But that could mean then that Docking Clamps could be errata'ed to include the TAP after it's released.

I doubt that Docking Clamps will get such an errata, but I wouldn't be surprised to eventually see some other upgrade that allows for less restricted docking in some form. Though I can't for the life of me think how they would release it.

So now that the ruling for the TAP and the X1 is out, I wonder how they are going to address the Raider's Titles. Right now it's illegal to take the Raider's own titles on the Raider, so I'm expecting they'll simply errata those.

Still though, the TIE Adv Prototype is my #1 pet peeve. If only they'd named it a TIE /AP I'd have been FINE with it.

So now that the ruling for the TAP and the X1 is out, I wonder how they are going to address the Raider's Titles. Right now it's illegal to take the Raider's own titles on the Raider, so I'm expecting they'll simply errata those.

Tie Advance vs TAP never bothered me. Can't see how anyone was genuinely confused about how the titles were going to work. R2-D6? That was a legitimate item for confusion. How will they address the Raider Titles? I would suggest a tack hammer applied at high velocity to anyone that would argue that the titles should not be allowed.

Nobody is actually arguing that the titles shouldn't be allowed.

The argument is basically that FFG fix the rules regarding the title, and now, it's become an inconsistency. The Raider Title says Raider Class Corvette, yet the Ship Card says Corv. (Instead of Corvette). This is virtually the exact same thing with the X1 title not being able to go on the TIE Adv. Prototype. We all KNOW the title came with the raider and therefore it can be used on the raider... but futureproofing this requires some more clarity.

Point and Case - People would never had had to ask if the TIE/fo Fighters could be included on cards that affect TIE Fighters, if there was a rock solid name policy. And yes, it needs to address abbreviations, because I'm certain we haven't seen the last abbreviated ship name.

Sure, but my point was that this seems to be a one off exception, with the Epic ships being the norm.

Only reason we are having trouble here is the writers of Rebels were lazy and called the ship a Tie Advanced Prototype which makes no sense whatsoever if you look even briefly at the existing lore. If they had just called it the Tie V1 in the scripts its all good.

In my mind, the question is: why didn't they write the Docking Clamp card so as to allow the TAP to dock?

I thought was possible a mistake because they didn't want allow one (docking clamps) and not the other (TIE Adv Title), ship name wise.

The name does not match and the Gozanti docking clamps does not mentions the TIE Adv(anced) Prototype.

Works but a little convoluted and not quite seamless.

Sure, but my point was that this seems to be a one off exception, with the Epic ships being the norm.

Right now it is sure. But WHICH is the exception? Is the rule, "Abbreviations are fine", with the TIE Adv. Prototype being the exception because of balance issues? or is the rule "Abbreviations don't count" and the Raider is the exception because of a simple error?

I ask because it will happen again. Suppose There is another Huge Ship someday that comes with a special modification that says "Corvette Only". Now we might reasonably assume that this new upgrade can equip on the CR90, because it's card does indeed say Corvette. But What about the Raider which merely says "Corv."? We aren't always going to know what compatibility options were deliberately intended, and a more clear set of rules helps guide us, and helps prevent an eventual 100 page FAQ.

Sure, but my point was that this seems to be a one off exception, with the Epic ships being the norm.

Right now it is sure. But WHICH is the exception? Is the rule, "Abbreviations are fine", with the TIE Adv. Prototype being the exception because of balance issues? or is the rule "Abbreviations don't count" and the Raider is the exception because of a simple error?

Sure, but my point was that this seems to be a one off exception, with the Epic ships being the norm.

Right now it is sure. But WHICH is the exception? Is the rule, "Abbreviations are fine", with the TIE Adv. Prototype being the exception because of balance issues? or is the rule "Abbreviations don't count" and the Raider is the exception because of a simple error?

When they have to add qualifiers like 'for the purpose of these upgrade cards', surely it's the TAP that's the exception? Especially as both Epic ships were fine until it came along.

Yup. I think the best method would be to rule that abbreviations work for ship names with the Tie Advanced titles as exceptions.

Doesn't Armada use a picture based system instead of words for this purpose? Haven't really played it but looked at a few cards.

The ideal solution would be for them to have included a box of key words on the ship cards so that abilities and upgrades focus on specific key words instead of ship names, but that ship has well and truly sailed and would require a much larger revision of the game than we got with the new starter set.

As a fan of the show, not being able to dock the TIE Advanced Prototype to the IAS is a crock of ****. I hope they sort things out before the release.

I preordered 2, and was thinking of picking up another 2 at one of the 3 gamestores in town, for use with my Gozanti. But that is the only reason I would want 4, for epic games with the carrier.

Also,

Twin Ion Engine Mk. II

Ship-type restricted upgrade : TIE ?

Is TIE a ship type? TIE Mk. II suggests it is.

Docking clamps, all of those ships share the ship-type TIE.

Straight up insanity.

I am thinking of picking up a 2nd Gozanti for 8 docked ships, but I want to be clear about restrictions before I do.

Docking clamps, all of those ships share the ship-type TIE.

Sure, but just because all the ships listed are a TIE doesn't mean all TIE are listed. As I said I'm inclined to believe there was some non-mechanics, non-balance reason why a ship from the Rebels show can't dock with another ship from the same show.

I was only saying, among those listed, the TIE Bomber, TIE Interceptor, TIE Fighter, and regular TIE Advanced;

they all share the ship-type "TIE." If Twin Ion Engine Mk. II establishes TIE as a ship-type, that is.

I'm not a crazy maniac (depending on who you ask) but they are getting quite muddled about ship-types. I thought TIE was the ship-type specific word on the TIE Mk.II upgrade.

The only requirement on docking clamps besides those ships listed, is that they all share a ship-type. Because of what they have in the rules reference and pre-existing cards, Does TIE/fo count as a TIE Fighter for docking clamps? Do all these listed ships share the TIE ship-type? Is TIE Fighter a ship-type so I can mix TIE/fo Fighters and TIE Fighters? Can I put Juno Eclipse in her TIE Advanced next to Darth Vader in his TIE Advanced/x1?

Are they going to make rulings based on abbreviations like Corv. and Adv? What about foreign language cards that are not abbreviated? Can we know the points cost of the new Defender pilots? Have they realized the originals were massively overcosted?

All these questions that the future people know the answers to!

but they are getting quite muddled about ship-types. I thought TIE was the ship-type specific word on the TIE Mk.II upgrade.

They are I think most people would agree to that. The problem is they're trying to fix something retroactively that they don't even have full control over.

I think your mistake may be that you're thinking of ships as having a class, but there are no classes of ships, only types. So in epic rules where it says you can have 12 of a given type, that doesn't mean you can have 6 Tie Fighters, 3 Tie Bombers and 3 Tie Interceptors, and that's your 12. You could in theory have 12 Tie Fighters, 12 Tie bombers and 12 Tie Interceptors.

So in the case of the Mk2, TIE only means it works on any ship whose name has TIE in it.

The TIE/fo Fighter per the FAQ counts as a TIE Fighter when it comes to upgrades and abilities, so Youngster works on them, and they can dock with the Gonz. But the reverse isn't true, if you had a TIE/fo Fighter only upgrade it would only work on a TIE/fo not a standard TIE fighter.

The TIE/fo Fighter per the FAQ counts as a TIE Fighter when it comes to upgrades and abilities, so Youngster works on them, and they can dock with the Gonz. But the reverse isn't true, if you had a TIE/fo Fighter only upgrade it would only work on a TIE/fo not a standard TIE fighter.

So, are you trying to tell me square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square? That's madness, I tell you. MADNESS!

All I know is that I used to be able to pretty much keep the entirety of the FAQ rulings in my head and things all made sense. I think I've reached my limit with Juke interactions with ATs/3PO/etc, Omega leader interactions, Palpatine, and title confusion. I can still understand it all one thing at a time, but I can no longer just "know" it all in amongst all the other rulings.

The TIE/fo Fighter per the FAQ counts as a TIE Fighter when it comes to upgrades and abilities, so Youngster works on them, and they can dock with the Gonz. But the reverse isn't true, if you had a TIE/fo Fighter only upgrade it would only work on a TIE/fo not a standard TIE fighter.

So, are you trying to tell me square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square? That's madness, I tell you. MADNESS!

You've got that wrong. Sometimes a rectangle IS a square. It is just that all squares are also rectangles but not all rectangles are squares. Do you want to add rhombus, parallelograms, and trapezoids to these tests as well?