Can you imagine how annoying an (16 base) 18 point ship would be with 3 green dice, Auto Thrusters and a free sensor jammer would be to kill? now put 5 of them in a list, and throw some missiles on there for some punch.

About the same as one with the v1 title and target locking every action? (Which suits those added missles even better........)

I think as the tie/x1 title is a fix for the TIE Advanced due to its over cost, TIE Advanced Prototype is a new ship and for the time being there is nothing to fix on its side, so the TIE Advanced Prototype cannot get the tie/x1 title.

I think as the tie/x1 title is a fix for the TIE Advanced due to its over cost, TIE Advanced Prototype is a new ship and for the time being there is nothing to fix on its side, so the TIE Advanced Prototype cannot get the tie/x1 title.

The problem is that it is not clearly borne out by the rules. And since the rules are our ultimate point of reference...

The problem is that it is not clearly borne out by the rules.

Actually it is. The rules quite clearly make it so you cannot put the X1 title on the Tie Adv. Prototype.

The problem is, that the rules then also mean you can't put the Raider title on the Raider.

The problem is that it is not clearly borne out by the rules.

Actually it is. The rules quite clearly make it so you cannot put the X1 title on the Tie Adv. Prototype.The problem is, that the rules then also mean you can't put the Raider title on the Raider.

Note that you should not interpret my post as saying that the rule is open to many interpretations: your solution is rational and true to the letter, but that does not make it a good clear rule. Compare it to having to solve a differential equation to know how far a ship can shoot; surely there is an unambiguous mathematical solution, but I'll be damned if I can give it.

In the same vein, relying on the difference between 'adv.' and 'advanced' to make it clear to players that they cannot use a certain upgrade is a bad idea, even if we would assume there is only one possible solution. It is not going to work at the gaming table.

So I used the word 'clearly' on purpose. Complex rules, even if they can only mean one thing, are not clear.

And this even ignores the contradictory part concerning the Raider. I would have thought that if an abbreviation is supposed to be a different name, the Raider titles would have been included in the FAQ by now.

I would have thought that if an abbreviation is supposed to be a different name, the Raider titles would have been included in the FAQ by now.

I fully agree. I also feel that if FFG does rule against using the X1 title on the Inquisitor's TIE, it will not be because "Adv." does not equal "Advanced" (I really think that's a silly argument - the rules aren't that tightly written) but rather because they will errata or FAQ the card to preclude the Inquisitor's TIE specifically.

I think anyone that thinks the TAP will be able to take the x1 title is going to be disappointed.

If the designers want readers to pick up on such nuanced differences they are not writing good clear rules because they are not thinking about their audience.

That I agree with completely. The name rule is poorly written because most people will read adv. to be the same as advanced, or corv. as corvette but it seems in one case we're supposed to read it that way and the other we're not...

The problem is I'm not sure how it could be be done better. You need a rule that works one way in one case, but a different way in an identical but different case.

It's pretty simple. They wrote the current name rule with the TIE/fo and T-70 in mind, and didn't think about the implications to the TIE Adv(anced). Clarification will undoubtedly be announced upon release.

This is the same company that said we couldn't take actions while on asteroids, or use cross-faction dials, for a day or two each, and then changed it when they realized they were wrong.

The problem is that it is not clearly borne out by the rules.

Actually it is. The rules quite clearly make it so you cannot put the X1 title on the Tie Adv. Prototype.The problem is, that the rules then also mean you can't put the Raider title on the Raider.

Actually, I think it is trivially obvious that 'corv.' and 'corvette' can be glossed as the same thing. If the designers want readers to pick up on such nuanced differences they are not writing good clear rules because they are not thinking about their audience.

Note that you should not interpret my post as saying that the rule is open to many interpretations: your solution is rational and true to the letter, but that does not make it a good clear rule. Compare it to having to solve a differential equation to know how far a ship can shoot; surely there is an unambiguous mathematical solution, but I'll be damned if I can give it.

In the same vein, relying on the difference between 'adv.' and 'advanced' to make it clear to players that they cannot use a certain upgrade is a bad idea, even if we would assume there is only one possible solution. It is not going to work at the gaming table.

So I used the word 'clearly' on purpose. Complex rules, even if they can only mean one thing, are not clear.

And this even ignores the contradictory part concerning the Raider. I would have thought that if an abbreviation is supposed to be a different name, the Raider titles would have been included in the FAQ by now.

There's also the problem of localized versions, where some things might take more or less room, depending on language and translation.

After few days, this is the response from FFG

Hello Davide,

In response to your rules question:

Rules Question:

Hi, here is Davide the Starfighters Italia's Community manager ( the Italian community of X-WIng ) After your article for the Inquisitor's Tie has started a great debate among the imperial players on the possibility of using the title for Tie Advanced Tie/X1, on Tie Adv . Prototype. I ask for an official clarification, Even if I think the answer is pretty obvious. Thabk you Davide

The TIE Adv. Prototype cannot equip the “TIE/x1” title.

Thanks for playing,

Frank Brooks

Associate Creative Content Developer

Fantasy Flight Games

Thanks for posting the response! I doubt it's a surprise to anyone.

But why? That's the bit we all wanted to know. Is it because Adv. # Advanced or not? This has implications for the Raider and possibly other ships. Maybe we need to send a follow up question.

But why? That's the bit we all wanted to know.

Yeah. they are real good about providing rulings, but really suck at providing REASONS for the rulings.

I will be honest

Probably for the upgrade rule in the new rule book Adv Prototype it's not Advanced (X-1).

I dont think we need to worry about the raider until the day its a tournament playable ship. For now this ruling satisfies me because it makes sense.

We dont need to worry about the raider because its a piece for games between friends.

That is all.

That thread had nothing to do with the TIE/Ad and TAP, but was a discussion if TIE/fo could use Youngster's pilot ability.

True - but the FAQ comment may still be relevant to this - if the TIE/fo had had part of its name abbreviated, then it wouldn't have qualified for TIE Fighter only things (like being attached to a Gozanti).

http://xwing-miniatures.wikia.com/wiki/Docking_Clamps

Using the aforesaid FAQ quote, it would logically follow that the TIE f/o Fighter, because its name includes "TIE Fighter" is dockable, but the TIE Adv. Prototype is not (because the abbreviation, in this case, is not the full word).

But, if we go by an official Star Wars piece of canon, the TAP can dock to the Gozanti. We've seen it done on Rebels and the material from that show, whether or not you like the show, is canon.

Still, FFG does need to clarify in the FAQ what can and cannot dock with the Gozanti in the case of the TAP and TIE/fo. In my opinion they both can dock with the Gozanti but we shall see.

I dont think we need to worry about the raider until the day its a tournament playable ship.

I will be honest

Probably for the upgrade rule in the new rule book Adv Prototype it's not Advanced (X-1).

But then the Raider can't take its own titles (or use its dial I think). Because corv. # corvette by that logic. I think the name rule needs to be reviewed - they tried to help by clarifying that the TIE f/o Fighter counts as a TIE Fighter so it has access to more upgrades and effects, but didn't realize that it would cause debate about abbreviations.

After few days, this is the response from FFG

Hello Davide,

In response to your rules question:

Rules Question:

Hi, here is Davide the Starfighters Italia's Community manager ( the Italian community of X-WIng ) After your article for the Inquisitor's Tie has started a great debate among the imperial players on the possibility of using the title for Tie Advanced Tie/X1, on Tie Adv . Prototype. I ask for an official clarification, Even if I think the answer is pretty obvious. Thabk you Davide

The TIE Adv. Prototype cannot equip the “TIE/x1” title.

Thanks for playing,

Frank Brooks

Associate Creative Content Developer

Fantasy Flight Games

Not that I doubt the legitimacy of this email but Previously FFG had a firm "NO Comment" stance on unreleased expansions. Has this changed recently? regardless this is the ruling we were all expecting just not the one that the existing rules would indicate.

It's clear Frank has been plowing through a sea of questions based on the flood of answers we've just received. Maybe this one slipped through while he was "in the zone".

TIE/x1, TIE/v1

An X is just 2 Vs sitting on top of each other!

Maybe this one slipped through while he was "in the zone".

That or they've gotten that question so many times and see us debate it here they decided to break protocol this time. I expect they don't answer questions about unreleased stuff because it's subject to change... But in this case there's no chance the x1 was ever going to go on the TAP.

I think you're probably right there.

I'd love to see their rule for it that doesn't make all of the titles for the Raider-class Corv. illegal.

Will the rules reference for ship-type upgrades get a line like this:

The word upgrade is interchangeable with pilot ability.

These upgrades work for all ships that share a ship-type.

Except for this one, and this one and this one and this one....

And although TIE is a ship type... for this docking clamp card pretend it is not...

And this abbreviation counts as the full word, but this abbreviation doesn't,

even though every article and mention of the ship in the entire history of Star Wars products created featuring the ships from Rebels calls it this... it actually isn't.

And if you bought this product online instead of at 150% msrp at a brick and mortar store, enclose in the provided envelope $30 or else we will cease product support immediately.

Doom and gloom, the end is nigh! Cats and dogs, living together, total anarchy!

Like, simply for the Ghostbusters reference.

Disagree with the line preceding that, though.

Agree that it would be great to put the whole Adv. = Advanced and Corv. = Corvette discussion to rest.