I can understand them not adding "scum only" simply due to any future cross faction ship possibilities.
More likely they'll either errata the TIE Aggressor to be "TIE /ag", or something different... or simply just say in the FAQ that the TIE Aggressor can't take it.
But imagine if FFG actually says "Yup. The TIE Aggressor CAN totally take the IG-2000 title". I mean really imagine that!
Time for breakfast yet?
Since it's legal, let's see some lists!
| Double Edge" — TIE Aggressor | 19 |
| Crack Shot | 1 |
| Synced Turret | 4 |
| Unguided Rockets | 2 |
| Lightweight Frame | 2 |
| Ship Total: 28 | |
| Lieutenant Kestal — TIE Aggressor | 22 |
| Trick Shot | 0 |
| Synced Turret | 4 |
| Unguided Rockets | 2 |
| Lightweight Frame | 2 |
| Ship Total: 30 | |
| "Whisper" — TIE Phantom | 32 |
| Veteran Instincts | 1 |
| Fire-Control System | 2 |
| Operations Specialist | 3 |
| Advanced Cloaking Device | 4 |
| Ship Total: 42 | |
| IG-2000 on the aggressors, use the unguided rockets to set up focused shots with your turret while still having the focus to nerf their greens, and whisper buzzes around doing whisper things. | |
Lieutenant Kestal (22)
Rage (1)
Autoblaster Turret (2)
Unguided Rockets (2)
Lightweight Frame (2)
IG-2000 (0)
"Double Edge" (19)
Rage (1)
Autoblaster Turret (2)
Unguided Rockets (2)
Lightweight Frame (2)
IG-2000 (0)
Sienar Specialist (17)
Autoblaster Turret (2)
Unguided Rockets (2)
Lightweight Frame (2)
IG-2000 (0)
Scimitar Squadron Pilot (16)
Fleet Officer (3)
Inspiring Recruit (1)
Lightweight Frame (2)
TIE Shuttle (0)
Total: 100
Kek! Double Edge's ability doesn't require you to fire at the target you missed, you can take shots at long range with your Unguided Rockets, and if you miss, fire at an enemy on your flank with the turret. Just get into the middle of the enemy's formation and mess them up. Rage doesn't really help the Unguided Rockets, but you should be too angry to notice.
Edited by Vulf2 hours ago, Crabbok said:I can understand them not adding "scum only" simply due to any future cross faction ship possibilities.
More likely they'll either errata the TIE Aggressor to be "TIE /ag", or something different... or simply just say in the FAQ that the TIE Aggressor can't take it.
But imagine if FFG actually says "Yup. The TIE Aggressor CAN totally take the IG-2000 title". I mean really imagine that!
What they need to do is to fix their original mistake and write the full name of the ship "Aggressor assault Fighter" to both pilot and title cards.
Just release a FAQ that both cards refer to that ship and that ship only and get done with it.
This would never have happened if they'd announced the GUNBOAT instead...
13 hours ago, FTS Gecko said:This would never have happened if they'd announced the GUNBOAT instead...
They could call it "TIE advanced Gunboat". So we can use Advanced Targeting Computer on it.
TIE Adv(anced) Gunboat Aggressor...
And MKII
Large ship only.
there, no mention of scummies
On 3/23/2017 at 8:48 PM, tsondaboy said:The easiest way to fix this is to make a clarification in the rulles that "title" upgrades can only be equiped to the ship they originally came with.
Can't wait to put that Millennium Falcon sloop title on my black and orange T70
Finally this is put to bed. ...page 4 Scum Only
On 5/26/2017 at 4:19 AM, FTS Gecko said:This would never have happened if they'd announced the GUNBOAT instead...
Yeah but then we'd be stuck with the awful Gunboat.
Edited by Princezilla45 minutes ago, Ccwebb said:Finally this is put to bed. ...page 4 Scum Only
Sad TIE Aggressors are sad.
Twelve pages and a FAQ later...
2 minutes ago, Rinzler in a Tie said:Twelve pages and a FAQ later...
Realistically I don't think anyone genuinely believed that it would be allowed to work, but it was nice to dream right?
Also it one of the rare times where FFG have added errata well before the release of product, rather than 1-3 weeks after release with the typical RAW vs. RAI Arguments raging on during the period it was legal and those small minority of rules lawyers try to break the game at the local store event.
2 minutes ago, Mace Windu said:Realistically I don't think anyone genuinely believed that it would be allowed to work, but it was nice to dream right?
Also it one of the rare times where FFG have added errata well before the release of product, rather than 1-3 weeks after release with the typical RAW vs. RAI Arguments raging on during the period it was legal and those small minority of rules lawyers try to break the game at the local store event.
Yeah this entire thread was just a twelve page shitpost.
59 minutes ago, Princezilla said:Yeah this entire thread was just a twelve page shitpost.
And also completely necessary.
Without a thread like this, they wouldn't have errata'd the card. And the fact that they had to errata the card proves that, RAW, it WAS possible to use the title with the TIE Aggressor.
Yes, it's an asinine argument, but one that had to be had to prevent a future rules abuse.
Edited by DarthEnderX5 minutes ago, DarthEnderX said:And also completely necessary.
Without a thread like this, they wouldn't have errata'd the card. And the fact that they had to errata the card proves that, RAW, it WAS possible to use the title with the TIE Aggressor.
Yes, it's an asinine argument, but one that had to be had to prevent a future rules abuse.
It wasn't asinine, it was just stupid fun that almost no one took seriously.
Now when will they clarify Lone Wolf and R5K6 rolling (and rerolling with LW) a defence die when attacking?
Imperial dreams of dominance shattered (again).... ;-D
So I guess this means FFG actually DOES pay attention to this forum! Yay!! ;-D
Hmm, I wonder how this works in practice?
Frank Brooks and the rest of the design team likely do not have time to read and follow this forum (that is a full time job, y'know). But the playtesters, and the forum-admins do, and hypothetically they could have a system where they "report back" at a weekly meeting , say Friday afternoon, about what is going on in here. Perhaps they all have a little laugh about "X-wing Bingo", have a Gunboat-post poll/wager, a drinking game where everytime "nerf" or "fix" comes up in the forum it is buttoms up! (which incidentally explains all the article mistakes, C-ROC blueline oversights etc.).
Isn't it great how we apparently need an FAQ for common sense, since without it some ****-clown would have tried this nonsense despite it being painfully obvious that the IG-2000 title was never intended to work on the TIE Aggressor.
And yet we get nothing in said FAQ to affect the stale, boring state of the game. Amazing.
It's over...
But we had a good time here
32 minutes ago, MalusCalibur said:Isn't it great how we apparently need an FAQ for common sense, since without it some ****-clown would have tried this nonsense despite it being painfully obvious that the IG-2000 title was never intended to work on the TIE Aggressor.
You do realize that the entire process of getting that into the FAQ took at most 30 minutes, with approvals and all, right ?
Clear rules in a competitive game should be a given IMO, not something 'nice to have' because 'common sense'.