Open geordanr opened 8 years ago
You forget "Ordnance Tubes" ;-). Anyway, I think that your statement is wrong, multisection ships are viewed as one ship, and a ship can only have one title and one modification even if it has several sections.
Regarding the two multisections ships we have for the time being (CR90 and Raider) I considered that the main section was the one getting the "Title" and it will be the one getting the "Modification". From a builder point of view it was easier to do that this way. But according to the rules the modification should be "assigned" to either section or even better above the section that will me more in line with the rules but a little bite more intricate to implement at builder level.
I'd not really considered this. 😐
I'm currently allowing one modification per card.
Anyone fancy contacting FFG for clarification?
The rules seem to be clear on that point a huge ship is a ship, and a ship can only have one modification and one title (except if a card stated the contrary Royal Guard TIE for example), consequently a multisections ship can get only one title and one modification (not one per section).
I wasn't saying that the rules allow multiple modifications/titles (although there are some ambiguities which I won't go into); I'm saying our current XWS spec allows it, which should be addressed.
I have asked FFG about it; haven't gotten a response.
This is a rules question that has yet to be answered, but: how many titles and modifications do multisection Huge ships get? By the rules, each "ship" (not pilot card) gets one title and one modification.
The current XWS implementation allows us to specify titles and mods on a per-pilot card basis. However, for multisection ships, this implies that each section can have its own title and mod. Previously this wasn't an issue, as titles were (and still are) limited to a specific ship section (e.g. "Raider-class Corvette Aft Section only") and the only Huge ship mod was Combat Retrofit which could only be equipped to the GR-75.
However, we now have Automated Protocols and Optimized Generators, which have no such restriction. As it stands, we could have this:
Thoughts on how to handle this? Should we just wait until we get an official ruling on this?