Jump to content

Hand of Vecna

Members
  • Content Count

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Maybe it part. The ghost is a good example of a ship that pushes the scale of the game to the limit. It's really not far off in size from a Gozanti. The 4 Attack mainly represents an upgunned ship that is already just more ship than most of the things that can meaningfully engage in a dogfight can be, but it's also nimble enough to get a real dial and represent its maneuvers with the same templates everything else uses. Ditto the insane HP and zero agility, functionally representing an entirely different class of ship.
  2. It's not as common, but I see Y-wings with Torpedoes and no turrets all the time, and a naked Dutch just went all the way in Kentucky. I even see a turrent with no gunner, but to be fair that's usually because the points ran out or the turret was extra points tossed on. I don't think VTG is too cheap, but I do think many of the other gunners cost too much. I almost never see it on large bases that aren't the Resistance Bomber, but maybe I'm an outlier.
  3. Hyperspace will probably always tend to include new releases, but with the Decimator not being included it's clear that's not a guarantee. Rather the intent is to create a space where the metagame shifts constantly given what is available. That said, it's probably a very safe bet that the TIE Bomber/Interceptor/Starviper/B-wing/A-wing will be reintroduced by Wave 5. The 2.0 Striker pack has only just now hit the shelves, and it's always been legal, not to mention the Rebel Falcon.
  4. Both X-wing platforms are versatile and effective. The Resistance A-wing aces are hot fire (L'ulo is love. L'ulo is life!).
  5. Anyone else crossing their fingers for some Gunboat love on the 28th? Seems likely that Protons might go up a bit!
  6. This is also true of fans of the previous movies. I find most of the complaints to be nonsensical, but there is absolutely passion and vigor behind them. I think, in this case, your argument might reverse itself.
  7. It doesn't really help, but I appreciate it. I think the case for it boils down to "If A Then B is not the same as If B Then A." That said, I'll take your word for it since I'm still pretty new to this (and I don't want to take over the thread), but I'm going to keep hunting a better understanding. I wish they had just Errata'd the thing one way or the other. Thanks!
  8. So am I to understand that the condition of not being able to spend a Target lock applies retroactively? I agree that it's straightforward in all cases but the one I mentioned, and nothing has really changed from what the cards explicitly already said. Everything the FAQ said I concur with, but I don't believe it addresses this case. I want to know what I'm misunderstanding. The way I read it, you are barred from spending a Target lock to reroll dice after applying the ATC, not before. Are all modifications to the dice pool considered to take place simultaneously? Or is this card considered to have an Unwritten requisite that I may not have previously spent a Target lock? This corner case has been like a needle in my mind for months now. EDIT: To put it another way, how does ATC know I spent a Target lock before I trigger it?
  9. I don't believe the new FAQ resolves the ATC/Synchronizer debate entirely. If I have already spent a target lock from a friendly TS ship to reroll dice, am I prevented from then applying ATC? Assume I still fulfill its condition, and will not be spending a target lock after it is applied.
×
×
  • Create New...