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.

Which ships can equip the TIE Mk.II mod? There are no ships just called 'TIE' after all, so what does TIE only mean?

 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).

Edit bekaws I spel gud

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.

Yeah, I think it's FFG trying to make the best with an awkward hand. They probably have already penciled it into the next FAQ.

 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.

 Lord Corellia wrote:

 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.

 Lord Corellia wrote:
The best you can say is that they share a window design.

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.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
The TIE Punisher is the TIE Bomber but "better"

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.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
It would depend on how it is worded, but probably not the new ship.

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?

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
There is no logical argument for it to be any other way.

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.

Honestly I think the confusion about who can use the upgrade is due to SW Rebels writer forgetting some punctuation.

See we think it says this.
TIE Advanced, Prototype

I bet it is actually supposed to say this.
TIE, Advanced Prototype

See the difference?
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.

 Manchu wrote:

 Lord Corellia wrote:
The best you can say is that they share a window design.

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.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
The TIE Punisher is the TIE Bomber but "better"

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.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
There is no logical argument for it to be any other way.

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.

Ohh does it? I have only seen the pilot movie. I thought it was supposed to be older.
Color me wrong then.

 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 FFG FAQs 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).

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
More asinine rules lawyering.

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.

 Manchu wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
More asinine rules lawyering.

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:
Hug it out?

Glad to bro!

 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)

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

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

How so? What about the BTL-A4 for example?

 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.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

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).

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
All that other stuff is icing on the cake.

Would you mind quoting the cake ?

 Manchu wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
All that other stuff is icing on the cake.

Would you mind quoting the cake ?

Certainly. I'll quote it again for you:

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.).

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. 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).

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Every title in this game lists exactly what ship it can be used on.

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.

 Manchu wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Every title in this game lists exactly what ship it can be used on.

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.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Seriously, it could be any more fething clear.

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.

 Manchu wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Seriously, it could be any more fething clear.

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: FFG probably 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.