Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
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.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
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.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/08/01 01:05:34
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).
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/01 01:27:34
"I have traveled trough the Realm of Death and brought back novelty pencils"
GamesWorkshop wrote: And I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids!
Oh, somewhere in this favored land the sun is shining bright;
the band is playing somewhere and somewhere hearts are light,and somewhere men are laughing, and somewhere children shout but there is no joy in Mudville — mighty Casey has struck out.
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/08/01 01:32:12
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?
It's overpriced for its stats.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/08/01 02:27:07
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.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/01 03:40:19
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.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
"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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/08/01 04:46:16
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.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
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 ...
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2015/08/01 05:39:57
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.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
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?
This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2015/08/01 06:48:28
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.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
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.
This message was edited 10 times. Last update was at 2015/08/01 07:25:43
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.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
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).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/01 08:22:14
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/08/01 08:47:02
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
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.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/08/01 09:31:59
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/01 09:56:28
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
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.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/08/01 10:40:03
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/08/01 11:42:59
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
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.
