-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 15
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Titles and modifications on ships instead of pilots? #18
Comments
You forget "Ordnance Tubes" ;-). Regarding the two multisections ships we have for the time being (CR90 and Raider) I considered that the main section was the one getting the "Title" and it will be the one getting the "Modification". |
I'd not really considered this. 😐 I'm currently allowing one modification per card. Anyone fancy contacting FFG for clarification? |
The rules seem to be clear on that point a huge ship is a ship, and a ship can only have one modification and one title (except if a card stated the contrary Royal Guard TIE for example), consequently a multisections ship can get only one title and one modification (not one per section). |
I wasn't saying that the rules allow multiple modifications/titles (although there are some ambiguities which I won't go into); I'm saying our current XWS spec allows it, which should be addressed. I have asked FFG about it; haven't gotten a response. |
This is a rules question that has yet to be answered, but: how many titles and modifications do multisection Huge ships get? By the rules, each "ship" (not pilot card) gets one title and one modification.
The current XWS implementation allows us to specify titles and mods on a per-pilot card basis. However, for multisection ships, this implies that each section can have its own title and mod. Previously this wasn't an issue, as titles were (and still are) limited to a specific ship section (e.g. "Raider-class Corvette Aft Section only") and the only Huge ship mod was Combat Retrofit which could only be equipped to the GR-75.
However, we now have Automated Protocols and Optimized Generators, which have no such restriction. As it stands, we could have this:
Thoughts on how to handle this? Should we just wait until we get an official ruling on this?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: