It's better than you know yet mate. You've not seen the other goodness it's giving us, have you? (Suggest reading the silence has broken thread. Enjoy). (Picture new uses for the CR90s...)

I will...

I guess the Advanced Prototype might skate by under the (slightly contentious) naming convention rules, but disappointing that the TIE/FO can't be carried, I guess it is because they are from the future (well really the past, just not as much of the past as the others). The sloop is the perfect move to do off the back of a Gonzanti.

Docking Clamps is not very future proofed unfortunately.

This guy wont appreciate someone trying to horn in on his job.

I agree. Wait for official word but for Theorycrafting purposes, I would expect that both Tie/FO and TAP's are a go for Gozanti.

FOs are, TAPs are not

It's Tie Adv. Prototype, not Tie Advance

Why?

so they can't take the Tie/x1 title

dead serious

that thing made the worst ship in the game bar none viable

imagine what it'd do to a ship that FFG didn't **** up out the gate

Epic being what it is, I honestly couldn't care less if my opponent wanted to stuff the Gonzati full of TAPs; more power to them. But if we're going RAW, then technically it's not allowed without FFG clarifying. Allowing the Gonzati to take TAPs is not worth breaking them in the actual game

Then again, this is from the same company that couldn't properly specify the Raider's name on its own titles, so eh. Maybe they just ran out of space on the card?

I'd say it was an issue of space. I fully expect TAPs on Gozanti but no X1 title on TAPs. FAQ, I choose you!

FAQ!?

WHERE ARE YOU!?

o-over here!

I agree. Wait for official word but for Theorycrafting purposes, I would expect that both Tie/FO and TAP's are a go for Gozanti.

FOs are, TAPs are not

It's Tie Adv. Prototype, not Tie Advance

Why?

so they can't take the Tie/x1 title

dead serious

that thing made the worst ship in the game bar none viable

imagine what it'd do to a ship that FFG didn't **** up out the gate

Epic being what it is, I honestly couldn't care less if my opponent wanted to stuff the Gonzati full of TAPs; more power to them. But if we're going RAW, then technically it's not allowed without FFG clarifying. Allowing the Gonzati to take TAPs is not worth breaking them in the actual game

Then again, this is from the same company that couldn't properly specify the Raider's name on its own titles, so eh. Maybe they just ran out of space on the card?

But you see...

this is a classic Games Workshop move, where a nebulous rule is exploited to sell more models before the FAQhammer comes slamming down. I'm not going to say that FFG has gone Full GW yet, but they have the stars lined up at the moment. If they don't FAQ this the TAP is going to be very hard to find in your local store. Ism't it funny how poorly balanced items in the game seem to create their own scarcity issues?

FAQ!?

WHERE ARE YOU!?

o-over here!

I believe (unconfirmed sources[meaning im making this up don't take this out of context or i swear...]) that the TAP is coming with its own rulebook and own set of FAQ's and you have to Follow its FAQ's as stated by question 1 in its FAQ section, making all previous FAQ irrelevant.

I have zero sympathy for anyone who buys the TAP to put TIE/x1 on it. It's so obviously thematically disconcordant and mechanically broken that nothing but dodgy Rules As Written arguments support it, and even if those arguments were solid it's also the most clear cut case of "will be FAQed to not work" ever. Especially given the TIE/v1 comes with its own non-four-point-fix title.

It can't carry tie defenders worst epic ship ever!

But you see...

this is a classic Games Workshop move, where a nebulous rule is exploited to sell more models before the FAQhammer comes slamming down. I'm not going to say that FFG has gone Full GW yet, but they have the stars lined up at the moment. If they don't FAQ this the TAP is going to be very hard to find in your local store. Ism't it funny how poorly balanced items in the game seem to create their own scarcity issues?

it really isn't

see GW had this bad habit of just releasing whole new editions to the game (which changed real ******* little, let me assure you) then updating armies piece-meal...with blatant power creep

FFG doesn't do that

FFG clearly defined Ship-restricted upgrades in its rules reference free online PDF, not $30 codex (going so far as to specify that the Tie/fo Fighter is a Tie Fighter)

and FFG explicitly gave us the Tie Adv. Prototype, not the Tie Advance v1 (which is what the ship is actually called)

finally, FFG put Tie Adv. Prototype Only on the Tie/v1 title

if we're going to have an issue of scarcity, it's going to be the fault of overenthusiastic gamers inventing their own rules where a distinction was already clearly made

or maybe just enthusiastic gamers who want to fly the TAPs

I know I do

The future of imperials hopefully sees something other than a "Tie".

So very, very, VERY much this!

The future of imperials hopefully sees something other than a "Tie".

So very, very, VERY much this!

something like "Gonzati-Class Cruiser"

The argument that a TIE Advanced Prototype is not a type of TIE Advanced is certainly a WAACy one to try and push onto your opponent. It's about the same level as claiming that the Gozanti can't actually carry "TIE Fighters", because the Docking Clamp upgrade instead specifies "TIE fighters".

It can't carry tie defenders worst epic ship ever!

Would look wierd with them upside-down, moreso than the (mostly) vertically symmetrical Ln/x1/In/Sa

The argument that a TIE Advanced Prototype is not a type of TIE Advanced is certainly a WAACy one to try and push onto your opponent. It's about the same level as claiming that the Gozanti can't actually carry "TIE Fighters", because the Docking Clamp upgrade instead specifies "TIE fighters".

The argument that a Tie Adv. Prototype can take the overpowered Tie/x1 title has far less ground to stand on

And it's actually, explicitly not the same arguement

FFG specifies that a ship-type restricted upgrade can only be given to ships that contain the entirety the specified type

Tie Fighter

Tie/fo Fighter

X-wing

T-70 X-wing

there is no case sensitivity

Trying to deny FOs on the Gonzati is just flat out wrong, which is about the only similarity it has with the argument that the Tie Adv. Prototype can take Tie Advance Only upgrades in this game

Don't get me wrong, I'd totally let anyone fly TAPs on the Gonzati regardless. Epic's just for shiggles. But if someone shows up to a tournament with an Inquisitor sporting an Advance Targeting Computer without an explicit FFG citation, I'm calling them out on their bull

So, you will argue against the rules purely on the basis of the word "Advanced" being formatted as "Adv."

Until FFG state that such formatting is considered to be important to the rules, I will consider that attitude to be WAACy.

A tie advanced prototype is not a tie advanced. It is a prototype of a tie advanced.

A prototype of a thing is not the thing -- it does not have the same properties of the thing, and will probably blow up.

I would just love a Gozanti/Orandance Raider team. Carry Jonus up Until you're at range of missles, drop him out near your Raider, use his ability for maximum damage!

While dropping Jonus, toss Carnor out as well, for disruption.

You need two Gozanti's of course. .

All TIEs have to be the same type, for some reason. Sorry.

That's why he said 2 gozanti's....

I would just love a Gozanti/Orandance Raider team. Carry Jonus up Until you're at range of missles, drop him out near your Raider, use his ability for maximum damage!

While dropping Jonus, toss Carnor out as well, for disruption.

You need two Gozanti's of course. .

All TIEs have to be the same type, for some reason. Sorry.

That's why he said two Gozantis

Yes, reading is good.

So, you will argue against the rules purely on the basis of the word "Advanced" being formatted as "Adv."

Until FFG state that such formatting is considered to be important to the rules, I will consider that attitude to be WAACy.

Erm they said exactly that in the new rulebook, the TAP can't use the x1 title because it's title does not include the word advanced.

So, you will argue against the rules purely on the basis of the word "Advanced" being formatted as "Adv."

Until FFG state that such formatting is considered to be important to the rules, I will consider that attitude to be WAACy.

yes

they didn't format anything for no reason, especially when there was a far superior alternative:

Tie Advance v1

the ship classification was specifically abbreviated to Adv. so that it couldn't use Tie Advance upgrades

Until FFG blatantly contradicts its own rules, I don't really care what people think--especially if they're advocating something as silly as Tie/x1 on a ship that isn't completely helpless on its own

Seriously, I don't understand how people can't immediately recognize some incredibly obvious gameplay consequences, such as Inquisitor at 26 and PS 8 packing a better-than-hlc when its competition is

PS 2 BSP @ 29

PS 2 HLC heavy sck @ 23

PS 3 Phantom @25

or PS 5 HLC heavy SCK @ 26

none of which can take thrusters and only one of which can take an EPT

The argument that a TIE Advanced Prototype is not a type of TIE Advanced is certainly a WAACy one to try and push onto your opponent. It's about the same level as claiming that the Gozanti can't actually carry "TIE Fighters", because the Docking Clamp upgrade instead specifies "TIE fighters".

If you consider following the rules to be WAAC, I'd hate to see what you consider to be a casual game.

Now will someone please close the door so no more TAP = TA trolls get in to the Gozanti celebration thread?

So, you will argue against the rules purely on the basis of the word "Advanced" being formatted as "Adv."

Until FFG state that such formatting is considered to be important to the rules, I will consider that attitude to be WAACy.

Erm they said exactly that in the new rulebook, the TAP can't use the x1 title because it's title does not include the word advanced.

Could you please direct me to where in the new rulebook it mentions the TAP at all? Until someone can do that I'm finding this statement highly suspect, especially considering the TAP wasn't (and still isn't) released at the time of the new rulebook being released.

Hell, linking to anywhere where FFG say that Tie Advanced Prototype does not include TIE Advanced would be good. Instead, all I'm seeing is people claiming that black is white, without offering anything to back up their contradiction. Anyone?

The new rulebook specifies (on several pages including in the titles section on page 19) that "Any ship can equip a title as long as the title is not restricted to a different type of ship."

The TIE Advanced Prototype is a different type of ship than a TIE Advanced, and thus is ineligible for the X1 title (and the TIE Advanced is also ineligible for the v1 title). It's bloody obvious that that's how it was intended to function; the X1 and the v1 are not even remotely the same ship.

This shouldn't have to be FAQ'd. Certain folk are just willfully misinterpreting what the cards do.

I don't know why would you use a Rhino for you 10 man scout squad when you could just infiltrate them. So they don't get shot up to pieces at long range. Starfighter transports will have a place in epic.

EDIT: Nevermind that post, it as been discussed later in this thread.