1 minute ago, Arma Quattro said:

Were you all complaining so much back in the day for Miranda and Nym or the Fennghost?

Yes, I absolutely was, whilst I took Asajj Fenn and Sunny m-fing Bounder to the top 32 at Euros, and Asajj Guri and Sunny 5-0 (had to leave before the final round :() in the 2018 Yavin Hyperspace trial.

Just now, thespaceinvader said:

Yes, I absolutely was, whilst I took Asajj Fenn and Sunny m-fing Bounder to the top 32 at Euros, and Asajj Guri and Sunny 5-0 (had to leave before the final round :() in the 2018 Yavin Hyperspace trial.

Were you in Birmingham last year?

Just now, Arma Quattro said:

Were you in Birmingham last year?

Yup.

I was too, along with @FTS Gecko and other five/six guys from Italy.
ALMOST made the cut, but sadly I remained at 4-2

Immediately after the points change, it was clear that this list would be the dominant one. I was surprised it took a few System Opens for this to fully emerge, but here we are. I think FFG tried to nerf the Phantom a bit with slot and upgrade changes, but they just need to hit it harder. Not Palob hard, but harder.

It seems to be that designers want to give players their favorite ships to play in tournaments. People love Phantoms and they're one of the most unique ships in the game, so I think they didn't want to smash this list completely. I'd predict the chassis itself will see some increases next points change.

11 hours ago, ImperialAce95 said:

Cloaking rules are fine. Sigmas should keep their talents. Juke is not a problem and should not have gone up. Making a unique point system for increased cards (pilot or upgrade), or for upgrades on certain chassis is stupid - FFG already has too many scaling point systems for cards, it's getting too hard to keep track. The problem here is that the 4 Phantom list is still too efficient for its points - even though the list is about skill and positioning, which is what the devs want X-Wing to be about.

Here's what I think the optimal solution should have been - the Phantom generics should have been limited from the start. *** for Imdaars, ** for Sigmas. When I first saw the CIS vulture generics that were also limited, I immediately thought "This should have been designed for other ships. Why wasn't it?". If generic pilots and some upgrades were limited we wouldn't be having this conversation. (Should have also been the case for Barrage Rockets, Veteran Turret Gunner, maybe rebel Y-Wings, etc. But that's another thread.)

Now, I don't think every generic should be limited - some are meant to be spammed, like regular TIE fighters; some ships are meant to be limited by their price. Making some generics limited would create more faction identity - within a certain faction, said faction has limited access to a certain chassis. TIE Phantoms were very expensive and rare because of their cloaking tech. Limiting generics could also encourage players to be more creative with listbuilding instead of spamming the most cost effective/efficient thing. I always liked TIE Salad lists. Heck, if this was the case Phantom prices could come DOWN.

But we don't live in a perfect world, so what's the solution? Unfortunately, I think the only way this will be fixed is to raise prices on phantoms - it's the chassis that is the problem same as the Punisher (which is still good). Now, this might make some people angry, but FFG can't make everything perfectly balanced and happy. On the bright side, I'd rather pay a lot for a well-designed ship than peanuts for a poorly-designed one (see the TIE Aggressor).

However, there's another solution that could work. FFG could errata the card, making them limited. This could REALLY make some people mad, but would be good for the game in the long term. And these possible upcoming card packs could be a way for them to re-release the corrected cards. Just tossing the idea out there.

TL;DR - Phantoms are the Problem, not Juke. Generics should go up. X-Wing 3.0 when (sarcasm)

Excellent points. Well said.

45 minutes ago, Arma Quattro said:

It's incredible how many people are complaining about the phantom.
Were you all complaining so much back in the day for Miranda and Nym or the Fennghost? Or were you among the ones playing those horrors so it was all peachy keen?

Well, not that I think I’m complaining now, but considering those particular bits of awful (and Miranda, Fenn, Lowie) we’re super dominant when I bailed on X-Wing for a while, yes.

In fact, the mere fact that you compare 4 phantoms to those lists is a little telling, isn’t it?

4 hours ago, Arma Quattro said:

It's incredible how many people are complaining about the phantom. 
Were you all complaining so much back in the day for Miranda and Nym or the Fennghost? Or were you among the ones playing those horrors so it was all peachy keen?

Do you not agree that phantoms are currently a bit too good?

I don't think they are game breakingly bad in any way. Just that we are at the moment in a golden age of xwing and the phantoms are at the moment the only dark spot. Small and not really disturbing, but more irritating because the rest is so good. That's my take and that's how my posts should be understood.

24 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Do you not agree that phantoms are currently a bit too good?

I don't think they are game breakingly bad in any way. Just that we are at the moment in a golden age of xwing and the phantoms are at the moment the only cloaked spot. Small and not really disturbing, but more irritating because the rest is so good. That's my take and that's how my posts should be understood.

...there, fixed it for you.

2 hours ago, Arma Quattro said:

It's incredible how many people are complaining about the phantom.
Were you all complaining so much back in the day for Miranda and Nym or the Fennghost? Or were you among the ones playing those horrors so it was all peachy keen?

Until this last weekend, I was a casual player, although I have been playing and supporting the game since the original wave 5. I did play in an open series last weekend and I am complaining about what was, for me, a negative play experience. It was a game that has tainted my first competitive X-wing event. Besides, I don’t care about first edition issues anymore, because this is second edition, the lists you mentioned are not relevant anymore.

37 minutes ago, Wolfmanhays said:

Until this last weekend, I was a casual player, although I have been playing and supporting the game since the original wave 5. I did play in an open series last weekend and I am complaining about what was, for me, a negative play experience. It was a game that has tainted my first competitive X-wing event. Besides, I don’t care about  first edition issues anymore, because this is second edition, the lists you mentioned are not relevant any  more.

Everyone has a negative play experience. NPE does not always equal imbalance.

For example, as someone who took to flying Whisper pretty early on in 2.0, flying decloaked against Wedge was always an NPE because 1 agility feels bad and is bad.

15 minutes ago, AgentoftheEmpire said:

For example, as someone who took to flying Whisper pretty early on in 2.0, flying decloaked against Wedge was always an NPE because 1 agility feels bad and is bad.

That time you miss the block on the barrel roll by || much and then Wedge one shots Echo.

Just now, millertime059 said:

That time you miss the block on the barrel roll by || much and then Wedge one shots Echo.

At least someone understands.

33 minutes ago, AgentoftheEmpire said:

Everyone has a negative play experience. NPE does not always equal imbalance.

Except... 3 Sigmas with juke and 1 with crackshot is imbalanced.

Mic drop.

Peace. I’m out.

2 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

Do you not agree that phantoms are currently a bit too good?

I don't think they are game breakingly bad in any way. Just that we are at the moment in a golden age of xwing and the phantoms are at the moment the only dark spot. Small and not really disturbing, but more irritating because the rest is so good. That's my take and that's how my posts should be understood.

They are indeed good ships, but not game breaking. We have a case here in which a good ship with a good action economy is treated as something uncounterable.

First it has Ps4. We're not even speaking about aces that will arc dodge you leaving you just looking at those red dice being dealt upon your ships.

5 hp overall with evade and (but maybe not always) focus. It can die in one single volley of fire by two ships.

No native reroll. They rely COMPLETELY on what comes out from the dice roll + focus leaving the ship more open during defense.

2 defense die, which are just average like most ships.

Now tell me, how could a list with three of those ships plus one with crack shot be uncounterable.

Just now, Arma Quattro said:

Now tell me, how could a list with three of those ships plus one with crack shot be uncounterable.

That's not the point though.

So far, xwing 2.0 in hyperspace, but also in extended, meant that games were much less determined by matchups. You however argue with matchups, you want to correct on the level of list building. That is a fallback to the old ways of 1.0 which turned so sour. We should avoid that for as long as possible

i dont see the list as uncounterable but i do see it as meta warping. like other dominant lists before it you have to be prepared for it and choose a squad that is competitive against it. over time a few squads will emerge that are hard counters to it. until they do, ppl r going to keep complaining its OP.

I usually equate strength of build by the number of players using that build, or very close derivatives of that build, as to how aggressively it's point-costed. The number of players using the three Sigma + (whatever) build, and the results that those builds had (at Chicago), is probably significant enough that the Sigmas need to be looked at. I've already given my quick, shoot from the hip solution.

What I hope FFG doesn't do is kneejerk sweeping changes when subtle changes will accomplish a satisfactory result. I believe a satisfactory result in this case would be to reduce the effectiveness enough that people would still think about running three Sigmas (and even with Juke), but look at other builds as being in the same range of effectiveness.

1 hour ago, GreenDragoon said:

That's not the point though.

So far, xwing 2.0 in hyperspace, but also in extended, meant that games were much less determined by matchups. You however argue with matchups, you want to correct on the level of list building. That is a fallback to the old ways of 1.0 which turned so sour. We should avoid that for as long as possible

This.

Also, 2nd edition is about maneuvering and difficult choices. Juke Phantoms and Defenders (and soon the Space Banana) break this by getting brainless free tokens (combined with token robbing). Defender at least are somewhat countered by costing, and N1 is too early to say, might be countered by hitting like a wet noodle. Both neither get a free reposition, like the Phantom does.

Just take away the talent slot from the Aces and bump the cost up a little bit. Maybe even take it away from Whisper too, just to prevent another triple Juke list like Whisper+Echo+Onyx from rising up to replace quad phantoms.

According to what I'm hearing from the people playing the list, the power comes from the ability to have 3+ ships with Juke and a free evade on top of the Phantoms unmatched maneuverability.

12 minutes ago, underling said:

What I hope FFG doesn't do is kneejerk sweeping changes when subtle changes will accomplish a satisfactory result. I believe a satisfactory result in this case would be to reduce the effectiveness enough that people would still think about running three Sigmas (and even with Juke), but look at other builds as being in the same range of effectiveness.

I agree; FFG tends to hammer in brads, bending them against the board and wiggle in nails to little avail. I fear they’ll Hammer the Phantom again until it’s basically not unique and ‘meh’ for list building just to appease some, while giving a tiny to slight boost to other ships in the faction (looking at generic TIE Strikers, Advanced, Aggressors, Defenders and Interceptors) that would then displace the (slightly adjusted up maybe) Sigmas a real run for their money and remove them from spamming. Isn’t honey better than vinegar? But let’s not remove one of the coolest and neatest generic in the game because of salt or stats (Pro tip: they’re good, probably the best Imp squad, but they’re actually beatable, and it’s still fun?!?)

While I’m at it: “hey FFG, can we have Connor Jax back please?”

27 minutes ago, clanofwolves said:

I agree; FFG tends to hammer in brads, bending them against the board and wiggle in nails to little avail. I fear they’ll Hammer the Phantom again until it’s basically not unique and ‘meh’ for list building just to appease some, while giving a tiny to slight boost to other ships in the faction (looking at generic TIE Strikers, Advanced, Aggressors, Defenders and Interceptors) that would then displace the (slightly adjusted up maybe) Sigmas a real run for their money and remove them from spamming. Isn’t honey better than vinegar? But let’s not remove one of the coolest and neatest generic in the game because of salt or stats (Pro tip: they’re good, probably the best Imp squad, but they’re actually beatable, and it’s still fun?!?)

While I’m at it: “hey FFG, can we have Connor Jax back please?”

Based on some quick stat compiling, the records of 16 builds using three Sigmas with Juke was 65-31.

That's not insignificant, and it doesn't really take into account anything other than won-loss records.

The records were:

6-0

5-1 (x5)

4-2 (x5)

3-3 (x4)

2-4 (x1)

The results didn't surprise me too much, other than only one losing record. And I would have thought the results would end up being a little closer to .500.

I did this fairly quickly, but even allowing for some errors in counting, this tells me is that a three Sigma+1 build (usually a fourth phantom) is strong.

48 minutes ago, underling said:

Based on some quick stat compiling, the records of 16 builds using three Sigmas with Juke was 65-31.

That's not insignificant, and it doesn't really take into account anything other than won-loss records.

The records were:

6-0

5-1 (x5)

4-2 (x5)

3-3 (x4)

2-4 (x1)

The results didn't surprise me too much, other than only one losing record. And I would have thought the results would end up being a little closer to .500.

I did this fairly quickly, but even allowing for some errors in counting, this tells me is that a three Sigma+1 build (usually a fourth phantom) is strong.

It would be interesting to see that record without mirror matches

5 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

That's not the point though.

So far, xwing 2.0 in hyperspace, but also in extended, meant that games were much less determined by matchups. You however argue with matchups, you want to correct on the level of list building. That is a fallback to the old ways of 1.0 which turned so sour. We should avoid that for as long as possible

Wait. My point wasn't about finding hard counters or such things.
I was talking about actually using a good strategy to approach them.

Just with the dreaded 5Y. You can counter them by bumping to deny shots.. staying at range 3 or out of the turret arc to prevent the double tap.
ALL squads are counterable through that even if we're talking about lousy matchups.
The 4 Phantoms have reposition and double action. But still we're talking about 4 5hp ships that defend 2 and can be heavily focused -- just as they would like to do.