Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Crabbok

Inquisitor's TIE vs TIE Advanced

Recommended Posts

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.

Perfect!

So by your logic, if there was ever a ruling applying to proton torpedoes, it would also apply to adv. proton torpedoes. After all, it has "Proton Torpedoes" in the title.

Apples and oranges.

Pilot cards are the only thing with a Ship ID line. Titles reference the Ship ID line. If Torpedoes had a Munitions ID line, and there were a card category that referenced a card's Munitions ID line, and both Proton Torpedoes and Adv. Proton Torpedoes had "Proton Torpedo" in their Munitions ID, then yes, an upgrade that required "Proton Torpedo" in the Munitions ID line of a card to affect it would work on both cards.

As for the "Interceptor Only" bit, you're right. Hence why FFG made the Royal Guard TIE "TIE Interceptor Only," and the Heavy Scyk title is "M3-A Interceptor Only."

I used the example of Proton Torpedoes and Advanced Proton Torpedoes simply because the modifier "Advanced" sets it apart from regular Proton Torpedoes. If I say or write "Proton Torpedoes", I can't be any more specific. I'm clearly referring to the torpedoes that convert a focus result to a crit after rolling four dice.

In a similar vein, arguing that x1 is meant to include multiple ships is quite a stretch, and I think looking at the specific ship names makes that very clear. Proton Torpedoes is the entirety of the name for a specific ordnance. TIE Advanced is the entirety of the name of a specific, individual ship. Therefore, FFG couldn't be more specific or clear with their intention by what the card below says:

tiex1.png

TIE Advanced only. Could they refer to that ship more specifically? If their intent was to be vague, they would need to add something like "TIE Advanced Variants" to include additional ships since the TIE Advanced is a single ship type.

In contrast, the very inclusive Twin Ion Engine title reads as follows:

twin-ion-engine-mk2.png

TIE only: We can deduce this is intentionally vague because it is not the entire name of a ship. "TIE Fighter" would restrict it. It is meant to include every type of TIE in the game.

Based upon the wording of these two very different cards, we can deduce TIE/x1 is intented only for the TIE Advanced. Can we please acknowledge this and get back to discussing what upgrades the new TIE actually is allowed to take?

Edited by stackeffect

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the main point against the prototype getting the X1 title is that it has a native boost action. You'd have to use up the modification slot and four points to add boost to a regular Tie Advanced. That's balanced out by the 4-point reduction in its system upgrade, and outside of the named pilots and one less hull, I'd struggle to come up with a reason to not just take the prototype with that title. I doubt ffg wanted the Advanced to become less of an attractive option right after releasing its big fix.

 

Again... IT CANNOT EVADE.  Fly a Defender to understand the challenge that will present this ship.  I don't see the X1 as an auto include at all.  The V1 is a much more powerful title on the Prototype.  I also see this as further evidence that the X1 can be used on the TAP.  It balances the two ships and gives them both a unique feel.

Only evade when you can't shoot, given the k turn it's rare to never get a shot off with a defender.

Plenty of ships lack the evade action and do fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the main point against the prototype getting the X1 title is that it has a native boost action. You'd have to use up the modification slot and four points to add boost to a regular Tie Advanced. That's balanced out by the 4-point reduction in its system upgrade, and outside of the named pilots and one less hull, I'd struggle to come up with a reason to not just take the prototype with that title. I doubt ffg wanted the Advanced to become less of an attractive option right after releasing its big fix.

 

Again... IT CANNOT EVADE.  Fly a Defender to understand the challenge that will present this ship.  I don't see the X1 as an auto include at all.  The V1 is a much more powerful title on the Prototype.  I also see this as further evidence that the X1 can be used on the TAP.  It balances the two ships and gives them both a unique feel.

Only evade when you can't shoot, given the k turn it's rare to never get a shot off with a defender.

Plenty of ships lack the evade action and do fine.

Take a survey of the ships without evade. You'll find something in common that the TAP does not have...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I think the main point against the prototype getting the X1 title is that it has a native boost action. You'd have to use up the modification slot and four points to add boost to a regular Tie Advanced. That's balanced out by the 4-point reduction in its system upgrade, and outside of the named pilots and one less hull, I'd struggle to come up with a reason to not just take the prototype with that title. I doubt ffg wanted the Advanced to become less of an attractive option right after releasing its big fix.

 

Again... IT CANNOT EVADE.  Fly a Defender to understand the challenge that will present this ship.  I don't see the X1 as an auto include at all.  The V1 is a much more powerful title on the Prototype.  I also see this as further evidence that the X1 can be used on the TAP.  It balances the two ships and gives them both a unique feel.

Only evade when you can't shoot, given the k turn it's rare to never get a shot off with a defender.

Plenty of ships lack the evade action and do fine.

Take a survey of the ships without evade. You'll find something in common that the TAP does not have...

 

This is all a moot point as all titles are limited to a specific /MODEL/.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the main point against the prototype getting the X1 title is that it has a native boost action. You'd have to use up the modification slot and four points to add boost to a regular Tie Advanced. That's balanced out by the 4-point reduction in its system upgrade, and outside of the named pilots and one less hull, I'd struggle to come up with a reason to not just take the prototype with that title. I doubt ffg wanted the Advanced to become less of an attractive option right after releasing its big fix.

 

Again... IT CANNOT EVADE.  Fly a Defender to understand the challenge that will present this ship.  I don't see the X1 as an auto include at all.  The V1 is a much more powerful title on the Prototype.  I also see this as further evidence that the X1 can be used on the TAP.  It balances the two ships and gives them both a unique feel.

Only evade when you can't shoot, given the k turn it's rare to never get a shot off with a defender.

Plenty of ships lack the evade action and do fine.

Take a survey of the ships without evade. You'll find something in common that the TAP does not have...

I've got a stinking cold and wasted three hours putting a tv stand together for my oap dad so don't ask me to do homework.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it comical that there are those that just think they know the X1 will be limited to the TA. That very well might end up being the case. We just don't know until FFG gives us more info. Until then, the pro TAP X1 argument holds water, whether one chooses to recognize the logic in the argument or not.

Frankly, I find the possibilities for both the TA and TAP much more exciting if they can share that title.

Edited by Stone37

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it comical that there are those that just think they know the X1 will be limited to the TA. That very well might end up being the case. We just don't know until FFG gives us more info. Until then, the pro TAP X1 argument holds water, whether one chooses to recognize the logic in the argument or not.

Frankly, I find the possibilities for both the TA and TAP much more exciting if they can share that title.

I'm talking about every other title that FFG has released ever. None of them were usable on more then one model type. And....for the thousandth time, it would make the TA totally obsolete again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it comical that there are those that just think they know the X1 will be limited to the TA. That very well might end up being the case. We just don't know until FFG gives us more info. Until then, the pro TAP X1 argument holds water, whether one chooses to recognize the logic in the argument or not.

Frankly, I find the possibilities for both the TA and TAP much more exciting if they can share that title.

I don't know where you get your delusions, laser brain.

(J/k, I don't get to quote the movies that often)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it comical that there are those that just think they know the X1 will be limited to the TA. That very well might end up being the case. We just don't know until FFG gives us more info. Until then, the pro TAP X1 argument holds water, whether one chooses to recognize the logic in the argument or not.

Frankly, I find the possibilities for both the TA and TAP much more exciting if they can share that title.

I don't think anyone said they know anything for sure. However, I addressed your theory with evidence (as did others) that suggests the "possibility" you're outlining is logically unlikely.

Instead of claiming your argument "holds water" and implying that others simply fail to "recognize the logic", would you address the response I made that outlines why I have a hard time buying into your theory? Link provided for your convenience. :)

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/183754-inquisitors-tie-vs-tie-advanced/?p=1714737

Edited by stackeffect

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the main point against the prototype getting the X1 title is that it has a native boost action. You'd have to use up the modification slot and four points to add boost to a regular Tie Advanced. That's balanced out by the 4-point reduction in its system upgrade, and outside of the named pilots and one less hull, I'd struggle to come up with a reason to not just take the prototype with that title. I doubt ffg wanted the Advanced to become less of an attractive option right after releasing its big fix.

 

Again... IT CANNOT EVADE.  Fly a Defender to understand the challenge that will present this ship.  I don't see the X1 as an auto include at all.  The V1 is a much more powerful title on the Prototype.  I also see this as further evidence that the X1 can be used on the TAP.  It balances the two ships and gives them both a unique feel.

Only evade when you can't shoot, given the k turn it's rare to never get a shot off with a defender.

Plenty of ships lack the evade action and do fine.

Agreed. With the single action defenders, even with evade on the bar, focus would be used 99% of the time anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will say, the statline of the V1 gives me hope for an Avenger to show up sometime.

Yup.

TIE/AD Advanced (Avenger)

Att 3

Agi 3

Hull 3

Shield 2 (right between X1 and Defender on the stats)

Focus, TL, BR, Boost

System, missile

Might change out boost for evade, maybe.

Maybe a system (Avenger only) upgrade that allows it to take the tractor beam cannon without allowing the other cannons.

After the Avenger we can get the Aggressor as another Advanced variant, but they will have to change the name since we already have an Aggressor. TIE Pulverizor sounds cheesy enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember, the advanced targeting computer is also "TIE Advanced Only". If the X1 title is abled to be used on the adv. prototype, then it follows that ATC should be as well. If the Adv. Prototype is as overcosted as the TIE Advanced, then yeah I could see that happening. The Inquisitor seems very fairly priced, though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you could use the X1 title on this thing, why would you ever pay the points for a Tempest? Even named TIE Fighters would risk being pushed out by a swarm of generic Prototypes with Accuracy Correctors and Autothrusters. The only limiting factor on them would be the cost of such a build.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it comical that there are those that just think they know the X1 will be limited to the TA. That very well might end up being the case. We just don't know until FFG gives us more info. Until then, the pro TAP X1 argument holds water, whether one chooses to recognize the logic in the argument or not.

Frankly, I find the possibilities for both the TA and TAP much more exciting if they can share that title.

I don't think anyone said they know anything for sure. However, I addressed your theory with evidence (as did others) that suggests the "possibility" you're outlining is logically unlikely.

Instead of claiming your argument "holds water" and implying that others simply fail to "recognize the logic", would you address the response I made that outlines why I have a hard time buying into your theory? Link provided for your convenience. :)https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/183754-inquisitors-tie-vs-tie-advanced/?p=1714737

I have addressed your argument. Many times over. Could FFG state that TIE Advanced and TIE Adv. Are two different titles ( the basis of your argument)? Sure! But as it stands, they are both TIE Advanced and FFG is releasing a mod that will work on many different ships. Also, the V1 title and the lack of evade lead me to believe that FFG knew about the TAP while designing the Raider fixes. Edited by Stone37

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I find it comical that there are those that just think they know the X1 will be limited to the TA. That very well might end up being the case. We just don't know until FFG gives us more info. Until then, the pro TAP X1 argument holds water, whether one chooses to recognize the logic in the argument or not.

Frankly, I find the possibilities for both the TA and TAP much more exciting if they can share that title.

I don't think anyone said they know anything for sure. However, I addressed your theory with evidence (as did others) that suggests the "possibility" you're outlining is logically unlikely.

Instead of claiming your argument "holds water" and implying that others simply fail to "recognize the logic", would you address the response I made that outlines why I have a hard time buying into your theory? Link provided for your convenience. :)https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/183754-inquisitors-tie-vs-tie-advanced/?p=1714737

I have addressed your argument. Many times over. Could FFG state that TIE Advanced and TIE Adv. Are two different titles ( the basis of your argument)? Sure! But as it stands, they are both TIE Advanced [show me where, please. See link below that explicitly states completely the opposite of what you're claiming. Do you have some inside information we don't?] and FFG is releasing a mod that will work on many different ships. Also, the V1 title and the lack of evade lead me to believe that FFG knew about the TAP while designing the Raider fixes.

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but you haven't addressed the critical point in my post. I'll simplify it to two questions:

 

1) If you were FFG and you wanted the x1 title to be a single ship title (like every other ship title except for 1 to date), what text would you use? Please, write it down.

 

2) How do you jump to the point that the new ship is the TIE Advanced also (to the point that it is worthy of carrying the title)? I understand that there seem to be references to the TIE Advanced (and I'm very aware of the Star Wars lore), but the ship expansion seems to be titled "Inquisitor's TIE". All indicators suggest the "TIE Advanced Prototype = TIE Advanced" argument is grasping at straws even more...

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/products/x-wing/products/inquisitors-tie-expansion-pack/

 

That's why I don't understand how you've addressed my position. Let's just assume I'm slow. Please be patient and break it down for me - specifically addressing these two points. That's all I ask.

 

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I find it comical that there are those that just think they know the X1 will be limited to the TA. That very well might end up being the case. We just don't know until FFG gives us more info. Until then, the pro TAP X1 argument holds water, whether one chooses to recognize the logic in the argument or not.

Frankly, I find the possibilities for both the TA and TAP much more exciting if they can share that title.

I don't think anyone said they know anything for sure. However, I addressed your theory with evidence (as did others) that suggests the "possibility" you're outlining is logically unlikely.

Instead of claiming your argument "holds water" and implying that others simply fail to "recognize the logic", would you address the response I made that outlines why I have a hard time buying into your theory? Link provided for your convenience. :)https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/183754-inquisitors-tie-vs-tie-advanced/?p=1714737

I have addressed your argument. Many times over. Could FFG state that TIE Advanced and TIE Adv. Are two different titles ( the basis of your argument)? Sure! But as it stands, they are both TIE Advanced [show me where, please. See link below that explicitly states completely the opposite of what you're claiming. Do you have some inside information we don't?] and FFG is releasing a mod that will work on many different ships. Also, the V1 title and the lack of evade lead me to believe that FFG knew about the TAP while designing the Raider fixes.

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but you haven't addressed the critical point in my post. I'll simplify it to two questions:

 

1) If you were FFG and you wanted the x1 title to be a single ship title (like every other ship title except for 1 to date), what text would you use? Please, write it down.

 

2) How do you jump to the point that the new ship is the TIE Advanced also (to the point that it is worthy of carrying the title)? I understand that there seem to be references to the TIE Advanced (and I'm very aware of the Star Wars lore), but the ship expansion seems to be titled "Inquisitor's TIE". All indicators suggest the "TIE Advanced Prototype = TIE Advanced" argument is grasping at straws even more...

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/products/x-wing/products/inquisitors-tie-expansion-pack/

 

That's why I don't understand how you've addressed my position. Let's just assume I'm slow. Please be patient and break it down for me - specifically addressing these two points. That's all I ask.

 

Thanks.

 

 

Question 1) I wouldn't put Adv. in the PAT's name.  I would have just called it TIE Prototype.  (Now it is crystal clear that the X1 title is ONLY for the TIE Advanced)  Again, I recognize the argument that TIE Advanced and TIE Adv. are technically different, even though they have the same meaning.

 

Question 2) It's called TIE Adv. Prototype.  Also from the FFG article:

 

Personally tasked by Darth Vader to hunt down and eliminate any surviving Jedi Knights, the Inquisitor was provided access to the best of all available Imperial technologies, including his own personal TIE Advanced prototype, which represented a groundbreaking improvement over the TIE fighter designs of its time.

 

FFG Calls it a TIE Advanced, leading to believe the Adv. on the dial is just to save room.  And that was FFG's answer to if Vader's x1 could take the title.  All that maters is what is on the dial.  That is the name of the ship regardless of the pilot card that goes with it (or the name on the packaging).

Edited by Stone37

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Stone37: your argument assumes that "TIE Adv." and "TIE Advanced" are the same thing. I see no reason to agree with that assumption, especially since there are design and balance reasons that FFG probably doesn't want them to be the same.

 

I will again quote from the article:

 

Personally tasked by Darth Vader to hunt down and eliminate any surviving Jedi Knights, the Inquisitor was provided access to the best of all available Imperial technologies, including his own personal TIE Advanced prototype, which represented a groundbreaking improvement over the TIE fighter designs of its time.

 

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2015/7/31/xwing-out-of-hiding/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, this isn't a conversation with friends where you can use synonyms. These are binding rules where nouns and verbs follow templates so that all instances of "attack" have the same meaning and anything that doesn't use the word "attack" doesn't count period. This means a "TIE Adv. Protoype" is NOT a "TIE Advanced".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Stone37: your argument assumes that "TIE Adv." and "TIE Advanced" are the same thing. I see no reason to agree with that assumption, especially since there are design and balance reasons that FFG probably doesn't want them to be the same.

 

I will again quote from the article:

 

Personally tasked by Darth Vader to hunt down and eliminate any surviving Jedi Knights, the Inquisitor was provided access to the best of all available Imperial technologies, including his own personal TIE Advanced prototype, which represented a groundbreaking improvement over the TIE fighter designs of its time.

 

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2015/7/31/xwing-out-of-hiding/

I've read the article, but usually they're not treated as rules text.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Stone37: your argument assumes that "TIE Adv." and "TIE Advanced" are the same thing. I see no reason to agree with that assumption, especially since there are design and balance reasons that FFG probably doesn't want them to be the same.

He's arguing with the literal density that comes with the name. I wouldn't bother at this stage, he'll be wrong eventually.

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...