Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Crabbok

Inquisitor's TIE vs TIE Advanced

Recommended Posts

I just wanted to close the loop on this discussion now that official word has been handed down.

 

FAQ Version 4.1.1, P.15

 

TIE/v1

Darth Vader cannot be equipped with the TIE/v1 Upgrade card.

TIE Advanced ships cannot be equipped with the TIE/v1 Upgrade card.

 

TIE/x1

TIE Adv. Prototype ships cannot be equipped with the TIE/x1 Upgrade card.

 

That is all.

 

There are babies in the word that weren't conceived last time this thread was posted on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wanted to close the loop on this discussion now that official word has been handed down.

 

FAQ Version 4.1.1, P.15

 

TIE/v1

Darth Vader cannot be equipped with the TIE/v1 Upgrade card.

TIE Advanced ships cannot be equipped with the TIE/v1 Upgrade card.

 

TIE/x1

TIE Adv. Prototype ships cannot be equipped with the TIE/x1 Upgrade card.

 

That is all.

giphy.gif

 

I think this one was dead the second the ruling was made on the TIE Fighter/FO and X-wing/T-70.  The word "Advanced" is not found on the pilot cards or the dial.  While "Adv." is a weak way to solve the issue, it does set an easy to follow precedence.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wanted to close the loop on this discussion now that official word has been handed down.

 

FAQ Version 4.1.1, P.15

 

TIE/v1

Darth Vader cannot be equipped with the TIE/v1 Upgrade card.

TIE Advanced ships cannot be equipped with the TIE/v1 Upgrade card.

 

TIE/x1

TIE Adv. Prototype ships cannot be equipped with the TIE/x1 Upgrade card.

 

That is all.

 

I find it hilarious how a common game mechanic that has been in use since at least the early nineties (MTG)  manage to get 20 pages of circular discussion, complete with false as "there is only one TIE advanced" when the advanced series itself has like 8 or 9 iterations. And god damnit, I want my Avenger!

Edited by SEApocalypse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They did not however, fully close the greater issue of Abbreviations.  IE the Raider cannot take it's own titles if we interpret rules as written.  (Granted everyone knows the Raider CAN indeed take it's own titles).  

The only reason this is even a question in my mind, is for future-proofing things.  I'd prefer to know if Abbreviations are ALWAYS ok, and the TIE ADV. Prototype is the exception, or if Abbreviations are NEVER ok, and the Raider is the exception.   Just in case we see this sort of thing happen again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They did not however, fully close the greater issue of Abbreviations.  IE the Raider cannot take it's own titles if we interpret rules as written.  (Granted everyone knows the Raider CAN indeed take it's own titles).  

The only reason this is even a question in my mind, is for future-proofing things.  I'd prefer to know if Abbreviations are ALWAYS ok, and the TIE ADV. Prototype is the exception, or if Abbreviations are NEVER ok, and the Raider is the exception.   Just in case we see this sort of thing happen again. 

It would seem the Raider is the exception as the rules currently read.  The TAP caused all sorts of problems didn't it?  :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

They did not however, fully close the greater issue of Abbreviations.  IE the Raider cannot take it's own titles if we interpret rules as written.  (Granted everyone knows the Raider CAN indeed take it's own titles).  

The only reason this is even a question in my mind, is for future-proofing things.  I'd prefer to know if Abbreviations are ALWAYS ok, and the TIE ADV. Prototype is the exception, or if Abbreviations are NEVER ok, and the Raider is the exception.   Just in case we see this sort of thing happen again. 

It would seem the Raider is the exception as the rules currently read.  The TAP caused all sorts of problems didn't it?  :D

 

I think I agree with that. 

 

I'm just worried about future-proofing this kind of scenario. Suppose there is an Imperial Juggernauts pack someday, and suppose it comes with a TIE Fighter and a TIE Interceptor.  Suppose it has a modification called "Super Agile Modification" and it is restricted, saying "Intercept. and TIE Fighter only".  

  Naturally we'd assume it can go on a TIE interceptor, because it COMES with one... but could it then also go on an M3A Interceptor?  

 

Just speculating and stuff.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

They did not however, fully close the greater issue of Abbreviations.  IE the Raider cannot take it's own titles if we interpret rules as written.  (Granted everyone knows the Raider CAN indeed take it's own titles).  

The only reason this is even a question in my mind, is for future-proofing things.  I'd prefer to know if Abbreviations are ALWAYS ok, and the TIE ADV. Prototype is the exception, or if Abbreviations are NEVER ok, and the Raider is the exception.   Just in case we see this sort of thing happen again. 

It would seem the Raider is the exception as the rules currently read.  The TAP caused all sorts of problems didn't it?  :D

 

I think I agree with that. 

 

Just speculating and stuff.  

 

And poking the bear as you like to do.   :lol:  (I'm also guilty)

 

Speaking of which... did you see this?

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/204643-somebody-sell-me-on-the-inquisitor-or-the-tap-in-general/page-7

 

I couldn't help myself...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They did not however, fully close the greater issue of Abbreviations.  IE the Raider cannot take it's own titles if we interpret rules as written.  (Granted everyone knows the Raider CAN indeed take it's own titles).  

The only reason this is even a question in my mind, is for future-proofing things.  I'd prefer to know if Abbreviations are ALWAYS ok, and the TIE ADV. Prototype is the exception, or if Abbreviations are NEVER ok, and the Raider is the exception.   Just in case we see this sort of thing happen again. 

No, that issue concerning abbreviations was not solved. The FAQ just contained the obvious part. Solving the whole issue would mean adding an erratum for the Raider's titles (or the ship cards) and, I would suggest, adding a clarification or question entry about abbreviations.

 

But that was not done, so I think there isn't really some lofty general rules principle at stake here. It seems the designers just want us to know what card can go where. "Adv." stands for "Advanced," but the TIE/x1 title is not allowed on the TAP. And if that makes your worldview implode, so be it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

They did not however, fully close the greater issue of Abbreviations.  IE the Raider cannot take it's own titles if we interpret rules as written.  (Granted everyone knows the Raider CAN indeed take it's own titles).  

The only reason this is even a question in my mind, is for future-proofing things.  I'd prefer to know if Abbreviations are ALWAYS ok, and the TIE ADV. Prototype is the exception, or if Abbreviations are NEVER ok, and the Raider is the exception.   Just in case we see this sort of thing happen again. 

It would seem the Raider is the exception as the rules currently read.  The TAP caused all sorts of problems didn't it?  :D

 

I think I agree with that. 

 

Just speculating and stuff.  

 

And poking the bear as you like to do.   :lol:  (I'm also guilty)

 

Speaking of which... did you see this?

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/204643-somebody-sell-me-on-the-inquisitor-or-the-tap-in-general/page-7

 

I couldn't help myself...

 

 

Can't wait either to add an inquisitor as third ace to my interceptor squad.The raider is a good catch and a real facepalm moment. IIRC FFG even stated that the use of "adv." was intentionally, using this technique is really, really old within trading card games to exclude certain new cards from getting undesired interactions. Yet they totally blew this with huge ships literally with the same expansion which brought us the /x1 title.

 

The CR90 seems fine currently, but it's titles might need a FAQ again in case we ever get an imperial or scum CR90. Well, or we get an imperial Tantive IV, etc which seems fine with the lore too. 

 

*shrugs* Considering the amount of cards X-Wing has, the amount of FAQ and errata is really impressively high. But considering the reputation FFG has with editorial and even simple game manual,  it still is not surprising. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

They did not however, fully close the greater issue of Abbreviations.  IE the Raider cannot take it's own titles if we interpret rules as written.  (Granted everyone knows the Raider CAN indeed take it's own titles).  

The only reason this is even a question in my mind, is for future-proofing things.  I'd prefer to know if Abbreviations are ALWAYS ok, and the TIE ADV. Prototype is the exception, or if Abbreviations are NEVER ok, and the Raider is the exception.   Just in case we see this sort of thing happen again. 

It would seem the Raider is the exception as the rules currently read.  The TAP caused all sorts of problems didn't it?  :D

 

I think I agree with that. 

 

Just speculating and stuff.  

 

And poking the bear as you like to do.   :lol:  (I'm also guilty)

 

Speaking of which... did you see this?

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/204643-somebody-sell-me-on-the-inquisitor-or-the-tap-in-general/page-7

 

I couldn't help myself...

 

 

Can't wait either to add an inquisitor as third ace to my interceptor squad.The raider is a good catch and a real facepalm moment. IIRC FFG even stated that the use of "adv." was intentionally, using this technique is really, really old within trading card games to exclude certain new cards from getting undesired interactions. Yet they totally blew this with huge ships literally with the same expansion which brought us the /x1 title.

 

The CR90 seems fine currently, but it's titles might need a FAQ again in case we ever get an imperial or scum CR90. Well, or we get an imperial Tantive IV, etc which seems fine with the lore too. 

 

*shrugs* Considering the amount of cards X-Wing has, the amount of FAQ and errata is really impressively high. But considering the reputation FFG has with editorial and even simple game manual,  it still is not surprising. 

 

Well considering there is not and likely never will be another ship that that card could refer and the cards came with the ship in question maybe they (incorrectly apparently) assumed that all the players would be smart enough to figure it out on their own. Particularly since literally every single title card in the game is limited to one specific model and that much is stated in the main rules for titles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Considering that it lists the ship as TIE Adv. Prototype, I don't think it can take the TIE Advanced x1 title.

 

This is reinforced by the TIE/v1 title being TIE Adv. Prototype only.

Close, but no cigar.  Here's why.  The V1 is the most restrictive title, requiring three words.  TIE, ADVANCED, and PROTOTYPE.   

We have 3 tiers of TIE titles now.... one that simply requires TIE.   One that requires TIE and ADVANCED, and the V1, which requires all three.  The X1 requires only two - TIE and Advanced.  

 

Imagine a title that said "Interceptor Only" - it would by definition go on an M3A AND a TIE Interceptor.  

 

 

 

Considering that it lists the ship as TIE Adv. Prototype, I don't think it can take the TIE Advanced x1 title.

 

This is reinforced by the TIE/v1 title being TIE Adv. Prototype only.

 

This is more than an assumption, this is a solid argument based in facts.

 

But what about the TIE Engine Mk.II card Tie Only?  Does this not suggest that anything with "Tie" in the name can take the card? (it can... this has been confirmed)  Would this same logic not be applied to Advanced?   ;)

 

Yes it should be.  It is obvious.  If they didn't want you to be able to use the X1 title, then they would have but the prototype word BEFORE the Advanced (IMO).  The fact that it's ship named contains the words TIE and ADVANCED, in that order... constitutes the prerequisites to take such a title.  

 

 

The important question is can the inquistors tie take the title card or not?

 

No. The TIE/x1 card is for the TIE Advanced. The TIE Advanced Prototype comes with its own TIE/v1 title.

 

For those who somehow aren't convinced, TIE/x1 is an enormous buff. FFG wouldn't release a new ship that also needs the Raider to be playable.

 

It IS playable right out of the box.  It has it's OWN title, that is more restricive as well, because it is a TIE Advanced Prototype - Only - title, so there is a tradeoff.  If you take the X1 title, you cannot use the V1 title.  

 

 

 

Does the prototypes dial say tie advanced on it? If not it can't use the card.

 

It does!swx40_spread.png

It doesn't. It says TIE Adv. And it's title says TIE Adv. Only.

 

What do you think ADV stands for?  TIE Adventurer?  TIE Advantageous?   Comon now be realistic.  

 

 

I mean it's possible FFG could come out and say that ADV does NOT equal Advanced... but I seriously doubt it.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Judging by the price of the Inquisitor and comparing that to other PS 8 ace prices for empire I think the points cost will be slightly under the equivalent ps interceptors with the ps 2 being in the 15-17 range.

I'll throw my hat into the guessing game.

 

The Defender has a 7 point gap between Rex (PS8) and Delta (PS1), Between Juno (PS8) and Tempest (PS2) there is a 7 point difference.  The Alpha Interceptor is 18 points, and I just don't see the PS2 Prototype going for less than that.

 

My guess is base cost of 18 to 20.

 

VICTORY IS MINE ON ALL FRONTS!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...