There's no way to do a poll here, so it'll be an informal inquiry to this question: if the Phantom were exactly the same as it otherwise currently exists (price, upgrade options, dial, cloak effect, etc.), would you still play it under any or all of the following options:

A: The Phantom were 3 base Attack dice

B: The Phantom used the "1 straight" (or 1 bank, for Echo) maneuver template for decloak

C: Advanced Cloaking Device is triggered during the End Phase instead of immediately after making an attack

For me, I'd still play it with Options A, B, and C individually. To take it further, I'd play it for the same price if A, B, and C were all enabled at once, and still consider it an excellent choice (though Stygium Particle Accelerator might see a bump in use). Instead of just being flat out better, it would be just a more complementary to the Interceptor and (upgraded) TIE/Adv.

I'm not suggesting this is a "Phantom is OP!" or "fix the Phantom" type thread. I'm just curious as to how much COULD be stripped from the Phantom and still have it viable/competitive.

Thoughts?

A seems ok.

B would make it much much harder do arc dodge which is how the phantom primarily stays alive. You pay alot of points for that thing...though if someone wants do run a few games go father some data my mind would be open on this point.

C I don't like at all. ACD is expensive and the phantom has garbage evade without it. It also has very little life for what you pay. If you hit it it usually dies...the acd tends do save it

Option D: Put Veteran Instincts and Advanced Cloaking Device on the restricted list, making Whisper and Echo easier to deal with, and slows down the bit to get as high as PS as possible.

I'd play it if the Decloak used the 1 straight. I tend to have difficulty getting the Phantom exactly where I want it because of how far it moves during Decloak so for me this would actually be an upgrade.

Option D: Put Veteran Instincts and Advanced Cloaking Device on the restricted list, making Whisper and Echo easier to deal with, and slows down the bit to get as high as PS as possible.

This D is for don't.

A is "ok".

No thank you to B and C.

-Cal

A.) seems absolutely reasonable

C.) would seem reasonable as an alternate fix if turret ships did not exist.

The phantom is a ship that, similar to the interceptor, is supposed to live and die by its maneuverability. Unfortunately, the existence of turrets and their horrendous implementation in this game just spits in the face of that. Turrets already sack-slap maneuverability by sheer virtue of existing, so the immediate post-shot re-cloak is particularly required for phantoms to ever see play.

It's also the reason we're seeing no interceptors except the odd soontir until auto-thrusters come out.

The problem with all of these options is they kill off the generic phantoms completely, and the generics are the ones that play the way the phantom was designed to. Any of these changes would make the phantom ACD elites the only useable ones. Yeah, people would probably still run Whisper and maybe Echo at 3 attack dice, but who'd run a phantom that doesn't ACD at 3 dice? It's a worse, more expensive Interceptor. The phantom's got four because it's meant to attack every other turn in theory.

The 1-bank phantom just turns its decloak into a barrel roll or boost. To be honest it's probably more advantages rather than less.

Based on FFG's errata rules A and B options are also impossible to do.

If the phantom's a serious problem the way to deal with it is to ban ACD or disallow the pairing of ACD and VI. I don't think it is though.

A: is okay but really given how much you have to bolt on to make them work well it'd end up kinda lackluster.

B: I'd be fine with that it would just mean a more careful previous turn setting up the attack.

C: nope not if it was the same price, it's one thing one shotting a headhunter at 12 points quite another taking out half of someones points.

I would still play the named ones with A or B, but not with C:

ACD is just that important for them but with the two others they could still arc-dodge superbly and the damage would still be okay for a ship that can do this.

For the generics i would still consider them a good pick with B or C, but not A:

This is because i use Stygium for generics anyway and the 4 attack is what sets them apart from other ships. And they can't arc-dodge as well as their higher PS named friends.

I'd still play it because it is a cool ship! Haven't played one in a tournament. Don't know if I ever will. I wouldn't care what rules FFG made for it, it is a unique, interesting and fun ship from the EU, and that is all I care about. I was about to buy one from Shapeways (created by Gosric) before FFG came out with an official version. I was surprised that they actually did, and that's enough for me.

A seems like it makes the most sense, especially when you consider the premium other ships pay for HLC. If they wanted to give it 4 attack, they should have put a cannon slot on it. That is just my opinion though.

I wouldn't care too much about B and C if I didn't have to pay the two points for R3-A2 so I would not have to worry about them or using a perfectly good EPT slot for VI so I can get my shot in before the cloak effect.

So I think the REAL fix is just a discount on R3-A2... ...of 2 points. /this discount idea is a joke (though I would happily take any discounts for astromechs if given the opportunity).

I think I'd take B and C but not A. Flying Stygium Sigmas has convinced me that ACD is not the be-all end-all of Phantom equipment that it's touted to be. Losing 4ATK breaks Stygium since optimally you only fire every other turn and need that firepower.

The Phantom is not merely a glass cannon, but actually the sort of brittle glass that cracks when moved from the dishwasher to a cold counter. It is also an incredible cannon, because, well, it needs an offsetting advantage. Sometimes I'm surprised the Phantom doesn't explode under the weight of those 4 dice against that 4hp.

Option A diminishes the specialness of the Phantom. And, since a Phantom tends to not have focus tokens or Target Locks (decloak is its standard action), those 4 dice aren't quite as scary as they could be.

Option B is actually a buff to the Phantom. The use of the 2 template makes it harder to control than it otherwise would be.

Option C could work at 2 points, but not at 4. Even at 2 points, it might actually be worse than SPA, as it leaves the Phantom entirely vulnerable during the combat phase. It's not terrible- still worth taking as a sort of super boost, but not awesome.

I do like your ideas. They are a good exploration of the Phantom design space. I also think they leave the Phantom as being less terrifying than I think the Phantom needs to be.

I'd rather the Phantom had a secondary dial that had Stay cloaked, de-cloak right, left, forward, you get the idea. That or have a ship that de-cloaks lose it's action.

... And, since a Phantom tends to not have focus tokens or Target Locks (decloak is its standard action) ...

Decloak is not an action. You still get to perform an action after you decloak and reveal your movement dial.

Yes to all three together and individually. Or alternately I'd like to add one to the list....

E(?). The 1-tight is a Red maneuver. Thus stopping the ship from being able to ladder backwards along a diagonal. It would still be able to stay still once and pivot, but it would then actually seem like the stupendously difficult decloak move it should be to just pivot your ship in space.

And with A, B, C, D, and E, on the list, Pick any three and I would not dread that one round I know is coming every tourney I go to. Or throw in the secondary Dial idea which only makes sense for how that mechanic should work and maybe one other of the suggested tweaks. I've said it since it came out, you could have breathed funny on the Phantoms design and it would have been a world better.

Option F?

The Phantom decloaks at the start of activation before any ships move. This gives the other ships some ability to react to it's decloak. They can't react directly with their dials, since they've already been set, but they can roll or boost to try to react since they have a general idea where it will be. The biggest issue with the Phantom is it's electron like location probability. During activation to any ships with a PS lower than the Phantom, the Phantom actually exists in 4+ places at the same time. It exists at it's current location (if it doesn't decloak), 2 foward from it's current location (forward decloak) or 2 to the left or right of it's current location (left or right decloak). Echo really should have been named electron (he basically exists in 6+ locations at the same time). This rule change doesn't require reprints, which FFG won't do. It at least gives ships a fighting chance to shoot at it, which realistically low PS ships don't get often enough.

The Phantom is not merely a glass cannon, but actually the sort of brittle glass that cracks when moved from the dishwasher to a cold counter. It is also an incredible cannon, because, well, it needs an offsetting advantage. Sometimes I'm surprised the Phantom doesn't explode under the weight of those 4 dice against that 4hp.

Option A diminishes the specialness of the Phantom. And, since a Phantom tends to not have focus tokens or Target Locks (decloak is its standard action), those 4 dice aren't quite as scary as they could be.

Option B is actually a buff to the Phantom. The use of the 2 template makes it harder to control than it otherwise would be.

Option C could work at 2 points, but not at 4. Even at 2 points, it might actually be worse than SPA, as it leaves the Phantom entirely vulnerable during the combat phase. It's not terrible- still worth taking as a sort of super boost, but not awesome.

I do like your ideas. They are a good exploration of the Phantom design space. I also think they leave the Phantom as being less terrifying than I think the Phantom needs to be.

Did someone not read the decloak card provided with their ship?

There is nothing wrong with the Phantom. Just because its popular and good doesn't mean it needs to be fixed.

The Phantom is not merely a glass cannon, but actually the sort of brittle glass that cracks when moved from the dishwasher to a cold counter. It is also an incredible cannon, because, well, it needs an offsetting advantage. Sometimes I'm surprised the Phantom doesn't explode under the weight of those 4 dice against that 4hp.

Option A diminishes the specialness of the Phantom. And, since a Phantom tends to not have focus tokens or Target Locks (decloak is its standard action), those 4 dice aren't quite as scary as they could be.

Decloak not being an action has been covered already, but 4 greens, 2 hull, and 2 shields are far less glass cannon stats than the interceptor

Add an action independent pre-manuever decloak and the system upgrade for more action-phase independent actions, and I'd say it's not nearly the precision instrument or unforgiving scalpel that some people seem to find it to be.

They're just vulnerable to turrets, because 360 "arcs" are stupid

how about option G: make decloak an action. you can either do it after you move, or use AS and do it first. more options in some ways, but less action economy and some tougher choices.

Question could you decloak then use AS to cloak and then decloak again before you moved?

Question could you decloak then use AS to cloak and then decloak again before you moved?

no, they FAQ'd it i believe.

how about option G: make decloak an action. you can either do it after you move, or use AS and do it first. more options in some ways, but less action economy and some tougher choices.

Because now acd doesn't work at all (which is something I know many people want). What if you simply wanted to reposition and use your action to recloak? If we were to implement this suggestion then the phantom should be allowed to fire while cloaked which would be at the very least unfluffy...

Many of the options presented after the initial post seem to neuter the phantom to the point of almost not taking it. The only one of these suggestions I feel could be lived with is option A. But this is all just an intellectual exercise...FFG any going to errata anything.