People on the ground have reported that the next set is called Empire at War. Sabine is a character.

That makes Sabine and Thrawn confirmed Set 3 characters. I wonder if that means it'll be a 'Rebels' heavy set?

51 minutes ago, Ajones47 said:

That makes Sabine and Thrawn confirmed Set 3 characters. I wonder if that means it'll be a 'Rebels' heavy set?

If I recall correctly, they said it would focus on Rebels when they announced Thrawn. Based on Awakenings (TFA) and Spirit of Rebellion (Rogue One), I figure that means at least one character for each color/side from Rebels, but also plenty of non-Rebels stuff.

Not sure how I feel about them announcing the next set before SoR even hits, but I guess when you've got a big event you take advantage of it.

As for Sabine, seems interesting enough. She's got the damage output you want from a 15/20 point character, and she's sort of got a mini Rey ability from discard instead of hand. The cost reduction on 'Thermal' cards is a nice extra and will help define the decks she fits into (assuming we get at least one or two more cards she can use it with).

One thing that I hadn't considered before, this 'plays' a card (so does IG-88)...Can you use Infamous with it?

Hey Look another 15/20 point hero character wonder who we will pair her with.... lol (will the light side ever get a 2 dice 15 point character to actually allow all these 15 1 dice characters to actually have something to go with.)

The ability looks ambiguous to me - its just one sentece so its not clear whether:

- You can play any weapon from discard pile. If it has 'thermal' in the title its cost is reduced by 1.

- You can only play weapons that have "thermal' in the title - in addition their cost is reduced by 1.

I don't see anything ambiguous about that ability. The commas break the sentence into 3 distinct parts. Part 1 (when) "Before you activate this character , " this defines when you may use the ability. - comma

Part 2 (ability) "you may play a weapon from your discard pile on her , " this defines what the ability is. - comma

Part 3 (additional effect) "decreasing its cost by 1 if it has the word "Thermal" in its title." See how the last portion defines an extra function of the ability, along with when you can use it, with no further sentence breaks? Based on the structure of this sentence, the Thermal qualifier only applies to the last section. If that was part of the requirement to play the weapon in the first place, the Thermal qualifier would've needed to be part of the 2nd portion of the sentence, or the entire sentence structure would've needed to be different.

To be fair, I am not an English teacher, but I am married to one.

1 hour ago, Nitratas said:

The ability looks ambiguous to me - its just one sentece so its not clear whether:

- You can play any weapon from discard pile. If it has 'thermal' in the title its cost is reduced by 1.

- You can only play weapons that have "thermal' in the title - in addition their cost is reduced by 1.

I misread this at first, but I'd agree with Xindell that the comma makes it fairly unambiguous how it's meant to work.

8 hours ago, Abyss said:

Not sure how I feel about them announcing the next set before SoR even hits, but I guess when you've got a big event you take advantage of it.

As for Sabine, seems interesting enough. She's got the damage output you want from a 15/20 point character, and she's sort of got a mini Rey ability from discard instead of hand. The cost reduction on 'Thermal' cards is a nice extra and will help define the decks she fits into (assuming we get at least one or two more cards she can use it with).

One thing that I hadn't considered before, this 'plays' a card (so does IG-88)...Can you use Infamous with it?

That's how they do it for all their games. They've had a soft release. Once a release is it in the wild, even in limited capacity, they usually announce the next one, especially for their biggest titles. Expect this to be on the shelf for Gencon Attendees but we won't get it for a few more weeks.

3 hours ago, Xindell said:

I don't see anything ambiguous about that ability. The commas break the sentence into 3 distinct parts. Part 1 (when) "Before you activate this character , " this defines when you may use the ability. - comma

Part 2 (ability) "you may play a weapon from your discard pile on her , " this defines what the ability is. - comma

Part 3 (additional effect) "decreasing its cost by 1 if it has the word "Thermal" in its title." See how the last portion defines an extra function of the ability, along with when you can use it, with no further sentence breaks? Based on the structure of this sentence, the Thermal qualifier only applies to the last section. If that was part of the requirement to play the weapon in the first place, the Thermal qualifier would've needed to be part of the 2nd portion of the sentence, or the entire sentence structure would've needed to be different.

To be fair, I am not an English teacher, but I am married to one.

Thanks for the elaborate explanation that clears it up. My first language is not English but we do play the game in English version. These sorts of long sentences sometimes make it harder to understand it 100%

She could have played well with Poe if she had been a 12 pointer at 15 she will struggle to find partners in crime.

There is a very good chance her stats, cost and special are not finalized yet. So i wouldn't worry about playing her in decks just yet.

Given that they gave the cards out at celebration, I figure it's pretty much 100% done.

10 hours ago, Trand said:

There is a very good chance her stats, cost and special are not finalized yet. So i wouldn't worry about playing her in decks just yet.

9 hours ago, The Penguin UK said:

Given that they gave the cards out at celebration, I figure it's pretty much 100% done.

Yeah she's finalized. One can definitely assume that she's playable in this form. FFG doesn't show any product that isn't mechanically finalized. There have been small exceptions in the past where card was re-titled or the syntax was slightly altered to more clearly explain the effect, but the effect itself remained essentially the same. I would bet cash that Set 3 is effectively finished and Set 4/the "Base Set" is in development/playtesting at this time.

I believe production time for LCGs is at least 6-12 months before they release the first pack in the cycle (and cycle's are done in one go), so yes, I don't doubt this is the card we'll get. And I don't see why there would be any changes - she's in line with other characters at a similar cost point.

Sabine, Jyn maybe. Damage and resource denial a la disrupt and discard. The downside is that it's mono-yellow.

On 4/16/2017 at 9:22 AM, Engine25 said:

Yeah she's finalized. One can definitely assume that she's playable in this form. FFG doesn't show any product that isn't mechanically finalized. There have been small exceptions in the past where card was re-titled or the syntax was slightly altered to more clearly explain the effect, but the effect itself remained essentially the same. I would bet cash that Set 3 is effectively finished and Set 4/the "Base Set" is in development/playtesting at this time.

Yep, at this point Empire at War is at the factory.

On 4/15/2017 at 6:32 AM, Xindell said:

I don't see anything ambiguous about that ability. The commas break the sentence into 3 distinct parts. Part 1 (when) "Before you activate this character , " this defines when you may use the ability. - comma

Part 2 (ability) "you may play a weapon from your discard pile on her , " this defines what the ability is. - comma

Part 3 (additional effect) "decreasing its cost by 1 if it has the word "Thermal" in its title." See how the last portion defines an extra function of the ability, along with when you can use it, with no further sentence breaks? Based on the structure of this sentence, the Thermal qualifier only applies to the last section. If that was part of the requirement to play the weapon in the first place, the Thermal qualifier would've needed to be part of the 2nd portion of the sentence, or the entire sentence structure would've needed to be different.

To be fair, I am not an English teacher, but I am married to one.

I'm reading it as the upgrade needs thermal. I am not seeing periods or conjunctions or additional mays in there, so it seems all conditions need to be met. If you have different people reading the same thing and thinking it means different things, then it is ambiguous.

If it is suppose to be any weapons, it needs to be written something like this.

"Before you activate this character, you may play any weapon from your discard pile on her. The cost is further decreased by 1 if the word "Thermal" is in its title."

Instead it is written, "Before you activate this character, you may play a weapon from your discard pile on her, decreasing its cost by 1 if it has the word "Thermal" in its title."

It really doesn't indicate the "Thermal" as being conditional rather than required, making it ambiguous. It could just read, disregarding the decreased cost, "Before you activate this character, you may play a weapon from your discard pile on her if it has the word "Thermal" in its title."

She is broken with the ambush guns if she can actually chain them like that. Most likely she is just an over cost grenade tosser. Either way, needing to FAQ a card right out of the box like is pretty sad. They can forgo the flavor text and make sure the card is clear.

5 hours ago, Mep said:

I'm reading it as the upgrade needs thermal. I am not seeing periods or conjunctions or additional mays in there, so it seems all conditions need to be met. If you have different people reading the same thing and thinking it means different things, then it is ambiguous.

If it is suppose to be any weapons, it needs to be written something like this.

"Before you activate this character, you may play any weapon from your discard pile on her. The cost is further decreased by 1 if the word "Thermal" is in its title."

Instead it is written, "Before you activate this character, you may play a weapon from your discard pile on her, decreasing its cost by 1 if it has the word "Thermal" in its title."

It really doesn't indicate the "Thermal" as being conditional rather than required, making it ambiguous. It could just read, disregarding the decreased cost, "Before you activate this character, you may play a weapon from your discard pile on her if it has the word "Thermal" in its title."

She is broken with the ambush guns if she can actually chain them like that. Most likely she is just an over cost grenade tosser. Either way, needing to FAQ a card right out of the box like is pretty sad. They can forgo the flavor text and make sure the card is clear.

nah son. you wrong.

straight up.

Commas mean something and have a defined use. This card is not vague at all...

I've been told that one before.

Was anyone actually at the presentation? Did they explain the card at all?

20 minutes ago, Stone37 said:

Comas mean something and have a defined use. This card is not vague at all...

It is to someone in a coma. I mean they can't even read, so mean.

The card is very clear.

You can play any weapon from the discard pile, but if it has thermal in the title, it is 1 point cheaper. No debate.

13 hours ago, Mep said:

I've been told that one before.

Was anyone actually at the presentation? Did they explain the card at all?

There is a keyword in the sentence too: "if". If (ironic) "Thermal" was a requirement, then "if" would make the sentence/restrictions completely wrong.

~D

Nevermind, just found the answer to my interogation.