I do think that any list can beat any other list if flown skillfully and better than the opponent (unless its all advanced or hawks without turrets.)

but some things should be changed, both in the forums / players outlook, and the tourney system. One of the biggest problems atm is there's too many games at even the basic store tourney level if done to the ffg guidelines. A tournament list doesn't just have to be able to win against a phantom list, it might have to win against 4. Which drives people to strictly hard counters for consistency in multiple matches. Right now to win you have to play 5-6 games, win at least 4 to make cut, then win 2-3 more in a row to win overall. That puts alot of stress on the player, and the consistency of the list. 4 x wings can win,but the better question is can it win 6-7 times?

I do disagree. something doesn't need to be invincible to be overpowered. Often unbalance can be very subtle.

Maybe on paper something looks fine but in practice it may show it's true colors simply by limiting your opponent's options much, much more than any other ship would. "It can be killed! You even killed it before the game ended!" you might say but it doesn't change the fact that your opponent spent the entire match having to strategize every single micro move to keep up while your only requirement to win was to fly into blaster range and roll your dice without screwing up royally and flying off the map.

Another example of unbalance is that the meta revolves around either specifically countering a card or ship or playing it yourself and anything else that pops up is seen as simply a fun gimmick.

Tie Phantoms the obvious go-to guy for examples of such. They are overpowered for both obvious reason and subtle ones. Obviously the 4 attack dice (More than anything else in the game) is a major glaring point of unbalance. "What is it's weakness?" you might ask. Well it's weakness is that it's "merely" as evasive as an X-Wing or Z-95. oooo that's a harsh downside. Others need to equip Proton rockets or combos to even get one chance to come close to the damage printed on that ship's card. Even without cloaking devices, Tie Phantoms would be nasty opponents that overshadow pretty much everything else. And of course they can be cloaked which increases their evasion to the highest of any ship in the game.

The subtle overpowerment on the ships is exemplified by the absurd movement decloaking gives them. As long as they can move last and shoot first they can pretty much do what they want. pop up anywhere on the map. That ability that boosts their evade to higher than any ship in the game also has the added effect of letting them boost or barrel roll before moving without even using their action. oh yes, using this ability effectively requires some thought and strategy your ego likes to hear you say but that's thought and strategy that every other ship in the game doesn't even have access to. A unique advantage which means you are allowed to do things that no other ship is allowed to do without being called for cheating. You don't win with a Phantom because you were Mr. Smarty pants. It was simply privilege.

That's unbalance.

You forgot the part of "besides Whisper with VI, the ship only fires every other turn".

Real simple, basic truths from a guy with one tourney under belt, yeah?

That's okay, I'm good.

He doesn't like these forums either, the entire two or three weeks he's been here with his ~60 posts.

If you told us you took an X-Wing List to the tournanent and did well i would be impressed!

I took an X-Wing list to a tournament and did well.

I took a 3 X-Wing list to Worlds and almost made the cut (4-2).

I generally agree with the OP, people like to deflect more than they like to find solutions, but his post was way too aggressive and contradictory to make his point.

Richard Hsu ran 3 X-Wings and Cracken at Worlds, made it to the last 8 iirc.

Although not without some controversy.

I think the majority of complaints about the Phantom are centered around the meta strangling it has done. Too often I have sat in front of voidstate to try to come up with something interesting and fun to play, only to realize that it doesn't have the tools to reliably handle a phantom and have to scrap the list. It's a sad moment when that happens. There are far too many ships, pilots, and upgrades that are too risky to take to an event these days.

Games change and we've all adapted, and we know how to adapt to a changing meta. The problem with Xwing, right now in Wave 5, is that the number of lists that can put up a good fight against every other list has diminished drastically. It's all turrets and phantoms now. Sure, other lists can win, and there are legends and stories of 4 or 3 Xwing lists doing well at this or that event, but those are the fringe cases.

Winning always takes skill, you don't see unskilled players winning events consistently. A skilled player can beat an unskilled player who flys a phantom, but it's not an easy task. An unskilled player playing against a skilled player with a Phantom may never win, without direct and complete hard Phantom counters.

What are the checkboxes we all look at when we make our lists?

1. Do I have a turret?

2. Do I have high enough PS (ie, all my EPTs are held hostage by VI)

3. Do I have a stress mechanic?

4. Do I bother with any pilots PS3-7?

5. Can I deal with Whisper and Han?

You better have 3, probably 4 of those checked off, or you are in for a long day.

The "complaint" threads aren't about nerfing a particular ship or making the game easier. It's about reopening the game to a much wider possible variety of list choices. To understand this, agree with your play group to not use Whisper/Echo for 2 months. You will see creativity and inventiveness in list creation that we haven't seen in 6+ months, and turret overuse will go away when rebel swarms start eating them alive.

The game used to be beautifully balanced, I think that's just what people are asking for.

Just because you feel insulted does not mean I have insulted you. Saying "you might not be good at this game" is not insulting, I am average at best at this game and probably in some peoples estimation, bad at it. Instead of lashing out when someone challenges something instead look internally to see if they have made a good point first. We're talking about tournament play.

I've never seen anyone write like that on this forum. This is a vapid strawman argument.

Actually, it's what's known as hyperbole.

And a strawman as well, because some opposing argument is depicted as something that, in reality, it is not. Consequently, the fictituous argument is argued against, rather than what is really being said. You can say the same about the "let's see some creativity" remark: many threads complaining about ships actually offer ideas about alternative rules. I could not care less about houserules - the game looks fine to me - but all the talk about balance is not lacking in creativity. So the implicit suggestion "you are not creative" is a strawman.

Don't get me wrong, I can completely understand that some do not want to read more threads about how this or that ship unbalances the game. It's just that this particular rant isn't well argued at all, if only for the reason that the people to whom it is aimed cannot seriously recognize themselves in how they are described.

This is fine, talking about house rules is fine, filling a discussion about tournament play with errata this and change mechanic X isn't helpful because FFG has shown they prefer alternate paths(read: they are never going to do it). We are discussing tournament rules, if you don't like them asking them to change isn't constructive, and is actually opposite to your stated aim of improving the game.

Scenario: new tournament player comes to these boards to see how he can tweak his trench run list(Wedge, Luke, Biggs, a thematic and popular list). How many; "Phantoms will eat you alive, play something else", replies do you think he will get? What do you think his response to this will be? To not play that list and just netlist, as his list is "bad" and won't win?

I am not saying house rule discussions are bad and should stop. Saying I am is a strawman(I can play the internets too). I am saying, as I said before, "be the meta you want". Don't like hammer and anvil lists, practice against them so you beat them consistently and your opponents will shift away from these to counter your new strategy.

Real simple, basic truths from a guy with one tourney under belt, yeah?

That's okay, I'm good.

He doesn't like these forums either, the entire two or three weeks he's been here with his ~60 posts.

*Sigh*. 60 post over 2 years I just started into the tourney scene after mostly playing with friends. I remember the double falcon posts, they were almost as frequent and just as wrong. Prove your 1000+ posts mean your opinion is better than mine, you won't with posts like that.

I do disagree. something doesn't need to be invincible to be overpowered. Often unbalance can be very subtle.

Maybe on paper something looks fine but in practice it may show it's true colors simply by limiting your opponent's options much, much more than any other ship would. "It can be killed! You even killed it before the game ended!" you might say but it doesn't change the fact that your opponent spent the entire match having to strategize every single micro move to keep up while your only requirement to win was to fly into blaster range and roll your dice without screwing up royally and flying off the map.

Another example of unbalance is that the meta revolves around either specifically countering a card or ship or playing it yourself and anything else that pops up is seen as simply a fun gimmick.

Tie Phantoms the obvious go-to guy for examples of such. They are overpowered for both obvious reason and subtle ones. Obviously the 4 attack dice (More than anything else in the game) is a major glaring point of unbalance. "What is it's weakness?" you might ask. Well it's weakness is that it's "merely" as evasive as an X-Wing or Z-95. oooo that's a harsh downside. Others need to equip Proton rockets or combos to even get one chance to come close to the damage printed on that ship's card. Even without cloaking devices, Tie Phantoms would be nasty opponents that overshadow pretty much everything else. And of course they can be cloaked which increases their evasion to the highest of any ship in the game.

The subtle overpowerment on the ships is exemplified by the absurd movement decloaking gives them. As long as they can move last and shoot first they can pretty much do what they want. pop up anywhere on the map. That ability that boosts their evade to higher than any ship in the game also has the added effect of letting them boost or barrel roll before moving without even using their action. oh yes, using this ability effectively requires some thought and strategy your ego likes to hear you say but that's thought and strategy that every other ship in the game doesn't even have access to. A unique advantage which means you are allowed to do things that no other ship is allowed to do without being called for cheating. You don't win with a Phantom because you were Mr. Smarty pants. It was simply privilege.

That's unbalance.

I get what you're trying to say, but that's the nature of the game, right? Each ship is different and capable of playing a much different role. What's the balancing act between them? Cost. Squad point cost. A naked PS2 Rookie X-wing is 21 pts. A naked PS3 Sigma is 25 pts. Is 4 pts. enough for 1 extra attack dice, evade action, barrel roll action, 1 point of PS? Well, probably not, but it is a bit different when you also reduce it's hull value by 1 making it more fragile.

I think what you're really having to look at is function vs. cost. How much do you pay for that ability relative to something else. I look at the effectiveness of every card and ship in the same way. Is it worth the ability for the cost to your squad? That's why TIE Advanced were looked at as inferior until the new raider updates were announced. Now, it's back up to par with a lot of other options and also keeps it unique and role defining that's different. The base X-wing is most likely next, to give it that ever so slight nudge up to put it back in the forefront of rebel squad building while still keeping it different enough that it doesn't eclipse another role another ship plays in the context of the game (XJ Series Title is coming, I'm sure). Autoblasters are looked at as a 'bad' card purely because of the 5 pt. cost hit. If it was only a 1 or 2 pt. upgrade, it'd be looked at much more fondly and used far more often. All that's needed to give that card a game context use is another combo card that puts it at a cheaper cost hit for a specific ship or a cheaper cost by sacrificing another upgrade option (similar to the refit for the A-wing which lowers cost by sacrificing the missile slot). Cost is the main thing that should be questioned here. C3PO is another example that can be called out just as easily as everyone likes to jump on the Phantom. You cannot find a more ridiculously efficient use of 3 squad points than C3PO. It's kind of laughable by comparison. At least the Phantom builds that everyone considers 'OP' are somewhere around 40 pts. of your 100 pt. squad. If you're paying that much, you should get a lot of value out of that cost. Some can argue that you get more than your 40ish pts. worth, and that's why it's 'OP'. That's a valid arguement. The cost. Not the functionality. That's the point I'm trying to make. Now, they can't do anything to errata the cost and make Phantoms more expensive. What they can do, is continue to make upgrades and modifications and other things (similar to the X1 title, and autothrusters) that allow the cost-function balance to re-level. That's already well underway with all the scum stuff and the new advanced toys.

It's true that there is a lot of threads and post about ''fix'' supposedly needed to get the game back on track. If it's the topic of the thread, I don't mind, there is generally some good discussion that come out of them. You have to take some and leave some. What I find funny about those thread though, is what the OP really expect from those? Do they really think that suddenly all the community will change their way of playing? That suddenly every tournament will have to include those ''fixes'' proposed?

They are called house rules for a reason, because you leave them at home. So proposing a house-rule to fix a ''problem'' you see happening in official tournament is kinda pointless in the end because, I hate to break it to them, it won't happen. Now, since the developers have said that they sometimes read the forums, a lot of people just write their ideas probably in the hope that one designer will read it and say: ''My God! What a stike of genius! Our game is such a mess! But thanks to this poster, we can finally get it on track!''

Where I have a problem with this kind of behavior, it's those that will bring their house-rule idea in every thread touching the subject. Every time there is a discussion about the Defender, you can bet somewhere someone will say that the ship is overcost, that they should have included boost on the bar, that there should be green bank, blah blah blah... It's nice to voice your opinion, but after 2-3 thread, we kind of get it.

Now, from this thread, the only funny thing I found was the OP claiming that the X-Wing is nice and then taking a tournament result he went to with the two ships we currently see the most on the tables: a turret ship and a Phantom. Way to prove your point about ship considered undercost playable by playing one of the 3 current Top List! Solid argument! ;P

Just because you feel insulted does not mean I have insulted you. Saying "you might not be good at this game" is not insulting...

But that's not actually what you said. There's no "might" here:

Whisper, Echo, Fat Turrets and, soon, AT Interceptors and ATC Vader, are not game breaking, you are just not that good (this is a hard pill to swallow I know).

Even in context, what you're saying is that people who want balance changes are not good players.

Scenario: new tournament player comes to these boards to see how he can tweak his trench run list(Wedge, Luke, Biggs, a thematic and popular list). How many; "Phantoms will eat you alive, play something else", replies do you think he will get? What do you think his response to this will be? To not play that list and just netlist, as his list is "bad" and won't win?

Whether that's an appropriate answer depends on the question. If the question is "how can I tweak my list to make it more effective?", then "play something else" is a rude and unhelpful answer.

But if the question is "How successful is this list likely to be in the current tournament environment?", then "Without a lot of practice, your X-wings are likely to struggle with Phantoms" is both accurate and appropriate. After all, which is more likely to be conducive to keeping that player in the game: providing direct, honest feedback or allowing that player to be blindsided by the guy running Whisper/Echo?

Just because you feel insulted does not mean I have insulted you. Saying "you might not be good at this game" is not insulting, I am average at best at this game and probably in some peoples estimation, bad at it. Instead of lashing out when someone challenges something instead look internally to see if they have made a good point first. We're talking about tournament play.

I've never seen anyone write like that on this forum. This is a vapid strawman argument.

Actually, it's what's known as hyperbole.

And a strawman as well, because some opposing argument is depicted as something that, in reality, it is not. Consequently, the fictituous argument is argued against, rather than what is really being said. You can say the same about the "let's see some creativity" remark: many threads complaining about ships actually offer ideas about alternative rules. I could not care less about houserules - the game looks fine to me - but all the talk about balance is not lacking in creativity. So the implicit suggestion "you are not creative" is a strawman.

Don't get me wrong, I can completely understand that some do not want to read more threads about how this or that ship unbalances the game. It's just that this particular rant isn't well argued at all, if only for the reason that the people to whom it is aimed cannot seriously recognize themselves in how they are described.

This is fine, talking about house rules is fine, filling a discussion about tournament play with errata this and change mechanic X isn't helpful because FFG has shown they prefer alternate paths(read: they are never going to do it). We are discussing tournament rules, if you don't like them asking them to change isn't constructive, and is actually opposite to your stated aim of improving the game.

Scenario: new tournament player comes to these boards to see how he can tweak his trench run list(Wedge, Luke, Biggs, a thematic and popular list). How many; "Phantoms will eat you alive, play something else", replies do you think he will get? What do you think his response to this will be? To not play that list and just netlist, as his list is "bad" and won't win?

I am not saying house rule discussions are bad and should stop. Saying I am is a strawman(I can play the internets too). I am saying, as I said before, "be the meta you want". Don't like hammer and anvil lists, practice against them so you beat them consistently and your opponents will shift away from these to counter your new strategy.

Real simple, basic truths from a guy with one tourney under belt, yeah?

That's okay, I'm good.

He doesn't like these forums either, the entire two or three weeks he's been here with his ~60 posts.

*Sigh*. 60 post over 2 years I just started into the tourney scene after mostly playing with friends. I remember the double falcon posts, they were almost as frequent and just as wrong. Prove your 1000+ posts mean your opinion is better than mine, you won't with posts like that.

Ok, then... Take a 4 ship rebel list into a tourney and tell us how you get on. I guarantee you, your tune will change about Phantoms and Fat (insert ship here).

I think the majority of complaints about the Phantom are centered around the meta strangling it has done. Too often I have sat in front of voidstate to try to come up with something interesting and fun to play, only to realize that it doesn't have the tools to reliably handle a phantom and have to scrap the list. It's a sad moment when that happens. There are far too many ships, pilots, and upgrades that are too risky to take to an event these days.

Games change and we've all adapted, and we know how to adapt to a changing meta. The problem with Xwing, right now in Wave 5, is that the number of lists that can put up a good fight against every other list has diminished drastically. It's all turrets and phantoms now. Sure, other lists can win, and there are legends and stories of 4 or 3 Xwing lists doing well at this or that event, but those are the fringe cases.

Winning always takes skill, you don't see unskilled players winning events consistently. A skilled player can beat an unskilled player who flys a phantom, but it's not an easy task. An unskilled player playing against a skilled player with a Phantom may never win, without direct and complete hard Phantom counters.

What are the checkboxes we all look at when we make our lists?

1. Do I have a turret?

2. Do I have high enough PS (ie, all my EPTs are held hostage by VI)

3. Do I have a stress mechanic?

4. Do I bother with any pilots PS3-7?

5. Can I deal with Whisper and Han?

You better have 3, probably 4 of those checked off, or you are in for a long day.

The "complaint" threads aren't about nerfing a particular ship or making the game easier. It's about reopening the game to a much wider possible variety of list choices. To understand this, agree with your play group to not use Whisper/Echo for 2 months. You will see creativity and inventiveness in list creation that we haven't seen in 6+ months, and turret overuse will go away when rebel swarms start eating them alive.

The game used to be beautifully balanced, I think that's just what people are asking for.

Actually, I am the on Imperial in my local meta (and soon to be as far as I know the only S&V player). I never fly Whisper and barely fly Echo. Every game I play is against a rebel with either Dash or Han, and every game I see is Dash or Han vs. Dash or Han. That is my meta without Phantoms.

Stop demanding nerfs

Personally it does annoy me how some people take internet wisdom as gospel and never question it or try it for themselves.

There were solid reasons the tie advanced was considered the worst small ship, there were solid reasons people didn't fly interceptors unless they had a certain baron behind the wheel.

The x-wing fell out of favour because the z-95s are cheaper and let you spend more on Han, the pilots didn't suddenly become weaker it's just easier to take a turret than expend effort on good manoeuvring.

People love to blame the phantom but the truth is they were already using the falcon but headhunters and 3PO upped it's efficiency so much it became the easiest way to perform well and we'd of seen this anyway.

Negativity, that's what we're tired of.

.... Proceeds to fill the thread with negativity. Remind me, what's the saying about flys and honey?

I'm with Vorpal Sword in that the game should be interesting, though part of that interest does come from it being Star Wars, and I still feel that a lot of Wave 4 was stuff that didn't feel as starwarsy to me, because I grew up on the movies and the roleplaying games, rather than the comics and the computer games.

Obviously, that's subjective though.

I get where Teh HOBO is coming from. After I get suckered into reading the so-manieth thread on how to fix X (because the title didn't announce what it was about), I also get a bit frustrated. While I'm also thinking there are too many subforums these days, this would certainly deserve a subforum just to get the house-rules stuff off the main X-Wing forum and more ignorable.

Regarding the meta and balance I think it's absurd to argue that the game is perfectly balanced. The game designers are not superhuman. They also do not seem to have a consistent crew creating the game so as to build up the experience on how to make it increasingly approaching perfect. That's why we've been getting a lot of fixes.

But the thing is, the evolving meta itself is interesting. How does a competitive ecosystem evolve around shocks and threats. The Phantom was a shocking threat there for a moment, but it evolved to deal with it. FFG even gave us more turrets to do so. Now, turrets are the threat that people complain about.

I also agree with HOBO on "being the meta you want to play". Also, I'd say: "play the type of X-Wing that you want to play."

If you want to play competitively, tournament style, then you're going to have to deal with the meta, and there's no room for whining about this or that fix. That, or you find a sub-group of likeminded people.

Alternatively, if you want to play a more thematic game, then you're going to have to get inventive. You're also going to have to find a sub-group of likeminded people.

Moral of the story here: figure out what you want, and frame your game and gaming group around that. Yes, I know that's hard, but we have the internet. It's great for spreading ideas and organizing.

Just a real quick generalized Rookie vs. Sigma Xwing math problem:

Rookie = 21 pts.

- 3 (Subtract a hull upgrade)

- 2 (Subtract a targetting computer)

+ 1 (Add the cost of the ability to use the evade action - cost equivalent is the MF title card which does just that for the yt1300)

+ 2 (ability to barrell roll - closest cost equivalent is the expert handling EPT, although this doesn't create stress...)

+ 4 (ability to roll an additional attack die - closest cost equivalents are expose and opportunist which allow you to do that and are both 4 pts, although this doesn't have either of those negative effects of stress or agility reduction...)

+ .5 (for 1 pt. in pilot skill - cost equivalent of half of the VI boost of 2 PS for 1 pt.)

Sigma = 23.5 pts. (doesn't account for the additional cloak action ability and the lack of negative impacts of barrell roll and attack die boost - so the real question is, how much is that worth? do you feel that's worth more than 1.5 pts? that cost-value question is a good one.)

Personally, I think the base Phantom is costed pretty spot on. Maybe you can make the arguement it may be a point undercosted so the base Sigma should be 26 instead of 25. That may also be splitting hairs. I have no problems with the 25 pt. base, at all.

Now, the real question of cost vs. value comes from the upgrades...and that's where it becomes a lot different to guage real vs. perceived value.

I took a Whisper/Chippy build to my first tournament having only played with Whisper once before, placed 8 out of 18, would've done better had my Whisper not been one-shotted at range 3 early in the last round.

Was that game against a dual-YT Bobacca build, by any chance?

I think you might have been playing against me.

Just a real quick generalized Rookie vs. Sigma Xwing math problem:

Rookie = 21 pts.

- 3 (Subtract a hull upgrade)

- 2 (Subtract a targetting computer)

+ 1 (Add the cost of the ability to use the evade action - cost equivalent is the MF title card which does just that for the yt1300)

+ 2 (ability to barrell roll - closest cost equivalent is the expert handling EPT, although this doesn't create stress...)

+ 4 (ability to roll an additional attack die - closest cost equivalents are expose and opportunist which allow you to do that and are both 4 pts, although this doesn't have either of those negative effects of stress or agility reduction...)

+ .5 (for 1 pt. in pilot skill - cost equivalent of half of the VI boost of 2 PS for 1 pt.)

Sigma = 23.5 pts. (doesn't account for the additional cloak action ability and the lack of negative impacts of barrell roll and attack die boost - so the real question is, how much is that worth? do you feel that's worth more than 1.5 pts? that cost-value question is a good one.)

Personally, I think the base Phantom is costed pretty spot on. Maybe you can make the arguement it may be a point undercosted so the base Sigma should be 26 instead of 25. That may also be splitting hairs. I have no problems with the 25 pt. base, at all.

Now, the real question of cost vs. value comes from the upgrades...and that's where it becomes a lot different to guage real vs. perceived value.

You are forgetting to add in the cost for the Phantoms crew and system slots. Neither of those are free when costing a ship. And I think the increase from 3 to 4 attack should be costed more like the HLC rather than Expose or opportunist, more than 4 points for sure.

You could probably call the Xwings Astromech slot and the Phantom system slot a wash, but you can't ignore the crew slot, that is worth at least 1 + the modification opportunity cost (Bwing E2 title).

When comparing the Sigma with the Rookie, ask yourself in a vacuum, which ship would your rather take to the fight. 90% of the time the correct answer is the Sigma, it's just flat out a better ship. Choices that closely costed should be much more difficult.

I'm not sure if I understand the point of this thread.

The point is I(and many others no doubt) an tired of seeing Nerf X NAO!!!11!!1! for the nth time.Mostly because they bleed into other threads asking for ideas and strategies on how to adapt. A great example is that interceptor+Vader thread, I don't think anyone mentioned: staying at range three, using Vaders tankiness as bait while you pound away with the interceptors, going 97pts and forcing the opponent through the asteroids. An actual discussion(like we're having now believe it or not). Instead we got yet another Turrets+Phantoms OP, you will die instantly and if you didn't, if you actually won? Then it was a terrible player, 'cuz no one ever shoots Phantoms!

Negativity, that's what we're tired of. Let's see some creativity instead.

I can hardly even understand what you try to tell us with all the exclamation marks and underlines etc.

People love to blame the phantom but the truth is they were already using the falcon but headhunters and 3PO upped it's efficiency so much it became the easiest way to perform well and we'd of seen this anyway.

That's not completely true.

Even with 3PO, the Falcon would of still had a huge problem with a Tie Swarm, 3PO isn't going to save Han from 6-7 attacks a turn. But it so happens that the Phantom is the Rock to the Swarms paper. So the natural predator of Fat Hans, has been removed due to it's weakness against Phantoms.

Just a real quick generalized Rookie vs. Sigma Xwing math problem:

Rookie = 21 pts.

- 3 (Subtract a hull upgrade)

- 2 (Subtract a targetting computer)

+ 1 (Add the cost of the ability to use the evade action - cost equivalent is the MF title card which does just that for the yt1300)

+ 2 (ability to barrell roll - closest cost equivalent is the expert handling EPT, although this doesn't create stress...)

+ 4 (ability to roll an additional attack die - closest cost equivalents are expose and opportunist which allow you to do that and are both 4 pts, although this doesn't have either of those negative effects of stress or agility reduction...)

+ .5 (for 1 pt. in pilot skill - cost equivalent of half of the VI boost of 2 PS for 1 pt.)

Sigma = 23.5 pts. (doesn't account for the additional cloak action ability and the lack of negative impacts of barrell roll and attack die boost - so the real question is, how much is that worth? do you feel that's worth more than 1.5 pts? that cost-value question is a good one.)

Personally, I think the base Phantom is costed pretty spot on. Maybe you can make the arguement it may be a point undercosted so the base Sigma should be 26 instead of 25. That may also be splitting hairs. I have no problems with the 25 pt. base, at all.

Now, the real question of cost vs. value comes from the upgrades...and that's where it becomes a lot different to guage real vs. perceived value.

You are forgetting to add in the cost for the Phantoms crew and system slots. Neither of those are free when costing a ship. And I think the increase from 3 to 4 attack should be costed more like the HLC rather than Expose or opportunist, more than 4 points for sure.

You could probably call the Xwings Astromech slot and the Phantom system slot a wash, but you can't ignore the crew slot, that is worth at least 1 + the modification opportunity cost (Bwing E2 title).

When comparing the Sigma with the Rookie, ask yourself in a vacuum, which ship would your rather take to the fight. 90% of the time the correct answer is the Sigma, it's just flat out a better ship. Choices that closely costed should be much more difficult.

ok, that's fair and that's what I was trying to point out with the upgrades. you've got crew instead of astromech, system instead of torpedo. both of those are more valuable on the phantom in a vaccuum, but still very different. the reason those slots are more valuable though, is because the cost-value of what you can put in those slots currently is better, not really the worth of the slots themselves. this can easily swing back to value nuetral with new droids or upgrades that take better advantage of the torpedo slot or whatever. the value difference actually comes down to the current options between those slots, not the slots themselves. that'd be my arguement, anyways. you don't want to cost penalize something just because the current options are slightly off balance that you have to pay additional cost for anyways. i do get what you're trying to say though.

the HLC-ish cost of the attack die upgrade I can see, but there are still additional positives that way, as well. so, split the difference, and say the value of not taking stress or reducing agility is another point or point and a half? that now puts it cost neutral now with the only thing not figured in is the cloak ability cost. That ability kind of has it's own self nerf in that it doesn't allow you to attack for that round and also takes your action to do it - so no dice mods on the roll. then gives the positional advantage the following round. pros and cons on both sides of that coin evening it out. still, it's an aditional abilty that should cost something, for sure.

I think the majority of complaints about the Phantom are centered around the meta strangling it has done. Too often I have sat in front of voidstate to try to come up with something interesting and fun to play, only to realize that it doesn't have the tools to reliably handle a phantom and have to scrap the list. It's a sad moment when that happens. There are far too many ships, pilots, and upgrades that are too risky to take to an event these days.

Games change and we've all adapted, and we know how to adapt to a changing meta. The problem with Xwing, right now in Wave 5, is that the number of lists that can put up a good fight against every other list has diminished drastically. It's all turrets and phantoms now. Sure, other lists can win, and there are legends and stories of 4 or 3 Xwing lists doing well at this or that event, but those are the fringe cases.

Winning always takes skill, you don't see unskilled players winning events consistently. A skilled player can beat an unskilled player who flys a phantom, but it's not an easy task. An unskilled player playing against a skilled player with a Phantom may never win, without direct and complete hard Phantom counters.

What are the checkboxes we all look at when we make our lists?

1. Do I have a turret?

2. Do I have high enough PS (ie, all my EPTs are held hostage by VI)

3. Do I have a stress mechanic?

4. Do I bother with any pilots PS3-7?

5. Can I deal with Whisper and Han?

You better have 3, probably 4 of those checked off, or you are in for a long day.

The "complaint" threads aren't about nerfing a particular ship or making the game easier. It's about reopening the game to a much wider possible variety of list choices. To understand this, agree with your play group to not use Whisper/Echo for 2 months. You will see creativity and inventiveness in list creation that we haven't seen in 6+ months, and turret overuse will go away when rebel swarms start eating them alive.

The game used to be beautifully balanced, I think that's just what people are asking for.

Wow, excellent post! I can only draw my hat at this point.

It does the most excellent job at pointing out why Phantoms are at the source of all those problems with monotonous lists. Because that's what happened. They force us onto turrets, that's just how it is. And they are easily the best choice at their point cost.

I was making "competitive" lists and i started at the rebel 3B1Y rebel stress list. Soon i realized that it's not as strong as it looks and just can't as reliably beat Phantoms as Han. So i wanted to go with Han/Corran or Chippy/Vessery. I can beat enemy Phantoms reliably with either. But then should i go with the imperial list i am still doubting my 40 point Vessery would not be better changed to a Phantom because it's just better... And that's how i end up with a boring as hell list even though i had other plans initially.

I think i am not the only one playing tournaments that this happens to...

Sigma = 23.5 pts. (doesn't account for the additional cloak action ability and the lack of negative impacts of barrell roll and attack die boost - so the real question is, how much is that worth? do you feel that's worth more than 1.5 pts? that cost-value question is a good one.)

Actually the answer to that is pretty clear... The Cloak action is worth a lot more than that. Not to speak of Systems, Crew and all you forgot.

And as we know Sigmas are not the problem (although even they offer fantastic value!), it's the named Phantoms!

When comparing the Sigma with the Rookie, ask yourself in a vacuum, which ship would your rather take to the fight. 90% of the time the correct answer is the Sigma, it's just flat out a better ship. Choices that closely costed should be much more difficult.

For four points difference, the Sigma SHOULD be a much better ship than the Rookie. But it's still not as clear cut as you seem to think. Close the difference, make it a Red vs the Sigma and things get interesting. Hell, you can get Tarn Mison & R7 for the price of a Sigma. Start stacking upgrades onto the Phantom, that's when you see the real difference.

Ok, then... Take a 4 ship rebel list into a tourney and tell us how you get on. I guarantee you, your tune will change about Phantoms and Fat (insert ship here).

...or - if you know what you're doing - you'll get on just fine, like the others in this thread did.

Ok, then... Take a 4 ship rebel list into a tourney and tell us how you get on. I guarantee you, your tune will change about Phantoms and Fat (insert ship here).

FAT FIRESPRAY