The Simultaneous Attack Rule (Page 15 Core Rule Book) states that...

Although ships perform their attacks one at a time, ships with a pilot skill value equal to the active ship’s pilot skill value have the opportunity to attack before being destroyed.

Consider a situation where a TIE Phantom with Advanced Cloaking Device was shooting first at an enemy ship with equal Pilot Skill who could in turn shoot back at the Phantom...

Wouldn't it make sense that the Phantom could only trigger its cloak once the enemy had fired back being as presumably the shots are supposed to be happening at the same time?

Would seem to me like a good way of perhaps slightly curbing the power of the TIE Phantom / Advanced Cloaking Device combination while still leaving the majority of its advantage untouched.

Thoughts?

What a terrible idea, your an idiot.

Then you would need to apply it to crical hits effect too. And probably many other effecta too. Complicating the game. If you wanted to shoot before the cloak, you just had to bid for initiative.

*you're ;-p

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/134139-design-something-that-would-threaten-whispers-top-tier-status/page-3#entry1439280

I posted something similar last week, but my thought was let lower point value ships with the same PS as the phantom win the initiative. This curbs the phantom's advantage versus smaller fighters, but it wouldn't make high point value ships like Fat Han more powerful.

My thought is this wouldn't have to be a phantom only rule. In the case of a PS tie the lower PV ship wins initiative for that movement/action/attack rather than basing initiative off of total build value for the list. It would make a lot more ships viable versus both Fat Han and the Phantom.

Just kidding, here's my real response:

I think that's a very good idea, and a smart way of "fixing" the Phantom, which I gather some people think is potentially slightly more powerful than they might prefer it to be.

I would perhaps make it more general: perhaps applying to other effects that trigger after your attack, like that free Boost action one of the Interceptors gets.

FAQ: "Effects which are triggered after you perform an attack are triggered after all pilots at the same pilot skill have performed their attacks"

Something like that.

Hahahahahahahaha....

This is why initiative matters. And people who keep complaining that the Phantom is overpowered and needs curbing has obviously, OBVIOUSLY never played the Phantom to any decent degree.

As a Phantom/Interceptor pilot, why don't we talk about curbing Fat Han or saying that calling "zero" on C3P0's ability should be nerfed?

....... now back to your regular TV program .......

Here's the thing about phantoms, you still gotta roll green dice. Even four green dice will fail you fairly quickly if enough shots head your way. Don't be scared to shoot the phantom, one or two lucky rolls will take it off the map.

Han with C-3PO on the other hand.... Well he's just plain broken and ruining the game for everyone and the sky is falling, dogs and cats living together, etc.

Yes, let's rewrite the rules and screw over quite a few ships that are NOT a problem just to fix this. Not too mention the mountain ton of unintended consequences that you will find once you actually analyze it.

OBVIOUSLY never played the Phantom to any decent degree.

Sorry but that is so completely untrue, I'm shocked anyone would actually make such a claim.

Not too mention the mountain ton of unintended consequences that you will find once you actually analyze it.

This is the real problem with the idea, all the issues this would cause that we can't see.

This interaction was not inadvertent - they intended it to work the way it does. It's why having initiative is important, if we get rid of all the reasons initiative is good, then what would be the point of having it?

Stop trying to change the rules so you win more, and start learning how to play the game better to win more...

How dare you offer you opinion on a particular aspect of the game! You're obviously an idiot who doesn't know how to play and just wants to ruin everyone else's fun!

Not too mention the mountain ton of unintended consequences that you will find once you actually analyze it.

This is the real problem with the idea, all the issues this would cause that we can't see.

You're probably right there, if we expanded it to other cards as I suggested. Not so much if it was just an errata to Advanced Cloaking Device as the OP suggested.

Edit: And by "not so much" I mean "not at all", since there is literally no other ship that could possibly be affected. At all.

Hahahahahahahaha....

This is why initiative matters. And people who keep complaining that the Phantom is overpowered and needs curbing has obviously, OBVIOUSLY never played the Phantom to any decent degree.

As a Phantom/Interceptor pilot, why don't we talk about curbing Fat Han or saying that calling "zero" on C3P0's ability should be nerfed?

....... now back to your regular TV program .......

Yes, let's rewrite the rules and screw over quite a few ships that are NOT a problem just to fix this. Not too mention the mountain ton of unintended consequences that you will find once you actually analyze it.

Stop trying to change the rules so you win more, and start learning how to play the game better to win more...

Woah steady on guys! This was just an idea that crossed my mind while I was staring aimlessly out of the office window at work earlier.

No need to get your knickers in such a twist. No one has pissed up your leg or anything!

I dunno about the others but mine was straight up advice. If you find phantoms are an issue ask a question about how to better deal with them as opposed to how we should change the rules. if another issue comes along like this and you find yourself wanting to change a rule, instead ask how to better your game, you'll find a lot more constructive responses.

Edit: and to be honest, these kinds of posts are a waste of time. Nothing can be gained from this, even if people thought it was a good idea, FFG is not going to change their rules based on user suggestions, and you're no closer to destroying phantoms than you were before posting this.

I don't find Phantoms an issue. I don't play nearly enough games and more importantly don't care enough about winning for that.

However reading these and other forums it certainly seems that some people do and if it goes some way to allowing competitive people bring a wider selection of lists to tournaments then isn't that a good thing?

I dunno about the others but mine was straight up advice. If you find phantoms are an issue ask a question about how to better deal with them as opposed to how we should change the rules. if another issue comes along like this and you find yourself wanting to change a rule, instead ask how to better your game, you'll find a lot more constructive responses.

Edit: and to be honest, these kinds of posts are a waste of time. Nothing can be gained from this, even if people thought it was a good idea, FFG is not going to change their rules based on user suggestions, and you're no closer to destroying phantoms than you were before posting this.

He might have expected a friendly discussion, rather than a bunch of accusations of being a thicko crybaby who's just in a huff cos he's rubbish at X-Wing. Naive, I know.

Edit: and to be honest, these kinds of posts are a waste of time.

...and yet you've still taken time out of your busy schedule to reply twice.

As some one who doesn't get many chances to play a game that doesn't involve a Phantom, and has become rather adept with it myself though I absolutely hate flying the blasted thing, my stance on the issue is the same as it has been for months. You could have breathed funny on the design of the Phantom and it would have been a world more balanced.

Your fix could be an errata to the wording of ACD that changes it to say "at the end of that initiative step in which you fire..." or something to that effect. So the issue of could it be done is a decided yes, there are options for implementation that don't affect other ships at all except to how they interact with the Phantom. You would not need to overhaul the game. How many people glossed over that obvious route of repair I don't know, but it is a Monday morning so we'll blame that, LOL. Will it happen? No. Because of FFG's stick in the mud stance on errata. Which is %*&$(#* stupid at this point in the extremely specific case of the Phantom.

To be clear, I love FFG's design of games and they have certainly earned a customer for life in me. Just last night put in my reservation for a copy of Armada at the FLGS. And as a game design enthusiast that loves to pick apart rules to see how they work and how a games design creates an experience from rules design all the way through to how you package and market it and support it's community, I love the policy of 'we don't errata our product, we try and correct imbalance in future releases'. It's a noble stance to stand behind your product like that.

It's also the perfect formula for power creep. Because too often the way to deal with an overpowered game component is to introduce something comparably powerful targeted at the problem, but with a lack of thought as to how that new component just stabilizes the flaw at the flaws benchmark of power. Happens. No stopping it. Which is why we're getting the strictly-better-than-Threepio Autothrusters. Here, have a cheaper, non gamble based, ever triggering Threepio of your own, Imps. That will solve the problem. Hur Dur, guys.

Here's an idea, I'll ban ACD, you all ban C-3PO. Will call it an even trade and go back to playing X-wing. Initiative bids go back to being important in mirror or semi-mirror matches, not just between every high tier competitive list. More importantly, Initiative goes back to being important for maneuvering tied pilot skills, which was the point of initiative, more than the triggering of game mechanics, excuse me, I mean triggering one specific upgrades mechanic.

Never forget that even Paul Heaver looked at the meta last year and said screw this, I'm flying a FAT Han to deal with the swarm of Phantoms. Our very own master of maneuvering broke down and flew a turret. That to me says volumes. It also completely stops me from even bothering to give advice on how to 'deal' with Phantoms. Because there really is no advice for how to fly your ships 'better' that will allow them to deal with the busted as all heck Phantom. What I can offer you is that you build list X, Y, or Z, and get the initiative drop on them. Which unintentionally validates the Rock-Paper-Scissors argument we've been having on this forum for almost the same amount of time that the Phantom has been out. Gee guys, I wonder why that could be?

Well dang. I've just incited the wrath of the whole forum, it's only Monday morning, and I haven't even had my tea yet, let alone breakfast. This day is going to be greeeeaaaat.

Woah steady on guys! This was just an idea that crossed my mind while I was staring aimlessly out of the office window at work earlier.

No need to get your knickers in such a twist. No one has pissed up your leg or anything!

The problem is that it really isn't a thought out idea. Screwing with how the attacks resolve throws off a ton of established interactions. And making it so it is only ACD is a bad precedent. We are still having issues with Clusters Missiles. Why add another rules mess when there are plenty of simpler ways to fix the issue.

The problem is that it really isn't a thought out idea. Screwing with how the attacks resolve throws off a ton of established interactions. And making it so it is only ACD is a bad precedent. We are still having issues with Clusters Missiles. Why add another rules mess when there are plenty of simpler ways to fix the issue.

Now let's be honest, that's not really what your post:

Yes, let's rewrite the rules and screw over quite a few ships that are NOT a problem just to fix this. Not too mention the mountain ton of unintended consequences that you will find once you actually analyze it.

said is it? You haven't mentioned a single unintended consequence, on account of there not being any. At all. I'm not really sure what your argument is - don't change this card, cos you're not changing other cards? Is it the slippery slope you're afraid of? Cos I'm afraid cards have already been changed

Edit: and to be honest, these kinds of posts are a waste of time.

...and yet you've still taken time out of your busy schedule to reply twice.

I didn't say replying to these posts was a waste of time. I was saying making these posts is a waste of time. I was trying to give you advice to help you better yourself instead of mucking up a forum with pointless threads. Take it or leave it, I don't really care, but don't expect to get many positive responses to these kinds of threads.

Not so much if it was just an errata to Advanced Cloaking Device as the OP suggested.

FFG doesn't seem to be inclined to Errata a card in that way. Myself I'd rather they would, because it would be decent way to tone down the Whisper + VI + ACD combo. If Han or other PS9's didn't have to take VI just so they could shoot before Whisper it would make the game a bit better IMO.

So even though it doesn't seem like something they'd do I think the idea has some merit. Which frankly isn't true of the idea of applying it in a more general sense, because that could cause all kinds of issues.

That's kinda the nature of unforeseen or unintended consequences, you don't see them until after it's too late.

Edit: and to be honest, these kinds of posts are a waste of time.

...and yet you've still taken time out of your busy schedule to reply twice.

I didn't say replying to these posts was a waste of time. I was saying making these posts is a waste of time. I was trying to give you advice to help you better yourself instead of mucking up a forum with pointless threads. Take it or leave it, I don't really care, but don't expect to get many positive responses to these kinds of threads.

So you replied to a 'pointless thread' that was 'mucking up' the forum and therefore pushed it to the top of the list for the good of the forum? If you found it so offensively stupid and pointless wouldn't you have been better letting it sink into oblivion?

Also your advice for me bettering myself seems to consist of 'learn to play better'....gee thanks!