Gozanti Docking Clamps question

By Papamambo, in X-Wing Rules Questions

Posted at

Just wondering about the Docking clamps for the Gozanti. On the card, it says you may Deploy TIE Fighters, Interceptors, Bombers or TIE Advanced. Can you dock and deploy the TIE Advanced Prototypes? Just wondering if there is an official answer to this, as I can't find it in the latest FAQ. I had asked the question on the NOVA Facebook page, and someone says yes, and someone said no, because the Tie Advance Prototype cards don't say ADVANCED, but rather ADV. I sort of lean to the YES category, much the same as FO's are considered TIE Fighters, but one of the people said NO, because it doesn't specifically say ADVANCED on any of the Pilot cards - though, that seems a little stupid, as obviously there just isn't room to put TIE ADVANCED PROTOTYPE on the pilot card.

Thoughts?

Posted at

The most official answer is an e-mail ruling from Frank Brooks:

As of right now, you cannot equip a TIE Adv. Prototype to the Imperial Assault Carrier.

Edited by Ubul
Posted at

I wonder what the reasoning is behind that decision? The FO is a TIE Fighter according to rules, but the prototype isn't and Advanced? Seems weird that there would be a distinction between the two.

Posted at

I need to add, than Frank's ruling do not always make sense, and sometimes are overruled by the FAQ later. But currently his answer is the best we have.

Posted at

I wonder what the reasoning is behind that decision? The FO is a TIE Fighter according to rules, but the prototype isn't and Advanced? Seems weird that there would be a distinction between the two.

It's not just the Docking Clamps that are involved here. FFG ruled that the two ships cannot get access to each other's titles for balance reasons, and now are stuck between a rock and a hard place. If they allow them to both be considered Advanceds for the purpose of other cards such as Docking Clamps, people will start to again ask why they can't get the titles. If they rule against it for consistency, people ask why they can't use things like Docking Clamps. Frank's response implies they're still making up their minds which way they want to go.

Posted at

Ok, I get that, but then why aren't Tie Fighters and FO's given the same distinction? A perfect example is Youngster's ability which allows him to share an upgrade card with the action header with other Tie Fighters including FO's. Not Interceptors, not Bombers, not Advanced. It seems the easiest ruling for the title issue is obvious. The V1 is specific to the PROTOTYPE and the X1 is specific to the NON prototype production Advanced. Easy Peasy, Lemon Squeezy.

Posted at

Ok, I get that, but then why aren't Tie Fighters and FO's given the same distinction? A perfect example is Youngster's ability which allows him to share an upgrade card with the action header with other Tie Fighters including FO's.

Because that's how the rules on names are supposed to work. You look for the required text in the ship's name, so when Youngster grants his ability to all TIE Fighters, all of your TIE/fo Fighters are included in that. Same thing applies to the X-wing only Integrated Astromech being usable on both the original X-wing and T-70 X-wing. The requisite text is included in the ship's name, so it's good to go.
But allowing those rules to apply to the TIE Advanced and TIE Advanced Prototype would have meant Inquisitor with ATC, which... just no. That was never going to happen.

It seems the easiest ruling for the title issue is obvious. The V1 is specific to the PROTOTYPE and the X1 is specific to the NON prototype production Advanced. Easy Peasy, Lemon Squeezy.

That's exactly the direction they went. But now they're left with a bit of a mess. Either they be consistent with that ruling and consider the TAP to be completely distinct from the Advanced for all purposes, or treat it as a 1-off and risk causing more confusion. They don't have a clean way out, really.