If you play the game without reading the RULES REFERENCE that comes in your core set, I'm afraid that's on you

Secondly, the decision was made for the player. No one wants to play a broken game where you have to buy the raider not only for the old advance (fixed in post; understanded) but the new one as well

And yes, the l2play even tells you to refer to it for full info on ship restricted upgrades

Otherwise, it's a very explicit unbigious distinction that has bafflingly generated argument; probably because people havnt read the new coreset or the free online PDF

If you play the game without reading the RULES REFERENCE that comes in your core set, I'm afraid that's on you

It is entirely reasonable to read the rules and gloss "adv." as "advanced" as the same thing. Just like I read "corv." as "corvette".

Secondly, the decision was made for the player. No one wants to play a broken game where you have to buy the raider not only for the old advance (fixed in post; understanded) but the new one as well

You don't have to buy the Raider, whatever Tie Advanced you have and whichever title goes where.

Regardless, the case for the X1 title being allowed for the TAP is very weak, so what is your point? Sure, it's probably overpowered, that is noted. The question is just how to make ends meet ruleswise.

Otherwise, it's a very explicit unbigious distinction that has bafflingly generated argument; probably because people havnt read the new coreset or the free online PDF

Huh, never knew the FFG written rules didn't qualify as evidence

Look, whether adv. stands advance (which it does) is irrelevant

Tie Adv. Simply does not contain the entirety of "Tie Advance." It simply, physically does not contain the required ship type for the purposes of ship-type restricted upgrades

This is an explicit decision on FFG's part, as the canonical name of the ship is Tie Advance v1

The only plausible ambiguity anyone with even basic reading comprehension could have are thus:

1.) the classification of huge ships w/2 ship cards, as they seem to follow different naming conventions from small/large and even the transport/gonzati

2.) Whether or not the shiptype restricted upgrade rule carries over to docking clamps or youngster for the purpose of identifying viable targets

Huh, never knew the FFG written rules didn't qualify as evidence

Look, whether adv. stands advance [sic!] (which it does) is irrelevant

Tie Adv. Simply does not contain the entirety of "Tie Advance." It simply, physically does not contain the required ship type for the purposes of ship-type restricted upgrades

This is an explicit decision on FFG's part, as the canonical name of the ship is Tie Advance v1

The only plausible ambiguity anyone with even basic reading comprehension could have are thus:

1.) the classification of huge ships w/2 ship cards, as they seem to follow different naming conventions from small/large and even the transport/gonzati

2.) Whether or not the shiptype restricted upgrade rule carries over to docking clamps or youngster for the purpose of identifying viable targets

No you missed the point entirely

The cr90 and raider VERY obviously follow different conventions (2 ship cards) and even the whole Corv. Nonsense being rectified would make their titles legal under standard rules (there is no "aft section", only (aft))

Logic stands that ffg derped on being specific about the raider and cr90 as EVERY OTHER SHIP follows the naming convention they explicitly outlined in their rules reference, even the other huge ships

Of course , this is all already in the OP

Look, whether adv. stands advance [sic!] (which it does) is irrelevant

No you missed the point entirely

The cr90 and raider VERY obviously follow different conventions (2 ship cards) and even the whole Corv. Nonsense being rectified would make their titles legal under standard rules (there is no "aft section", only (aft))

Logic stands that ffg derped on being specific about the raider and cr90 as EVERY OTHER SHIP follows the naming convention they explicitly outlined in their rules reference, even the other huge ships

Of course , this is all already in the OP

Surely logic stands that FFG actually know what they're doing, as they did it twice now (with no mention in the FAQ about it being an issue), and that they're following standard grammatical conventions in using a dot as a abbreviation. As opposed to inventing some kind of contrived situation where they just decided to have a massive brain fart two years in a row.

I'm pretty sure they never plan the brain farts!

And the faq entry for Adv. Targeting Computer is silly because it says Darth Vader can equip the Advanced Targeting Computer, which some of you argue doesn't exist.

the FAQ has nothing to do with the ship-classification rules, neither does the title of the upgrade

Adv. Targeting Computer specifies Tie Advance Only, which Vader is qualified for as a "Tie Advance x1"

basically, we all know Adv. means advance, but for game terms it's very simple that Tie Adv. Prototype does not contain the entirety of Tie Advance

Similarly, the Tie Advance does not contain the entirety of the Tie Adv. Prototype Only Tie/v1

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

^

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

This is precisely why I think they'll rule that the V1 can't take the X1 title. The Inquisitor plus V1 would be a bit much, even if he could be one-shotted at range 1.

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

In this case, I directed Vulf here so as to prevent another thread from getting derailed by the argument. Would you rather this thread was periodically necro'd (although a week old doesn't really qualify as necro) or would you rather regularly see threads that have nothing to do with this subject getting dragged off topic over and over again by the same argument?

The Gozanti cruiser is very much a creature of the Rebels TV show seeing as how it has been retconned to have a much bigger association with the Empire. The old lore where it was associated with the Alliance and merchants/mercenaries was relegated to Legends status.

I think it bizarre if the two Imperial "Rebels" ships can't play nicely together.

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

This is precisely why I think they'll rule that the V1 can't take the X1 title. The Inquisitor plus V1 would be a bit much, even if he could be one-shotted at range 1.

At Range 1 he's not anymore effective than Vader, and he has 1 less hull. Can Wampa one shot him at range 3 by cancelling 2 crits? Or is Wampa restricted to just 1 face-up card per use of his ability?

I think he's more comparable to Carnor Jax, who I think has a much stronger ability.

And I don't think he's quite as disgusting as Poe Dameron with Weapon Guidance. While Poe can take a free Integrated Astromech, the TAP gives up it's ability to use evade if it elects to not take the v1.

All that and the TIE APs that aren't the inquisitor are all going to be 2 dice ships.

Are they just TIE FOs that trade segnor's loop for boost?

The PS 2 TAP is going to be an 18 point generic with no EPT if conventions hold. It's an A-wing without Chardaan Refit.

Now do you add 1 point to be able to Target Lock + Evade, or do you save the point and just use Focus instead?

as mentioned in the OP, the ship classification rules technically apply to ship-restricted upgrades only

the TAPs would only not go on Gonzati if FFG wanted to keep things intuitive

regardless, Gonzati not taking TAPs is teeny tiny potatoes next to TAPs taking Tie/x1. "acceptable loses" doesn't even begin to describe how insignificant the Gonzati is next to the balance of the standard game

The Gozanti cruiser is very much a creature of the Rebels TV show seeing as how it has been retconned to have a much bigger association with the Empire. The old lore where it was associated with the Alliance and merchants/mercenaries was relegated to Legends status.

I think it bizarre if the two Imperial "Rebels" ships can't play nicely together.

The Gozanti (without the extra "wing" bits) is seen a lot in The Clone Wars, as well as having a cameo in Phantom Menace, so the non-Imperial gozanti is very much still Canon.