Exactly. There is no, "the rules are the rules", as was put forth a couple pages ago. It's just a bunch of people deciding how they want to play.

7 hours ago, LordBlades said:

People have accepted the legality of this because currently it's legal. There is a point to be made that it shouldn't be, but as rules currently stands it is.

Nobody needs this thread to prove the legality of this combo as they can simply point out the explicit rule that makes it legal.

This would be the explicit rule that states "all products are legal upon announcement on the FFG website"?

This whole, now 7 page long, thread has really reinforced my feelings that FFG needs more play testing. More play testing! Better play testing. Better designers. Take your time FFG, get it right the first time.

Hell, they could just get some beta testers. Have them sign an NDA, and there you go, free labor. Most fans will be more than happy to beta test. Just throw them some minor swag, and they'd jump at the chance.

8 minutes ago, Clancampbell said:

This whole, now 7 page long, thread has really reinforced my feelings that FFG needs more play testing. More play testing! Better play testing. Better designers. Take your time FFG, get it right the first time.

Hell, they could just get some beta testers. Have them sign an NDA, and there you go, free labor. Most fans will be more than happy to beta test. Just throw them some minor swag, and they'd jump at the chance.

They...

you know, do this. Already.

2 hours ago, Handler said:

This would be the explicit rule that states "all products are legal upon announcement on the FFG website"?

The post I was replying to discussed the situation of somebody coming to a tournament with this. Assuming we don't discuss Vassal league or such here (which needs to handle stuff differently as they often deal with unreleased content), in order for somebody to bring a TIE Aggressor to a tournament, the ship needs to have been released already.

8 minutes ago, LordBlades said:

The post I was replying to discussed the situation of somebody coming to a tournament with this. Assuming we don't discuss Vassal league or such here (which needs to handle stuff differently as they often deal with unreleased content), in order for somebody to bring a TIE Aggressor to a tournament, the ship needs to have been released already.

Yeah sorry I know I quoted you, but this was directed more broadly. If someone turns up this weekend to a tournament with a TIE Aggressor equipped with the Aggressor title, it won't be the title that makes the list illegal. Right now the rules don't make this combo tourney legal because the ship isn't legal. Let's all just have some faith that FFG has about 5 months to deal with this by the time Wave XI is finally released!

3 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:

They...

you know, do this. Already.

Further, the only way they could have caught this in playtesting was if they knew what... 3 years ago? that they were going to release the TIE/ag now, in order to write the IG2000 title differently.

Also, it might just be that they redesign the cards to have the ship be called TIE/ag instead

I think we all know that the real underlying issue here is that they are releasing this silly ship instead of the XG-1. They brought it onto themselves, and the imps will continue to have these issues until the lack of gunboat is rectified.

I'm not saying that they are cursed...

but they are cursed .

5 hours ago, Clancampbell said:

This whole, now 7 page long, thread has really reinforced my feelings that FFG needs more play testing. More play testing! Better play testing. Better designers. Take your time FFG, get it right the first time.

Hell, they could just get some beta testers. Have them sign an NDA, and there you go, free labor. Most fans will be more than happy to beta test. Just throw them some minor swag, and they'd jump at the chance.

5 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:

They...

you know, do this. Already.

Ok maybe they do. I was unaware. So then why did no one catch this? It was up on these fourms for less than 24 hours before someone suggested this. Better play testing needed then. Exactly my point from my OP.

1 hour ago, thespaceinvader said:

Further, the only way they could have caught this in playtesting was if they knew what... 3 years ago? that they were going to release the TIE/ag now, in order to write the IG2000 title differently.

Also, it might just be that they redesign the cards to have the ship be called TIE/ag instead

Of course they can't go back in time, or suspect what might happen in three years. However they can catch it before the reveal of the tie aggressor and get in front of it.

How?

One way is never release a ship with a name with a part of a previous ship. So no TIE Aggressor at all.

One way to fix it is rename the TIE Aggressor to another name so the scum title is not applicable to them, like TIE/Ag. or something alike.

Other way is to made a new FAQ that includes a "scum only", or "not applicable to TIE Aggressor" in the scum title, like they do in similar cases.

Of these options, Which do you consider to be the most plausible?
What is the meaning of a FAQ for a product that is not yet on the market and therefore can not be used?

Just after the release, and not before (if the use of the title is no an intended feature, and the unique pilot habilities of the new ship are designed with that in mind), FFQ would FAQ the thing, even if they knowed the "flaw" from 2016

10 minutes ago, Draconis Hegemonia said:

How?

One way is never release a ship with a name with a part of a previous ship. So no TIE Aggressor at all.

One way to fix it is rename the TIE Aggressor to another name so the scum title is not applicable to them, like TIE/Ag. or something alike.

Other way is to made a new FAQ that includes a "scum only", or "not applicable to TIE Aggressor" in the scum title, like they do in similar cases.

Of these options, Which do you consider to be the most plausible?
What is the meaning of a FAQ for a product that is not yet on the market and therefore can not be used?

Just after the release, and not before (if the use of the title is no an intended feature, and the unique pilot habilities of the new ship are designed with that in mind), FFQ would FAQ the thing, even if they knowed the "flaw" from 2016

The simplest solution is the last one make the IG-2000 title scum only. Which doesn't need the wave to release because it isn't adjusting a new card, it's adjusting an old one. And someone already pointed out that Tactician was erratad to 'Limited' before the YV-666 released, but it was done BECAUSE of the YV666

38 minutes ago, Clancampbell said:

Ok maybe they do. I was unaware. So then why did no one catch this?

Because playtesting a game is a lot more work, and a lot messier, than most game players realize. Playtesting a ship probably involves writing down the currently attempted stats on a piece of scrap paper labeled "future tie variant 18. Version 5" and then playing the hell out of it to try and see if it is too strong. The final decision on names probably isn't made until playtesting has been finished for months, and probably not made by the playtesters. Remember, it was probably early 2016 when these ships were being playtested. We have the luxury of not needing to examine every stat and ability on a ship with every single card and combination in the game looking for potential problems.

13 minutes ago, VanderLegion said:

The simplest solution is the last one make the IG-2000 title scum only. Which doesn't need the wave to release because it isn't adjusting a new card, it's adjusting an old one. And someone already pointed out that Tactician was erratad to 'Limited' before the YV-666 released, but it was done BECAUSE of the YV666

No, dual tacticians could be used in a Lambda or in a Falcon.

Launch a new FAQ just to "calm down" some humorous threads in a forum?

1 minute ago, Draconis Hegemonia said:

No, dual tactician s could be used in a Lambda or in a Falcon .

Launch a new FAQ just to "calm down" some humorous threads in a forum?

It COULD be, but it wasn't, and wasn't the same kind of prolbem as being able to run 3 tacticians on a 180 degree firing arc.

And it's not just to "calm down" a humorous thread. If they don't faq something, it legitimately is legal according to their rules.

2 minutes ago, Draconis Hegemonia said:

No, dual tacticians could be used in a Lambda or in a Falcon.

Launch a new FAQ just to "calm down" some humorous threads in a forum?

But lamba turns slower than a comet and the falcon still only can stress people in front of it, the yv could triple stress anybody in range that it could shoot if it weren't for limited

Anyway, that was a change tha affect several existing ships.

This would be a change that would only only just affect a nonexistent ship (yet), so, repeating me, a FAQ just to "calm down" some humorous threads in a forum.

Unlikely...

1 hour ago, Clancampbell said:

Ok maybe they do. I was unaware. So then why did no one catch this? It was up on these fourms for less than 24 hours before someone suggested this. Better play testing needed then. Exactly my point from my OP.

Of course they can't go back in time, or suspect what might happen in three years. However they can catch it before the reveal of the tie aggressor and get in front of it.

Playtesting is probably still in progress for wave 11, or possibly only just complete. There's still probably 3 to 4 months before release for them to fix this issue in one of myriad possible ways.

Just now, Draconis Hegemonia said:

Anyway, that was a change tha affect several existing ships.

This would be a change that would only only just affect a nonexistent ship (yet), so, repeating me, a FAQ just to "calm down" some humorous threads in a forum.

Unlikely...

The tactician change realistically only affected one ship, the YV666, because no one commonly used multiple tacticians on anything else, but triple stressing anything that gets into range 2 of a massive 180 arc was too powerful.

In the same way the tactician change affected multiple ships, so does making IG-2000 scum only, since it still "affects" the IG2000 by allowing it to equip the upgrade still since it's the right faction.

No, it does not affect the scum ship. The IG88 aggressor would be used exactly in the same way as if doesn't exist that FAQ.

And of course, I use "unlikely" as something very different to "And if FFG don't do this way is because they don't want or don't know how to do a proper playtesting. I hate them!"

3 minutes ago, Draconis Hegemonia said:

No, it does not affect the scum ship. The IG88 aggressor would be used exactly in the same way as if doesn't exist that FAQ.

Just like the Lambda and Millenium falcon have been used exactly the same way since the tactician change because no one used double tactician on them anyway.

1 minute ago, VanderLegion said:

Just like the Lambda and Millenium falcon have been used exactly the same way since the tactician change because no one used double tactician on them anyway.

None you know.

My old soontir finde some double tactician Solos in his days, and get doble stressed in the first cross is pain in the ass.

One change could be used by existing ships (maybe not usual, but they could), the other change does nothing for any existing ship, is no a matter of being usual or not.

Just now, Draconis Hegemonia said:

None you know.

My old soontir finde some double tactician Solos in his days, and get doble stressed in the first cross is pain in the ass.

One change could be used by existing ships (maybe not usual, but they could), the other change does nothing for any existing ship, is no a matter of being usual or not.

Realistically it doesn't matter if the existing ships could use tactician. That isn't why it was erratad.

They literally called out hte Hound's Tooth as the reason it was made limited in the article :

Quote

Second, the Tactician Upgrade card has received the “Limited” keyword, which means it will now be restricted to one copy per ship. This is an important limitation as we look forward to the addition of the Hound’s Tooth to the game.

This was a month before the wave released, so it was definitely changing an existing card to avoid interactions with an unreleased one.

15 minutes ago, VanderLegion said:

Realistically it doesn't matter if the existing ships could use tactician. That isn't why it was erratad.

Realistically it matter.

As a matter of fact, the tactician errata apeared when some ships could use it. The aggressor errata does not, hopefully is because is an intentional (and a kind of genial) feature of the new ship, but most probably is just because FFG doesn't do FAQ's just to calm down humorous threads in a forum...

3 minutes ago, Draconis Hegemonia said:

Realistically it matter.

As a matter of fact, the tactician errata apeared when some ships could use it. The aggressor errata does not, hopefully is because is an intentional (and a kind of genial) feature of the new ship, but most probably is just because FFG doesn't do FAQ's just to calm down humorous threads in a forum...

See my last comment where they explicitely FAQed it because of the unreleased ship.