This just in: Demolisher title is good.

Its not demolisher that is the issue. Demolisher only adds one volley after moving, which most (corvettes and raiders excluded) ships can absorb. If you have a decent unactivated ship to respond after his attack run you can squash him.

The thing that makes it lethal is first turn and activation superiority.

Having said that, any MC30 or Gladiator with first turn and activation superiority can be almost as lethal. That's what you guys need to find a counter for.

I think FFG dropped the ball with their under-bidding mechanic.

A better one, IMO, would have been that the player with the least activations is automatically the first player.

I would also have kept the 'least points chooses objectives' mechanic.

So a fleet could never (in the opening turns) have both the last and first activations. The only way to get first and last activations would be to destroy enemy ships.

Having the first/last advantage is worth WAY more than the five or six points you might have under-bid to pay for it.

"Having the first/last advantage is worth WAY more than the five or six points you might have under-bid to pay for it."

How much is it worth?

Its not demolisher that is the issue. Demolisher only adds one volley after moving, which most (corvettes and raiders excluded) ships can absorb. If you have a decent unactivated ship to respond after his attack run you can squash him.

The thing that makes it lethal is first turn and activation superiority.

Having said that, any MC30 or Gladiator with first turn and activation superiority can be almost as lethal. That's what you guys need to find a counter for.

I think FFG dropped the ball with their under-bidding mechanic.

A better one, IMO, would have been that the player with the least activations is automatically the first player.

I would also have kept the 'least points chooses objectives' mechanic.

So a fleet could never (in the opening turns) have both the last and first activations. The only way to get first and last activations would be to destroy enemy ships.

Having the first/last advantage is worth WAY more than the five or six points you might have under-bid to pay for it.

The problem is if you give first activation to whoever has the least activations going in, doesn't that just incentivize large ships more than the game already does? I see plenty of folks running 2-3 ships nowadays (2 is... risky, and I'm not a fan; others are though).

Plus the weirdness of the objectives and first/second being disjointed would be very odd, I think. You'd get some weird combinations with that.

"Having the first/last advantage is worth WAY more than the five or six points you might have under-bid to pay for it."

How much is it worth?

A lot.

Its not demolisher that is the issue. Demolisher only adds one volley after moving, which most (corvettes and raiders excluded) ships can absorb. If you have a decent unactivated ship to respond after his attack run you can squash him.

The thing that makes it lethal is first turn and activation superiority.

Having said that, any MC30 or Gladiator with first turn and activation superiority can be almost as lethal. That's what you guys need to find a counter for.

I think FFG dropped the ball with their under-bidding mechanic.

A better one, IMO, would have been that the player with the least activations is automatically the first player.

I would also have kept the 'least points chooses objectives' mechanic.

So a fleet could never (in the opening turns) have both the last and first activations. The only way to get first and last activations would be to destroy enemy ships.

Having the first/last advantage is worth WAY more than the five or six points you might have under-bid to pay for it.

The problem is if you give first activation to whoever has the least activations going in, doesn't that just incentivize large ships more than the game already does? I see plenty of folks running 2-3 ships nowadays (2 is... risky, and I'm not a fan; others are though).

Plus the weirdness of the objectives and first/second being disjointed would be very odd, I think. You'd get some weird combinations with that.

The MSS (many small ships) lists still have a lot of advantages. You'd still get multiple activations in a row (just not twice from the same ship) you get more mileage from your defense tokens (simply because you have more of them) and you devalue incoming enemy fire as well as getting more mileage out of your own firepower. 6 dice is not as efficient as 2 x 3 dice. One of the reason Clontroper's list has been so effective is that it is possible, using all of those activations, to never move into range of an enemy ship unless that ship has already activated. If anything, I think the current state of the game already incentivises the MSS lists a touch too much.

And yes, it would take people a while to get used to a separation of the first player, from the player who chooses the objectives but in the grand scheme of things (and especially in a hypothetical scenario where the game had ALWAYS been designed this way) I don't think it would upset too many people.

Its not demolisher that is the issue. Demolisher only adds one volley after moving, which most (corvettes and raiders excluded) ships can absorb. If you have a decent unactivated ship to respond after his attack run you can squash him.

The thing that makes it lethal is first turn and activation superiority.

Having said that, any MC30 or Gladiator with first turn and activation superiority can be almost as lethal. That's what you guys need to find a counter for.

I think FFG dropped the ball with their under-bidding mechanic.

A better one, IMO, would have been that the player with the least activations is automatically the first player.

I would also have kept the 'least points chooses objectives' mechanic.

So a fleet could never (in the opening turns) have both the last and first activations. The only way to get first and last activations would be to destroy enemy ships.

Having the first/last advantage is worth WAY more than the five or six points you might have under-bid to pay for it.

You mean they dropped the ball with being strategic with how you build your list and what you feel is acceptable in going under to try and make your lists?

Except with that many blue dice, braces are not an issue, due to accuracy, or even Home One guaranteeing an accuracy.

An Imperial II can get front arc (last activation) then go first and double tap quite easily. And the best thing is taking Avenger and OLP for that double tap, so end of round you eat 4/8 dice, then you get a side arc of 4 dice, one of which exhausts all your Def tokens, then you get to eat the front arc again, except you have no tokens do anything with.

Imperial II

Darth Vader

Captain Needa

Overload Pulse

Turbolaser Reroute Circuits

Avenger

( 4 red+ 4 blue, then 2 red+3 blue, then 4 red, 4 blue no def tokens.)

Victory I

Intel Officer

Ordnance Experts

H9 Turbolasers

Expanded Launchers

Dominator

(So last activation 3 red+2 blue+6 black, then first activation, 3 red+2 blue+6 black, + 2 red, 1 black, 2 blue, for a grand total of 8 red, 13 black, 6 blue.) with 3 accuracys and 2 intel officer uses.

And I am sure there are many other crazy builds out there that just need, one end + one start of round activation sequence to destroy anything before it can react.

ECM beats accuracy - need Intel officer and high damage to remove the Brace.

Using much slower, much larger, much more expensive ships to compare to the demolisher is unfair.

How are you going to get activation advantage with the ISD2? An ISD 2 + 5 naked Raiders?

How are you going to get in range for your double-tap with your VSD 1 on a speed 2 ship that can't take Engine Techs?

Could I have a diagram and/or written explanation of either approach?

ECM does not beat accuracy, you get to use it once as it is a tap ability, so with a double tap from Avenger you aren't using that ECM or Brace or anything else, as the first hit triggers Overload Pulse.

I played yesterday in a tournament, 14 players, 7 rebels, 7 Imperial, I was the only imperial to have a Gladiator one, no one else had a Gladiator period, 2 or 3 ships was the norm for everyone, 3 of us had 5 ships, Me as an Imperial and 2 as Rebels.

So you do not need 5 ships to guarantee activation advantage, you certainly did not in that Tournament yesterday. You seem to be taking everything in a bubble by itself. Why is Demolisher doing 9 damage, 9 damage, 6 damage? I never once rolled close to that yesterday with mine, and that was with Screed and Ordnance Experts. But if Demolisher is being vilified because it can theoretically roll 9/9/6, that means I can state Theoretically an ISD II can deal 12 damage (with tokens) 6 damage (with Tokens) 12 damage (No Tokens) and 12 damage is enough to kill anything except a full health Motti ISD, which would have 2 HPs remaining.

And with Ship activations and Objectives it is quite possible to get any ship into position to capitalise upon its forwards array, for that one turn, or perhaps we aren't allowed to theoretically assume as you are doing?

It is not simple to get Demolisher into position to double arc, it is not easy to get max damage on 3 separate rolls either, in fact I'd say the odds are ridiculously improbable, which kind of makes your whole argument moot.

You mean they dropped the ball with being strategic with how you build your list and what you feel is acceptable in going under to try and make your lists?

They dropped the ball by making points the strategic factor, as opposed to ship activations.

You mean they dropped the ball with being strategic with how you build your list and what you feel is acceptable in going under to try and make your lists?

They dropped the ball by making points the strategic factor, as opposed to ship activations.

Except having the least amount of ships, giving you player one makes zero sense, as surely the more ships you have the more tactical/strategic choices you have over your opponent, as you can do many things to their few, and that sans raider means Rebels would virtually always be player one, as they have more ship choices and cheaper ships, so perhaps FFG did not drop the ball.

Bidding is a perfectly fine and even way of deciding player one, you both get the choice of how you spend your points, and you both get the same decisions to make, do I want to get player one? hmm How bad do I want to be player one? I'll shave this much off of my build then, and it is fair because you both get to do so.

Except having the least amount of ships, giving you player one makes zero sense, as surely the more ships you have the more tactical/strategic choices you have over your opponent, as you can do many things to their few, and that sans raider means Rebels would virtually always be player one, as they have more ship choices and cheaper ships, so perhaps FFG did not drop the ball.

You're saying a lot here, so I'm going to address each point individually.

1 - "the more ships you have the more tactical/strategic choices you have over your opponent, as you can do many things to their few"

Sure. But the decision as to who activates first is entirely arbitrary. Why would having less 'resources' (points) give a player a table-top advantage? Surely the Rebels, by dint of being a rebellion, should always have less resources than the Empire and thus always be the second player in a Rebel/Imperial match-up? The decision as to who has the first activation should be based of game-play mechanics, not theme.

2 - "sans raider means Rebels would virtually always be player one, as they have more ship choices and cheaper ships"

Rebels also have some bigger, more expensive ships and the Imperials also have some cheaper ships. So no, Rebels would not always be player one. And besides, you've got it back to front. The player with the LEAST activations should always be player 1.

Bidding is a perfectly fine and even way of deciding player one, you both get the choice of how you spend your points, and you both get the same decisions to make, do I want to get player one? hmm How bad do I want to be player one? I'll shave this much off of my build then, and it is fair because you both get to do so.

Everything you've said is also applicable to activations. Want to be the first player? Cut down on ships. Want to have a run of activations after your opponents ships? Take more smaller ships. And again, you both get the same decisions to make in regards to how you build your lists.

Wait what. . . rebels have the more expensive ships?

CR90, cheaper than the raider. Assault Frigate, cheaper than the VSD, MC80, Cheaper than the ISD. . . what do they have in expense again?

Why should they have limited the strategy of the game so that X player would be first? That invalidates the need of knowing if you should be first player or not. It is not always a good idea to be first player for instance.

Wait what. . . rebels have the more expensive ships?

CR90, cheaper than the raider. Assault Frigate, cheaper than the VSD, MC80, Cheaper than the ISD. . . what do they have in expense again?

Why should they have limited the strategy of the game so that X player would be first? That invalidates the need of knowing if you should be first player or not. It is not always a good idea to be first player for instance.

I said rebels have SOME more expensive ships. Not THE most expensive ships. In a system where first activation would be determined by ship count, not point count, either faction could easily bid for first or second activation. And it would neatly minimise the last/first double tap.

Wait what. . . rebels have the more expensive ships?

CR90, cheaper than the raider. Assault Frigate, cheaper than the VSD, MC80, Cheaper than the ISD. . . what do they have in expense again?

Why should they have limited the strategy of the game so that X player would be first? That invalidates the need of knowing if you should be first player or not. It is not always a good idea to be first player for instance.

I said rebels have SOME more expensive ships. Not THE most expensive ships. In a system where first activation would be determined by ship count, not point count, either faction could easily bid for first or second activation. And it would neatly minimise the last/first double tap.

Except they do not, as Lyraeus already pointed out. Either the Rebels go first because they have more ships, or Imperials go first because they have less ships, so tell me again how FFG dropped the ball.

The system as it stands works perfectly, you can not spend as much as your opponent to go first, burning points, because they do not do anything for you, other than give you a chance at selecting player one.

My second to last tournament I played a 4 ship Imperial Fleet, and ended up with a 384pts build, because I could literally not spend the points else where and it not take me over 388pts, and that was an Imp II, Glad I, 2x Raider 1 fleet, and guess what, all my opponents had 5 ships, had spent 399 or 400 points, and because they had 5 ships, it meant 2 of theirs got to activate after mine, so no triple tap from either the Imp II or the Glad for me, even though I had an amazingly low bid, and had the dreaded Gladiator Demolisher, seems like a good system to me.

Doesn't matter the means of determining who is first player, there will always be a list that would abuse the method.

Either the Rebels go first because they have more ships, or Imperials go first because they have less ships, so tell me again how FFG dropped the ball.

If the Rebels have the most ships, then their opponent would go first.

FFG dropped the ball by allowing the last/first double tap and not addressing it.

The system as it stands works perfectly

If you don't mind the last/first double tap, then I guess it does.

I do mind it, as do other people on this thread. Therefore the system doesn't work perfectly for me.

My second to last tournament I played a 4 ship Imperial Fleet, and ended up with a 384pts build, because I could literally not spend the points else where and it not take me over 388pts, and that was an Imp II, Glad I, 2x Raider 1 fleet, and guess what, all my opponents had 5 ships, had spent 399 or 400 points, and because they had 5 ships, it meant 2 of theirs got to activate after mine, so no triple tap from either the Imp II or the Glad for me, even though I had an amazingly low bid, and had the dreaded Gladiator Demolisher, seems like a good system to me.

Good for you, but anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. It doesn't address the visible flaws in the system which is that the last/first activation is easily attainable and whichever player gains the ability to double-tap gains a massive advantage for comparatively small cost.

I mean discussing this is all well and good, but the fervor Chucklenuckle has worked himself into feels pointless given that the Armada crew won't be changing the initiative system they created for the game* because one guy on a forum somewhere really doesn't like 5-ship Imperial lists with a Demolisher in them. If you want to put your effort into something that will actually have a pay off, I'd recommend working within the framework of the game as it stands.

*Presumably after playtesting and trying various methods before coming to a consensus.

Why does everyone forget that this is a game of skill. . . There is no "one list to rule them all", there is no "one strategy to beat them all".

To beat someone who out activates you, you have to keep ow how to jump in and know when to slow down. Sure they have the Demolisher but if you know how to control your speed not every player will be able to fly it like Clontroper5 did nor will they fly it the same way.

Figure out what objectives they hate and force it upon them. Find out what they don't want to do and make them do it.

Strategy and tactics. That is the game we play.

I have won against MSU lists with only 2 ships, I have won against 2 and 3 ship lists with 5 activations.

Practice and experience are key here. Without those then you get these silly knee jerks reactions.

I mean honestly, what are we on, thread 4 of knee jerk on clontroper5? It is just like the GenCon Special all over again.

...This is what happens when you don't feed us any news FFG...

ARE YOU HAPPY NOW!?!?!

ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED!?!?!

Either the Rebels go first because they have more ships, or Imperials go first because they have less ships, so tell me again how FFG dropped the ball.

If the Rebels have the most ships, then their opponent would go first.

FFG dropped the ball by allowing the last/first double tap and not addressing it.

The system as it stands works perfectly

If you don't mind the last/first double tap, then I guess it does.

I do mind it, as do other people on this thread. Therefore the system doesn't work perfectly for me.

My second to last tournament I played a 4 ship Imperial Fleet, and ended up with a 384pts build, because I could literally not spend the points else where and it not take me over 388pts, and that was an Imp II, Glad I, 2x Raider 1 fleet, and guess what, all my opponents had 5 ships, had spent 399 or 400 points, and because they had 5 ships, it meant 2 of theirs got to activate after mine, so no triple tap from either the Imp II or the Glad for me, even though I had an amazingly low bid, and had the dreaded Gladiator Demolisher, seems like a good system to me.

Good for you, but anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. It doesn't address the visible flaws in the system which is that the last/first activation is easily attainable and whichever player gains the ability to double-tap gains a massive advantage for comparatively small cost.

Except it is not anecdotal, I have played in 5 tournaments since Massing of Sullust this year, so 4 after wave 2 launched, and not one fleet won them all, not a single fleet choice was repeated over and over by every single person, I already told you out of the 14 players only 3 had more than 3 ships and only one had a gladiator, again not anecdotal because this actually happened these fleets were used in a 14 person Tournament yesterday, do you even understand what Anecdotal means?

It's not a "what if ?", if your opinions and statements were true everyone would, who plays competitively be using max ships low bids, except they aren't at all, I have not seen this, you are on the other hand offering a theory and having the bald faced cheek to say the system is flawed, the system is not flawed, your idea of it being flawed, IS flawed, period.

Edited to add, it is nice of you to completely ignore objectives as well, which are the balance to not being player one, Objectives and deployment can cripple an opposing player, before the game even begins.

Rieekan. The answer is always Rieekan. He's kind of like the 42 of the Star Wars universe. I see your first/last double tap and go Sherlock Holmes Reichenbach on your ass.

Except it is not anecdotal, I have played in 5 tournaments since Massing of Sullust this year, so 4 after wave 2 launched, and not one fleet won them all, not a single fleet choice was repeated over and over by every single person, I already told you out of the 14 players only 3 had more than 3 ships and only one had a gladiator, again not anecdotal because this actually happened these fleets were used in a 14 person Tournament yesterday, do you even understand what Anecdotal means?

Uh, an anecdote is a story from your personal experience.

Which is cool and all, but has no bearing on the game at large.

It's not a "what if ?", if your opinions and statements were true everyone would, who plays competitively be using max ships low bids, except they aren't at all, I have not seen this, you are on the other hand offering a theory and having the bald faced cheek to say the system is flawed, the system is not flawed, your idea of it being flawed, IS flawed, period.

See, you can't just say "Nuh uh, I'm right and you're wrong".

Which is what you're doing here. If you don't want to participate in a discussion, then by all means feel free to post. But if you're going to participate, I'd appreciate it if you brought something to the table.

Bald faced cheek? It's not bald faced cheek to point out something you consider to be a flaw in the rules.

I know a lot of you consider FFGs rules to be flawless, and Armada to be the pinnacle of rules design, but I think if you took your tongues out of FFG's assholes for five minutes you might get a bit of perspective.

The last/first activation is a powerful maneuver. It allows a ship to move into range, fire several times, then move away without the target ship ever having a chance to respond, and that is a mechanic that FFG should have addressed when writing the core rules.

I mean discussing this is all well and good, but the fervor Chucklenuckle has worked himself into feels pointless given that the Armada crew won't be changing the initiative system they created for the game* because one guy on a forum somewhere really doesn't like 5-ship Imperial lists with a Demolisher in them. If you want to put your effort into something that will actually have a pay off, I'd recommend working within the framework of the game as it stands.

*Presumably after playtesting and trying various methods before coming to a consensus.

Fervor? Really? I mean, if you say so, bub.

Funny in the store championship game i jusy played in Demolisher was not a factor even with him going 1st.

When i played him i saw which was his targets and had bwings in place. Yes he got the long range and up close shot. But then the b wings chewed him up. 1st caused him to burn his redirect and lost his port and aft shields. Second scores 3 dmg again and he spends brace. But the crit selected by gen dodanna was the one where he cant use spent defense tokens. So two hull points dmg.

His tie interceptors moved in, but the hwk made them heavy and she fired a blue for a miss, followed by the last b wing for 3 more. And i still had 2 x wings and 2 a wings in range

Except it is not anecdotal, I have played in 5 tournaments since Massing of Sullust this year, so 4 after wave 2 launched, and not one fleet won them all, not a single fleet choice was repeated over and over by every single person, I already told you out of the 14 players only 3 had more than 3 ships and only one had a gladiator, again not anecdotal because this actually happened these fleets were used in a 14 person Tournament yesterday, do you even understand what Anecdotal means?

Uh, an anecdote is a story from your personal experience.

Which is cool and all, but has no bearing on the game at large.

It's not a "what if ?", if your opinions and statements were true everyone would, who plays competitively be using max ships low bids, except they aren't at all, I have not seen this, you are on the other hand offering a theory and having the bald faced cheek to say the system is flawed, the system is not flawed, your idea of it being flawed, IS flawed, period.

See, you can't just say "Nuh uh, I'm right and you're wrong".

Which is what you're doing here. If you don't want to participate in a discussion, then by all means feel free to post. But if you're going to participate, I'd appreciate it if you brought something to the table.

Bald faced cheek? It's not bald faced cheek to point out something you consider to be a flaw in the rules.

I know a lot of you consider FFGs rules to be flawless, and Armada to be the pinnacle of rules design, but I think if you took your tongues out of FFG's assholes for five minutes you might get a bit of perspective.

The last/first activation is a powerful maneuver. It allows a ship to move into range, fire several times, then move away without the target ship ever having a chance to respond, and that is a mechanic that FFG should have addressed when writing the core rules.

Ancedotal means made up, not factual.

Well my friend I have factual provable evidence that people are not all building the same fleets, they are not all trying like mad to spend as low as possible, this is not a story, I am not imagining it, in the last 3 months I have played in 5 tournaments, with on average 10 people per tournament, I never once saw a duplicate fleet, meaning everyone was using something different, 50 different people had 50 different fleets, a fact, not something I am imagining, which is what you are doing when you claim, that being player one and having a load of ships is that powerful, its a flaw in the system, yet not once have I seen this to be true, in my travels around the UK playing this game competitively. People win games as player two! I know, I know it must have been a hallucination of mine, I never saw all them 2 ship fleets winning games....a mirage.

Being player two and having your objective is just as potent as being player one is...hence why I and most of the others here think the system works, not because we all like imagining things that aren't true, but because from personal factual experience we have seen that many different fleets are viable to win with, and that being player two can be just as big an advantage, again not a story.

Funny in the store championship game i jusy played in Demolisher was not a factor even with him going 1st.

When i played him i saw which was his targets and had bwings in place. Yes he got the long range and up close shot. But then the b wings chewed him up. 1st caused him to burn his redirect and lost his port and aft shields. Second scores 3 dmg again and he spends brace. But the crit selected by gen dodanna was the one where he cant use spent defense tokens. So two hull points dmg.

His tie interceptors moved in, but the hwk made them heavy and she fired a blue for a miss, followed by the last b wing for 3 more. And i still had 2 x wings and 2 a wings in range