youngster ability just for "Ties"?

[Aerethan 32]

So... was the consensus that Youngster's pilot ability applies to TIE/FO ships as well or not? In all that technical rambling no one stated this concisely. 

[Smuggler 556]

So... was the consensus that Youngster's pilot ability applies to TIE/FO ships as well or not? In all that technical rambling no one stated this concisely. 

The only consensus is that there is no consensus. Untill FFG states it one way or the other we don't know for sure.

[Forgottenlore 9,838]

So... was the consensus that Youngster's pilot ability applies to TIE/FO ships as well or not? In all that technical rambling no one stated this concisely.

The only rule that comes close to the issue "suggests" that it does, but still leaves it very much in the air. Until something more definite comes along, I, personally, would rule yes, but I also would not be at all surprised if FFG decided otherwise.

[mearn4d10 81]

For Home games and casual games, I'm going with the "FO's are TIE Fighters, DAMNIT" camp.

At tourneys, as always until we get a firm ruling, I'll ask the TO ahead of time.

[Mace Windu 1,173]

I have to say it's a sad day when we are all unwilling to make a call on what appears to be a cut and dry simple answer.

 

If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck…. We need an FAQ.

[DR4CO 6,234]

I have to say it's a sad day when we are all unwilling to make a call on what appears to be a cut and dry simple answer.

 

Then we have had quite a few sad days over the last few years. 

 

Seriously, though, compared to some of the questions that have been not only sent to FFG, but included in the FAQ (I refer you to the "Can I attack my own ship?" nonsense), this is actually a fairly legitimate issue.

[Mace Windu 1,173]

 

Seriously, though, compared to some of the questions that have been not only sent to FFG, but included in the FAQ (I refer you to the "Can I attack my own ship?" nonsense), this is actually a fairly legitimate issue.

 

 

Funnily enough I would say the opposite, there are a few good reasons to shoot you own ship, Assault missiles, Dead Man's Switch and now Tractor beam (for repositioning). Hence why they had to tell people they couldn’t shoot their own ships.

 

When the RR say that upgrade cards the specifically say "Tie Fighter only" do apply to the FO, why are we even considering whether an ability that says "Tie Fighter Only" is excluded from the FO?

Edited January 13, 2016 by Mace Windu

[Forgottenlore 9,838]

there are a few good reasons to shoot you own ship, Assault missiles, Dead Man's Switch and now Tractor beam (for repositioning).

Tactically, as the player of a game, there have been reasons to want to shoot your own ships. T-Beam is the first time it might make sense from a flavor perspective, seeing as it causes no damage to your friend.

I would not be super surprised if the changed the rule because of that. Probably not though.

Edited January 13, 2016 by Forgottenlore

[Rawling 345]

When the RR say that upgrade cards the specifically say "Tie Fighter only" do apply to the FO, why are we even considering whether an ability that says "Tie Fighter Only" is excluded from the FO?

Because that section of rules is talking about when a ship name appears in the "x only" restriction on an upgrade card. We have no indication that the same logic applies to when a ship is referenced in a pilot ability's text, or even the remainder of an upgrade card's text.

[Mace Windu 1,173]

When the RR say that upgrade cards the specifically say "Tie Fighter only" do apply to the FO, why are we even considering whether an ability that says "Tie Fighter Only" is excluded from the FO?

Because that section of rules is talking about when a ship name appears in the "x only" restriction on an upgrade card. We have no indication that the same logic applies to when a ship is referenced in a pilot ability's text, or even the remainder of an upgrade card's text.

Your comments speak volumes about how sceptical many have become about the rules to the point where we question and over scrutinize everything. Nothing can be inferred from existing rules precidents anymore, players demand exact text from the FAQ now where clear intentions is no longer deemed enough.

Regardless, has someone actually sent an email to FFG for a definitive answer on this question?

Edited January 13, 2016 by Mace Windu

[VanorDM 11,599]

Regardless, has someone actually sent an email to FFG for a definitive answer on this question?

The rules explicitly state that TIE/fo Fighter and TIE Fighter are the same thing. FFG however will not address the issue of the Advanced vs Adv. until after the TAP is released.

I'm fairly sure someone has emailed them about the Raider title, but they have not said anything as far as I know.

One thing I can say for sure, that one way or another FFG will rule that the TAP cannot take the X1 title. The whole point of the current rule issue was to avoid that very thing, but sadly it created almost as many issues as not having the rule did.

[Rawling 345]

 

The rules explicitly state that TIE/fo Fighter and TIE Fighter are the same thing.

 

 

No, they don't.

[VanorDM 11,599]

No, they don't.

Really?

For example, a TIE/fo fighter can equip an Upgrade card restricted to “TIE Fighter only.”

Now granted, an upgrade that says TIE/fo only wouldn't be allowed on a TIE Fighter. So yes technically you're right, they're not the same thing. But for the purpose of the question asked, Youngster does work for both types of Ties.

[Rawling 345]

For example, a TIE/fo fighter can equip an Upgrade card restricted to “TIE Fighter only.”

... for the purpose of the question asked, Youngster does work for both types of Ties.

 

How does

 

a TIE/fo fighter can equip an Upgrade card restricted to “TIE Fighter only.”

translate into

 

a TIE/fo fighter can be the target of a pilot ability that says “TIE Fighter”?

They are two separate situations. The rule appears in the section "Upgrade Cards". It does not, as written, apply to pilot abilities.

Edited January 13, 2016 by Rawling

[Mace Windu 1,173]

I think a more compelling question if you are to maintain your position on this issue Rawling would be to you to actually justify that if a "Tie Fighter Only" upgrade card can be equipped to a Tie F/O then please tell me why "Friendly TIE fighters at Range 1-3 may perform the action on your equipped Elite Talent Upgrade card."  doesn’t apply to the Tie F/O?

 

Please quote from any of the rules texts within the game.

 

Just saying " Because the rules don’t specifically tell me that I can" is not good enough when the current precedent setting text from the RR says "For example, a TIE/fo fighter can equip an Upgrade card restricted to “TIE Fighter only.”

 

Also youngster does not target other Tie Fighters it allows them to use the action based EPT he has equipped

 

Edit:

Next you will be telling me that I cant equip my Integrated Astromech to my T-70 X-Wing because it says "X-Wing Only"

Edited January 13, 2016 by Mace Windu

[Rawling 345]

Please quote from any of the rules texts within the game.

So... we can do anything that the rules don't tell us we can't do?

Nevertheless, this argument is pointless now, because FFG have made an additional ruling that resolves the issue.

 

Next you will be telling me that I cant equip my Integrated Astromech to my T-70 X-Wing because it says "X-Wing Only"

Of course I won't tell you that. That is exactly the case the rule covers, as opposed to a similar but distinct case.

Edited January 13, 2016 by Rawling

[VanorDM 11,599]

So... we can do anything that the rules don't tell us we can't do?

No but we can take existing rules and use them as precedence for other similar situations that the rules don't seem to cover.

In this case we know that ships with Tie and Fighter in the name can take any upgrade that says Tie Fighter only. So when a similar situation arises such as a pilot ability that limits things to a given type of ship we can say it will most likely follow the rules for a different yet similar situation.

[Vulf 911]

 

So... we can do anything that the rules don't tell us we can't do?

No but we can take existing rules and use them as precedence for other similar situations that the rules don't seem to cover.

 

 

Like treating an abbreviation as the complete word?

 

The FAQs and articles use Advanced interchangeably with Adv.

 

ship-type upgrades = ship-type pilot abilities is more of a stretch than

 

Corvette = Corv. and

Advanced = Adv.

Edited January 14, 2016 by Vulf

[angrymike 8]

This seems to be settled by the FAQ rulings.

 

Collected Developer Rulings since FAQ v4.0

[Vulf 911]

It actually isn't supported by the rules as written, but we are expecting them to change ship-type upgrades in the rules reference to also include ship-type abilities.

It is also possible they misunderstood their own rules and answered the email without looking it up.

 

We can't prove someone has an email in their inbox from Frank, and they may change their minds by the time the faq comes around. I wouldn't consider it definitive until it is in the official materials.