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.

That's... some ropey reasoning. I would argue that the reason Demolisher shows up so much is because it is priced precisely correctly.

Demolisher is popular not because it's broken or unbalanced, but because it is always useful. Like Gunnery Teams, Electronic Countermeasures, X17 Turbolasers, Leading Shots, these things are all very common because on the ships that benefit from them, they're invariably beneficial in just about every game. It doesn't mean they're broken - it just means you'll never regret taking them.

Instigator doesn't require a countermeasure because it won't always be useful. Indeed, if you're not taking bombers, then you have nothing to fear from Instigator. The same goes for the other Gladiator title, Insidious - it's actually a fantastic upgrade, arguably worth a lot more than 3 points when you get to use it - but the occasions when you do get to use it, and where it makes a difference, are very few and far between.

It's why I always take an Imperial-class Star Destroyer. Not only do I love it (more than a friend), but there's never a moment when it isn't useful.

The other thing with Demolisher is that it's fun. It's a fun upgrade to have on a ship, and so people enjoy adding it to their fleet.

But ubiquity does not equal overpoweredness, or imbalance - I don't believe you are measurably getting more out of Demolisher than you would out of spending those ten points elsewhere. Indeed, you could instead take an extra TIE Bomber, which would likely be more useful in some fleets, or you could put an Intel Officer on the Gladiator instead, and increase your bid by three points - which I would argue is also a compelling alternative. But Demolisher is just more fun than either of those.

I don't see going first as a good thing. going 2nd lets me set up just out of range traps. you move into range to fire next turn I shoot your first ship with a ship that can move and turn out of your best arc. you move another to help the first ship I shoot the first ship again most likely killing it and move to a place out of range of your non activated ships or out of your best shot. I never move closer if at all possible. The other player always seems to charge in giving me a better shot then they had.

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.

That's... some ropey reasoning. I would argue that the reason Demolisher shows up so much is because it is priced precisely correctly.

Demolisher is popular not because it's broken or unbalanced, but because it is always useful. Like Gunnery Teams, Electronic Countermeasures, X17 Turbolasers, Leading Shots, these things are all very common because on the ships that can take them, they're invariable useful in just about every game. Not every ship will benefit from each of those upgrades, but most will - especially the larger ships. It doesn't mean they're broken - it just means you'll never regret taking them.

Instigator doesn't require a countermeasure because it won't always be useful. Indeed, if you're not taking bombers, then you have nothing to fear from Instigator. The same goes for the other Gladiator title, Insidious - it's actually a fantastic upgrade, arguable worth a lot more than 3 points when you get to use it - but the occasions when you do get to use it, and it makes a difference, are very few and far between.

It's why I always take an Imperial-class Star Destroyer. Not only do I love it (more than a friend), but there's never a moment when it isn't useful.

The other thing with Demolisher is that it's fun. It's a fun upgrade to have on a ship, and so people enjoy adding it to their fleet.

But ubiquity does not equal overpoweredness, or imbalance - I don't believe you are measurably getting more out of Demolisher than you would out of spending those ten points elsewhere. Indeed, you could instead take an extra TIE Bomber, which would likely be more useful in some fleets, or you could put an Intel Officer on the Gladiator instead, and increase your bid by three points - which I would argue is also a compelling alternative. But Demolisher is just more fun than either of those.

I could be mentally retarded, but I think you are making my point for me.

"That's... some ropey reasoning. I would argue that the reason Demolisher shows up so much is because it is priced precisely correctly." Um...I can't even imagine how you come to that conclusion. If something shows up all the time, that is not evidence of it being appropriately costed. That's evidence that it is priced too cheaply.

"Instigator doesn't require a countermeasure because it won't always be useful." This is entirely my point. And it's appropriately valued at 4 pts. (or, possibly too high). That's why you see it sometimes, and not all the time.

"But ubiquity does not equal overpoweredness, or imbalance". It's not proof of...but it is evidence of.

"The other thing with Demolisher is that it's fun." I would absolutely agree with this. But I think we have to concede that part of the reason it's fun is because it makes the ship much easier to use.

Finally, I will say that, in my opinion, if something is ALWAYS useful, it needs to be priced appropriately. 10 pts is not appropriate, if it it shows up all the time.

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.

My bad.

I think the whole tourney scoring process, initiative and objective selection process... just makes the game more interesting/fun/engaging to play!

When you think of Objectives... how many permutations do we have to choose from?

And lastly, during the Old Republic Days (sorry, not a huge Star Wars fanboy so I don't know if that was the correct joke), the GenCon Special went first in maybe one of five rounds?

"That's... some ropey reasoning. I would argue that the reason Demolisher shows up so much is because it is priced precisely correctly." Um...I can't even imagine how you come to that conclusion. If something shows up all the time, that is not evidence of it being appropriately costed. That's evidence that it is priced too cheaply.

"Instigator doesn't require a countermeasure because it won't always be useful." This is entirely my point. And it's appropriately valued at 4 pts. (or, possibly too high). That's why you see it sometimes, and not all the time.

"But ubiquity does not equal overpoweredness, or imbalance". It's not proof of...but it is evidence of.

"The other thing with Demolisher is that it's fun." I would absolutely agree with this. But I think we have to concede that part of the reason it's fun is because it makes the ship much easier to use.

Finally, I will say that, in my opinion, if something is ALWAYS useful, it needs to be priced appropriately. 10 pts is not appropriate, if it it shows up all the time.

So the issue here is that you're making the statement that if something shows up all the time, it is therefore broken / poorly balanced. That's the bit that's ropey.

"If something shows up all the time, that is not evidence of it being appropriately costed. That's evidence that it is priced too cheaply." - No, no it really isn't. That is simply evidence that it's popular. It may well be popular because it's priced too cheaply - but one doesn't automatically follow from the other. It could also be popular because it's a good upgrade that is worth its points. So long as it is perceived as Not being over-costed, then it will be a valid choice - that's not the same as saying it's under-costed.

"That's why you see it sometimes, and not all the time." - This is the weak point in the argument that Demolisher is imbalanced. How frequently is an upgrade allowed to show up before it counts as being imbalanced? How frequently is any element allowed to show up before it's imbalanced? And in what sort of sample size? If a group of players just don't use Raiders very often, then Instigator won't be a very common sight. However, Instigator has featured in about 90% of the games I have played - because it's a title I really like on a ship that I really like. Does that mean it's broken?

Put another way, the majority of fleets that can feature Electronic Countermeasures usually do so. Does that mean it's broken, too?

""But ubiquity does not equal overpoweredness, or imbalance". It's not proof of...but it is evidence of." - Again, no, for all the reasons already stated.

What WOULD be evidence of Demolisher being over-powered would be if fleets that included it had a higher ratio of wins-to-losses than fleets that didn't include it - and that would be a difficult study to execute, given the many variables in fleet composition.

Your reasoning is that because it is popular, it must therefore be an unfair upgrade. Correct me on that if I'm wrong.

However, here's an alternative: it is an upgrade that is entirely fairly priced, but it is always useful on Gladiator-class Star Destroyers. Put another way, if you have a Gladiator-class Star Destroyer as part of your fleet, Demolisher will always be a positive addition to that ship, because it is costed fairly - it is not under-costed, but it is also not over-costed.

The popularity with Demolisher isn't due to it being under-costed: it's that the alternative for that upgrade slot is a fairly situational upgrade that is also fairly-costed, but not as useful.

Compare it to the Ordnance upgrade slot on the MC30C - you could either take APTs or ACMs - both are strong choices, and so you don't necessarily see either "all of the time", because they compete against each other. However, I would argue that you DO see one or the other "all of the time" - because it's a great upgrade slot that compliments the ship. Neither upgrade is broken, but it's always worth taking one or the other - in this instance, you just happen to have a choice.

In the case of Demolisher, it isn't competing against a similarly useful upgrade. Insidious just can't compete with Demolisher because it won't always be useful, whereas Demolisher will - and you would expect Demolisher to be more useful, because it's a more expensive upgrade. But not necessarily an unfair one.

I should point out, by the way, that a rigorous scientific study might find Demolisher to actually be under-costed, I'm not ruling that out. But the reasoning that it's popular, therefore it is unfair, doesn't hold up.

"That's... some ropey reasoning. I would argue that the reason Demolisher shows up so much is because it is priced precisely correctly." Um...I can't even imagine how you come to that conclusion. If something shows up all the time, that is not evidence of it being appropriately costed. That's evidence that it is priced too cheaply.

"Instigator doesn't require a countermeasure because it won't always be useful." This is entirely my point. And it's appropriately valued at 4 pts. (or, possibly too high). That's why you see it sometimes, and not all the time.

"But ubiquity does not equal overpoweredness, or imbalance". It's not proof of...but it is evidence of.

"The other thing with Demolisher is that it's fun." I would absolutely agree with this. But I think we have to concede that part of the reason it's fun is because it makes the ship much easier to use.

Finally, I will say that, in my opinion, if something is ALWAYS useful, it needs to be priced appropriately. 10 pts is not appropriate, if it it shows up all the time.

So the issue here is that you're making the statement that if something shows up all the time, it is therefore broken / poorly balanced. That's the bit that's ropey.

"If something shows up all the time, that is not evidence of it being appropriately costed. That's evidence that it is priced too cheaply." - No, no it really isn't. That is simply evidence that it's popular. It may well be popular because it's priced too cheaply - but one doesn't automatically follow from the other. It could also be popular because it's a good upgrade that is worth its points. So long as it is perceived as Not being over-costed, then it will be a valid choice - that's not the same as saying it's under-costed.

"That's why you see it sometimes, and not all the time." - This is the weak point in the argument that Demolisher is imbalanced. How frequently is an upgrade allowed to show up before it counts as being imbalanced? How frequently is any element allowed to show up before it's imbalanced? And in what sort of sample size? If a group of players just don't use Raiders very often, then Instigator won't be a very common sight. However, Instigator has featured in about 90% of the games I have played - because it's a title I really like on a ship that I really like. Does that mean it's broken?

Put another way, the majority of fleets that can feature Electronic Countermeasures usually do so. Does that mean it's broken, too?

""But ubiquity does not equal overpoweredness, or imbalance". It's not proof of...but it is evidence of." - Again, no, for all the reasons already stated.

What WOULD be evidence of Demolisher being over-powered would be if fleets that included it had a higher ratio of wins-to-losses than fleets that didn't include it - and that would be a difficult study to execute, given the many variables in fleet composition.

Your reasoning is that because it is popular, it must therefore be an unfair upgrade. Correct me on that if I'm wrong.

However, here's an alternative: it is an upgrade that is entirely fairly priced, but it is always useful on Gladiator-class Star Destroyers. Put another way, if you have a Gladiator-class Star Destroyer as part of your fleet, Demolisher will always be a positive addition to that ship, because it is costed fairly - it is not under-costed, but it is also not over-costed.

The popularity with Demolisher isn't due to it being under-costed: it's that the alternative for that upgrade slot is a fairly situational upgrade that is also fairly-costed, but not as useful.

Compare it to the Ordnance upgrade slot on the MC30C - you could either take APTs or ACMs - both are strong choices, and so you don't necessarily see either "all of the time", because they compete against each other. However, I would argue that you DO see one or the other "all of the time" - because it's a great upgrade slot that compliments the ship. Neither upgrade is broken, but it's always worth taking one or the other - in this instance, you just happen to have a choice.

In the case of Demolisher, it isn't competing against a similarly useful upgrade. Insidious just can't compete with Demolisher because it won't always be useful, whereas Demolisher will - and you would expect Demolisher to be more useful, because it's a more expensive upgrade. But not necessarily an unfair one.

Yes, you are mis-quoting and mis-representing me (I presume, unintentionally).

I specifically did not state Demolisher was "broken", rather that it was "imbalanced". We can have a a different discussion on what the exact difference is between those 2 terms (I don't even know that I know what the difference is). Suffice to say, at least for me, the latter is a less severe condition than the former.

You've also suggested i made a conclusion. I have not. What I presented was evidence, not a conclusion. Evidence, either in the court room or here on the forums does not equal a judgment. I specifically did not make that judgment, not because I'm trying to be slippery, but because I myself am not fully convinced that Demolisher is "broken" or "imbalanced". I suspect it is imbalanced, and I presented as an argument evidence that it might be imbalanced, to wit:

-that it almost always shows up in lists where a Gladiator is present.

-that every competitive opponent must spend part of his list points ensuring he has a very specific counter to the very real threat of Gladiator

to those 2 pieces of evidence we can also add the tremendous number of opinions and wisdom that these forums generate about the diceyness of Gladiator. You cannot summarily dismiss those combined opinions as irrelevant simply because they are not empirically derived. The culmination of many players' experiences, and the fact that it is the only suspect that seems to get this much attention, indicates something is stinky there.

The combination of these 3 pieces is strong evidence that there is something wrong with card.

The fact that it doesn't always win also does not mean it's not imbalanced. I would agree that it's probably strong evidence that, at least, it is not "Overpowered". It's ubquity is its curse. Everyone knows its going to show up, so everyone brings a counter, or at least considers one, and people learn how to play against it because it is so often represented.

But even that doesn't mean it's not "imbalanced". I suppose we all have different ideas about what we want the meta to look like. But for me, i can say, it's annoying to start off every new list I make with the question "Ok, so how to make this new list so Demolisher doesn't stop all over me." That's not fun; it gets tedious and boring very quickly, and, to me at least, it's a surefire sign that something is "imbalanced".

-that every competitive opponent must spend part of his list points ensuring he has a very specific counter to the very real threat of Gladiator

Objection.

Hearsay.

(Unless of course, you're going to drum in every competitive opponent as an expert witness to testify on that very point. Because even if you intend to do that, I'd like you to go and first define 'competitive'.)

-that every competitive opponent must spend part of his list points ensuring he has a very specific counter to the very real threat of Gladiator

Objection.

Hearsay.

Overruled! Rocmistro is an expert and the court will hear his opinion :-)

EDIT:

IN all seriousness, that's a fair point. How about this; all the people I play with struggle with how to worry about Gladiator. I agree that's only about 9 out of ? people.

-that every competitive opponent must spend part of his list points ensuring he has a very specific counter to the very real threat of Gladiator

Objection.

Hearsay.

Overruled! Rocmistro is an expert and the court will hear his opinion :-)

Agreed on the basis that it is an opinion and opinions do not count as Fact unless scientifically proven - and there's my added subtext to deal with in that case.

EDIT:

IN all seriousness, that's a fair point. How about this; all the people I play with struggle with how to worry about Gladiator. I agree that's only about 9 out of ? people.

That's the trouble with the sweeping generalisation.

I consider myself a "competitive player" when it comes to tournaments. I do want to place higher than lower, after all.

And Demolisher is just one factor in considering... But I don't build my list with a specific counter to demolisher, because if I did, that would leave me weak to say, an Ackbar List. Or a Swarm List. Or a Massed-HP Motti list...

We have a Clonisher player in our Meta. I mean. Its just the one. So at least here, in Hothgary, its not too big of a deal...

--

I contend though, that opinion will always differ so long as there is no United "Meta"... The closest we'll get is Worlds.

And Worlds will be a Wake up Call, if it is needed. If its not, well, its not...

Because even then, we'll be dealing with Wave 3, after all, and how that adapts things...

And in the very least........ Our opinions, when it comes to rules, are mostly unimportant.

So long as we are playing by the rules with each other, then FFG is happy...

If FFG determines that something is out of whack, they will fix it.... The do with X-Wing, they did with IA... They wont be shy about it...

Postulating about it until then, although it does take up a bunch of our time - doesn't accomplish anything.......

... and I think I'm just feeling like accomplishing something is a better use of the limited time we have.

EDIT:

IN all seriousness, that's a fair point. How about this; all the people I play with struggle with how to worry about Gladiator. I agree that's only about 9 out of ? people.

That's the trouble with the sweeping generalisation.

I consider myself a "competitive player" when it comes to tournaments. I do want to place higher than lower, after all.

And Demolisher is just one factor in considering... But I don't build my list with a specific counter to demolisher, because if I did, that would leave me weak to say, an Ackbar List. Or a Swarm List. Or a Massed-HP Motti list...

We have a Clonisher player in our Meta. I mean. Its just the one. So at least here, in Hothgary, its not too big of a deal...

For me, the difference is, I can handle Ackbar based on what I do, rather than what i bring.

To be sure, the same might be true for Demolisher. I don't know for sure. From what I've seen, if Demolisher wants to triple-tap you, he will (assuming you did NOT bring the right stuff).

For me, the difference is, I can handle Ackbar based on what I do, rather than what i bring.

To be sure, the same might be true for Demolisher. I don't know for sure. From what I've seen, if Demolisher wants to triple-tap you, he will (assuming you did NOT bring the right stuff).

I contend that Demolisher is no different. What you do will make a difference. Just as much that, if you bring the wrong thing against Ackbar, you'll lose to that, too...

Both sides of the same coin, not different coins...

Damned if you Do, Damned if you Don't.

Catch-22...

All of that nonsense.

Why do I keep doing this to myself...

Yes, you are mis-quoting and mis-representing me (I presume, unintentionally).

I specifically did not state Demolisher was "broken", rather that it was "imbalanced". We can have a a different discussion on what the exact difference is between those 2 terms (I don't even know that I know what the difference is). Suffice to say, at least for me, the latter is a less severe condition than the former.

I mean, you're now misquoting me, I said you were making the argument that it's "broken / poorly balanced", I mean... Ah, whatever.

You've also suggested i made a conclusion. I have not. What I presented was evidence, not a conclusion. Evidence, either in the court room or here on the forums does not equal a judgment. I specifically did not make that judgment, not because I'm trying to be slippery, but because I myself am not fully convinced that Demolisher is "broken" or "imbalanced". I suspect it is imbalanced, and I presented as an argument evidence that it might be imbalanced, to wit:

-that it almost always shows up in lists where a Gladiator is present.

-that every competitive opponent must spend part of his list points ensuring he has a very specific counter to the very real threat of Gladiator

You said:

"but I do think it's imbalanced."

"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."

THOSE ARE CONCLUSIONS.

Also, whilst I grant that the majority of the time that a Gladiator appears, it's a Demolisher, I have not once come across the phenomenon "that every competitive opponent must spend part of his list points ensuring he has a very specific counter to the very real threat of Gladiator" - there is absolutely no suggestion that that's the case, at least not in any of the tournaments in which I've taken part.

to those 2 pieces of evidence we can also add the tremendous number of opinions and wisdom that these forums generate about the diceyness of Gladiator. You cannot summarily dismiss those combined opinions as irrelevant simply because they are not empirically derived. The culmination of many players' experiences, and the fact that it is the only suspect that seems to get this much attention, indicates something is stinky there.

I'm not dismissing them, but you've just said they're opinions. That's it. There's a load of people in the world currently of the opinion that Donald Trump has some really valid points about... well, anything. That does not mean those massed opinions are in any way "evidence". I mean, I can't... I don't even... what? Besides, there is no evidence to show that even the majority of people on these forums agree that Demolisher is "dicey" - on what are you basing that assumption?

The combination of these 3 pieces is strong evidence that there is something wrong with card.

Nope. You've stated that they're strong evidence, doesn't mean it is strong evidence just because you said so. In fact, two of them aren't even evidence, just your opinion, and the opinion of a few other people.

The fact that it doesn't always win also does not mean it's not imbalanced. I would agree that it's probably strong evidence that, at least, it is not "Overpowered". It's ubquity is its curse. Everyone knows its going to show up, so everyone brings a counter, or at least considers one, and people learn how to play against it because it is so often represented.

Again, I have never come across this concept of a "counter" to Demolisher before, and have no idea where that's come from. For one thing, I have no idea of what a "counter" to it would be, besides shooting the **** thing, and even then, not only have I never seen anyone put such a counter into play, I've also never come across it in my (admittedly limited) stumblings around this forum. Do you even have links to back any of this up? (NOTE: They can't just be links to your own posts).

But even that doesn't mean it's not "imbalanced". I suppose we all have different ideas about what we want the meta to look like. But for me, i can say, it's annoying to start off every new list I make with the question "Ok, so how to make this new list so Demolisher doesn't stop all over me." That's not fun; it gets tedious and boring very quickly, and, to me at least, it's a surefire sign that something is "imbalanced".

I will have to be honest, I'm pretty sure you're in a minority there. Again, I've not once had someone mention that process to me in all of the discussions I've had about the game. I literally cannot recall a single instance of someone saying to me "I've included this because I had to deal with possible Demolishers. This rather now feels like someone complaining about getting a rash from the tinfoil hat they wear to prevent the government reading their brainwaves.

Oh, and just one final thing:

Evidence, either in the court room or here on the forums does not equal a judgment.

Wat. I... Are you... are you actually comparing this to a legal case with a burden of proof? I don't... I... Wat?

If we want to be technical, the evidence that something is undercosted¹ is:

1. It consistently shows up in WINNING lists (e.g. the top brackets in tournaments)
2. Similar lists without it consistently perform worse and/or do not exist
3. There are identifiable attributes that drive this performance and we are not dealing with a correlation != causation issue

In the case of Demolisher, I would argue that 2 & 3 are both true (unless someone can direct me to another ship that triple taps effectively, as I can't find one). The question will be if 1 is true. I will reserve judgment until I see regionals, Gencon, and worlds.

1: In a way that is meaningful (e.g. a trivial upgrade being undercosted probably doesn't move the needle enough for us to care)

FOR THE SUBTOPIC ABOUT DEMO and ACTIVATION/INITIATIVE

I consider myself to be a good demolisher player....he will only likely get 3 attacks (maximum) in the run of a game...if I put him in sooner everyone kills him right away...smartly so. During those 3 attacks most players leave someone completely hanging out on their own without backup....so yah I get a triple tap. With no risk to demo afterwards.

The good players I have played against...threaten one of my other ships that I have moved early in the activation cycle, preventing me from doing the triple tap choice later....or making me pay a price to do it regardless of what happens to my other ship. Placement of a squadron swarm where demo is most likely to end up during the first tap is also pretty good...(since squadron activation is after ships) I have played entire games where due to the second players placement of his ships threatening mine...I never got to activate demo first once...cause I would have lost either my Admiral or another GSD, once I lose activations....demo loses his strength that is for sure.

This game is all about making the opponent make a choice from 2 bad ones, thinking at least 2 turns ahead and understanding what your own and your opponents ships can do in that time frame....that's how I play and works pretty good. And if my opponent plays like I mentioned above....Demo is usually not a significant factor for more than 1 or 2 attacks at best....if I don't lose him. But that's why I have other ships in my fleet....they take up the slack.

From most of the battle videos I have watched online...most players lose in deployment and don't maneuver to good positions in the first couple turns.

As a side note, I used to think Ackbar was OP...then I learned how to play against him. Is it still tough yes....is he a mostly no brainer to take...yes....do I face him 90% of the time when I face rebels yes...did I lose to Ackbar lists like 50 times in a row (no exaggeration)....yes...but eventually I ran it myself to learn how to defeat it. And now do pretty consistently. So he doesn't worry me anymore. I just adjust my deployment, movement and activation in order to defeat that list.

In fact the only thing that still worries me is the Rogue squadron swarm....cause it chases my demo and my other ships around....place...I jump in....he shoots...moves to where I will likely be at beginning of next turn....(new turn) I move...he is probably right or forced me out of the battle....shoots me....dead....

Just my thoughts. But I don't find anything in this game is out of balance at the moment, once you play against a certain list format....and know your own list very well, I find I only lose now when I make a mental mistake...like forgetting someone has avenger and turning my defence tokens red on the bomber shots that he activated...cause no biggie...last turn of the game I will just burn them...oh wait

BACK ON TOPIC

I do bid for initiative but I do that so I can decide. And yes I will go first 90% of the time but I always look at their list....if they are a heavy squadron list with small number of ships...sometimes I like to go second...since I can activate ships way out of the area that will have no impact...force the opponent to move towards me...so that my shots will matter. My objectives are definitely strong for my list with no good choice for my opponent. And if I am moving second I do the 2 threats situation I outlined above...go ahead shoot first at one of them, but no matter what something is getting double tapped by the other. And if I maneuvered smartly you are only getting one arc on either of them. I am also losing out on 15-20 points that could be upgrades so there is that.

I like this discussion But I think it is way too early in the game to think things are unbalanced or need changing....wave 5 or 6....still seeing things go this way...then maybe. Gotta remember only 4 ships for the IMPs and the VSDs are almost obsolete (at least on winning lists ) So if you see a GSD it will probably take its one good title. Much like every ship seems to take its best one. (relentless, home one, foresight, salvation, etc.. for example.)

@Mogrok

You win! You have pointed out Demolisher's major flaw.

Oh another Demolisher OP thread. I for one like this old* new paradigm. The hype will keep bump bids up higher and higher giving me more to work with. I personally love maxing out to 400 pts now that i now have a higher chance of going second than trying to bid for first and loosing.

*This is nothing new. Has everyone forgot about the Gencon special, you know a Gladiator/Activation/Bidding list? Apparantly Awings without the aid of Boosted Comms were enough to beat it at Worlds. Wait...I mean...yeah Demolisher OP you better a) play it b) bid 50 points to be safe.

And OP sorry a seriously terrible idea. Max Upgrade x3 Medium-Large Ships to 400 Points AND a Rhymer/Jan/Bomber Ball AND get rewarded with choosing first or second. No thanks.

Pretty sure VSDs arent obsolete

Pretty sure VSDs arent obsolete

Yes yes, very funny, haha, APRIL FOOLS, etc.

No one thinks Demolisher is broken, no one thinks initiative works wrong. Even when I read really smart and interesting answers I do not understand this thread...

Second player is beneficial preceeding engagement.

First player is beneficial during engagement.

It really isnt the game breaker people keep suggesting on these forums.

The status quo turns out to be a pretty fun game in this case