I can see some great uses if it isn't errata'd

Kestal and 3 Sienar specialists could be madness

"Double Edge"(25)
TLT(6)
IG-2000(0)

Sienar Specialists(25)*3
TLT(6)
LWF(2)
IG-2000(0)

NegativePlayExperience.jpg

1 minute ago, Mattman7306 said:

"Double Edge"(25)
TLT(6)
IG-2000(0)

Sienar Specialists(25)*3
TLT(6)
LWF(2)
IG-2000(0)

NegativePlayExperience.jpg

Or alternately:

Double Edge"(25)
Synced Turret(4)
LWF(2)
IG-2000(0)

Sienar Specialists(25)*3
TLT(6)
LWF(2)
IG-2000(0)

NEGATIVEPLAYEXPERIENCE.png

2 minutes ago, Mattman7306 said:

"Double Edge"(25)
TLT(6)
IG-2000(0)

Sienar Specialists(25)*3
TLT(6)
LWF(2)
IG-2000(0)

NegativePlayExperience.jpg

Double Edge doesn't quite play well with Gunner.

Kestel, OTOH, would be ridiculous.

Just now, PhantomFO said:

Double Edge doesn't quite play well with Gunner.

Kestel, OTOH, would be ridiculous.

Gunner? Please Explain.

Just now, Mattman7306 said:

Gunner? Please Explain.

I meant the TLT effect. Since TLT is considered to be one attack, hitting with either of them would prevent you from attacking again in the round.

3 minutes ago, Mattman7306 said:

Or alternately:

"Double Edge"(25)
Synced Turret(4)
LWF(2)
IG-2000(0)

Sienar Specialists(25)*3
TLT(6)
LWF(2)
IG-2000(0)

NEGATIVEPLAYEXPERIENCE.png

Or even more alternately:

"Double Edge"(25)
Synced Turret(4)
LWF(2)
IG-2000(0)

Sienar Specialists(25)*3
Synced Turret(4)
Unguided Rockets(2)
LWF(2)

FairAndBalanced.mp4

Well we all know that it won't work!

2 minutes ago, Zazaa said:

Well we all know that it won't work!

Probably, but we can dream until it's FAQ'd!

I will honestly laugh if FFG releases a rule card with the Agressor stating it doesn't work "because we say so".

They will just FAQ it for Scum Only.

No way they let this fly. Well, they probably will then FAQ it just before Nationals to screw imperial players.

I'd rather fly Kestal with generics and IG-2000 over Double Edge. And yes, they'll definitely FAQ it, but it's still hilarious until they do

Can we just put this to bed? Even RAW rules, this doesn't stand up.

Example: Tie/x7: Tie Defender only (notice it says "Tie")

IG 2000: Aggressor only.

Now what is the ship this title for?

And this ship is called..?

And another example of FFG specifically calling out the actual ship name (or what will fit - but obvious ship name is obvious):

Or is this a big joke and I'm a sour puss?

If you are trying to argue that Aggressor can't cover Tie Aggressor, then that would mean X wing Only doesn't cover T-70 X Wings.

Current rules interpretation says Integrated Astromech works for T-70s, which is the ruling people are using to say that 'aggressor' should count for 'tie aggressor'.

I don't think anyone believes that it should work that way, but the rules as currently written and interpreted support it working that way.

We all know it will not work. But RAW it works. Think of "TIE only" working on all vessels with "TIE" in its name. Also, the rule book specifically mentions that "TIE Fighter only" also applies to the "TIE/FO Fighter" - titles apply as long as the name before "only" is present in the ship name. In this case Aggressor as in "TIE Aggressor". Anyway... it will be FAQ'd to cancel rule nazis that don't value flavor.

SHHHHHH do you really want FFG to know!

3 minutes ago, Dunderwood said:

If you are trying to argue that Aggressor can't cover Tie Aggressor, then that would mean X wing Only doesn't cover T-70 X Wings.

Current rules interpretation says Integrated Astromech works for T-70s, which is the ruling people are using to say that 'aggressor' should count for 'tie aggressor'.

I don't think anyone believes that it should work that way, but the rules as currently written and interpreted support it working that way.

I get it, I guess I'm just a grouch 'cause it clearly doesn't work and I don't find joy in it. Disregard me.

Fine point about Integrated. Though I'm curious who said T-70s can take it? Was it FFG?

1 minute ago, Rinzler in a Tie said:

I get it, I guess I'm just a grouch 'cause it clearly doesn't work and I don't find joy in it. Disregard me.

Fine point about Integrated. Though I'm who said T-70s can take it? Was it FFG?

Implied by the fact it comes in a t70 box.

1 minute ago, Rinzler in a Tie said:

Fine point about Integrated. Though I'm curious who said T-70s can take it? Was it FFG?

Yes. It comes in the T-70. The preview articles include builds using it.

RAW it works right now but don't expect that to continue.

4 minutes ago, Rakaydos said:

Implied by the fact it comes in a t70 box.

For a thread arguing raw rules this is the flimsiest thing in it.

But yeah T-70s can take IA.

Run your Ties with IG-88 title until told otherwise! Ya kids and your tapes..

This is hilarious. I'm not even sure what they would need to Errata to fix it.

They'd basically have to change the name of either the Aggressor or the TIE aggressor.

7 minutes ago, Rinzler in a Tie said:

I get it, I guess I'm just a grouch 'cause it clearly doesn't work and I don't find joy in it. Disregard me.

Fine point about Integrated. Though I'm curious who said T-70s can take it? Was it FFG?

Also Twin Ion engine mk2 says TIE only. That by itself proves you don't need the entire name on the title for a ship to take it.

Just now, Oberron said:

Also Twin Ion engine mk2 says TIE only. That by itself proves you don't need the entire name on the title for a ship to take it.

Yep.

I get it. Thanks - go about your brain storming.

1 minute ago, BadMotivator said:

This is hilarious. I'm not even sure what they would need to Errata to fix it.

They'd basically have to change the name of either the Aggressor or the TIE aggressor.

Nah, just make the title scum only.