In this FFG article:

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=4236

It says his crit can't be stopped by defence dice. I'm hoping an evade token still stops it!

Evade Tokens add an additional evade result. So... yes?

Evade Tokens add an additional evade result. So... yes?

Then why specify defense "dice"? Why not just say it cannot be stopped?

Take a look:

It seems that {Evade} results remember where they came from. I hadn't expected this - the text doesn't even imply it. But if you look at the example on page 14, it shows the token in there along with the dice.

I'm not really comfortable with it based on the text, but it's certainly not the worst contradiction we have floating around these days.

If it were to just say cannot be cancelled it could cause other problems with cards such as the Chewie co-Pilot.

I would take it simply as read at face value and not look to over complicate things in this instance.

i should add how happy I am to see more spoilers again.

If it were to just say cannot be cancelled it could cause other problems with cards such as the Chewie co-Pilot.

I would take it simply as read at face value and not look to over complicate things in this instance.

Chewie can't do anything to cancel dice results. He works entirely based on being dealt damage cards. No interaction with Ten's ability at all, no matter what the prohibition on cancelation is.

And its only one crit result not all of them. So at face value one of his crits can only be negated by the evade manuver.

And its only one crit result not all of them. So at face value one of his crits can only be negated by the evade manuver.

But that's NOT what the card says at all at face value. It does not say "evade maneuver", it says "defense dice". I'd really like FFG to make an official ruling on this.

Trooper - I think you're overthinking this man.

nimdabew was agreeing with you - evade tokens WILL counteract his crit roll. The card says it can't be cancelled by defense dice... what does that leave?

Majeh was making the point that an evade token is the obvious means of cancelling the crit. So yeah - at face value an evade token can be used to cancel the ONE crit he can score that can't be cancelled using dice.

Only one new card in this preview is pretty stingy.

There were like 6 or 7 new cards :/

There were like 6 or 7 new cards :/

However, Ten Numb was the only one that we've not seen before. Having revealed a few more that we've not seen before would have been nice.

I interpret his ability as...

-Defense dice cannot cancel out a Crit when an evade is rolled.

-Spending an Evade token can negate, provided you still follow the normal rules for cancelling hits in that regular hits first, then critical hits.

I believe the following cards were meant to go together:

You are pretty much guarenteed a crit.

For 43 points... and with very little to protect him. Almost half your list is going into a fighter with only 1 evade die.

A TIE Swarm with 8 attacks is not going to be pretty. The B-Wing has good shields but it's no YT-1300.

I'd probably drop the heavy laser cannon on Ten, actually. Your biggest goal with Ten is to get criticals- HLC changes all Criticals to regular hits. Sure you get four dice, but even with three and constant target locking I think I'd rather free up those seven points to make a better balanced escort squadron to go with him, instead of one big attractive agility 1 flying target.

If it were to just say cannot be cancelled it could cause other problems with cards such as the Chewie co-Pilot.I would take it simply as read at face value and not look to over complicate things in this instance.

Chewie can't do anything to cancel dice results. He works entirely based on being dealt damage cards. No interaction with Ten's ability at all, no matter what the prohibition on cancelation is.

My apologies for stupidity. Was late at night and I got a little over excited I think. Looking forward to seeing a few maneuver dials now to go with wave 3 spoiler info.

@Norsehound,

Good points. Edited. I still think Marksmanship is an absolute must on Ten Numb.

Proton Torpedoes (the regular kind, mind you) are also great for Ten Numb. They change a [Focus] result to a [Crit] result, which will almost guarantee a critical hit. And they are more affordable than Advanced Proton Torpedoes, so they'll probably find their way into Ten Numb lists more often.

Ten Numb with Proton Torpedoes x2 for 39 points: I'm willing to give that one a try. Just need to find the right wingmen...

Proton Torpedoes (the regular kind, mind you) are also great for Ten Numb. They change a [Focus] result to a [Crit] result, which will almost guarantee a critical hit. And they are more affordable than Advanced Proton Torpedoes, so they'll probably find their way into Ten Numb lists more often.

Ten Numb with Proton Torpedoes x2 for 39 points: I'm willing to give that one a try. Just need to find the right wingmen...

I was thinking of the following, just to try it out:

Vets of DS2

Ten Numb 31

+Marksmanship 3

+Proton Torps 4

Wedge 29

+R2 Astromech 1

Tycho Celchu 26

+Push the Limits 3

+Stealth Device 3

100 even.

Get to use 3 different ships and have some elite pilots. Sounds fun. can all do good damage at range 3 or beat you down at closer ranges.

This is also being debated here:

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/86029-ten-numb-vs-evade-tokens/

And its only one crit result not all of them. So at face value one of his crits can only be negated by the evade manuver.

But that's NOT what the card says at all at face value. It does not say "evade maneuver", it says "defense dice". I'd really like FFG to make an official ruling on this.

This is being debated here too.

If you look at pages 8, 12 and 14 of the rules. It describes the Evade Token and usage. It is not the same as dice

Dice is something very separate though either can cancel a hit or crit.

I can appreciate accuracy in the rules, but when discussions over rules turn into heated arguments over who's "more right", is the game even fun them at that point anymore?

I can appreciate accuracy in the rules, but when discussions over rules turn into heated arguments over who's "more right", is the game even fun them at that point anymore?

Better to have those debates on a forum than in the middle of a game.

I think of game rules as the contract between players. Whether through honest disagreement, poor writing, or competitive nature, there will be times that differences of opinion arise in that contract. Hammering out those issues before hand, so that everyone has (as much as possible) the same understanding of that contract is the best way to ensure that the game itself goes smoothly.

Also, don't underestimate the technical and analytic enjoyment that some of us get from dissecting the rules That shouldn't turn to argument, certainly, but I find that players who don't appreciate the rules in the depth that I do frequently call "argument" what I consider to be "engaging and intense debate".

I can appreciate accuracy in the rules, but when discussions over rules turn into heated arguments over who's "more right", is the game even fun them at that point anymore?

Better to have those debates on a forum than in the middle of a game.

I think of game rules as the contract between players. Whether through honest disagreement, poor writing, or competitive nature, there will be times that differences of opinion arise in that contract. Hammering out those issues before hand, so that everyone has (as much as possible) the same understanding of that contract is the best way to ensure that the game itself goes smoothly.

Also, don't underestimate the technical and analytic enjoyment that some of us get from dissecting the rules That shouldn't turn to argument, certainly, but I find that players who don't appreciate the rules in the depth that I do frequently call "argument" what I consider to be "engaging and intense debate".

Fair enough. Better to go into the game beforehand already knowing, then having to stop play and discuss how to proceed.

Oh i certainly don't underestimate the analytic side of things. It fascinates me to see new games and try to figure out how they came up with that, or how many times did that need to be tested before they came to this conclusion.

I guess it's just like any forum debate...you lose the inflection and cadence of the speech and therefore read the words however you want to...regardless if that was the author's true intentions. I'm sure in that misinterpretation is where the bellows begin to blow on the glowing embers...

To get back on point, i'm sure FFG will post something in regards to this...if for nothing else to squelch any doubts that may arise when the next tournament or event is held.

I personally still stand by my original comment of i didn't think an FAQ was needed, but clearly just looking at the forums, i am beginning to see that one may be necessary...if for nothing else so we can get back to future wave possibilities and new pilot speculations.

I personally still stand by my original comment of i didn't think an FAQ was needed

Oh, don't get me wrong - I don't think one is needed for this either. But it's important to distinguish between honest rules discussion and people with an axe to grind