I'm not going argue an absurd point with someone who seems more interested in arguing then a reasonable discussion of the rules.

I'm trying to discuss the rules. You're trying to discuss how you think the rules should be.

I'm not going argue an absurd point with someone who seems more interested in arguing then a reasonable discussion of the rules.

I'm trying to discuss the rules. You're trying to discuss how you think the rules should be.

I'm butting in now because that needed saying but VanorDM was trying his best to actually get you to admit you're wrong on this one by applying things like logic and facts.

Him giving up smashing his head against that wall seemed like a reasonable moment to weigh in with my opinion on this whole debacle.

I'm trying to discuss the rules. You're trying to discuss how you think the rules should be.

The game isn't defined by its rules, but how the community (and FFG event judges) interpret them. People who play events are telling you that Youngster works with the Tie/SF because that's the way it's played.

In your own game, you can do whatever you want, but in OP and almost everywhere else, the Tie/SF is a TIE for Youngster, and this not debatable.

Sure, you're actually right in that the rules as written do not define it, but those bits of paper aren't the referee that's going to tell you that it's a Tie for Youngster, and eject you from the event if you keep telling him it isn't.

They should FAQ it just for the sake of completeness.

It's not an assumption, it's a defined key word/phrase. It defines the term ship-type.

...

But just because it's in the upgrade section doesn't mean it doesn't apply to other situations that involve the phrase ship-type.

Youngster doesn't involve the phrase "ship-type".

Because this was not a conceived issue when Youngster was brought to the table.

Prior to EP7, there was only one tie fighter. There wasnt any reason for another tie fighter either. So why would they word it to future proof something that was unlikely to happen but did happen?

TIE Fighters include: TIE FIGHTER, TIE/FO FIGHTER, and TIE/SF FIGHTER. It all boils down to what is in their ship name on the pilot cards.

Integrated Astromech is X-Wing Only. X-Wings include: X-WING, T-70 X-WING.

For a similar reason, the TAP can NOT use the TIE/x1 nor the Advanced Targeting Computer upgrades. Both say TIE ADVANCED ONLY. If you look at the TAP, it is a TIE ADV. PROTOTYPE. It does not have the word ADVANCED in the name (no, ADV. does not count). Compare that to Darth Vader, whose ship is a TIE ADVANCED X1 (as opposed to any of the other TIE Advanced pilots, who say TIE ADVANCED). It includes the two keywords TIE and ADVANCED, meaning that even though his ship is listed as a different kind than the rest, it can still use both the ATC and the TIE/x1 title.

TIE Fighters include: TIE FIGHTER, TIE/FO FIGHTER, and TIE/SF FIGHTER. It all boils down to what is in their ship name on the pilot cards.

Integrated Astromech is X-Wing Only. X-Wings include: X-WING, T-70 X-WING.

For a similar reason, the TAP can NOT use the TIE/x1 nor the Advanced Targeting Computer upgrades. Both say TIE ADVANCED ONLY. If you look at the TAP, it is a TIE ADV. PROTOTYPE. It does not have the word ADVANCED in the name (no, ADV. does not count). Compare that to Darth Vader, whose ship is a TIE ADVANCED X1 (as opposed to any of the other TIE Advanced pilots, who say TIE ADVANCED). It includes the two keywords TIE and ADVANCED, meaning that even though his ship is listed as a different kind than the rest, it can still use both the ATC and the TIE/x1 title.

The rule you quoted applies to upgrade card usage but the question was about Youngster's pilot ability. There's no written rule that defines how Youngster's ability works with the TIE/SF.

Your answer is correct, but for the wrong reason. We know it does, but that's because of unwritten "tribal knowledge" commonly agreed by the player base. (FFG FAQed it for the TIE/FO and we therefore assume it's the same for the TIE/SF but it's not printed).

TIE Fighters include: TIE FIGHTER, TIE/FO FIGHTER, and TIE/SF FIGHTER. It all boils down to what is in their ship name on the pilot cards.

Integrated Astromech is X-Wing Only. X-Wings include: X-WING, T-70 X-WING.

For a similar reason, the TAP can NOT use the TIE/x1 nor the Advanced Targeting Computer upgrades. Both say TIE ADVANCED ONLY. If you look at the TAP, it is a TIE ADV. PROTOTYPE. It does not have the word ADVANCED in the name (no, ADV. does not count). Compare that to Darth Vader, whose ship is a TIE ADVANCED X1 (as opposed to any of the other TIE Advanced pilots, who say TIE ADVANCED). It includes the two keywords TIE and ADVANCED, meaning that even though his ship is listed as a different kind than the rest, it can still use both the ATC and the TIE/x1 title.

The rule you quoted applies to upgrade card usage but the question was about Youngster's pilot ability. There's no written rule that defines how Youngster's ability works with the TIE/SF.

Your answer is correct, but for the wrong reason. We know it does, but that's because of unwritten "tribal knowledge" commonly agreed by the player base. (FFG FAQed it for the TIE/FO and we therefore assume it's the same for the TIE/SF but it's not printed).

There's no rule because the TIE/sf was released well after the last rulebook update. But it's something that should have been clarified in the FAQ as an all-encompasing type of ruling. Instead, they just reference the TIE/fo and left it at that. If they made a ruling that would actually future proof any future ship variants, they wouldn't have to address it each time.

The rule you quoted applies to upgrade card usage but the question was about Youngster's pilot ability. There's no written rule that defines how Youngster's ability works with the TIE/SF.

Your answer is correct, but for the wrong reason. We know it does, but that's because of unwritten "tribal knowledge" commonly agreed by the player base. (FFG FAQed it for the TIE/FO and we therefore assume it's the same for the TIE/SF but it's not printed).

You're right, we're extrapolating a bit here. The key data points are:

• We have a rule about how "ship type" is to be matched with respect to upgrade cards that require a certain ship type.
• We have a ruling about two different cards (Youngster and Docking Clamps) whose effects require a certain ship type that, at the time they were given (i.e. not referencing then-unreleased ships) were 100% in line with the rule about ship-type-only upgrade cards.
• We have a notable trend that FFG writes rules about very specific situations and then, often without fully satisfying the objections of those of us who closely read the rules, tells us to apply them to similar situations that arise outside of the original narrowly defined space (e.g. obstacle effects and tractor beam).

Given all that, I'm comfortable taking the Youngster and Docking Clamps rulings as evidence that FFG intends ship type restrictions in general to follow the rules for ship-type-only upgrade cards. But yes, there's some extrapolation.

For a similar reason, the TAP can NOT use the TIE/x1 nor the Advanced Targeting Computer upgrades. Both say TIE ADVANCED ONLY. If you look at the TAP, it is a TIE ADV. PROTOTYPE. It does not have the word ADVANCED in the name (no, ADV. does not count). Compare that to Darth Vader, whose ship is a TIE ADVANCED X1 (as opposed to any of the other TIE Advanced pilots, who say TIE ADVANCED). It includes the two keywords TIE and ADVANCED, meaning that even though his ship is listed as a different kind than the rest, it can still use both the ATC and the TIE/x1 title.

The following is not aimed at you.

I'm not sure that is the reason the TAP can't take /X1 or ATC, honestly. It can't because the FAQ/Errata says it can't, but I don't think it's been explicitly stated by FFG that the reason is the name difference. I mean, really, the fact that Adv. # Advanced is just dumb. If an abbreviation of a word is not the same as the full word in the rules, that's a serious issue due to common language usage reasons and it makes some ships unusable because their dials, ship cards, and bases don't share the same ship-type words. Adv. # Advanced fails the common-sense test being applied here to TIE/fo and TIE/sf. If we can't apply common sense or reasonable assumptions in some cases, but must in others, how can anybody know for certain they're playing the game right when these edge cases come up?

It can't because the FAQ/Errata says it can't, but I don't think it's been explicitly stated by FFG that the reason is the name difference.

The name difference is the justification that FFG used for a balance decision.

The fact is that the TAP would be massively OP'ed if it could take the X1 title, that's not really even a question, it would be completely broken. But due to the fact that ship names is out of FFG's hand they had to come up with some way to prevent the TAP from taking that title... All the while allowing some upgrades or abilities to be shared by a class of ship.

There is no doubt that the difference between Adv. and Advanced is counter-intuitive but it was the only way they could achieve what they want and future proof the game by allowing some upgrades/abilities to be shared by a given class of ship.

So we have a special case with the Adv. vs Advanced, but that doesn't mean we can't use common sense or precedence in all other cases. Although I could argue that the common sense approach would be to not allow the TAP to take the X1 title for obvious balance reasons.

Basing a rule on abreviation is the stupidest thing to ever do... then if you want upgrade that fit on new ship but with long name, you have to abreviate it everywhere, even if it fit. Case example, the Imperial Raider.

No this is there as an exception, because this would be stupid powerful and they could not let it happen... Yeah right, everyone here want The Inquisitor with a free crit in addition to his 3 attack dice.

This was a fail on there part and they fixed it, but seriously, this is just an oversight they sometime do. The ship should have been named TIE Prototype and everything would be perfectly fine.

It can't because the FAQ/Errata says it can't, but I don't think it's been explicitly stated by FFG that the reason is the name difference.

The name difference is the justification that FFG used for a balance decision.

Correct me if I'm wrong but they never justified it, they just released the FAQ, and I never seen a clear justification except common sens that it would be stupidly powerful.

Case example, the Imperial Raider.

That's a great case because in that case the card is in fact abbreviated and yet it works. The sole reason for the adv vs advanced is because they had to have something that would prevent people from putting the X1 title on the TAP.

Now yes ideally they would just said "You can't put the X1 title on the TAP" Instead of coming up with what is really a very silly ruling, especially considering the Raider because it is abbreviated but for some reason they didn't. I can only guess at why, but none of my guesses make a ton of sense.

The ship should have been named TIE Prototype and everything would be perfectly fine.

That's the whole problem though, they can't. They have to use the name that LFL wants them to use.

Correct me if I'm wrong but they never justified it

Not officially no, but that can be the only reason they would of done it that way. So they can stop the TAP from using the X1 title.

Now yes ideally they would just said "You can't put the X1 title on the TAP" Instead of coming up with what is really a very silly ruling.

This is exactly what they have done...

There is no silly ruling, they just state in the FAQ that you can't equip it with no rule associated with it...

Edit: None of the extended universe is canon any more, they can probably use the name they want.

None of the extended universe is canon any more, they can probably use the name they want.

Neither the Tie Advanced or Tie Advanced Prototype is from the EU. Even if it were, they still have to use the name LFL tells them to use.

There is no silly ruling, they just state in the FAQ that you can't equip it with no rule associated with it...

Maybe I'm thinking of a older FAQ or maybe it was email. But they said at one point the TAP couldn't equip the X1 title because Adv isn't the same as Advanced.