Way back in the hazy days of old, back when I was but a novice to the world of gaming (yes, with the dinosaurs) I vaguely recall a paragraph in the original v1 of the AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide which suggested something to the extant of "If there's no rule for it, make it up and keep the story moving, and make sure everyone is having an enjoyable experience" or whatnot. That disappeared in the later versions (thanks Unearthed Arcana), and the Rules Lawyer was born with the oft-repeated mantra of "Show me exactly where it says that I can/cannot do that!"

And no, this was long before WotC or Hasbro came along. This was TSR starting to rot from the inside, even long before Gary was dethroned there.

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.

If only we had some way of knowing what rules lawyering is. When are we taking rules interpretations to extremes?

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.)

It's the TIE Advil. The cure for all Imperial players' headaches.

Seriously though, coming from a background of GW games, amongst many, many others, I've spent more than twenty years playing all manner of people, from the most casual of casuals to diehard rules lawyers. (For the record, I veer considerably closer to the former than the latter. I play games to have fun.) There are always going to be "those people", and I've realised over the years that for many of them, finding loopholes, nit-picking and the like is often fun for them. And that's fine. But I don't want to play them, which is why I rarely, if ever, play any games at a tournament level. But if you do want to play competitively, there's always going to be a degree of rules lawyering, because the objective shifts from simply having fun towards (though not necessarily entirely to) Winning. With a capital 'W'.

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.

That's a problem with being painted into a corner... If FFG had a choice I'm sure they'd never make a ship called the Tie Advanced Prototype, so they'd avoid the whole thing all together. But they wanted a way to give all X-Wings or TIE's a upgrade, so they decided they'd hang everything on the name. Then comes Rebels with the prototype and they're having to introduce a ship that breaks the naming rules they have.

I've considered the problem and short of a FAQ that effectively says 'The Tie Adv. Prototype cannot take the x1 title' there's no good fix. The problem with the FAQ entry is not everyone will know about it, and it would make a you point out a hugely OP'ed ship.

I feel silly asking, but curiosity compels me: If the TIE/fo fighter is allowed for being a TIE fighter, do the clamps consider it "the same ship type" for purposes of mixing TIE and TIE/fo? I'm assuming not, but...

I'm assuming not, but...

The docking clamp upgrade lists Tie Fighter, that means any ship with the words Tie and Fighter in it counts. Just like the TIE mk2 can be equipped on any ship with TIE in the name.

It's possible that for some reason they couldn't list the TIE/fo on the card, or maybe they didn't want to because it already worked.

But that's just the naming rules in regards to upgrades and abilities, the TIE/fo Fighter and TIE Fighter are not the same ship in terms of squad building, so you could have 12 of each in a epic list if you so chose.

So you can't have 2 of each.

I'd say no. They're both TIE fighters, but ship type is the picture in the corner of the card.

I'd say no. They're both TIE fighters, but ship type is the picture in the corner of the card.

Very good point.

Related to this, though, I don't see why the TAP can't be on a Gozanti. Maybe it's just fallout from Adv. vs Advanced and the X1 title.

I'd say no. They're both TIE fighters, but ship type is the picture in the corner of the card.

Thanks, I hadn't even thought about the picture.

I'd say no. They're both TIE fighters, but ship type is the picture in the corner of the card.

Very good point.

Related to this, though, I don't see why the TAP can't be on a Gozanti. Maybe it's just fallout from Adv. vs Advanced and the X1 title.

It's possible that it's simply because the Imperial Assault Carrier was released before the TIE Advanced Prototype. I can't imagine FFG wanting to reference a ship that's not available yet on a card that is.

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

No it is not and playing by the rules is good. But there are those who in playing by the rules get so far it becomes rules lawyering. I've played MtG and Star Fleet Battles with a few folks. And as bad as these words are to some, when playing casual playing as intended works okay. Never the less I agree that when playing tournaments there should only be one interpretation.

There can be only one!

I've considered the problem and short of a FAQ that effectively says 'The Tie Adv. Prototype cannot take the x1 title' there's no good fix. The problem with the FAQ entry is not everyone will know about it, and it would make a you point out a hugely OP'ed ship.

I said that a while back too. If Adv. is not the same thing as Advanced then the Corv. shouldn't be the same thing as Corvette. One of these has to be wrong. Rather the muck the rules up with abbreviations that don't work just errata the card in the next FAQ.

I'd say no. They're both TIE fighters, but ship type is the picture in the corner of the card.

Very good point.

Related to this, though, I don't see why the TAP can't be on a Gozanti. Maybe it's just fallout from Adv. vs Advanced and the X1 title.

Because that would make it impossible to rule TIE/x1 off of it without an erratum.

No offense to attorneys out there but "rules lawyer" is not someone who simply follows the RAW. A "lawyer" in this case abuses ambiguities solely for their benefit. The letter of the law is followed only when it suits. A rule is only unclear or poorly written when it bites the "lawyer" in the butt.

Don't be that dude. Play by the rules as much as you like.

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.

That's a problem with being painted into a corner... If FFG had a choice I'm sure they'd never make a ship called the Tie Advanced Prototype, so they'd avoid the whole thing all together. But they wanted a way to give all X-Wings or TIE's a upgrade, so they decided they'd hang everything on the name. Then comes Rebels with the prototype and they're having to introduce a ship that breaks the naming rules they have.

I've considered the problem and short of a FAQ that effectively says 'The Tie Adv. Prototype cannot take the x1 title' there's no good fix. The problem with the FAQ entry is not everyone will know about it, and it would make a you point out a hugely OP'ed ship.

I am a little puzzled that FFG didn't just bite the bullet and say, "Sure, this freaking thing can have a System slot too", jack up the price accordingly, and chuck the title card into the expansion.

"Sure, this freaking thing can have a System slot too", jack up the price accordingly, and chuck the title card into the expansion.

Because you then have a ship that is 4 points more expensive than it should be, and can only cost the correct amount if you buy a Raider for $100.

The x1 in the Raider was not the most popular move, but at least in that case it came with the ship that can use that title. To do what you're saying would mean people would effectively have to buy a $100 expansion just to make a ship function like it should be.

With regards to the rule that TIE FO Fighters are a type of TIE Fighter, IIRC this rule is specific to which upgrade cards a ship can take. I fully expect the same ruling to be extended to which ships can mount under the Gozanti, but people should be aware that FFG may well decide otherwise. Technically at the moment the rule does not apply.

With regards to the idea of the TAP getting access to the X1 title, I really don't think it would be as bad as some people are fearing. I mean, the V1 title strikes me as just as powerful, and for an equally cheap cost, so it's almost as if FFG has taken the possibility of crossover into account. Either way, I've not assuming either way whether FFG are going to rule that word formatting is significant to the rules. It could legitimately go either way. I just want them to get it into the FAQ quickly to stop the argument.

Screw it. I had a retort then looked at it and realized that from a design perspective it was complete crap.

NVM.

FFG is doing a pretty good job. I might not always like the way things are implemented but if you look at the order in which things come out and the interactions they have to consider, it's pretty fine work.

(And as far as rules lawyering, though I can see the different viewpoints, I'll say it's like the SCOTUS definition of indecent materials. Hard to define but you will know it when you see it......and then you have to throat punch that person)

Wow. I'm all for exploring a rule, but just wow.

1. FFG should issue an FAQ clarifying TIE/fo Fighter being able to be used. Our league allows it, but I can see how the wording leads to the need for clarification. Can it just be left at that?

2. If docking 4 ships, the wording of the Docking Clamps card saying "All of these ships must have the same ship type" covers the "can I mix TIE and TIE/fo" issue, in my mind. When I look at the rule book, ship type is designated by the title and unique silhouette symbol (for those who relish getting nit-picky, sigh). This kind of bickering is so tiring and soul-sucking.

Again, if someone wants to rule-lawyer and try splitting minutae and such, that is sad but again calls for an FAQ that covers this topic. My view, and likely the view of our league, is that the only TIE models not currently able to dock are Defenders and Punishers. When the Inquisitor comes out, I would hope/expect an addendum to be issued allowing it to dock, seeing how the ship in "Rebels" show did this, but it also shows Inquisitor mixed in with regular TIE's, so who knows.