hey guys,

so, the Gonzati has basically brought back ye ole TAPs argument back from the Wave 8 spoiler, an argument we really shouldn't be having given how explicit the rules are

but then, it occurred to me that FFG has buried their EP 7 Coreset Reference in a news article, and a google search still turns up Ye Ole Coreset's Learn to Play. You have to go through "A New Reckoning" something or other in order to find the relevant documents.

As many may have missed it, I'm just linking it here; especially the relevant definition of Ship-types regarding Ship-type restricted upgrades

Article with Links: https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2015/9/16/there-has-been-an-awakening/

Rules Reference PDF: https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/filer_public/40/b4/40b44d5f-7a06-406c-ae6e-183c5297e796/swx36_rulesreference.pdf

Ship-type Quote:

Yeah, good luck with this.

We're gonna need some FAQs from FFG for all of this mess. I would say

• TIE/Fo counts as a "TIE Fighter" for the sake of "Youngster"
• TIE/Fo counts as a "TIE Fighter" for the sake of the Gozanti
• TIE/v1 counts as "TIE Advanced" for the sake of Gozanti
• x1 title gets errata stating it only works on the TIE Advanced x1

Could be wrong on any of those, but it'd seem almost silly to exclude the Fo from "Youngster" or the Gozanti. It also strikes me as completely arbitrary to exclude the v1 from riding on the Gozanti, as there's no realistic reason to not allow it.

However, I don't see them giving the power of the x1 title to a fighter that explicitly isn't a TIE/x1. I get it, they're both "TIE Advanceds", but I think the wording of the title is almost certainly more oversight than anything else. I'll believe it if I see it, but I just can't imagine a world where The Inquisitor can get access to the ATC. That'd be 26 points for a high PS ship hitting harder than a HLC and ignoring autothrusters, which would just be silly.

Still, we'll need a FAQ to clarify everything and put and end to all the debate. If there's a part I'm wrong on, it'll be that the INQ can't dock on the Gozanti... but personally, I'd find that to be goosery.

personally, the INQ not docking the Gonzati is small (microscopic, really) peanuts compared to breaking him with ATC. It's more than worth throwing that under the bus for the sake of consistency

I'm assuming that the ship-types specified in the Docking Clamps and Youngster follow the same rules as Ship-Type restricted upgrades, lest we get a rules-related fustercluck, meaning

Docking Clamps says yes to Tie Fighters and Tie/fo Fighters, Interceptors, Bombers and Advance; no to TAPs

Youngster says yes to Tie Fighters and Tie/fo Fighters (and the article agrees, but at the same time these are the same articles that introduced the SLAM-bomb controversy)

Maybe the TAP's wording is abbreviated in order to save card and dial space.

I see your argument fickle, but I can see it the other way too, that the TAP is a TIE Advanced and they simply abbreviated "advanced".

This could go either way. I think they're going to disallow it not because of this dumb semantics argument, but to prevent the TAP from simply becoming a better Advanced. I think this is what we should be discussing, not the semantics. You also only get 4 TA X1 cards in the Raider, while you can field 5-6 TAP's. I know FFG is fond of putting good cards in expensive epic ships that just collect dust because god forbid we sacrifice ONE Friday casual 3 round tournament to play one epic game. But they're not /that/ greedy, requiring 2 Raiders for a full playset.

I wouldn't be surprised if they did allow it, but I don't think so.

It's not "semantics" as much as "rules", considering the terms were defined by FFG itself

this is especially because the Tie Adv. Prototype is canonically known as the "Tie Advance v1," which would qualify for Tie Advance Only upgrades

As we already have the Tie Advance x1 (Vader), I highly doubt card space was a consideration in the naming of that ship

I do believe that avoiding a strictly superior Tie Advance is precisely why they avoided calling it the Tie Advance v1, though

All of the new rules documents are on the main X-wing page under Support, Rules.

• x1 title gets errata stating it only works on the TIE Advanced x1

X1 title is already in the FAQ, specifically stating that Darth Vader can be equipped with it.

The TIE/v1 title card specifically limits the card to the TIE Adv. Prototype only.

That would make me assume the /x1 title is limited to the TIE Advanced only.

It would bug me severely if the TIE/v1 couldn't dock with The Gozanti, while the TIE/x1 could.

I mean, one of those two has a hyperdrive.

• x1 title gets errata stating it only works on the TIE Advanced x1

X1 title is already in the FAQ, specifically stating that Darth Vader can be equipped with it.

It's also supported by the standard rules for TIE Advance only upgrades

The Tie Advance x1 contains the entirety of "Tie Advance"

Tie ADV. does not

Saying that Adv. =/= Advanced is just dumb. I'm pretty sure they abbreviated it to fit the card, and later came up with that silly justification instead of simply issuing an errata. The fact they had to errata the Raider card to circumvent their own ruling suggest that they just hadn't thought it through.

Really, they've painted themselves into a corner with these names. For example, unless they release an errata, it is not possible to make a card that is T-65 only, since that designation doesn't exist in game terms. It is possible to make a card that is T-70 only. This makes very little sense and is just bad game design (which is perfectly excusable for a game that's been out for a while and essentially in continuous development since its release).

The sensible thing would be to rename both the X-Wing and the TIE Advanced to T-65 X-Wing and TIE Advanced X1, and update the X1 title card and the ATC along with them. If they stick to this abbreviation silliness they'll have to work around their own ruling to avoid problems whenever they release another ship with a long name.

I think the TAP was excluded only because they never make cards that reference content not yet released.

Between Docking Clamps and completely forgetting the text on one of the pilots, I'm inclined to think that nobody actually gives a crit about the TAP, it's just there for parity.

Really, they've painted themselves into a corner with these names. For example, unless they release an errata, it is not possible to make a card that is T-65 only, since that designation doesn't exist in game terms. It is possible to make a card that is T-70 only.

That's quite easily done:

X-Wing only. Rebel Alliance Only.

Tie ADV. does not

Of course the full name of the ship is "TIE Advanced prototype", not TIE Adv. prototype.

Though, interestingly, the expansion pack is actually called 'Inquisitor's TIE'. So who knows what they're doing with the name of this thing.

Tie ADV. does not

Of course the full name of the ship is "TIE Advanced prototype", not TIE Adv. prototype.

Though, interestingly, the expansion pack is actually called 'Inquisitor's TIE'. So who knows what they're doing with the name of this thing.

Preventing it from using the x1 title, by all evidence.

Preventing it from using the x1 title, by all evidence.

Well it's an Inquisitor's TIE on the pack, TIE Advanced Prototype in text, TIE Adv. Prototype anywhere space is an issue. Seems to me that the middle one is the correct ship name, which would mean that you could use the title. Though I also expect an FAQ update to just say we can't anyway.

how

D                 D                 D                 D                 D
 E               E E               E E               E E               E E
  L             L   L             L   L             L   L             L   L
   U           U     U           U     U           U     U           U     U
    S         S       S         S       S         S       S         S       S
     I       I         I       I         I       I         I       I         I
      O     O           O     O           O     O           O     O           O
       N   N             N   N             N   N             N   N             N
        A A               A A               A A               A A               A
         L                 L                 L                 L                 L

can people get

(rhetorically, at least)

Slave one expansion.

Millennium Falcon expansion

Outrider Expansion

Rebel Aces Expansion

Imperial aces expansion

I can't find these ships anywhere! I really wanted to field some Rebel Aces but all I got in the box were some off color A and B wings.

Also, was this thread necro'd, because I swear the same exact argument with the same exact posts were being made.

I brought up the thread to cite the relevant rules for said arguments

The fact that there was an argument at all suggested that people may not have seen the reference, hence the OP

It's just sad that this is still a 'thing' because FFG won't tell us exactly what's going on with the TAP until it is actually released.

Can we just wait till we have it and then go crazy?

It would bug me severely if the TIE/v1 couldn't dock with The Gozanti, while the TIE/x1 could.

I mean, one of those two has a hyperdrive.

Especially since it's canon that the TAP can dock with the Gozanti as seen in the Season 1 finale of Rebels.

finally, to contrast, the TIE Adv. Prototype cannot equip Tie Advance Only upgrades such as the Tie/x1 title (and the ship was most likely named this way specifically to keep that title off of it)

If this is true, this rule was not made with the players in mind. To me it looks more like an oversight.

Maybe there will be a rules addendum in the TAP expansion clarifying that V1 is the only title allowed for the craft. Easy enough. In fact, there are a million ways to fix this unambiguously.