Docking clamps state Tie fighters, interceptors, bombers and advanced, no mention of FOs, unless they're counted among regular Ties.... Any thoughts?

Thanks!

Sorry, a Tie FO isn't a Tie Fighter. Can't dock 'em.

Edit: Turns out, I'm wrong. See the better post below mine.

TIE/fo Fighter is actually the example ruling they give in the FAQ. It contains the words "TIE" and "fighter" and therefore can benefit from "TIE fighter" effects: namely Gozanti clamps and Youngster.

Weird but that's the ruling.

Yep you can because as Blue Five points out, the words Tie and Fighter are in the name.

It's a little counterintuitive because you'd expect TIE fighter only to need "TIE fighter", when it's actually "TIE" "fighter". Even weirder is the fact that TIE/fo isn't two words, so the condition would hypothetically allow you to equip a card called "Analysis of the Moralities of Bullfighters".

Just repeat after me...this is NOT 40K. We will NOT be rules lawyers on pain of getting punched in the throat...

Just repeat after me...this is NOT 40K. We will NOT be rules lawyers on pain of getting punched in the throat...

Don't worry, nobody's going to stop you equipping the Raider's titles even though technically you can't...

I'd take some strange title rulings and an FAQed exception or two to the perfect storm of a TIE/x1 equipped PTL Inquistor and his >4 dice Range 3 crit-cannon...

So 4 Tie/fo's are good? Ok!

It's apples and oranges to me. If you have to think too hard about it, you're probably being a rules lawyer. THROAT PUNCH!!

"Adv." does not equal "Advanced"!

*duck and cover*

It's apples and oranges to me. If you have to think too hard about it, you're probably being a rules lawyer. THROAT PUNCH!!

You can always tell when you play against a former games workshop customer. They are all angsty and looking for the holes in the rules. Then they learn the only important rule "fly casual", and they start having fun and never look back

What is this "Fun" of which you speak? I don't see it mentioned in the RRG anywhere. It's mentioned once in the LtP, but it's not a specific requirement that I *must* have fun, merely that the suggestion that this is a "fast and fun" game.

See, you can't tell me to have fun. Maybe they need to FAQ this.

Also... Playing by the Rules as Written is not rules lawyering...

Also... Playing by the Rules as Written is not rules lawyering...

Sorry Vanor, buuuuuuuuut...

Also... Playing by the Rules as Written is not rules lawyering...

You know who else was just playing by rules as written? The freakin Nazi Party...

Sorry Vanor, buuuuuuuuut...

Are you trying to say that you cannot play by the rules as written, without being a rules lawyer, which is in every instance I know of a bad thing...

Sorry Vanor, buuuuuuuuut...

Are you trying to say that you cannot play by the rules as written, without being a rules lawyer, which is in every instance I know of a bad thing...

Depends. Are you taking it to an extreme and arguing minutiae? Have you ever argued what 'is' means? If so....throat punch.

What is this "Fun" of which you speak? I don't see it mentioned in the RRG anywhere. It's mentioned once in the LtP, but it's not a specific requirement that I *must* have fun, merely that the suggestion that this is a "fast and fun" game.

See, you can't tell me to have fun. Maybe they need to FAQ this.

Turns out fun is overcosted by 2-3 points.

In my experience people who Fly Casual lead to arguments.

I'm not a rules lawyer. I'm a rule follower. And that means I want you to have the best experience possible as my opponent. Not one where later you think "wait a minute" and get upset due to me blowing a rule that would have given you a victory. Not one where you have to wonder "did he forget that one purpose?" But one where you are assured the best game possible.

Depends. Are you taking it to an extreme and arguing minutiae?

That's the whole point. You can do one without doing the other. You can and should play RAW without taking it to the extreme of rules lawyering.

True enough. I think this fits nicely into Wheaton's Law.

In any case, it's also helpful when the game's interactions & mechanics are not so god-awful complex that people have no choice but to parse words and argue. Luckily, X-Wing has been good enough that I've not encountered many instances where I couldn't play a coin-flip decision either way,.

That all is fair. I don't care for rules lawyers myself. But I've also been accused of being one for saying that people should activate their ships one at a time in PS order.

That all is fair. I don't care for rules lawyers myself. But I've also been accused of being one for saying that people should activate their ships one at a time in PS order.

Depends. Are you taking it to an extreme and arguing minutiae?

That's the whole point. You can do one without doing the other. You can and should play RAW without taking it to the extreme of rules lawyering.

On the one hand, I think not allowing the X1 title on the TIE Advanced Prototype is extremely nitpicky when it comes to interpreting the rules. "WTF," I think, "we all know what the ship is called, why would anyone make a strict rule out of an abbreviation?"

BUT the title is clearly, sky-fallingly, apocalypse-is-comingly OP on the TIE Advanced Prototype. Surely the idea was not to create the possibility of TAP/X1s. So I guess the designers are a bunch of rules lawyers?

Or maybe the full name is TIE Advocate? TIE Advertorial? TIE Adventurer?

(Actually, I go by a definition of "Rules Lawyer" that is appropriate for RPGs and irrelevant for a competitive minis game.)