Greetings, readers! Now that the tide of new info on UXM from SDCC has diminished, I figure it's a good time to continue my musings on the basic action cards. I've had some thoughts rattling around about Invulnerability and Take Cover for a while; despite what I said when comparing their globals, I think they're actually pretty similar in effect.
And what happens when you have two similar cards vying for one spot? That's right - a knock-down, drag-out fight for supremacy!
Round One: Cost
Invulnerability costs two to pick up, Take Cover, three. Invulnerability is (so far) the only two-cost basic action, which makes it pretty nice for various reasons - it's easier to buy alongside other dice and therefore better at providing its effect or energy (and, again, action dice are the best energy sources in the game if you don't need a specific type of energy). It might only be one cheaper than Take Cover, but that one is a pretty big difference in the tight energy budgets of the current, speedy meta.
Winner: Invulnerability
Round Two: The Global
Like I said when comparing the various global actions, the Invulnerability '+1A to a character for one bolt' is very much a mirror image of Take Cover's '+1D to one character for one shield'. Adding attack makes it easier to churn your own characters and knock out your opponent's characters when needed; adding defense lets you try to block your opponent from churning their characters and protect your own characters when you need to. Both are pretty useful for these points, and which would be better would depend on team makeup/matchup most of the time...except that Invulnerability's global can help you inflict extra damage on your opponent. Given how much of an asset that can be, it's pretty clear Invulnerability has this category too.
Winner: Invulnerability
Round Three: The Action
"Attacking characters that are knocked out return to the field" versus "+2D to all your characters, and maybe some more to another character if you have a burst". At first blush, they don't seem that similar, but when you think about it...both are all about keeping your characters from getting knocked out.
Both have their ups and downs. Invulnerability means none of your characters, from the humble 1/1 level 1 Gambit to the massive 8/9 level 3 Dr. Strange, will end up in your prep area at the end of the turn. On the one hand, that means they're guaranteed to be able to defend; on the other, it means you have zero opportunity to churn that turn, too. Take Cover just adds some defense, so you can still get guys knocked out to churn, but you also can't guarantee that your opponent can't KO the guys you don't want churned.
If it were just that, I'd say that the ability to permit churn while still allowing you to protect your assets would let Take Cover edge out Invulnerability. The problem with that, though, is that you can only actually use either of these actions when you're attacking. That means, by and large, your opponent gets to choose who blocks your attackers, giving them most of the power in determining who gets KOed and who doesn't. That undermines the benefit of Take Cover quite a bit, frankly. In my opinion, it's safer to just say 'nope, no one can get taken out', rather than risk your opponent denying you the opportunity to churn your expendables - they'd have the Take Cover global to fall back on should they need it, too - while still getting your good guys off the table.
Winner: Invulnerability
The Verdict
A clean sweep by Invulnerability! This isn't to say Take Cover is totally useless; you may be able to use it to protect some characters while still getting to have your churn cake, and if your opponent is running a lot of smaller characters you might find stopping them more useful than churning your own characters, for some examples. But realistically - Invulnerability does it all better, at a cheaper price. Unless you specifically want to stop churn, take Invulnerability. It's the better die, and the better buy.
Invulnerability, you can drop off my check any time.
It also depends on who your team is - with a lot of shield characters and few bolts, you're probably better off with Take Cover.
ReplyDelete