Post by mnnorthstars on Mar 23, 2021 17:52:33 GMT
The P-38G Lightning card (Team Poseidon #25, below) is an outlier. Do you think it should be officially revised to 8 points and have that change added to the official errata and clarifications document? There are no other cards being considered for revision currently.
Arguments in favor of revision
1) This card is overcosted for what it does. People who have fielded this unit in games don’t feel like they can get the points they paid for it returned in its performance.
2) With a 1943 entry date, 7 AA is obsolete and if playing year limits there are better AA scores at that price point or less.
3) The SAs that raise the cost do not synergize well. Interceptor and Escort cannot be used together. Escort and Excellent Endurance run contrary to each other if you are running one strike group off of the land airbase. You can, however, use two P-38s to escort carrier strike groups every turn with the added bonus of having both aircraft available on turn 1 and another later turn (turn 3 or after).
4) Excellent Endurance and Interceptor 2 are conditionally very potent SAs but in most circumstances are more tame, making them hard to cost.
Arguments against revision
1) This card affects the meta game by forcing the opponent to escort strike groups or face 9 AA that also records successes on a 4.
2) 9 vital armor, 7 armor, and 3 gunnery are top-level fighter scores. You can run a P-38 off of the Forward Airstrip like a bomber when you strafe with Extra Ordnance.
3) The team knowingly costed this at 9 following playtesting and ardent discussion. This was not a mistake, whereas HMS Triton was accidentally miscosted.
4) Adjusting the cost of one unit is a slippery slope that opens up other units for potential revision. Note that there are no other cards currently being discussed for revision.
5) There is another P-38 being publicly developed for the current card set.
Arguments in favor of revision
1) This card is overcosted for what it does. People who have fielded this unit in games don’t feel like they can get the points they paid for it returned in its performance.
2) With a 1943 entry date, 7 AA is obsolete and if playing year limits there are better AA scores at that price point or less.
3) The SAs that raise the cost do not synergize well. Interceptor and Escort cannot be used together. Escort and Excellent Endurance run contrary to each other if you are running one strike group off of the land airbase. You can, however, use two P-38s to escort carrier strike groups every turn with the added bonus of having both aircraft available on turn 1 and another later turn (turn 3 or after).
4) Excellent Endurance and Interceptor 2 are conditionally very potent SAs but in most circumstances are more tame, making them hard to cost.
Arguments against revision
1) This card affects the meta game by forcing the opponent to escort strike groups or face 9 AA that also records successes on a 4.
2) 9 vital armor, 7 armor, and 3 gunnery are top-level fighter scores. You can run a P-38 off of the Forward Airstrip like a bomber when you strafe with Extra Ordnance.
3) The team knowingly costed this at 9 following playtesting and ardent discussion. This was not a mistake, whereas HMS Triton was accidentally miscosted.
4) Adjusting the cost of one unit is a slippery slope that opens up other units for potential revision. Note that there are no other cards currently being discussed for revision.
5) There is another P-38 being publicly developed for the current card set.
