During the In Flight Report today, FFG talked about something they are not allowed to talk about being "on the water" and this causing a delay in the X-Wing product line. There are also three missing product numbers for X-Wing.
A new starter set for X-Wing with the new X-Wing and TIE Fighter designs from Force Awakens and an expansion pack for each of those ships.
I don't think that there will be a new starter set, but if there is it will have all of the same rules as the original set, just with the new ships (so no X-Wing ver2.0).
My money is on the soon to be announced ships being the Resistance T-70 X-wing (with cards to "fix" the existing X-wing), First Order TIE fighter, and First Order Shuttle.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Resistance T-70 X-wing (with cards to "fix" the existing X-wing), First Order TIE fighter, and First Order Shuttle.
This sounds like a wave. But Wave 8 has already been announced. So either Wave 9 will come out of sequence, since we know these three will come before Wave 8, or it's not a Wave at all. In X-Wing, only epic ships, Aces packs, and the starter sets are not waves.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Resistance T-70 X-wing (with cards to "fix" the existing X-wing), First Order TIE fighter, and First Order Shuttle.
This sounds like a wave. But Wave 8 has already been announced. So either Wave 9 will come out of sequence, since we know these three will come before Wave 8, or it's not a Wave at all. In X-Wing, only epic ships, Aces packs, and the starter sets are not waves.
I could see there being an Aces/Most Wanted-style pack for this (One X-wing, 2 TIE's?) to capitalize on the new movie.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Resistance T-70 X-wing (with cards to "fix" the existing X-wing), First Order TIE fighter, and First Order Shuttle.
This sounds like a wave. But Wave 8 has already been announced. So either Wave 9 will come out of sequence, since we know these three will come before Wave 8, or it's not a Wave at all. In X-Wing, only epic ships, Aces packs, and the starter sets are not waves.
Yes, I'm aware of how FFG handles "waves" of product releases. However, I still don't think that there is going to be a new starter set based on two alternate designs of current ships. Even the introduction of a brand new faction didn't warrant the need for a new starter kit.
All of the known new ships in The Force Awakens (X-wing, TIE, and shuttle) seem to be based on existing ships in Star Wars canon and I think any updates to them will be handled similar to the Aces sets. If by some small chance there is a new starter set (which I highly doubt), it won't have a ver2.0 rulebook in it and will just be a reprint of the original one with some new ships. However, I still think it will just be individual expansion packs.
Well if the ships have new stats and come out packaged separately (except as an Aces pack) then that would be a wave by the usual standards. If the ships don't have different stats or do but are packaged as a starter set, that would not necessarily be a wave.
I think a Force Awakens starter set would have new trade dress, an updated rulebook, and new art on the cards (Poe rather than Luke for example).
Given the Q4 retail market will be awash with Episode VII merch, FFG needs to be prepared for non-gamers buying this stuff. It doesn't make sense to sell anything but a starter to such people.
Manchu wrote: Well if the ships have new stats and come out packaged separately (or as an Aces pack) then that would be a wave by the usual standards. If the ships don't have different stats or do but are packaged as a starter set, that would not necessarily be a wave.
I think a Force Awakens starter set would have new trade dress, an updated rulebook, and new art on the cards (Poe rather than Luke for example).
Given the Q4 retail market will be awash with Episode VII merch, FFG needs to be prepared for non-gamers buying this stuff. It doesn't make sense to sell anything but a starter to such people.
I think you are placing entirely too much stock in the "wave" definition.
These are The Force Awakens tie-ins and as such, occupy a special place in the grand scheme of X-Wing because there hasn't been a new movie since this game debuted. Non-gamers already buy this stuff; it is sold in plenty of non-game store locations and I've seen lots posts on scale modeling forums about non-gamers buying these products just because of what they are. Of course, you're also assuming that FFG is going to deliberately target non-gamers with a couple of TFA products out of their entire line, which I don't think is the case.
At the most it could be a new "starter set" but it won't have updated rules or alternate pilots to replace the original pilots, it would only be a new trade dress to tie in with the new movie. They cannot update the core game at this point without punishing those of us who have been playing since day one (by forcing us to buy updated versions of what we already have).
Not to get too off topic, but what is wrong with the current x-wing?
Do the other aces packs use multiple numbers?
Like was S&V 28 and 29?
Or do you think its is a new starter (new or old rules) with updated ships and single expansions of the updated ships?
That way using up the three open slots.
Scooty the "New Rules" may just be the old rules with all the errata and FAQ's added in. I do not really find any of the game broken enough to warrant a whole new set of rules.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Even the introduction of a brand new faction didn't warrant the need for a new starter kit.
Actually it warranted something nearly in the same class of product, the Most Wanted set ... which amounted to a sort of starter set for the faction aimed at existing players (who might already have a Slave-1, HWK-290, and/or Z-95).
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: They cannot update the core game at this point without punishing those of us who have been playing since day one (by forcing us to buy updated versions of what we already have).
I don't follow you. All I mean by updated rules are the rules with all the FAQ changes. The other "update" would be packaging a Force Awakens-themed starter with new pilot cards. And as for non-named pilots, they could have the same stats with different art. So in other words, this would be a great opportunity to do something of an Aces pack for the X-Wing and TIE Fighter (quite badly needed for the X-Wing). But a three-ship pack (e.g., Most Wanted) already comes in at the same MSRP as the starter. Might as well throw in the measuring sticks and make it a loss leader so that it is playable out of the box, given that you are likely to be getting new customers interested in Episode VII particularly rather than Star Wars generally.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Even the introduction of a brand new faction didn't warrant the need for a new starter kit.
Actually it warranted something nearly in the same class of product, the Most Wanted set ... which amounted to a sort of starter set for the faction aimed at existing players (who might already have a Slave-1, HWK-290, and/or Z-95).
But it wasn't the same, it was something different. Most Wanted wasn't a starter set, it was an expansion pack. You cannot buy Most Wanted and be able to play X-Wing with it, therefore it isn't a starter set.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: They cannot update the core game at this point without punishing those of us who have been playing since day one (by forcing us to buy updated versions of what we already have).
I don't follow you. All I mean by updated rules are the rules with all the FAQ changes. The other "update" would be packaging a Force Awakens-themed starter with new pilot cards. And as for non-named pilots, they could have the same stats with different art. So in other words, this would be a great opportunity to do something of an Aces pack for the X-Wing and TIE Fighter (quite badly needed for the X-Wing). But a three-ship pack (e.g., Most Wanted) already comes in at the same MSRP as the starter. Might as well throw in the measuring sticks and make it a loss leader so that it is playable out of the box, given that you are likely to be getting new customers interested in Episode VII particularly rather than Star Wars generally.
Then I misunderstood what you meant by "updated rules," so my apologies. There have been calls for a ver2.0 of X-Wing elsewhere on the web so that is what I thought you were talking about. However, I don't see FFG reprinting the original pilot cards with new names and pictures. I think they will be unique to the T-70 X-Wing but will come with either an X-wing title of modification that works on the regular T-65 X-wing.
Still, I think think it is more of a Aces-style pack with "fixes" for the X-wing and some new models.
Nicorex wrote: Not to get too off topic, but what is wrong with the current x-wing?
Didn't suggest it was. In fact, I said it was a kind of starter set for the faction aimed at existing players.
With a hypothetical Episode VII non-wave release, the target would primarily be new players.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Then I misunderstood what you meant by "updated rules," so my apologies. There have been calls for a ver2.0 of X-Wing elsewhere on the web so that is what I thought you were talking about.
No worries; like Nicroex (and you?), I don't see a need for Second Edition and I don't think that is market feasible, either.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: However, I don't see FFG reprinting the original pilot cards with new names and pictures.
Me either, except for generic pilots (given Ace packs also come with generic reprints albeit with the same art). I think FFG would more likely make up completely new pilot abilities for Episode VII characters. But I don't know if the T-70 needs different stats, except maybe price (which is a stat IMO rather than the liquid value of other stats); one could argue the stat increments aren't fine enough to distinguish between T-65s and T-70s. One of the new upgrade cards in the box could be called "T-70" and work like TIE/x1, giving a systems upgrade subsidy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nicorex wrote: Do the other aces packs use multiple numbers?
Sorry just saw this. Every X-Wing product has a SKU (stock keeping unit) number with the SWX prefix. The starter set is SWX01, the GR-75 is SXW11, Imperial Aces is SWX21, and so on.
SWX20 is "missing" because it was the cancelled tile set.
Didn't suggest it was. In fact, I said it was a kind of starter set for the faction aimed at existing players.
With a hypothetical Episode VII non-wave release, the target would primarily be new players.
Yeah, but it's in FFG's best interest to retain the current starter set even with the addition of TFA ships.
"Hey, guy that likes the new T-70 X-wing... do you want to play a fun game with it? Good! Buy this expansion pack and while you're at it check out the X-Wing Miniatures core set!"
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: However, I don't see FFG reprinting the original pilot cards with new names and pictures.
Me either, except for generic pilots (given Ace packs also come with generic reprints albeit with the same art). I think FFG would more likely make up completely new pilot abilities for Episode VII characters. But I don't know if the T-70 needs different stats, except maybe price (which is a stat IMO rather than the liquid value of other stats); one could argue the stat increments aren't fine enough to distinguish between T-65s and T-70s. One of the new upgrade cards in the box could be called "T-70" and work like TIE/x1, giving a systems upgrade subsidy.
The T-70 X-wing is going to have to have different stats (and possibly dial) than the T-65 X-wing, just like he TIE Advanced and the upcoming TIE Adv. Prototype.
I think FFG would keep the current starter in print even if they did a Force Awakens version as well (putting the updated rulebook in further runs of the original starter of course). This is because, it would still have a ton of value as a "classic" era product. Plus, with different pilots and upgrades between the two sets, customers would probably want both!
How can I be so sure?
Because we established way back in 2012 that buying multiple copies of the starter set is a no-brainer!
And of course all of us existing addicts would certainly buy 1-3 Episode VII starters!
I don't think the TIE Adv Proto proves anything as to whether the T-70 needs different A/A/H/S stats from a T-65. Don't be fooled by the name, the relationship between the TAP and the TIE Adv that Vader flew does not seem to be analogous to that between the T-65 and T-70.
Manchu wrote: I don't think the TIE Adv Proto proves anything as to whether the T-70 needs different A/A/H/S stats from a T-65. Don't be fooled by the name, the relationship between the TAP and the TIE Adv that Vader flew does not seem to be analogous to that between the T-65 and T-70.
How is it not?
Game-wise, the TIE Adv. Prototype is an "upgraded" version of the TIE Advanced much like the T-70 X-wing will be an "upgraded" version of the T-65 X-wing. The TIE Adv. Prototype has a stat line of 2/3/2/2 with an action bar that consists of Focus, Target Lock, Barrel Roll, and Boost. The TIE Advanced has a stat line of 2/3/3/2 and an action bar that consists of Focus, Target Lock, Barrel Roll, and Evade. Both can only equip a missile upgrade on their stock models. Of course we haven't seen the TIE Adv. Prototype dial yet, but I would imagine it will similar to the TIE Advanced but still different (perhaps with the 1 turn, which the TIE Advanced lacks).
The current X-wing has a 3/2/3/2 stat line and an action bar that only has a Focus and Target Lock. Stock pilots can have Astromech and Torpedo upgrades. I would imagine the T-70 will have a stat line of something like 3/2/3/3 and an action bar with Focus, Target Lock, Evade, and Boost. Stock upgrades are probably going to be Astromech, Torpedo, and Systems Upgrade.
"TIE Advanced" is a designation for a whole family of very different ships. Besides the TAP and Vader's TIE, that designation also covers the Avenger and Defender. In other words, Vader's TIE is not just the next model year of the TAP; no more so than the Defender is a couple of model years down the line from Vader's fighter. (Also, you can't really argue that the ships are related because of their stat lines -- the TAP shares more in common with the A-Wing than the TIE Adv x1).
However, that is exactly what the T-70 seems to be in relation to the T-65. Granted, I am making an assumption here because we don't have a lot of info about the T-70 yet. But just based on what we do know, it seems like the T-70 is an updated T-65 rather than one of a number of distinct design experiments, as with the TAP and TIE Adv x1 (and Avenger and Defender).
In addition to this kind of thing, which is mostly a matter of sorting out the fluff, the name of the TAP is already causing mechanical confusion. For example: there is a big argument right now about whether the TIE/x1 title can be applied to the TAP because that card says "TIE Advanced Only" rather than "TIE Advanced x1 Only." It's a pity the writers of Rebels did not give the ship a more distinctive name.
Manchu wrote: "TIE Advanced" is a designation for a whole family of very different ships. Besides the TAP and Vader's TIE, that designation also covers the Avenger and Defender. In other words, Vader's TIE is not just the next model year of the TAP; no more so than the Defender is a couple of model years down the line from Vader's fighter. (Also, you can't really argue that the ships are related because of their stat lines -- the TAP shares more in common with the A-Wing than the TIE Adv x1).
However, that is exactly what the T-70 seems to be in relation to the T-65. Granted, I am making an assumption here because we don't have a lot of info about the T-70 yet. But just based on what we do know, it seems like the T-70 is an updated T-65 rather than one of a number of distinct design experiments, as with the TAP and TIE Adv x1 (and Avenger and Defender).
In addition to this kind of thing, which is mostly a matter of sorting out the fluff, the name of the TAP is already causing mechanical confusion. For example: there is a big argument right now about whether the TIE/x1 title can be applied to the TAP because that card says "TIE Advanced Only" rather than "TIE Advanced x1 Only." It's a pity the writers of Rebels did not give is a more distinctive name.
You're arguing more from a fluff position than I am. As far as the game goes, having two different model ships with the exact same stats is dumb and it makes sense to make them unique from each other.
Fluff wise, the TIE/ln platform was the basis of all TIE variants so every craft that isn't a TIE/ln is technically an upgraded version of the original, making them all members of the TIE-series of craft produced by Sienar Fleet Systems. The T-70 appears to based on the T-65 airframe, making it an upgraded version of the original craft.
In addition to this kind of thing, which is mostly a matter of sorting out the fluff, the name of the TAP is already causing mechanical confusion. For example: there is a big argument right now about whether the TIE/x1 title can be applied to the TAP because that card says "TIE Advanced Only" rather than "TIE Advanced x1 Only." It's a pity the writers of Rebels did not give the ship a more distinctive name.
Well, technically it is the TIE Adv. Prototype on the pilot cards. Totally different ships
Ah come now, we should at least be able to agree that there is a clear difference between the "TIE Advanced" family of design projects (much less the whole TIE family) on the one hand and a vintage X-Wing versus a modern X-Wing on the other. Among TIEs, there seem to be two tiers (as it were) of design tropes: (a) swarm fighters (e.g., TIE/LN, TIE/IN, TIE/D[roid]) and (b) elite fighters (e.g., the various TIE Advanced projects, TIE Phantom). The most obvious distinguishing characteristic is shields. The shielded "elite-tier" Imperial fighters are limited production models based on highly distinctive designs. Sienar seems to have been trying a lot of different things ... probably because they were making so many billions of credits mass-producing the swarm-tier Imperial star fighters. (And keep in mind, the Empire's response to the T-65 was the Interceptor rather than a shielded TIE variant!)
Meanwhile, the T-70 occupies the exact same role as the T-65. Just looking at the T-70, it's easy to see it's a sleeker T-65. Now that's not to say there could not be a ship in that role so much more advanced than a T-65 that it would have different stats. That ship already exists of course! The E-Wing (3/3/3/3 with Target Lock, Focus, Barrel Roll, and Evade and a Systems Upgrade slot). And I'm also not trying to be too rigid about this, since it is all speculation one way or the other. My point is, there is really no reason the T-70 needs to be a distinct ship rather than a title card like TIE/x1. It's certainly possible that FFG could produce the T-70 as something almost but not quite the same as the T-65; for example, just adding Boost to the T-65's action bar. But the T-65 and T-70 are both X-Wings. The unfortunately named TAP is not actually a "TIE Advanced" -- or rather, it is but that doesn't mean much at all, considering the Defender is also actually a "TIE Advanced" (in fluff terms).
Crazy_Carnifex wrote: Well, technically it is the TIE Adv. Prototype on the pilot cards.
And it is TIE Advanced x1 on the pilot cards for the other ship. So ...
Manchu wrote: Ah come now, we should at least be able to agree that there is a clear difference between the "TIE Advanced" family of design projects (much less the whole TIE family) on the one hand and a vintage X-Wing versus a modern X-Wing on the other. Among TIEs, there seem to be two tiers (as it were) of design tropes: (a) swarm fighters (e.g., TIE/LN, TIE/IN, TIE/D[roid]) and (b) elite fighters (e.g., the various TIE Advanced projects, TIE Phantom). The most obvious distinguishing characteristic is shields. The shielded "elite-tier" Imperial fighters are limited production models based on highly distinctive designs. Sienar seems to have been trying a lot of different things ... probably because they were making so many billions of credits mass-producing the swarm-tier Imperial star fighters. (And keep in mind, the Empire's response to the T-65 was the Interceptor rather than a shielded TIE variant!)
This "tier" thing you're talking about is something you've essentially made up. Every craft designed and built after the TIE/ln is just an improved upon version of the original craft.
Meanwhile, the T-70 occupies the exact same role as the T-65. Just looking at the T-70, it's easy to see it's a sleeker T-65. Now that's not to say there could not be a ship in that role so much more advanced than a T-65 that it would have different stats. That ship already exists of course! The E-Wing (3/3/3/3 with Target Lock, Focus, Barrel Roll, and Evade and a Systems Upgrade slot). And I'm also not trying to be too rigid about this, since it is all speculation one way or the other. My point is, there is really no reason the T-70 needs to be a distinct ship rather than a title card like TIE/x1. It's certainly possible that FFG could produce the T-70 as something almost but not quite the same as the T-65; for example, just adding Boost to the T-65's action bar. But the T-65 and T-70 are both X-Wings. The unfortunately named TAP is not actually a "TIE Advanced" -- or rather, it is but that doesn't mean much at all, considering the Defender is also actually a "TIE Advanced" (in fluff terms)..
Okay, but the T-70 is a different craft than the T-65, which is why it will have different stats, action bar, and upgrades. Fluff wise, if it were just an "improved" version, it would carry a title/modification like the B-wing/E2 or like the current X-wing, which is a T-65B. The new T-70 is a distinctly different model than the older T-65B which goes hand and hand with it having different stats in the game... on top of it being dumb that two distinct ships with different names would have the exact some stats, upgrades, and action bars.
In addition to this kind of thing, which is mostly a matter of sorting out the fluff, the name of the TAP is already causing mechanical confusion. For example: there is a big argument right now about whether the TIE/x1 title can be applied to the TAP because that card says "TIE Advanced Only" rather than "TIE Advanced x1 Only." It's a pity the writers of Rebels did not give the ship a more distinctive name.
The TIE Adv. Prototype should not be able to use the TIE/x1 title because of what I wrote above.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: This "tier" thing you're talking about is something you've essentially made up.
Well actually it's something I have noticed rather than made up. I did not claim that my two tiers are something Vader and Palpatine chat about in-universe or anything like that. It's a distinction I'm drawing for the purposes of this conversation to clarify (for you and others reading these posts) that the family of shielded TIEs do not form a linear progression of successor models to the TIE/LN -- unlike how the T-70 X-Wing is just another X-Wing in succession from the T-65 X-Wing. Vader's TIE/x1 may be "better" (on a one-for-one level) than a TIE/LN but it was not developed to replace the TIE/LN, which by extreme contrast was designed for swarm tactics.
Sure, let's keep in mind that we agree the T-65 and T-70s are different models. But let's also keep in mind that they are different models of X-Wings. AFAIK we don't have any precedent for how FFG handles different iterations of the same ship. Again, FFG could certainly create a different ship card for the T-70. I don't know what they'll do (my crystal ball has never worked reliably). I just think it would be perfectly reasonable from a marketing perspective, from a gaming perspective, and from a fluff perspective, if they just put a different (i.e, T-70) sculpt in the box and gave us a title or mod to somehow fix X-Wings (including the T-65 sculpt).
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Actually, only Darth Vader's pilot card says "TIE Advanced x1". Maarek Steele and the generics just say "TIE Advanced."
Good catch. So would you say Vader does not qualify for the TIE/x1 title card?
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: This "tier" thing you're talking about is something you've essentially made up.
Well actually it's something I have noticed rather than made up. I did not claim that my two tiers are something from the fluff. It's a distinction I'm drawing to clarify (for you and others reading these posts) that the family of shielded TIEs do not form a linear progression of successor models to the TIE/LN -- unlike how the T-70 X-Wing is just another X-Wing in succession from the T-65 X-Wing. Vader's TIE/x1 may be "better" (on a one-for-one level) than a TIE/LN but it was not developed to replace the TIE/LN, which by extreme contrast was designed for swarm tactics.
Sure, let's keep in mind that we agree the T-65 and T-70s are different models. But let's also keep in mind that they are different models of X-Wings. SFAIK we don't have any precedent for how FFG handles different iterations of the same ship. Again, FFG could certainly create a different ship card for the T-70. I don't know what they'll do (my crystal ball has never worked reliably). I just think it would be perfectly reasonable from a marketing perspective, from a gaming perspective, and from a fluff perspective, if they just put a different sculpt in the box and gave us a title or mod to somehow fix X-Wings.
Still, every subsequent TIE after the TIE/ln is based on the airframe of the original craft, regardless of whether it had shields or not. Besides, they all the the same TIE prefix and therefore belong in the same family of craft.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Actually, only Darth Vader's pilot card says "TIE Advanced x1". Maarek Steele and the generics just say "TIE Advanced."
Good catch. So would you say Vader does not qualify for the TIE/x1 title card?
I would argue the effect the title grants should be baked into Lord Vader's pilot card. Not that it really matters because the title has point cost, unless you didn't want to drop the money on the Raider.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Still, every subsequent TIE after the TIE/ln is based on the airframe of the original craft, regardless of whether it had shields or not. Besides, they all the the same TIE prefix and therefore belong in the same family of craft.
This airframe line is a new argument but I'm not sure if it means anything honestly. But as to your original line that every subsequent TIE is just an improvement of the TIE/LN, not at all. As in the example I already explained: the TIE/x1 is actually not an improvement over the TIE/LN so far as the actual strategic role of the TIE/LN goes. Put it another way, the TIE/x1 is not the "TIE/LN Mark II" -- but the T-70 is indeed the equivalent of a "Mark II" for the T-65. And does the fact that the Y-Wing, X-Wing, A-Wing, B-Wing, E-Wing, and K-Wing all share the "-Wing" designation put them all in the same "family"? Obviously not. Admittedly, TIEs have more in common than the various "wings." But this notion of family doesn't seem relevant in the first place. What actually qualifies a ship as being in the "TIE family"? (1) It was manufactured by SFS; [TIE Droids were not manufactured byt SRS] (1) its propulsion system; (2) its solar panels. But simply sharing these broad features (which presumably constitute what you mean by "airframe") doesn't show a relationship between TIEs equivalent to that between an older X-Wing and a newer X-Wing.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: I would argue the effect the title grants should be baked into Lord Vader's pilot card.
But it isn't baked in. I don't really follow this response. My question was, should Vader (as he currently is) be able to take the TIE/x1 title given that card says "TIE Advanced only" and Vader's card says "TIE Advanced x1" rather than "TIE Advanced"? Because the argument people are making for the TAP is, its name contains "TIE Advanced" and the TIE/x1 requirement only requires that the ship have those words in its name, regardless of additional terms (like x1 and Prototype).
One more analogy as to the various "TIE Advanced" ships. "Advanced" seems to be something like "X" in real-world US aircraft designation.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Still, every subsequent TIE after the TIE/ln is based on the airframe of the original craft, regardless of whether it had shields or not. Besides, they all the the same TIE prefix and therefore belong in the same family of craft.
This airframe line is a new argument but I'm not sure if it means anything honestly. But as to your original line that every subsequent TIE is just an improvement of the TIE/LN, not at all. As in the example I already explained: the TIE/x1 is actually not an improvement over the TIE/LN so far as the actual strategic role of the TIE/LN goes. Put it another way, the TIE/x1 is not the "TIE/LN Mark II" -- but the T-70 is indeed the equivalent of a "Mark II" for the T-65. And does the fact that the Y-Wing, X-Wing, A-Wing, B-Wing, E-Wing, and K-Wing all share the "-Wing" designation put them all in the same "family"? Obviously not.
Your "-wing defense" doesn't hold water since they were all made by different manufacturers (the B-wing was built by Slayn & Korpil, the Y and K-wings were built by Koensayr Manufacturing, the X and A-wings by the Incom Corporation, and the E-wing by FreiTek Inc.) and the "wing" names are all based on the (supposed) resemblance to a letter, whereas all TIE-series craft are produced by Sienar Fleet Systems and all follow a similar design cue. Also, the "airframe argument" isn't new, I've been saying since we started debating this and it's true: every TIE-series craft is based on the TIE/ln airframe, something that is well established in the canon.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: I would argue the effect the title grants should be baked into Lord Vader's pilot card.
But it isn't baked in. I don't really follow this response. My question was, should Vader (as he currently is) be able to take the TIE/x1 title given that card says "TIE Advanced only" and Vader's card says "TIE Advanced x1" rather than "TIE Advanced"? Because the argument people are making for the TAP is, its name contains "TIE Advanced" and the TIE/x1 requirement only requires that the ship have those words in its name, regardless of additional terms (like x1 and Prototype).
One more analogy as to the various "TIE Advanced" ships. "Advanced" seems to be something like "X" in real-world US aircraft designation.
I'm saying the effect the title card gives should be auto-included into Vader's existing pilot card without the need for the physical title card that comes with the Raider, based solely on the fact that he alone has the TIE Advanced x1 ship name on his pilot card. Obviously FFG isn't going to allow that because they want people to buy the Raider so my response was more tongue-in-cheek than anything. Also, anyone that is going to seriously argue that Vader can't equip that title card on his ship is a jackass.
Anyway, the TIE Adv. Prototype won't be able to use the TIE/x1 title because it's pretty clear that FFG made that card to go only with the TIE Advanced expansion pack. Besides, the TIE Adv. Prototype comes with its own TIE/v1 title card that can only be equipped on that ship.
I anticipated some of your arguments and edited my post above before you posted.
As to the rest -- if "TIE Advanced only" can include "TIE Advanced x1" then I don't see why how/why it could not also include "TIE Advanced Prototype." Either way, FFG needs to FAQ it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: To steer a bit back to the issue of Force Awakens, I have been positing:
SWX36: Force Awakens Starter Set
SWX37: Force Awakens X-Wing
SWX38: Force Awakens TIE Fighter
where the ship stats remain the same but they come with new pilots and upgrade cards.
Another possibility is that, instead of a revised starter, there could be a revised MilFalc (w/square dish). This could be a way to get more new characters from Episode VII into the game as crew cards. Finn and Rey, for example, don't necessarily seem to be starship pilots (then again, neither was Luke until Act III of Episode IV).
Manchu wrote: I anticipated some of your arguments and edited my post above before you posted.
Okay. However you try and spin it, it's a fact that all the craft were are descended from the original TIE/ln, which is what I've been saying all night and for whatever reason you just can't accept.
Anyway, when they introduce the First Order TIE to the game, it will have a different stat line just like the T-70 X-wing will because they are different ships. The First Order TIE will probably have a crew slot as well, based on the the toy version revealed last month.
As to the rest -- if "TIE Advanced only" can include "TIE Advanced x1" then I don't see why how/why it could not also include "TIE Advanced Prototype." Either way, FFG needs to FAQ it.
Why can it not include the new ship? Because it's pretty clear that the TIE/x1 title works with the ship/pilots from the expansion pack called "TIE Advanced Expansion Pack" and the recently announced TIE/v1 title works with the TIE Adv. Prototype because they are two distinct ships. It's asinine to claim that because both ships have the word "Advanced" in their name that all upgrade cards to also have that in their title or description can use them as well.
As far as Vader's card is concerned, it was a pretty clearly a nod by FFG to the fact that Vader had the original (and only) TIE/x1 and obviously they didn't not anticipate that three years after they released the expansion pack that there would be a need to add a special title to ship and at the time it was released, the x1 designation meant nothing in terms of the game. To show this point further, the alt art Darth Vader card does not the x1 on the ship title and the maneuver dial doesn't either (which is the most important part). On top of all of that, FFG plainly said in the article talking about the title that Darth Vader can equip it on his ship.
But of course it's going to be FAQ'd because people like to argue stupid gak that makes perfect sense to most people. It's the same as saying I should be able to use the B-wing/E2 modification on my X-wing because both ships and cards have the word "wing" on them.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: which is what I've been saying all night and for whatever reason you just can't accept
I accept that all TIEs use solar panels and similar propulsion. What you have consistently failed to explain is how this is relevant. A TIE Defender or a TIE Bomber are not kinds of TIE/LNs. By contrast, a T-65 and a T-70 are kinds of X-Wings. "For whatever reason you just can't accept that."
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: It's the same as saying I should be able to use the B-wing/E2 modification on my X-wing because both ships and cards have the word "wing" on them.
It is nothing like that. In fact, your argument on this issue seems to contradict your argument that the TAP is to the the ship flown by, for example, Merek Steele as the T-65 is to the T-70. The B-Wing/E2 card says "B-Wing only." An X-Wing is not a B-Wing so an X-Wing cannot take B-Wing/E2. The TIE/x1 card says "TIE Advanced only." So if the TAP cannot use the TIE/x1 card, it must be because it is not a TIE Advanced. Which brings us back to my point:
Manchu wrote: Don't be fooled by the name, the relationship between the TAP and the TIE Adv that Vader flew does not seem to be analogous to that between the T-65 and T-70.
Given the level of certainty in these statements
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: The T-70 X-wing is going to have to have different stats (and possibly dial) than the T-65 X-wing
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Anyway, when they introduce the First Order TIE to the game, it will have a different stat line just like the T-70 X-wing will
I have to ask whether you are playtesting these ships or what kind of inside information you are privy to otherwise.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: which is what I've been saying all night and for whatever reason you just can't accept
I accept that all TIEs use solar panels and similar propulsion. What you have consistently failed to explain is how this is relevant. A TIE Defender or a TIE Bomber are not kinds of TIE/LNs. By contrast, a T-65 and a T-70 are kinds of X-Wings. "For whatever reason you just can't accept that."
It's relavant because all TIE-series craft are related to one another, something you admit and then disregard for reasons. The TIE/ln is a specific craft, as is the TIE Bomber and TIE Defender, yet they are all part of the TIE-series of ships, hence all related and based upon a common airframe (the TIE/ln). On the bottom level, SFS took the base of a TIE fighter and added new gak to it to make it "better" (or more accurately: better at different roles), which is where all different TIE-series craft come from. The same thing has been done in real life too. Look at the M4 Sherman tank from WWII, itself based on the M3 Lee tank. The M4 platform went on be the basis of numerous other vehicles such as the M10 tank destroyer, the M7 self-propelled howitzer, M36 tank destroyer, M12 Gun Motor Carriage. All of these vehicles were unique and served different roles but were still members of the M4 family of variants, based on the same initial platform.
Still, it would not make any sense for two physically dissimilar and distinct models in the game to be identical in terms of stats and upgrades. Any new version of X-wings and TIE fighters will have different stats, action bars, and upgrade bars. There is no compelling in-game reason for them not too.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: It's the same as saying I should be able to use the B-wing/E2 modification on my X-wing because both ships and cards have the word "wing" on them.
It is nothing like that. In fact, your argument on this issue seems to contradict your argument that the TAP is to the the ship flown by, for example, Merek Steele as the T-65 is to the T-70. The B-Wing/E2 card says "B-Wing only." An X-Wing is not a B-Wing so an X-Wing cannot take B-Wing/E2. The TIE/x1 card says "TIE Advanced only." So if the TAP cannot use the TIE/x1 card, it must be because it is not a TIE Advanced. Which brings us back to my point:
Manchu wrote: Don't be fooled by the name, the relationship between the TAP and the TIE Adv that Vader flew does not seem to be analogous to that between the T-65 and T-70.
See, this is where you are confusing your interpretation of Star Wars canon and mechanics of the the game.
The TIE Advance and TIE Adv. Prototype are two distinct ships in terms of the game, as evidenced by their ship cards and maneuver dials. It makes logical sense that a card that says "TIE Advanced only. Title." will only work on a ship that is called "TIE Advanced" and a card that says "TIE Adv. Prototype only. Title." will only work on a ship called "TIE Adv. Prototype." The same goes with Adv. Targeting Computer upgrade card because it clearly states that it can only be equipped on a ship called "TIE Advanced" of which there is only one in the game. To argue otherwise is just illogical.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: I have to ask whether you are playtesting these ships or what kind of inside information you are privy to otherwise.
We know precisely what the TIEs have in common: propulsion technology and solar panels. But they very clearly do not, like the WW2 tanks you mention, share the same chassis or "airframe" (to use your phrase). This is reflected even in mechanical terms: some TIEs are more fragile and some are more sturdy. This is because their "airframes" are sometimes radically distinct from one another structurally. But what makes these otherwise dissimilar ships TIEs nonethless? Propulsion tech and solar panels. At that level of generality, all WW2 tanks belong to the same "family" given they all had internal combustion engines and ran on oil-derived fuel.
Let's face the facts, the real reason TIEs look similar is because they have been designed by art departments to look similar. You can't reason from that fact to the bizarre notion that every TIE is just a TIE/LN variant similar to how how every Sherman was a M4 variant.
Now your analogy makes somewhat more sense applied to the X-Wings: like the M4 variants you mention, the T-65 and T-70 appear to share the same chassis (as it were). That is, the two are related in a much deeper way than the disparate varieties of TIEs. But of course they are: they are both X-Wings! That's the key point. That is why I hold that FFG could release a T-70 sculpt with a new ship card with different stats OR it could release a T-70 sculpt with the same stats as the current X-Wing. Nothing about the mechanics of the game necessitate that variants of the same ship have different stats. And nothing prevents it, either. In fact, the way FFG has handled variants so far is through upgrade cards (albeit without variant sculpts).
And there are good reasons not to split the X-Wing, as a matter of ship cards, into the X-Wing and the X-Wing T-70. For example, there is not a great deal of design space in a game where stat values for small ships range from zero to five and there are only four main stats. Having a separate X-Wing T-70 set of stats is a waste of already limited design space. Related to that point, the X-Wing is currently in need of a fix. Releasing another X-Wing could easily undermine any attempt to fix the existing one. If the X-Wing is effectively fixed, why take a X-Wing T-70? If the X-Wing T-70 is a better choice than an X-Wing, then the X-Wing can hardly be said called fixed as it's just been undermined all over again. The only way around this is if the X-Wing T-70 plays a much different role from the existing X-Wing, which makes no sense.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: See, this is where you are confusing your interpretation of Star Wars canon and mechanics of the the game.
Not so. Let me try to explain it in another way: let's assume FFG releases a X-Wing T-70 as distinct from the X-Wing. If they also print an upgrade that says "X-Wing only" then which ship(s) can take it? Please assume this upgrade is packaged with the X-Wing T-70.
Manchu wrote: We know precisely what the TIEs have in common: propulsion technology and solar panels. But they very clearly do not, like the WW2 tanks you mention, share the same chassis or "airframe" (to use your phrase). This is reflected even in mechanical terms: some TIEs are more fragile and some are more sturdy. This is because their "airframes" are sometimes radically distinct from one another structurally. But what makes these otherwise dissimilar ships TIEs nonethless? Propulsion tech and solar panels. At that level of generality, all WW2 tanks belong to the same "family" given they all had internal combustion engines and ran on oil-derived fuel.
They all share the same cockpit ball, which is the airframe that all TIE-series ships are based around (like the chassis of a tank).
Let's face the facts, the real reason TIEs look similar is because they have been designed by art departments to look similar. You can't reason from that fact to the bizarre notion that every TIE is just a TIE/LN variant similar to how how every Sherman was a M4 variant.
There are Sherman models and Sherman variants, two distinctly different things. Sherman models are updates to the existing M4 Sherman tank itself and the variants are separate vehicles based on the M4 chassis. In the context of Star Wars, the T-65B is a model of the T-65 space superiority fighter, while the T-70 is a variant of that ship based on the T-65 airframe. The two X-wings have the same basic shape and four cannons and that's about it (as far as we know)
Now your analogy makes somewhat more sense applied to the X-Wings: like the M4 variants you mention, the T-65 and T-70 appear to share the same chassis (as it were). That is, the two are related in a much deeper way than the disparate varieties of TIEs. But of course they are: they are both X-Wings! That's the key point. That is why I hold that FFG could release a T-70 sculpt with a new ship card with different stats OR it could release a T-70 sculpt with the same stats as the current X-Wing. Nothing about the mechanics of the game necessitate that variants of the same ship have different stats. And nothing prevents it, either.
See above for the first point. You're right, nothing prevents it but there is a precedence that it will be the way I'm saying it will be.
And there are good reasons not to split the X-Wing, as a matter of ship cards, into the X-Wing and the X-Wing T-70. For example, there is not a great deal of design space in a game where stat values for small ships range from zero to five and there are only four main stats. Having a separate X-Wing T-70 set of stats is a waste of already limited design space. Related to that point, the X-Wing is currently in need of a fix. Releasing another X-Wing could easily undermine any attempt to fix the existing one. If the X-Wing is effectively fixed, why take a X-Wing T-70? If the X-Wing T-70 is a better choice than an X-Wing, then the X-Wing can hardly be said called fixed as it's just been undermined all over again. The only way around this is if the X-Wing T-70 plays a much different role from the existing X-Wing, which makes no sense.
Except here again, my idea has precedence. The TIE Punisher is the TIE Bomber but "better," so FFG is will to do what I am talking about: release a ship that is essentially the same thing that we already have but make it different enough for people to want to play it and also come with cards to buff it's predecessor. They also kind of did it with the E-wing which is pretty a "better" X-wing (both in the canon and the game).
Back to the TIE/x1 card -- let's assume FFG releases a X-Wing T-70 as distinct from the X-Wing. If they also print an upgrade that says "X-Wing only" then which ship(s) can take it?
It would depend on how it is worded, but probably not the new ship. The new X-wing might have something native to it that a title or modification card would grant the old X-wing (like a Systems Upgrade) or the new X-wing will have a different name and therefore anything that says "X-wing only. Title." will only work on the original ship.
Of course, they may never release a "fix" for the old X-wing and this talk is for naught.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Now that I think about it, comparing the T-65B to the T-70 is like comparing the F-22 to the F-35: both are made by the same contractor, very similar in design yet still distinct, both have similar roles with some overlap (the T-65B is multirole and I'm imagining the T-70 to be more of a true space superiority fighter).
Now if you translates both of these jets to the tabletop, they would different but similar stats to keep them unique.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Now that I think about it, comparing the T-65B to the T-70 is like comparing the F-22 to the F-35: both are made by the same contractor, very similar in design yet still distinct, both have similar roles with some overlap (the T-65B is multirole and I'm imagining the T-70 to be more of a true space superiority fighter).
Now if you translates both of these jets to the tabletop, they would different but similar stats to keep them unique.
I wouldn't be so sure. I think that comparing the F-18 Hornet to the Super Hornet may be nearer too the mark (they are nearly the same, one is just updated), except the Rebels are nice enough to not make things confusing.
Riquende wrote: Which ships can equip the TIE Mk.II mod? There are no ships just called 'TIE' after all, so what does TIE only mean?
I think a difference here is that all TIE's have TIE in their name, whereas FFG seems to be trying to avoid giving the TIE Advanced Prototype an actual "TIE Advanced" in its name (It is referred to as the Inquisitors TIE on the box and TIE Adv. Prototype on the game pieces). By assuming you must meet the entire text of the requirement, but may have additional text, TIE's get the MKII engines, Normal TIE Advanced's get the X-1 Title, and Vader can take the X-1 title despite the fact his ship isn't a TIE Advanced (Because it includes the "TIE Advanced" text requirement, and adds the X-1). However, because the Inquisitor TIE lacks the "-anced" suffix, it does not meet the full text requirement. Hypothetically, you could add a "TIE Adv only" title, which would affect either the TIE Advanced or the TIE Advanced Prototype, or a "TIE Advanced X-1 only" upgrade, which could affect a TIE Advanced with the title, or Darth Vader without title.
There is also the fact that the MKII's are a modification, not a title, and titles are all restricted to a certain class of fighter (Although it would be interesting to shake that up).
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: They all share the same cockpit ball, which is the airframe that all TIE-series ships are based around (like the chassis of a tank).
No they don't. The TIE Fighter and TIE Interceptor do, but what about the Bomber? Or the Advanced? The best you can say is that they share a window design.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: They all share the same cockpit ball, which is the airframe that all TIE-series ships are based around (like the chassis of a tank).
No they don't. The TIE Fighter and TIE Interceptor do, but what about the Bomber? Or the Advanced? The best you can say is that they share a window design.
They're modifications on the same cockpit ball. The TIE Bomber is the most unique and the primary practical reason for that is ILM re-purposed an existing model when they were making The Empire Strikes Back . In-universe, the elongated cockpit tube holds the upgraded sensors and power plant.
The Advanced is the exact same cockpit ball but with the back piece attached to it which contained the shield generator, hyperdrive, and larger power plant.
Crazy_Carnifex wrote: I wouldn't be so sure. I think that comparing the F-18 Hornet to the Super Hornet may be nearer too the mark (they are nearly the same, one is just updated), except the Rebels are nice enough to not make things confusing.
I still think the F-22/F-35 is a better parallel... it even shares the idea of changing the number designation.
Riquende wrote: I had not noticed that it was "adv.". Maybe that does make all the difference, but it wouldn't hurt to get this spelled out somewhere.
It does make the difference and I'm sure it will be addressed in the FAQ, even though I don't think it should have to be since it's pretty clear what FFG is intending with these titles.
There are two ships in game, one called the TIE Advanced and the other called the TIE Adv. Prototype. There are two titles: the TIE/x1 with a sub header that reads TIE Advanced only. Title and the TIE/v1 with a sub header that reads TIE Adv. Prototype only. Title. It's abundantly clear that the former title can only be legally equipped on the ship called the TIE Advanced and the latter title on a ship called the TIE Adv. Prototype. There is no logical argument for it to be any other way.
Very true ... and then there's the Phantom, which is totally different. The various TIEs clearly do not all share the same "airframe." What they share, out-of-universe, are certain visual cues like solar panels and a web-like cockpit window frame because concept artists want us to be able to tell at a glance which ships are Imperial.
No, the TIE/IT is a completely different ship, not just a "TIE/SA Mark II." Similarly, the E-Wing is not just an X-Wing tweaked by Incom. The E-Wing was not even designed and built by Incom. But the X-Wing T-70, however, is a X-Wing. The precedent for distinguishing different models of the same ship is to do so by upgrade cards: for example, the B-Wing/E2 or BTL-A4 Y-Wing.
Manchu wrote: let's assume FFG releases a X-Wing T-70 as distinct from the X-Wing. If they also print an upgrade that says "X-Wing only" then which ship(s) can take it? Please assume this upgrade is packaged with the X-Wing T-70.
In our hypothetical, the wording of the upgrade is "X-Wing only" and the name of the new ship is "X-Wing T-70." Given that, can you explain why you think the X-Wing T-70 could not take that upgrade even considering, in our hypothetical, the upgrade comes with that ship?
There certainly is. The argument is that the upgrade only requires that the subject ship has the term "TIE Advanced" in its name, regardless of any additional terms, just as Twin Ion Engine Mk. II only requires that the subject ship has the term TIE in its name, regardless of any additional terms.
Very true ... and then there's the Phantom, which is totally different. The various TIEs clearly do not all share the same "airframe." What they share, out-of-universe, are certain visual cues like solar panels and a web-like cockpit window frame because concept artists want us to be able to tell at a glance which ships are Imperial.
Ah, now we have moved on to using the exception as the rule. However, the Phantom is most definitely a member of the TIE-series of ships and is based on TIE technology. But whatever, carry on.
No, the TIE/IT is a completely different ship, not just a "TIE/SA Mark II." Similarly, the E-Wing is not just an X-Wing tweaked by Incom. The E-Wing was not even designed and built by Incom. But the X-Wing T-70, however, is a X-Wing. The precedent for distinguishing different models of the same ship is to do so by upgrade cards: for example, the B-Wing/E2 or BTL-A4 Y-Wing.
True, the Punisher is a different ship; it's an upgraded version of the TIE Bomber. I don't have the sourcebook Stay on Target, which apparently goes into the history of the craft but if you do please explain how it isn't instead of instantly dismissing what I said.
As far as the E-wing goes... FreiTek was founded by ex-Incom employees and the two companies were merged after Incom was liberated from the Empire.
Manchu wrote: In our hypothetical, the wording of the upgrade is "X-Wing only" and the name of the new ship is "X-Wing T-70." Given that, can you explain why you think the X-Wing T-70 could not take that upgrade even considering, in our hypothetical, the upgrade comes with that ship?
It all depends on how it's worded or what the upgrade card offers. If it's a title card it won't be able to be used on two separate models. If it's a modification, then yes (see below).
After having slept on it, I don't think FFG will even fix the old X-wing (which really isn't as bad as people say) and will instead focus on a new unique X-wing with different stats, actions, and upgrades. The current X-wing is seeing some competitive play. In fact, the winning list at GenCon featured two X-wings: Wedge and a Red Squadron Pilot.
There certainly is. The argument is that the upgrade only requires that the subject ship has the term "TIE Advanced" in its name, regardless of any additional terms, just as Twin Ion Engine Mk. II only requires that the subject ship has the term TIE in its name, regardless of any additional terms.
No, there really isn't a logical argument that the two different ships can equip title upgrade cards that are clearly meant for one and not the other. Both title cards are meant to go with a specific, individual ship in the game and it is obvious that intent is quite clear. The TIE only modification is clearly meant to modify any TIE-series ships. The bottom line is that the game has always restricted title cards to only one type of ship, regardless of whether they are unique titles or not.
To say otherwise is to throw logic out of the window and try to justify what clearly isn't the case using asinine pedantry. It is logically unlikely for it to be a way other than I have described it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nicorex wrote: I think this is the case. Especially since "Rebels" is 20 years (or so) prior to ANH and our first appearance of the TIE Advanced.
Rebels only takes place four years before A New Hope.
Nicorex wrote: See we think it says this. TIE Advanced, Prototype
I bet it is actually supposed to say this. TIE, Advanced Prototype
The trouble is, "TIE Advanced" is a starfighter designation. It refers to a lot of different kinds of craft, including (among others) the one piloted by the Inquisitor in Rebels, the one piloted by Darth Vader, TIE Avengers, and TIE Defenders. Beyond incorporating SFS tech, these craft don't have much in common. A BTL-S3 and a BTL-A4 are both Y-Wings. A T-65 and a T-70 are both X-Wings. But a TIE Avenger is not a TIE Defender, despite them both being designated TIE Advanced. No one would argue that the Defender can take a title that says "TIE Advanced only" -- because the Defender is never labelled as a TIE Advanced on any game materials.
They could not have known then that Disney would invent another ship called the TIE/v1 but it was uncharacteristically sloppy for FFG to only correctly label Vader's ship as a TIE/x1. The error was compounded when they decided to make a Title card called TIE/x1, which is already the designation of the ship it was (we might assume) intended to upgrade. And then FFG made the further mistake of calling the TIE/v1 the TIE Advanced Prototype (or Inquisitor TIE on the packaging), seemingly for the sake of repeating the mistake of making a Title card named after the ship it upgrades. The product of this mess is an ambiguity as to the TIE/x1 card. Now, we know from the fluff to which ship that card should apply. But as a tournament-geared game, X-Wing requires tighter rule-writing and so this will need FAQing.
Manchu wrote: They could not have known then that Disney would invent another ship called the TIE/v1 but it was uncharacteristically sloppy for FFG to only correctly label Vader's ship as a TIE/x1. The error was compounded when they decided to make a Title card called TIE/x1, which is already the designation of the ship it was (we might assume) intended to upgrade. And then FFG made the further mistake of calling the TIE/v1 the TIE Advanced Prototype (or Inquisitor TIE on the packaging), seemingly for the sake of repeating the mistake of making a Title card named after the ship it upgrades. The product of this mess is an ambiguity as to the TIE/x1 card. Now, we know from the fluff to which ship that card should apply. But as a tournament-geared game, X-Wing requires tighter rule-writing and so this will need FAQing.
No. Just no. A shred of logic and understand of how titles work in this game is all that is need to understand that there is no ambiguity in the TIE/x1 title card.
Modifications and titles are special upgrades that do no appear in any ship's upgrade bar. Any ship may equip a modification or title unless the card is restricted to a specific type of ship. Each ship is limited to one modification and one title.
As I have explained numerous times already, the TIE/x1 title says "TIE Advanced only. Title." on it, meaning without a doubt that it can only be equipped the ship called TIE Advanced, which is this:
The TIE/v1 title says "TIE Adv. Prototype only. Title." on it, meaning that it can only be equipped on the ship called TIE Adv. Prototype, which is this:
If it wasn't perfectly clear already, the TIE/x1 title card even has a picture of the TIE Advanced on it:
And unsurprisingly, the TIE/v1 title card has a picture of the TIE Adv. Prototype on it (see above).
Titles in this game have always applied to only one ship type, period. There is absolutely no design precedence to all of a sudden, 3+ years after the game came out, have one title apply to multiple ship types. To claim otherwise is just ridiculous rules lawyering. While they are at it, make sure FFGFAQs the Millennium Falcon and Outrider titles, since both of those are YT-series freighters and by following the faulty logic of the TIE title should be able to equip any title for a YT-series freighter.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Manchu, if you can look at all of that and still through your hands up in the air yelling, "Nope! Too ambiguous!" then I don't know what to tell you, man.
I understand that no other title card applies to more than one ship. That is precisely what makes this a novel case, i.e., there is no direct precedent. We can reason about the novel case by appealing to different but similar cases. For example, you suggest that the MilFalc and Outrider title cards present similar situations. But in fact they do not: they are unambiguously labeled as "YT-1300 only" and "YT-2400 only."
I do not know of a rule that a title card can never apply to more than one "model" (that is, the plastic object). In fact, the current FAQ implies otherwise:
Any ship may equip a modification or title unless the card is restricted to a specific type of ship
Here the phrase "restricted to a specific type of ship" refers to modifications and titles. "Type" is clearly the crucial word here. So what does "type" mean? It cannot mean "model" because (a) the FAQ is referring to both modifications and titles and (b) we know that modifications can apply to more than one model. For example TIE Mark II applies to every ship with the term "TIE" in its name. In that example, "TIE" is the type of ship. "TIE Advanced" could also be a type for these purposes. None of the Core Rules, Tournament Rules, or FAQ state a rule that modifications and titles work differently. Maybe such a rule is printed elsewhere?
Manchu wrote: I understand that no other title card applies to more than one ship. That is precisely what makes this a novel case, i.e., there is no direct precedent. We can reason about the novel case by appealing to different but similar cases. For example, you suggest that the MilFalc and Outrider title cards present similar situations. But in fact they do not: they are unambiguously labeled as "YT-1300 only" and "YT-2400 only."
The titles we have been talking about are also unambiguously labeled as well, each one listing a particular ship that it can be equipped on. You just refuse to accept it for whatever reason.
I do not know of a rule that a title card can never apply to more than one "model" (that is, the plastic object). In fact, the current FAQ implies otherwise:
Any ship may equip a modification or title unless the card is restricted to a specific type of ship
Here the phrase "restricted to a specific type of ship" refers to modifications and titles. "Type" is clearly the crucial word here. So what does "type" mean? It cannot mean "model" because (a) the FAQ is referring to both modifications and titles and (b) we know that modifications can apply to more than one model. For example TIE Mark II applies to every ship with the term "TIE" in its name. In that example, "TIE" is the type of ship. "TIE Advanced" could also be a type for these purposes. None of the Core Rules, Tournament Rules, or FAQ state a rule that modifications and titles work differently. Maybe such a rule is printed elsewhere?
More asinine rules lawyering. Are you Peregrine in disguise?
Sorry, but the FAQ (which is just a reprint of the reference card) doesn't help your case. Every single title in the game is restricted to a single model of ship and the two in question follow that precedent because that's how "titles" work in this game (they are specific names given to a specific model).
Consider this your first and last warning: Rule One is Be Polite. Just because we are having a discussion doesn't mean I stop being a moderator or will overlook you breaking the rules.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Sorry, but the FAQ (which is just a reprint of the reference card) doesn't help your case.
Keep in mind that my "case" is simply that there is an ambiguity. And as i just explained, the FAQ does not resolve that ambiguity. Quoting a wiki doesn't prove otherwise.
FFG needs to FAQ this. IMO, the FAQ should clarify TIE/x1 only applies to the TIE Advanced pilots and not TAP pilots. I agree with you that FFG probably intended as much. I disagree that RAW are so tightly written that this is the only logical conclusion to which any reasonable person can come and explained why by citing FFG's rules.
To put things back into perspective, this whole rigamarole only came up ITT because I argued that the TIE/v1 and TIE/x1 are not related in the same way that the T-65 and T-70 are related. The TIE/v1 and the TIE/x1 are completely different ships, not just successive models of the same ship. This is (among other reasons) why, despite FFG's unfortunate choices in labeling cards, I agree with you that the TIE/x1 card can only apply to TIE Advanced pilots and not TAP pilots.
If FFG printed a title card that read "X-Wing only" then this card would apply to all X-Wings regardless of how the model is sculpted. AFAIK there is currently no rule preventing that.
Consider this your first and last warning: Rule One is Be Polite. Just because we are having a discussion doesn't mean I stop being a moderator or will overlook you breaking the rules.
I meant no offense. My jovial debating tone doesn't translate well to the written form. Hug it out?
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Sorry, but the FAQ (which is just a reprint of the reference card) doesn't help your case.
Keep in mind that my "case" is simply that there is an ambiguity. And as i just explained, the FAQ does not resolve that ambiguity. Quoting a wiki doesn't prove otherwise.
I'm not "quoting a wiki," I linked it because it's a well put together and easy to read list showing that all title upgrade cards only work on a single ship.
FFG needs to FAQ this. IMO, the FAQ should clarify TIE/x1 only applies to the TIE Advanced pilots and not TAP pilots. I agree with you that FFG probably intended as much. I disagree that RAW are so tightly written that this is the only logical conclusion to which any reasonable person can come and explained why by citing FFG's rules.
The RAW are good enough to logically come to the conclusion that I've been arguing since the start of this thread, which is how I got there. Trust me, I don't think I'm some sort of genius, I just think it's pretty clear what FFG is doing. I know that FFG will FAQ it because rule lawyers will try to put the TIE/x1 title on the TIE Adv. Prototype and argue to death about it. In a perfect world they wouldn't have to, but that's not the one we live in.
To put things back into perspective, this whole rigamarole only came up ITT because I argued that the TIE/v1 and TIE/x1 are not related in the same way that the T-65 and T-70 are related. The TIE/v1 and the TIE/x1 are completely different ships, not just successive models of the same ship. This is (among other reasons) why, despite FFG's unfortunate choices in labeling cards, I agree with you that the TIE/x1 card can only apply to TIE Advanced pilots and not TAP pilots.
The first part of that has no bearing on the mechanics of the game, something I've made pretty clear is neither here nor there.
If FFG printed a title card that read "X-Wing only" then this card would apply to all X-Wings regardless of how the model is sculpted. AFAIK there is currently no rule preventing that.
No, but they won't do it because there is no reason to nor a design precedence to do it. All titles in this game refer to a specific ship, not a "class" or "type" of ship. Personally, I don't care about hypothetical cards but in this case, everything we know about how they design titles says they won't make an X-wing title and would instead make an X-wing modification, like the TIE modification.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: it's a well put together and easy to read list showing that all title upgrade cards only work on a single ship
Sure but this is what I meant by novel case: sloppy naming conventions + TAP = new situation.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: The RAW are good enough to logically come to the conclusion that I've been arguing since the start of this thread, which is how I got there.
Except you aren't citing RAW; you're relying on circumstantial arguments:
- TIE/x1 title card pictures a TIE/x1 (but cards do not only apply to pictured ships; TIE Mk II shows a Defender for example) - TIE/x1 title card comes with a set that includes a TIE/x1 model (but cards do not only apply to the models they are packaged with) - the TIE/x1 model is packaged as a "TIE Advanced" (but packaging is inconsistent; the TIE/v1 model is packaged as "Inquisitor TIE", etc) - TIE/x1 pilots read "TIE Advanced" (except Darth Vader, who is inexplicably labeled "TIE Advanced x1") - no other title card can be taken by more than one model (so far) - TIE/v1 title card reads "TIE Adv. Prototype Only" (which honestly only necessarily means it is more restrictive than the TIE/x1 title card)
To put things back into perspective, this whole rigamarole only came up ITT because I argued that the TIE/v1 and TIE/x1 are not related in the same way that the T-65 and T-70 are related. The TIE/v1 and the TIE/x1 are completely different ships, not just successive models of the same ship. This is (among other reasons) why, despite FFG's unfortunate choices in labeling cards, I agree with you that the TIE/x1 card can only apply to TIE Advanced pilots and not TAP pilots.
The first part of that has no bearing on the mechanics of the game, something I've made pretty clear is neither here nor there.
It prospectively has something to do with game design. If you recall title cards like BTL-A4, you can see how it has already had something to do with the game's design. Remember, my argument is: there is no reason that FFG must make a distinct stat line for the T-70 because it is just another X-Wing and versions of the same ship have been simulated by both title cards (BTL-A4, Heavy Scyk, Royal Guard TIE/IN) and a modification card (B-Wing/E2).
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: All titles in this game refer to a specific ship, not a "class" or "type" of ship.
That's dead wrong as we can see from RAW:
Any ship may equip a modification or title unless the card is restricted to a specific type of ship
my emphasis
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: everything we know about how they design titles says they won't make an X-wing title and would instead make an X-wing modification
Manchu wrote: Sure but this is what I meant by novel case: sloppy naming conventions + TAP = new situation.
I don't think the naming conventions are sloppy at all and I think the cards in question are clearly written. If you need to borrow a ship from your friend and you said, "Hey, can I borrow a TIE Advanced?" would your friend bring you the TIE Adv. Prototype? No, of course not because it's not the same ship. The TIE Advanced is the name of a specific in-game ship and there is no need to further clarify it.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: The RAW are good enough to logically come to the conclusion that I've been arguing since the start of this thread, which is how I got there.
Except you aren't citing RAW; you're relying on circumstantial arguments:
- TIE/x1 title card pictures a TIE/x1 (but cards do not only apply to pictured ships; TIE Mk II shows a Defender for example)
- TIE/x1 title card comes with a set that includes a TIE/x1 model (but cards do not only apply to the models they are packaged with)
- the TIE/x1 model is packaged as a "TIE Advanced" (but packaging is inconsistent; the TIE/v1 model is packaged as "Inquisitor TIE", etc)
- TIE/x1 pilots read "TIE Advanced" (except Darth Vader, who is inexplicably labeled "TIE Advanced x1")
- no other title card can be taken by more than one model (so far)
- TIE/v1 title card reads "TIE Adv. Prototype Only" (which honestly only necessarily means it is more restrictive than the TIE/x1 title card)
No, all of that is evidence to on top of the RAW describing how titles and modifications work. All that other stuff is icing on the cake.
To put things back into perspective, this whole rigamarole only came up ITT because I argued that the TIE/v1 and TIE/x1 are not related in the same way that the T-65 and T-70 are related. The TIE/v1 and the TIE/x1 are completely different ships, not just successive models of the same ship. This is (among other reasons) why, despite FFG's unfortunate choices in labeling cards, I agree with you that the TIE/x1 card can only apply to TIE Advanced pilots and not TAP pilots.
The first part of that has no bearing on the mechanics of the game, something I've made pretty clear is neither here nor there.
It prospectively has something to do with game design. If you recall title cards like BTL-A4, you can see how it has already had something to do with the game's design. Remember, my argument is: there is no reason that FFG must make a distinct stat line for the T-70 because it is just another X-Wing and versions of the same ship have been simulated by both title cards (BTL-A4, Heavy Scyk, Royal Guard TIE/IN) and a modification card (B-Wing/E2).
The Y-wing title was just an excuse to make the ship better; FFG came up with the idea and fished around until they found something that sounded cool. The BTL-A4 was the same model of Y-wing that we see in Star Wars which didn't do what the in-game card says it does. Really, the Y-wings didn't do anything except get shot down.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: All titles in this game refer to a specific ship, not a "class" or "type" of ship.
That's dead wrong as we can see from RAW:
Any ship may equip a modification or title unless the card is restricted to a specific type of ship
my emphasis
FFG means type to be either a specific model of ship (which is what we see in all of the titles available) when that ship is listed on the card and also the same "general" type of ship (like with the TIE modification or modifications that say Small ship only.). There is no logic hurdle that needs to be climbed in order to see what they mean. In my opinion, there is no need to have to spell that out when it's pretty obvious what it means.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: everything we know about how they design titles says they won't make an X-wing title and would instead make an X-wing modification
How so? What about the BTL-A4 for example?
Assuming they offer a new model of miniature with a different stat line. If they don't (and now I am starting to suspect they won't) then sure, it could be a title. I just don't see FFG making a title that is compatible on two different models because there is no precedent to do so.
Honestly, I think there is a pretty good chance that there won't be new TIEs or X-wings. I'm starting to think that they will be coming out with something really cool that I don't even know about.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, this guy on the FFG forum must have a direct line to my brain (it's where I pulled the "borrow a ship from your friend" idea from).
Modifications and titles are special upgrades that do no appear in any ship's upgrade bar. Any ship may equip a modification or title unless the card is restricted to a specific type of ship. Each ship is limited to one modification and one title.
Now take that direct quote from the reference card and apply it to this:
FFG means type to be either a specific model of ship (which is what we see in all of the titles available) when that ship is listed on the card and also the same "general" type of ship (like with the TIE modification or modifications that say Small ship only.).
Any ship may equip a modification or title unless the card is restricted to a specific type of ship.
Like I already explained, "TIE" qualifies as a "type" under this rule. Nothing prevents "TIE Advanced" from likewise qualifying. Similarly, nothing prevents "TIE Advanced" from being an open-ended term like "TIE" ... indeed it has to be an open-ended term if the TIE/x1 card is supposed to apply to Vader -- although I grant that this (according to you, I did not verify) has already been "FAQed" by FFG in some article.
Manchu wrote: We've been over this already; I brought it up.
Any ship may equip a modification or title unless the card is restricted to a specific type of ship.
Like I already explained, "TIE" qualifies as a "type" under this rule. Nothing prevents "TIE Advanced" from likewise qualifying.
Now you're just making gak up and trying to argue just for the sake of it.
Every title in this game lists exactly what ship it can be used on. Every single one. Do you disagree with that fact? In this regard, the "type" of ship is the one listed on the card (which are all specific ships in the game). In your [poor] example, any ship not called the "TIE Advanced" is precluded from using a card that says "TIE Advanced only" on it. In the game of X-Wing Miniatures, there is exactly one ship with that name.
A handful of modifications are restricted to a specific type of ship. Some are Small ship only or Large ship only or TIE Only. In this regard, the "type" of ship is one listed on the card (which in these handful of cases are broader because instead of an individual ship it is any ship on a small base, large base, or a TIE variant).
Well of course they do. The question is, to which ship(s) does the TIE/x1 title card refer? There is an argument under RAW that it could refer to more than one. Meanwhile, there is no rule that says this is impossible. You are making that up.
Well of course they do. The question is, to which ship(s) does the TIE/x1 title card refer? There is an argument under RAW that it could refer to more than one. Meanwhile, there is no rule that says this is impossible. You are making that up.
No, there is not. The TIE/x1 title card refers to the ship called the "TIE Advanced" which is conveniently the printed on the card.
Seriously, it couldn't be any more fething clear.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also Manchu, thanks for entertaining my these past couple nights while I've been at work.
It definitely made the night go by faster than it would have otherwise.
Man, I was just going to post saying that they will probably have imperial/rebel aces and scum 'aces' or something, with new updated Episode 7 paint schemes.
Maybe they'll take the opportunity to throw the yt1300 into the scum fleet with the updated dish, so that rebels and scum have a reason to buy it. (Not that there is much of a difference to my Imperial eyes!)
Though, I suppose they can do whatever changes they'd like to the Tie fighter with the gozanti...
I guess it depends on whatever other fighters are going to be in the movie other than the xwing, tie fighter and millennium falcon.
I agree, it could be; to wit, if there was a rule saying title cards work differently from modifications. But as things stand, the rules group them together and there are modification cards that clearly apply to more than one model.
Crazyterran wrote: Though, I suppose they can do whatever changes they'd like to the Tie fighter with the gozanti...
I am assuming that the Episode VII stuff includes a TIE Fighter ... the only early ship not to be reprinted in another set so far except now we know that it will be, with the Gozanti. To me, this indicates FFG had the Gozanti planned long before the Episode VII stuff. If that's true then presumably the Episode VII stuff will have been designed with the Gozanti and Wave 8 stuff already in mind. This could create a very interesting effect on the meta.
I agree, it could be; to wit, if there was a rule saying title cards work differently from modifications. But as things stand, the rules group them together and there are modification cards that clearly apply to more than one model..
You're just arguing because you don't understand the word "type" and how it applies in the context of the rules and you want it to mean something that it clearly doesn't. Also, I know you're aware that was a typo so now you're just being a smart aleck. Modifications apply to more than one type of ship unless specified on the card (of which there are a few). Titles, in theory, could do the same thing (however, that would not be the definition of a title), but no title either in the game or upcoming applies to more than one type of ship. That is a matter of fact, regardless of whether you want to admit or not.
Dude, it's ridiculous that you agree with my correct conclusion (the TIE/x1 is a title for the TIE Advanced and the TIE/v1 is a title for the TIE Adv. Prototype) but keep hammering away on the minutae of the word "type." It's very definition of rules lawyering and you know it. It's even worse that you've taken to another forum to argue that same point with me.
"I agree with your conclusion but I don't like the way you reached it so I'm going to argue with you over it.... but make no mistake, I agree with you but also you're wrong."
I understand what "type" means based on RAW: it can (and does) refer to both an open-ended term like "TIE" or something more specific like "YT-1300."
You require clarification about our prospective positions considering you think I agree with you. I do not. You say title cards can only apply to one ship. I disagree. Additionally, you have not produced any evidence that proves your position.
The part where we have some agreement is about what FFG intended. I emphasize some agreement because, in contrast to your absolute declaration that FFG intended X, I can only state a conclusion proportional to the available evidence: FFGprobably intended X.
This is why I say, I hope the FAQ states only that TAP pilots cannot take the TIE/x1 title. I hope the FAQ does not say title cards can only apply to one model. That would be a needless limitation on future game design.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: It's even worse that you've taken to another forum to argue that same point with me.
Wait, you mean when I replied to someone else on FFG's forum and you decided to respond to me there?
You really just don't get it, do you? You keep droning on about "there is no rule that says you can't equip the same title on different ships." Yeah, no gak... there doesn't need to be a rule because every title clearly states what ship it can be equipped on. Furthermore, I never said there is or is going to be a rule that says that. On the contrary, I've said there doesn't need to be one because the current rules about how titles work is perfectly fine.
Title cards apply only to the ship printed on the card (if any). Every single title card currently on the game, and the ones yet to be introduced, all list a single ship on the face of the card telling the player which ship it can be use equipped. Like I've said and you ignore, this is a matter of fact. Your argument is that a title listing the specific name of a specific ship in this game is so ambiguous that you need the game designer to spell it out for you. That is your entire argument. Do me a favor, go stand in front of the mirror, look at yourself and say this out loud:
"Not being able to use a card that says 'TIE Advanced only' on it on a ship other than the one called 'TIE Advanced' is too ambiguous for me to understand."
I hope you realize just how ludicrous that sounds.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Every single title card currently on the game, and the ones yet to be introduced, all list a single ship on the face of the card telling the player which ship it can be use equipped.
Yet another example of circular argument. And you talk about me not getting it! I suppose we had better go through it once more: The disputed claim is, title cards only apply to one ship. This claim cannot be proven by simply restating it.
And how do you know about cards yet to be introduced? What a lot of blather.
3 missing SKUs.
X-Wing/T-70 upgrade pack (either a modified model or a repainted X-Wing with new cards to backfit existing T-65s)
TIE upgrade pack (repainted TIE with new cards)
New "Imp" Shuttle with potential cross-faction cards/dials.
Leaving a potential 'wave 9' opening to cover any one offs (thinking of a cool bad-guy ship ala Vader's Adv, Maul's Sith transport, etc) that may become hits in the movie.
Manchu wrote: And how do you know about cards yet to be introduced? What a lot of blather.
The TIE/x1 and TIE/v1 titles are not currently in game and therefore cannot affect any ship, both currently playable or forthcoming? Nope, I didn't think so either so they haven't been introduced to the game. Now I'm beginning to see why how the titles work is giving you fits...
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Every single title card currently on the game, and the ones yet to be introduced, all list a single ship on the face of the card telling the player which ship it can be use equipped.
Yet another example of circular argument. And you talk about me not getting it! I suppose we had better go through it once more: The disputed claim is, title cards only apply to one ship. This claim cannot be proven by simply restating it.
Again, your entire arguement is that the name of a ship on a card that matches the name of a ship that is in the game is too ambiguous for you to understand.
KellyJ wrote: New "Imp" Shuttle with potential cross-faction cards/dials.
A ship packaged with dials for more than one faction would be totally novel. (I have often suggested it myself for a Rogue Shadow box but I doubt that will ever happen.)
You certainly love animated gifs ... understanding arguments, not so much! There's no point going on if you can't even properly summarize my argument ... which shouldn't be difficult considering I have concisely restated it for you numerous times on two message boards. Otherwise you're just arguing against an imaginary friend.
First of all, these images seem totally legit. I wasn't entirely sure they were going to make a new Core Set at first, but the more I thought about it the more I figured it was probably going to happen. However, I did say this:
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: The T-70 X-wing is going to have to have different stats (and possibly dial) than the T-65 X-wing
...it appears as if I was correct, with the new Resistance X-Wing having a stat line of 3/2/3/3 and an action bar that has a boost icon. It also has a maneuver dial with a green speed 3 straight (told ya, Manchu ). As far as the ship cards go, the name is the ship is different than the original. You can't see the entire time because it's blocked, but you can tell it is "______ X-wing" based on the fact that "X-wing" isn't centered on the card. There is also a new kind of upgrade.
Also interesting of note is the new TIE is called the "TIE/FO." The model seems to be the same, save for the paint job, but I think there's a fair bet that it has a different stat line and upgrade bar.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: I still don't think that there is going to be a new starter set based on two alternate designs of current ships.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: If by some small chance there is a new starter set (which I highly doubt)
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: As far as the ship cards go, the name is the ship is different than the original. You can't see the entire time because it's blocked, but you can tell it is "______ X-wing" based on the fact that "X-wing" isn't centered on the card.
Where it lists the contents on the back of the box, it says Resistance X-Wing.
Still, I did say that if they did make a new core set, the ships would be different while you insisted that FFG would not split the X-wing. If these pictures are real (and I think they certainly are) it would appear I was correct (also regarding the First Order TIE as well... ). I think now that a new core set is all but confirmed, it kind of narrows down the two missing SKUs as either being blisters of the new ship or something like Kylo Ren's shuttle (which has a Lego set) and the Millennium Falcon v2.0, though I'm inclined to suspect the former.
I think the real question is what are they going to do with the old X-wing...
Also, regarding the leak, I think this is fitting:
No I actually didn't but this totally confirms that you never comprehended what I was actually saying:
Manchu wrote: And I'm also not trying to be too rigid about this, since it is all speculation one way or the other. My point is, there is really no reason the T-70 needs to be a distinct ship rather than a title card like TIE/x1. It's certainly possible that FFG could produce the T-70 as something almost but not quite the same as the T-65; for example, just adding Boost to the T-65's action bar.
Manchu wrote: Again, FFG could certainly create a different ship card for the T-70. I don't know what they'll do (my crystal ball has never worked reliably). I just think it would be perfectly reasonable from a marketing perspective, from a gaming perspective, and from a fluff perspective, if they just put a different (i.e, T-70) sculpt in the box and gave us a title or mod to somehow fix X-Wings (including the T-65 sculpt).
Wow, I definitely wouldn't wanna be the guy responsible for those leaks! If they figure out who it was, there will definitely be a position opening up somewhere...
I really wonder if this won't introduce a new theater to the X-Wing game. Perhaps they'll only be usable in Awakened play, and the Empire, Rebels and Scum factions will get some sort of bonus to stay competitive with the obviously improved technologies.
On the other hand, just the incompatibilities of upgrades could distinguish these heirs to the Empire.
No I actually didn't but this totally confirms that you never comprehended what I was actually saying:
Manchu wrote: And I'm also not trying to be too rigid about this, since it is all speculation one way or the other. My point is, there is really no reason the T-70 needs to be a distinct ship rather than a title card like TIE/x1. It's certainly possible that FFG could produce the T-70 as something almost but not quite the same as the T-65; for example, just adding Boost to the T-65's action bar.
Manchu wrote: Again, FFG could certainly create a different ship card for the T-70. I don't know what they'll do (my crystal ball has never worked reliably). I just think it would be perfectly reasonable from a marketing perspective, from a gaming perspective, and from a fluff perspective, if they just put a different (i.e, T-70) sculpt in the box and gave us a title or mod to somehow fix X-Wings (including the T-65 sculpt).
LOL even got the boost action correct.
Yeah, you "guessed" a boost action... after I said this:
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: I would imagine the T-70 will have a stat line of something like 3/2/3/3 and an action bar with Focus, Target Lock, Evade, and Boost.
Regarding your first point, you were pretty clearly in the "it won't get new stats camp" from the beginning, as evidenced by this post that you conveniently didn't quote:
Manchu wrote: To steer a bit back to the issue of Force Awakens, I have been positing:
SWX36: Force Awakens Starter Set
SWX37: Force Awakens X-Wing
SWX38: Force Awakens TIE Fighter
where the ship stats remain the same but they come with new pilots and upgrade cards.
I comprehended what you were saying (which I think is kind of skirting rule #1, based on how many people get mod warnings in the OT for throwing that accusation around). As you said, your position was: new core set, new models, same stats. However, you left yourself an out by saying they'll make a title card (which it doesn't seem like they will, at least not with this core set). It's no different than me talking about the new core set; I was pretty firmly in the "no new core set" camp and I was pretty sure that it wasn't going to happen. However, I left myself an out by saying that if it did, it would probably be like "XYZ."
So we can continue the dick measuring contest or just admit that both of us were right about some stuff and wrong about some other stuff.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lord Corellia wrote: Wow, I definitely wouldn't wanna be the guy responsible for those leaks! If they figure out who it was, there will definitely be a position opening up somewhere...
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: I would imagine the T-70 will have a stat line of something like 3/2/3/3 and an action bar with Focus, Target Lock, Evade, and Boost.
Yeah, and notice how I didn't say anything about Evade ...
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: So we can continue the dick measuring contest or just admit that both of us were right about some stuff and wrong about some other stuff.
You mean like this?
Manchu wrote: LOL I think we should call it even ...
Put it away and zip up, SPJr.
TIE/FO ____ looks to have four actions ... S-Loop?
You didn't and you still don't. See the posts I quoted above where I explicitly say "I don't know what FFG will do but I think X is a possibility."
You said, "I have been positing: [...] ship stats remain the same."
In case you were wondering, "positing" meas to assume or put forward as fact. So despite giving yourself an out with an imaginary title card, you were operating on the assumption that there will be no new stats for the new ships, something said repeatedly. But I guess I don't have any reading comprehension so what the feth do I know, right?
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: I would imagine the T-70 will have a stat line of something like 3/2/3/3 and an action bar with Focus, Target Lock, Evade, and Boost.
Yeah, and notice how I didn't say anything about Evade ...
It may very well have an Evade action, but I doubt it.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: So we can continue the dick measuring contest or just admit that both of us were right about some stuff and wrong about some other stuff.
You mean like this?
Manchu wrote: LOL I think we should call it even ...
Put it away and zip up, SPJr.
I'll wait for you.
By the way, saying "let's call it even" and then list a bunch of quotes to try and show me I was wrong about something I admitted to being wrong about isn't exactly "calling it even." But that's neither here nor there, you can continue to goad me if you want, no worries!
TIE/FO ____ looks to have four actions ... S-Loop?
S-loop as an action? I'm inclined to say no. I think there is a better chance that it has Target Lock.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: S-loop as an action? I'm inclined to say no. I think there is a better chance that it has Target Lock.
Are you basing that on squinting at the pic or the rarity of S-Loop maneuvers or something else?
Well, I've zoomed in:
But I can't really make out what it is.
Mainly though, I just don't see the S-loop being an action. A maneuver, sure... but no other ship than can perform that maneuver has it listed on their pilot card or ship token, which only list actions.
It is either a new action (which I doubt) or Target Lock or SLAM, with my gut telling me Target Lock. If anything, it probably looks like the E-wing ship token which has, in descending order: Evade, Barrel Roll, Target Lock, Focus.
So ive noticed something here, there appears to be a new droid card, with BB 8 as one of the main droids. Would it be safe to say that the new xwing only gets to use the new droid? This would certainly fix the idea that the old xwing will be obsolete, since you will still be able to use the vast array of droids available.
Yeah, I guess it would be a little far-fetched to expect a brand new mechanic out of starter set. That's not really the point of starter sets, after all. The new ships will shake things up enough as it is. Have to say, I am more excited to find out about the TIE/FO's stats than the T-70's.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
generalchaos34 wrote: Would it be safe to say that the new xwing only gets to use the new droid?
What is the symbol on the back of the card next to the BB8? Seems like a new one.
generalchaos34 wrote: Would it be safe to say that the new xwing only gets to use the new droid?
What is the symbol on the back of the card next to the BB8? Seems like a new one.
I think chances are good that it's a new droid type, but since BB-8 is pretty much the only droid from Episode VII we've seen (save for Artoo of course), it's hard to say for sure.
generalchaos34 wrote: Would it be safe to say that the new xwing only gets to use the new droid?
What is the symbol on the back of the card next to the BB8? Seems like a new one.
I think chances are good that it's a new droid type, but since BB-8 is pretty much the only droid from Episode VII we've seen (save for Artoo of course), it's hard to say for sure.
Possibly the new xwings only have the round sockets? I bet that would mean that Luke is flying an old school Xwing (i for one would like to see both on screen)
generalchaos34 wrote: Possibly the new xwings only have the round sockets? I bet that would mean that Luke is flying an old school Xwing (i for one would like to see both on screen)
I wouldn't be surprised by a new astromech slot for the new X-wing. They did the same thing with S&V and the Salvaged Astromech.
I might have missed it but didn't anyone notice the X-Wing Blue Ace's ability? When he/she/it performs a boost action, he/she/it can use the hard 1 turns.....very powerful.
Zathras wrote: I might have missed it but didn't anyone notice the X-Wing Blue Ace's ability? When he/she/it performs a boost action, he/she/it can use the hard 1 turns.....very powerful.
Excited for Blue X-Wings, not so excited for those Tie Fighters (at least the models). Is that a new card back for the damage deck behind the currently unknown what it does droid icon?
The new TIE appears to have a huge action bar - it reaches up to, possibly into, the printed firing arc.
I can't see it not having Evade, Focus and Barrel Roll as it currently does, but I'm unconvinced on Target Lock.
Possibly, but I'd wonder if it might be Boost instead - after all, a TIE fighter has always been made out to be the faster-but-more-flimsy of the two - if the X-wing is getting Boost, does it not make sense for the TIE to get the same treatment?
This is a great move from FFG. Retailers, like Target, only want to stock the most current version of things. Just like WoTC releasing "Magic 2015" in 2014, this will let FFG put an 'up to date' complete version of the game on the shelves.
Well, lets hope the new starter set is compatible and interchangeable with the original game. Right down to the damage deck and templates.
What a PITA if FFG adds new and different Crits...then what? Cant play beyond casual unless you drop $50+ just to get the new deck?
Of course this could also be a huge money maker for FFG. How many starter sets needed to make a TIE/FO Swarm (not counting a single booster to get the extra cards...though adding a kitted Howlrunner to a FO swarm could be nasty).
(EDIT) And we see a new card type...the upgrade with the funky 40K Land-raider looking symbol. Lets hope whatever goodies this represents will eventually lead to a 0 point upgrade to add more goodness to older ships...that way BTL and Bomb Loadout have breathed new life into the old Y-Wing.
locarno24 wrote: The new TIE appears to have a huge action bar - it reaches up to, possibly into, the printed firing arc.
I can't see it not having Evade, Focus and Barrel Roll as it currently does, but I'm unconvinced on Target Lock.
Possibly, but I'd wonder if it might be Boost instead - after all, a TIE fighter has always been made out to be the faster-but-more-flimsy of the two - if the X-wing is getting Boost, does it not make sense for the TIE to get the same treatment?
The ship definitely has four actions, that much is certain. However, on every ship token, the action are always printed in descending order: Cloak, Boost, Evade, Barrel Roll, Target Lock, Focus (SLAM is before Target Lock but only one ship has that action). The first action on the ship token doesn't look like the Boost symbol, but it does look like the Evade.
KellyJ wrote: Well, lets hope the new starter set is compatible and interchangeable with the original game. Right down to the damage deck and templates.
What a PITA if FFG adds new and different Crits...then what? Cant play beyond casual unless you drop $50+ just to get the new deck?
I doubt the starter set will retail for $50+, but you do raise an interesting point. There is no denying that critical damage effects in the current deck need attention to make them more well rounded. For instance, there is no critical effect that removes crew members. That effect would be devastating to Fat Han just like getting Munitions Failure is to the Outrider.
(EDIT) And we see a new card type...the upgrade with the funky 40K Land-raider looking symbol. Lets hope whatever goodies this represents will eventually lead to a 0 point upgrade to add more goodness to older ships...that way BTL and Bomb Loadout have breathed new life into the old Y-Wing.
Don't count on it. According to the back of the box, there isn't that many upgrade cards in the core set (similar to the original core set), so there most likely isn't any cards in there to buff other ships.
Really interested in how ffg handles this.
I'm pretty sure this will be a reboot of the core set.
The rules need to be updated with the faqs and expanded to mention the many new abilities and rules in the set.
The new upgrade symbol my guess is an imperial droid.
The new damage deck I'm sure will be required for tournaments.
And I'm sure the whole resistance and first order is just a rebrand of the core factions Making them interchangeable.
However we have three missing sku's which appear to be starter set, t-70 xwing, tie/fo. My question is assuming thy keep the old tie/ln and t-65 xwing I am fairly positive ffg will not stock two nearly identical core sets. So what happens to the old exclusive cards in the core set? Will they be added to the original xwing and tie/ln expansion packs or added to the new set ( making no sense including ship cards when the ship isn't included) That's what I wonder what ffg will do because this will explain how ffg plans to handle older expansion packs that retire in the future.
Somehow I doubt they will make cards exclusive and discontinue them. And I doubt they will sell multiple starter sets. So I hope they place the relevant cards in the t-65 xwing and tie/ln expansions as a repAck.
Time for a little speculation.
So some other toys and Lego sets and stuff has leaked for TFA.
Here are some pics of a new TIE/FO tie fighter.
Looks like a normal TIE to me.
Look at the interior.
Wow a two seater.
Okay now this is interesting. Doesn't that look like a secondary cannon/turret mount to you?
So we know there is a new TIE card called TIE/FO. I assume it stands for "First Order". So can one of the upgrades now be a cannon or a turret. However I do not think it would be a standard turret. Something more along the lines of the Firesprays rear arc.
What if it is a torpedo launcher?
Nicorex wrote: Time for a little speculation.
So some other toys and Lego sets and stuff has leaked for TFA.
Here are some pics of a new TIE/FO tie fighter.
Looks like a normal TIE to me.
Look at the interior.
Wow a two seater.
Okay now this is interesting. Doesn't that look like a secondary cannon/turret mount to you?
So we know there is a new TIE card called TIE/FO. I assume it stands for "First Order". So can one of the upgrades now be a cannon or a turret. However I do not think it would be a standard turret. Something more along the lines of the Firesprays rear arc.
What if it is a torpedo launcher?
From watching the force awakens trailer there looks like 2 different ties. A regular tie, probably the one in the starter, and whats being called a special forces tie with 2 seats and an underslung turret.
Maybe they'll just pack the old pilot cards into the new box with a card that says 'these bonuses can be used with our X-Wing and Tie Fighter expansion packs'
Or maybe they'll sell the currentcore set through their online store only.
Or maybe they will sell both, or even leave it up to the game stores to choose if they want to sell both.
Crazyterran wrote: Maybe they'll just pack the old pilot cards into the new box with a card that says 'these bonuses can be used with our X-Wing and Tie Fighter expansion packs'
Nope.
In the last picture you can see that five upgrade cards come in the box, just like the original core set. Now, we cannot see how many pilot cards come in the new core set, but I don't expect them to package cards for models that don't come in the box. This isn't an expansion set like Most Wanted, it's new Core Set. Like the old one, it will only have what can be used on the ships that come in the box and it will be more or less a complete "gaming experience."
Or maybe they'll sell the currentcore set through their online store only.
Possibly, but I think we'll be able to continue to purchase the old core set from retailers.
Or maybe they will sell both, or even leave it up to the game stores to choose if they want to sell both.
Or maybe they will sell both, or even leave it up to the game stores to choose if they want to sell both.
I think this is the most likely course of action.
I think you are correct, but I do imagine that eventually Organized Play events will require you to have the new damage deck. I plan on buying multiples if individual blisters of the new X-Wings and Ties aren't released at the same time (as in, I want 8 Ties and 4 X-Wings) so I would imagine all the extras from this new Core will be able to be found on eBay from people doing the same.
Caveat: Note my wording, I said organized play events. I do not mean your basement/livingroom/gettingtogether with friends games so I implore people not to take us down the path of posts of "I don't need this I just play with friends." I would not be at all surprised if this years World Championships require you to have the damage deck from this.
derek wrote: I think you are correct, but I do imagine that eventually Organized Play events will require you to have the new damage deck. I plan on buying multiples if individual blisters of the new X-Wings and Ties aren't released at the same time (as in, I want 8 Ties and 4 X-Wings) so I would imagine all the extras from this new Core will be able to be found on eBay from people doing the same.
We don't know that there is a new damage deck. The word has been that FFG has wanted to make changes to the damage deck, but there is no confirmation that they have or will give us a new deck.
derek wrote: I think you are correct, but I do imagine that eventually Organized Play events will require you to have the new damage deck. I plan on buying multiples if individual blisters of the new X-Wings and Ties aren't released at the same time (as in, I want 8 Ties and 4 X-Wings) so I would imagine all the extras from this new Core will be able to be found on eBay from people doing the same.
We don't know that there is a new damage deck. The word has been that FFG has wanted to make changes to the damage deck, but there is no confirmation that they have or will give us a new deck.
Yeah, it's definitely something to hope for, but it's a bit of a coin toss. It would mean actually changing some rules, whereas I think most of the changes to the rulebook will be to consolidate expansion rules.
It appears that the new T-70 X-wing and TIE/fo pilots were spoiled:
First of all, the new (and yet unknown) upgrade symbol is on every pilot for both factions. We are also getting the same amount of pilots as we did in the original core set: four X-wing pilots and six TIE pilots.
It appears I was correct, the new TIE has a Target Lock action and they also have one shield! The lowest generic TIE is 15 points (opposed to Academy Pilot at 12), meaning you can field six of them with ten points for upgrades or better pilots. Speaking of which:
"Omega Ace" (PS 7): When attacking, you may spend a focus token and a target lock you have on the defender to change all of your results to [crit] results.
"Epsilon Leader" (PS 6): At the start of the Combat phase, remove 1 stress token from each friendly ship at Range 1.
"Zeta Ace" (PS 5): When performing a barrel roll, you may use the (2 straight) template instead of the (1 straight) template.
Omega Ace can take an Elite Talent, and Push the Limit seems like it would work quite nice for him. Pair him with Epsilon Leader and his super-Wingman pilot ability and you won't have to worry much about stress. Zeta Ace can pretty much do a decloaking move, which is pretty cool.
The T-70 X-wing pilots:
Poe Dameron (PS 8): When attacking or defending, if you have a focus token, you may change 1 of your [eye] results to a [hit] or [evade] result.
"Blue Ace" (PS 5): When performing a boost action, you may use the (1 left turn) or (1 right turn) template
Poe and Red Squadron Veteran both have the Elite Talent upgrade, but Blue Ace does not. They can all take Astromechs and Torpedoes, plus whatever the new upgrade is.
One thing I did find interesting about this whole thing is that no new characters are spoiled. The only pilot with a name, Poe Dameron, is a character that's we've already been introduced to via promotional materials for Episode VII. That's deserves a tip of the hat from me because I am actively avoid all spoilers for the new movie (outside of the basic promotional stuff in magazines, trailers, etc.).
Turnip Jedi wrote: I'm guessing the new symbol is for Modifications as all the ships have it and it makes it clear to new players that all ships can have one
I thought about that too, but Modification cards already use a crossed wrench symbol on their card backs:
But who knows... It isn't out of the realm of possibility for FFG to make a new symbol. I'm sure we'll find out soon enough!
Fair point but the spanner never appears on the 'old' ship upgrade bar and like you say using the spanner icon would make more sense but I also can't see a TIE having a droid slot
Extra pondering, it might be for a new class of 'one-shot' cards as one-shot EPT's don't really seem like 'talents' to me
Turnip Jedi wrote: Fair point but the spanner never appears on the 'old' ship upgrade bar and like you say using the spanner icon would make more sense but I also can't see a TIE having a droid slot
Extra pondering, it might be for a new class of 'one-shot' cards as one-shot EPT's don't really seem like 'talents' to me
Yeah, I don't think it's a new droid type.
I'm inclined to agree with Azreal in that it's probably some new type of "tech upgrade" or something (similar to Illicit Upgrades for Scum) along those lines.
I wouldnt use toys as a metric to ship designs (in reference to the two-seat tie/fo. Action figures, particularly star wars action figures, have a long history of non-canonical designs.
Not to say there *isnt* a turreted two-seat tie fighter in the films, just that its not indicative of it.
chaos0xomega wrote: I wouldnt use toys as a metric to ship designs (in reference to the two-seat tie/fo. Action figures, particularly star wars action figures, have a long history of non-canonical designs.
Not to say there *isnt* a turreted two-seat tie fighter in the films, just that its not indicative of it.
There is:
The toy TIE fighter is the black and red "Special Forces" TIE from that scene. Note the red stripe on the side, the round pieces where the panels attach to the supports, the narrow rear window, and the obvious turret underneath.
Then there is the "regular" TIE that is pretty much just like the original one, except with reverse colors:
Well I can definitely see a new droid type of slot for the xwing, I hope these new xwings wont be making old ones obsolete, I'm assuming thats why they gave them new droid types (but 3 points for boost and an extra shield is pretty rockin). I'm going to put my money that new slot being some sort of new tech upgrade, and if they played it right maybe make it so that ships with the new "tech" upgrade slot cannot get a modification, that way our older ships still get to stand on their own along with the new ones.
I would assume announced. Even if they were released and announced in the same day, they wouldnt be available for sale anywhere as retailers cannot order what they do not know exists.
Except that it is believed that the original leaked pic's ( the ones of the new unopened box) came from a Target. That means some retailers already have them. They just can not display them yet.
I do not know if that is true or not though.
I am excited for this release. I will pick up 2 of the new box's. (Because I really need all the tokens! {SARCASM!}) Plus if the other two unreleased SKU's are a single of the T-70 and FO TIE's, I will nab a x-wing and 2 more TIE's.
There going to be released on September 4. At GenCon, FFG made mention of having some "on the water already" for Force Friday. That's also why we're seeing spoilers as the products are starting to arrive at distributors.
I think the new icon is some kind of tech upgrade that only ships of this era can use. This stuff had to have been under development at least as long as (if not before) Wave 8 and the new symbol doesn't appear on any of those cards.
Am I being daft when I can't see the value of Poe's skill? Wouldn't it imply some sort of choice new "upgrade" that gives another way to spend focus for some good effect? Otherwise it is a mediocre way to "mini-focus" during your attack, and still retain your focus to be spent during defense (or vice-versa).
Not exactly the WOW skill I would expect on this generation's Wedge Antilles.
It looks to me like you get a reusable focus.
When attacking or defending if you have a focus you get to change an eyeball to a hit or evade.
Seems to me it will work with your attack rolls and all defending rolls you need to make that turn and if you need it you can still spend the token to change other eyeballs to evades or hits it you want..
Poe's ability looks like a good one, but I don't know if I'd pay 31 points for it. The extra shield and the boost ability do help the X-Wing, and they aren't obsoleting the old X-Wing because of costs. (The B-Wing did that).
How many times have you rolled dice and come up with a set of hits/blanks and that 1 Focus...then having to decide if its worth adding the extra hit or save the token for defense?
Now you get to do both.
Or your shooting a Decimator with 1 hull left and roll only blanks and Foci. Now you can kill the Deci while saving the Focus for the return fire from the companions.
Plenty of situations where this ability can be a game-changer.
Anpu-adom wrote: Poe's ability looks like a good one, but I don't know if I'd pay 31 points for it. The extra shield and the boost ability do help the X-Wing, and they aren't obsoleting the old X-Wing because of costs. (The B-Wing did that).
You're paying 31 points for what is essentially a beefed up version of Luke's ability, but in a better ship.
Yes, you need a focus token (which you will almost always have), but it's a fair trade, considering Poe's ship has eight points of upgrades baked into it (four for Engine Upgrade and four for Shield Upgrade, and you can't take both on Luke). Not to mention the fact that the dial is probably better on the T-70.
As long as you HAVE a Focus token, you get most of the benefit! One Eyeball becomes a hit or evade. That's huge. Especially on the defense side.
Imagine his 2 AGI, 6 hitpoint ship being focused by a TIE swarm. Most of the time, you're only going to get one eyeball. In which case, Poe's ability is as good as multiple focus or evade tokens! Only when TWO eyes are rolled can you then decide to use it to get two evades, or keep it for one evade.
Combine this with R5-P9, then you can simply just save the focus and regen one of his three shields at end of turn.
Add all of that on a high-maneuverability (it's dial is better than X-Wing's, PLUS it has boost) at a high PS, and you've got a real monster pilot. Luke has nothing on this. The only way around it is to stress him or prevent him from getting actions.
I see the value in what everyone has been saying, but perhaps what I mean to say is that I don't know if it, even with the baked in buffs to the "new" X-wing and his skill, if the X-wing suddenly feels reborn.
I mean, I don't know what I expected to buff the poor maligned X-wing, but I feel like 31pts, naked, is a BIG investment of the ship I am imagining on the table.
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote: I see the value in what everyone has been saying, but perhaps what I mean to say is that I don't know if it, even with the baked in buffs to the "new" X-wing and his skill, if the X-wing suddenly feels reborn.
I mean, I don't know what I expected to buff the poor maligned X-wing, but I feel like 31pts, naked, is a BIG investment of the ship I am imagining on the table.
You get a reusable focus token. That alone is powerful, but being able to use it offensively and defensively is even better.
Poe can take an EPT, meaning he can run with Lone Wolf or Predator (I'd prefer Lone Wolf). He also has a native Boost action, meaning he can take Autothrusters and give him yet another way to avoid damage. Give him R5-P9 and he can use that focus token to regenerate a shield. Those three upgrades bring his cost up to 38 points. We haven't seen the dial yet, but it's probably pretty good (or at least better than the T-65 X-wing).
I think that's a pretty damn reasonable price for what he can do.
So is this new set more or less the same as the current one or is it more convoluted?
I love the new ship designs and colors but I prefer to start out simple. I still don't have anything for the X wing game but the Star Wars hype has renewed my interest.
Thargrim wrote: So is this new set more or less the same as the current one or is it more convoluted?
I love the new ship designs and colors but I prefer to start out simple. I still don't have anything for the X wing game but the Star Wars hype has renewed my interest.
I think it's a safe bet that the very easy to pick up basics of the game won't be altered much if at all by this set.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote: I see the value in what everyone has been saying, but perhaps what I mean to say is that I don't know if it, even with the baked in buffs to the "new" X-wing and his skill, if the X-wing suddenly feels reborn.
I mean, I don't know what I expected to buff the poor maligned X-wing, but I feel like 31pts, naked, is a BIG investment of the ship I am imagining on the table.
We still haven't seen what is on the maneuver dial other than learning that 3s are now green, so I think holding off any judgement on whether 31 points (or the point costs of the others) is worth the hype.
Thargrim wrote: So is this new set more or less the same as the current one or is it more convoluted?
I love the new ship designs and colors but I prefer to start out simple. I still don't have anything for the X wing game but the Star Wars hype has renewed my interest.
Things we know
New models of ships,
New type of upgrade
New pilots
Same components (dice, templates)
Things it is reasonable to assume
FAQs and Errata written into the rules.
Things I've heard speculated
A rejigged damage deck.
There is a new damage deck and also a new maneuver, the Tallon Roll, which is a K-turn with a turn template. You place the turn template in the front guides and then place the side of the ship base flush with the end of the template, sliding where you want similar to a barrel roll. The T-70 can perform this maneuver at speed 3 while the TIE/fo has the S-loop At speed too. The unknown symbol appears to be a weapon modification slot based on one of the spoiled cards. The First Order is a subfaction of the Empire and the Resistance is a subfaction of the Rebel Alliance. The upgrade category is called "Tech" and the rules allow it work in co junction with Modifications.
Soooooo
Does the new damage deck replace the old one? Do you mix them together? Or are they held separately and the appropriate deck is dealt onto the ship in question (the same way Epic damage is ship specific).
And if the new deck replaces the old...and I choose to NOT buy the new hotness (yeah, right. Tell us another one)...does that make my existing deck illegal in Tournys?
At least the questions of compatibility are answered and we will get plenty of spares out of the new core.
dkellyj wrote: Soooooo
Does the new damage deck replace the old one? Do you mix them together? Or are they held separately and the appropriate deck is dealt onto the ship in question (the same way Epic damage is ship specific).
And if the new deck replaces the old...and I choose to NOT buy the new hotness (yeah, right. Tell us another one)...does that make my existing deck illegal in Tournys?
At least the questions of compatibility are answered and we will get plenty of spares out of the new core.
From the rule book: "The damage deck included in this box replaces the damage deck in the original X-wing core set. If players have both, they should use the new deck included in this box."
How that affects tournament play is yet to be seen, though I'm sure it will be addressed in an upcoming tournament rule update.
Sooo, basically the new Xwing is just soooo much better then the old one then? That Tallon roll looks pretty sweet! Well at least its still an "xwing"!
There is a new damage deck and also a new maneuver, the Tallon Roll, which is a K-turn with a turn template. You place the turn template in the front guides and then place the side of the ship base flush with the end of the template, sliding where you want similar to a barrel roll. The T-70 can perform this maneuver at speed 3 while the TIE/fo has the S-loop At speed too. The unknown symbol appears to be a weapon modification slot based on one of the spoiled cards. The First Order is a subfaction of the Empire and the Resistance is a subfaction of the Rebel Alliance. The upgrade category is called "Tech" and the rules allow it work in co junction with Modifications.
Well this looks promising, the new starter looks pretty solid overall. Hopefully they follow this release up with a red marked SF Tie with a rear firing arc and another variant of Poe's/black squadron piloting the black X wings! I do hope JJ had a new Tie bomber designed though, the First Order will be lacking in ship variety quite a bit if that isn't the case and there is just two tie variants.
Holy crap that TIE/FO dial is insane, and the wired ept would work very well for a TIE swarm with ps4 generics. Not to mention the ps6 guy who gets rid of stress would mesh extremely well with a howlrunner swarm and a bsp packing wingman to take care of him as well.
The new TIE definitely seems to have earned its point increase in my eyes
Anpu-adom wrote: Ok... ok... I take it back. Between the T-70 dial and Tallon Roll, Poe is so worth including into a list. This Totally Obsoletes the old X-Wing.
...for now.
Poe and the T-70 are awesome for sure, but we don't know what FFG has in store for the old X-wing. I'd like to believe there is something down the pipe for them.
If the t-70 has a significantly different dial from the t-65, what does that mean for a potential title card to upgrade the old X-Wing?
Also, I'm curious how adding a boost and 1 shield to an X-Wing at the cost of 3 points does for it's jousting efficiency. The old X-Wing was already one or two points overcosted. I hope the answer isn't "just buy t-70 expansion packs", because a lot of people will want to use classic X-wings.
DanielBeaver wrote: If the t-70 has a significantly different dial from the t-65, what does that mean for a potential title card to upgrade the old X-Wing?
Also, I'm curious how adding a boost and 1 shield to an X-Wing at the cost of 3 points does for it's jousting efficiency. The old X-Wing was already one or two points overcosted. I hope the answer isn't "just buy t-70 expansion packs", because a lot of people will want to use classic X-wings.
Heres the problem, if they do add a card like the TIE/X1 or the Chardrin refit in order to fix Xwings, would it not also be usable by the new ship and still make the old Xwing just as useless? The only way I could conceivably see them doing it would be an "xwing only" title that also recreates something or invalidates an advantage of the new ship, like a "turn all 3 turns into talon rolls" or a Rogue Squadron title that gives you 2 elite talents or maybe a point reductions, but it invalidates the weapon tech upgrades from the new cards.
Anpu-adom wrote: Ok... ok... I take it back. Between the T-70 dial and Tallon Roll, Poe is so worth including into a list. This Totally Obsoletes the old X-Wing.
Except you can get 4 generic T-65s with R2 units while only 3 T70s...though with points left over for higher PS and upgrades.
Still...4 on 3 can be tough odds. If I can kill 2 T70s your last ship has to table me to win.
(EDIT) Yes, you could get 4 PS2 generic T70s with 4 points remaining...but the T65 is packing 4 PS4 guys with all 1 and 2 moves being green.
Anpu-adom wrote: Ok... ok... I take it back. Between the T-70 dial and Tallon Roll, Poe is so worth including into a list. This Totally Obsoletes the old X-Wing.
Except you can get 4 generic T-65s with R2 units while only 3 T70s...though with points left over for higher PS and upgrades.
Still...4 on 3 can be tough odds. If I can kill 2 T70s your last ship has to table me to win.
(EDIT) Yes, you could get 4 PS2 generic T70s with 4 points remaining...but the T65 is packing 4 PS4 guys with all 1 and 2 moves being green.
Those talon rolls are going to make arc dodging a heck of a lot easier though, not to mention that the boost will make it easier to get behind someone that much quicker
Anpu-adom wrote: Ok... ok... I take it back. Between the T-70 dial and Tallon Roll, Poe is so worth including into a list. This Totally Obsoletes the old X-Wing.
Except you can get 4 generic T-65s with R2 units while only 3 T70s...though with points left over for higher PS and upgrades.
Still...4 on 3 can be tough odds. If I can kill 2 T70s your last ship has to table me to win.
(EDIT) Yes, you could get 4 PS2 generic T70s with 4 points remaining...but the T65 is packing 4 PS4 guys with all 1 and 2 moves being green.
Actually, you can get 4 T-70's into a 100 point list as well. (Blue Squadron Pilots are 25pt exactly with an R2).
Overall, quite excited for these guys. All the advantages the B-wing got over the X-wing, the T-70 got over the T-65. This guy actually gives us a choice of "Speed vs Durability".
I remember the guys on Boardgamegeek pondering what the the new Tallon roll ended up as as a way to upgrade X-Wings a long time back, actually. May e FFG actually uses fan ideas, or maybe it's just parallel thinking?
In Star Wars continuity, the B-Wing should never have eclipsed the X-Wing as they are built for drastically different purposes. In-game, it's harder to portray.
I've never been a fan of the X-Wing personally, but I must say I am glad to see it brought out of mothballs, so to speak.
One last note, I have terrible eyesight (years of painting miniatures three inches from my face and reading in the dark, I'm told!) is that new X-Wing the same mold as the original one or is it new?
Indeed, and so is the black tie fighter. There are slight differences in the wing area you can notice. Its very similar, but not quite the same. Love the new ship designs though!
From a recent report, Abrahms' has stated that the idea of the new film is what if the Nazis that fled to Argentina had decided to work together and started over?
DanielBeaver wrote: I like the t-70 design - it's got that feel of an upgrade to a venerable design, sort of like the F/A-18 Super Hornet.
It's actually kind of a "downgrade" design-wise, because it is based on this:
That was Ralph McQuarrie's concept for the X-wing from 1975, which in turn was based on Joe Johnston's concept (he's the guy that directed Honey, I Shrunk The Kids).
Also - the new talent "wired" - because tycho apparently isn't good enough when stooging around with a pile of stress tokens higher than his head, so he needed to be ibitsam-lite as well...
). I think now that a new core set is all but confirmed, it kind of narrows down the two missing SKUs as either being blisters of the new ship or something like Kylo Ren's shuttle (which has a Lego set) and the Millennium Falcon v2.0, though I'm inclined to suspect the former.
