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.

fwiw I think the brokenness of the card isn't related to whether the rules (as they are at the moment, pending a FAQ on the Raider). And I'm arguing because I'm still watching progress bars at work and people keep on replying to me. Plus I think I'm right. Issues letting things go are neither here nor there.

And no, the rules don't say that - an abbreviation is the same thing as the full word. So therefore 'Adv.' is the same thing as 'Advanced' because that's literally the point of it being an abbreviation. That is, of course, until FFG tell us that they're using them differently to everyone else because reasons and the Raider was an accident. But until then, it wasn't.

The part that really is the kicker for me.. is that regardless of the fact that the newly written rules say 'entirety', .. that would mean that FFG is making ships that come with upgrades for that ship, that the ship cannot ever use. (again, using the Raiders 'AFT' vs 'AFT section' in my thinking).

Doesn't that just seem odd? (I am in agreement as this will need to be changed in the FAQ, but i do think it's a bit silly for it to be required).

Also, what if Adv. Was put in because Advanced was too long? Anyone consider the graphic design part of the card layouts?

I can almost imagine a scene taking place where one of the Devs talks to the Graphic design guy, points him to this thread and is like: "Look at what your Feng-shui caused".

*returns to lurking*

Malev

as to "Also, what if Adv. Was put in because Advanced was too long? Anyone consider the graphic design part of the card layouts?"

it could have been the Tie Advance v1 (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/TIE_Advanced_v1) just as Vader is the Tie Advance x1

"Tie Advance v1" we know already fits on the card and is eligible for the Tie/x1 title

In fact, the Tie Advance v1 is actually more true to lore than "Tie Adv. Prototype"

but that's not what the ship is defined as, is it?

it's almost like they needed it to be defined as something else for some reason...

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.

again, doesn't matter that Adv. = Advance to us. On the card, it does not contain the entirety of the words "Tie Advance" and is therefore not eligible for the Tie/x1 title.

The Tie/v1 title, however, is Tie Adv. Prototype Only. Why? Because Tie Advance Prototype only would make it illegal on the ship it was supposed to come with.

and tbf, the epic ships kind of are second rate

they are a product for the secondary game that isn't considered the standard and they're not allowed in standard play

imo, that is actually the best explanation as to why the Raider's titles are borked.

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.

fwiw I think the brokenness of the card isn't related to whether the rules (as they are at the moment, pending a FAQ on the Raider). And I'm arguing because I'm still watching progress bars at work and people keep on replying to me. Plus I think I'm right. Issues letting things go are neither here nor there.

And no, the rules don't say that - an abbreviation is the same thing as the full word. So therefore 'Adv.' is the same thing as 'Advanced' because that's literally the point of it being an abbreviation. That is, of course, until FFG tell us that they're using them differently to everyone else because reasons and the Raider was an accident. But until then, it wasn't.

Yeah, that's basically what's going to have to happen to keep TIE Adv. Prototypes from breaking the metagame.

Tie Adv. Prototype cannot take the x/1 title.
The Raider can take the Raider titles.
The Raider was made before the new rule about the wording of titles and such and apparently got overlooked.
It'll get fixed in the next FAQ update.

There, sorted - go do something productive.

That's not me spit-balling, btw. I didn't get permission to name drop, (because the people who are determined to argue this no matter what aren't going to care that I got word from an authority until they physically see it written in front of them and there is no point trying to reason with them) but I asked and was told, so for the rest of you...

Tie Adv = No
Raider = Yes
X-wing = unnecessary

It'll be in the next FAQ update.
That's all.

again, doesn't matter that Adv. = Advance to us. On the card, it does not contain the entirety of the words "Tie Advance" and is therefore not eligible for the Tie/x1 title.

Again, it does. The word is just abbreviated but means the same thing*.

And I can't imagine that FFG would treat the Epic ships with any less care than their standard play either. That's a hell of a stretch.

* Obligatory 'Unless FFG change the way they do things'.

again, doesn't matter that Adv. = Advance to us. On the card, it does not contain the entirety of the words "Tie Advance" and is therefore not eligible for the Tie/x1 title.

Again, it does. The word is just abbreviated but means the same thing*.

And I can't imagine that FFG would treat the Epic ships with any less care than their standard play either. That's a hell of a stretch.

* Obligatory 'Unless FFG change the way they do things'.

it means the same thing to us

it does not mean it contains the entirety of the ship-type specified by the restricted upgrade card

again, if FFG wanted us taking tie/x1 on TAPs, they'd have named it the much more accurate TIE Advance v1. This is not a stretch because hey, "X-wing" and "T-70 X-wing" already exist, so why didn't they go for it?

it's shorter, simpler, and not as confusing (why is TAPs the prototype is the advance was also prototype?) and yet they chose to go with "Tie Adv. prototype"

unfortunately, FFG ******* epic is far less of a stretch than ******* the entire game

again, doesn't matter that Adv. = Advance to us. On the card, it does not contain the entirety of the words "Tie Advance" and is therefore not eligible for the Tie/x1 title.

Again, it does. The word is just abbreviated but means the same thing*.

And I can't imagine that FFG would treat the Epic ships with any less care than their standard play either. That's a hell of a stretch.

* Obligatory 'Unless FFG change the way they do things'.

it means the same thing to us

it does not mean it contains the entirety of the ship-type specified by the restricted upgrade card

again, if FFG wanted us taking tie/x1 on TAPs, they'd have named it the much more accurate TIE Advance v1. This is not a stretch because hey, "X-wing" and "T-70 X-wing" already exist, so why didn't they go for it?

it's shorter, simpler, and not as confusing (why is TAPs the prototype is the advance was a prototype?) and yet they chose to go with "Tie Adv. prototype"

Again, it does mean that (don't worry, work is nearly finished so this cycle will end soon ).

And the naming of the ship is dictated by Rebels, isn't it?

again, doesn't matter that Adv. = Advance to us. On the card, it does not contain the entirety of the words "Tie Advance" and is therefore not eligible for the Tie/x1 title.

Again, it does. The word is just abbreviated but means the same thing*.

And I can't imagine that FFG would treat the Epic ships with any less care than their standard play either. That's a hell of a stretch.

* Obligatory 'Unless FFG change the way they do things'.

it means the same thing to us

it does not mean it contains the entirety of the ship-type specified by the restricted upgrade card

again, if FFG wanted us taking tie/x1 on TAPs, they'd have named it the much more accurate TIE Advance v1. This is not a stretch because hey, "X-wing" and "T-70 X-wing" already exist, so why didn't they go for it?

it's shorter, simpler, and not as confusing (why is TAPs the prototype is the advance was a prototype?) and yet they chose to go with "Tie Adv. prototype"

Again, it does mean that (don't worry, work is nearly finished so this cycle will end soon ).

And the naming of the ship is dictated by Rebels, isn't it?

not unless they're saboteurs trying to neuter the v1 before it can come off the assembly line

I thought Rebels (the show) called it the Inquisitor Tie? (hence the name of the wave 8 expansion)

I thought Rebels (the show) called it the Inquisitor Tie? (hence the name of the wave 8 expansion)

I don't know that it was ever given a proper name in the show. However on Starwars.com's DB it's called the Tie Advanced Prototype.

Does that mean the adv. on the card means Advanced? Yes it does. But doesn't change how the rules work, because FFG is effectively putting a rule that acts as a exact text match, which does not abide by the rules of English grammar. Because in a exact text match Adv. and Advanced are not the same thing.

I wonder where ffg pulled the Tie/v1 from then

seems to be a thing, at least according to the wiki

I remember when Darth Vader's TIE Fighter was assumed to be some kind of customization of the TIE Fighter or another existing TIE variant. The designation x1 came much later, and even then didn't discount the possibility of Vader modifying his ship in some way from a base x1 model. With the Inquisitor's TIE, we know for certain that it is anTIE Advanced v1 and that it appeared to be a production model (despite being called a prototype in this game). The Rebels cartoon may show the factories on Lothal being destroyed, leading to only a limited production of the v1, as what happened to the Avenger and Defender years later. Vader's TIE now seems like it could be a customization of the v1, necesitating the designation x1. Any further ships created like Vader's would be by definition limited production 'prototypes'. At any rate, this digression is mere speculation on my part and meant somewhat to lighten the mood in this way too intense thread.

It can be assumed that the TAP (I don't really like that acronym) is meant to only take the v1 title while the TIE Advanced is meant to take the x1. The rule in the current form can aslo be assumed to be phrased in a particular way to allow Vader to take the title (and to actually have a dial). It is obvious that for the clearest understanding of all parties a FAQ needs to state which ships can take which titles for all current titles, and a ruling be made for all future titles (and all future ships to actually follow the new convention on naming.

Games Workshop just called. They'd like their rules lawyers back please. They miss them.

I don't know that it was ever given a proper name in the show.

Funny enough, I just watched this episode tonight. They called it "The Advanced TIE Fighter".

Honestly, FFG has already decided that the V1 is used only on the Adv, and the X1 can only be used on the Advanced. They're trying very hard to make this whole conversation moot, but some of us are used to rules lawyering our way to victory. So they'll FAQ it to make it even more obvious.

Rule of thumb: when there's conflict between what FFG wants the rule to be, and what you think the rule is, FFG will eventually change the wording to match their intentions. See Expert Handling for an example.

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.

Yes but you got to remember there is a reason why titles are specified for a particular section of a huge ship. Mostly to keep a huge ship limited to only 1 title. If all titles weren't tied to the same section than technically players could have equipped 2 different titles for added benefit.

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.

On the product page, Adv. is clearly show to be short for Advanced.

Or are you saying Darth Vader is an illegal ship to field because there is no TIE Advanced X1 dial to go with his pilot card?

The Inquisitor is 4 points less than Darth Vader who has one of the greatest pilot abilities in the entire game, and the Inquisitor's pilot ability is useless at range 1 and 4+, and in a turn where you can't get a shot.

Darth Vader's ability can always be used to do something, unless you are double stressed. And at range 1, Darth Vader and the Inquisitor will do the same damage. Except Darth Vader has more actions so will probably still average higher.

At range 2 or 3, Darth still has his 2 actions, the Inquisitor needs to take an elite pilot talent to get on his level to possibly surpass the average damage, but ends up with more stress.

In what strange world does it make sense for an X-wing to be able to equip upgrades that come with a later version of the X-wing, but a TIE Advanced can't equip upgrades that came with a newer version of a TIE Advanced?

When I wrote this, the TIE Advanced and TIE Adv. Prototype were in mind, and labelled as such on the original. Just so original intent is clear, my original point is that they should be separate but it is too **** easy to argue for swapping their titles, and clear separation of X-wing and T-70 X-wing would go a long way.

Given the TAP is still in development, that this forum is making the debate over its title very public to FFG (they do read it), if they want to make them clearly non-interchangeable they'll find a way.

But if we're talking precedent...

It's worth noting that the Raider's dial says Raider-class Corvette.

The TAP's dial says TIE Adv. Prototype.

Furthermore, TIE/x1 effectively costs minus 4 points, minus 5 if you think the systems slot itself is worth points. It's a massive fix card, underpriced in order to reverse the crippling overcost of the TIE advanced x1. For it to be balanced on another ship, that ship must also be overpriced out of even remote viability.

If the new TIE can take it, they've either broken their game (highly inconsistent with their previous balancing care) or they've deliberately overpriced the new TIE to force you to buy a Raider to make it viable. That is to say, they're either incompetent or cash-gougers.

Furthermore, either way it'd make their new TIE/v1 title (1 point) redundant. What use is 1 point to get a free evade whenever you target lock when you could get two automatic hits and have free choice of action for no points at all? This'd make them either incompetent twice or both incompetent and cash-gougers.

Given FFG's balancing skill thus far has been pretty good, and that they weren't taken over by Games Workshop and Activision overnight, I think it's far more likely that the TAP can't take TIE/x1. And given TIE/x1 is shorthand for TIE advanced x1 (Vader's TIE), it'd be as daft as equipping a Lambda with a title called "TIE bomber."

When I wrote this, the TIE Advanced and TIE Adv. Prototype were in mind, and labelled as such on the original. Just so original intent is clear, my original point is that they should be separate but it is too **** easy to argue for swapping their titles, and clear separation of X-wing and T-70 X-wing would go a long way.

Given the TAP is still in development, that this forum is making the debate over its title very public to FFG (they do read it), if they want to make them clearly non-interchangeable they'll find a way.

But if we're talking precedent...

It's worth noting that the Raider's dial says Raider-class Corvette.

The TAP's dial says TIE Adv. Prototype.

And the Mist Hunter title says it goes on the G-1A Starfighter. The card says G-1A Starfighter. and the dial says G-1A Transport.

And the Product page for the Inquisitor's TIE expansion pack calls it a TIE Advanced Prototype.

In most instances where they did not have limited space, they call it by its complete name.

Now above all, this is still a 2 dice attack ship. Even if the ace of the set comes with an ability that seems pretty useful, it is still useless at range 1. The real value of the Inquisitor is to stay at range 3 with Autothrusters against slow turret ships. But his fellow compatriots are going to be stuck at 2 dice, with the defender getting an extra defense die if they try the same.

This ship is going to need something to compete with TIE Interceptors, because 2 attack on a 20~ point generic does not cut it.

TIE/x1 effectively costs minus 4 points, minus 5 if you think the systems slot itself is worth points. It's a massive fix card, underpriced in order to reverse the crippling overcost of the TIE advanced x1. For it to be balanced on another ship, that ship must also be overpriced out of even remote viability.

If the new TIE can take it, they've either broken their game (highly inconsistent with their previous balancing care) or they've deliberately overpriced the new TIE to force you to buy a Raider to make it viable. That is to say, they're either incompetent or cash-gougers.

Furthermore, either way it'd make their new TIE/v1 title (1 point) redundant. What use is 1 point to get a free evade whenever you target lock when you could get two automatic hits and have free choice of action for no points at all? This'd make them either incompetent twice or both incompetent and cash-gougers.

Given FFG's balancing skill thus far has been pretty good, and that they weren't taken over by Games Workshop and Activision overnight, I think it's far more likely that the TAP can't take TIE/x1. And given TIE/x1 is shorthand for TIE advanced x1 (Vader's TIE), it'd be as daft as equipping a Lambda with a title called "TIE bomber."

TIE/x1 effectively costs minus 4 points, minus 5 if you think the systems slot itself is worth points. It's a massive fix card, underpriced in order to reverse the crippling overcost of the TIE advanced x1. For it to be balanced on another ship, that ship must also be overpriced out of even remote viability.

If the new TIE can take it, they've either broken their game (highly inconsistent with their previous balancing care) or they've deliberately overpriced the new TIE to force you to buy a Raider to make it viable. That is to say, they're either incompetent or cash-gougers.

Furthermore, either way it'd make their new TIE/v1 title (1 point) redundant. What use is 1 point to get a free evade whenever you target lock when you could get two automatic hits and have free choice of action for no points at all? This'd make them either incompetent twice or both incompetent and cash-gougers.

Given FFG's balancing skill thus far has been pretty good, and that they weren't taken over by Games Workshop and Activision overnight, I think it's far more likely that the TAP can't take TIE/x1. And given TIE/x1 is shorthand for TIE advanced x1 (Vader's TIE), it'd be as daft as equipping a Lambda with a title called "TIE bomber."

The TIE Advanced Prototype has no way to gain an evade token without the title. Have you seen Juke?

When you force your opponent to do focus every turn, and to not use it for attack, you are CONTROLLING HIS MIND!

Also combos well with Carnor Jax, like Sensor Jammers.

We were already forced to buy StarVipers to make our Interceptors viable. At least the Raider was same faction and came with a TIE Advanced, and enough titles and systems to outfit 4 X1s. And you can find them on amazon for less than $70.

TIE/x1 effectively costs minus 4 points, minus 5 if you think the systems slot itself is worth points. It's a massive fix card, underpriced in order to reverse the crippling overcost of the TIE advanced x1. For it to be balanced on another ship, that ship must also be overpriced out of even remote viability.

If the new TIE can take it, they've either broken their game (highly inconsistent with their previous balancing care) or they've deliberately overpriced the new TIE to force you to buy a Raider to make it viable. That is to say, they're either incompetent or cash-gougers.

Furthermore, either way it'd make their new TIE/v1 title (1 point) redundant. What use is 1 point to get a free evade whenever you target lock when you could get two automatic hits and have free choice of action for no points at all? This'd make them either incompetent twice or both incompetent and cash-gougers.

Given FFG's balancing skill thus far has been pretty good, and that they weren't taken over by Games Workshop and Activision overnight, I think it's far more likely that the TAP can't take TIE/x1. And given TIE/x1 is shorthand for TIE advanced x1 (Vader's TIE), it'd be as daft as equipping a Lambda with a title called "TIE bomber."

The TIE Advanced Prototype has no way to gain an evade token without the title. Have you seen Juke?

We were already forced to buy StarVipers to make our Interceptor's viable. At least the Raider was same faction and came with a TIE Advanced, and enough titles and systems to outfit 4 X1s. And you can find them on amazon for less than $70.

The huge difference here is that the Star Viper and Raider came out after the ships they fixed and specifically to do so. Bringing out a new ship that requires an old purchase to be playable would be an unprecedented incident and in my opinion a step into the wrong direction.

Do you remember when the Lambda Shuttle came out?

Remember the only source of Engine Upgrade at the time was the previously released Millennium Falcon? Now we have the Houndstooth, but still no Imperial source for Engine Upgrade.

We are constantly getting products that are useful with old upgrade cards or ships. Think of the mileage that gunner, FCS, and Push the Limit get.

Push the Limit only comes with A-wings and Imperial Aces. Are you telling me you don't use it on any Scum and Villainy ships?

Even the preview for the T-70 X-wing "Red Ace" shows it equipped with R2-D2. Which came out in the very first X-wing product to be released.

The Most Wanted expansion came with 3 dials that are only usable if you have 3 older expansions! Firespray-31, the HWK-290, and the 2nd of the 2 Y-wing dials.

The Houndstooth ship comes with a title card and Z-95 dial that is only usable if you own a Z-95 ship!

In the words of Rich Evans: Your opinion is wrong!

Do you know what a Doomshuttle is? Viable out of the box, no question.

One thing is an old upgrade being usefull with new ships. That is fine and has always been that way. This is about a ship being unplayable without something that came out earlier. I don't remember having a problem using my Y-Wing and Z-95s from Most Wanted without a Firespray, maybe I did something wrong there. Similarly most YV-666 builds don't include the title because they want to keep the cost low, so that Z-95? Not required.

The x1 title is a fix, not an ordinary upgrade. It is on any ship that can equip it an autoinclude and it is not okay for a new ship to require it, because that would be bad gamedesign, where profit has a higher priority than a healthy game.

And bringing up Red Ace is just nonsense. Sure R2-D2 seems like a good option, but he hardly is a requirement for Red Ace or the T-70 in general to be viable.

The TIE Advanced Prototype is perfectly playable without the theoretically applicable x1 title. The v1 title gives it good action economy, access to evade tokens, and it can equip Autothrusters.

And the Inquisitor has a decent pilot ability, and could still fit in a 4 ship list.

And x1 isn't a fix, it is a title.

The Integrated Astromech is an auto include on any T-70 or T-65 X-wings that don't take any other modifications!

If you really think the v1 title comes anywhere near the x1 title? Sorry, but no.

Of course the Inquisitor might be really strong and the generics crap that gets in line via x1 title, but I don't see FFG making that mistake.