Anyone actually want a reasoned discussion about the power of going first?

Until the objectives change with the Correlian Conflict it will still be far more advantageous to play a last/first game in order to do crippling damage whilst avoiding receiving return fire, than to play for objective points.

The Correlian Conflict will change that with the ability to pick a trio of objectives which really punish your opponent.

The second bit about hard counters to Demo was more to the general subject of the thread. But in conclusion, even with these new counters DEMSU lists will still want to go first and be willing to pay dearly for the privilege. After all, if going second made life tough for demo and raiders BEFORE, going second now and meeting a control list is potential suicide.

This is the part I'm most curious about...with a lot more options now available to shut Demolisher down, even if you do go first, there's a much better chance you won't get the autowin that you did before.

So my question is, with that in mind (assuming it's true, and I think it is), will players be less apt to build for DeMSU lists? And I think the community collectively seems to have answered "no".

Don't mind the fireworks that seem to be happening around you in this thread. What you are describing is true to an extant but you have to play it out to it's full conclusion in regards to the bid question. Going first is already important if you are playing DeMSU as an example, all the nerfs and counters in Wave 3+4 DO making it harder to play DeMSU but ALSO make it much more integral to get first player. The only way I see the bids changing right now is if people stop playing MSU which I don't think will happen this wave because right now the 1 player bonuses are too good, and the firepower and survive ability are just too good to pass up, so bids will stay the same. It might get a little harder though.

An alternative that could force a change to the bidding is if a no bid second player list wins worlds.

Come on guys, let's be civil, please?

No one gets shot for being wrong and no one gets a medal for being right.

I love the smell of flame war in the morning.

I'm curious to see how it will shake out. For my own part, I haven't really tried to win a bidding war, and I haven't been too focused on aligning my fleet with my objectives. I've been building for fun and to see what I could do around a concept. I've also not been winning all that much, but I've also not been caring.

Once I do start to care again, I think it will be interesting to see if the new objectives will give a greater edge to 2nd player than the current crop seem to do. How many people bid in order to secure the hold on 2nd player? It seems to be all about 1st. That suggests to me that the objectives are not enough of a balance in the current meta.

What solid arguments are there for Wave 3&4 changing that?

I love the smell of flame war in the morning.

I'm curious to see how it will shake out. For my own part, I haven't really tried to win a bidding war, and I haven't been too focused on aligning my fleet with my objectives. I've been building for fun and to see what I could do around a concept. I've also not been winning all that much, but I've also not been caring.

Once I do start to care again, I think it will be interesting to see if the new objectives will give a greater edge to 2nd player than the current crop seem to do. How many people bid in order to secure the hold on 2nd player? It seems to be all about 1st. That suggests to me that the objectives are not enough of a balance in the current meta.

What solid arguments are there for Wave 3&4 changing that?

So far all my lists have been up against the 400 point limit cuz I can fit the most new toys in that way.

Come on guys, let's be civil, please?

No one gets shot for being wrong and no one gets a medal for being right.

Until then, what makes going first so good? I get that going first allows you to shoot first and get out of range before receiving return fire, but isnt that only exceptionally good when you have both the first and last activations? There's also the ability to make sure you can do a bombing run before getting engaged, but I don't feel like I understand the entirety of what makes it worth 20 points.

Sorry for the dumb replies. I'll leave it up as a monument to my own folly.

Come on guys, let's be civil, please?

No one gets shot for being wrong and no one gets a medal for being right.

Shooting down a stranger on an internet forum bestows a sense of satisfaction that no medal could ever hope to equal. You think I'm kidding? Hit me with all the hostility your fingertips can muster, as if your were Lord Sidious himself, then reevaluate your feelings on the importance of civility. Don't act like this is a game.

Until then, what makes going first so good? I get that going first allows you to shoot first and get out of range before receiving return fire, but isnt that only exceptionally good when you have both the first and last activations? There's also the ability to make sure you can do a bombing run before getting engaged, but I don't feel like I understand the entirety of what makes it worth 20 points.

Going first allows you to set up Bad Choices for your opponent. Even if you activations are even. As any military strategy buff will tell you setting up Bad Choices for your opponent is the cornerstone of victory. As first player you have the glory of first activation, which can be used to either extricate a ship from a bad situation, get a last shot off with a ship before it's turned to slag, or finish off an enemy before it even gets to activate (which is why Reikaan is considered an excellent counter to MSU). If you have last and first you can set up situations and execute them with your opponent being a mere spectator.

To balance this you have Objectives...which can be hit and miss...so yes, first player might have a slight advantage that is not truly accounted for just yet.

.... and people were slagging off an extra 12 objectives as "completely unnecessary", "over the top", and "a total waste.:"

Anyone actually want a reasoned discussion about the power of going first?

Until the objectives change with the Correlian Conflict it will still be far more advantageous to play a last/first game in order to do crippling damage whilst avoiding receiving return fire, than to play for objective points.

The Correlian Conflict will change that with the ability to pick a trio of objectives which really punish your opponent.

As you know, there are lists that can win without going first (As well as being strong enough to be on the radar for regional/national level tourneys). Lets not forget that the discussion is not about the advantage of going first but about the bid.

There are enough strong archetypes that will prefer to spend 10+ points on upgrades instead of bidding for first (and are more effective this way)

.... and people were slagging off an extra 12 objectives as "completely unnecessary", "over the top", and "a total waste.:"

I missed people saying that, but thats banana's to me. I think thats what I'm most stoked for.

I believe both GenCon finalists were set up to go second unless facing off against themselves. Norm's primary goal in the last round was to first destroy Dong's squadron cover, leaving his ships exposed and eliminating the majority of the anti so threat to Demolisher.

Anyone actually want a reasoned discussion about the power of going first?

Until the objectives change with the Correlian Conflict it will still be far more advantageous to play a last/first game in order to do crippling damage whilst avoiding receiving return fire, than to play for objective points.

The Correlian Conflict will change that with the ability to pick a trio of objectives which really punish your opponent.

As you know, there are lists that can win without going first (As well as being strong enough to be on the radar for regional/national level tourneys). Lets not forget that the discussion is not about the advantage of going first but about the bid.

But is it really not about the advantage of going first? It seems to me that in the current meta (in my observation, at home and through internet rumor) there's been a very strong preference for going first, and that's what people try to capture with the bid.

In that sense, if there's a really strong sense to bid for first, why bother bidding for second, when you can have just a few more toys to help you crush your enemies?

But is it really not about the advantage of going first? It seems to me that in the current meta (in my observation, at home and through internet rumor) there's been a very strong preference for going first, and that's what people try to capture with the bid.

In that sense, if there's a really strong sense to bid for first, why bother bidding for second, when you can have just a few more toys to help you crush your enemies?

It is about the price of that advantage. Essentially a small bid for second is to prevent someone from having all the toys to crush the enemies AND going first with a very small (1-2 points) bid.

I did. Won two tourneys in a row back in KY. Maxed points both times, went second in both tourneys in all games. Granted, it was wave one still. Not sure how it would work in the current meta, but I normally don't care f I go first or second. I build fleets to handle both. In the end, regardless of fleet composition, it's really the quality of the Admiral that will determine the outcome.

Ohh Gink, its like your new to the internets...

What was that about being wrong again?

1 anecdotal evidence of a guy winning store championships versus the might of regional and national tournament data.

What was that, you are still incapable of reasoned argument?

Be reasonable, and I will be, till then, stop being a fool

GenCon was won by second player, Vancouver Nationals had naboobo2000 win his last game as second player.

Going first is awesome. Always has been, still is. Lets me influence activation order, let's me pick the objective that's not so bad for me.

Sure, I can win as second player, and some lists tackle second better, but of given the choice, I'd always go first.

Oh, I guess this will be taken as bragging but I beat Hero as second player and my list wanted first BAD!

Oh, I guess this will be taken as bragging but I beat Hero as second player and my list wanted first BAD!

This is important: you will not always have initiative. You must be able to play and win as second too.

I did. Won two tourneys in a row back in KY. Maxed points both times, went second in both tourneys in all games. Granted, it was wave one still. Not sure how it would work in the current meta, but I normally don't care f I go first or second. I build fleets to handle both. In the end, regardless of fleet composition, it's really the quality of the Admiral that will determine the outcome.

Ohh Gink, its like your new to the internets...

What was that about being wrong again?

1 anecdotal evidence of a guy winning store championships versus the might of regional and national tournament data.

What was that, you are still incapable of reasoned argument?

Be reasonable, and I will be, till then, stop being a fool

Ah not to reignite the flame war, but is it actually the might of regionals and nationals data Gink?

I don't recall the first / second player being a recorded data point in Schmitty's work. Just reacquainting myself with the data and in terms of the winning archetypes I don't know if what you're saying bears out.

Don't get me wrong I can see a fair few MSUs and I think the Generic Imp Swarm has to be PT109s first player fleet from memory. The Rebel swarms could go either way in terms of first player / second player preference but there's also a presence in the data from Riekkan and Rebel carriers (both of which generally end up going second) and of course the huge presence of Rhymerballs which generally are forced to run low bid (and as a result going second) just because of all the goods they have to cram in.

Point is I think the 'might of regionals and nationals data' actually shows it comes out pretty even in terms of first player / second player, or at minimum certainly not a crushing dominance of first player fleets. Just saying.

Oh, I guess this will be taken as bragging but I beat Hero as second player and my list wanted first BAD!

Probably, but this is nothing new at this point. I mean, there's a 8-page thread going on right now and I have no idea how it is still going..

As for this who is going first, I think this kind of conversation is really list dependent. In your case, having first player is great. But you also had 6 activations I think? This is a huge advantage. Look at autonomous builds like the Fireball for example, or even Rieekan Carriers. These builds do not really care about having first player for the most part, and they only care about out-racing other carrier builds potentially.

What I'm trying to get at is that while every list wants to go first, the ability to go second and still play to the lists strengths is what determines the lists' viability and resilience in a competitive setting. List resilience for me, means the ability to fight against all manners of the meta either as first or second player. If your list cannot do this, then that means that chances it will be hard-countered or it falls flat on its face for losing the bid increases dramatically. Personally, those lists are the ones I find really weak.

So what determines a lists resilience?

1. Matchups - How does it perform vs. XYZ, flavor of the month builds.

2. What does it aim to out-speed? - This is bid-related, but more specifically, a very specific build in mind.

3. How does it perform as second player? - Does your list play the missions well? Do you have any ships that have to go first?

I'll use the list that I built with my Home One, MKII and TRC90 build as an example here.

1. Matchups - I believe it does well against most matchups, it's weaker vs. squadron-heavy, stronger vs. heavy-ship builds. I can break this apart much further, but I will save that for another article when I have time.

2. What does it aim to out-speed? - In my meta, it was aiming to outspeed 385 build Demo builds specifically. This is like competitive Pokemon. I use this reference a lot because I played the hell out of that game. It doesn't matter if your Pokemon outspeeds 99% of the Pokemon out there, it only needs to outspeed that ONE Pokemon you would rather not see across the table. In this case, it was 385 Demo builds.

3. How does it perform as second player? - I really like playing the missions with my list. While the MC80 likes to go first, it's also durable enough to influence the game if it does not go first.

Long story short: The order of whether or not you want first player, is a lot more complicated than "yes, I want first player". It's the above and then some that you need to be thinking about when designing a list. Not everything is black and white, and it's one of the reasons why this question in particular gets brought up time and time again.

Oh, I guess this will be taken as bragging but I beat Hero as second player and my list wanted first BAD!

Probably, but this is nothing new at this point. I mean, there's a 8-page thread going on right now and I have no idea how it is still going..

Yup, it's clear that he's aware of his problem, but has not quite internalized it yet.

Some folks just never learn.

As for this who is going first, I think this kind of conversation is really list dependent. In your case, having first player is great. But you also had 6 activations I think? This is a huge advantage. Look at autonomous builds like the Fireball for example, or even Rieekan Carriers. These builds do not really care about having first player for the most part, and they only care about out-racing other carrier builds potentially.

What I'm trying to get at is that while every list wants to go first, the ability to go second and still play to the lists strengths is what determines the lists' viability and resilience in a competitive setting. List resilience for me, means the ability to fight against all manners of the meta either as first or second player. If your list cannot do this, then that means that chances it will be hard-countered or it falls flat on its face for losing the bid increases dramatically. Personally, those lists are the ones I find really weak.

So what determines a lists resilience?

1. Matchups - How does it perform vs. XYZ, flavor of the month builds.

2. What does it aim to out-speed? - This is bid-related, but more specifically, a very specific build in mind.

3. How does it perform as second player? - Does your list play the missions well? Do you have any ships that have to go first?

I'll use the list that I built with my Home One, MKII and TRC90 build as an example here.

1. Matchups - I believe it does well against most matchups, it's weaker vs. squadron-heavy, stronger vs. heavy-ship builds. I can break this apart much further, but I will save that for another article when I have time.

2. What does it aim to out-speed? - In my meta, it was aiming to outspeed 385 build Demo builds specifically. This is like competitive Pokemon. I use this reference a lot because I played the hell out of that game. It doesn't matter if your Pokemon outspeeds 99% of the Pokemon out there, it only needs to outspeed that ONE Pokemon you would rather not see across the table. In this case, it was 385 Demo builds.

3. How does it perform as second player? - I really like playing the missions with my list. While the MC80 likes to go first, it's also durable enough to influence the game if it does not go first.

Long story short: The order of whether or not you want first player, is a lot more complicated than "yes, I want first player". It's the above and then some that you need to be thinking about when designing a list. Not everything is black and white, and it's one of the reasons why this question in particular gets brought up time and time again.

I don't really agree with that. With the new tools such as slicer tools and tractor beams on cheap platforms you can now be second and still deny Demo centric builds.

Actually, WWPDSteven had a game last night where his 80C went second against a Demo Swarm with squadrons and he won that one reliable. He was out activated as well.

As for this who is going first, I think this kind of conversation is really list dependent. In your case, having first player is great. But you also had 6 activations I think? This is a huge advantage. Look at autonomous builds like the Fireball for example, or even Rieekan Carriers. These builds do not really care about having first player for the most part, and they only care about out-racing other carrier builds potentially.

What I'm trying to get at is that while every list wants to go first, the ability to go second and still play to the lists strengths is what determines the lists' viability and resilience in a competitive setting. List resilience for me, means the ability to fight against all manners of the meta either as first or second player. If your list cannot do this, then that means that chances it will be hard-countered or it falls flat on its face for losing the bid increases dramatically. Personally, those lists are the ones I find really weak.

So what determines a lists resilience?

1. Matchups - How does it perform vs. XYZ, flavor of the month builds.

2. What does it aim to out-speed? - This is bid-related, but more specifically, a very specific build in mind.

3. How does it perform as second player? - Does your list play the missions well? Do you have any ships that have to go first?

I'll use the list that I built with my Home One, MKII and TRC90 build as an example here.

1. Matchups - I believe it does well against most matchups, it's weaker vs. squadron-heavy, stronger vs. heavy-ship builds. I can break this apart much further, but I will save that for another article when I have time.

2. What does it aim to out-speed? - In my meta, it was aiming to outspeed 385 build Demo builds specifically. This is like competitive Pokemon. I use this reference a lot because I played the hell out of that game. It doesn't matter if your Pokemon outspeeds 99% of the Pokemon out there, it only needs to outspeed that ONE Pokemon you would rather not see across the table. In this case, it was 385 Demo builds.

3. How does it perform as second player? - I really like playing the missions with my list. While the MC80 likes to go first, it's also durable enough to influence the game if it does not go first.

Long story short: The order of whether or not you want first player, is a lot more complicated than "yes, I want first player". It's the above and then some that you need to be thinking about when designing a list. Not everything is black and white, and it's one of the reasons why this question in particular gets brought up time and time again.

I don't really agree with that. With the new tools such as slicer tools and tractor beams on cheap platforms you can now be second and still deny Demo centric builds.

Actually, WWPDSteven had a game last night where his 80C went second against a Demo Swarm with squadrons and he won that one reliable. He was out activated as well.

What is that? Which part are you disagreeing with?

Also, saying Slicer Tools and Tractor Beams can now be second to Demo-centric builds is a matter of list strengths and weaknesses, or the first point of what I said, the 1. point being covered there. It's like saying a Fireball will be effective vs. a low-activation capital ship list. /slowclap

Ignoring the whole thing about player skill, when it comes to list construction specifically, matchups is one of the most important influencing factors to whether or not you'll find success in a tournament setting. Since first round pairings happens to be pretty random due to a lack of MMO or ELO or seeds, it goes without saying that most tournaments are roughly 75% skill and 25% pairings.

Oh, I guess this will be taken as bragging but I beat Hero as second player and my list wanted first BAD!

Probably, but this is nothing new at this point. I mean, there's a 8-page thread going on right now and I have no idea how it is still going..

Yup, it's clear that he's aware of his problem, but has not quite internalized it yet.

Some folks just never learn.

Clearly not.. but one day hopefully

As for this who is going first, I think this kind of conversation is really list dependent. In your case, having first player is great. But you also had 6 activations I think? This is a huge advantage. Look at autonomous builds like the Fireball for example, or even Rieekan Carriers. These builds do not really care about having first player for the most part, and they only care about out-racing other carrier builds potentially.

What I'm trying to get at is that while every list wants to go first, the ability to go second and still play to the lists strengths is what determines the lists' viability and resilience in a competitive setting. List resilience for me, means the ability to fight against all manners of the meta either as first or second player. If your list cannot do this, then that means that chances it will be hard-countered or it falls flat on its face for losing the bid increases dramatically. Personally, those lists are the ones I find really weak.

So what determines a lists resilience?

1. Matchups - How does it perform vs. XYZ, flavor of the month builds.

2. What does it aim to out-speed? - This is bid-related, but more specifically, a very specific build in mind.

3. How does it perform as second player? - Does your list play the missions well? Do you have any ships that have to go first?

I'll use the list that I built with my Home One, MKII and TRC90 build as an example here.

1. Matchups - I believe it does well against most matchups, it's weaker vs. squadron-heavy, stronger vs. heavy-ship builds. I can break this apart much further, but I will save that for another article when I have time.

2. What does it aim to out-speed? - In my meta, it was aiming to outspeed 385 build Demo builds specifically. This is like competitive Pokemon. I use this reference a lot because I played the hell out of that game. It doesn't matter if your Pokemon outspeeds 99% of the Pokemon out there, it only needs to outspeed that ONE Pokemon you would rather not see across the table. In this case, it was 385 Demo builds.

3. How does it perform as second player? - I really like playing the missions with my list. While the MC80 likes to go first, it's also durable enough to influence the game if it does not go first.

Long story short: The order of whether or not you want first player, is a lot more complicated than "yes, I want first player". It's the above and then some that you need to be thinking about when designing a list. Not everything is black and white, and it's one of the reasons why this question in particular gets brought up time and time again.

I don't really agree with that. With the new tools such as slicer tools and tractor beams on cheap platforms you can now be second and still deny Demo centric builds.

Actually, WWPDSteven had a game last night where his 80C went second against a Demo Swarm with squadrons and he won that one reliable. He was out activated as well.

You got to run it in reverse though. How much worse do you think it would have been for Demo if he wasn't first player? At least in regards to this thread, that's the point and probably a good indication why you'll continue to see high bids.

Demo is almost too good not to run + Demo needs first player to really sing + You can guarantee 1st player by taking an outrageous bid = bid stay mondo big