Since when has Tua-Demo been a thing?

9 minutes ago, TallGiraffe said:

Since when has Tua-Demo been a thing?

Before Brunson came along and was 4 points cheaper

28 minutes ago, TallGiraffe said:

Since when has Tua-Demo been a thing?

Wave 7 mostly, although it was starting to pop up a bit in wave 6. When you've got big ships around that can melt Demo and will usually lock down the brace or redirect (depending), having ECMs on your big hammer in a DeMSU fleet is really important.

Brunson can fulfill a similar role, but it depends on how you intend to use your Demolisher and what kind of support the rest of the fleet is providing.

Yes, Squad Heavy lists are a huge problem in this game, and they've dominated pretty much the past four years of the competitive scene.

That said, in my experience, EWS isn't any better at helping a large ship in that match-up than ECM, since the chaff token can be so easily avoided by the squad-heavy list. Is EWS better than ECM in that match-up? Maybe, as long as it's not an ISD-Sloane squad heavy list. But EWS doesn't make that match-up anymore winnable than basically having RBD or no defensive retro equipped at all.

I've never seen EWS live up to its potential on the table, and locally it's always been underwhelming. It also didn't look like anyone was running it at Worlds either (at least successfully).

39 minutes ago, TallGiraffe said:

Since when has Tua-Demo been a thing?

As someone who played Tua/ECM demo for a long long time - and made it all the way to staring down JJ in the quarterfinal of the vassal world cup this past year with it - I can say that it was and still is a very powerful combo.

I'll disagree with Snipa here a little bit - Tua/ECM demo was MUCH BETTER in wave 6. In fact, it was my flagship. I could without even fear face down an Ackbar MC80 side arc or ISD front arc. Not turn after turn - but one shot on my attack pass was no threat at all. In wave 7, with more behemoth ships wandering around with XI7, it loses a bit of its luster and is no longer a ship that will never die. Still, while it is more expensive then brunson, it is still the premium way to make Demo incredibly tanky. However, for general purposes, in wave 7 Brunson on a Demo is worth taking over tua/ecm for the lesser cost (since Demo likes bidding so anything that lowers cost is useful).

46 minutes ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

Yes, Squad Heavy lists are a huge problem in this game, and they've dominated pretty much the past four years of the competitive scene.

That said, in my experience, EWS isn't any better at helping a large ship in that match-up than ECM, since the chaff token can be so easily avoided by the squad-heavy list. Is EWS better than ECM in that match-up? Maybe, as long as it's not an ISD-Sloane squad heavy list. But EWS doesn't make that match-up anymore winnable than basically having RBD or no defensive retro equipped at all.

I've never seen EWS live up to its potential on the table, and locally it's always been underwhelming. It also didn't look like anyone was running it at Worlds either (at least successfully).

My buddy Nick took 3rd at Worlds on Day 1A with double ISDs, both with Early Warning System.

I think people's expectations for Early Warning System are too high and it's not helped by how memories work. EWS removes a die that could've been basically anything, but you won't take note of a double-hit red that would've happened but didn't because it was never rolled. You will take note of a situation where ECMs save you 3+ damage, however. For the most part, a blue or red die that isn't rolled subtracts 0.75 damage from the pool (or a possible accuracy) and a black die that isn't rolled subtracts 1 (or 1.25 if it's rerollable, which it often is). That's not bad at all, especially when it happens consistently. There's also the fact that EWS actively does something against Avenger and black dice ships like Gladiators and it's great against double-arcing small ships like CR90s.

Against squadrons, the card is only 7 points - it's not going to bring a heavy squadron fleet to its knees all by itself. It does do a few neat things that help against squadrons, however:

• Generally it is difficult to effectively attack Early Warning System ships on the second round with squadrons provided the EWS player deployed them and set their speed well. Delaying the squadron grind by a round can be pretty useful.
• EWS reduces pressure on redirect tokens (that typically get overheated pretty quickly against squadrons) by chaffing 0-shield hull zones, encouraging the squadrons to move to a neighboring hull zone in future rounds. It won't save the ship in the long run, but it can buy you one more round and typically means that most of your shields will be used before you finally drop.
• EWS makes Superior Positions a safer objective choice, as chaffing your rear hull zone late game will stop most squadrons that can actually get back there from being able to damage you. This is attractive for a heavier ship fleet with minimal squadron presence of its own that was otherwise going to be outdeployed anyways by a heavy squadron fleet.
• EWS when used cleverly makes it more difficult for combined-arms squads+battleships (Sloane, usually, but sometimes Sato) from working together as well - chaffing the hull zone facing the enemy ships means enemy squads can't soften up the shields there nearly so well before the combat ship(s) attack(s).
• Yavaris squadron attacks are normally pretty telegraphed and therefore easy to anticipate which hull zone to chaff with EWS. While EWS won't stop the double-dice bombers from damaging you at all, it will at least diminish the damage by 0.75 to 1 damage per squadron attack. That can really add up.

This isn't to say it's hands-down better than ECMs all the time, but the hate I see for it online seems unwarranted and people's expectations of it seem excessive.

What in the world? This is a thing? There are so many things that make ECM pointless. HIE and ACM proc significant damage that brace can't touch. Intel Officer just flips you the bird. Squadrons (haven't I been hearing nonstop that they're still OP?) certainly don't care. TRC90s are another thing that really doesn't care. I could keep going, but what's the point? ECM is for big ships fighting big ships. In literally any other situation, other defensive retrofits are worth considering. EWS is a legitimate consideration in the same slot, and I've seen others argue that it's the better all around choice.

I haven’t seen Yavaris mentioned yet, but vs EWS? Congratulations, you’ve pretty reliably halved their damage. Just adding to the list.

1 hour ago, Snipafist said:

My buddy Nick took 3rd at Worlds on Day 1A with double ISDs, both with Early Warning System.

I think people's expectations for Early Warning System are too high and it's not helped by how memories work. EWS removes a die that could've been basically anything, but you won't take note of a double-hit red that would've happened but didn't because it was never rolled. You will take note of a situation where ECMs save you 3+ damage, however. For the most part, a blue or red die that isn't rolled subtracts 0.75 damage from the pool (or a possible accuracy) and a black die that isn't rolled subtracts 1 (or 1.25 if it's rerollable, which it often is). That's not bad at all, especially when it happens consistently. There's also the fact that EWS actively does something against Avenger and black dice ships like Gladiators and it's great against double-arcing small ships like CR90s.

Against squadrons, the card is only 7 points - it's not going to bring a heavy squadron fleet to its knees all by itself. It does do a few neat things that help against squadrons, however:

• Generally it is difficult to effectively attack Early Warning System ships on the second round with squadrons provided the EWS player deployed them and set their speed well. Delaying the squadron grind by a round can be pretty useful.
• EWS reduces pressure on redirect tokens (that typically get overheated pretty quickly against squadrons) by chaffing 0-shield hull zones, encouraging the squadrons to move to a neighboring hull zone in future rounds. It won't save the ship in the long run, but it can buy you one more round and typically means that most of your shields will be used before you finally drop.
• EWS makes Superior Positions a safer objective choice, as chaffing your rear hull zone late game will stop most squadrons that can actually get back there from being able to damage you. This is attractive for a heavier ship fleet with minimal squadron presence of its own that was otherwise going to be outdeployed anyways by a heavy squadron fleet.
• EWS when used cleverly makes it more difficult for combined-arms squads+battleships (Sloane, usually, but sometimes Sato) from working together as well - chaffing the hull zone facing the enemy ships means enemy squads can't soften up the shields there nearly so well before the combat ship(s) attack(s).
• Yavaris squadron attacks are normally pretty telegraphed and therefore easy to anticipate which hull zone to chaff with EWS. While EWS won't stop the double-dice bombers from damaging you at all, it will at least diminish the damage by 0.75 to 1 damage per squadron attack. That can really add up.

This isn't to say it's hands-down better than ECMs all the time, but the hate I see for it online seems unwarranted and people's expectations of it seem excessive.

Can confirm, Nick Litrenta OP.

43 minutes ago, geek19 said:

Can confirm, Nick Litrenta OP.

So we are going to start nerfing players. I have one or two who could be nerfed

We just need more attractive defense retrofits honestly.

2 hours ago, TallGiraffe said:

We just need more attractive defense retrofits honestly.

I mean, ECM, EWS, RBD are all good. Cluster Bombs has been proven by @JJs Juggernaut to be effective in a few circumstances, but you can't make it your only plan for dealing with squadrons I think. I mean, especially with Sloane Aces being such a thing I'd actually wonder about Cluster Bombs versus them. Howlrunner could very theoretically explode in one shot when she swings on my ship, scatter token be darned. AP got nerfed into the ground (slash killed by XI7), but maybe on an Arq? Maybe (I'm aware I'm reaching)? And there has to be some place for Redundant Shields, right?

The issue I think comes down to ECMs being so previously good and we all have That One Game where ECMs kept your ship alive That One Time, so it's hard to cut it from consideration, really. It was really good in the past, so it'll always be good! There's a joke to be made there about Derek Jeter, but SPORTS!

6 hours ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

Yes, Squad Heavy lists are a huge problem in this game, and they've dominated pretty much the past four years of the competitive scene.

That said, in my experience, EWS isn't any better at helping a large ship in that match-up than ECM, since the chaff token can be so easily avoided by the squad-heavy list. Is EWS better than ECM in that match-up? Maybe, as long as it's not an ISD-Sloane squad heavy list. But EWS doesn't make that match-up anymore winnable than basically having RBD or no defensive retro equipped at all.

I've never seen EWS live up to its potential on the table, and locally it's always been underwhelming. It also didn't look like anyone was running it at Worlds either (at least successfully).

JJ had it on his MC75 I think. EWS can be avoided but you can switch arcs between rounds. If his squads hammer your right arc in one turn, take the damage there until the shields are gone and chaff it the turn after. Forces him to start over at the next arc. This helps greatly.

Just now, RapidReload said:

JJ had it on his MC75 I think. EWS can be avoided but you can switch arcs between rounds. If his squads hammer your right arc in one turn, take the damage there until the shields are gone and chaff it the turn after. Forces him to start over at the next arc. This helps greatly.

Yea, I get that feature of it. But on a ship with two Redirects (e.g. MC75, MC80, ISD, the classic ECM carriers) I don't find that forcing squads to move to the next arc ends up really saving more than 2-3 damage beyond what you could have just prevented with just the Redirects anyways. Whereas, in lots of match-ups, Brace+ECM is usually going to save you 3-5 damage. At least, that's been in my experience. I was trying hard at the outset of Wave 7 to use EWS in my builds, but I ended up going back to ECM for this very reason.

I see Snipafist argued my point much more thouroughly than I did previously, sorry didnt see.

I think this discussion is circling now, if all you see in your meta are big gun ships, ECMs are probably the best choice. As many players have outlined there are a lot of realistic situations where EWS is better and ECM pretty much useless. As such, I dont see the necessity of a nerf.

Fundamental difference -

Redirects don’t save damage - they reposition it... the damage remains.

EWS “saves” damage by removing dice that are never rolled (the amount of course is nebulous per die, as blanks exist...)

1 minute ago, Drasnighta said:

Fundamental difference -

Redirects don’t save damage - they reposition it... the damage remains.

EWS “saves” damage by removing dice that are never rolled (the amount of course is nebulous per die, as blanks exist...)

And double hits

Just now, ovinomanc3r said:

And double hits

Yes, but I was countering the argument that “ you don’t prevent blank damage!” As a technicality before the fact.

8 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Yes, but I was countering the argument that “ you don’t prevent blank damage!” As a technicality before the fact.

That argument is bull and actually wrong. You do prevent blanks also and that is good cause blank can be something else. Lack of dice cannot.

2 hours ago, ovinomanc3r said:

That argument is bull and actually wrong. You do prevent blanks also and that is good cause blank can be something else. Lack of dice cannot.

Do you REALLY think that would stop someone MAKING te argument anyway? ?

3 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Do you REALLY think that would stop someone MAKING te argument anyway? ?

No by any means I guess.

It didn't stop you from countering the argument. It didn't stop me either.

6 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

Fundamental difference -

Redirects don’t save damage - they reposition it... the damage remains.

EWS “saves” damage by removing dice that are never rolled (the amount of course is nebulous per die, as blanks exist...)

This is also why I think they should undo the XI-7/AP Ruling.

4 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

Do you REALLY think that would stop someone MAKING te argument anyway? ?

Honestly, I think it would be great for people trying out EWS in a casual setting to have their opponents roll the obstructed die on the side. Once they notice what it's actually saving them, I think it would be nice.

...there would be griping when it "prevented" a blank, but for the most part that won't be the circumstances most of the time.

2 hours ago, Snipafist said:

Honestly, I think it would be great for people trying out EWS in a casual setting to have their opponents roll the obstructed die on the side. Once they notice what it's actually saving them, I think it would be nice.

I find this type of thing is critical to improving a fleet. Do this, and at the same time, total up how much damage you would have prevented (Or redirected, whatever) If you had ECM instead. Then remember that RBD will save you three hull. And don't just do this with defensive retrofits, do with everything you think about changing. Data is useful.

I don't think that the existing problem lies so much with ecm, rather it lies with the situation that makes ecm so vital in order to properly defend large ships against other large ships.

In a world where you weren't able to brace, but could at least redirect some of the damage away to another facing, ecm wouldn't be in such high demand. Unfortunately the answers which exist to counter the redirect token are much too effective, and because they are used with a fair degree of proliferation, often leave ships only able to defend themselves through bracing.... which if a ship has only one such defence token then they must defend it with ecm if they can.

Ecm is not good by itself, ecm is good for two reasons:

1) it's quite easy to generate at least one accuracy on a large volley so that you can lock down a lone brace

2) the ships that are throwing these large volleys oftentimes have xi7's which render redirect tokens mostly useless thus leaving the aforementioned brace token as the only form of defence.

So what can be done? Xi7's are a little too good whilst their brace-centric counterpart (heavy turbolaser turrets) just isn't good enough.

For starters, xi7's and htt's need to work the same... the details can be ironed out in the points cost, but mechanically these two cards need to work the same; like two sides of a coin. This will spread the load that brace tokens are currently carrying pretty much on their own, and introduce a choice into fleet construction as to which defence token to combat.

As for the operation of xi7's (and htt's); I think most of us can agree that the current template for xi7's is a little bit too good and needs just a little bit of toning down.... I would propose that xi7's (and htt's) be worded within the following template:

"As long as no attack dice have been spent during the attack the defender's redirect tokens cannot cause more than 1 damage to be suffured on a hull zone other than the defending hull zone"

"As long as no attack dice have been spent during the attack, brace tokens spent by the defender cannot reduce the incoming damage by more than 1"

I think the caveat about not spending attack dice works well to reduce the effectiveness of these upgrades, it may seem like a harsh nerf, but I really do think xi7's need taking down a peg, and htt's need a little helping hand so that we can have a little parity between brace and redirect.