I'd run this over Stealth Device on Fel and similar ships, if I could.

Insurance against range-1 shots and ordnance. never goes away. cheaper.

14 minutes ago, skotothalamos said:

I'd run this over Stealth Device on Fel and similar ships, if I could.

Insurance against range-1 shots and ordnance. never goes away. cheaper.

You find range-1 and ordnance shots raining down on Fel as a bigger problem for him than the TLT?

Because SD works against the TLT, while LWF does not...

On 7/26/2017 at 3:23 PM, HungryFFG said:

Lightweight Frame is a great tool for low agility ships. However, the modification has diminishing returns. Was the last clause really needed for balance? Personally, without that clause, I think it would have added a useful tool to agility 3 Imperial TIEs without being auto-include. While it would not activate often, it would help provide protection from alpha strikes which currently discourage the use of low HP ships. I, for one, am no longer including TIE Fighters or TIE Interceptors in my lists, as there are too many lists that can remove them in one volley. Would removing the limitation on Lightweight Frame address that issue and help reintroduce these ships into the meta?

It doesn't matter, because AC kills the card all together. Problem is FFG made results the same as dice.

2 hours ago, Marinealver said:

It doesn't matter, because AC kills the card all together. Problem is FFG made results the same as dice.

I like that the card has weaknesses. I went up against a Z95 Headhunter Feedback swarm and learned first hand one of its hard counters. It never activated the entire game. That does not make it a bad card. It means it is balanced. I just do not think that the last clause is required to maintain that balance.

It would have made Ties better, but Tie Defenders, with the title and this would be awesome!!! They should have changed it to be ships with 2 attack or less

15 hours ago, Marinealver said:

It doesn't matter, because AC kills the card all together. Problem ie results the same as dice.

I think you'd still get the extra dice because you get it contingent upon how many attack dice were initisally rolled. Not hoew many were at the end.

About all it did was keep the 3agi ships from going to "4agi" when in range1.

I'd take that on my Defenders any day. R1 now has effectively no penalty for me unless you got me tokenless.

20 minutes ago, BadMotivator said:

I think you'd still get the extra dice because you get it contingent upon how many attack dice were initisally rolled. Not hoew many were at the end.

Incorrect. LWF does not specified how many were rolled, it only checks how many there are.

This is why adding results will kick off LWF and AC "negates" it (except on the punisher)

2 hours ago, BadMotivator said:

I think you'd still get the extra dice because you get it contingent upon how many attack dice were initisally rolled. Not hoew many were at the end.

Thats what I thought too but since all results were canceled and 2 results were added in that doesn't work. because 2 results = only 2 dice.

Now say Fin was on a HWK (don't ask why) and he added 2 blank results now there are 3 (or more) results so LWF triggers. I know the terminology makes no sense.