Since FFG decided to nerf TIE Phantoms by limiting how useful they are because now they can only decloak at the start of the activation phase before anyone has moved or reveal dial, they should have the point cost reduced. Anyone else feel the same?

1. FFG cannot alter point costs.

2. Why would they errata the phantom to weaken it, then strengthen it again with a discount? That would make the whole nerf a pointless exercise.

They can. It's just their policy not to do it.

Why do you think ACD was made in the first place (hint: for the four agility )?

Because some sadist at FFG likes to torture us?

Maybe the uniques, but it's not that big of a deal, compared to, as stated, the overcosting of the generic superfighters.

those are relatively unchanged by the errata

Their puny PS means they were only decloaking after generics anyway, and the sigmas are not even able to get around talas!

well, the only way I ever ran them was with IA for that sweet, sweet de-cloak blocking action (and, you know, knowing if it was a good idea to barrel-roll or focus or evade or re-cloak safely, IA just opens up a whole other world for generic phantoms) so those guys are basically the same as they've always been for me

but the problem with Sigmas was never really their cost, nor was it the amazingness of whisper and ACD (though that didn't help since it overshadowed them like all hell...), it's just turrets. Yes, we're back to interceptor syndrome, but that's what happens when a lazy-ass, poorly designed rule invalidates the whole point of an entire class of ship.

Why do you think ACD was made in the first place (hint: for the four agility )?

Oh, I was actually referencing the Defender/E-wing. The generic Phantoms are probably fine.

Since FFG decided to nerf TIE Phantoms by limiting how useful they are because now they can only decloak at the start of the activation phase before anyone has moved or reveal dial, they should have the point cost reduced. Anyone else feel the same?

1. FFG cannot alter point costs.

2. Why would they errata the phantom to weaken it, then strengthen it again with a discount? That would make the whole nerf a pointless exercise.

They can. It's just their policy not to do it.

They can in the sense that they have the authority, they can't in the sense that the impracticalities push it far outside the realms of viability.

FFG has overruled card text in numerous cases, to the point that this is no longer a right-out-of-the-box play experience. I'm sure they hate to have to do it, but they've felt that it's necessary at times.

I have no doubt that if FFG considered a card's cost to be unfixable in any other way*, they would simply issue a correction in an FAQ and we'd be required to mentally substitute the printed value for the corrected one, just like we do with other errata-ed cards.

*I think the designers will do everything they can to come up with more creative solutions, though. So far they've done a great job, but I'm looking at alllll those A-Wings in tournament reports and it's pretty clear to me that more can be done.

FFG has overruled card text in numerous cases, to the point that this is no longer a right-out-of-the-box play experience. I'm sure they hate to have to do it, but they've felt that it's necessary at times.

But they've never overruled point costs and phrasing errata is usually little more than cleaning up ambiguity, Daredevil and Decloak being the only two significant changes. If someone misses a change and turns up to say, a tournament with a list that's been errataed they may need setting straight on a rule or two but their list'll still be legal. Costs are, for the moment, set in stone.

I don't see the necessity for changing how the Phantoms work. I haven't tried the new rules out, so I can't say whether this was a good or a bad change, but it feels unnecessary. They are hard to hit, but once you do hit them they die quickly. When you learn to fly them, you will also know how to kill them.

I don't see the necessity for changing how the Phantoms work. I haven't tried the new rules out, so I can't say whether this was a good or a bad change, but it feels unnecessary. They are hard to hit, but once you do hit them they die quickly. When you learn to fly them, you will also know how to kill them.

Empirical tournament data. They were warping things.

However, it's definitely a change for the better from a mechanical and thematic standpoint as well as a balance one. The phantom is a much more challenging ship to fly now, and it actually feels like it's cloaking (it's in one of those three positions but it is in one of them rather than always being in the one you didn't cover) rather than super barrel rolling.

They haven't overruled points costs yet, and I don't think they ever will, but never say never. I'm really just pointing out that there are precedents for significant differences between some printed card texts and what those cards actually do.

I don't see any easy way for FFG to increase the costs of anything except through errata. I think Advanced Cloaking Device is probably at least a point too cheap, but FFG has come up with another (rather drastic) way of dealing with the perceived imbalance. I think they'll continue to implement those kinds of adjustments rather than hard point cost changes.

Straight-up auto-include cost reductions, however, are pretty simple. The x1 title is the right way to do it. Rules wise, you get something for nothing. (Yeah, I know you gotta pay money to get that "something for nothing".)

Chardaan Refit, unfortunately, took away something that A-Wings could really use in order to become more competitive. An auto-include, while distasteful to many, might have been better. Something like:

"Modification. A-Wing only. Limited. You may equip one additional modification upgrade. Cost: -2 points."

Chardaan Refit, unfortunately, took away something that A-Wings could really use in order to become more competitive.

To be fair, the Proton Rocket looks to be intentionally undercosted to compensate.

There are three ships that can use it at full power.

The A-wing. Because Chardaan it effectively costs 5.

The TIE advanced. Prior to TIE/x1 the x1's overcosting compensated, post x1 pretty much every systems upgrade is encouraging the primary and leaving the procket less attractive. High pilot skill TIE/x1s that'd make most use of the procket get, thanks to ATC, slightly less mileage than the defender. although it's a nice trick for when the target lock fails.

The TIE defender. Only gets one bonus die.

Anything else needs upgrades like Stealth Device or Countermeasures to use it fully, which adds to its cost.

No.

TIE Defenders should get a point cost reduction (or free bonus) first.

No.

TIE Defenders should get a point cost reduction (or free bonus) first.

Cost is what keeps the ship off most tables

Wow let me play the world's tiniest violin for the poor phantom threads/posts.

Point reduction is only good when a ship is not getting used due to its cost to function ratio so to speak.

Phantoms will still get heavy use.

One thing this might do is bring out some new builds.

Or better yet bring some ships back from the grave

Points are fine as is. Still a fantastic ship. 3x Phantom builds seem far more viable now.

I'd like to see something to make the defender more viable.

-Cal

Since FFG decided to nerf TIE Phantoms by limiting how useful they are because now they can only decloak at the start of the activation phase before anyone has moved or reveal dial, they should have the point cost reduced. Anyone else feel the same?

I also wish to add my nope to this thread.

Nope.

Well the long answer is...no.

No, you still have ship with great mobility, 4 attack dices, etc.

Changing rules is one thing. Changing stats on already printed and distributed cards is another.

Yes, I really think that FFG thought "well, we should change the decloak rules to make Phantoms worse, and then, since we nerfed them, we should lower the point cost to make them better again, so that they're at the same power level as they were before, back when they were winning tournaments in 86 point lists and forcing every single squadron to incorporate some sort of counter to them. Good idea, right?"

("Or we could just keep them like they are...."

"Shut up, Fred!")

No I think reason could be that they want to avoid printed cards with wrong cost printed on then are circulating. Dan thing with that balancing/expansiongame in table top games :-) :-) :-)