Another reason we tend to have a strong preference for tournament results; it eliminates problem 3.

Yep and until we have enough data to draw an objective conclusion all you have is opinion. Even if the Neb is proved to be a less effective ship that doesn't mean it's Tie Advanced bad. After all tournaments are about the best possible lists/ships.

But again, you have people making up personal attacks when there are none, and suggesting the only reason someone will hold a given opinion is because they play against people who are bad, with no way of actually defending such a statement.

The more posts this thread gets, the more it seems like some people have a gripe with FGD himself.

And yet we see reports from multiple sources that Nebs are just fine in this forum and other forums. We also have reports of groups where they don't do well. So to each side, their experience can appear conclusive and the other side "just doesn't get it". Arguing down these lines is fruitless.

My perception of the game dynamic is that Imperials in general play out in quite an obvious manner. That is, point the VSD towards the enemy and blow it away, while sticking demolisher on a GSD and get to break a fundamental rule of the game making things easier. As soon as people started playing, it seemed like Demolisher on a GSD was everywhere. Why is that? Possibly because people simultaneously figured out the best possible strategy. Or, people simultaneously found the most obvious of a selection of good strategies and it was easy to do well with them.

The Neb-b slow crawl is not the most obvious strategy. It's also not rocket science either, but it's not the immediate way I've seen many people try to use the ship. The most common way to use most of the ships is to fly them at maximum speed. The thinking is basically "The Neb-b has speed 3 and the rest of the rebel ships are fast, we should fly them all fast". Which is immediately met with poor results as the fast speed decreases the time spent in the Neb-b front quarter and quickly exposes the weak flanks and then they go down hard. Couple this with opponents commonly employing Demolisher GSDs and the Neb appears to be useless.

The key understanding is engaging at slow speeds. This does multiple things for you.

1) lengthens the time at long(er) ranges where the Neb-b excels

2) delays engagement of its flank

3) allows use of the slow but otherwise excellent B-wing

4) keeps ships and squadrons together which allows a better response to the Demolisher GSD problem.

The next step is to then realize when to up the speed. The possibility of speed 3 is important for certain objectives. It's also crucial to pre-engagement maneuver. Yes you can joust, but why joust when your speed allows you to first turn your opponents formation.

The Neb-b has seen success by many people. More than just one group. If you wish to think those groups are full of idiots because your group never misses things, go for it. You might be right. But my group is the one having success with a variety of tactics and is willing to try different things. I also always keep in my mind that I'm not a perfect player and am able to miss things, so I keeping trying new and different strategies that I and others come up with. But essentially I don't care if my group is "wrong" about the Neb-b, we're enjoying variety and a lack of dominant builds. So even if your group is "correct" and "better" I'm not the one complaining about a "useless" ship I bought.

Ok well as the OP I really don't want to see the thread go all bad-juju. That wasn't the intent of this. To the extent that it's possible, (and to the extent that it's my responsibility as the OP), please, guys, be civil.

To quote Team America: "The war is out there, man! Out there! Now, pull it together!"

Trane (and all):

In order:

• Nobody is saying the Neb B is useless. In fact, if you look at my own posts earlier in this thread, I described some ways that I was having success with it.
• What you just said is already the iteration that our group went through more than a month ago. I would argue we are now onto the stage where the Imperial player "knows" you are going to try to slow roll the Neb B (as that's the ideal tactic against anything other than a VSDII, where it's still a suicide mission) and tends to have deployed with this tactic in mind, which brings around a whole new stage of behavior (Imperials using speed 3 gladiator deployments at an angle with 2 squadrons of ties to lock up any B-wings near the Neb on arrival or rebels deploying to Corvette rush it from the side), and because the rebel player knows that, sometimes the Neb is coming crosswise at speed 3, or the first action is a Nav command to change directions immediately and it was deployed as a red herring, etc. It becomes a game of cat and mouse, but the Neb B is at a basic disadvantage here because of it's hugely wide, hugely fragile sides; a lot of potential game states you end up in when both sides understand the optimal tactics of the other disfavor the Neb B compared to the average ability of other ships. EDIT: The reason for this is basic geometry. About 75% of the Neb B's exposure are things you don't want to expose (the broad sides), versus something like a CR90 or VSD where you really don't want to show only the back. In addition, while the Neb B is somewhat agile, it's no CR90 or squadron. Thus, I find it's actually most similar to the VSD in terms of "difficult to maneuver properly", but instead of just being slow as a brick going uphill, the problem is finding a place to put it on the board where opponents don't get clean and favorable shots at the side... when I face them, I'm not going to bunch up my CR90s where you can just point it head-on at them and shield it. I'm going to spread them out in small bunches at angles so that if you get in range, I have side shots from somewhere, as an example.
• I'm not arguing about better / worse; even groups that have had a lot of success before aren't a lock to have it again, and vice-versa.

I think the core of the issue is thus:

• What is frustrating is having people repeatedly say "playstyle" or "you aren't using it right" when you're talking to people who are doing things like winning tournaments (to refer to the IFF guys in particular). What, exactly, are they not doing right that you are, and if they aren't, why do they place well at tournaments, if not win? Be specific, and if you come back with things and the response is "we've tried that repeatedly, it doesn't seem to work, here is why and here are the counters, BTW I won the event I was at this weekend" the response can't again be "playstyle". If that's true, show us your tournament winning lists and tactics to demonstrate your case. The IFF guys are doing just that, to argue against them and expect people to take you on faith is a leap.
• Please stop constructing straw-man arguments. Nobody is saying the Neb B is useless and should be purged from earth and FFG has committed a horrific crime against hobbyists and humanity in general for making it; many people are saying it's very finicky and has to be used carefully, or with a list that emphasize one of the very specific strengths it has through titles, versus just being able to throw a CR90 into virtually any list and have it work fine. EDIT: This is a general point and not directed at anyone in particular, but it seems to be a particular specialization of internet forums to have the argument people want to have instead of the one that is actually happening, and I suspect all of us are guilty of this at times, so that's not a shot at anyone one person.
• Again, specific examples are good. Part of what I find frustrating is seeing generalized statements thrown around ("just start it slow") after having been the person either receiving or delivering the exact counter to that.

To be clear, I'm not trying to shut down discussion, I am just point out that the mindless repetition of certain points that are directly in contravention of the experience of people who are winning consistently in a variety of environments is indicative of things like the Dunning Kruger effect in action, not people carefully constructing tactics, lists, and scenarios and then going out and winning events with them.

I do agree, for everyone, there is no need to get heated about it, but conversely, holding one's ground and defending a viewpoint while pointing out flaws in the opposition's approach is not a personal attack, either. Nobody in this thread is stupid / shouldn't be posting here / etc. That doesn't mean we are all always right (I know I have been wrong repeatedly in the past, and worse, it is likely I will be in the future as well!).

I find the Neb-B is, oddly, a generalist that needs to specialize. This is most easily obtained with its titles, but can also be done with other upgrades. What do I mean? The Neb can 'tank' it out at long range with an evade, two braces and (ideally) three red forward dice. But it's going to be significantly more efficient in that role with engineering teams and/or Redemption. It can also support fighters with a decent squadron value of two and two anti-squadron dice to thin out low health TIE's. BUT it's going to be significantly more efficient in that role as the Yavaris and potentially with Raymus Antilles to ensure an extra squadron token. Finally it can snipe at long range like a champion with three red dice, BUT (there's that word again) is going to be more efficient with x17 Turbolasers, Salvation and concentrate fire dials for that extra die.

In short (and I mean ZERO offense to the OP) in this case I think it's you not the ship. The ship isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, I find it needs upgrades more than any other ship in the game so far, but I'm betting with a little more time and upgrades you'll see its strengths. You may decide not to use it anyway, I personally am not a fan of the Neb-B, but you'll probably see where it can be useful.

Hope this answered your question at least a little?

Myself I like the Neb B but don't love it, I've found it can be effective but there may be better choices for a list. So I don't have a dog in this fight, I don't care which side wins this argument.

Here's what this post seems to boil down to, at least from my perspective. You have some people who feel the Neb B isn't that good, and you also have some who feel it's fine. Then you have the side who don't like it making accusations of 'You suffer from Dunning Kruger effect' as the bulk of their argument for why the other side is wrong. You keep wanting to tout one group as having superior players to the other, yet you have no evidence to back that up.

Some people are having success with it, others aren't. We can not draw any real conclusions about that until we have more data. Because for both sides we're dealing with very small sample sizes here.

When we get a full years worth of data, with things like regional, nationals, and worlds, then and only then can we really take the groups avg skill out of the discussion.

Did Armada have regional tournaments this year? If so where's the list data from them, like you see for X-Wing. Show me that out of 500+ games the Neb shows up in less then X% of the total lists and Y% of the top 8 lists and we can go from there.

But honestly so far this whole thread is nothing more then a big round of 'he said, she said'

I know that this may come off as being accusatory, but that isn't my intention. I'm just pointing out how it sounds to someone who isn't really involved in the debate.

I'm thinking that the strength of the Nebulon will be more relevant once we have the MC30c available to us. I shall extrapolate:

Although we don't have all the stats yet on the MC30c, we have seen pictures of its ship token. It shares in the same wide port and starboard arc that the Nebulon-B has. While it possesses no red dice, thus limiting it to close quarters fighting, it is a beastly little thing when it gets up close. 3 shields on all facings but its rear, which still has a respectable 2 shields. Its broadside also possesses a very nice 2-Blues and 3-Blacks. Add in Enhanced Armaments, and you're dishing out six dice on either side.

Basically, the MC30c is going to get up close in an enemy ship's face, like a little yappy dog, and bite at its ankle in a rather rough way. If it can keep abreast of a Victory-I or -II and out of its forward arc, the MC30c is going to give it a good pummeling. With the MC30c doing this, the Nebulon will most likely be a little more freed up to keep itself at long range, putting its forward 3-reds to best use. Keep back two squadrons of fighters with the Nebulon to keep it safe from potential bomber threats, and you remove most of its durability worries.

Wave-II does present a new issue to the Nebulon though, in the form of the Raider. The Raider-Class Corvette is about as fast and maneuverable as any other ship we've seen thus far, giving the Imperials a nice new tool in their toolbox, and with a forward firepower of 2-black 2-blue, we'll likely see it spearing across the field and raking that weak side shielding of the Nebulon before any other Rebels can come to its aid. And with its nice anti-squadron firepower, those escort fighters for our Nebulon aren't going to be doing much good.

In short: keep them thinking about something else other than your Nebulon, and keep hitting them from afar with it.

Ok so for the Pro Neb-B fans, let me play devil's advocate (and also let me assure you that the point of this question is not the inflame things).

So I'm seeing a proscribed build looking something like this?

Neb-B Escort, with Raymus, X Turbo and Yavaris title. That comes in at 75 points.

I can get a naked Whale for 72, which does everything that those 75 points do, except better, with the except of anti-squadron dice.

I think this is rather the point of these kinds of discussions. It's not so much "can I make this thing work", it's "can I make this thing work for the price I need to pay,and what am I giving up in doing so?"

Also, (and this next point is really intuition more so than data); it's my general experience in gaming that if half a fan base says something is fine, and the other half says something is a little off, than odds are, it's a little off. It seems all the ships that X Wingers talked about early on, even from their first release, got fixes of some kind or another, as FFG accepted they were underpowered: Tie Advanced, Y Wings and A Wings in particular.

If we are talking pro-Neb B, I would suggest the most efficient builds for comparison purposes are:

Neb B Escort (57) + Yavaris (5): 62

Neb B Support Refit (51) + X17 Turbolasers (6) + Salvation (7): 64

The former ship really doesn't need X17; you are using it for squadron activations. The latter ship is basically the most bare-bones long-range rifle you can create and still have it be effective.

I've left Raymus off both because he is more of a multiplier than a must-have, and there is a real argument to use him on a whale instead.

So now looking at these, we have to ask: are they 1.5 times better than a CR90A? Are they at least 90% as good as a whale? As those would be the equivalent points values; as you demonstrate before, if we add Raymus to the Neb B support combo, we could just take a naked AFIIB.

We should also consider the spam-list case, where some people are running: 3xCR90B, 3xNeb B Support Refit, Mon Mothma (at exactly 300 points). I personally suspect this will be inferior to 6xCR90A + MM, but if we are talking Neb B, there are many people who argue for them in size, so we should consider this. Might even want to consider the 4xNeb B support, 1 salvation as above plus raymus, and Dodonna list as well.

I disagree entirely that Raymus on Yavaris is worse than a Mark II B. Both can activate 3 Squadrons, but Yavaris allows the squadrons to fire twice, doubling its efficacy. Yavaris can do things with squadrons no other ship in the game can. You can't activate it every turn, but it often takes only one turn of a B-Wing swarm pounding to destroy the enemy. Also, its forward arc offers an additional die, which is relevant for a ship that wants to slowly move forward, waiting for the opponent to come to them and its B-Wings. Likewise, Salvation promises an average 4 damage at long range with a concentrate fire, which is a full damage more than any other ship can muster.

If you're looking for fleet controllers, 114 points for two ships that can cover more of the map, activate 4-6 squadrons in total, and each support their squadrons with 2 anti-squadron dice, is good value.

I wrote a pretty crap sentence there when I commented that Raymus is better on an AF, didn't I? Apologies.

What I meant is you can only have one in your list, and I certainly agree that when activating squadrons he's better off on the Yavaris. Generally speaking though, since I can only have one Raymus, I'd rather have him on the AF always. His effect is most felt for me on the ship that's in the most action and using a diverse array of commands. If you're not going to take AFs then my point is completely moot of course.

Should i know what an iff crew is?

I feel like most of what is to be said on this topic has been said, and probably in a far more eloquent fashion then I am about to put forth. That said, I'll share my experience with this ship;

As people have stated, you need to run titles on this ship. It wants titles. It's titles are awesome-sauce.

I personally find Intel Officer a more effective choice then Raymus. Yes, Raymus may allow you to fix your concentrate fire fail roll with a re-roll. Intel Officer WILL make your opponent pay for that brace. Combined with XI7's, its basically a middle finger to your opponent's VSD.

I find that Neb's work best if you keep 2 of them in formation, and yes, feel free to joust a star destroyer that way. At long range you are throwing out considerably more dice, have more hull, and better defenses. In general, I use a double neb-b formation with the rebels in a similar fashion to how one would use a Victory. It costs more, but its more effective in the same role. I also play 400 points, so your returns in the 300 point arena may vary.

Yavaris and B-wings are a key component of keeping that formation alive. You want your opponent to pay dearly for closing. If possible, I like to escort them with wedge, because if your opponent decides to get cute and try to use interceptors to engage them, then those interceptors die. I don't always have the points for it. I have had most success running this in 5 ship lists, often with 3 CR90's.

Hope some of this helps.

It's a pretty decent ship to let the enemy come to you head on while going slow and tanking the shots, banking a nav token, then getting away with a well timed Nav Command bumping up to speed 3 and having the enemy face the rear.

As long as you can drive ennemies that want to get close into your front arc and ennemies that want to flank you are either kept at long range with a single fire arc on you, or you have some other ship protecting the flank/hiding line of sight, you're definitely good with them.

If things get edgy, the engineering value of 3 is decent to repair the front shields and side shields (spend 1 to redirect to the flank, then 2 to restore the front).

But it's more of a utility ship than a mainline combat ship on its own due to the lack of redirect. One could argue that Salvation is a main combat ship due to huge damage output, but it's a firesupport role from afar rather than in front. The Escort is clearly there to manage a small fighter wing and having the fighters do most of the heavy lifting for it.

In terms of upgrades, Enhanced Armaments despite being counter intuitive seems like a more than decent upgrade for the Nebulon-B. More bang for the buck due to doubling your side arc's long range firepower for a 5th of the ship and bringing it to the Assault Frigate's level.

Alright, I've got a counter question here: how are people that use Nebulon B's and even Assault Frigate Mk.II's finding the difference in their tactics and positioning versus blue-on-blue 'mirror matches' versus opposing faction matches?

This is longish and rambly, so tl;dr: I'm no ultra tactician for wargames, if you expect Creed-level genius, forget it and move along

The Nebulon has an issue in that it's a whole lot harder to use in close support when the other two ships that are currently out don't match what it does very well. If it's not effective in your group, then it's not: I'm not saying that payers who don't find them useful are somehow bad players, or incompetent inflexible individuals, or even that it will fix with any play style. It has to be both comfortable to use and conducive to your environment.

Lets face it, at 300 points* even a 75 point ship is a significant investment, and my preferential set up accounts for a full half the points of my fleet, not including my admiral. No matter what it is, it's directly changing the ability of the fleet and the way in which it primarily functions by switching the attack vectors from a preferential perpendicular pattern (like the RAF crossing the T) to a parallel fight (head on). That also changes the way in which we approach objectives. As we all know, a Nebulon-B wants to keep its narrow front arc pointed at its opponent, and if it yaws too much, it's not going to line up with its target or its objectives.

However, it still does have enough manoeuvrability at speed 2 that it can drift and reasonably do both. The Nebulon-B also has a paradoxical 120+ degree freedom of movement (it can move left, straight, or right) and not lose its combat effectiveness (though admittedly because it's not easy to boost to begin with. While the RAF has enhanced armaments, there is currently nothing like that as a boost for the Nebulon-B). When taking a 'strafing' position with a RAF, I've found that I was limiting my field of preferential movement to 90 degrees, or more generously 120 in order to keep its broadsides against my opponent. I've also found that it tends to be 'herded' a little more because it needs to keep its angle. The Nebulon-B is slower, but it feels like it can change its heading a little more where as the RAF operates more effectively at higher speeds but it needs to change its heading because of the natural drift of its opponent abeam (the opponent moves, which means that unless they're drifting to get out of an arc or correct their course, your reference point is going to be changing from turn to turn: A VSD heading towards you changes its position but its reference point remains the same. The opposite is true if your opponent uses broadsides, as now your Nebulon B's are operating like VSD's; thus blue-on-blue is going to play very differently from opposing faction fights because of the general currently-limited arsenal of the fleets).

But all of this comes down to two basic meters: 'what is the opportunity cost of investing in the ship?', and 'how does it complement your preferred play style?'.

What do you lose out on by investing in the Nebulon-B? What's your plan? And what are you not getting that would work better for you with that 65ish points? If I used an RAF, it's not going to be 72ish points, or even 82, it's a whopping 111 (and at minimum 100), almost the cost of both of my Nebulon-B's, and even more than the Yvaris and its whole escort.. I just don't think its worth it if I don't enjoy using it, and I don't find it's performing significantly better than the Nebulons and their fighter escort. And that's the opportunity cost, I can only have one anyway. My choice of ship selection will naturally alter the objectives that I choose and will choose

In the end, the game needs to involve a certain mixture of art (the art of war), and pageantry to really pique my interest. My opponent can do what they want, I've got no issues, but it's how I play my fleet that matters. The Rebel space potato is a great solo ship, and with Gallant Haven it's an incredible for fighter craft, but it doesn't work in a way that I particularly enjoy. The Nebulon-B class is a support class that needs to support other ships, and be supported in order to get the most out of their cost.

In the end, field what you enjoy playing and what you can tolerate staring at. Look, this next bit isn't meant to be inflammatory or particularly judgemental, rather it's just my opinion and observation of wargames and hobbies: I'm going to allow myself to learn from other individuals and enjoy their commentary, but it's entertainment and news from abroad (Edutainment). I'm not going to go lockstep with them into establishing a pseudo-meta when I've been enjoying my local scene (Pseudovangelism). When my opponents switch to net-lists or net-inspired-lists, it's usually over. Not because they always win, but because most of the time I know if I keep up with what they're following, I know exactly what they're going to be using and roughly how they're going to use it. Subsequently, the magic ebbs from the game. So, I'll use every Nebulon-B and snubfighter I please, because that's sort of what is so iconic about Star Wars for me, and Armada is delightfully balanced so that every ship is at least functional. And with every wave that comes out, the matrix of options generally shifts, and as much as I loath the space potato...I've resolved to use one, because I want to get to know it (not to mention the joy of cutting one up to make it Frankenbeautiful).

*I say 300 points because that's what we're dealing with now; I'm going to figure out how to operate with the 'strafing' run style because I'm picking up MC 80's in wave 2, and the style will still likely be dominant into wave 3. I've been genuinely wondering if I can use 2 light Nebulon-B's and 2 light MC80's as a wedge, trying to bisect an enemy fleet, using the Nebulon B's to force a gap and get the MC80's to slip between it and unload with both broadsides before turning on an opponent's stern.

One of the top players in my area runs a triple Neb list with a scattering of fighters.

He runs each title, and each Neb has an engineering team. He's cashing in some sweet repair even from just a token. It makes his ships pretty **** durable.

I love the flexibility and versatility of the Nebulon-B. It can run a squadron offense/defensive, it can run a strong offensive firepower using its range and it can bait GSD's. I love it

I find running them at 300 points is very difficult- they work much better for me at 400 when I can comfortably have a pair with fighter support and Raymus on Tantive IV handing out orders. I think a lot of people will like the Nebulon B more with wave 2's release and then immediately forget about it when they get their paws on the Mon Cal ships.

The newness of the mon cal ships will certainly draw folks as will a different play style. But once that is done, the Neb remains the rebels most forward facing ship. So it will retain usefulness for that alone (barring grossly overpowered MC ships and wave 3 and beyond).

I find running them at 300 points is very difficult- they work much better for me at 400 when I can comfortably have a pair with fighter support and Raymus on Tantive IV handing out orders. I think a lot of people will like the Nebulon B more with wave 2's release and then immediately forget about it when they get their paws on the Mon Cal ships.

Vykes, a friend of mine tried something similar to what you propose to do with MC-80's and Nebs using AF2's abd Nebs. The difference is he brought the nebs after the assault frigates. It was relatively effective, he won the game...although mostly due to a catastrophic naviagational error on the imperial side. The mc80's with ackbar way work the way you propose.

I run them in a list like this:

Assault Frigate MK2 B, X99 Turbolasers, Paragon
Neb B Support (cheaper one) with Dodonna
Neb B support with X17 Turbolasers and Salvation.
Neb B support with X17 Turbolasers
2 x A-wing.

Neb's (usually) go first to strip shields with X17's Preferably across front and a side hullzone or if you think you can push some crit's to the hull then go for it! Then the Whale opens up and drops those X99 double crit's and fishes for the double damages or some other ones to mess with people. I will sometimes go with Whale first if I have a nice double arc shot that I could potentially lose out on, especially if I have concentrate fire for a command, 2 black dice on 2nd attack really hurts!

A-wing's are literally just there to slow down enemy Squadron blob's be it Fel/advanced or Rhymer Balls. As long as A-wing's can delay for 2 rounds I should have enough rounds/hull left to push off the remaining enemy ships and win.

Keep Neb's at Speed 1 with a Nav token and try to plan in a Nav command for when the enemy get close and jump up 2 speeds, if you can't finish them with your frontal arcs, finish them with your rear!

I would say that Nebulon B's don't work well without an express purpose in mind and race built for that purpose. I may want a martyr Nebulon b support refit for 51 points to block something else, I wouldn't put anything else on it. Another support refit with Mon Mothma and Redemption if I'm running a corvette swarm.

The ships themselves are subpar because they are so flimsy and easy to cripple with weak side arcs that dominate the vessel. You can kit them up special, but they aren't that good.

Curiously enough, I would consider Yavaris the least useful Nebulon B title. It's tough to set up and generally you're getting a little too close to comfort against an Imperial fleet, someone is shooting your squishy sides. Perhaps it's the Demolisher, a VSD, even a Tie Fighter, or whatever. You're toast if you're playing against a Rebel player; those space whales and corvettes will eat your heart through your flanks. Also, their 1 or 2 A-Wings will probably take out your side shielding before the fat lady (whale) sings (fires).

the thing with Yavaris is that positioning is not nearly as difficult as made out to be, especially not if you're used to positioning non-demolisher black dice which I would argue are actually much harder to land. What you lose in engagement rules, you gain in a lot of extra range (command range + distance 1)

first, I must agree it is fairly worthless against fast, long range ships such as cr-90s and fatties that can just "bwokbwokbwok" chick-strut out of range

second, I will agree that it's not "easy" to use insofar as it requires thought and forethought (like most everything in this game), but it is like Paragon in that the difficulty in utilization is more than justified by a.) the pay off (jesus christ, what a payoff!) and b.) the cost (cheap!)

third, when dealing with close range imperials and the issue of "getting close," there is a problem in that sometimes you simply don't have a choice in the matter. VSDs, sure not a problem. Demolisher, though? **** thing can come screaming well out of red dice range to dump missiles in your face. The silver-lining is that every neb is far cheaper than demolisher, so the forced exchange isn't automatically a bad thing (especially if you're the one that forces it )

similarly, on the squadron-side of things: interceptors. sometime it's just out of your control.

continuing on the "outside of your control" thing, certain objectives force positioning around tokens/obstructions which you can use to set-up Yavaris barrages.

lastly, the neb itself has a very strong long-range front arc. It and Yavaris make a nice combination of long range and shorter range prowess

With all that said, Yavaris definitely requires some thought and practice and you may not get it to trigger every game no matter how practiced you are. There's a reason it costs a mere 5 points