Lots of good discussion in this thread, both pro and con. I'll add a few more cents to the discussion.

One of the more interesting aspects of studying military history is how often some new plan worked in a battle precisely because it had never been seen before. There has been a whole lot of "I didn't know they could do that" moments in military history, and it usually takes one good battle to change the conversation. From that note, I have one key conclusion to draw: it is going to be very hard for us to really nail something like this down. Sample size for games are going to be very small, which means almost all the evidence is going to be anecdotal. It is also overly easy to overly-generalize from one's experiences, a danger in all strategy games.

Yes, choice in a strategy game does imply hierarchy. Some choices will be better than others. But the big problem with comparison is that in theory we want to eliminate all other variables so that we can make a just comparison between the two items in comparsion. The problem is that all other variables are never going to be equal. Players not only make choices between different ships, but also between different upgrades on those ships, different squadron compositions, different admirals, different objectives, different bids. Then when an opponent who has made an equally diverse set of choices for their own fleet sets up on the table, we've got an even broader set of variables. And if we wanted to eliminate another variable, we'd have to have two players of exactly equal skill with exactly the same amount of sleep and food with no past history of being each other's arch-nemesis.

My sense so far is also that almost every game is going to turn not merely on the fleet design but on a major tactical mistake on the part of one or both players. Its that way for chess until you hit the top 10% of players. What I've seen live of both X-wing and Armada seems to confirm that stat. So given that, even if we do have a break down of one ship being just better than another (if only a hair), it likely isn't going to cause them to lose any more if they bring it or win any more if they don't.

Finally, to bring us back around to military history and changing the conversation, we're going to have a changing of the conversation every few months as new units get released and the world adapts to their inclusion.

But having analyzed and observed a great deal, it would be a cold day in hell before I took an MC80 to a tournament. Maybe I'm not "good enough" to make up for its shortcomings, but I don't understand why people don't see that this is yet again further proof that it is not the best choice most of the time!

According to this data, it was the best choice approximately half of the time.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CFxsUmQgOTKOKQ8E5LOi1spviLkuJxtmxzhm7e23A40/edit#gid=594430368

In Sydney. I make many of the tourneys in my area and ask for fleet comps in the ones I can't make and it seems to me that MC80s show up on the wrong side of 10-0s most of the time and I've never seen one win a tournament. In fact, as time passes and people have learned how to deal with derp ackbar builds, seeing an MC80 in a list is usually met with raised eyebrows and a friendly "good luck with that".

My argument is that sure, meta to meta YMMV, but what does not vary are simple PPStat calculations. Do them yourself and you will see why people end up taking whales over MC80s unless they are trying some wacky build.

Some quick and dirty numbers:

Format of: Stat - MC80 Command | MC80 Assault | AFMK2 A | AFMK2 B

Points per shield (Lower is better) - 7.06 | 7.6 | 6.75 | 6

Right from the get go you are paying a premium for the shields that look so much better on the face of it than an AF...

Points per hull (lower is better) - 13.25 | 14.25 | 13.5 | 12 (for comparison an ISD2 = 10.9 and an ISD1 = 10, you can start to see why 3 ISD lists can be made to work while 3 pickle fleets are a joke)

The AFMK2 A does poorly here but still better than MC80A and really piddly percentage points off the other one

Points per die (lower is better) - 5.88 | 6.3 | 5.78 | 6

points per squadron command - 26.5 | 38 | 40.5 | 24

AFMK2 B wins the carrier game all day long, the MK2 A Wins at dice. Not even going to do the points per speed point or points per click because, really...

So Armada is a points-limited game. You could argue till you are blue in the face but efficiency DOES PLAY. These are raw numbers and are not adjusted to points per with relation to percentage of max points committed (in other words, opportunity cost). So all things being equal with a pair of equally skilled players, the guy who brings AFs over MC80s just has as many or more more tools at his disposal for cheaper. Plus activations. plus loss mitigation.

When my buddy and I were refining his list we worked some of this out and tested iteration after iteration. Time and again the consensus was that the MC80 was a points sink that did not carry its weight.

Some quick and dirty numbers:

Format of: Stat - MC80 Command | MC80 Assault | AFMK2 A | AFMK2 B

Points per shield (Lower is better) - 7.06 | 7.6 | 6.75 | 6

Right from the get go you are paying a premium for the shields that look so much better on the face of it than an AF...

Points per hull (lower is better) - 13.25 | 14.25 | 13.5 | 12 (for comparison an ISD2 = 10.9 and an ISD1 = 10, you can start to see why 3 ISD lists can be made to work while 3 pickle fleets are a joke)

The AFMK2 A does poorly here but still better than MC80A and really piddly percentage points off the other one

Points per die (lower is better) - 5.88 | 6.3 | 5.78 | 6

points per squadron command - 26.5 | 38 | 40.5 | 24

AFMK2 B wins the carrier game all day long, the MK2 A Wins at dice. Not even going to do the points per speed point or points per click because, really...

So Armada is a points-limited game. You could argue till you are blue in the face but efficiency DOES PLAY. These are raw numbers and are not adjusted to points per with relation to percentage of max points committed (in other words, opportunity cost). So all things being equal with a pair of equally skilled players, the guy who brings AFs over MC80s just has as many or more more tools at his disposal for cheaper. Plus activations. plus loss mitigation.

When my buddy and I were refining his list we worked some of this out and tested iteration after iteration. Time and again the consensus was that the MC80 was a points sink that did not carry its weight.

(Lower is better for all)

AF2A | AF2 B | CR90A | CR90B

Shields: 6.8; 6; 6.3; 5.6

Dice: 5.8; 6; 5.5; 4.9

Hull: 13.7; 11.8; 11; 9.8

Sqdrn: 40.5; 24; 44; 39

In almost every category, the CR90 is more efficient, sometimes dramatically so. The same would be true of speed and yaw ticks too. Does that mean we should all just run CR90 swarms and call it a day?

Some quick and dirty numbers:

Format of: Stat - MC80 Command | MC80 Assault | AFMK2 A | AFMK2 B

Points per shield (Lower is better) - 7.06 | 7.6 | 6.75 | 6

Right from the get go you are paying a premium for the shields that look so much better on the face of it than an AF...

Points per hull (lower is better) - 13.25 | 14.25 | 13.5 | 12 (for comparison an ISD2 = 10.9 and an ISD1 = 10, you can start to see why 3 ISD lists can be made to work while 3 pickle fleets are a joke)

The AFMK2 A does poorly here but still better than MC80A and really piddly percentage points off the other one

Points per die (lower is better) - 5.88 | 6.3 | 5.78 | 6

points per squadron command - 26.5 | 38 | 40.5 | 24

AFMK2 B wins the carrier game all day long, the MK2 A Wins at dice. Not even going to do the points per speed point or points per click because, really...

So Armada is a points-limited game. You could argue till you are blue in the face but efficiency DOES PLAY. These are raw numbers and are not adjusted to points per with relation to percentage of max points committed (in other words, opportunity cost). So all things being equal with a pair of equally skilled players, the guy who brings AFs over MC80s just has as many or more more tools at his disposal for cheaper. Plus activations. plus loss mitigation.

When my buddy and I were refining his list we worked some of this out and tested iteration after iteration. Time and again the consensus was that the MC80 was a points sink that did not carry its weight.

This is just consistent with the observation I made up-thread about smaller ships being more points-efficient. Look at the math for a CR90:

(Lower is better for all)

AF2A | AF2 B | CR90A | CR90B

Shields: 6.8; 6; 6.3; 5.6

Dice: 5.8; 6; 5.5; 4.9

Hull: 13.7; 11.8; 11; 9.8

Sqdrn: 40.5; 24; 44; 39

In almost every category, the CR90 is more efficient, sometimes dramatically so. The same would be true of speed and yaw ticks too. Does that mean we should all just run CR90 swarms and call it a day?

yeah, CR90 swarms are OP as F

But having analyzed and observed a great deal, it would be a cold day in hell before I took an MC80 to a tournament. Maybe I'm not "good enough" to make up for its shortcomings, but I don't understand why people don't see that this is yet again further proof that it is not the best choice most of the time!

According to this data, it was the best choice approximately half of the time.https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CFxsUmQgOTKOKQ8E5LOi1spviLkuJxtmxzhm7e23A40/edit#gid=594430368

In Sydney.

Efficiency is not the sole determining factor.

In all seriousness tho, yes CR90s are efficient. but this is reductionist.

We are looking at the merits of the MC80 Vs. its nearest substitute. In other words, you can take one or the other in a very similar if not identical archetypal role, why would you take the MC80, mathematically over its competitor?

But having analyzed and observed a great deal, it would be a cold day in hell before I took an MC80 to a tournament. Maybe I'm not "good enough" to make up for its shortcomings, but I don't understand why people don't see that this is yet again further proof that it is not the best choice most of the time!

According to this data, it was the best choice approximately half of the time.https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CFxsUmQgOTKOKQ8E5LOi1spviLkuJxtmxzhm7e23A40/edit#gid=594430368

In Sydney.

In NSW (and Canberrra). A massive geographic region, easily the size of half a dozen US States. NSW has three solid hubs of play and various satellite groups. This is not one weird meta doing it's own thing.

Efficiency is not the sole determining factor.

Whats the total population? Size is not the sole determining factor. How many different people play and how often? how often do the regional metas mix, if at all? Im in Canada, we got big areas too, some even have a person or two in them.

No its not the sole determining factor. So? Discounting it altogether because "joe smith runs a mean mc80" in no way changes the efficiency numbers. Hey, run all the MC80s you want! I'm sure it works out great!

as they say around here "good luck with that"

In all seriousness tho, yes CR90s are efficient. but this is reductionist.

We are looking at the merits of the MC80 Vs. its nearest substitute. In other words, you can take one or the other in a very similar if not identical archetypal role, why would you take the MC80, mathematically over its competitor?

To continue the thought. The only reason you would take this ship in a given role over its archetype competitor is the only thing that the competitor can't take, and thats titles and/or upgrades. Essentially, niche builds. Gimicks, if you will. And Gimicks are FINE just as long as no one has ever seen it before. But in my experience once the gimick is laid bare it is easily countered (take Ackbar, for instance, that little min max red dice gimick messed people up and the forum was awash in tears about how OP he is...don't see that anymore and at tourneys ackbar lists are frequently honeypots for new players)

It can't all be about efficiency,

The MC80 can command more squadrons, it can roll more dice, it can take a lot more damage, and when you add in ship titles it gets ridiculous.

The ability to negate the brace token on every Imperial ship baring an ECM equipped ISD II(and that only gets to use it once per round) for 7pts is monstrously powerful.

Also it is the only ship outside Motti ISD's that can realistically expect to survive a triple tap from Demolisher, something no AF will ever do.

It can't all be about efficiency,

The MC80 can command more squadrons, it can roll more dice, it can take a lot more damage, and when you add in ship titles it gets ridiculous.

The ability to negate the brace token on every Imperial ship baring an ECM equipped ISD II(and that only gets to use it once per round) for 7pts is monstrously powerful.

Also it is the only ship outside Motti ISD's that can realistically expect to survive a triple tap from Demolisher, something no AF will ever do.

Problem is for an upgraded MC80 you can get TWO AF. This is what is meant by efficiency!

Also, Home One does NOT affect the ship its on, so no accuracy for you...

Also keep in mind that role based efficiencies apply too,

for example, 2 AFmk2 can have a greater effective squadron coverage than a boosted comms MC80 with a total squad value 2 greater for not many more points!

2 AF will get you 4 ackbar dice, 1 MC80 2...

But having analyzed and observed a great deal, it would be a cold day in hell before I took an MC80 to a tournament. Maybe I'm not "good enough" to make up for its shortcomings, but I don't understand why people don't see that this is yet again further proof that it is not the best choice most of the time!

According to this data, it was the best choice approximately half of the time.https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CFxsUmQgOTKOKQ8E5LOi1spviLkuJxtmxzhm7e23A40/edit#gid=594430368

In Sydney.

In NSW (and Canberrra). A massive geographic region, easily the size of half a dozen US States. NSW has three solid hubs of play and various satellite groups. This is not one weird meta doing it's own thing.

Efficiency is not the sole determining factor.

Whats the total population? Size is not the sole determining factor. How many different people play and how often? how often do the regional metas mix, if at all? Im in Canada, we got big areas too, some even have a person or two in them.

No its not the sole determining factor. So? Discounting it altogether because "joe smith runs a mean mc80" in no way changes the efficiency numbers. Hey, run all the MC80s you want! I'm sure it works out great!

as they say around here "good luck with that"

Regional metas mix bi monthly at Canberra, store 3D6. Any other region is an 8-12 hour drive. As for numbers can't say but for recorded attendance at events. Which comes to 52 unique persons over the last 10 tournments. Which is most of, but not all of, the tournments that were on over the last couple of months.

It can't all be about efficiency,

The MC80 can command more squadrons, it can roll more dice, it can take a lot more damage, and when you add in ship titles it gets ridiculous.

The ability to negate the brace token on every Imperial ship baring an ECM equipped ISD II(and that only gets to use it once per round) for 7pts is monstrously powerful.

Also it is the only ship outside Motti ISD's that can realistically expect to survive a triple tap from Demolisher, something no AF will ever do.

Problem is for an upgraded MC80 you can get TWO AF. This is what is meant by efficiency!

Also, Home One does NOT affect the ship its on, so no accuracy for you...

Also keep in mind that role based efficiencies apply too,

for example, 2 AFmk2 can have a greater effective squadron coverage than a boosted comms MC80 with a total squad value 2 greater for not many more points!

2 AF will get you 4 ackbar dice, 1 MC80 2...

You're missing the point, what if activating 6 squadrons at once will kill something that otherwise would destroy the activting ship? or it would clear something sat blocking the front arc? thus allowing your ship to move out of range, or a pretty bad situation.

What if you need to shoot something that will only be in range for one ship activation?

Needing 2 separate activations to achieve what one ship can do by itself, is the reason why efficiency is not a good metric in a game where which ship activates when, is so **** important.

And your really arguing that taking braces (could be any token mind) from 7 out of 8 Imperial ships for 7pts is not obscene?

Problem is for an upgraded MC80 you can get TWO AF. This is what is meant by efficiency!

The flaw in your mathematical modelling is your tactical assumptions.

If you have 2 AF's the chance of them both getting optimal shots at the same target isn't always possible unless you have a rather helpful opponent.

You also get efficiency in the cost of upgrades as the single ship gets a single XI7 and Intel Officer to do the same things that needs twice as many upgrades on the AF's.

The VSD is better mathematically than the ISD, so ...

I've never understood the "you can get two Assault Frigates for one MC80" claim. Either Assault Frigate MkIIBs suddenly became 53 points apiece or Command MC80s suddenly became 142 points.

You can get 1.47 Assault Frigates MkIIBs per Command MC80. Once you start applying upgrades, you'll get less Assault Frigates per MC80, assuming similar upgrade suites.

The VSD is better mathematically than the ISD, so ...

To add to this, I've never beaten two VSD's with a single MC80....

The VSD is better mathematically than the ISD, so ...

To add to this, I've never beaten two VSD's with a single MC80....

And that kind of highlights a point, an MC80 on its own against two VSD's will obviously have a hard time.

But any ship on its own is vulnerable against one or more enemy ships.

So any Rebel Fleet Commander (in his right mind), would/should have other ships/squadrons to assist and support his MC80 and visa versa, so the difference between if the MC80 is good or bad, also depends which ships, squadrons and upgrades its paired up with. Not forgetting the play style of its user and the roll of the dice.

If you play a MC80 as a ISD or visa versa, its user would be in for a few unpleasent surprises.

So one must ask which ships, squadron and upgrades would be ideal to pair up with a MC80???

Which play style should and should not be used???

Armada is somewhat a combined arms game, not a one on one game.

After all we know from a game of chess that the Queen is the more powerfull piece when compaired to the Knight.

But if one demanded the Queen to be able to do the same type of move that the Knight can, then the Queen is a terrible piece.

The above was an Ewok Snowball production

Honestly the mc80's strengths don't seem to be worth dealing with its problems. If I want to shoot red dice at range ill run an af2 and if i want to brawl i'll use small ships.

But having analyzed and observed a great deal, it would be a cold day in hell before I took an MC80 to a tournament. Maybe I'm not "good enough" to make up for its shortcomings, but I don't understand why people don't see that this is yet again further proof that it is not the best choice most of the time!

According to this data, it was the best choice approximately half of the time.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CFxsUmQgOTKOKQ8E5LOi1spviLkuJxtmxzhm7e23A40/edit#gid=594430368

In Sydney. I make many of the tourneys in my area and ask for fleet comps in the ones I can't make and it seems to me that MC80s show up on the wrong side of 10-0s most of the time and I've never seen one win a tournament. In fact, as time passes and people have learned how to deal with derp ackbar builds, seeing an MC80 in a list is usually met with raised eyebrows and a friendly "good luck with that".

My argument is that sure, meta to meta YMMV, but what does not vary are simple PPStat calculations. Do them yourself and you will see why people end up taking whales over MC80s unless they are trying some wacky build.

For record Hastiator, I agree in general in that I believe points efficiency plays a huge part of fleet building.

I feel though that, as the EasternKing and Amanal point out, efficiency alone is not the only judge in the utility of a ship. As Amanal argues you're assuming that tactically the two guppies (being charitable and disregarding Snipafist's 1.5 AF per MC80 contention) will be operating at the same effectiveness. Again, EasternKing's point, that the all-in-one nature of a MC80's activation compared to two AF's is pretty on point, and really what both of them are arguing almost is that the MC80 is greater than the sum of its mathematical parts. This is of course up for debate, and I can understand if you disagree with those conclusions. Also for record, I'm not saying the MC80 is better than the Assault Frigate, it's just different, and that doesn't mean its not a great ship.

I do however, take umbrage with the off hand dismissal of data and anecdotal evidence as purely being a 'Sydney meta' phenomenon without any real consideration of the data behind it. In a nutshell I think you were too quick to both write it off as a meta-variance rather than data that can be referred to, and as part of this immediately assume your own meta is superior (carn, it's pretty apparent from the tone of your post). I'm not arguing either way on 'which meta is better' and I believe 100% that all metas differ to some degree or other, however results and strategies from other regional metas are still reflective of the wider shifts of the game and I think the implicit assumption that other meta's are bad at the game is one that a player makes at their own peril.

For record 'Sydney' (or really NSW as it should be known) as a regional meta broadly encompasses 5 local metas, Parramatta, Town Hall, Orange/Bathurst, Newcastle, and Canberra. As a rough guess, Parramatta has roughly 10-12 regular players, Town Hall 8-10, Orange/Bathurst 6-8, Newcastle 10-12, and Canberra 6-8. Each local meta has its own variances and these change regularly as the local metas spar off in tournaments. NSW is a meta melting pot, and local meta strategies get broken by these inter-meta tournaments. Further, several talented players run, or have run, AF based lists, and they are always present at tournaments (including those in which MC80 based lists came out on top). My main point here is that, if these MC80 lists were the result of local meta they're going to get broken pretty **** quickly (as people learn how to deal with derpy MC80 builds) and traded in for AFs like you suggest, and perhaps instead the actual results should be paid some notice.

Just as an aside, the lists actually were all rather varied; one was a Riekkan Aces, one was a Garm double MC80 & a CR90, one was a Ackbar MC80 with a corvette swarm, and the other was an Ackbar double MC80. Again, perhaps suggesting that there may be something to the outcomes, considering that the strategies of each list are rather different.

All I'm really saying is that maybe that data shouldn't just be met with a guffaw and a 'yeah, well, good luck with that'.

But having analyzed and observed a great deal, it would be a cold day in hell before I took an MC80 to a tournament. Maybe I'm not "good enough" to make up for its shortcomings, but I don't understand why people don't see that this is yet again further proof that it is not the best choice most of the time!

According to this data, it was the best choice approximately half of the time.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CFxsUmQgOTKOKQ8E5LOi1spviLkuJxtmxzhm7e23A40/edit#gid=594430368

In Sydney. I make many of the tourneys in my area and ask for fleet comps in the ones I can't make and it seems to me that MC80s show up on the wrong side of 10-0s most of the time and I've never seen one win a tournament. In fact, as time passes and people have learned how to deal with derp ackbar builds, seeing an MC80 in a list is usually met with raised eyebrows and a friendly "good luck with that".

My argument is that sure, meta to meta YMMV, but what does not vary are simple PPStat calculations. Do them yourself and you will see why people end up taking whales over MC80s unless they are trying some wacky build.

For record Hastiator, I agree in general in that I believe points efficiency plays a huge part of fleet building.

I feel though that, as the EasternKing and Amanal point out, efficiency alone is not the only judge in the utility of a ship. As Amanal argues you're assuming that tactically the two guppies (being charitable and disregarding Snipafist's 1.5 AF per MC80 contention) will be operating at the same effectiveness. Again, EasternKing's point, that the all-in-one nature of a MC80's activation compared to two AF's is pretty on point, and really what both of them are arguing almost is that the MC80 is greater than the sum of its mathematical parts. This is of course up for debate, and I can understand if you disagree with those conclusions. Also for record, I'm not saying the MC80 is better than the Assault Frigate, it's just different, and that doesn't mean its not a great ship.

I do however, take umbrage with the off hand dismissal of data and anecdotal evidence as purely being a 'Sydney meta' phenomenon without any real consideration of the data behind it. In a nutshell I think you were too quick to both write it off as a meta-variance rather than data that can be referred to, and as part of this immediately assume your own meta is superior (carn, it's pretty apparent from the tone of your post). I'm not arguing either way on 'which meta is better' and I believe 100% that all metas differ to some degree or other, however results and strategies from other regional metas are still reflective of the wider shifts of the game and I think the implicit assumption that other meta's are bad at the game is one that a player makes at their own peril.

For record 'Sydney' (or really NSW as it should be known) as a regional meta broadly encompasses 5 local metas, Parramatta, Town Hall, Orange/Bathurst, Newcastle, and Canberra. As a rough guess, Parramatta has roughly 10-12 regular players, Town Hall 8-10, Orange/Bathurst 6-8, Newcastle 10-12, and Canberra 6-8. Each local meta has its own variances and these change regularly as the local metas spar off in tournaments. NSW is a meta melting pot, and local meta strategies get broken by these inter-meta tournaments. Further, several talented players run, or have run, AF based lists, and they are always present at tournaments (including those in which MC80 based lists came out on top). My main point here is that, if these MC80 lists were the result of local meta they're going to get broken pretty **** quickly (as people learn how to deal with derpy MC80 builds) and traded in for AFs like you suggest, and perhaps instead the actual results should be paid some notice.

Just as an aside, the lists actually were all rather varied; one was a Riekkan Aces, one was a Garm double MC80 & a CR90, one was a Ackbar MC80 with a corvette swarm, and the other was an Ackbar double MC80. Again, perhaps suggesting that there may be something to the outcomes, considering that the strategies of each list are rather different.

All I'm really saying is that maybe that data shouldn't just be met with a guffaw and a 'yeah, well, good luck with that'.

Yeah problem is, does the data tell you how many lists that brought an MC80 lost 10-0 or 9-1? Does it tell you what the average score was for an MC80 bearing list? The data is not centered around the subject.

I also don't put a lot of stock into the "tactical considerations" argument. Sorry. All things being equal we are talking about a commander that is equally skilled at flying 2 whales as flying 1 MC80, you can come up with hypotheticals till you are blue in the face, but the only thing we can compare in a vacuum are numbers. The MC80 is not "better enough" on its own to account for the 1.5 AFs you are leaving off the board to take it. Its the opportunity cost that is not serviced by the MC80. Does the "niche value" overcome the opportunity cost? Some people will say yes, some will say no. At that point its a case of opinion, and like I've said before: good luck with that! I think in coming waves we will see some of the shortcoming of the VSD and MC80 addressed, just having the opinion that the shortcomings don't exist doesn't make the numbers go away!

Snipa, yes I know what you mean regarding 2 AF vs 1 MC80, yes 2 AF are more expensive but if you take 1 MC80 it has the oportunity cost of taking those 2 AF. If you look at the PPStat stuff, to get an idea of the opportunity cost you just increase the value of the AF numbers by the ratio of how many you can take vs an MC80 (1.whatever). Its simplistic, but i mean you could also look at a whale and a (highly efficient) CR90 v.s. 1 MC80 (point cost much closer) and the 2 ship efficiency would still come out on top plus allowing the tactical flexibility of more ships, more shields, more hull points, more activations.

Sorry, but the math is strong in this one. Want to convince me the MC80 is great despite the numbers? Try explaining to me WHY its good rather than attacking why I think its bad. Numbers won't change because you don't think they are important!

Oh and try and convince me why Home One is so great when facing a rhymerball, cause you aint catching my ISD and Demolisher and if you do you will wish you didn't.

Edit: I realized this sounds flip, but the point im trying to make is that it is an extremely situational title for 7 points. Compare to Demolisher which always plays very effectively for 10 or Yavaris which is crucial to a bomber list and will be used in most games against most lists to good effect. Home one is 7 points and only affects OTHER ships of which you can bring less because of the cost of the MC80 to bring the title!

Don't forget one of the most significant deciding factors, what looks better.

For this *very* objective reason the MC80 Home One is superior to the AF Mk. II.

Hastatior you cant complain about me arguing arbitary situations and pull out home one vs rhymer being the utmost question....