Is there any title that works on more than one type ship? No. They should make that explicit, errata all titles to have the little dial picture of the ship in question on the card. Twice now this stupid rules bs has come up.

EDITL @ Azrapse gets credit for that idea

9 hours ago, Punning Pundit said:

I can see changing the title from "Aggressor only" to "IG-88 only", as it would keep the title from being used by the TIE Aggressor, allow for an Imperials to "hire" IG-88 (if FFG wants to go that route), and would allow for an IG-88 pilot in other ships.

I can imagine an IG-88c in a Star Viper being solid- especially if paired with something like IG-88a OR IG-88d.

But I don't want to see any "clarification" about the title that limits it without making an errata. The rule on titles is currently really solid. There isn't a good reason to change that rule when a small change to the Aggressor title itself will suffice.

This would be the best fix. Allows for the title to be IGGy only, whilst allowing for the possibility of IGGies driving other ships and other pilots driving Aggressors.

.

Any news after the article?

11 minutes ago, IG88E said:

Any news after the article?

No, you can still technically run both named pilots and have them share their abilities via the title. It will no doubt get FAQ'd to scum only or something.

On 3/25/2017 at 10:37 PM, codegnave said:

Is there any title that works on more than one type ship? No. They should make that explicit, errata all titles to have the little dial picture of the ship in question on the card. Twice now this stupid rules bs has come up.

EDITL @ Azrapse gets credit for that idea

Stolen TIE would work on /sf or /fo if rebels had those ships.

3 hours ago, GrimmyV said:

Stolen TIE would work on /sf or /fo if rebels had those ships.

That is true

5 hours ago, FlyingAnchors said:

No, you can still technically run both named pilots and have them share their abilities via the title. It will no doubt get FAQ'd to scum only or something.

It would be best if they figure out something other than Scum only . I'm still hoping some of the other Bounty Hunter ships become usable for Imperials like the Firespray-31. All they need to do is faq it to say This does not work with the TIE Aggressor . Nothing else needed.

But even without an errata, there's only going to be 2 different Unique Pilot abilities.

4 minutes ago, Vulf said:

It would be best if they figure out something other than Scum only . I'm still hoping some of the other Bounty Hunter ships become usable for Imperials like the Firespray-31. All they need to do is faq it to say This does not work with the TIE Aggressor . Nothing else needed.

Bounty hunter ships aren't coming to imperials anytime soon. Only reason they have the firespray is that scum didn't exist in wave 2.

Scum only is the easiest fix. If they, for some reason, decided to release the ig2000 for imperials, they could easily re-FAQ it

6 hours ago, Vulf said:

It would be best if they figure out something other than Scum only . I'm still hoping some of the other Bounty Hunter ships become usable for Imperials like the Firespray-31. All they need to do is faq it to say This does not work with the TIE Aggressor . Nothing else needed.

But even without an errata, there's only going to be 2 different Unique Pilot abilities.

One on hand,I would rather not have the competitive fix for imperials be scum ships. Then it's back to 2 factions.

Scum, Scum+(insert favorite empire ship/character here) and rebels.

On the other, I'm glad to have the firespray on board for imps, and I think there should be a unique title that allows you to take 1 scum ship as an imperial for a hefty cost + no use of illicits (because they are supposed to be law abiding citizens while working for the empire).

At any rate, the title for the aggressor would not be the place to do it.

(Also pre-nerf emporer with a paratani list? Where's my imperial cadet sabine tie bomber pilot card to complete the trifecta?)

14 hours ago, IG88E said:

Any news after the article?

Not really. It didn't confirm or deny.

Nothing Official but here's more to the discussion.

Let's just all admit FFG is horrible at writing rules on cards.

On 16/03/2017 at 3:19 AM, VanderLegion said:

That's not ffg specifically allowing it. That's ffg telling all the people that didn't believe it that they were wrong and to stop asking. Youngster ALWAYS worked with the sf and do according to the rules. And the same is true for the X1 title. "TIE Adv. Prototype" doesn't contain the entirety of "Advanced" so it never worked. It doesn't matter what it stands for, it matters what it says on the card.

I'm going to throw a spanner in the works here. The TIE/v1 card is "TIE Adv. Prototype only", rules as written a TIE Advanced can take this card as it contains TIE Adv in its name. However this has been FAQ'd that the TIE Advanced cannot take it. Clearly FFG are not applying the convention* regarding ship names and I expected an FAQ in the same vein for the Aggressor title, not erratum for the card, stating that the TIE Aggressor cannot take it.

*the rule as written is " Any ship can equip a title as long as the title is not restricted to a different type of ship. ". The rule does not go into what words should or should not be in the ship name. This gives FFG quite a bit of flexibility and may explain cards like the Raider titles not following the convention yet still work. Also the TIE Adv Prototype is clearly a different ship type compared to a TIE Advanced whereas TIE, TIE/FO and TIE/SF Fighters are reasonably similar enough to be treated as the same ship type much like the X-Wings.

So, having thought about the rules as written in the rules reference, I've changed my mind on this. I would now say the Aggressor title is restricted to the Aggressor ship type and therefore cannot be used by the TIE Aggressor which is a different ship type.

PS @Crabbok thanks for your video on this it got me thinking about it again.

Just now, Sasajak said:

I'm going to throw a spanner in the works here. The TIE/v1 card is "TIE Adv. Prototype only", rules as written a TIE Advanced can take this card as it contains TIE Adv in its name.

No it can't, because the TIE Advanced doesn't contain "Prototype" in it's name. It has to include ALL of the text in the ship requirement.

1 minute ago, Sasajak said:

the rule as written is " Any ship can equip a title as long as the title is not restricted to a different type of ship. ". The rule does not go into what words should or should not be in the ship name. This gives FFG quite a bit of flexibility and may explain cards like the Raider titles not following the convention yet still work. Also the TIE Adv Prototype is clearly a different ship type compared to a TIE Advanced whereas TIE, TIE/FO and TIE/SF Fighters are reasonably similar enough to be treated as the same ship type much like the X-Wings.

The rule you're actually looking for is on page 20:

1 minute ago, Sasajak said:

So, having thought about the rules as written in the rules reference, I've changed my mind on this. I would now say the Aggressor title is restricted to the Aggressor ship type and therefore cannot be used by the TIE Aggressor which is a different ship type.

Still wrong.

5 hours ago, VanderLegion said:

No it can't, because the TIE Advanced doesn't contain "Prototype" in it's name. It has to include ALL of the text in the ship requirement.

The rule you're actually looking for is on page 20:

Still wrong.

Oh dear well I tried and failed to understand this! Please carry on.

Bottom line, and nothing anyone says will change this -- it works until FFG says it doesn't (and they will, so everyone complaining is being absurd and childish).

All of the written rules components and adjustments since the TIE Advanced & TIE Adv. Prototype title means it works. Logic & intent mean nothing . It requires addressing via the rules.

I truly don't understand how this keeps popping up. This thought should be wrapped up rather succinctly: "Yes, it's stupid. And yes, it works until FFG fixes it."

Done.

i can't believe this thread reaches 11th page....

if my my opponent try to stick ig2000 title to a tie aggressor i just fold my mat, pack my ships and go get some beer

It wouldn't be the first cross-faction Title for ships. We've been able to do this for years

The fact that this got to 11 pages when its clearly going to be FAQed is stupid

22 hours ago, Vulf said:

It would be best if they figure out something other than Scum only . I'm still hoping some of the other Bounty Hunter ships become usable for Imperials like the Firespray-31. All they need to do is faq it to say This does not work with the TIE Aggressor . Nothing else needed.

But even without an errata, there's only going to be 2 different Unique Pilot abilities.

I agree, I would like it if they made a rule or condition card or something where for a few points, Imps or Rebs could "hire out" up to 35 (or whatever) points of Scum. The condition card (or whatever) should cost *something* but it feels like a fun, thematic addition that could be made somewhere down the road.

With that faint hope, I hope the errata is something more along the lines of "IG-2000 can only be added to a ship with an Iggy Pilot."

That leaves room for an Iggy piloting something else, or an (Iggy-style) Aggressor being piloted by someone else. (I know the 2k was tricked out to be unsuitable for life forms, but that was something they did to an existing ship, right?)

tl;dr: "IG-2000 can only be added to a ship with an Iggy Pilot" for maximum future shenanigans.

Why not just make it "Scum Only" and call it a day?

Because of the reasons posted immediately above and repeated here, lol. It precludes the possibility of them ever adding an Imperial version of ships, and it breaks precedent, no title is restricted to a faction, they are only restricted to particular ships. How would things be different if the Y-wing titles were Scum only?

18 hours ago, VanderLegion said:

No it can't, because the TIE Advanced doesn't contain "Prototype" in it's name. It has to include ALL of the text in the ship requirement.

TAP contains all of "TIE ADVANCED" in is title, why can't it take the X1 title? Is that the same argument as the Aggressor argument?

(not being facetious I am genuinely asking).

4 minutes ago, HammerGibbens said:

TAP contains all of "TIE ADVANCED" in is title, why can't it take the X1 title? Is that the same argument as the Aggressor argument?

(not being facetious I am genuinely asking).

The tap didn't contain al of "TIE Advanced". It has "TIE adv.", which is missing the "anced" part of it

Just now, VanderLegion said:

The tap didn't contain al of "TIE Advanced". It has "TIE adv.", which is missing the "anced" part of it

that's mindblowing. thank you

Bottom Line since theres no way this should have gone 11 pages.

We all know its not supposed to work that way but its amusing that until its FAQ'd, it technically by RAW does.