I'm going to post this on my site in a couple of hours, but I figured I'll get the discussion started now.

Both Used it and Faced it.

I think my compromise is very Aggressive Fighter-Bombing... I'm taking out most other things in my Squadron list, and at this time, for Rebels, focusing on X-Wings... Sometimes with Wedge. The idea being that I can use Flight Controllers on a Boosted Comms AF or MC, and then use my Friendly Rebel Squads to aggressively pin down and hammer the Vader/Dengar combination - which really, is the Lynchpin of the group. And I'm concentrating on X-Wings because they're the single greatest compromise - and I know Red Die aren't awesome as a Bombing Platform, but its better than a Single Blue without Bomber...

Otherwise, its some -Very- Particular maneouvering - attempting to engage Firesprays and hammer them without getting in range of Dengar OR Vader. That way he has to Move the Intel and occasionally leave it behind to attempt to break away.

Its a Layered Engagement Profile for me... One which I'll be doing more testing of this weekend.

I uploaded a few screenshots to better illustrate what I'm talking about.

Dengar's speed and durability is what worries me, and he's the primary target for me almost all the time. I think from a Rebel perspective, A-Wings are an absolute must to have in the list because they force scenarios where Dengar has to pick where he is so he can loosen the Firesprays that wants to attack. Spreading out your A-Wings in either a diamond formation, or 2 A-Wings on each side really helps with that. I picked A-Wings for this duty because they're the only ones with the speed to do this. Interceptors are another great option, but at that point you might as well go for the throat and throw 5 dice + re-roll with Howl into Dengar and just hope you kill the bastard.

What I'm slightly worried about is the impact the Fireball has on the meta, and whether or not it will FORCE a high squadron count to be a necessity. I've never had an easy game playing against it, and I can't help but feel the same way for my opponent when I'm the one flying it. All you really need to do as the Fireball player is identify the action order and Dengar's Intel pretty much plays itself.

Hothgary already has a high-Squadron Meta, and has for Months, so at least in that case, we're already there...

Hothgary already has a high-Squadron Meta, and has for Months, so at least in that case, we're already there...

Was that in response to the Fireball? Or because people generally like playing with heavy squadrons. What I'm saying is that this will force players into 6+ squadron builds.

It falls apart to counter squadron commands.

The Fireball is potent, no doubt. Mine has torn an ISD down to burning embers in three turns but... early-commanded squadrons will tear it apart.

My biggest problem with the Fireball has to be that escorts are at a premium once you've paid that many points.

It falls apart to counter squadron commands.

The Fireball is potent, no doubt. Mine has torn an ISD down to burning embers in three turns but... early-commanded squadrons will tear it apart.

My biggest problem with the Fireball has to be that escorts are at a premium once you've paid that many points.

I'm not sure what you mean by this..

Your opponent should surely activate his squadrons with commands as well right?

We've really been Heavy-Squadron since before Sullust, when two players completely shook up the Imperial Only players by taking B-Wing Yavaris forces to a Tournament and crushing All-Ship lists with the Unprepared.

Since then, we've been routinely in the 5-8 squadron bracket, even at the 300 point mark. The lightest of the Squadron Builds were usually 4x Interceptors back when it was Wave 1, only, but even they were commented on as being sub-par to the Anti-Squadon-from-Ship games.

I guess my point and my kind of offhand comment was that, personally, I feel you appear to attach some doom and gloom to the idea of needing a Squadron Game... When, at least in the Calgary area, we've recognised that for a while.

Only now, our options are far greater.

Yes, Intel is the single biggest changer to things... Dengar and Jan Ors are monstrous in their follow-on effects, as well as their own survivability, especially when coupled with a 12-13 point Escort that needs to Die before they do.

The Fireball, once again, is relatively easy to use, and its the ease of use that lends to its use... There are most certainly counters to it, but they're not as intuitively simple to use and develop in comparison. This leads towards negativity to those who see it in use and don't immediately have an answer themselves.

Which is why I applaud the idea of the topic here - looking at ways to counter it - but my natural Sarcasm and Assholism comes through because I see it being treated as an unneccessarily negative topic of choice.\

My issue is that, yes, A-Wings are Fast. And they have the speed to get forward to lay the damage on, but they lack both the Staying Power in health, and the Spike Damage in Anti-Squadron Fire to make a huge difference...

Yes, the Engagement range of a Dengar Fireball is fairly large, when you factor in speed of movement and engagement range, but there is still a Circular Error of Probabilty (CEP) zone that they are going to aim to be in... And that's Engagement Range of one of your Ships.

WHich means you are able to leverage your Engagement zone to be able to either React, or Lay in Wait, to pounce. That makes the Speed 3 Interceptor platform, in the X-Wing, a Good Choice... If you're a little less sure or skilled, then consider the YT-2400 to Rogue in on its own.

Regardless, I feel the Solution lies in a layered response... Pick apart the ball from extremes, concentrate on who and what you want to kill... I mean, typically, the Ball is going to center on Dengar, Rhymer and Vader in a tight ball, with the Firesprays starting to excise their way on the outside - which means with good and careful positioning, you may very well be able to pounce on and Spike-Kill a Firespray (taking 1-2 counter shots) and then wait to see their reaction, before repositioning...

And if you can scare them out of an engagement CEP of a Ship you don't want to die at the same time, Great...

Its going to be messy, its going to be tight, and its going to be an absolute bastard to come to grips with if you've not used a bunch of squadrons before... But there are answers.

Take this with a grain of salt because I've not yet had another opponent use the fireball against me, but I've played against myself as I'm refining my current fleet, and part of that is trying out a fireball on the other side of the table.

I have 2 tactics right now. As others have said, Dengar can only be in one place, so use interceptors and a-wings to engage from multiple directions, which forces Dengar to chose a location to loosen up the firesprays.

I've been on a yavaris kick lately taking a strong initiative bid. I frequently save Yavaris for last, and then do it first next turn. That should provide enough oomph to remove Dengar.

I've also rolled the dice on the kitchen table about 20 times and had a roughly 30% success rate with an AA Hawk/Dash single Yavaris tap on Dengar I didn't keep good records, but I suspect about an additional 20% saw Dengar without a scatter token after the 3 attacks. The Dash reroll is really good for accuracy fishing.

I haven't played enough games to see this in action, but it sounds pretty horrendous. Can't wait to give it a try!

At 129pts though, it should be doing some work. That is the same as a juiced up Mon Cal or almost naked ISD-II...

But to your point - no fighters or a light fighter screen are no longer an option.

The problem with this "fireball" is that you're dumping a TON of points into that rogue keyword that doesn't help you at all in fighter engagements. All other things being equal, fighter squadron without rogue will beat an equivalent points value of rogues every time, because you're paying for that flexibility on the rogue.

I have played against it on Vassal, and similar builds IRL, and it's not that hard to beat it with a well-constructed fighter defense. Not nearly as bad as, for example, the Rieekan Aces list. You use the same anti-squadron tactics you use for every other squadron build, jumping in to target Dengar (who has to be in the thick of it to apply Intel) and dictating the terms of the engagement by striking first and striking hard. As someone else pointed out, Vader and Dengar are the lynchpins here. Once they're gone, this build falls apart. And 4x4 blue dice (FC A-wings, X-wing, FC B-wings, interceptors, etc) will reliably alpha strike either one. Sure, you'll eat a round of return fire, but at that point you're already dictating the terms of the engagement, preventing them from concentrating return fire and enabling your defenders to survive long enough to gut the rest of the ball.

Rhymer was never an issue in Wave 1

Not sure about your meta in Wave 1, but in every game I played it was WAY more of an issue than it is now, or than your "fireball" is. Specifically because you had to have a fighter defense to beat it, but that squadron defense was wasted points against ship-heavy builds, and ship-heavy builds were so common, the presence of the Rhymer ball was a HUGE deal that impacted my meta much more than the GenCon special did. Now, squadrons are commonplace, so strong defenses against them are rarely wasted points.

Vehemently Agree.

"The Sky Is Falling" only applies to those who are - for what ever reason - only now having to adapt to a Fighter/Squadron Game.

Are you reading shh out of context or just didn't read?

Rhymer + friends can be tied up in Wave 1, not in Wave 2. Therefore, the anatomy of the threat and thus the meta, changes dramatically. A few A-Wings can tie up Wave 1 Rhymers comfortably, because as long as they're not shooting at your ships, you're in a good place. This is a non-factor in Wave 2. Saying that Rhymer in Wave 1 can be handled the same way Wave 2 is borderline insane.

The entire point I'm trying to make is that when you isolate the force multipliers such as Rhymer, Dengar, Rogue/Bomber, they are non-issues. When you stir them together, they're incredible.

And 4x4 blue dice (FC A-wings, X-wing, FC B-wings, interceptors, etc) will reliably alpha strike either one. Sure, you'll eat a round of return fire, but at that point you're already dictating the terms of the engagement, preventing them from concentrating return fire and enabling your defenders to survive long enough to gut the rest of the ball.

So you're confirming my need for dedicated AS with a significant points investment. That's exactly the point I'm trying to make.

I am pretty sure an MSU list could chew this thing to pieces. Mostly for one important fact, my 5-7 ships can cover the board, Rhymer is what makes this scary, and he can only be in one place at a time.

In essence I can space the ships out enough the Rhymer Ball can only effectively bring it's guns to bear on or two ships tops, Not even considering bids and objectives.

This trend does kind of concern me though, and it is pretty much totally to do with Ryhmer. He is so good you shouldn't leave home without him. Even if the remainder of your squadron points are spent on basic Tie Fighters.

Lets assume for an moment that the only way to deal with this is a massive fighter screen (for Rebels) or your very own Rhymer Ball. Basically what we have then is a massive squadron furball in the middle of the table, winner take all. That frankly sounds abysmal.

Wouldn't the counter be a space superiority wing? For imperials thats Howlrunner, Dengar, and 2 to 4 interceptors? That way your interceptors could hit with 5 dice, 6 with flight commander and boast 4 counter. And the investment is much less than a fireball.

I've also been thinking about how the Raider is built. It looks like it should have its own fighter escort to coordinate with. A couple fighters and a Raider could really chew up that fireball.

Not sure about your meta in Wave 1, but in every game I played it was WAY more of an issue than it is now, or than your "fireball" is. Specifically because you had to have a fighter defense to beat it, but that squadron defense was wasted points against ship-heavy builds, and ship-heavy builds were so common, the presence of the Rhymer ball was a HUGE deal that impacted my meta much more than the GenCon special did. Now, squadrons are commonplace, so strong defenses against them are rarely wasted points.

Vehemently Agree.

"The Sky Is Falling" only applies to those who are - for what ever reason - only now having to adapt to a Fighter/Squadron Game.

Anywho, squadrons have been huge in my area for a while now.

I actually play a mini version of the Fireball.

The squadron build is

TIE Advanced

Mauler Mithel

Major Rhymer

Dengar

Firespray

Firespray

The set up works great. While not as offensive against ships. The TIE Advanced blocks squadrons from Dengar just long enough for me to Mithel in there a few times. It is extremely potent.

I modified your current Fireball setup by dropping a Firespray for Mithel. I find that he let's you shred squadrons faster and even though he has a single blue die against ships he can still be that ace in the hole.

Not sure about your meta in Wave 1, but in every game I played it was WAY more of an issue than it is now, or than your "fireball" is. Specifically because you had to have a fighter defense to beat it, but that squadron defense was wasted points against ship-heavy builds, and ship-heavy builds were so common, the presence of the Rhymer ball was a HUGE deal that impacted my meta much more than the GenCon special did. Now, squadrons are commonplace, so strong defenses against them are rarely wasted points.

Vehemently Agree.

"The Sky Is Falling" only applies to those who are - for what ever reason - only now having to adapt to a Fighter/Squadron Game.

The sky is not falling, I want to be perfectly f'n clear. It just dictates the flow of the meta and will punish those not prepared for it. Please don't words in my mouth or make sweeping assumptions to what I've described.

The fighter game is not remotely on the same wavelength when comparing Wave 1 to Wave 2. I can't take you seriously if you're making such a statement simplifying adaptation. Please explain this outrageous statement?

But to your point - no fighters or a light fighter screen are no longer an option.

This is one of the big takeaways I've had from my wave 2 games thus far. The introduction of Intel and Grit has made the wave one "throw a chump squadron or two into the problem to slow it down, then win the game while the squadron minigame is delayed" strategy very risky. Most serious squadron builds will be packing Grit or (more likely) Intel and so simply getting in the way and engaging enemy squadrons to slow them down will be insufficient; you need to bring enough anti-squadron firepower to meaningfully threaten to destroy crucial linchpins (and hopefully actually deliver on that threat). I'd argue that the A-Wing's stock has gone down somewhat as your Counter 2 means very little if enemies are just waving at you as they pass by on their way to your capital ships and 3 blue dice is not great for actively chipping away at Intel blocks.

Wouldn't the counter be a space superiority wing? For imperials thats Howlrunner, Dengar, and 2 to 4 interceptors? That way your interceptors could hit with 5 dice, 6 with flight commander and boast 4 counter. And the investment is much less than a fireball.

The counter is a fighter wing activated with squadron commands, yes (and preferably with Flight Controllers too for the extra dice). As I mentioned earlier above in this post, you need to bring enough firepower to destroy other squadrons: simply tying things up is no longer something you can rely on, especially in the early game. Be careful of leaning too hard on Counter, however, as well-used Intel or Grit means you may simply be ignored.

I've also been thinking about how the Raider is built. It looks like it should have its own fighter escort to coordinate with. A couple fighters and a Raider could really chew up that fireball.

Be careful, though - the Raider is easy fodder for a Rhymerball of any description, even if hosing down a Rhymerball's arc with rerollable black flak dice is very appealing.

Are you reading shh out of context or just didn't read?

HERO, I've noticed you have an unfortunate tendency to accuse people who don't agree with you of not actually reading or understanding what you wrote. It's pretty offensive, as the underlying point is "clearly I'm right and the only reason others wouldn't agree is because somehow they're too lazy to read me or too intellectually deficient to understand me." This isn't to say that you shouldn't vigorously defend your position, but you're a lot more likely to convince people of your perspective if you don't speak down to them.

For what it's worth, I think this is a subject that's worthy of discussion. I think the Fireball is basically an upgraded Rhymerball that will definitely punish people still stuck in the Wave One mindset of "few to no squadrons will be sufficient for defense." Those who don't have that mindset are ahead of the curve, and once the meta shifts over to join them I think we'll see the effectiveness of the Fireball fade a bit as defenses pop up in fleets with more regularity and the Fireball's utility decreases. Getting the meta there faster is laudable.

The sky is not falling, I want to be perfectly f'n clear. It just dictates the flow of the meta and will punish those not prepared for it. Please don't words in my mouth or make sweeping assumptions to what I've described.

The fighter game is not remotely on the same wavelength when comparing Wave 1 to Wave 2. I can't take you seriously if you're making such a statement simplifying adaptation. Please explain this outrageous statement?

You will have to forgive me. Because What I mentioned was the fact that I enjoy the idea of the discussion, but what I do not agree with is the extreme levels of Negativity that you have attached to the topic.

For that, I present as snippets:

Intel is really good. It makes relying on a small number of squadrons to tie enemy squadrons up a questionable strategy. I think you now have to build to kill squadrons.

I made second at Nationals with 3 A-Wings. I don't expect I could pull that off in Wave 2 and that is largely due to Intel.

Whether its Fireball or Yavaris pumped B-Wings, with Intel around you need to be able to kill them to counter. That being said, I am pretty sure you could counter the above build with about 50% of it's cost in dedicated fighter squadrons.

I am pretty sure an MSU list could chew this thing to pieces. Mostly for one important fact, my 5-7 ships can cover the board, Rhymer is what makes this scary, and he can only be in one place at a time.

In essence I can space the ships out enough the Rhymer Ball can only effectively bring it's guns to bear on or two ships tops, Not even considering bids and objectives.

This trend does kind of concern me though, and it is pretty much totally to do with Ryhmer. He is so good you shouldn't leave home without him. Even if the remainder of your squadron points are spent on basic Tie Fighters.

Lets assume for an moment that the only way to deal with this is a massive fighter screen (for Rebels) or your very own Rhymer Ball. Basically what we have then is a massive squadron furball in the middle of the table, winner take all. That frankly sounds abysmal.

How so? The Fireball turns on a dime and has the threat range to cover ~speed-5. If you're playing objectives, the controlling player can just kill a few ships and force you to come to him. 5-7 ships means lighter ships with lighter upgrades, in which point he's more comfortable with the matchup knowing his superiority in firepower.

You're right though, Rhymer is really strong. But its the Intel that makes him even stronger.

Wouldn't the counter be a space superiority wing? For imperials thats Howlrunner, Dengar, and 2 to 4 interceptors? That way your interceptors could hit with 5 dice, 6 with flight commander and boast 4 counter. And the investment is much less than a fireball.

I've also been thinking about how the Raider is built. It looks like it should have its own fighter escort to coordinate with. A couple fighters and a Raider could really chew up that fireball.

Absolutely, which is why I mentioned I think Imperials have it stronger.

Howl, Dengar, and 4 Interceptors is enough to alpha strike the living HELL out of any Fireball. Sprinkle Raiders into the mix for fun.

Are you reading shh out of context or just didn't read?

HERO, I've noticed you have an unfortunate tendency to accuse people who don't agree with you of not actually reading or understanding what you wrote. It's pretty offensive, as the underlying point is "clearly I'm right and the only reason others wouldn't agree is because somehow they're too lazy to read me or too intellectually deficient to understand me." This isn't to say that you shouldn't vigorously defend your position, but you're a lot more likely to convince people of your perspective if you don't speak down to them.

For what it's worth, I think this is a subject that's worthy of discussion. I think the Fireball is basically an upgraded Rhymerball that will definitely punish people still stuck in the Wave One mindset of "few to no squadrons will be sufficient for defense." Those who don't have that mindset are ahead of the curve, and once the meta shifts over to join them I think we'll see the effectiveness of the Fireball fade a bit as defenses pop up in fleets with more regularity and the Fireball's utility decreases. Getting the meta there faster is laudable.

Yes, I am direct and to the point. For anyone who has ever read my material they know this to be true.

The point of the matter is, I wrote a very strong argument to the power level and threat level of the Fireball to make it a true meta-changer. I provided pictures, stats, my experience with it ingame, probable solutions, and arguments to why it will remain strong.

Unfortunately, I did not write so much to have it simplified to "the sky is falling", because that's not even what I set out to accomplish in the first place. Any comparisons made to Wave 1 is completely moot, like I've said in the original piece. Thus, I'm expecting, or at least hoping people either agree or disagree with me with the context that I've provided, or strong arguments of their own. So far, aside from "squadrons have been big in my meta for a while", I have not received anything I find useful. The only thing I've seen are broad, sweeping statements with arguably ludicrous wave 1 comparisons, which is a stark contrast to the specificity in the argument that I presented.

The sky is not falling, I want to be perfectly f'n clear. It just dictates the flow of the meta and will punish those not prepared for it. Please don't words in my mouth or make sweeping assumptions to what I've described.

The fighter game is not remotely on the same wavelength when comparing Wave 1 to Wave 2. I can't take you seriously if you're making such a statement simplifying adaptation. Please explain this outrageous statement?

You will have to forgive me. Because What I mentioned was the fact that I enjoy the idea of the discussion, but what I do not agree with is the extreme levels of Negativity that you have attached to the topic.

The Fireball tried to enter my Meta last weekend at our League gaming sessions... It shared only mixed success (2 players, 4 games, 2 wins, 2 losses, one of each to the players). The players of my meta seemed to take it on and not assign any more challenge to it than many other squadron builds that have been tested with, rather than succumbing to the negativity of the unbeatable. I posited that the REASON for this is, since Wave 1, and WELL into Wave 2, we have already been focused on Squadron related builds.

I think you're confusing what I'm saying is that the Fireball is unbeatable. Please, for the love of God, quote where I said it was unbeatable.

I did however, say that it was extremely powerful, self-sufficient, and will be a meta-change.

This is my biggest contention with what you're saying through all this, that you're deliberately putting words in my mouth, and then giving me incredibly loose examples to support your argument. What Fireballs are you even seeing in your meta? What were the lists like? What about their opponents? Are they tournament-level players? What strategies or tactics did they use so they felt decently matched and that the Fireball was not a threat?

This is the type of information I'm looking for, not fallacious quotes saying that I said the list was unbeatable, or that the sky is falling when it's clearly not.

The sky is not falling, I want to be perfectly f'n clear. It just dictates the flow of the meta and will punish those not prepared for it. Please don't words in my mouth or make sweeping assumptions to what I've described.

The fighter game is not remotely on the same wavelength when comparing Wave 1 to Wave 2. I can't take you seriously if you're making such a statement simplifying adaptation. Please explain this outrageous statement?

You will have to forgive me. Because What I mentioned was the fact that I enjoy the idea of the discussion, but what I do not agree with is the extreme levels of Negativity that you have attached to the topic.

For that, I present as snippets:

The amount of hull points, versatility, immunity to squadron commands, threat range, and damage potential is absolutely insane.

I think this inclusion is going to be one of the biggest threats to the Wave 2 meta.

It's a bad feeling and testament to the threat level of this meta-changer.

At the same time, you have a self-sufficient super squadron like the Fireball that makes command-reliant Rebel squadrons look like a complete joke.

Then stating that "Armchair Generals need not apply", and then completely ignoring my own, real life experience as I presented it, and then leaping on a statement which I made which was general in nature and not a statement quoting you at all.

You do not seem to be out for Discussion.

You have written an opinion piece, and you are out for vindication. A Vindication of Fear.

My own statement was in agreeance with you. That, yes. You will need to consider more than a Token A-Wing force. You Will need to consider a dedicated game plan for when it comes up.

The difference I am stating here, is a difference of Meta. Namely, My Meta is Not Your Meta.

The Fireball tried to enter my Meta last weekend at our League gaming sessions... It shared only mixed success (2 players, 4 games, 2 wins, 2 losses, one of each to the players). The players of my meta seemed to take it on and not assign any more challenge to it than many other squadron builds that have been tested with, rather than succumbing to the negativity of the unbeatable. I posited that the REASON for this is, since Wave 1, and WELL into Wave 2, we have already been focused on Squadron related builds.

What I do not agree with is the way you approach the subject from a point of overwhelming negativity, and then where you respond with aggressiveness to the point of pseudo swearing to get your point.

Beat me to it. Well put.

Intel is really good. It makes relying on a small number of squadrons to tie enemy squadrons up a questionable strategy. I think you now have to build to kill squadrons.

I made second at Nationals with 3 A-Wings. I don't expect I could pull that off in Wave 2 and that is largely due to Intel.

Whether its Fireball or Yavaris pumped B-Wings, with Intel around you need to be able to kill them to counter. That being said, I am pretty sure you could counter the above build with about 50% of it's cost in dedicated fighter squadrons.

Exactly.

Honestly if you know what your up against ahead of time you can always counter with the minimum amount of points, but this "arm chair general" will not be seen taking anything less a minimum of 87pts in the squadron department from now on. The combinations AND versatility that Intel offers are just too tempting to ignore.