I wouldn't oversell first player. It is very good in some lists. Its just not the whole story. As has already been pointed out, Gencon was won by the second player. To add, US Nationals was won by a list that could go first, but was fully comfortable going second, and which intentionally choose to go second against Demolisher in the final match. In fact, there was a whole thread about it where Q explained his reasoning. I started off with my winning regional list by focusing on going second. I discovered that at 396-400, plenty of lists also wanted to go second and would then make you go first. So part of my GenCon revisions focused on being able to apply more pressure from the first player position. If you're at 396-398 where you can pick first or second most of the time and you're roughly optimized so that you can play from both first or second player, that would seem to be an ideal. Right now, that's my preference, though I still have a couple of builds that are running in the 380s and aiming for first.

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.

Small correction: I wouldn't characterize my regional fleet as first player fleet, as it has only 2 point bid and is expected to go second most of the time.

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.

Small correction: I wouldn't characterize my regional fleet as first player fleet, as it has only 2 point bid and is expected to go second most of the time.

Can confirm, he wrecked lots of face going second. Not my face, because I had the good/bad fortune not to have to play him. (Good because I probably did better that way, bad because I enjoyed talking to him and imagine the game would have been fun). But lots of faces. Faces that knew a thing or two about how to Armada.

Ah my mistake then. I wasn't 100% sure so I thought I would err on the side that favoured the opposite of the argument I was trying to make. Really that just supports my position even further - the idea that the regionals and nationals data suggests a dominance of first player fleets really doesn't pan out.

Second player can mitigate #1 things with proper speed control (watch and plan your moves so that you have your opponent coming into range first, it is possible) and panning. It is done quite often in my area where Second wins as much as first. However, this is dependent on the player in the end.

Oh yeah definitely. It's not an autolose when you play second player. But you are at a disadvantage when it comes to killing, and at an advantage when it comes to objectives (the intensity of both varying depending on game, matchup, etc).

It really depends how your fleet is tailored, and still, there are fleets that are more efficient at achieving objectives (Ackbar MC80 with XI7 and Advanced Gunnery for example) while others are more performant when going first.

I have tried a few games recently where I was looking for an initiative bid of 25 to 30 points. Even at that lower level, it really didn't feel that much of a disadvantage, because it is rare than an opponent manages to bring his full 400 points of fleet at peak efficiency every turn.

The way things could develop is fleets really wanting the initiative going as low as 360 points, with objectives tailored to defeat other initiative bid fleets in the rare case they lose it ! The other type of fleet will be fleets that are aiming for the objectives spending all 400 points in them, but building their ships in a way that it will be a pain if someone bids for objectives and lets them activate first.

I'm sure it's been mentioned, but I'm at a loss add to why you would bid 40 points...

You basically designed a list that had to go first (otherwise, why bid that low?). And then, if you go against a player that wants to go Second, you both have what you want, but you've given up 40 points to get there...

I'm sure it's been mentioned, but I'm at a loss add to why you would bid 40 points...

You basically designed a list that had to go first (otherwise, why bid that low?). And then, if you go against a player that wants to go Second, you both have what you want, but you've given up 40 points to get there...

Here's the logic :

With a 40 points bid, you have larger chances to outbid other "me first" lists that heavily rely on initiative to perform effectively. If you go against a player that wants to go second, you have to ask yourself : is investing 15 or 20 more points really going to change the face of the game, when I'm planning to take advantage of the initiative ? Are upgrades/more squadrons/ a CR90B or 2 flotillas more important than ensuring going first ?

If the enemy goes second, and you can ensure a kill of any ship thanks to your initiative, you've effectively evened the fleet sizes

I'm sure it's been mentioned, but I'm at a loss add to why you would bid 40 points...

You basically designed a list that had to go first (otherwise, why bid that low?). And then, if you go against a player that wants to go Second, you both have what you want, but you've given up 40 points to get there...

Here's the logic :

With a 40 points bid, you have larger chances to outbid other "me first" lists that heavily rely on initiative to perform effectively. If you go against a player that wants to go second, you have to ask yourself : is investing 15 or 20 more points really going to change the face of the game, when I'm planning to take advantage of the initiative ? Are upgrades/more squadrons/ a CR90B or 2 flotillas more important than ensuring going first ?

If the enemy goes second, and you can ensure a kill of any ship thanks to your initiative, you've effectively evened the fleet sizes

Right, that was the old logic. And it still applies, but in addition to whatever meta conceits a DeMSU style list player had to consider before, the person bidding 40 points must also consider:

-If I come up against a high control imperial list (Konstantine, Titus, G8, Targeting Scramblers, +a smattering of Phylon Q7's) I could very well end up wasting 40 points on a very expensive and very useless initiative bid.

-if I come up against the right rebel build (Rieekan Aces, GR75 S3 (slicer-scramble screens), or a highly mobile bomber squadron wing that can catch Demo after it's first pass, i may also be paying for a very expensive and useless initiative bid.

So while I appreciate all the discussion about going first and what-not, my question is really, are any of the meta counters to DeMSU influencing your composition style, specifically, is it affecting your value of the high bid? I know it has affected my evaluation of big initiative bidding.

So far Roc, I think the answer is either "No" or "not yet".

I think it's likely to stay that way for folks until we see control fleets in a tournament setting, assuming of course they do what we think they will. Personally, I hate bidding high, and I hated myself for playing a high bid DeMSU at regionals, so I'm happy to fall back on my old tropes of packing in what I can and designing the fleet to win around objective play. I would add my voice to the choir of folks eagerly anticipating the new objectives out of the campaign box, and I'm really excited about how that will change list design.

I think part of the reason we see such love for going first is that there is often a weak objective in your list based on your opponents composition, that severly mitigates the second player advatange, or even neutralizes it altogether. Hopefully, adding more options will allow for stronger second player objective sets, in addition to adding new and dynamic conditions under which we can Stah Wahs.

So far Roc, I think the answer is either "No" or "not yet".

I think it's likely to stay that way for folks until we see control fleets in a tournament setting, assuming of course they do what we think they will. Personally, I hate bidding high, and I hated myself for playing a high bid DeMSU at regionals, so I'm happy to fall back on my old tropes of packing in what I can and designing the fleet to win around objective play., I would add my voice to choir of folks eagerly anticipating the new objectives out of the campaign box, and I'm really excited about how that will change list design.

I think part of the reason we see such love for going first is that there is often a weak objective in your list based on your opponents composition, that severly mitigates the second player advatange, or even neutralizes it altogether. Hopefully, adding more options will allow for stronger second player objective sets, in addition to adding new and dynamic conditions under which we can Stah Wahs.

Agreed, Mad, I think the answer is also "No" / "Not yet". I'm a little surprised by that, to be honest.

I also dislike the high initiative bid stuff, and at least, for me, I believe I've been given the tools to run a competitive 2nd player list. I'm going to be working on that for myself anyway. As you stated, I'm also excited to see how the campaign and wave 5 also affect the high initiative bid.

@Roc : I wasn't talking specifically about MSU lists with Demolisher Besides, logic is logic : it doesn't age ! If I zap an Interdictor before it gets to shoot, it's still a points equalizer.

The difference might lie in how to effectively apply that logic within the new framework. According to your logic : you can still waste 40 points of upgrades at a 400 points level if you get controlled around. It doesn't only apply to ships that want to go first.

Like I said, it doesn't affect my bidding strategy. It might seem like a stupid move, but I found that completely ignoring the meta (but not ignoring the true fact about upgrade cards and ships) is a good move because the strategy is defined outside of meta-related constraints, forcing the meta in situations that it is not prepared against. In addition it forces the player to think and understand the game the most, and going beyond the habits of "this is good because everybody does it".

@Madaghmire : Completely agree with your last paragraph That's why I think that before putting down anything in the fleet, it's really better to try and make sure that you decide whether you want to build around objectives or build for the bid (regardless of the Interdictors or not). If going for the bid, and all comers approach in list design works well, with a strategy to disrupt the opponent from gaining objective tokens or punishing him if he does by wrecking his ships. If going second, exclusively playing the objectives and designing a fleet that outperforms the ruthless competitor for each objective.

Wow. I've read this thread and I had no idea that you guys wanted to go first all the time. I have been trying my hardest to go second. I run an ISD, Interdictor, Goz and about 90 points in squadron. My logic was to make them pick from my objectives (precision, superior pos, hyperspace) to give me a solid advantage in the gameplay.

Do you think I'm going about this all wrong and I actually want to be going first?

Wow. I've read this thread and I had no idea that you guys wanted to go first all the time. I have been trying my hardest to go second. I run an ISD, Interdictor, Goz and about 90 points in squadron. My logic was to make them pick from my objectives (precision, superior pos, hyperspace) to give me a solid advantage in the gameplay.

Do you think I'm going about this all wrong and I actually want to be going first?

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

Wouldnt be too sorry.

The easiest way to attract people to a thread is to flame within it....

There are some decent thoughts in here.

The experimental G8 CAN affect the Demo's engine tech move, essentially reducing Demos closing speed. Furthermore flotillas make for ideal speed bumps. I will gladly trade my 20 point flotilla for your 90 point Demo. Or feel free to wait a turn giving my ships a turn of red dice (or squadrons) that engine tech Demos didn't used to have to endure. The meta is changing.