

second, the Tie/x1 must be exclusive to the Tie Advance (and Tie Advance x1, which under the definition of upgrade restrictions is a perfectly valid vessel for the tie/x1 title) for gameplay balance purposes

do people simply not understand how overpowered the Tie/x1 title is? you know the only reason it exists is because the Tie Advance is complete garbage without it.

Put it on the Inquisitor (25 points), slap on ATC (also Tie Advance Only) for 26 points, and you get a better than hlc (ignores range bonuses and thrusters) for cheaper than the next viable (no scyks) HLC pilot, the BSP (29), and on a PS 8 that can take thrusters.

people like to bang on about how it Adv. must intuitively mean the TAP can take the tie/x1 title without using their intuition to understand just how hard FFG would be shooting itself in the foot

tie/v1 title? invalidated

the tie advance itself? invalidated, unless the TAPs is also hilariously overpriced and thus also requires the purchase of the raider

stellar bit of game design there

But what constitutes the entirety? Does an abbreviation?

Does an Acronym?

OMG Nothing says "TWIN ION ENGINE" Nothing can take TIE MKII.

I am of course being facetious.

The core argument is that an abbreviation counts, vs doesn't count. No matter your passion on the subject it is not clear cut.

But what constitutes the entirety? Does an abbreviation?

Does an Acronym?

OMG Nothing says "TWIN ION ENGINE" Nothing can take TIE MKII.

I am of course being facetious.

The core argument is that an abbreviation counts, vs doesn't count. No matter your passion on the subject it is not clear cut.

If you follow the actual definition of "entire" it is clear cut.

first of all, no one is arguing that "Adv." is not an abbreviation for "Advance" (unless the prototype comes with a little safari hat, in which case it is the Tie Adventure Protoype) we're just arguing that it's irrelvent

do people simply not understand how overpowered the Tie/x1 title is?

Hehe, I think by this point everyone can see each other's arguments.

They do when that's that's the language they're written in.

No it does not. The rules say what the rule say, and if that means broken grammar then it breaks the rules of grammar. It does not mean they got their Syntax wrong either.

It means they designed something to work a given way. But because they don't have the final say in things like what a ship is called, they needed to come up with a way to make work like they wanted to, while still having ships called what Disney wants them called.

As far as C++ in Javascript... Of course not, but that doesn't apply here either. That would be like trying to insert German words into an English rule book.

The point however is that the rules like Javascript don't have to follow the rules of English grammar. In Javascript BoB is completely different then Bob.

While I agree that following the rules of grammar should be the default, that doesn't mean they can't be over ruled, and in this case they clearly are. Adv. and Advanced are not the same thing as far as the rules care. Does that mean they're not following proper grammar? Sure. Does that matter? No.

OMG Nothing says "TWIN ION ENGINE" Nothing can take TIE MKII.

I am of course being facetious.

I get that, but you're also not properly quoting what the card says. Twin Ion Engine is the title of the card. The restriction is "TIE only".

No matter your passion on the subject it is not clear cut.

I disagree. It is clear cut, especially based on the TFA core set rules. It does mean the Raider titles need to be fixed to be consistent. But I also am fairly sure that they will issue a FAQ for the TAP when it's released. For the same reason they released one with Farlander.

In this, I can see the argument going for both sides.

IMO, people is percieveing too much 'exclusivity' than necessary on the X1 title. The fact that it was introduced as a way to improve the TIE Advanced, doesn't mean that you'll compromise your beliefs, moral and faith on the game if it happens to apply to another ship. Many other upgrades have been introoduced as a way of improving a particular ship and ended benefitting others.

And please, "Adv." clearly means Advanced. Period. You can exercise all the verbal juggling, mirrors and smoke you are capable of to dismiss that fact, but personally, I won't waste any of my time on it, because even their most fierce detractors know on their inside what it truly means, and what it implies... Even if they don't admit it for the sake of their argument. Be honest to yourselves on that, and admit that the current RAW simply favors the other side of the argument.

However, it may not be the intention of the developers to allow the X1 title being applied to the prototype, which is also totally and perfectly possible. If that's the case, I'm sure that FFG will leave it clear in the FAQ... But since the prototype is not available yet, and consequently with FFG's policies, this particular reason won't be answered until its release, I think you people should just play with what miniatures and upgrades you have, which by the last count were more than enough to provide an exciting game experience without resorting to 'beta testing' whatever incomplete info falls on your hands.

There are huge problems associated with the x1 title being usable by anything else. It would be an autoinclude.

And please don't call any side here trolling, it is an important discussion to be had so FFG get better at precise ruling. We fight on territory that by its very nature seems absurde, but thats what rules texts are in a nutshell.

While I agree that following the rules of grammar should be the default, that doesn't mean they can't be over ruled, and in this case they clearly are. Adv. and Advanced are not the same thing as far as the rules care. Does that mean they're not following proper grammar? Sure. Does that matter? No.

I can't follow this - the rules of grammar are default, correct. In fact they are being used by FFG already on another card. So therefore Adv. and Advanced are the same thing, both by the rules of grammar (that have been established as being the default) and by the precedent FFG set before (so the default rules of grammar haven't been overruled) - unless the contention is that Epic ships are some kind of second-rate product that don't count or bare the same level of scrutiny as the others.

Edit: OR, to be fair, that they didn't appreciate the rules would change with the new Core Set (if they even have? I'm not sure on that). But considering how close of a release the Raider was to the current Wave, that doesn't ring true for me.

So therefore Adv. and Advanced are the same thing

No they are not, not per the rules.

unless the contention is that Epic ships are some kind of second-rate product that don't count or bare the same level of scrutiny as the others.

No, the contention is that the Raider simply needs to have an errata to make it fit the current ruling.

What I can't figure out is if you're arguing simply because you want to continue the debate for some reason, or you honestly think the X1 title on a TAP is a good idea. Because the RAI seems abundantly clear to me, but does as I said require that the Raider be fixed.