One more errata Part Deux

[seitaer]

Great, now QMC takes less damage while running away all game. Sounds fun to play against

Yeah I don't understand this errata at all. People have been wanting the shields to be mirrors for years, not blanked.

[Jedicon]

I'm super curious what will happen now that LS can run away again.

Guessing it becomes a grab target, which frees up Handle and RITC for more fun times.

[Corran]

I'm super curious what will happen now that LS can run away again.

Guessing it becomes a grab target, which frees up Handle and RITC for more fun times.

That LS text held back a ton of LS run away cards, not all were interrupts. This is super interesting and could make or break stuff.

[Madmanwithabox]

Certainly the riskiest card (or non card) seen so far - it opens up a lot of LS evasion cards that previously didn't see play, but for good reason. I have a feeling this one is going to come back as a softer version in a later set (perhaps stacking the movement cards on a new shield is a good way to stop the recursion from getting out of hand).

[alphabeta]

Agree w madman.
I liked that the DS shield prevented abusive evasive strategies. Agree that 2 loss was too much, couldve been 1. But Hyper Escape & co will be back... it feels like DS now must run more grabbers to compensate for the disappearance of that shield

Pb w the LS shield was that it punished barrier.

Anyway happy that the retrieval part is gone...

[hyvee_doughboy]

First of all, I applaud the PC for taking some bold moves by tweaking things. I'd much rather see action and spicing things up than having things get stale.

I'm concerned about this one though. Specifically this:

DS has Chief Retwin (you can let him sit in a starfighter to protect from weapons) and Defel with Sunsdown, more expensive and combo heavy.

I'm super curious what people think about this too. Chief Bast got errata'd for doing something similar (though with Bast it was free). Not sure what the LS player could do about this.

Regarding Arcona: Walseth actually had a deck a while back that used The Shield Is Down (V) to let the Arconas react away for free. Even with the shield, it was often worth it b/c it equated to the force-loss from Maul cloaking. I really don't want to have to start packing counters for random stuff like this.

[arebelspy]

Demotion.

[Hazardville]

First of all, I applaud the PC for taking some bold moves by tweaking things. I'd much rather see action and spicing things up than having things get stale.

I'm concerned about this one though. Specifically this:

DS has Chief Retwin (you can let him sit in a starfighter to protect from weapons) and Defel with Sunsdown, more expensive and combo heavy.

I'm super curious what people think about this too. Chief Bast got errata'd for doing something similar (though with Bast it was free). Not sure what the LS player could do about this.

Regarding Arcona: Walseth actually had a deck a while back that used The Shield Is Down (V) to let the Arconas react away for free. Even with the shield, it was often worth it b/c it equated to the force-loss from Maul cloaking. I really don't want to have to start packing counters for random stuff like this.

You don't want to have to start playing Lana Dobreed/Sacrifice and Darth Vader Emperor's Enforcer?

Retwin has to hide in a ship, like Bast did, otherwise he'd just get shot on the first action against basically every LS deck. Chewie Protector is still an option even if that happens.

[chrknudsen2]

[timeofyouppi]

this is a bad change. there were better ways to change the shields like mirror them and make the force loss 1 instead of 2. i liked the retrieval part but dont mind it going away. removing them is worse than not changing them at all.

[quickdraw3457]

this is a bad change. there were better ways to change the shields like mirror them and make the force loss 1 instead of 2. i liked the retrieval part but dont mind it going away. removing them is worse than not changing them at all.

I truly believe they added nothing interesting to the game. The retrieval part did nothing to encourage interaction like it was originally designed for. The barrier protection was out of hand, forcing dark decks to start decree (yes, that was partially due to no idea too, but the barrier force loss required this as well). The move away text is truly unnecessary on a shield when there are so many commonly played counters already, not to mention that is part of the identity of the light side and what helped make this game asymmetric to begin with.

If anyone makes top 8 at the next major with multiple Arconas in your LS deck I will eat my words and send you some signed cards. And even then I probably won't be that sad because how cool is it that you might play a 1 ability non-unique alien from A New Hope after 13 virtual sets?

[CRG]

If anyone makes top 8 at the next major with multiple Arconas in your LS deck I will eat my words and send you some signed cards. And even then I probably won't be that sad because how cool is it that you might play a 1 ability non-unique alien from A New Hope after 13 virtual sets?

ping!

(it's his favorite card)

[Corran]

I liked the shields, but it would be so cool to see arconas in competitive decks.

[aermet69]

In general I like this. However, what I would not like is, if the PC then creates high impact characters and interrupts that use this function of moving away from battle. This is one of my gripes about the changes to the free shield.

[quickdraw3457]

In general I like this. However, what I would not like is, if the PC then creates high impact characters and interrupts that use this function of moving away from battle. This is one of my gripes about the changes to the free shield.

I truly don't know what's in the pipeline for D&D but I highly doubt this is in the cards for future virtual sets.

[The_Emp]

I disliked the retrieval mechanism on these shields. It often penalized you for trying to deploy things to reinforce your own battlegrounds, which is completely viable and not something that should be shielded against.

Yeah I could understand this. Perhaps we could in the future look at tweaking it so that it required Your side to occupy a battleground site and system, and unless opponent occupies a battleground site and system, you retrieve 1 force. A small change that would probably delay the early retrievals.

[The_Emp]

I like it.

I also wasn't with the haters, but if I were thinking about the card, I'd just want one damage, not 2, and the retrieval is eh. So I'm good with them going.

I think I'm quite happy with like 8 of the 10 proposed changes. Good work so far

X2, Super happy to see these either be mirrored, or if we must have them be gone.
Want to specifically point out I think the damage of 2 was excessive.
I would actually be totally fine if the shields were mirrored and only caused 1 damage per exclusion, as well as remove the ridiculous ability for it to be played retroactively to either damage the opponent or retrieve.
I actually would be in favor of the shield if we had those changes, along with the proposed change to retrieval requirements I commented on the above post.
**Hoping D&D reads these posts **

[The_Emp]

Great, now QMC takes less damage while running away all game. Sounds fun to play against

I'm looking at it a little differently, hoping that QMC and City in the Clouds objectives become more relevant again and thus expand the decks played again. Dark still has a lot of counters so I don't think it'll suddenly become unbalanced. Or perhaps we could examine 'watering down' the objective to make it less costly to exclude/move away as well as put slightly stricter requirements on the retrieval aspect.

[The_Emp]

Certainly the riskiest card (or non card) seen so far - it opens up a lot of LS evasion cards that previously didn't see play, but for good reason. I have a feeling this one is going to come back as a softer version in a later set (perhaps stacking the movement cards on a new shield is a good way to stop the recursion from getting out of hand).

X2 good prediction and great suggestion about stacking!