IG88E

TIE Aggressor with IG2000 title

313 posts in this topic

Just now, Marinealver said:

So if it misses with an attack it may make another attack with a <turret> weapon? :P

No, in a magic-and-fairy-dust parallel universe where this doesn't get errata-ed into oblivion, it means that all TIE Aggressors with the title would share each other's pilot abilities. IG-88's ability is irrelevant  

Nice catch, OP. 

DR4CO, IG88E and VanderLegion like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Marinealver said:

So if it misses with an attack it may make another attack with a <turret> weapon? :P

 

2 minutes ago, Rodafowa said:

No, in a magic-and-fairy-dust parallel universe where this doesn't get errata-ed into oblivion, it means that all TIE Aggressors with the title would share each other's pilot abilities. IG-88's ability is irrelevant  

Nice catch, OP. 

Hence why it is with a <turret> weapon and not a <cannon> weapon.;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, VanderLegion said:

RAW yes you can :).  I expect it to get FAQed...

Most likely result: errata to the IG-2000 title card to add 'Scum only' to the byline.

Alternative possibility: the TIE Aggressor named pilots have abilities that you really don't want to/can't share.  IE., "If you are not stressed, you may deal a stress token to all friendly fighters and receive an evade token and focus token for each stress token dealt out" or something that happens once during setup or etc.

digitalbusker likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Why 'fix' it?  It makes the TIE aggies super special, and I'm all for that.

 

its still crazy that the TIE Phantom can't take the Phantom title. 

 

Also the IG-1000 was totally a TIE design.

Edited by GrimmyV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, IG88E said:

latest?cb=20140818210230

Aggressor only: So I can use this title for the TIE Aggressor too? ;)

I knew the "Aggressor" name would bring problems... Frankly, FFG should saw that coming... (don't you know your own game?)

As the cards are right now, YOU CAN use this title in the TIE Aggressor.

But I expect the simple errata "Scum only" added soon to the title.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No  

TIE Phantom and Phantom are not interchangeable. They are different ships that share a portion of their name in similarity.  

TIE Agressor and Aggressor are not interchangeable. They are different ships that share a portion of their name in similarity. 

AdamGATX105 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, xanderf said:

Most likely result: errata to the IG-2000 title card to add 'Scum only' to the byline.

Alternative possibility: the TIE Aggressor named pilots have abilities that you really don't want to/can't share.  IE., "If you are not stressed, you may deal a stress token to all friendly fighters and receive an evade token and focus token for each stress token dealt out" or something that happens once during setup or etc.

Even abilities like that could be useful to share. Lets you pick who triggers it. 

Just now, Ccwebb said:

No  

TIE Phantom and Phantom are not interchangeable. They are different ships that share a portion of their name in similarity.  

TIE Agressor and Aggressor are not interchangeable. They are different ships that share a portion of their name in similarity. 

The tie phantom doesn't have a title and the other ship is Actually the "Attack Shuttle", "Phantom" is just the name of its title

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Odanan said:

I knew the "Aggressor" name would bring problems... Frankly, FFG should saw that coming... (don't you know your own game?)

As the cards are right now, YOU CAN use this title in the TIE Aggressor.

But I expect the simple errata "Scum only" added soon to the title.

I'm going to give FFG the benefit of the doubt and assume they saw it, but didn't want to add that into the FAQ that just dropped, for fear of spoiling us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't this one of those simple common sense things? You all know this is the title for IG2000. Common sense it won't work. Further its Aggressor Title NOT Tie Aggressor title two completely different ships. 

Schu81, Dr Zoidberg and Ccwebb like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

11 minutes ago, AdamGATX105 said:

Isn't this one of those simple common sense things? You all know this is the title for IG2000. Common sense it won't work. Further its Aggressor Title NOT Tie Aggressor title two completely different ships. 

Can you use Integrated Astromech with a "T-70 X-Wing" or just with an "X-Wing"?

Integrated-astromech.png

 

Common sense also tells us that robots can't do drugs meant for organic lifeforms but the IGs and 4-LOM can all pop Glitterstim.

Edited by WWHSD
Princezilla, Embir82, Addie and 3 others like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

5 minutes ago, WWHSD said:

Can you use Integrated Astromech with a "T-70 X-Wing" or just with an "X-Wing"?

Integrated-astromech.png

The difference is one is meant to be a legal combo and the other is not. You all know that, your just trying to be cute

Edited by AdamGATX105
Schu81 and Ccwebb like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

12 minutes ago, AdamGATX105 said:

Isn't this one of those simple common sense things? You all know this is the title for IG2000. Common sense it won't work. Further its Aggressor Title NOT Tie Aggressor title two completely different ships. 

People are having a silly moment at FFG'S expense, relax.

I'd also point out that you're wrong about how ship names work in this game, but at least a half dozen people have already done that before me.

Edited by Squark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, AdamGATX105 said:

Isn't this one of those simple common sense things? You all know this is the title for IG2000. Common sense it won't work. Further its Aggressor Title NOT Tie Aggressor title two completely different ships. 

Common sense isn't a valid rules argument. You can be in physical contact with a ship but not be "touching". 

And the ship-specific upgrade doesn't need the whole ship name to work. Otherwise no one would be able to use mark 2 engines. The ship name just has to include the entirety of the specified text, in this case if you have "aggressor" in your ship name, you can equip it. 

Pretty sure no one here (including me) really thinks this is intended or that it won't be FAQed into oblivion, but as the rules stand it DOES work right now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, AdamGATX105 said:

The difference is one is meant to be a legal combo and the other is not. You all know that, your just trying to be cute

"Meant to be" isnt a rules interpretation either. There's "do the rules allow it" and "do the rules say you can't do it". The is completely legal by the written rules until ffg says otherwise. There's plenty of time for them to do so before this releases

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, VanderLegion said:

Common sense isn't a valid rules argument. You can be in physical contact with a ship but not be "touching". 

And the ship-specific upgrade doesn't need the whole ship name to work. Otherwise no one would be able to use mark 2 engines. The ship name just has to include the entirety of the specified text, in this case if you have "aggressor" in your ship name, you can equip it. 

Pretty sure no one here (including me) really thinks this is intended or that it won't be FAQed into oblivion, but as the rules stand it DOES work right now

No in fact it does not work since all ships and upgrades are not legal in play till released

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

7 minutes ago, AdamGATX105 said:

No in fact it does not work since all ships and upgrades are not legal in play till released

...no ones planning to go to a tournament with a proxied tie aggressor.  Product legality literally only applies to competitive events.  See the vassal league where anything spoiled is legal to play (and I'm sure they'll rule against allowing ig2000 on the tie/ag once we have a dial for it to be flyable). Tournament legality literally has nothing to do with what's whether a card is otherwise legal to equip in a ship

Edited by VanderLegion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, the FAQ has to clarify that /SF and /FOs count as "TIE Fighters" for stuff like Youngster and Docking Clamps. Even if you say that's precedent, FFG still feels the need to officially say "BTW, that interaction works". 

There's no need to errata IG-2000, they can just say "A TIE Aggressor is not an Aggressor". Even though we all know the Adv. in TAP stands for "Advanced", TIE/x1 cannot go on TAPs. 

And I condone a firm slap on the wrist to anyone who tries to shenanigans. 

Ccwebb likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, UnitOmega said:

I mean, the FAQ has to clarify that /SF and /FOs count as "TIE Fighters" for stuff like Youngster and Docking Clamps. Even if you say that's precedent, FFG still feels the need to officially say "BTW, that interaction works". 

There's no need to errata IG-2000, they can just say "A TIE Aggressor is not an Aggressor". Even though we all know the Adv. in TAP stands for "Advanced", TIE/x1 cannot go on TAPs. 

And I condone a firm slap on the wrist to anyone who tries to shenanigans. 

That's not ffg specifically allowing it. That's ffg telling all the people that didn't believe it that they were wrong and to stop asking. Youngster ALWAYS worked with the sf and do according to the rules. And the same is true for the X1 title. "TIE Adv. Prototype" doesn't contain the entirety of "Advanced" so it never worked. It doesn't matter what it stands for, it matters what it says on the card.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

7 minutes ago, UnitOmega said:

I mean, the FAQ has to clarify that /SF and /FOs count as "TIE Fighters" for stuff like Youngster and Docking Clamps.

FFG also puts things like "Captain Oicunn’s ability only triggers after Captain Oicunn executes a maneuver."

The first words of the text on Oicunn's card are literally "After executing a maneuver".

 

Edited by WWHSD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading the  replies on this thread its clear for me to see that FFG has nothing to do with killing the stoke for this game I love.

Its people that would hold onto the slightest ambiguity of the rules, and use rules layering to get an advantage over their opponent, that kill the stoke.

Farm Boy and Wiredin like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, tsondaboy said:

Reading the  replies on this thread its clear for me to see that FFG has nothing to do with killing the stoke for this game I love.

Its people that would hold onto the slightest ambiguity of the rules, and use rules layering to get an advantage over their opponent, that kill the stoke.

its ffg's fault really since they are the ones who have said if its in part of the name it works aside from one very specific case. Besides pretty sure everyone has already pointed out that FFG is going to change it so it won't happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now