1 hour ago, Wiredin said:

This will need FAQ for the same reason of confusion as the mapper. I think the Kryats are right... FFG development makes this **** up as they go along and then asks Frank to fix it just to see the look on his face of "wtf did you guys do to the game now?!?! you know our player base is going to argue about this until we figure out what we actually want the cards to do right?! This crap is broken...and it's your fault."

For real. The game is in its 6th year, and maybe they're exploring new design space, but it seems like the wording and templating are getting worse rather than better. Stuff keeps coming that the forums call into question 5 minutes after announcement. Do they have playtesters at all? Or even just proofreaders. They create a ship called TIE Aggressor, and nobody realizes they already had a ship called Aggressor with a title that references it? Stuff like that is inconceivable, considering we're talking of one of the major game publishing houses right now, not some amateurs that got lucky on Kickstarter.

Going back to the real spirit of the thread:

So, like, you're an awesome Thweek player, and you nearly beat Paul Heaver and he tells you you've got to get Biggs nerfed but you're all no way Thweek can only copy abilities not change them, but he's all I'll give you shiny dice so you say maybe if I Thweek a Thweek a Thwiggs playing Alex Davy it might work, so you practice a lot but Lt Kestal (who looks a lot like your wife) randomly one-shots you whenever you do, but hey whatever you get on a plane with your gaming group and Pheaver and play Alex Davy in First Class cuz game designers are hella loaded, and you Thweek Davy but Davy takes Pheaver off the board so you Thweek again in the middle of a barrel roll so now you're playing with actual zero g physics instead of Star Wars physics so you Thweek again to Hoth and Pheaver shows back up because he was playing Tel but he's all old and stuff and then someone kills Kestal and while you're playing Thwiggs you say "in arc only" and Alex Davy's eyes light up and then you land and Pheavers all "whoa that was a long game," and you go home and spin your new shiny dice but you rush to see your kids because the babysitting bill is like huge but your shiny dice are all still spinning and what if THEY'RE ALL REALLY THWEEK OMG.

Bwarrrrrrrmp.

The end.

THREAD NECROMANCY!

A semi-serious question: Given how the Thweek conditions are worded, if both players have Thweek in their squads, do both Thweeks get the benefit of both Thweek condition cards? Nowhere on the card does it specify "Your "Thweek""... merely the named pilot, "Thweek."

42 minutes ago, emeraldbeacon said:

THREAD NECROMANCY!

A semi-serious question: Given how the Thweek conditions are worded, if both players have Thweek in their squads, do both Thweeks get the benefit of both Thweek condition cards? Nowhere on the card does it specify "Your "Thweek""... merely the named pilot, "Thweek."

If that was the case, you could make that argument for several other cards in the game.

It's similar to putting the IG2000 title on the TIE Aggressor. FFG (wrongly) assumed that people were intelligent enough to understand that the title was only meant for the Aggressor assault fighter (you know, the ship that the IG2000 actually was). Expect it to be included in the next FAQ if people carry on about it.

Why do people ask this question about Thweek but not Suppressive Fire or ISYTDS?

On 10/1/2017 at 9:48 PM, CRCL said:

If that was the case, you could make that argument for several other cards in the game.

It's similar to putting the IG2000 title on the TIE Aggressor. FFG (wrongly) assumed that people were intelligent enough to understand that the title was only meant for the Aggressor assault fighter (you know, the ship that the IG2000 actually was). Expect it to be included in the next FAQ if people carry on about it.

My question is mainly about the difference between "Rules As Written" versus "Rules As Intended." While it's clear what the intention of the rule is, the specific wording is just barely vague enough to allow some doubt in the matter. It only says "Thweek," not "opponent's Thweek" (since the "you/your" on Shadowed/Mimicked is referring to the targeted ship). I'm certainly not advocating being a jerk about it, and I know what the INTENTION of the rule is, but you better believe that if I'm in a competitive match involving a weird card interaction between players, I'm going to clarify it with the judge BEFORE it could actually happen.

(side note: Honestly, I don't think anyone believed that the IG-2000 title was meant to be usable on TIE Aggressors... but the explicit wording of FFG's written rules about card restrictions made it possible, hence forcing the "Scum Only" addition to the card. As for ISYTDS or Suppressive Fire, I think there are indeed some possibilities for rules-lawyering in both cases.)

3 hours ago, emeraldbeacon said:

My question is mainly about the difference between "Rules As Written" versus "Rules As Intended." While it's clear what the intention of the rule is, the specific wording is just barely vague enough to allow some doubt in the matter. It only says "Thweek," not "opponent's Thweek" (since the "you/your" on Shadowed/Mimicked is referring to the targeted ship). I'm certainly not advocating being a jerk about it, and I know what the INTENTION of the rule is, but you better believe that if I'm in a competitive match involving a weird card interaction between players, I'm going to clarify it with the judge BEFORE it could actually happen.

(side note: Honestly, I don't think anyone believed that the IG-2000 title was meant to be usable on TIE Aggressors... but the explicit wording of FFG's written rules about card restrictions made it possible, hence forcing the "Scum Only" addition to the card. As for ISYTDS or Suppressive Fire, I think there are indeed some possibilities for rules-lawyering in both cases.)

I know a lot of people, myself included, were using that as a means to point out that FFG need to include technical names on their ships, not just words. If the TIE Aggressor had been the TIE/ag, the whole problem would have gone away.

On 25/7/2017 at 9:18 PM, Kumagoro said:

For real. The game is in its 6th year, and maybe they're exploring new design space, but it seems like the wording and templating are getting worse rather than better. Stuff keeps coming that the forums call into question 5 minutes after announcement. Do they have playtesters at all? Or even just proofreaders. They create a ship called TIE Aggressor, and nobody realizes they already had a ship called Aggressor with a title that references it? Stuff like that is inconceivable, considering we're talking of one of the major game publishing houses right now, not some amateurs that got lucky on Kickstarter.

Ok the Aggressor thing is just stupid. All the cards referring "TIE Aggressors" works only if you have both the words in your name. And all the cards that works with "Aggressor"...well, are all from Scum side.

Most of the problem is not the FaQ missing, is the community too lazy for reading the rules..

48 minutes ago, Cerve said:

Ok the Aggressor thing is just stupid. All the cards referring "TIE Aggressors" works only if you have both the words in your name. And all the cards that works with "Aggressor"...well, are all from Scum side.

Most of the problem is not the FaQ missing, is the community too lazy for reading the rules..

The Aggressor thing was stupid, but it was also the rules as written, which is why it was FAQed.

1 hour ago, thespaceinvader said:

The Aggressor thing was stupid, but it was also the rules as written, which is why it was FAQed.

I don't think so. When you will be able to bring an IG and a Tie in the same list, we will talk about it.

Otherwise, no FaQ is needed, and the wording still fine.

6 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:

The Aggressor thing was stupid, but it was also the rules as written, which is why it was FAQed.

I thought it was fun and balanced. The Aggressor ranks 24th last I checked... would a whole bunch of them with Kestal and/or Double Edge’s abilities be so bad? I know it’s not how the card was intended, but FFG always follows the rule of game balance > theme, right? Might give the Imps a fighting chance with something other than Rear Admiral Kylo.

(I’m just joking... I know it was dumb, but still, the FAQ shows FFG had to think about it, right?)

8 hours ago, Cerve said:

I don't think so. When you will be able to bring an IG and a Tie in the same list, we will talk about it.

Otherwise, no FaQ is needed, and the wording still fine.

There was no need to bring both in the same list.

'Aggressor only' per RAW, means 'any ship whose name features the word 'Aggressor' only'.

That includes the TIE Aggressor, for the same reason that all TIEs can equip Twin Ion Engines Mk2. It needed to be Scum Only once the TIE Aggressor was called the TIE Aggressor, or by RAW, no matter how stupid you might think it, it was possible to equip IG2000 on TIE Aggressors. Or would you argue that nothing in the game can equip TIE Mk2, because there's no ship called 'TIE'?

3 hours ago, Kieransi said:

I thought it was fun and balanced. The Aggressor ranks 24th last I checked... would a whole bunch of them with Kestal and/or Double Edge’s abilities be so bad? I know it’s not how the card was intended, but FFG always follows the rule of game balance > theme, right? Might give the Imps a fighting chance with something other than Rear Admiral Kylo.

(I’m just joking... I know it was dumb, but still, the FAQ shows FFG had to think about it, right?)

I didn't say it was unbalanced - it probably would have been fine - I said it was stupid.

And unnecessary; the ship name for the TIE Aggressor could trivially have been TIE/ag.

On 7/25/2017 at 7:35 AM, LagJanson said:

Oh gosh... What's worse than Biggs? Biggs with three agility and autothrusters... Awesome.

I'm pretty sure this is the sole reason that they waited so long to release GFH. Released FAQ. 1 day later the people who were looking at being a Thweek main cry in pain and throw him away XD

4 hours ago, Cow-of-Doom said:

I'm pretty sure this is the sole reason that they waited so long to release GFH. Released FAQ. 1 day later the people who were looking at being a Thweek main cry in pain and throw him away XD

You know what? No. I doubt it. Thweek-Biggs was another terrible idea. I'm full of'em.

On 7/25/2017 at 8:56 AM, Koing907 said:

This is more like it upon release.

On 10/7/2017 at 3:45 PM, Cerve said:

I don't think so. When you will be able to bring an IG and a Tie in the same list, we will talk about it.

Otherwise, no FaQ is needed, and the wording still fine.

Then I'd just take Double Edge, Kestal and two generics and put Aggressor titles on all them so that each ship could have two pilot abilities. No need for an IG to be in the list. The clarification was necessary no matter how obvious it was.

9 hours ago, darthlurker said:

Then I'd just take Double Edge, Kestal and two generics and put Aggressor titles on all them so that each ship could have two pilot abilities. No need for an IG to be in the list. The clarification was necessary no matter how obvious it was.

Lol, no way. Agressor is not TIE Aggressor.

38 minutes ago, Cerve said:

Lol, no way. Agressor is not TIE Aggressor.

Can we not have this 5-page derail again, please?

1 hour ago, Cerve said:

Lol, no way. Agressor is not TIE Aggressor.

Just like "TIE" is not "TIE Defender" or any other kind of "TIE Fighter", and thus by your logic Twin Ion Engine (which says "TIE only") shouldn't be useable by any ships at all.

The FAQ was clearly needed but the rules' intent also was absolutely obvious.

On 10/2/2017 at 6:48 AM, CRCL said:

FFG (wrongly) assumed that people were intelligent enough to understand that

Oh, sure, the "you have to be intelligent" defense of badly written rules. Classic. So wonderfully missing the point every single time.