IG88E

TIE Aggressor with IG2000 title

286 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

14 minutes ago, Achowat said:

Anyone who claims to read the minds of the designers and then be upset when others don't also possess that level of clairvoyance is the kind of person I wouldn't want to play against in the first place.

It is not mind reading ability, just common sense.

Anyway, it is really no point arguing about it right now. We can argue once wave 11 hits the shelves and still no errata. 

Edited by Ubul
nitrobenz, Rodafowa and Nyxen like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Ubul said:

It is not mind reading ability, just common sense.

What is common sense about this? Give me a single explanation on why this shouldn't work that doesn't rely on "what the game devs intended."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Achowat said:

What is common sense about this? Give me a single explanation on why this shouldn't work that doesn't rely on "what the game devs intended."

It shouldn't work, because the TIE Aggressor has not been released yet. See the second part of my previous comment on pointless arguing before the actual release.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

its kinda pointless to argue about it anyway.

RAW, it works. Literally the same exact ruling as "TIE Only" working on any ship with "TIE" in the name, or Youngster working with "TIE Fighter" and theres 3 different kinds of those.
However i still say i'd be insanely surprised if this isnt faq'd out. Either a TAP/TIEAdv type faq where they just say "No they cant" or the IG2000 title becomes Scum only.

And if it isnt faq'd? well i guess im buying some brobots finally lol

Edited by Vineheart01
IG88E and nitrobenz like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Vineheart01 said:

its kinda pointless to argue about it anyway.

RAW, it works. Literally the same exact ruling as "TIE Only" working on any ship with "TIE" in the name, or Youngster working with "TIE Fighter" and theres 3 different kinds of those.
However i still say i'd be insanely surprised if this isnt faq'd out. Either a TAP/TIEAdv type faq where they just say "No they cant" or the IG2000 title becomes Scum only.

And if it isnt faq'd? well i guess im buying some brobots finally lol

TAP/TIE Adv faq isn't them saying "No they can't" despite the rules.  It literally doesn't work RAW anyway, because "TIE Adv. Prototype" Doesn't contain all of "Advanced" in the ship name.  That's clarifying for the people who kept asking, not making an exception.

Rodafowa and Sasajak like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

4 hours ago, Achowat said:

Anyone who claims to read the minds of the designers and then be upset when others don't also possess that level of clairvoyance is the kind of person I wouldn't want to play against in the first place.

The rules are the rules. Period. No interpretation, no mind-reading necessary. If that ship is in my hand and it's not errata'd, I'm running the IG-2000 title on it...because that's the rules. If you don't like the rules of the game we're playing, you can go play some other game. But this is a precise game with precise rules and Double-Edge with the IG-2000 title is within those rules.

Thank you for proving my point. Even the slightest degree of common sense tells you it shouldn't work like that (absolutely nothing to do with 'clairvoyance'), but if adhering to the rules and only the rules is all that matters, I suppose you don't really need to think at all, do you?

Edited by MalusCalibur
tsondaboy likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is hilarious and obviously going to be fixed. That said, a year TO who is saying they'd never allow this shouldn't be a TO. Your job is not to make the rules. 

Jarval and Holmelund like this

Share this post


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

This is hilarious and obviously going to be fixed. That said, a year TO who is saying they'd never allow this shouldn't be a TO. Your job is not to make the rules. 

I disagree. If someone is a TO then it is up to them how they want the tournament ran. As long as it was announced in advance, then I see no problem. Like if I were to TO an event and I said OK, for this event only waves 1,3, and 7 will be legal. Where is the harm?

 

That said, I believe this issue will be felt with before release. 

That said I still find it hilarious. If it's legal for any length of time, I'm buying 4 and rolling with it!

VanderLegion likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Clancampbell said:

I disagree. If someone is a TO then it is up to them how they want the tournament ran. As long as it was announced in advance, then I see no problem. Like if I were to TO an event and I said OK, for this event only waves 1,3, and 7 will be legal. Where is the harm?

 

That said, I believe this issue will be felt with before release. 

That said I still find it hilarious. If it's legal for any length of time, I'm buying 4 and rolling with it!

Fair point. I was more thinking in terms of someone coming with that list and being told on the spot it won't be allowed. 

LordBlades likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

9 hours ago, MalusCalibur said:

It is fairly obvious that the IG-2000 title is not intended to work with anything other than IG-88's ship. I highly doubt FFG knew they'd be adding the TIE Aggressor when they made Wave 6, and so obviously they didn't future-proof the title against this.

It'll be errata'd instantly, I'd lay money on it. Quite frankly anyone who would argue this point is the kind of person I wouldn't want to play against in the first place, since it's a prime example of rules lawyering at the expense of common sense.

Thank you +1

I refrain from using the term "common sense" because its examples like this that shows what I consider common sense is largely different from what others might think is.

But I totally agree with you that I despise playing with people that would apply that extent of rules lawyering.

On a side note, I was organizing a store tournament last weekend. This came up by some of the players and I was pleased to hear what I consider common sense was the consensus of everyone present. So even before the TIE aggressor hits the selves, everyone knows and agrees in our local group, that this should not be allowed even if rules lawyering permits it.

Frankly speaking I am disappointed even by the fact that FFG is required to release an FAQ for this. But then again, as I said earlier, this clearly displays that common sense is actually a greatly subjective term.

Edited by tsondaboy
MalusCalibur and UnitOmega like this

Share this post


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

Thank you +1

I refrain from using the term "common sense" because its examples like this that shows what I consider common sense is largely different from what others might think is.

But I totally agree with you that I despise playing with people that would apply that extent of rules lawyering.

On a side note, I was organizing a store tournament last weekend. This came up by some of the players and I was pleased to hear what I consider common sense was the consensus of everyone present. So even before the TIE aggressor hits the selves, everyone knows and agrees in our local group, that this should not be allowed even if rules lawyering permits it.

Frankly speaking I am disappointed even by the fact that FFG is required to release an FAQ for this. But then again, as I said earlier, this clearly displays that common sense is actually a greatly subjective term.

The need for an FAQ to fix it has nothing to do with rules lawyering and everything to do with their own rules. If a ship type has to exactly match the requirement, it wouldn't even be a question. But it works perfectly by there own rules, and with plenty of precedent from things like twin ion engine MK 2, lightweight frame, youngster, etc. 

again, I don't think anyone here is seriously arguing that it was intended, or even will be allowed. Just that the current rules allow it and it's amusing to speculate about. 

Kumagoro, Jarval, Sasajak and 1 other like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, to me rules lawyering is far more things like PGS used to talk about. Letting an opponent flip the dials and move all their ships then put out tokens for the first couple rounds of a game, then the first round of combat telling them they only get the action on the final ship because they missed all their perform action steps. Technically true by the rules, but a **** move, and something you'd alreaady allowed until it was convenient to you.  Or asking your opponent to let you take back a missed opportunity, then denying them the ability to do the same when they miss something later. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

 

15 minutes ago, VanderLegion said:

The need for an FAQ to fix it has nothing to do with rules lawyering and everything to do with their own rules. If a ship type has to exactly match the requirement, it wouldn't even be a question. But it works perfectly by there own rules, and with plenty of precedent from things like twin ion engine MK 2, lightweight frame, youngster, etc. 

again, I don't think anyone here is seriously arguing that it was intended, or even will be allowed. Just that the current rules allow it and it's amusing to speculate about. 

Lets please not lower the level of the conversation by mentioning PGS.

Moving on, I understand that the majority of the posts are not serious and made to joke about it. What gets me is that, while people have fun about it, they have proven and accepted its legality. So when a Jerk shows up in one of our tournaments and points to this thread to make a point its legal and that we should accept it in official matches, I tell you its not going to be fun at all.

In casual play you can do what ever you like as long as both players agree. As far as I am concerned you can do a mixed faction list and have IG-88B together with 2 TIE aggressors as a case study scenario. When it comes to the official ruling about how the game should be played though, MalusCalibur post expresses my mind too.

Edited by tsondaboy
MalusCalibur likes this

Share this post


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

 

Lets please not lower the level of the conversation by mentioning PGS.

Moving on, I understand that the majority of the posts are not serious and made to joke about it. What gets me is that, while people have fun about it, they have proven and accepted its legality. So when a Jerk shows up in one of our tournaments and points to this thread to make a point its legal and that we should accept it in official matches, I tell you its not going to be fun at all.

In casual play you can do what ever you like as long as both players agree. As far as I am concerned you can do a mixed faction list and have IG-88B together with 2 TIE aggressors as a case study scenario. When it comes to the official ruling about how the game should be played though, MalusCalibur post expresses my mind too.

If FFG somehow doesn't fix it before wave 11 releases I'd totally allow it at store kit tournament as long as neither of the pilot abilities make it broken.  Wouldn't allow it at store champs or above unless ffg came out and said it was on purpose, but would be entertaining for some fun tournaments since it is technically legal until they change something

Share this post


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


What gets me is that, while people have fun about it, they have proven and accepted its legality. So when a Jerk shows up in one of our tournaments and points to this thread to make a point its legal and that we should accept it in official matches, I tell you its not going to be fun at all.

 

People have accepted the legality of this because currently it's legal. There is a point to be made that it shouldn't be, but as rules currently stands it is.

 

Nobody needs this thread to prove the legality of this combo as they can simply point out the explicit rule that makes it legal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is that people get hung up on the idea that "rules", are some sort of hard and fast dictum, handed down from some supreme authority and carved in stone, unalterable except by that authority. In reality, "rules", especially game rules are a set of guidelines and recommendations for the social contract meant to facilitate easy and enjoyable interactions for all participants. For a game, that means the 2 (or more) players participating in that specific contest. When people loose sight of this (which happens annoyingly frequently in real life and a thousand times more often in online forums) you get endless arguments about sportsmanship, RAW, intentions, cheating, spirit, and so on. 

tsondaboy likes this

Share this post


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

The thing is that people get hung up on the idea that "rules", are some sort of hard and fast dictum, handed down from some supreme authority and carved in stone, unalterable except by that authority. In reality, "rules", especially game rules are a set of guidelines and recommendations for the social contract meant to facilitate easy and enjoyable interactions for all participants. For a game, that means the 2 (or more) players participating in that specific contest. When people loose sight of this (which happens annoyingly frequently in real life and a thousand times more often in online forums) you get endless arguments about sportsmanship, RAW, intentions, cheating, spirit, and so on. 

For tournaments the rules are exactly a hard and fast dictum of what is or Isn't allowed.  Something's things aren't clear, but if you're in high level competition the rules are what determine how things work. If you're playing casually, you can do whatever you and your opponent agree on, but for competitive play that's exactly why we have rules. 

If i show up at a tournament and the judge tells me im not allowed to use the Andrasta title on Boba Fett because he flew slave 1 and it doesn't make sense, I'll probably just leave (not that I'd do that particular combo, but it's the same idea). 

Share this post


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

If FFG somehow doesn't fix it before wave 11 releases I'd totally allow it at store kit tournament as long as neither of the pilot abilities make it broken.  Wouldn't allow it at store champs or above unless ffg came out and said it was on purpose, but would be entertaining for some fun tournaments since it is technically legal until they change something

Fair enough, but keep in mind that if memory serves FFG has not posted an FAQ for unreleased content so far. Which probably means we will be having this argument again in the first few weeks after wave 11 release. My difference with you is that  I will not await to see the pilot abilities before I judge if this is broken or not. I am already standing firm that this should not be allowed officially until FFG makes a ruling about it, although I very well understand its currently allowed by the rules. I do think the same as you though, that if an official ruling regarding this comes out, I will accept it regardless if I like it or not.

Share this post


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

Fair enough, but keep in mind that if memory serves FFG has not posted an FAQ for unreleased content so far. Which probably means we will be having this argument again in the first few weeks after wave 11 release. My difference with you is that  I will not await to see the pilot abilities before I judge if this is broken or not. I am already standing firm that this should not be allowed officially until FFG makes a ruling about it, although I very well understand its currently allowed by the rules. I do think the same as you though, that if an official ruling regarding this comes out, I will accept it regardless if I like it or not.

In this case they don't actually have to FAQ unreleased content to fix it. Just make ig2000 scum only

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but since there is nothing else in the game that currently interacts with it, they will be posting an FAQ in response to unreleased content. Which again, if i remember well they haven't done so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

And, in the case of a tournament, "the contest" I referred to is the tournament itself. Everyone who plays in a given tournament is agreeing to play by the interpretation of the rules provided by the TO, which could be anything they want. And as you point out, if you don't like the social contract all the other participants have agreed to, you can simply not play in that contest. Of course, the TO presumably wants their game to be popular, and so is incentivized to adapt an interpretation that will satisfy many people. 

 

In the case of the big tourney, the TO is FFG itself, and the participants of that game is everyone in the world who chooses to compete, and so an interpretation of "the rules" is needed that most players will be happy with, but it is still just an interpretation. Unlike what has been suggested in this thread. "The rules are the rules" which is how it was put earlier in this thread, is a totally fallacious, and supremely arrogant, position. "The rules" change all the time. That is why it is always important to discuss with your opponent or TO what interpretation of them you are going to use. 

Edited by Forgottenlore
tsondaboy likes this

Share this post


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

In this case they don't actually have to FAQ unreleased content to fix it. Just make ig2000 scum only

Has FFG not done this before ? (future-proofing existing stuff before a wave release) IIRC the FAQ making Tactician Limited was before the release of the YV-666.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, LordBlades said:

Has FFG not done this before ? (future-proofing existing stuff before a wave release) IIRC the FAQ making Tactician Limited was before the release of the YV-666.

I think you might be right on that one.  

 

48 minutes ago, Forgottenlore said:

And, in the case of a tournament, "the contest" I referred to is the tournament itself. Everyone who plays in a given tournament is agreeing to play by the interpretation of the rules provided by the TO, which could be anything they want. And as you point out, if you don't like the social contract all the other participants have agreed to, you can simply not play in that contest. Of course, the TO presumably wants their game to be popular, and so is incentivized to adapt an interpretation that will satisfy many people. 

 

In the case of the big tourney, the TO is FFG itself, and the participants of that game is everyone in the world who chooses to compete, and so an interpretation of "the rules" is needed that most players will be happy with, but it is still just an interpretation. Unlike what has been suggested in this thread. "The rules are the rules" which is how it was put earlier in this thread, is a totally fallacious, and supremely arrogant, position. "The rules" change all the time. That is why it is always important to discuss with your opponent or TO what interpretation of them you are going to use. 

This is true, but generally, if a TO is doing something different from standard 100/6 and if they're allowing or disallowing things contrary to the rules, that's posted ahead of time.  And that' susually things like "Only Waves X-Y", or escalation, or mario kart, or whatever variants, not usually, "I don't like this one thing that's allowed by the rules so i'm just not going to allow it".  As long as it's posted ahead of time, they can of course do what they want (for low level tournaments) and players can decide if they wish to go or not.

Rodafowa likes this

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