Boom Boom
Tabitha Smith



Cost: 3.
Health: 2.
Attack: 1. Thwart: 1.

Action: Exhaust Boom Boom → add 1 boom counter to her. Then, you may discard Boom Boom to deal 1 damage to each enemy for each boom counter on her.

X-23 #13.
Boom Boom

I hate that I hate this card. I love Tabitha as a character and I am always on the lookout for good Aggression allies, but unfortunately this isn't it. Her main issue is she gets value for you waiting. But... this is Aggression, an Aspect that almost forces you to rush. Sure, she'd be great if you could use her with Uncanny X-Force to thwart with her every turn while you wait for that build up, except that's not legal because there's no X-Force character like Cyclops that will let you run an Aggression ally in a Leadership deck. Tabitha is pulling herself in two different directions. Maybe if she was cheaper, but for 3 cost you are getting a 1 point action and a chump block, or having her do NOTHING for multiple turns and then chump blocking at the very end?

I am not sure what the design intent was for this was within the X-Force cycle, but Tabitha deserved better.

Soulfire · 30
The thing is that it also realllllllllllllly leans into her theme though. Plus, the benefit is that it does damage to all enemies, so is great against decks with a lot of minions, especially in multiplayer. Additionally, because it's dealing damage it avoids Retaliate. Sure, this card probably has less usefulness in true solo play, but I find that a lot of people get blinders when it comes to a lot of cards, not considering what usefulness they have in multiplayer...where rushing in Aggression isn't anywhere near as useful. — torghacker · 1
Avoiding Retaliate is not relevant information, as Boom Boom must get discarded to deal damage. — Doc7 · 2

Great theme, but too slow! If only Aggression had ways to ready your allies, this would be much more potent.

However, if you want to run her in a Spiderwoman Leadership/Aggression deck, you can Command Team/Get Ready her up so you can load up those boom counters.

DoxaLogos · 222