Hi all,

I know that Demolisher has been everyone's nemesis/best friend lately, and calls of the title being broken have been pretty widespread, so I thought of a way that might help mitigate that. Instead of initiative going to the player with less list points, would it make more sense to give initiative to the player with less activations, and then if the players have the same number of activations, the tiebreaker could be points? That would mitigate the last/first advantage that seems to upset everyone. The player with less activations could still choose to go second as well, if they feel the objectives are powerful enough to risk it.

Disclaimer here is I don't think the game is broken in any way, but I do understand the concern that most folks have regarding the Demolisher hat trick. And obviously I haven't played test this or anything, just thinking out loud, really.

There are a couple activation rules from Imperial Assault that I really like.

1) You can pass if the opponent has more activations left than you. Diffuses a little bit of the power of having the most units.

2) Initiative switches every round. Obviously this doesn't work with Armada's objectives, unfortunately, but playing IA it's nice that you get to go first some of the time, and initiative bids aren't really a thing.

This is an interesting idea. I wonder if FFG toyed with this during initial play-testing of armada.

I don't like it myself. Planning your bid is in integral part of list building. If less activations was the bid criteria, then everyone would tend towards builds with 2 big ships, and would max out points at 400. I think it would actually lessen the diversity of fleet builds. It feels like creating a problem to 'fix' another one (not that I think Demolisher is a problem, at ALL).

Step One.

Outbid Demolisher. In either Points for First Player, or Activations for Activation Order.

Step Two.

Wreck Face.

Ramming the Demolisher is a great way to shut it down. Also, I have found that MC30s counter gladiators quite well.

Step One.

Outbid Demolisher. In either Points for First Player, or Activations for Activation Order.

Step Two.

Wreck Face.

Step Three.

$£$Profit£$£

You're probably right. It was just an idea I had so I figured I'd throw it out there. I also don't think Demolisher is a problem. If I suffer from being second player and being out activated I usually try to make it so that if my opponent does get that triple tap then he is getting hit by a bunch of bunch of other stuff after that.

This was meant to be less about Demolisher and more about the way initiative works.

I think a better way to fix the Demolisher problem is to have more objectives; ones that clearly favor 2nd player.

You could also compound this with a Commander that reads something like this:

-When you are the 2nd player, you choose which of your Mission objectives is played (instead of your opponent)

OR

-When you are the 2nd player, your opponent randomly chooses one of your Mission Objectives to play.

Step One.

Outbid Demolisher. In either Points for First Player, or Activations for Activation Order.

Step Two.

Wreck Face.

On topic though.

Nope. I like the initiative system

I think a better way to fix the Demolisher problem is to have more objectives; ones that clearly favor 2nd player.

You could also compound this with a Commander that reads something like this:

-When you are the 2nd player, you choose which of your Mission objectives is played (instead of your opponent)

OR

-When you are the 2nd player, your opponent randomly chooses one of your Mission Objectives to play.

I think this goes over the top. If you come up with objectives that heavily favor player 2, then the existing objectives will likely become immediately obsolete. Furthermore, taking the right to choose which obj is played away from player 1 will significantly shift the balance of power in the game to make player 2 what everyone bids (heavily) for. This game is very well balance, and the initiative systems works very well. There are advantages and disadvantages to both 1st and 2nd player. I see no reason to tamper with that.

I would suggest that changing the entire 1st player vs. 2nd player paradigm is going to break all kinds of other things when the problem is not the entire system, but that if a problem exists, it is just Demolisher.

A more direct fix for Demolisher would be the path I would consider, if I wanted to descend into this labyrinth.

Nope.

If you want to win, bid big.

demolisher has been good since wave 1. you just need to learn to play around it or take a list that can absorb the shock and then kill it afterwards. I use squadrons to harass and weaken demolisher till 1 of my ships can finish it off.

What if we just do away with first player and only have 2nd and 3rd players? Problem solved.

I think a better way to fix the Demolisher problem is to have more objectives; ones that clearly favor 2nd player.

You could also compound this with a Commander that reads something like this:

-When you are the 2nd player, you choose which of your Mission objectives is played (instead of your opponent)

OR

-When you are the 2nd player, your opponent randomly chooses one of your Mission Objectives to play.

I think this goes over the top. If you come up with objectives that heavily favor player 2, then the existing objectives will likely become immediately obsolete. Furthermore, taking the right to choose which obj is played away from player 1 will significantly shift the balance of power in the game to make player 2 what everyone bids (heavily) for. This game is very well balance, and the initiative systems works very well. There are advantages and disadvantages to both 1st and 2nd player. I see no reason to tamper with that.

I say this only operating under the paradigm that FFG does not errata stuff. I think there are better solutions than what I proposed here, but the thread was specific to how Initiative is determined. If we see bidding coming in at -30, -40, -50, i think there is a BIG Problem. That's effectively saying that Demolisher title is worth almost that number of points, because you can cost-benefit upto that amount of your list to secure 1st player becaues proccing a first/last with Demo is so effective. *If* that is true (and I'm not declaring it is for sure, I just don't know), then Demolisher is clearly broken and something needs to be done to fix it. The best thing would be to increase the cost of Demolisher, followed by errata-ing the rules. But if FFG is unwilling to do that, then I think there are a number of other ways they could indireclty fix it, not the least of which is favoring 2nd player.

To that end, I think there just need to be solid mission cards for each of the 3 mission types that squarely favor 2nd player. I was lazy/imprecise in my above statement that they need to clearly favor 2nd player; what I meant is that the player needs to be able to choose from all 3 mission types (assault, defense, and navigation) that have a 2nd player advantage. The advantage itself does not have to be enormous, but it does have to be explicitly favorable to the 2nd plaery. There is nothing controversial about this. Bidding to be the 2nd player means you sacrifice one thing for another, specifically, the opportunity to go first with the ability to have a battle on your terms. I don't think all the mission types that a player can choose from now clearly do that, because, I don't think at the time the objectives were written that FFG fully knew how much initiative bidding would become a thing (based on the likes of Demolisher).

To that end, in hindsight, yeah, I agree, a Commander that allows you to pick from your own missions if you are 2nd player is probably a bad idea. I don't think a Random choice is too bad, however.

A couple other spitball ideas:

-a ship title, commander or officer, that grants you some kind of bonus when attacking titled ships.

-a ship title, commander or officer, that grants a ship the ability to take some kind of "Attack of Opportunity" when an enemy ship comes within Range 1 of it

Step one. KILL Demolisher. Step two...Profit.

- Hondo Ohnaka

A couple other spitball ideas:

-a ship title, commander or officer, that grants you some kind of bonus when attacking titled ships.

-a ship title, commander or officer, that grants a ship the ability to take some kind of "Attack of Opportunity" when an enemy ship comes within Range 1 of it

These are more realistic suggestions. Obviously they don't fit the specific question that the OP was targeting (ie. changing the Initiative process), but in my opinion that is a good thing, because I don't believe the initiative process should be monkey'd with. It works rather well, as is.

All of this being said, again I am not in the camp that thinks Demolisher needs to be 'fixed.' It is a powerful title, no doubt. But it's high cost and uniqueness balance it out well enough. I do suspect that your first suggestion above of an upgrade that gains a bonus when attacking titled ships is not only a good idea, but an inevitable certainty to be released at some point.

I think a better way to fix the Demolisher problem is to have more objectives; ones that clearly favor 2nd player.

You could also compound this with a Commander that reads something like this:

-When you are the 2nd player, you choose which of your Mission objectives is played (instead of your opponent)

OR

-When you are the 2nd player, your opponent randomly chooses one of your Mission Objectives to play.

I think this goes over the top. If you come up with objectives that heavily favor player 2, then the existing objectives will likely become immediately obsolete. Furthermore, taking the right to choose which obj is played away from player 1 will significantly shift the balance of power in the game to make player 2 what everyone bids (heavily) for. This game is very well balance, and the initiative systems works very well. There are advantages and disadvantages to both 1st and 2nd player. I see no reason to tamper with that.

I say this only operating under the paradigm that FFG does not errata stuff. I think there are better solutions than what I proposed here, but the thread was specific to how Initiative is determined. If we see bidding coming in at -30, -40, -50, i think there is a BIG Problem. That's effectively saying that Demolisher title is worth almost that number of points, because you can cost-benefit upto that amount of your list to secure 1st player becaues proccing a first/last with Demo is so effective. *If* that is true (and I'm not declaring it is for sure, I just don't know), then Demolisher is clearly broken and something needs to be done to fix it. The best thing would be to increase the cost of Demolisher, followed by errata-ing the rules. But if FFG is unwilling to do that, then I think there are a number of other ways they could indireclty fix it, not the least of which is favoring 2nd player.

To that end, I think there just need to be solid mission cards for each of the 3 mission types that squarely favor 2nd player. I was lazy/imprecise in my above statement that they need to clearly favor 2nd player; what I meant is that the player needs to be able to choose from all 3 mission types (assault, defense, and navigation) that have a 2nd player advantage. The advantage itself does not have to be enormous, but it does have to be explicitly favorable to the 2nd plaery. There is nothing controversial about this. Bidding to be the 2nd player means you sacrifice one thing for another, specifically, the opportunity to go first with the ability to have a battle on your terms. I don't think all the mission types that a player can choose from now clearly do that, because, I don't think at the time the objectives were written that FFG fully knew how much initiative bidding would become a thing (based on the likes of Demolisher).

To that end, in hindsight, yeah, I agree, a Commander that allows you to pick from your own missions if you are 2nd player is probably a bad idea. I don't think a Random choice is too bad, however.

A couple other spitball ideas:

-a ship title, commander or officer, that grants you some kind of bonus when attacking titled ships.

-a ship title, commander or officer, that grants a ship the ability to take some kind of "Attack of Opportunity" when an enemy ship comes within Range 1 of it

Those are good ideas, really like the commander/officer/title ones.

I will reiterate that I do not think the game NEEDS to be fixed nor that Demolisher is broken. I simply had this idea due to the discussion revolving around Demolisher and wondered if anyone thought it might worth any merit. In hindsight I shouldn't have even mentioned the-ship-which-must-not-be-named due to the hornets nest it kicks up.

So what I'm getting here is you want us to discuss Demolisher and how you think it's broken. Let me be the first to say how wrong you are.

most people are so scared of my Demo...that they forget that my other 2 GSDs are kitted the same with no title....so still get a double tap instead of the triple..hell I have even used a Raider for a single tap (the side barely helps)....if nothing else will get a shot that turn. Using a black dice list, that is really the only way to get shots off. Otherwise, if you end up being second player you have to engage two ships with two ships....let him move one away...then the other might get a hit. Possibly losing one of your ships in the process.

Either way initiative is key for a black/blue dice list. If you don't like it then bid beneath me and screw up my game plan. If I can come up with a good list at 380+...then a red dice list should as well. Which is what some people have done, and regardless my demolisher gets eaten by bombers.... ha.

What if we just do away with first player and only have 2nd and 3rd players? Problem solved.

Get back under your bridge, you.

So what I'm getting here is you want us to discuss Demolisher and how you think it's broken. Let me be the first to say how wrong you are.

I can't speak for the author, maybe he thinks it's broken. I don't think it's broken, but I do think it's imbalanced. Where the exact semantic difference is between those 2 labels lies, I'm not sure. I would argue that anything that shows up with the degree of ubiquity that "Demolisher" does means there is something wrong. As it is so prevalent, so ubiquitous, that means there is probably something wrong the the pricing. And, because of it's power, people design lists specifcally around being able to answer that threat.

No one says "I have to take 'x' because I might see Instigator show up".

The ubiquity of Demolisher and the requirement for opponents to have an answer to it (and the fact that all competitive players design lists with it in mind) means there is a problem with it.

So what I'm getting here is you want us to discuss Demolisher and how you think it's broken. Let me be the first to say how wrong you are.

I can't speak for the author, maybe he thinks it's broken. I don't think it's broken, but I do think it's imbalanced. Where the exact semantic difference is between those 2 labels lies, I'm not sure. I would argue that anything that shows up with the degree of ubiquity that "Demolisher" does means there is something wrong. As it is so prevalent, so ubiquitous, that means there is probably something wrong the the pricing. And, because of it's power, people design lists specifcally around being able to answer that threat.

No one says "I have to take 'x' because I might see Instigator show up".

The ubiquity of Demolisher and the requirement for opponents to have an answer to it (and the fact that all competitive players design lists with it in mind) means there is a problem with it.

I was being sarcastic. Caldias clarified in the post just before mine (and in the OP) that he did not feel Demo was broken. I was making a joke in that everyone seems to be ignoring that so they can soapbox more on how Demo is or is not broken when that wasn't the subject on the discussion.