For the longest time disrupt sides have been the bane of existence for Destiny players. It was the one side on a die that you never wanted to see now that is now longer the case. I believe disrupt sides are the strongest they have been in this meta. I wanted to give my thoughts on when you should use a 1 disrupt side against certain decks. Against 3 wide support decks I believe the best time to use a 1 disrupt is when they are at 3 or 5 resources. These are the thresholds for villain support decks look for a lot. Between delve and vader's fist a 1 disrupt when they have resolved resources and are sitting at 3 or 5 resources can be the difference between a fist this round and the opponent having to wait another round for a fist. If you see a 2 disrupt it is almost always good to resolve as long as you get 2 resources from your opponent (not when you can only get 1) as it can put many decks far behind where they want to be in ramp. Against blue decks a 1 disrupt when they are at 1 or 3 resources can often save you another round without a 3 cost weapon. I still need more testing in other areas and would love other peoples input but I fully believe that in standard a disrupt side is honestly very solid right now.

They're still not my favorite thing to see, but they can be useful to mess up your opponent's strategy. Also, don't overlook Partners in Crime and Shakedown as cards to include, if you happen to be playing yellow villain and have a lot of dice with disrupt sides.

Totally agree with you @tunewalker . I noticed this when I started to play Beckett and has been developing the strategy ever since.

The gist of it is that the games "income types" per round is 5 cards and 2 resources. Reasoning and experience says that players expect to have all their resource income available while playing about half their cards drawn during a game. As resources are fewer it´'s easier to hit that income type while at the same time it hurts them more as they expect to use 100% of it. Thus the beauty of the strategy is that it hits all comers.

As an example, if they play 1 card for 1 resource they have 4 cards left and 1 resource. Which would be worse for them, to be Disrupted for 1 or Discarded for 1? Well, if you Discard a 1 card they´'ll just play another, but if you Disrupt their last resouce, they´'ll more likely be almost out of options.

The counter argument is that resources are easier to come by, which is true. But once they start to look for resource sides on their dice you have delayed their game plan which is a success for the strategy. Another counter argument is that if they have tempo they´'ll just spend the 2 resouces on something before you can hit them. This is also fine since this means there´'s neglible control coming from them this round. Finally there´s an art in having a disruptive die side laying in wait for them to resolve resources. The loss aversion that kicks in usually means they wont unless they´re desperate, meaning you'll have full control over their resouces this round.

My favourite pair at the moment is Beckett/Han. They have 3 native Disruptive sides, meaning you are threatening their resources from start. Other tools I like with them is:

• Becketts Rifle (Disrupting 1 just for playing it is awesome)
• Donderbus (Redeploy with Disruptside)
• Unscrupulous (cheap, perfect to just have waiting for their resource resolve and to overwrite)
• Fickle Mercenaries (dead cheap, also disrupts, hits hard and will rarely be stolen due to the strategy)
• Entourage (cheap, hits hard and disrupts)
• Shakedown (mentioned by Tunewalker as a great zero cost removal)

I ended up 6/28 at a Regional the first attempt I did with a more untuned variant this pair, so I think there's a lot of merit in the strategy.

6 hours ago, Scactha said:

Totally agree with you @tunewalker . I noticed this when I started to play Beckett and has been developing the strategy ever since.

The gist of it is that the games "income types" per round is 5 cards and 2 resou  rces. Reasoning and experience says that players expect to have all their resource income available while playing about half their cards drawn during a game. As resources are fewer it´'s easier to hit that income type while at the same time it hurts them more as they expect to use 100% of it. Thus the beauty of the strategy is that it hits all comers.

As an example, if they play 1 card for 1 resource they have 4 cards left and 1 resource. Which would be worse for them, to be Disrupted for 1 or Discarded for 1? Well, if you Discard a 1 card they´'ll just play another, but if you Disrupt their last resouce, they´'ll more likely be almost out of options.

The counter argument is that resources are easier to come by, which is true. But once they start to look for resource sides on their dice you have delayed their game plan which is a success for the strategy. Another counter argument is that if they have tempo they´'ll just spend the 2 resouces on something before you can hit them. This is also fine since this means there´'s neglible control coming from them this round. Finally there´s an art in having a disruptive die side laying in wait for them to resolve resources. The loss aversion that kicks in usually means they wont unless they´re desperate, meaning you'll have full control over their resouces this round.

My favourite pair at the moment is Beckett/Han. They have 3 native Disruptive sides, meaning you are threatening their resources from start. Other tools I like with them is:

• Becketts Rifle (Disrupting 1 just for playing it is awesome)
• Donderbus (Redeploy with Disruptside)
• Unscrupulous (cheap, perfect to just have waiting for their resource resolve and to overwrite)
• Fickle Mercenaries (dead cheap, also disrupts, hits hard and will rarely be stolen due to the strategy)
• Entourage (cheap, hits hard and disrupts)
• Shakedown (mentioned by Tunewalker as a great zero cost removal)

I ended up 6/28 at a Regional the first attempt I did with a more untuned variant this pair, so I think there's a lot of merit in the strategy.

I did want to make the amendment that disrupts are slightly better in the early game then they are in the late game. Early game when you can put them behind in their build up (especially support decks that are not relying on their characters for damage) you can kind of run away with the game, but once they have it built up resources are less of a need and more of a 'nice to have' situation.

Disrupts are more of a time based element. Often enough they’re just a dead dice in your pool. But a well timed one can win you a game. I know that disrupt is the best defense against a Snoke deck. Keep Snoke off of resources and he is useless.

Anecdotally, I remember a game where my opponent had one resource and resolved for two more, and I Snoke’d a disrupt, taking all three of his resources. After the game he told me that completely disrupted (ha!) his game plan for the rest of the round.

16 hours ago, tunewalker said:

I did want to make the amendment that disrupts are slightly better in the early game then they are in the late game. Early game when you can put them behind in their build up (especially support decks that are not relying on their characters for damage) you can kind of run away with the game, but once they have it built up resources are less of a need and more of a 'nice to have' situation.

Partly true imo since it´'s almost always good to hinder their control. That doesn't mean you should resolve every Disrupt that shows up, but it´'s an art. As @PeoplesChampion says will most players do a round based calculation with the resource pool they have and if you mess with it they get flustered. Use with caution.