Because it's not the prototype of TIE fighters.

It's the prototype of the TIE Advanced.

But it's not the only prototype. The TIE Advanced x1 was the first prototype of the eventual TIE Avenger.

Why muddy the waters by throwing the word Prototype and abbreviating Advanced when you could either maintain the usual prototype naming scheme with the x1, x2, v1 (instead of making it yet another title card) or just renaming the ship type entirely?

Yep, RAW it is illegal to equip the Raider titles.

I mean, a dot is used to show abbreviations - it's standard written notation. It doesn't change what the word is, it just indicates that it's been shortened.

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.

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.

If they list T-65 and T-70 separately on the card it strengthens the ridiculous argument that advanced and adv. can share titles because they aren't listed separately. Also, because the full name of the original X-Wing is the T-70 name, the only way to exclude the T-70 from a fix for the original X-Wing (if the fix warrants exclusion) is for the card to explicitly state the exclusion.

Is the section requirement not met by the rulebook talking about multiple card ships? \

Also argument for X1 working on the Prototype seems pretty moot when the Proto comes with it's own title card calling it a tie advanced prototype only. Prototype is part of the name of the ship unlike a model number like the T-70

So you're saying that one card that calls out part of a ship's name (assuming we ignore that ship's abbreviation) shouldn't be applicable to that ship because there exists a more specific card that calls out all of that ship's name?

Then explain this:

There exists TIE Advanced and TIE Adv. Prototype title cards, which are more specific than "TIE" on the Twin Ion Engine Mk. II upgrade. Does that mean the TIE Advanced and the TIE Adv. Prototype can't take Twin Ion Engine Mk. II because there exists more specific upgrade cards?

I think the idea is that the text comprising the restriction, (in this case the word "TIE") must be found (in its entirety) in the ship type.

That would mean that any ship whose ship type includes the word "TIE", could use the Twin Ion Engine Mk II.

Likewise, as the quote from the rules in my previous comment indicates, the TIE/FO FIGHTER, since it includes the full text, "TIE FIGHTER" in its ship type, can use any upgrade that is restricted to the "TIE FIGHTER" ship types.

You are correct. That's why winters_night's argument makes no sense.

Yep, RAW it is illegal to equip the Raider titles.

I mean, a dot is used to show abbreviations - it's standard written notation. It doesn't change what the word is, it just indicates that it's been shortened.

... Which is why the TIE Adv. Prototype should be able to take the TIE/x1 title, which specifies TIE Advanced only. If we follow English conventions, the TIE Adv. Prototype's name could be lengthened to TIE Advanced Prototype and thus be able to take the x1 title.

That logic allows the "Raider-class Corv. (aft)" to take all the title cards that specify "Raider-class corvette aft section," although to do that we have to jump through the extra hoop of assuming that "(aft)" means the same as "aft section," which is doable within the framework of the English language.

The problem is whether FFG is really going to try to tell us that the TIE Adv. Prototype can't take the TIE/x1 title because it has "Adv." instead of "Advanced" in its name — the ultimate pickiness in the rules-as-written method. But by their logic, the Raider-class Corv. (aft) cannot take any of the titles that specify "Raider-class corvette aft section." So FFG has to pick a side on this issue — allowing more options even if they were unintended (logical) or essentially banning three title cards that they're selling in one of their latest products (shady) or continue disallowing the x1 while allowing the Raider titles (hypocritical).

oh this **** again

no guys, we're not following English conventions for game rules unless specified to do so

Adv. is there specifically to keep the V1 from taking the tie/x1 title (Which would make the v1 title absolutely worthless)

sorry, this isn't anyone being picky. this is simple binary logic, the likes in which you would find in a program checking for variables. If you misspell that ****, it's not going to intuitively pick up on what you mean

Still needs to be faq'ed.

the raider does, yes

it is a huge ship and epic-only, so there's always that excuse

oh this **** again

no guys, we're not following English conventions for game rules unless specified to do so

Adv. is there specifically to keep the V1 from taking the tie/x1 title (Which would make the v1 title absolutely worthless)

sorry, this isn't anyone being picky. this is simple binary logic, the likes in which you would find in a program checking for variables. If you misspell that ****, it's not going to intuitively pick up on what you mean

Well the convention has already been used and the game is written in English so I don't really see the issue. It makes more sense than a weak programming analogy, especially when isinstance(adv., advanced) = True anyway.

the raider does, yes

it is a huge ship and epic-only, so there's always that excuse

The next question is one of simple logic.

I know we are sick to death of this debate, so please put that aside for a second.

Given that this debate has crossed at least 4 many-page threads involving the Raider, the X-wings and the TIE Advanced, why would you NOT want a faq? Even if you think it's obvious, would everyone not benefit from absolute clarity? For my part, I don't believe the TAP should use X1. BUT I don't want to have this debate verbally and heatedly with a friend who is trying to be a prick.

So my question is: What benefit is there in this not being faq'ed?

the raider does, yes

it is a huge ship and epic-only, so there's always that excuse

The next question is one of simple logic.

I know we are sick to death of this debate, so please put that aside for a second.

Given that this debate has crossed at least 4 many-page threads involving the Raider, the X-wings and the TIE Advanced, why would you NOT want a faq? Even if you think it's obvious, would everyone not benefit from absolute clarity? For my part, I don't believe the TAP should use X1. BUT I don't want to have this debate verbally and heatedly with a friend who is trying to be a prick.

So my question is: What benefit is there in this not being faq'ed?

people love misconstruing obvious rules all the time, it doesn't make them any less wrong

an FAQ for the advance is redundant now because we were already given very clear parameters in the new core set rule reference

Ship-type only: 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. For example, a TIE/fo fighter and equip and upgrade card restricted to "Tie Fighter Only."

(pg. 20)

it's very clearly spelled out, and the consequences for ignoring it are painfully obvious

so I'm sorry, but we're not going to break the game with an ATC Inquisitor rofling around because people can't come to terms with a very explicit restriction just because adv. has to mean advance i.t.o gameplay.

already had to deal with this silliness over in Armada before when people started questioning what happens when Motti dies. Surprise surprise, his benefit no longer applies.

the only thing that leaves is the raider, a huge ship restricted to a sub-set of the game that is not the competitive norm (and therefore not subject to the raider title being ruled out, unless you're playing someone who doesn't like you). The Raider can be faqed at FFG's leisure.

no FAQ needed. seriously..?

the 65 is an xwing, the 70 is, too.

so I can use it on both.

As far as X-Wing Miniatures is concerned, there's no such thing as a T-65.

There's an X-Wing, and a T-70 X-Wing.

Both are X-Wings.

No, an errata would be redundant. FAQ is pretty much what this is and I am therefor in favor of FFG plainly stating that no, they are not GW and release a new ship that to be useable requires the purchase of a huge expensive ship that most people won't get to use.

Raider titles should get an errata like Daredevil and other cards did.

I read the rules and come to my understanding of those rules and think "Ah, that makes perfect sense."

Then I come here and read all of the ways peoples try and out-interpret whats written and then I just feel confused again.

Maybe I rely to much on 'logical interpretations' of what the designers intended.. like, Of course these upgrades can go on the 'Aft' section of the raider, even if they included the extra word 'section'.

The card has a front section, and a back section. Just because it doesn't say 'section' on the card - doesn't mean that it's not a section.

The desire for literal translation of every single naming convention makes me straight up scratch my head.

Hope this sort of thinking doesn't translate into other areas of life.....

Malev

edit: as a reply, rather than adding a new post, I just want to clarify, my example of the 'aft' vs 'aft section' is just an example explaining how i interpret those 'conflicts', not that anyone is really interpreting those cards specifically.

The Raider example is more being used to show that the dot notation is being used by FFG, as in normal English. I don't think anyone is really claiming that you can't use them - it's just for demonstration.

I read the rules and come to my understanding of those rules and think "Ah, that makes perfect sense."

Then I come here and read all of the ways peoples try and out-interpret whats written and then I just feel confused again.

Maybe I rely to much on 'logical interpretations' of what the designers intended.. like, Of course these upgrades can go on the 'Aft' section of the raider, even if they included the extra word 'section'.

The card has a front section, and a back section. Just because it doesn't say 'section' on the card - doesn't mean that it's not a section.

The desire for literal translation of every single naming convention makes me straight up scratch my head.

Hope this sort of thinking doesn't translate into other areas of life.....

Malev

Well no one says the Raider shouldn't be allowed to equip its titles and I would seriously doubt anyone would want to enforce that if they expect to keep their playing group. 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, and we expect FFG to errata the Raider titles to clear this up. Rules as written should always equal rules as intended and FFG should work on that.

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.

I read the rules and come to my understanding of those rules and think "Ah, that makes perfect sense."

Then I come here and read all of the ways peoples try and out-interpret whats written and then I just feel confused again.

Maybe I rely to much on 'logical interpretations' of what the designers intended.. like, Of course these upgrades can go on the 'Aft' section of the raider, even if they included the extra word 'section'.

The card has a front section, and a back section. Just because it doesn't say 'section' on the card - doesn't mean that it's not a section.

The desire for literal translation of every single naming convention makes me straight up scratch my head.

Hope this sort of thinking doesn't translate into other areas of life.....

Malev

so you're definitely not a lawyer, eh?

or a programmer of any sort

a lot of our life has to be defined by incredibly specific language, or we get stuff like people citing first amendment rights for silly **** like the current marriage license scandal, or people trying to put the Tie/x1 on the Inquisitor

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.

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.

Col. Sanders is still entirely Colonel Sanders, of course.

You know what? Fine. Nobody gets any upgrades.

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.

indeed

"entirety" means the whole of something (in this case "restricted ship type")

Adv. is missing quite a few letters before it hits Advance

sure, it's an intuitive abbreviation for us, but this is a game and we have mechanics that supersede our suppositions (such as c3po magically giving people evades...how!?!?!)

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.

Col. Sanders is still entirely Colonel Sanders, of course.

sure

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

So we're clear, I actually regret posting this thread a little, as I got tired of the tie advanced argument the first time around. But I also see it coming up, and want a really, really clear, concise irrefutable putdown.

So we're clear, I actually regret posting this thread a little, as I got tired of the tie advanced argument the first time around. But I also see it coming up, and want a really, really clear, concise irrefutable putdown.

what, the rulebook isn't enough

sure it isn't irrefutable in the strictest since (**** ain't carved in stone) but it spells it out very clearly

in the case of the X-wing modification there should be no confusion whatsoever

X-wing Only means it can go on any ship that contains the entirety of "X-wing" in their ship type, such currently means the X-wing (the first one) and the T-70 X-wing

this is some explicit black and white **** with no real room for error. There is no need to spell out "X-wing or T-70 X-wing only," that'd be simply redundant given the definition of restrictions this game is working with

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.