7 hours ago, Marinealver said:

Have you seen reddit lately?

Nah, this place is toxic enough.

Do tell. . .

8 hours ago, Sasajak said:

What’s done is done. I say keep it the same for two reasons:

1. Any errata reflects badly on the devs initial design - an official admission they’ve got it wrong - but kudos to them for admitting it and putting in a fix. Reversing it is an admission they got it wrong again! Easier to keep it as it is and avoid reputational damage
2. There is a possibility the Punishing One title will get the torp slots in a future erratum - then you can use what comes with the expansion

Isn't your bullet point 2 exactly contradicting what you say about unnerfing in bullet point 1?

It's decent on Torp Deci. I wouldn't mind.

2 hours ago, Managarmr said:

Isn't your bullet point 2 exactly contradicting what you say about unnerfing in bullet point 1?

If by buffing an untouched card to lessen the effects of a nerf on another card can be equated to reversing a nerf on a card then yes! Personally I think reversing the nerf on Deadeye is more reputationally damaging though so they won’t do it whereas buffing Punishing One is less of a problem. But I didn’t think they’d nerf x7 months after it’s release so you can take what I say with a pinch of salt (which I’m sure you already have done )

Please!

Controversial idea, why not make deadeye one use only?

That way it helps low PS, lightly armed ordnance carriers that can't get target locks but limits abuse by massed deadeye on highly capable carriers (used to be Jumpmasters, now possibly Scurgg, Star wing) that are loaded to up rapidly deploy ordnance in consecutive rounds.

It also helps the design space since card designers will then be free to design more ordnance carriers with EPT without having to worry that Deadeye will tip them over to the OP side.