| Exclusive Decktech Star Wars V6.2 Spoiler |
| scott reports on Wed Nov 18 2009 | Star Wars |
Editors Note: please remember that any and all aspects are subject to change before release. Thanks to Jonny Chu for his commentary.
•Ni Chuba Na (V) 4
[Virtual Set 6.2 - Tatooine - C]
EFFECT
Text: Deploy on table. Your Force generation is +1. Once per game, may relocate this Effect to a site. At same and related locations, Revolution is canceled and your cards may not have their deploy costs modified by Goo Nee Tay. Security Precautions is canceled. [Immune to Alter]
Set Icon 6.2•X
Ni Chuba Naa?? will help address some critical weaknesses in the meta right now against dark side. On first glance this card looks like the old Security Precautions v pre-errata. It’s very similar, but with some significant changes.
First off, the deployment requirements from the old card are gone. Now you no longer need to occupy the site, nor does it have to be a battleground. With any Starting Interrupt that includes effects, you can start it on table. This is balanced by the force generation bonus being capped at +1, so it’s essentially dark side’s counterpart to Wokling v. This will help solve dark side’s current force generation imbalance.
Ni Chuba Na?? carries the anti-Goo Nee Tay text the old Securty Precautions had, in a simplified version. It no longer stops deployment modifiers for your own cards, but works to prevent Goo.
The second side of countering force choke is the anti-Revolution text. It has been designed so that it’s not an all-out counter to Revolution such as Set Your Course For Alderaan; instead there is a strategic choice involved. For decks like Endor Operations that are based primarily around one system, the card helps immensely. For decks like Hunt Down and Destroy The Jedi non-v, dark side needs to decide whether to protect its own Executor sites, go wherever it sets up, or where the light side player is playing. So light side can still choose to play Revolution, but there is more of a penalty now for basing a deck around it.
Also notice the text covers related locations, so a deck like Agents of the Black Sun or Coruscant mains doesn’t need to worry about the system being Revo’d anymore. The existence of this card will be a boost to any decks that get decimated by an early Revolution. In particular, ISB, Agents of the Black Sun, and Endor Operations will benefit greatly.
From a card creation point of view this card has taken quite a few turns – the original Security Precautions v was made intended to be a ROPs helper that could be played in any deck. The original text of “deploy on a site you occupy” made it so you couldn’t start it, and it was sent used if the opponent controlled that site to encourage battling. Also, the “cards can’t have their deploy cost modified” text was meant as a balance to the ROPs text that makes Rebels deploy +2. In return, the dark side what often was generation +3, which ROPs really needed.
The card now has a bit less flavor than it used to – I really liked being able to get rid of the old one – but the benefit has been toned down to a certain extent. It’s ironic that the original balancing text (cards can’t be modified) is now one of the card’s strengths.
In re-making the card, at first it seemed simpler to keep it as Security Precautions v and just nix the one that was last released. But in choosing a new card, it avoids having to re-errata a card that had already been re-duxed, which is already confusing enough. But to avoid starting Ni Chuba Na?? and Security Precautions non-v with Combat Readiness v, for a generation bonus of +2, the “cancels Sec Prec” text needed to be added. Luckily, it fit.
Ni Chuba Na?? was chosen for two reasons: the card has the goofiest picture I could think of, and the other one is for vanity. Hopefully this card will be popular so everyone is going to be playing a card with Sebulba giving Jar Jar a chicken.
- Jonedited by scott on Wed Nov 18 2009 |
| send to friend | printer friendly |
Edited 3 times because some players had found some loopholes in one of the PC's cards... again! | | Patrick Dinelle - Wed Nov 18 2009 |
wrong pat, edited because the card that was posted was an old version that has since been updated. and there was no loophole anyway | | Casey Anis - Wed Nov 18 2009 |
back You must be a registered member to comment on the news. Sign up here! |
Star Wars CCG
