I think the difference though, is that rhymerball can be played around some, can be handled by squadrons of your own, what have you. There are a larger variety of methods to deal with it. DeMSU with first player, that triple tap is a foregone conclusion unless you brought your own five ship list or out bid your opponent. And that leads to frustruting/unenjoyable gaming experiences. There are great games that come down to the wire and you look across the table and say "wow well played man, I don't even know what I could have done differently" and thats good and everyone feels great. With DeMSU against some lists its like "Wow, well played but then as long as you didn't competely screw the pooch there was nothing I could do anyway" and that feels terrible for 50 percent of the people involved.

I hear you.

What we want is for the wins/losses to be determined by player skill, rather than (net-)builds and dice.

But in this discussion we're talking specifically about the Demolisher title card, not the DeMSU list. I'm sure that someone is going to find an Achilles heel of the DeMSU list other than outbidding, and I think there's already someone talking about that. But is it really Demolisher on her own that is breaking the game? If so, why hasn't the game been broken since Wave 1?

I believe we are talking about demolisher as a result of rise of the DeMSU list, which coincidentaly answers your question about why it wasn't OP in wave 1. I think if you look the discussion as a whole, you'll find that most of the valid arguments regarding a Demolisher nerf center around its function within that archtype, and as such there is little point to trying to sever concerns about the DeMSU from the Title card. We talk about nerfing Demo because its the easiest knob to turn on that list, with the least far reaching consequences.

If its just demo in a vacuum, the card is fine. In most lists its just a little more difficult to play around. In DeMSU, there is a legitimate concern it might be broken. Thats the crux, imo, of this discussion. So far the jury is out, but I do believe there is more than enough evidence for us to take a long look at it.

Yeah but you can't look at it in isolation because it doesn't exist in isolation.

Like any ecosystem, you change one thing and it will have far reaching repercussions, so by definition you cannot make a change "in a vacuum". It's a fallacy to just pick out demo. Look at it this way, it would just as effectively break the archetype if raiders cost 5-10 more points, making it difficult to implement the MSU bit of DeMSU (possibly impossible). Would that be fair to lists that have raiders in Squadron control roles? or as a spare activation? No. Raider doesn't exist in a vacuum either!

I specifically state that we aren't looking at demo in a vacuum and why we aren't, and then specifically state we are looking at demo because it has the least far reaching consequences. Your argument about the raider is a pretty good reason to look hard at demo. I'm going to explain why I think demo makes the most sense to look at, some of the dangers therein, and I'm gonna ramble so maybe get a soda;

If we take as given that DeMSU is broken (which is still not at all a given, but just bear with me), we then lookat what makes it work, because these are the potential knobs designers can turn for balance purposes;

High activations

Low bid

Demolisher kit; Demo, IO, Exp launcher (or ordinance of your choice), ord experts, ET

Dice manipulating commander (Vader or Screed)

You already pointed out in your raider example why we probably shouldnt turn the point cost knob on the base ships involved, and bid is pretty tough to balance at the design point, lets look at components. I'd be remiss not to point out that flotillas may either address or exacerbate the activation issue, but since we don't know yet we can't really consider them too much. FFG can, thankfully. The commanders are fine, IMO. Vader is pretty expensive and screed is good but at least imo, not OP. Plus touching him hits the imperials on the whole, not just this archtype and we want to avoid that as best we can. Since again, we have decided for the sake of this argument that a knob MUST be turned for the sake of balance, lets look at the dreaded Demo, piece by piece;

Engine Techs- I don't think anyone really wants to see this card messed with.

Ordinance- black dice are high risk(get in close), high reward(peanut butter murder time) for a reason. Plus, would require sweeping changes to multiple cards, and would effect both factions. Pass.

Intel Officer- Good, not OP.

Ordinance Experts- Oh man these guys are so gold, and so cheap. And that dice manipulation is definetely a big part of this type. But touching these mean you also hurt raiders, vic and isd-1s (in theory), and mc30s. So lets hold off.

Which leaves us at Demolisher. If we turn this knob, we can tweak the archtype with what appears to be the least amount of collateral damage. It creates more options on the imperial side the way blizzard creates more options in talent trees, by taking your really good option away, which is definetely not ideal. But imp MSU can certainly still be a thing, the same way rebel MSU can be a thing, depending on how you tweak it.

If you take shoot-move away, you probably kill the archtype. But you also probably give way to the great trc90 uprising of 2016, in which we discover how many of those models can fit inside the dark side of an opponents sither. Probably too heavy handed.

You can introduce a new upgrade/upgrades meant to counter it. In general, this is my favorite knob, because it doesn't get rid of anything that already existed. It has its own dangers though, because if the cure is worse then the disease everyone just calls in sick.

Some folks have mentioned errata'ing the et shot. Thats certainly a very measured approach, only hits demo, and the only real concern is if its not strong enough an action. So far in this thread, its probably the best overall option IF, after we look at the data, it is clear we actually have a problem on our hands.

Please remember most of the above operates on the assumption that the DeMSU archtype actually requires a fix, which is not a position I'm actually taking. My position is that its something worth looking at, and if there is an issue, Demolisher is the most sensible balance knob to turn barring a future release that fixes the issue.

TL;DR - ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

I think we are generally in agreement.

Even down to the conclusion that errataing After-ET shot is probably the least Butterfly Effect option that does not torpedo the entire point of demolisher.

I would go further and say that DeMSU is a broken Archetype (for right now). And a knee jerk upgrade would be a bad idea and so situational as to either become a tedious auto include that makes list building basically start out with a point deficit equal to the cost of that upgrade, or so general that it becomes the new hate magnet.

Ok, we are all in agreement. FFG, go ahead and FAQ this thing!

When are we nerfing Yavaris? Before or after nerfing Demolisher?

So give Yavaris a reroll for all the fighter die, upgrades that help. Boosted Comms, etc. It has no synergy with any ship upgrades that the Neb-B can take *except* officers. It's a carrier that has to be closer than most wave 2 carriers thanks to a 4 point upgrade, on a ship that wants to stay at long range. If, like Demolisher, it had all of the synergies between upgrades, then we could talk about nerfing it. The only real synergy it has that's not an officer on Yavaris is Adar Talon on another ship. Yavaris is a good carrier. Not a great carrier in Wave 2. Frankly the only thing that I think is a *great* carrier in Wave 2 is an ISD1, though expensive.

We can debate (as this whole thread is) if Demolisher is broken and by how much, but I think that most people will agree, if we assume it's broken now:

Take away OE, and Demolisher isn't broken, take away Intel Officer, and it's not broken, take away Ordinance upgrades and it's not broken. Take away ET and it's less broken.

I already said this....

You know, the one thing nobody has mentioned, I think, is why don't you just increase the points cost of Demolisher to bring it in line with the lethality?

At 20 points, for example, it would cause severe damage to the MSU+bid archetype but could still be worked into most lists.

I specifically state that we aren't looking at demo in a vacuum and why we aren't, and then specifically state we are looking at demo because it has the least far reaching consequences. Your argument about the raider is a pretty good reason to look hard at demo. I'm going to explain why I think demo makes the most sense to look at, some of the dangers therein, and I'm gonna ramble so maybe get a soda;

[...]

Please remember most of the above operates on the assumption that the DeMSU archtype actually requires a fix, which is not a position I'm actually taking. My position is that its something worth looking at, and if there is an issue, Demolisher is the most sensible balance knob to turn barring a future release that fixes the issue.

That's very well reasoned.

Personally, I'm more sympathetic to the idea of fixing Demolisher only if Demolisher herself is broken, because she's a part of the game's structure (fixed elements). Builds, like DeMSU, are part of the constructed meta (the things that people choose to play in response to other people's choices, filtered through biased perception).

I think it's a mistake for FFG has to fix something every time a particular list gets a certain amount of hype. If they go and chase the meta, they'll probably not be able to get around to making a fix until the meta itself has already found a fix, in which case they give an even greater boost to that fix, in which case it becomes the new build that people have a hue and cry about, demanding that FFG fix it.

You know, the one thing nobody has mentioned, I think, is why don't you just increase the points cost of Demolisher to bring it in line with the lethality?

At 20 points, for example, it would cause severe damage to the MSU+bid archetype but could still be worked into most lists.

That's a tough one, because the current points cost is printed on the card. It's really hard to deal with the printed word on physical cardstock that's spread around the world.

in that same vein though all of these changes effect the print on the card

I specifically state that we aren't looking at demo in a vacuum and why we aren't, and then specifically state we are looking at demo because it has the least far reaching consequences. Your argument about the raider is a pretty good reason to look hard at demo. I'm going to explain why I think demo makes the most sense to look at, some of the dangers therein, and I'm gonna ramble so maybe get a soda;

[...]

Please remember most of the above operates on the assumption that the DeMSU archtype actually requires a fix, which is not a position I'm actually taking. My position is that its something worth looking at, and if there is an issue, Demolisher is the most sensible balance knob to turn barring a future release that fixes the issue.

That's very well reasoned.

Personally, I'm more sympathetic to the idea of fixing Demolisher only if Demolisher herself is broken, because she's a part of the game's structure (fixed elements). Builds, like DeMSU, are part of the constructed meta (the things that people choose to play in response to other people's choices, filtered through biased perception).

I think it's a mistake for FFG has to fix something every time a particular list gets a certain amount of hype. If they go and chase the meta, they'll probably not be able to get around to making a fix until the meta itself has already found a fix, in which case they give an even greater boost to that fix, in which case it becomes the new build that people have a hue and cry about, demanding that FFG fix it.

You know, the one thing nobody has mentioned, I think, is why don't you just increase the points cost of Demolisher to bring it in line with the lethality?

At 20 points, for example, it would cause severe damage to the MSU+bid archetype but could still be worked into most lists.

That's a tough one, because the current points cost is printed on the card. It's really hard to deal with the printed word on physical cardstock that's spread around the world.

What?

That's a non-argument. That's the worst argument in fact, that I've ever heard.

Do you even know what the word "Errata" means? Every single one of those is a formal announcement that the card text has been changed retroactively.

The Engine Tech Errata is the best place to start. It requires zero actual change to the text of the card and scales back the threat range of Demolisher's ability.

You know, the one thing nobody has mentioned, I think, is why don't you just increase the points cost of Demolisher to bring it in line with the lethality?

At 20 points, for example, it would cause severe damage to the MSU+bid archetype but could still be worked into most lists.

That's a tough one, because the current points cost is printed on the card. It's really hard to deal with the printed word on physical cardstock that's spread around the world.

What?

That's a non-argument. That's the worst argument in fact, that I've ever heard.

Do you even know what the word "Errata" means? Every single one of those is a formal announcement that the card text has been changed retroactively.

Bro', why do you have to question my command of vocabulary?

Also, you must not be exposed to bad arguments very often.

Errata, as I understand their use, is in order to address misprints - where the text does not say what it was intended to say. Sure, they could go about it that way, but I think they're going to be extremely hesitant to do so about an explicit point value.

If MSU is the real issue, doesn't the upcoming flotillas potentially make it worse?

If MSU is the real issue, doesn't the upcoming flotillas potentially make it worse?

It's hard to say. The flotillas may allow for squads with one or two big ships (and a swarm of flotillas) to also get activation advantage, thus giving you two ways to do an end-run around Demolisher's triple tap: point bidding for initiative (which you can currently do) as well as activation up-bidding.

If MSU is the real issue, doesn't the upcoming flotillas potentially make it worse?

Yes and no. The Raiders in the list are much more of a threat than anyone seems to want to acknowledge. Taking them out in favor of a couple flotillas would increase the activation count, but significantly decrease the firepower. Plus, none of the fleet support upgrades revealed thus far synergize all that well with the DeMSU.

Meanwhile, they'll definitely help three ship lists get more activations. Again, it will cost firepower. However, the fleet support abilities, especially BCC will offset some of that.

You know, the one thing nobody has mentioned, I think, is why don't you just increase the points cost of Demolisher to bring it in line with the lethality?

At 20 points, for example, it would cause severe damage to the MSU+bid archetype but could still be worked into most lists.

That's a tough one, because the current points cost is printed on the card. It's really hard to deal with the printed word on physical cardstock that's spread around the world.

What?

That's a non-argument. That's the worst argument in fact, that I've ever heard.

Do you even know what the word "Errata" means? Every single one of those is a formal announcement that the card text has been changed retroactively.

Bro', why do you have to question my command of vocabulary?

Also, you must not be exposed to bad arguments very often.

Errata, as I understand their use, is in order to address misprints - where the text does not say what it was intended to say. Sure, they could go about it that way, but I think they're going to be extremely hesitant to do so about an explicit point value.

FFG has a history of completely changing the card abilities and powers in their miniatures games, both in X-Wing and in Imperial Assault, Especially when those abilities completely dominate the competitive scene, such as royal Guards in IA and Cloak Actions in Xwing. Changing a single points cost would be easy and eliminate other ambiguities in the card text. To bring that upgrade in line with its 10 point cost would be a major nerf that would likely require a complete redesign of the card based on the ability of other 10 point titles.

What?

That's a non-argument. That's the worst argument in fact, that I've ever heard.

Do you even know what the word "Errata" means? Every single one of those is a formal announcement that the card text has been changed retroactively.

Bro', why do you have to question my command of vocabulary?

Also, you must not be exposed to bad arguments very often.

Errata, as I understand their use, is in order to address misprints - where the text does not say what it was intended to say. Sure, they could go about it that way, but I think they're going to be extremely hesitant to do so about an explicit point value.

FFG has a history of completely changing the card abilities and powers in their miniatures games, both in X-Wing and in Imperial Assault, Especially when those abilities completely dominate the competitive scene, such as royal Guards in IA and Cloak Actions in Xwing. Changing a single points cost would be easy and eliminate other ambiguities in the card text. To bring that upgrade in line with its 10 point cost would be a major nerf that would likely require a complete redesign of the card based on the ability of other 10 point titles.

I was tangentially aware of the IA alterations, but you're right - that was a nerf that altered the text on cards significantly. (The X-Wing case was on the little rules cards, not to the playing cards themselves.)

So, I concede the point that it wouldn't be an unprecedented hurdle for them, though I think they'll still be very reluctant to do so.

There you have it - you can make a point, and back it up with examples. You don't have to question my command of the language in order to be state your case and be convincing in the process.

If MSU is the real issue, doesn't the upcoming flotillas potentially make it worse?

Yes and no. The Raiders in the list are much more of a threat than anyone seems to want to acknowledge. Taking them out in favor of a couple flotillas would increase the activation count, but significantly decrease the firepower. Plus, none of the fleet support upgrades revealed thus far synergize all that well with the DeMSU.

Meanwhile, they'll definitely help three ship lists get more activations. Again, it will cost firepower. However, the fleet support abilities, especially BCC will offset some of that.

One part of the raider specifically... The anti squadron.

Also, they will act as cheap blockers/speedbumps to prevent the demolisher from getting up closer to its target on the initial charge in.

And finally, since demolisher can't get rid of defense tokens easily...flotillas are going to be hard for a demolisher to kill. Actually, they're maybe the best ship to be able to survive a demolisher triple tap.

If MSU is the real issue, doesn't the upcoming flotillas potentially make it worse?

Yes and no. The Raiders in the list are much more of a threat than anyone seems to want to acknowledge. Taking them out in favor of a couple flotillas would increase the activation count, but significantly decrease the firepower. Plus, none of the fleet support upgrades revealed thus far synergize all that well with the DeMSU.

Meanwhile, they'll definitely help three ship lists get more activations. Again, it will cost firepower. However, the fleet support abilities, especially BCC will offset some of that.

One part of the raider specifically... The anti squadron.

Also, they will act as cheap blockers/speedbumps to prevent the demolisher from getting up closer to its target on the initial charge in.

And finally, since demolisher can't get rid of defense tokens easily...flotillas are going to be hard for a demolisher to kill. Actually, they're maybe the best ship to be able to survive a demolisher triple tap.

intel officer

they may survive the first shot but they will not survive the 2nd

also because I am proud of it Clonisher just got its official paint job:

After Exceptional service to the Empire in recent months a Gladiator Class Star Destroyer that is named for the Kuat word for"destroy" was commissioned to be repainted. The Emperor decided to allow this use of Imperial funds as he wishes to exploit the Fear caused by this ship and its Excellent crew amongst the ranks of the rebellion.

It has just left the hands of the Company commissioned to paint it (dras) and it is on route to the front-lines as we speak where it will Continue to serve the Empire

Ladies and Gentleman I persent to you the Clonisher

As most of you know by now Clonisher is known for utterly annihilating any ship that dares to oppose the empire using 3 salvos of heavy missiles and turbo lasers. The markings are representative of the unique tactics used by Clonisher with the long stripes down its starboard hull symbolizing the extreme range the missile can reach and the exceptional speed of the ship itself as it is know for chasing down and crushing nimble block-aid runners to insignificant to dedicate a full Imperial Class. The red "fang" at the bow represents the fierce forward firepower and the 3 markings together remind all who oppose them they are 3 salvos away from utter destruction. Clonisher proudly bears its Colors, the symbol of the Empire, on its port side to remind its Victims, the Followers of Chaos, that Order will prevail!

Edit: Wanted to make it more clear that Drasnighta painted it for me by commission and I will be Eternally greatful

You should glue some oversized missile hood ornaments to the front!

One part of the raider specifically... The anti squadron.

Also, they will act as cheap blockers/speedbumps to prevent the demolisher from getting up closer to its target on the initial charge in.

And finally, since demolisher can't get rid of defense tokens easily...flotillas are going to be hard for a demolisher to kill. Actually, they're maybe the best ship to be able to survive a demolisher triple tap.

intel officer

they may survive the first shot but they will not survive the 2nd

Well, sure... :-p

um also there is this thing called sensor teams... Just sayin

looks great dras! Wrong thread clon but it looks great!

also because I am proud of it Clonisher just got its official paint job:


After Exceptional service to the Empire in recent months a Gladiator Class Star Destroyer that is named for the Kuat word for"destroy" was commissioned to be repainted. The Emperor decided to allow this use of Imperial funds as he wishes to exploit the Fear caused by this ship and its Excellent crew amongst the ranks of the rebellion.

It has just left the hands of the Company commissioned to paint it (dras) and it is on route to the front-lines as we speak where it will Continue to serve the Empire


Ladies and Gentleman I persent to you the Clonisher





As most of you know by now Clonisher is known for utterly annihilating any ship that dares to oppose the empire using 3 salvos of heavy missiles and turbo lasers. The markings are representative of the unique tactics used by Clonisher with the long stripes down its starboard hull symbolizing the extreme range the missile can reach and the exceptional speed of the ship itself as it is know for chasing down and crushing nimble block-aid runners to insignificant to dedicate a full Imperial Class. The red "fang" at the bow represents the fierce forward firepower and the 3 markings together remind all who oppose them they are 3 salvos away from utter destruction. Clonisher proudly bears its Colors, the symbol of the Empire, on its port side to remind its Victims, the Followers of Chaos, that Order will prevail!



Edit: Wanted to make it more clear that Drasnighta painted it for me by commission and I will be Eternally greatful

Well, I always have at least 7, and usually 8 or 9 deployments. Its pretty difficult to outdeploy my fleet.

Personally, I have found that I don't care if they out deploy me. DtO handles squadrons the same way it always will (which will likely result in its death when flotilla's come out) and that is "**** the bombers! Full speed ahead!"

In all seriousness. This whole game is in for a shakeup in a couple of short months. Every wave inserts enough uncertainty that its sure to unseat the current meta darling.

It is entirely likely that on release of wave 3 this won't even be an issue anymore...

I am not entirely convinced. Wave 1 saw the whole Demolisher, Engine Techs, Assault Concussion Missiles, Intel Officer take hold, wave two changes the ACM for APT. Around here wave 2 was supposed to affect the Demolisher Meta by introducing the Tractor Beams. Yet, except for one opponent, in one game I have never seen a tractor beam used.

So here is the question why do you see the Flotillas changing this?

They aren't fast enough to chase down Demolisher, they need A-Wings or Interceptors to push around as even a Speed 4 fighter will only get a shot off most of the time as a second shot can be rather situational. The next wave brings with it a few upgrade cards, some of which may upset Demolisher, but there could just as easily be an unspoiled card that gives it a boost.

I don't disagree entirely, Wave 3 will change things, but it may not be the changes we expect.

They aren't fast enough to chase down Demolisher,

I dont think we actually "know" their speed... technically...

Amanal - I am of the opinion the very inexpensive flotillas will make the demolisher even more broken. Not sure what people think they will do to three attack paradigm. Doesn't change that.

As soon as they are out, I will have 9-11 deployments and 6-7 activations, with a demolisher and a 100 pt rhymer/bomber/anti squad.

Flotillas will only help the high activation demolisher list.

You guys also seem to think Demolisher is the only one who has to take shots on the flotillas. Clon might just adapt playstyle to have raiders clear the chaff and spend the scatter token.