Sorry Hesekial, I was on page 1 when I reply posted so couldnt see your name.

why would anyone think this is worth any points.

While defending, during the Spend Defense Tokens Step, you may discard a defense token to cancel 1 attack die.

if it canceled all attack dice it would be worth discarding a defense token. but just 1?? how does this make any kind of sense??

Admonition looks bad but it really is not. I strongly recommend giving it a try before deciding it's a bad use of points. Being able to use your defense tokens for their normal effect and then feeding them to Admonition to cancel a dice (preferably a 2-hit red or a hit+crit black, but anything can be helpful) can produce some drastic increases in durability. It combines even better with Mon Mothma and/or Lando.

As I honestly dont know, it that a legitimate use - Spending a token for its regular use and afterwards feed it to admonition to cancel something? As in the rules reference p. 4, a defense token "cannot be spend more than once during an attack." and "can be spend as part of a cost for upgrade card effects."

Am I reading something wrong?

You are. The tokens are SPENT to use their defensive abilities. They are DISCARDED (a completely different effect) to power Admonition. Nothing can prevent this. You can discard locked down tokens, for example, or tokens you already spent (provided the spending didn't result in them being discarded because they were red or because an Intel Officer really hated that one token). It's a strong effect. People misunderstand it and underestimate it a lot.

why would anyone think this is worth any points.

While defending, during the Spend Defense Tokens Step, you may discard a defense token to cancel 1 attack die.

if it canceled all attack dice it would be worth discarding a defense token. but just 1?? how does this make any kind of sense??

Admonition looks bad but it really is not. I strongly recommend giving it a try before deciding it's a bad use of points. Being able to use your defense tokens for their normal effect and then feeding them to Admonition to cancel a dice (preferably a 2-hit red or a hit+crit black, but anything can be helpful) can produce some drastic increases in durability. It combines even better with Mon Mothma and/or Lando.

As I honestly dont know, it that a legitimate use - Spending a token for its regular use and afterwards feed it to admonition to cancel something? As in the rules reference p. 4, a defense token "cannot be spend more than once during an attack." and "can be spend as part of a cost for upgrade card effects."

Am I reading something wrong?

I believe it is, as the admonition doesn't have you "spend" a token, but rather "discard" a token. And while "Spending" a spent token does result in a discard, that's not what this is doing. You can discard any token, even a green one. In the case of discarding an already flipped token, that's just the most efficient.

why would anyone think this is worth any points points.

While defending, during the Spend Defense Tokens Step, you may discard a defense token to cancel 1 attack die.

if it canceled all attack dice it would be worth discarding a defense token. but just 1?? how does this make any kind of sense??

Others have given many reasons for why this is totally worth the points, but one thing that hasn't been mentioned is with an MC30 kitted out for close range slugging, you are probably only going to see 1 or 2 turns of shooting. MAYBE 3. So, if you did it right, Admonition has no tokens left and is speed 4ing into the sunset.

Yes more than once I've sent speed four MC30s strait of the board........

The other issue with Demolisher lists is they can easily bid 20+ points and win games just purely based off activation order and triple taps. I'm sorry but if you are bidding that many points (or more) you need some kind of draw back. - Okay the draw back is meant to be you have to choose from opponents objectives, which most of the time will be Superior positions or minefields for Blue, Most wanted (bad for them vs a Glad + Raider fleet) or Adv gunnery (Demolisher list will never pick this) And I very rarely see yellows getting picked - again you may even want to take Ambush zone with a Demolisher activation list, Hyperspace assault you will probably not pick as having a whale or opponents gladiator dropping in behind you is a big no-no.

Nah, rebels win their fair share of games and events. Demolisher lists aren't cleaning house at every tournament, so it doesn't seem like a gigantic issue.

Also, I can't see FFG Errataing a card unless there's potentially vague wording (ala Advanced Projectors vs XI7s), as that is just a huge headache for people at competitive events all over. From the perspective of organizing/running tournaments it's probably much easier for them to flat-out ban any cards that they view as game-breaking, though Demolisher doesn't seem to fit that description.

why would anyone think this is worth any points points.

While defending, during the Spend Defense Tokens Step, you may discard a defense token to cancel 1 attack die.

if it canceled all attack dice it would be worth discarding a defense token. but just 1?? how does this make any kind of sense??

Others have given many reasons for why this is totally worth the points, but one thing that hasn't been mentioned is with an MC30 kitted out for close range slugging, you are probably only going to see 1 or 2 turns of shooting. MAYBE 3. So, if you did it right, Admonition has no tokens left and is speed 4ing into the sunset.

This is exactly what I do with it. I dont know how many times my opponents with ISDs see my lil MC-30 coming and feel like its an easy kill as it slides into their side/rear arc and they assume it will go boom with 4 hull only to get pummeled and see it fly off. Admonition is also incredibly good against APTs as you can cancel their criticals (which are always double hits) before they trigger. So demolishers with APTs get very frustrated fighting them especially with Advanced Projectors.

I think the worst part about Demolisher, is it really limits the design space on the Ordnance slot for all other ships that can take it, as it has to be balanced with Demolisher in mind.

People keep forgetting that it is only 1 extra attack...half the time with my 5 activation fleet. I will use my ISD1 as last activation....so that he gets a double tap (although sometimes only needs the one tap) Nothing like having an ISD1 Jump into you (possibly ram) and unload. I also use my other GSD in that list for the double tap as well. Most people are so worried about Demo they don't see it coming. I have even used a raider in the double tap roll (not upgraded) people can force demo to not be an issue. Most of what I read are just people that haven't figured out how to defeat it or mitigate it.

I have said it before, you are only looking at 2 or 3 turns of attacks with demo against a good opponent...and a good opponent will likely kill it if you go any more aggressive. Most good opponents I have played against have forced me to lose another ship if I take advantage of the triple tap. And frankly I don't feel sorry for people who leave ships hanging out on their lonesome to get killed. It is a fleet battle game after all. Mutually supporting ships are the hard counter to Demo. Or any go first list.

It's not about demolisher itself. It's not even demolisher as part of a fleet. It's demolisher in the hands of a very specific fleet: namely a 5+ activation high bid. Your other ships need only be threats- I would like to see, if possible, how you would arrange your ships (try using vassal!) as I am earnestly waiting for someone to demonstrate a purely tactical solution.

Does it clean house auto-win tournaments? No, because I don't think most people who try to netlist at their store champ don't even understand how the Clonisher works- it's all about how you fly, the order in which you activate, the finite range bands of ships, and the finite maneuvers of ships all being taken advantage of. In short, it's playing well- it's just that if you play well in a certain way, it requires hard counter (outbidding, Rieekan, swarm listing) to deal with it (at least, so far as I have seen: please show me how I'm wrong!)

In the case of mutually supporting ships, that just mean the Clonisher player's goal at this point is to hit your farthest flank ship. There is no way to build a completely air tight, mutually supporting formation and the effective speed 4 (with the flexibility of ET's) makes out-maneuvering you to hit said flank much, much easier than your job of preventing that. Let's say you send a ship out to block his move to that flank, or split your forces? The Clonisher player then hits that ship in isolation! If you'd like some diagrams, I could draw some up.

I think Madaghmire's move of forcing the trade is the best play I've seen so far, but that's far from ideal...

I wouldn't move a ship out on its own to face it....it should still stay within your field of fire.

When (rarely) I run rebels...I run a 2 Frigate, 2 Corvette Ackbar list with some Xs and Jan orrs. Gunnery Teams ECM and XI7 on the Guppies and TRCs on the Corvettes. no one wants to come within that range. and I make sure that anyone who does will have at least 2 ships firing on it.

I wouldn't move a ship out on its own to face it....it should still stay within your field of fire.

When (rarely) I run rebels...I run a 2 Frigate, 2 Corvette Ackbar list with some Xs and Jan orrs. Gunnery Teams ECM and XI7 on the Guppies and TRCs on the Corvettes. no one wants to come within that range. and I make sure that anyone who does will have at least 2 ships firing on it.

Would you mind drawing it out? I find that when I've tried to build anti-demo formations, I'm still leaving whatever ship is farthest out vulnerable.

I wouldn't move a ship out on its own to face it....it should still stay within your field of fire.

When (rarely) I run rebels...I run a 2 Frigate, 2 Corvette Ackbar list with some Xs and Jan orrs. Gunnery Teams ECM and XI7 on the Guppies and TRCs on the Corvettes. no one wants to come within that range. and I make sure that anyone who does will have at least 2 ships firing on it.

That is a four ship list, so the clonisher combo would have the last go each round. Demolisher would dive in as a last activation, and unless you manage to bid more than 20 points for initiative, will act fist the upcoming round. That is at least two, more often three demo salvos handed to a single AF before you even get the chance to react. Even if that is somehow survived by plot armor, he will then dive out and be likely out of your side arc afterwards.

If the counter to clonisher list would be 2 CRs 2 AFs, the list would never have made it to the forum.

Do rebs need Demolisher ???

Answer NO

Move along, move along

It's not about demolisher itself. It's not even demolisher as part of a fleet. It's demolisher in the hands of a very specific fleet: namely a 5+ activation high bid. Your other ships need only be threats- I would like to see, if possible, how you would arrange your ships (try using vassal!) as I am earnestly waiting for someone to demonstrate a purely tactical solution.

Does it clean house auto-win tournaments? No, because I don't think most people who try to netlist at their store champ don't even understand how the Clonisher works- it's all about how you fly, the order in which you activate, the finite range bands of ships, and the finite maneuvers of ships all being taken advantage of. In short, it's playing well- it's just that if you play well in a certain way, it requires hard counter (outbidding, Rieekan, swarm listing) to deal with it (at least, so far as I have seen: please show me how I'm wrong!)

In the case of mutually supporting ships, that just mean the Clonisher player's goal at this point is to hit your farthest flank ship. There is no way to build a completely air tight, mutually supporting formation and the effective speed 4 (with the flexibility of ET's) makes out-maneuvering you to hit said flank much, much easier than your job of preventing that. Let's say you send a ship out to block his move to that flank, or split your forces? The Clonisher player then hits that ship in isolation! If you'd like some diagrams, I could draw some up.

I think Madaghmire's move of forcing the trade is the best play I've seen so far, but that's far from ideal...

What kind of fleet would you like to run? I mean other than the outbidding, Rieekan, Swarm.

Cannot offer suggestions without knowing what exactly it is you want to succeed with.

No

@easternking

For rebs, I prefer to run squadron heavy and have access to:

8 x-wings

4 a-wings

4 b-wings

8 y-wings

8 YT-2400's

6 H6's

2 YT-1300's

2 HWK's

I have two MC80's, 3 MC30C's, 6 CR90's, 5 neb-b's. I usually like to use neb-b's as carriers with Garm OR I run carrier mc80's with anyone but MM. I have pretty much all upgrades and multiples of the juicy ones (xi7's and TRC's).

When I run MC30c heavy, I go with lots of the YT's or a token 2XJan brick with Yavvy.

All that being said, the first ship I usually add to my list tends to be TRC-salvation support refit. Cause, you know, it's like a space big bertha and that's just awesome.

For imps, I have

3 x ISD

1 x VSD

2 x GSD

1 x RDR

10(?) tie bombers

8 tie fighters

5 firesprays

2 of everything else

I have a fondness for I1,I1,I1,R1 build with motti or screed. Or, I'll go I1,I1,I1 + tie fighters and at most ordnance experts for the I1's where they fit. I'm also quite fond of I1,I1,Clonisher,R1 builds (with screed, of course).

Sometimes I wonder why people think they're clever for simply responding "no" or "yes" to topics like this. I mean it seems pretty clear this isn't a poll. Is the original poster supposed to be swayed by pressure from a crowd of people just saying the same thing? I've never personally found that very convincing. If anything, it's made me suspicious against whatever position they're taking because those people didn't seem to be putting a lot of thought into what they're saying. Does the "no" responder think they look cool? It just comes across as rather callous, which is high-school-cool, but not really adult-cool. If the "no" responder is simply above responding to such a question, then why respond at all? It's puzzling.

For the record, I don't think Rebels need a Demolisher. The Demolisher title is far more reflective of Imperial design philosophy than Rebel (it breaks the rules for the purposes of aggro) and a similar title would be a really awkward fit in the Rebel fleet. I think you could make an argument for the game needing some kind of upgrade that works to oppose Demolisher, but giving Rebels access to something similar would water down the distinctions between the two fleets.

Sometimes I wonder why people think they're clever for simply responding "no" or "yes" to topics like this. I mean it seems pretty clear this isn't a poll. Is the original poster supposed to be swayed by pressure from a crowd of people just saying the same thing? I've never personally found that very convincing. If anything, it's made me suspicious against whatever position they're taking because those people didn't seem to be putting a lot of thought into what they're saying. Does the "no" responder think they look cool? It just comes across as rather callous, which is high-school-cool, but not really adult-cool. If the "no" responder is simply above responding to such a question, then why respond at all? It's puzzling.

For the record, I don't think Rebels need a Demolisher. The Demolisher title is far more reflective of Imperial design philosophy than Rebel (it breaks the rules for the purposes of aggro) and a similar title would be a really awkward fit in the Rebel fleet. I think you could make an argument for the game needing some kind of upgrade that works to oppose Demolisher, but giving Rebels access to something similar would water down the distinctions between the two fleets.

I think a neat counter might be something like an admiral who, once per round, after flagship is activated, allows the rebel player to choose which opposing ship is activated next (if there are ships left to activate). I'd buy that for a dollar!

Edit* oops forgot to post the relevant part:

The fact that Imps have access to demo is not in and of itself a Clonisher counter. That much proves adding one to the rebs wouldn't do much.

I mean if we're dreaming up Demolisher counters, I think it wouldn't be too difficult...

Something Something Tractor Beam (or Something Something Gravity Well Projector, whatever)

Offensive Retrofit (I could see the argument for Defensive Retrofit)

You may exhaust Something Something Tractor Beam when an opponent announces his decision to activate a ship within range 1-3 that is the same size or smaller than the ship Something Something Tractor Beam is equipped to. Your opponent must activate another ship instead if possible.

I mean if we're dreaming up Demolisher counters, I think it wouldn't be too difficult...

Something Something Tractor Beam (or Something Something Gravity Well Projector, whatever)

Offensive Retrofit (I could see the argument for Defensive Retrofit)

You may exhaust Something Something Tractor Beam when an opponent announces his decision to activate a ship within range 1-3 that is the same size or smaller than the ship Something Something Tractor Beam is equipped to. Your opponent must activate another ship instead if possible.

Interesting. My own approach was:

SS Tractor Beam (offensive retrofit)

Before an opponent's ship enters its maneuver phase, you may discard this card to place a small ship base within distance 1-5 of you. If this ship is overlapped, do not deal a damage card to the overlapping ship. At the end of the turn, remove the base from the play area.

Basically, the ability to stop an approaching ship in its tracks without slowing it to zero, still allows range limitation without being able to jump from outside long range to inside close to avoid it, and mitigates the first/last thing. Added bonus: works against conga lines too.

In fact, now that I've written it out... I've basically just described a differently-implemented flotilla. Man, I can't wait for those little guys...

@snapfist. Yes is pointless, but "no" means something much more. The simple answer is, it is a leadership tactic in business meant to tell the other person in public or private that they wasted your time and to carefully consider Wasting your time in the future before really thinking about it. It is another way of saying what a stupid question because of the obviousness of the reason it is a no without Going into much detail. Your telling the person that you aren't going to spend valuable time explaining the obvious. It has nothing to do with voting. I've been on the receive side and giving side and it is a powerful tool. Used by a tyrant too frequently on boarder line stuff destroys/weaken moral. Of course, the irony in this case, is that we all waste a lot of time here so it is kind of hypocritical.

It this situation I am saying, "Seriously, you think both sides should play the same when the obvious idea of the game is some sort of asymmetry...Forgetaboutit." Just like Forgetaboutit means all sorts of thing so does the word"no." It is snarky because it goes against the entire point of the game. I don't even begin to fathom why someone would even begin to harbor that thought let alone put it out there. When something seems so obvious the one word answer of no says a lot more than no. In business or a professional setting telling someone no like that tells the person bring up the question, idea, solution, etc. that it doesn't even merit thinking about because it is obvious. It tells the person in such a setting that what they brought to the table was amateur hour sh$t and why they don't even know better calls in to question their very reason for being on the team--in this case, even playing Armada. A good leader would rarely use this tactic except in a highly competitive culture where time is of the essence and alot is in the line because it embarrasses the other in front of their peers.

Using it here causes little such acm wardens because we don't know each other and this is the Internet. We don't run into the colleague at the water cooler talking about how the boss just poo poo bob's idea and how bob might soon find a pink slip if his act doesn't change. Nobody is lossing face here so the simple no is less mean.

Of course this was all B.S., but I did my best justifying my "no". Next.

@snapfist. Yes is pointless, but "no" means something much more. The simple answer is, it is a leadership tactic in business meant to tell the other person in public or private that they wasted your time and to carefully consider Wasting your time in the future before really thinking about it. It is another way of saying what a stupid question because of the obviousness of the reason it is a no without Going into much detail. Your telling the person that you aren't going to spend valuable time explaining the obvious. It has nothing to do with voting. I've been on the receive side and giving side and it is a powerful tool. Used by a tyrant too frequently on boarder line stuff destroys/weaken moral. Of course, the irony in this case, is that we all waste a lot of time here so it is kind of hypocritical.

It this situation I am saying, "Seriously, you think both sides should play the same when the obvious idea of the game is some sort of asymmetry...Forgetaboutit." Just like Forgetaboutit means all sorts of thing so does the word"no." It is snarky because it goes against the entire point of the game. I don't even begin to fathom why someone would even begin to harbor that thought let alone put it out there. When something seems so obvious the one word answer of no says a lot more than no. In business or a professional setting telling someone yes or no like that tells the person bring up the question, idea, solution, etc. that it doesn't even merit thinking about because it is obvious. It tells the person in such a setting that what they brought to the table was amateur hour sh$t and why they don't even know better calls in to question their very reason for being on the team--in this case, even playing Armada. A good leader would rarely use this tactic except in a highly competitive culture where time is of the essence and alot is in the line because it embarrasses the other in front of their peers.

Using it here causes little such acm wardens because we don't know each other and this is the Internet. We don't run into the colleague at the water cooler talking about how the boss just poo poo bob's idea and how bob might soon find a pink slip if his act doesn't change. Nobody is lossing face here so the simple no is less mean.

Of course this was all B.S., but I did my best justifying my "no". Next.

See, in person I understand what you mean. You're assuming you have a position of authority over the questioner in this case which is a bit arrogant (at least it seems that way to me, anyways), but I understand what you mean and agree in some cases "no" is sufficient. The problem is that online it has never come across that way to me unless it's absolutely clear the respondent has that authority (say in a case like this is a moderator or an official FFG employee). It just seems callous.

I do appreciate that you explained yourself, though. I feel that's a lot more productive here than a simple "no."

I agree, and your point is taken. Plus, I am about the last person who holds any "authority" on this forum as of late.

I mean if we're dreaming up Demolisher counters, I think it wouldn't be too difficult...

Something Something Tractor Beam (or Something Something Gravity Well Projector, whatever)

Offensive Retrofit (I could see the argument for Defensive Retrofit)

You may exhaust Something Something Tractor Beam when an opponent announces his decision to activate a ship within range 1-3 that is the same size or smaller than the ship Something Something Tractor Beam is equipped to. Your opponent must activate another ship instead if possible.

Interesting. My own approach was:

SS Tractor Beam (offensive retrofit)

Yeah, one should probably just not abbreviate that beam.