youngster ability just for "Ties"?

[Wayne Argabright 1,581]

So is youngster's ability just for normal "Ties" or does it work on FO ties and other Tie fighters/bombers etc??

[Funkleton 2,510]

Standard  TIEs only

 

if it worked on any TIE it would be worded more like the Twin Ion Engine Mkii card

 

Note also that the ship type listed on Youngster's card

 

 

 

Edited November 29, 2015 by Funkleton

[Forgottenlore 9,838]

But if FFG decides to be consistant with their rules, he will work with FO fighters as they also are "TIE"s and "Fighter"s.

See one of the other threads for the arguments for and against.

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/194519-quick-psa-ship-type-naming-rules-why-fos-are-fighters-and-taps-are-basic/

Edited November 29, 2015 by Forgottenlore

[Funkleton 2,510]

But if FFG decides to be consistant with their rules, he will work with FO fighters as they also are "TIE"s and "Fighter"s.

See one of the other threads for the arguments for and against.

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/194519-quick-psa-ship-type-naming-rules-why-fos-are-fighters-and-taps-are-basic/

 

wasn't there a ruling (that I now can't seem to find anywhere)  that the ship type had to match exactly what was on the card?

[Wayne Argabright 1,581]

so no use on advanced ties..lol I mean they are tie fighters too!!! 

[Forgottenlore 9,838]

wasn't there a ruling (that I now can't seem to find anywhere)  that the ship type had to match exactly what was on the card?

No, the rule (which specifically applies to upgrade cards), as quoted in the linked thread, is that the ship name has to include the entirety of the limiting text but not vice-versa. "Tie" only can be put on any ship with the word tie in the name, "tie fighter" applies to any ship with both those words on its name, but not to any ship with only some of those words in the name.

This is all laid out in the linked thread.

[Funkleton 2,510]

 

wasn't there a ruling (that I now can't seem to find anywhere)  that the ship type had to match exactly what was on the card?

No, the rule (which specifically applies to upgrade cards), as quoted in the linked thread, is that the ship name has to include the entirety of the limiting text but not vice-versa. "Tie" only can be put on any ship with the word tie in the name, "tie fighter" applies to any ship with both those words on its name, but not to any ship with only some of those words in the name.

This is all laid out in the linked thread.

 

 

Right you are   - not sure why I couldn't find that in the rules reference - thanks for the link 

[Tuls 215]

Intergrated Astromech is another example. X-Wing only but can be used on T-70.

[Warpman 2,115]

It's real nice it's NOT working on other TIEs

because it would BREAK THE INTERNETS META

Epic games would become the race of "kill Youngster before you die horribly"

[Kalandros 401]

 

vs

 

 

 

I think by this logic, "Youngster"'s ability should apply to TIE/fo Fighters

 

Also Vader's x1 is also a TIE Advanced

 

So that's another point for the TIE/fo Fighter to be also counted as a TIE Fighter for youngster's ability

Edited December 5, 2015 by Kalandros

[Smuggler 556]

 

vs

 

 

 

I think by this logic, "Youngster"'s ability should apply to TIE/fo Fighters

 

Also Vader's x1 is also a TIE Advanced

 

So that's another point for the TIE/fo Fighter to be also counted as a TIE Fighter for youngster's ability

The difference is:

"T70 X-Wing" contains "X-Wing", "Tie Advance X1" contains "Tie Advance". Tie/FO Fighter" does not contain "Tie Fighter". It contains "Tie" and "Fighter", but NOT "Tie Fighter".

[Forgottenlore 9,838]

The difference is:

"T70 X-Wing" contains "X-Wing", "Tie Advance X1" contains "Tie Advance". Tie/FO Fighter" does not contain "Tie Fighter". It contains "Tie" and "Fighter", but NOT "Tie Fighter".

The rule from the rules reference that is being discussed as governing this situation specifically uses the FO as an example of a tie fighter. I can understand an argument that the rule doesn't apply in this case. I can understand an argument re: the TAP and the x1 title, I can understand arguments about the raider title, but if you accept that the rules reference rule about upgrade limitations also applies here then there is absolutely zero argument that the FO is not a TIE Fighter, the rulebook explicitly says it is.

[Warpman 2,115]

Well, vader was FAQ'd to get the goodies.

 

so it doesn't work that way.

[Forgottenlore 9,838]

Well, vader was FAQ'd to get the goodies.

 

so it doesn't work that way.

You mean the FAQ entry that was added before the 2nd edition of the rules came out and this rule was added and that was only put into the FAQ to clarify that this IS how the rules work for those that couldn't read and that probably precipitated adding the rule to the new rulebook in the first place.

That FAQ?

[Smuggler 556]

 

The difference is:

"T70 X-Wing" contains "X-Wing", "Tie Advance X1" contains "Tie Advance". Tie/FO Fighter" does not contain "Tie Fighter". It contains "Tie" and "Fighter", but NOT "Tie Fighter".

The rule from the rules reference that is being discussed as governing this situation specifically uses the FO as an example of a tie fighter. I can understand an argument that the rule doesn't apply in this case. I can understand an argument re: the TAP and the x1 title, I can understand arguments about the raider title, but if you accept that the rules reference rule about upgrade limitations also applies here then there is absolutely zero argument that the FO is not a TIE Fighter, the rulebook explicitly says it is.

 

Ah, right you are. My mistake for not actualy reading the RRG first.

RRG P20:

 

If the ship’s type includes the entirety of the restricted type, it can equip that upgrade. For example, a TIE/fo fighter can equip an Upgrade card restricted to “TIE Fighter only.”

I'm not exaclty sure what they mean by "includes the entirety of the restricted type" then. Seems very contradictory to me.

[Dagonet 7,246]

 

I'm not exaclty sure what they mean by "includes the entirety of the restricted type" then. Seems very contradictory to me.

 

 

T-70 X-wing only would bar the X-wing from using it. 

X-wing only can be put on X-wings and T-70 X-wings.

 

 

The debate currently is with the TIE Advanced and TIE Adv. Prototype and their titles.

 

The TIE Adv. Prototype does not have the entirety of the restricted type listed on the TIE/x1 title card, so it would be blocked from using it.

 

People are arguing that of course Adv. is short for Advanced, but that is not what it says.

[Smuggler 556]

 

 

I'm not exaclty sure what they mean by "includes the entirety of the restricted type" then. Seems very contradictory to me.

 

 

T-70 X-wing only would bar the X-wing from using it. 

X-wing only can be put on X-wings and T-70 X-wings.

 

I understand that much, but since "TIE/FO Fighter" apparently contains "TIE Fighter" in its entierty (since the RRG says so) I'm still confused.

Hypothetical ship "Exsotic-Wing", does it contain X-Wing in its entierty? Or how about "Unitied Fighter", does it contain "TIE Fighter" in its entierty?

Going buy the TIE/FO example I would guess yes, but it feels very wrong. And paired with the adv. debate and the titles for the Raider, it looks like this rule is not so much a rule as a statement saying "Titles works for the ships we intend them to work with, until we expresly state what ships thouse are, you just have to guess our intent".

[Warpman 2,115]

 

Well, vader was FAQ'd to get the goodies.

 

so it doesn't work that way.

You mean the FAQ entry that was added before the 2nd edition of the rules came out and this rule was added and that was only put into the FAQ to clarify that this IS how the rules work for those that couldn't read and that probably precipitated adding the rule to the new rulebook in the first place.

That FAQ?

 

When they specifically mentioned, that despite Vader card said Tie advanced X1 already, it can be upgraded to a Tie\x1 via title card.

 

so it seems without the FAQ it was direct and strick RAW issue.

 

 

WHY would they put different ship name to the Vader card in the first place without stat change is another question.

[Kalandros 401]

 

 

 

I'm not exaclty sure what they mean by "includes the entirety of the restricted type" then. Seems very contradictory to me.

 

 

T-70 X-wing only would bar the X-wing from using it. 

X-wing only can be put on X-wings and T-70 X-wings.

 

I understand that much, but since "TIE/FO Fighter" apparently contains "TIE Fighter" in its entierty (since the RRG says so) I'm still confused.

Hypothetical ship "Exsotic-Wing", does it contain X-Wing in its entierty? Or how about "Unitied Fighter", does it contain "TIE Fighter" in its entierty?

Going buy the TIE/FO example I would guess yes, but it feels very wrong. And paired with the adv. debate and the titles for the Raider, it looks like this rule is not so much a rule as a statement saying "Titles works for the ships we intend them to work with, until we expresly state what ships thouse are, you just have to guess our intent".

 

I think you're overthinking things. What you're basically saying is that these 2 ships are X-Wings:

 

 

But that only one of these ships is a TIE Fighter, not the other

 

 

The T-70 looks much less like an X-Wing than the TIE/FO looks like a TIE Fighter.

Basically you're saying it would be fine if it said "FO TIE Fighter" but because the FO is inbetween then its completely different

[Jehan Menasis 1,562]

 

The debate currently is with the TIE Advanced and TIE Adv. Prototype and their titles.

 

The TIE Adv. Prototype does not have the entirety of the restricted type listed on the TIE/x1 title card, so it would be blocked from using it.

 

People are arguing that of course Adv. is short for Advanced, but that is not what it says.

 

 

And then we extend the problem to the Raider, in which the word 'corvette' is abbreviated as 'corv.', exactly the same situation as the prototype... Thus, by that interpretation, the corvette wouldn't be able to use its own titles.

[Forgottenlore 9,838]

And then we extend the problem to the Raider, in which the word 'corvette' is abbreviated as 'corv.', exactly the same situation as the prototype... Thus, by that interpretation, the corvette wouldn't be able to use its own titles.

 

Correct. Strict RAW that is the case until FFG Errata the Raider titles.

[Vulf 911]

 

And then we extend the problem to the Raider, in which the word 'corvette' is abbreviated as 'corv.', exactly the same situation as the prototype... Thus, by that interpretation, the corvette wouldn't be able to use its own titles.

 

Correct. Strict RAW that is the case until FFG Errata the Raider titles.

 

 

RAW as you understand it, you mean.

 

Nowhere in the rules does it say an abbreviation does not count as the full word. And the FAQ shows some examples of where an Abbreviation IS the full word.

 

 

 

 

So by the logic of some, once the TIE Advanced Prototype is printed in English, French, German, Spanish, and Chinese... if I want to use the x1 title on it, I better buy the foreign language version that is not abbreviated? The rules for tournaments do not disallow foreign language cards.

Edited December 8, 2015 by Vulf

[Jehan Menasis 1,562]

Indeed. Some people are so bent into avoiding the inquisitor equipping the ATC, that will hang to the most silly rules interpretations ir order to justify their PoV. (Maybe thinking that their 'case exposition' will somehow 'force' FFG to choose their favored interpretation).

 

Seriously people, FFG doesn't need silly interpretations about esoteric differences in abbreviations and punctuation. If they truly don't want the prototype to equip the ATC... They will simply state so.

 

Enough with the "Adv. is not the same as Advanced" nosense.

[Smuggler 556]

Seriously people, FFG doesn't need silly interpretations about esoteric differences in abbreviations and punctuation. If they truly don't want the prototype to equip the ATC... They will simply state so.

And that is precisely the problem here. The point of having general rules such as the one about what ships can equip a "xxx only" title is so FFG doesn't need to specify a list of ships that are allowed to use each and every title, instead we can use the rule and find out for our selfs which ships can use which titles.

But it seems we are back to FFG having to resolve it specificaly any way, so the rule feels useless.

[Vulf 911]

The rules are about which ships can equip upgrades, and titles are just an upgrade card.

 

Before, all of the ship-type restricted upgrades could only be equipped to one ship.

 

Modifications-

Combat Retrofit

Advanced Cloaking Device

B-wing/E2

Maneuvering Fins

 

Secondary Weapon slot-

Chardaan Refit

Bomb Loadout

 

other slot-

Expanded Cargo Hold

 

Then we got two new modifications that were suddenly breaking the norm and were available to multiple ship types:

Twin Ion Engine Mk. II (which can be equipped by 59 different pilots across 9 ship types)

and Integrated Astromech

 

Titles can be shared between different faction ships already.  The Rebel and Scum versions of the HWK-290 and the Imperial and Scum versions of the Firespray-31.

 

Does it break the game to allow Emon Azzameen to take the Imperial Firespray's Slave-1 title instead of the Scum Andrasta title for a torpedo slot, in order to get Extra Munitions and save points when taking 2 bombs?

 

Should the Scum Boba Fett be allowed to take the same title now that the Scum version has a new pilot ability that makes his missiles much more lethal?

Edited December 8, 2015 by Vulf