Forensicus
-
Content Count
1,281 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Forensicus
-
-
Of course the problem with that is the rules do clearly allow your ship to take actions, even barrel rolls, while ionized.
I read (past tense) Advanced Sensors as being nothing more than a change in WHEN you take your action, nothing more.In the real world is impossible for a prerequisite to occur after the action. Any statements to the contrary "You must graduate from High School before attending college" for example, are strictly statements of timing and/or intent. Absolute requirements, such as "you must live before you die", cannot work when prerequisites succeed their effects, "you must die before you live".
As a statement of intent, which is what Ken at Sunrise first stated and is echoed by CW and B, this is a perfectly functional statement. Unfortunately, as an absolute rule it is terrible. I am willing to accept that the designers "meant" for you to at least have a maneuver selected in order to use Advanced Sensors because the majority of the folks here believe that to be the case. But as a "Rule" this one is a mess.
Everybody please read the entire text on the Ion Token: (I will paraphrase and bold the key points)
Planning phase: No maneuver dial!!
Activation phase: Perform 1 straight forward, THEN remove Ion Token(s), THEN you may (of course only if not stressed or otherwise prohibited) "perform actions as normal"
It should be clear that PRIOR to the removal of the Ion token(s) the ship is in effect "stunned" and NOT allowed to perform actions, and I would (without it being specified) also say that it isnt't allowed a/any Free Actons untill the end of the Activation Phase
Anyone disagree on this??
Edit: As pointed out by others further down there is some faults above: I meant to say that the ship cant use Adv. Sensors, however it may be given a free action via Squad Leader (IF it's not stressed). I deeply apologize for the error. After the ion token is removed it may "perform action as normal" given that it didn't overlap, hit an asteriod or is stressed)
Drakhan Valane reacted to this -
This is dangerous I know, but I really can't see any problem her. Before I go on let me clearly state that I fully understand the rules in play and interpret them the same way as stated by others above: when ionized your ship doesn't get a dial and thus can't reveal it=> no usage of the AS.
Allow me to walk outside what the RaW tells us, in order to make a more "intuitive" way of the effect and why AS won't and certainly shouldn't work (without to many triggers, timing or similar mechanics (terms not found in the rules))
The ion effect is meant to illustrate that the ionized ship is momentarily drifting through space without functional electronics and is, as the Ion card clearly states, not assigned a maneuver dial. And it would make even less (common??) sense that an incapacitated ship would be able to perform an advanced move as a Barrel Roll.
So in the case of the original post I would certainly say that the opponents plan worked perfectly for him, and will even throw in a "well played" for good measures :-)
CrookedWookie reacted to this -
- Master, is the RaW side of the rules stronger than the RaI side?
- Stronger? No, no... no. Quicker, easier.... More seductive...
- But how am I to know the correct side from the incorrect?
- You will know... When you are calm, at peace, and read the FaQ. A Jedi uses the rules for playing and fun, NEVER to dispute...
Sorry, I have been laughing about this several minutes and I thought I should share it.
Just in case someone finds it funny too.Got me chuckling too ;-)
-
Aaaaaand goodnight ;-)
-
It says right in the bit you quoted, putting aside "greater than" for a sec, if damage equals your hull, you are immediately destroyed. How does that not immediately check for damage? And right after that, it says Exception: Simultaneous Damage. So to answer the other part of your argument, to whit: how is it otherwise possible to exceed hull damage? Using the exception listed: taking simultaneous damage allows you to have more damage cards than hull. Asked and answered.
Nope. First of all you ask me to ignore the very core of my argument, next you tell me that the very fact they do not write "check for destruction of the ship after each card" that means that you should do exactly that. And finally you say that the exception (Simultaneous Attack) is part of the section that it i(Simultaneous Attack) s the exception from
-
I do not care to go into a discussion on whether they should call it an errata or FAQ, to me that is bit potato/potato point.
The difference is that errata fixes the source of a problem in a way that keeps things consistent. Rulings that deny the actual rules create additional inconsistency.
Proximity Mines only blow up when overlapped during a maneuver. Boost and Barrel Roll are not maneuvers. But they'll set off a proximity mine. So what other effects depend on maneuvers, but might be triggered by Boost or Barrel Roll? All of them? Only template-based ones? Only damaging ones? Only ones that use markers with at least some red printed on them?
<shrug> Who knows? An errata which fixed the underlying rules would have been clear for the next time someone asks "What happens if I Boost over...?" Doing nothing at all would have made it equally clear. Instead, we get a rule with absolutely zero foundation for the "why", and that not only doesn't help us answer similar questions, it actively removes our ability to do so.
Luckily it doesn't refrain you (or I for that matter )to be making a mighty big effort to do
-
Buhallin, I have already shoved the offer where I think you suggested I should put it ;-) It hurt just a little bit, but I'm okay again.
but seriously, don't you think that the deep core in our disagreement is exactly what you point out: you want clear concise unambiguous non-contradictory rules (that were written more than 1 year ago) that are capable to "handle" all these new issues, and that you (and this is my own wording) do not like having to consider other possibilities for interpreting the rules "how they were intended"? I will admit that they in many cases could and certainly should have made a better effort in wording it right from the start, but I do not care to go into a discussion on whether they should call it an errata or FAQ, to me that is bit potato/potato point.
-
I would also like to point out, I think it's very telling that the rules that keep being quoted are from the combat phase, covering the "Deal Damage" step of resolving an attack. That's all very well and good except, as stated above, Vader is not 'making an attack,' so those rules don't apply.
Furthermore, if you go to page 16, the heading is Additional Rules, with the text "This section explains all rules not previously addressed," and the first thing under that? Suffering damage, with the rules we feel are relevant in this instance, since it also covers all the damage suffered in ways other than as the result of an attack.
They're additional rules. It specifically states that they were NOT previously addressed (ie in the combat section), and it also lists Simultaneous Attack, in big red letters, as the one exception to the rules on suffering damage, which at least throws out there the idea that a simultaneous attack very well might BE the one time when a ship can actually have a stack of damage cards on it, exceeding its hull.
Not to mention, the combat section you keep quoting,directs you at least twice to the more in depth rules on Suffering Damage on page 16. So it's actually reads even there like it gives you a general idea how resolving damage in an attack works, before directing you straight to the part about resolving the damage received one at a time.
Okay,please allow me to quote the ENTIRE section from page 16 which (as you so rightly pointed out) concerns damage suffered not only during combat but also from all other sources (I will bold specific words for emphasis):
Suffering Damage
Ships can suffer damage from different sources, such
as being hit during combat or by an effect or card
ability. Damage cards track how much damage each
ship has suffered and are used to determine if the ship
has been destroyed (see “Destroying Ships”).
When a ship suffers damage or critical damage,
it suffers them one at a time following these
steps. The ship must suffer all normal damage before
suffering any critical damage.
1. Reduce Shields: If there are any shield
tokens remaining on the ship’s card, remove one
of the tokens and skip Step 2. If there are no
shield tokens, proceed to Step 2 below.
2. Damage Hull: Deal one Damage card to the
ship based on the type of damage it suffered.
If the ship suffered damage (such as from a
result), place the Damage card facedown next
to the ship’s card. If the ship suffered critical
damage (such as from a result), place the
Damage card faceup next to the ship’s card
(see “Critical Damage” below).
Note: If the Damage deck runs out, shuffle the
discard pile to create a new deck.
Critical Damage
When a ship suffers damage, players deal the
Damage card facedown and ignore the card’s text.
However, when a ship suffers critical damage,
players deal the Damage card faceup.
The text on faceup Damage cards is resolved as
instructed on the card. Listed above this ability is a
trait (either Ship or Pilot). The trait has no effect,
but it may be referenced by other cards or abilities.
When a ship is dealt a damage card faceup, place a
critical hit token near the ship. This token reminds
players that this ship is affected by an ongoing effect. If
a ship somehow manages to remove the ongoing effect
(e.g., by flipping that card facedown, by discarding that
card, etc.), return the critical hit token to the supply.
Destroying Ships
When the number of Damage cards dealt to a ship
is equal to or greater than its hull value, the
ship is immediately destroyed (faceup and facedown
cards count toward this total). Immediately remove
the destroyed ship from the play area, discard all of
its Damage cards to a faceup discard pile next to
the Damage deck, and return all of its tokens to their
respective supplies.
PLEASE PLEASE point out to me (I am a humble (and quite possibly stupid) Dane) that you MUST or SHOULD check for destruction after EACH Damage card?? How is it otherwise (within the scope of the quoted sections, especially the "Destroying Ships" part) possible to exceed the Hull value
(on a funny little side note I actually find it funny that they specifically say "the number of Damage cards" and thereby they "forget" that you could have ie. a TIE-Fighter with 2 Direct Hit cards (face up naturally), so doesnt that mean that the ship is still alive?? It only have 2 cards but 3 Hull, right? I am NOT so stupid as to defend this far out notion)
-
CrookedWookie, the apology "offer" was mainly directed at Buhallin, and I wasn't implying that you would rant or have personal stakes in the matter. Actually neither do I, what I do have is the right and opportunity to say what my interpretation is, and I will continue to do so. I am sure that both you and Buhallin will do the same, and I actually hope so, since these discussions (believe it or not) makes me reconsidere/review my interpretation and/or understanding of the rules, especially when it is in the (many) cases where new upgrades, abilities etc. etc. seems to come in confligt with the core rules.
But more importantly, I continue to enjoy the game even more than I enjoy these "battles of wits" in here, I hope you do too
-
<sigh> And you were doing so well there for a few posts. Now we're back to RAI claims and your weird obsession with pretending that the emperor DOES TOO have clothes on! When you can explain the Proximity Mine/Boost/Barrel Roll ruling in a way that matches what's printed, I'll accept all your snark about how FFG never violates their own rules.
Just go re-read the thread. Gullwind already brought up every point you made, although he at least put enough effort in to make sure his were readable. I addressed why I think they're wrong, and I'm really not going to go through the whole thing again for your gratification, especially since you don't seem to actually care about the rules.
Seriously, why are you even quoting rules? If the only thing that matters to you is how you think FFG wants it to work, who needs the rules?
I will not dispute that reading the rules wording by the letter regarding the proximity vs boost/barrel roll was a straight out contradiction BUT, even in this make belief world of miniatures dog fighting scenarion, it simply didn't make ANY sense that a mine wouldn't go of since (and I've made that point several times before) a mine shouldn't care about the "how" you came to land on it. And being totally aware of the dangers of appealling to your common sense, don't you think that the FAQ makes the most "common sense" in the end?
And when it comes to quoting or not quoting rules; aren't we all "allowed" to quote the rules when debating this? Where else are you guys coming up with your idea/interpretation that (I am paraphhrasing the following bit) "damage (cards) are dealt one at a time and you must check for destruction after each card"??
I am feeling confident that you will say "Yeah, but they totally got it wrong" IF, and I repeat IF, FFG FAQ's that DV crew card can be used with 1 hull left. And I will absolutely promise you that I will write up a huge apology to you if they go with your view; however it will not be an apology for my efforts to "defend" my interpretation, but merely for having taken up so much of your valuable time trying to lecture me in my erronious ways of thinking. Deal?
-
<sigh> And you were doing so well there for a few posts. Now we're back to RAI claims and your weird obsession with pretending that the emperor DOES TOO have clothes on! When you can explain the Proximity Mine/Boost/Barrel Roll ruling in a way that matches what's printed, I'll accept all your snark about how FFG never violates their own rules.
Just go re-read the thread. Gullwind already brought up every point you made, although he at least put enough effort in to make sure his were readable. I addressed why I think they're wrong, and I'm really not going to go through the whole thing again for your gratification, especially since you don't seem to actually care about the rules.
Seriously, why are you even quoting rules? If the only thing that matters to you is how you think FFG wants it to work, who needs the rules?
Uhh, an attack on me failing to see (due to the near to worthless posting editor) that the copy pasted parts from the rulebook was completely mangled. I must immedieately run to my bed and curl up and start to cry ;-) However, before doing so (FYI I won't actually do that) I will go back and edit muy post and even apologize for not reviewing the post.
And where did you come up with me "not caring for the rules"??
On a second note: why do you even play the game since it obviously frustrates you that FFG makes FAQ's that "force" you to make a blog where you (sort of) makes your own FAQ on the FAQ?
-
Agreed with Ravncat ^ ^ ^
You're pulling his quote out of context, because what he's said is if your ship has TWO hull left, it shouldn't matter that the effect would destroy Vader, because he's already paid the cost to trigger it (2 damage). The question is, if you only have 1 hull left, CAN that count as paying the cost? It's actually got less to do directly with the fact it would blow up the ship, and more to do with the fact that as the rules read, it's at least implied the ship would blow up after the first damage - raising the question of whether you actually CAN pay the entire cost for the effect.
And yeah if you're dismissing his Target Lock example out of hand, it's apparently because you're not getting that it's another example of paying a cost to get an effect, which is a much closer parallel than anything coming out of the section on the order of combat or whatever.
A lot of people back in wave 1 or so argued that you should be able to spend a Target Lock to fire a torpedo, AND get to use that same Target Lock to reroll the attack, because it was all part of the same sequence. They stepped in and clarified that no; once you spent it to fire the missile, it was gone and spent and no longer available to spend on a reroll.
Boiled down to brass tacks, the big question is: Vader 'costs' 2 damage, in order to deal someone else 1 critical damage. Can he deal 1 critical damage if he can only, in effect, 'pay' 1 damage, because doing so destroys your ship?
I suspect they'll wind up ruling that he CAN work that way. I won't be the least bit disappointed if they clear that up in favor of Vader being more effective. But the way the rules read right now, I haven't seen anything which makes it clear that you aren't blown up the minute that first damage resolves and deals a damage card equal to your hull.
I think a big part of the problem is that people tend to shortcut the damage dealing part of the game, because it normally doesn't matter. You figure out you did 2 damage, he's only got 1 hull, you usually don't even deal the FIRST card, let alone the second one, let alone figure out if the first one destroyed him without the second one ever actually taking effect - because it didn't matter.
With Vader, it matters. The order in which that all resolves is potentially critical to how Vader works, and the way Suffering Damage is worded, whether it's what they intended or not - and only they can answer that with an FAQ update - it reads pretty strongly like damage is resolved, and cards are dealt, one at a time. Resolved individually before the next one is even dealt - and if that is, in fact, the case, Vader blows up a ship with 1 hull left, and never deals the second damage to his own ship. If that's the case, there's an extremely strong argument to be made that the cost wasn't paid.
First of all; IMO the TL debate is totally irelevant, and I would never have attempted to argue that you would ever have able to spend the TL for firing AND afterwards for a reroll. That wording was always (and still is) clear to me.
Secondly: Just to make sure I understand you correct, you don't think that the following clearly and unambiguously make it totally clear that a ship
A) not only SHOULD but actually MUST be dealt ALL Damage Cards (Normal as well as Crits) equal to the number of uncancelled [Hit] and [Crit] results suffered?
and
B) a ship can suffer an number of Damages exceeding it's Hull value?
Quote from the rulebook page 13:
The hit ship suffers one damage for each uncanceled [Hit]
result, and then suffers one critical damage for
each uncanceled [Crit] result.
(bold emphasis by me)
Quote from page 16:
When the number of Damage cards dealt to a ship
is equal to or greater than its hull value, the
ship is immediately destroyed (faceup and facedown
cards count toward this total).
(bold and enlarged font by me)
So when you say
"I think a big part of the problem is that people tend to shortcut the damage dealing part of the game, because it normally doesn't matter. You figure out you did 2 damage, he's only got 1 hull, you usually don't even deal the FIRST card, let alone the second one, let alone figure out if the first one destroyed him without the second one ever actually taking effect - because it didn't matter."
then you're simply saying that since people aren't playing it right then that sort of makes DV crew card work the same (erroneous) way? When I play I make a point of drawing all the cards and ALWAYS taking the facedown ([Hit] Damage cards before any face up ([Crit]) Damage cards
And I believe the relative cost of Vader increases significantly the closer your ship is to its Hull limit. So IMO you actually pay the higher (ultimate?) price when activating DV crew causes your ship to be destroyed in order for you to inflict the Crit to your opponent.
The problem is, I'm not sure there's anything in the game anywhere that cares a whit about "relative costs. " Costs in the game tend to be absolute.
Ahhhh, see now we for once return to a critical point (sorry for the confusion the use of this word might cause since it is used in another context than the in game [Crit] dice result, "Critical Damage"and "critical hit token"):
No matter if YOU like it or not, it is becoming BLATENTLY obvious that FFG in so many cases tend to FAQ in "favor" of a RAI way opposed to (your) RAW (or rather "rules as I, being a far superior being, will interpretate them, since I am able to disregard so many aspects of common sense")
I absolutely PROMISE and pledge to abide by any TO and/or future FAQ ruling on the matter, and I will even promise to admit that I was wrong if the ruling will be that the DV crew card can't be used with 1 Hull left, since it then would mean that FFG didn't mean it to work the way I interpreted it (NOT wanting, only interpreted!!).
Will you (especially Buhallin) promise not to say "Well FFG got it wrong in their FAQ!!"???
-
Happy B-Day, FFG. You've really struck gold and done it well. And as other have said before me: Now shut up and take my money :-)
-
And I believe the relative cost of Vader increases significantly the closer your ship is to its Hull limit. So IMO you actually pay the higher (ultimate?) price when activating DV crew causes your ship to be destroyed in order for you to inflict the Crit to your opponent.
-
Buhallin, it is borderlining to silly to use TL + Missiles as an example when discussing if you're allowed to use DV crew with 1 Hull left. And actually I think that you (without intending to do so) are arguing in favor of mine (and other peoples) interpretation of DV in your posts in the thread on BGG (http://boardgamegeek.com/article/13201732#13201732)
Buhallin: "No, because Vader is all one ability. By the time it is activated, it will complete even if the ship is destroyed."
-
When a ship suffers damage or critical damage, it suffers them one at a time following these steps.
Bolding in the original rules. I don't think it matters how you end up with X damage - when you suffer that damage, you do it one at a time until you process X total damage.
It's possible that all other damage is handled as clusters of 1 damage rather than X damage, and now that we have an X damage dealer it's different, but I don't really see anything that actually points to that.
Buhallin, is it, in any way, shape or form, POSSIBLE to think that the phrasing you're quoting is (at least in part) meant to clarify the ORDER of the damages? I feel confident in calling you on taking the quote a bit out of context.
And I also still find that using the 7 steps of an attack isn't necessarily the way FFG intended to be the way to determine the DV crew effect. The ship with DV crew ISN*T taking the damge due to being hit by an attack (I am not rolling any green dices am I??), but rather is comes from a variant of PERFORMING a "follow up" on an attack. And the card straight out says "...you may suffer 2 damage" so these 2 Damage simply must/should be considered as coming in a bundle.
And then you may continue from here to eternity to say "this is what we MUST use when dealing damage" and by the letter you could be rightious but at the same time you must at least just consider that a poorly woorded rulebook written way prior to the Wave 3 cards just MIGHT be outdated orcoming short when dealing with these newly "problems" that continue to rise up, or....?
And the following is purely conjecture on my part; since there are other examples of Pilot Abilities and upgrades that come with all sorts of restrictions (ie. Yorr, Ibitsam and Ors) wouldn't one think it possible that they would have put a restriction on DV crew like "You cannot use this the damage suffered exceeds (or equals?) your ship's hull value"??
I know the last section could be viewed as a strawman argument, so maybe it's not the strongest point.
Anywho, as always I will play it the way we can agree on in friendly games and naturally as any TO will rule it untill FFG (hopefully) will FAQ it.
Until then, let's play nice :-)
-Niko-
-
I've gone basically the same way with my B-Wing, I just used magnets both in the cockpit and in the rear attachement. also I found out that the actual cockpit is mounted/glued onto the fuselage via a small peg, so one can pry it off with an exactoblade. Then I drilled space for the magnets and glued´them on. Worked like a charm :-)
-
ANother debate where the honorable (I mean that) Buhallin is calling all who disagrees with him WRONG, while his interpretation is the right one (as most/always the case)
I have (I think) clearly laid out the rules foundation for why I think it works the way it does. I've pointed out the flaws in thinking which lead me to the judgement that those others are wrong. For the most part, those flaws have gone unaddressed.
And OF COURSE I think my interpretation is right. Do you not think you're right? Is Gullwind arguing a point he's sure is wrong? This sort of thing is the height of inane internet trolling by people who can't keep up with the conversation.
If you think I'm wrong, then please - offer something up. The key points are clear - destruction check is ongoing and can occur between cards being dealt, a destroyed ship can't suffer any more damage, and unless Vader's ship suffers two damage he hasn't met the prerequisite. Gullwind has chosen to go after the third element there, and while I disagree with him, at least he's arguing the actual rules, which is more than you ever do.
LOL, well "LOL" if it wasn't sad and I know I will regret saying this but I will do it anyway:
You and I are very different in our attitude and level of selfconfidence especially when it comes to interpreting many of these issues. And though you have a point in that I "think" I am right when I argue "in favor" of the way I believe the DV crew card could be used you completely ignore that I am not stating or claiming to be sure, where as you often come across as being completely sure of your interpretation, and when FFG says otherwise they have it wrong.
I am getting a bit to old to keep this up, "fun" as it may be at times, so please continue without me. Feel free to call me a quitter/failure for not being able to carry it on, I hope other will speak their mind.
Out.....
-
ANother debate where the honorable (I mean that) Buhallin is calling all who disagrees with him WRONG, while his interpretation is the right one (as most/always the case)
Will be interesting to see if (and how) FFG will FAQ this
-
Can't we agree on the following: DV crew card is a rather suicidal crew card?? And everytime one starts to get too deep in to timing issues "we" get in all kinds of trouble?
IMO the 2 x suffer Damage isn't dealt one at a time but "at the same time". I believe it is that way simply because there is no reasonable argument for it being dealt any other way since it is simply 2 "vanilla"or "Regular" Damage so there isn't a Crit that might influence anything.
Furthermore I would think that the FAQ page 2, 2nd column indirectly also support the viability of DV crew when you read the question regarding effects/abilities in simultaneous attacks:
Q:When the Simultaneous Attack Rule keeps
a ship in play until it performs its attack, are
all effects pertaining to that ship still in play?
A: Yes. Effects from the ship’s pilot ability, upgrades,
Damage cards, etc. are still active and may affect
the game.
Same thing goes for Determination: just last night I had a game where my Major Rhymer survived 2 times when I drew 2 Criticial Damage both with Pilot "injuries" which wasn't resolved since I had Determination on him.
So I would still say that if you have DV Crew and wish to go kamikaze I would think that it's perfectly legal and almost what they had in mind ;-)
-
Easy one first: No, Vader will not remove a Stealth Device from either ship. Stealth is only removed on a hit, which is defined as having uncanceled hit or crit results during Step 6.
On the "Can you do it if you only have one left" question, I'm inclined to say no. The wording is, IMHO, pretty straightfoward: "suffer two damage to cause..." If you don't suffer two damage, you don't get to do the "to..." part. It's not "Suffer two damage. Cause one {Critical Hit} result." - the "Do X to Y" is clearly a prerequisite. Since a ship is removed immediately upon having damage = hull, it couldn't suffer the two damage, because it would be removed after suffering the first. So if you had two hull left, you'd destroy yourself in the process but Vader would inflict his damage. But with one, you can't complete the process.
IMHO, this is exactly the same as a missile. "Spend your target lock to perform..." If Vader's ability goes off even though the prerequisite wasn't met, the exact same argument could be made for "I declared the missile when I didn't have a target lock, but since I used it I still get to perform the action because failing the first part doesn't stop the second part."
That's my interpretation, but it may very well be incorrect, or at the very least may fall victim to the rash of "because I said so" rulings we're getting lately. Someone (don't remember who) said they asked one of the FFG guys about it at GenCon, and got a response that you could use Vader. <shrug> Take it for what it's worth.
Buhallin, I think you are putting way too much emphasis or weight into the meaning of "suffer two damage..." wording; I would believe it is simply in order to make it "pricy" to use the ability.
And ship can take/receive more Damage Cards than it's hull value:
Destroying Ships
When the number of Damage cards dealt to a ship
is equal to or greater than its hull value, the
ship is immediately destroyed (faceup and facedown
cards count toward this total). Immediately remove
the destroyed ship from the play area, discard all of
its Damage cards to a faceup discard pile next to
the Damage deck, and return all of its tokens to their
respective supplies.
Bottom line: I am putting my 2 cents worth in on the last option; that you may use DV even with 1 hull left. But this point of view can (will??) easily be countered by saying that "that's just the way you WANT it to work"
Jehan Menasis reacted to this -
Yay. Count me in (99% sure)
-
Strongly recommend the BattleFoam custom builder. Just upgrade my P.A.c.K. 216 to a 432 in order to fit in my Wave 3 ships (just got an Early Stock batch consisting of 1 of each new ship)
-
Ken: they had a small early stock, sol out pretty quickly (surprise!!) but O got lucky and snatched up 1 of each and a friend of mine got the very last Lambda.
Now for the loooong wait for my custom loaded BattleFoam P.A.C.K. 432
#firstworldproblems
I read (past tense) Advanced Sensors as being nothing more than a change in WHEN you take your action, nothing more.
Just in case someone finds it funny too.
Ion token vs the Advanced Sensors
in X-Wing Rules Questions
Posted
Nor do I :-)