I may be grasping at straws, but the similarities between IG88B and Double Edge give me the feeling that this is FFG's intention, it will lead to more IG88 sales. As absurd as it is, I don't have a problem with it.
So....Tie Aggressor with IG 2000 still theoretically works, right?
It's an absurd oversight at best and anyone actually trying it would be ridiculed, I suspect. The intent is obvious that the TIE Aggressor cannot use the title for an entirely different ship that (stupidly) shares the same name - another argument against the TIE Aggressor being included in the game, among many, but a little late for that now. The IG-2000 title would say 'Scum Only' had it been released at a time where the Damaged TIE Advanced was also present, but it obviously wasn't and it would have been impossible to have the foresight back then.
So, in short, I suppose yes it *theoretically* works, but if the IG-2000 title isn't errata'd to 'Scum Only' as soon as Wave 11 is released, I wll eat my hat. And lose quite a bit of faith in FFG's ability to represent the background properly.
Well of course there's gonna be a FAQ. Because the whole ship name/title upgrade fiasco has been poorly implemented.
And im still waiting for the IG1000, which is also a TIE. Look it up
on Wookieepedia!
On 5/23/2017 at 8:11 AM, Archangelspiv said:You must be a blast to play with....
Power nerds and rules lawyers... we don't need their type of scum here....
Hey Guys and Gals, need to be careful of the thin skinned princesses here on the forum. I was just emailed by a Mods that I have a warning for abusive behaviour. Either some child has not seen Empire Strikes Back or someone really needs to develop some thicker skin.
What a joke, I know who you are.
1 hour ago, Archangelspiv said:Hey Guys and Gals, need to be careful of the thin skinned princesses here on the forum. I was just emailed by a Mods that I have a warning for abusive behaviour. Either some child has not seen Empire Strikes Back or someone really needs to develop some thicker skin.
What a joke, I know who you are.
Yep. Same.
Not saying "I told you so" just yet, but FFG is watching...
9 hours ago, Rinzler in a Tie said:Yep. Same.
Not saying "I told you so" just yet, but FFG is watching...
10 hours ago, Archangelspiv said:Hey Guys and Gals, need to be careful of the thin skinned princesses here on the forum. I was just emailed by a Mods that I have a warning for abusive behaviour. Either some child has not seen Empire Strikes Back or someone really needs to develop some thicker skin.
What a joke, I know who you are.
FFG Have very tight forum control... and some of the "community" are very precious people........
On 5/22/2017 at 5:57 PM, 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.
They don't have to errata a card at all. They can just clarify the situation in the FAQ like they did with Vader and the ATC. Which read:
"Advanced Targeting Computer
Darth Vader can be equipped with the Advanced Targeting Computer Upgrade card."
So they can just put:
"IG-2000
TIE Aggressors cannot be equipped with the IG-2000 Upgrade card."
in the FAQ and call it a day.
2 hours ago, DarthEnderX said:They don't have to errata a card at all. They can just clarify the situation in the FAQ like they did with Vader and the ATC. Which read:
"Advanced Targeting Computer
Darth Vader can be equipped with the Advanced Targeting Computer Upgrade card."So they can just put:
"IG-2000
TIE Aggressors cannot be equipped with the IG-2000 Upgrade card."
in the FAQ and call it a day.
You could, but that would actually be lazy instead of actually fixing the problem. If you want your rule system to have integrity, you need to make sure the wording is tight. So instead of just having an FAQ saying "You can't do that", you need to change the actual rules so you cannot do that.
IE: You need to errata card wording. And be more mindful in the future when you write the rules so this doesn't happen again.
Edited by BadMotivatorYou SAY that, and yet, it was their solution to Vader and the ATC, and it's never caused any problems.
4 hours ago, DarthEnderX said:They don't have to errata a card at all. They can just clarify the situation in the FAQ like they did with Vader and the ATC. Which read:
"Advanced Targeting Computer
Darth Vader can be equipped with the Advanced Targeting Computer Upgrade card."So they can just put:
"IG-2000
TIE Aggressors cannot be equipped with the IG-2000 Upgrade card."
in the FAQ and call it a day.
Technically Vader was just a clarification, not any kind of change. He's already able to equip the x1 title because his ship name includes "TIE Advanced", so he's legally able to equip it according tot he rules regardless of any FAQ. The FAQ is just to clarify for people who would otherwise try to argue that he can't equip the X1 title becasue his ship name already includes the X1 in it, but the rules would neer have supported that argument anyway. The FAQ just prevents pepole from trying to make the claim in the first place.
IG-2000 not working on the TIE Aggressor (as everyone expects them to FAQ) will require an actual change.
They should just leave it as it is. Would make the Pilot Skill 5 TIE Aggressors less useless.
On 2017-5-23 at 6:12 AM, Reaver027 said:Well FFG broke that rule with the Raider Class Corvette.
Based on that the Tie Adv. Prototype should be able to equip the x1 title. But it can't. There pretty much is no coherent rule.
The tittles should have read "Raider-Class Corv. (Aft) only. Title."
Hmmm interesting... I will be right back. (totally not equipping TIE/x1 title in the TIE Adv. Prototype)
14 minutes ago, Odanan said:(totally not equipping TIE/x1 title in the TIE Adv. Prototype)
Still doesn't work. Just means you can try to tell your opponent they can't equip any of the titles next time you play epic.
I still love how much salt there is over this.