Now first things first, I am an imperial player and I have never even played rebels before but Bail Organa seems like a really good card to me. Like better than Pryce good but you never see him and I wonder why.

Bail is like Pryce a tool to allow you to go last first and I think in context he is much better at that for the rebels than Pryce for the Empire. Rebel ships are already through the board significantly cheaper than Imperial ships. So it has always been way easier for them to get more activations and with that get the last activation. Now with Bail you have a tool to guarantee the first activation in a crucial turn. But not only does he make it very easy for rebels to get last first he also allows the rebel player to do this while having a full 400 point list. If you want to go last first with Pryce you still need to fork over an additional 20+ points for a bid (and even than there is no guarantee for first player). With those 20+ points rebels can buy a whole additional ship (with a common loudout. A Comms Net GR-75 is 20 points!). And since you have a full 400 point list you will likely also have the advantage of playing your objectives. Compared to a Price last first a Bail last first gets to have roughly 20+ more points and second player objective advantage. That's insane!

Now you may argue that Bail is pretty bad if you get first player, but just think about that. You just got away with getting first player with a 400 point list. I would gladly take that (of course this needs to be on a list that wants to go last first.)

And lastly Bail is the perfect defense should you face a Pryce list. The biggest danger when facing a Pryce opponent is them getting last first and Bail can guarantee that that wont happen. Bail and Pryce trigger simultaneously, so if Pryce is the first player they will have to determine the Pryce turn first. You can than just set Bail to trigger the turn after Pryce guaranteeing that the opponent does not get the last first. And if Pryce is not first player than that means not last first for her.

So why do we see him so rarely, especially in top level games?

I second this question.

25 minutes ago, LordCola said:

Now first things first, I am an imperial player and I have never even played rebels before but Bail Organa seems like a really good card to me. Like better than Pryce good but you never see him and I wonder why.

Bail is like Pryce a tool to allow you to go last first and I think in context he is much better at that for the rebels than Pryce for the Empire. Rebel ships are already through the board significantly cheaper than Imperial ships. So it has always been way easier for them to get more activations and with that get the last activation. Now with Bail you have a tool to guarantee the first activation in a crucial turn. But not only does he make it very easy for rebels to get last first he also allows the rebel player to do this while having a full 400 point list. If you want to go last first with Pryce you still need to fork over an additional 20+ points for a bid (and even than there is no guarantee for first player). With those 20+ points rebels can buy a whole additional ship (with a common loudout. A Comms Net GR-75 is 20 points!). And since you have a full 400 point list you will likely also have the advantage of playing your objectives. Compared to a Price last first a Bail last first gets to have roughly 20+ more points and second player objective advantage. That's insane!

Now you may argue that Bail is pretty bad if you get first player, but just think about that. You just got away with getting first player with a 400 point list. I would gladly take that (of course this needs to be on a list that wants to go last first.)

And lastly Bail is the perfect defense should you face a Pryce list. The biggest danger when facing a Pryce opponent is them getting last first and Bail can guarantee that that wont happen. Bail and Pryce trigger simultaneously, so if Pryce is the first player they will have to determine the Pryce turn first. You can than just set Bail to trigger the turn after Pryce guaranteeing that the opponent does not get the last first. And if Pryce is not first player than that means not last first for her.

So why do we see him so rarely, especially in top level games?

Can't use him with smalls. Which because of the unjustified hatred of the Assault Frigate people basically read that as "he must be on a large."

So you then want a list that can leverage using him to good effect. It takes a lot more practice than just netlisting 2-ship and showing up to a Regionals with it (shade DEFINITELY thrown there). I've used him and seen him used by people ( @rasproteus ) quite well, but its largely a practice issue, and hes a lot more tricky to work out with.

Also if you Bail wrong it hurts you WAAAY more than if you Pryce wrong. You get to watch your own ship get last-firsted.

4 minutes ago, geek19 said:

So you then want a list that can leverage using him to good effect. It takes a lot more practice than just netlisting 2-ship and showing up to a Regionals with it (shade DEFINITELY thrown there). I've used him and seen him used by people ( @rasproteus ) quite well, but its largely a practice issue, and hes a lot more tricky to work out with.

So you are saying he is still a very powerful card, just with an equally high skill floor?

To add, I think with Pryce, you can have 2 ships and full squadrons, so the last-first can involve those powerful squadrons having free reign. Let's say the extra price of a bid for first is 20 points. With Bail, you are buying first, but you've got to have enough activations to go last. Maybe you are adding a few flotillas to a 2 ship core, but those two flotillas cost 36 points. If the goal is to retain a powerful max squadron ball, it's still cheaper to pay for first with a huge bid, then to pay for the activations to go last. If you want to increase activation count with non flotilla ships that can fight more, it becomes challenging to keep max squadrons.

I think he is useful (especially in my experience with strong objectives) but I don't think in the same "all in on squadron" way that Pryce has been so successfully used.

13 minutes ago, LordCola said:

So you are saying he is still a very powerful card, just with an equally high skill floor?

.....probably? I've been running MSU or its equivalent for..... maybe a year and a half now, so I really haven't played him since Worlds 2018. He IS good though, just needs the right fleet

4 minutes ago, JolliGreenGiant said:

I think he is useful (especially in my experience with strong objectives) but I don't think in the same "all in on squadron" way that Pryce has been so successfully used.

Yeah I totally agree. I never said that he should be played the same way as Pryce. As you said with Bail you need to buy activations to get the "last" part of last first and squads don't give activation so a fleet that goes all in on Bail would probably not be a fleet with max Squads. That doesn't mean that a last first with just Rebel ships can't be very powerful. Getting last first with an MC75O that gets a double arc on one if its two activations is enough to destroy an unharmed Motti ECM ISD.

11 minutes ago, LordCola said:

a fleet that goes all in on Bail would probably not be a fleet with max squads.

And that's why you're not seeing it. 2-ship's continued existence, man.

7 minutes ago, geek19 said:

And that's why you're not seeing it. 2-ship's continued existence, man.

But wouldn't Bail be a really good counter to Pryce two ship lists? As I said above, he can guarantee that Pryce won't be able to pull of a last first.

11 minutes ago, LordCola said:

But wouldn't Bail be a really good counter to Pryce two ship lists? As I said above, he can guarantee that Pryce won't be able to pull of a last first.

Assuming Bail lives and then makes a kill on that Pryce ship, SURE! Or on another ship or two preventing THEM from doing things. But anyone flying 2-ship now isn't just starting, it's the same (or same enough for this discussion) list and playstyle. MMJ go in and hit the Bail ship Pryce turn, and either the ISD ALSO fires on it or doesnt engage it. So Bail then is either ineffective (because Pryce didn't engage) or basically at deaths door (because an ISD and MMJ shot him). He might kill ONE ship, but he better make it count alright.

Best use I've seen out of him recently has been a Slaved Assault Frigate with H1 nearby. Course, that means no Intel Officer.

40 minutes ago, LordCola said:

with Bail you need to buy activations to get the "last" part of last first and squads don't give activation so a fleet that goes all in on Bail would probably not be a fleet with max Squads.

I disagree with this I like Bail because of his flexibility, and find he is best on Assult frigates and Armord MC-75s why because they can push squadrons and dish out ship damage. So you have Rogues that go last then Bail them to go first you can get a last first Alpha strike with your squadrons, this can be absolutely dicicive In the squadron game. You dont need to have last to make him worth it if you bring flexible squadrons.

1 hour ago, geek19 said:

Can't use him with smalls. Which because of the unjustified hatred of the Assault Frigate people basically read that as "he must be on a large."

Other than appearance, is there a reason the AF is hated?

2 minutes ago, Ling27 said:

Other than appearance, is there a reason the AF is hated?

The AF is the jack of all trades, the master of none...

4 minutes ago, itzSteve said:

The AF is the jack of all trades, the master of none...

"...Better still than the master of one."

I would rather a multirole item that can be outfitted multiple ways than a single purpose cruiser that everyone knows does one thing. I know what to expect if I see a gladiator... I dont know what to expect fron AFs.

10 minutes ago, Ling27 said:

"...Better still than the master of one."

I would rather a multirole item that can be outfitted multiple ways than a single purpose cruiser that everyone knows does one thing. I know what to expect if I see a gladiator... I dont know what to expect fron AFs.

So you recognize that when you see the gladiator last/first an AF you already know what will happen to the AF...LOL.

20 minutes ago, Ling27 said:

Other than appearance, is there a reason the AF is hated?

Prior to RitR, without LTTs its damage was limited slash prone to "unfixable" bad rolls. But push 3-4 squads with one and double arc some thing....

It steers badly at times yes, and it is NOT forgiving of mistakes. But I'm enjoying it currently, especially as its consistent damage at red range (again, assuming you put LTT with it). Think of it as a VERY cheap and slightly underpowered large ship, but for pushing squads and delivering boarding teams, its solid.

3 minutes ago, Ling27 said:

Other than appearance, is there a reason the AF is hated?

I think it's just a combination of the looks and the stats.

The AF is a jack-of-all-trades ship, that doesn't really do anything particularly remarkable. The most remarkable thing about it is the way it looks.

6 minutes ago, geek19 said:

But push 3-4 squads with one and double arc some thing.... for pushing squads and delivering boarding teams, its solid.

Sounds fun.

Assault Frigate Mk2 B (72)
• Boarding Troopers (3)
• Linked Turbolaser Towers (7)
• Paragon (5)
= 87 Points

29 minutes ago, xero989 said:

I disagree with this I like Bail because of his flexibility, and find he is best on Assult frigates and Armord MC-75s why because they can push squadrons and dish out ship damage. So you have Rogues that go last then Bail them to go first you can get a last first Alpha strike with your squadrons, this can be absolutely dicicive In the squadron game. You dont need to have last to make him worth it if you bring flexible squadrons.

This is how I've come to use Bail, you can still prevent Pryce's last/first but you're going to eat that Sloane Aces-Pyrce-last, which is pretty powerful. My friend uses an ISD-2 and 4 terrible squads, Mareek, Jendon and two TIE/p (for double reds) or TIE/whatevers and then likely your large has lsot it's Brace either for good or to Avenger, maybe even Redirect.

Being able to use Rogue as *your* last, and then first with them may effectively stop the squad alpha. Also kinda/sorta can do with Hera/Bombers

At Lords

The Aussies burnt them in 1882

Pryce is much easier to use and allows for two back-to-back activations with last+first on the (pre-SSD) strongest platform in the game. Because you don't need to pad activations to get that last+first, you can just ignore activations entirely and afford a ridiculous bid. Her design is stupid, but we're stuck with her (until some hoped-for future errata).

If you want to get Bail working in a similar manner, you need a good number of activations and at that point Strategic Advisor is a much easier inclusion. If you want to build more aggressively for second player with a Strategic fleet, he can work better in that role, but there still aren't any Rebel ships that can leverage him as aggressively as Pryce and if your opponent outbids you, they can still just make you first to sidestep your Strategic shenanigans and demote Bail to "token boy." He just isn't as good as Pryce or Strategic Advisor overall. He has some uses, but there's a reason you don't see as much of him as the other 2.

3 hours ago, LordCola said:

Now first things first, I am an imperial player and I have never even played rebels before but Bail Organa seems like a really good card to me. Like better than Pryce good but you never see him and I wonder why.

Bail is like Pryce a tool to allow you to go last first and I think in context he is much better at that for the rebels than Pryce for the Empire. Rebel ships are already through the board significantly cheaper than Imperial ships. So it has always been way easier for them to get more activations and with that get the last activation. Now with Bail you have a tool to guarantee the first activation in a crucial turn. But not only does he make it very easy for rebels to get last first he also allows the rebel player to do this while having a full 400 point list. If you want to go last first with Pryce you still need to fork over an additional 20+ points for a bid (and even than there is no guarantee for first player). With those 20+ points rebels can buy a whole additional ship (with a common loudout. A Comms Net GR-75 is 20 points!). And since you have a full 400 point list you will likely also have the advantage of playing your objectives. Compared to a Price last first a Bail last first gets to have roughly 20+ more points and second player objective advantage. That's insane!

Now you may argue that Bail is pretty bad if you get first player, but just think about that. You just got away with getting first player with a 400 point list. I would gladly take that (of course this needs to be on a list that wants to go last first.)

And lastly Bail is the perfect defense should you face a Pryce list. The biggest danger when facing a Pryce opponent is them getting last first and Bail can guarantee that that wont happen. Bail and Pryce trigger simultaneously, so if Pryce is the first player they will have to determine the Pryce turn first. You can than just set Bail to trigger the turn after Pryce guaranteeing that the opponent does not get the last first. And if Pryce is not first player than that means not last first for her.

So why do we see him so rarely, especially in top level games?

As stated above, with Pryce you have much more freedom to build your list, the only thing you should be aware of is the bid. But with Bail you need lots of activations to be certain that you can activate last while you have to put a large ship in the fleet to put Bail (of course it can be in the AF, but then that activation wouldn't be as impactful as to justify making a fleet and playing it to get to that point of activating last-first as it can be with Pryce and an ISD for example). To add to it, having a large ship and lots of activations leaves you presumably with few squadrons so your fleet could be quite vulnerable to a heavy squadron fleet.
That's why in my opinion Pryce is better than Bail.

1 hour ago, Jimble said:

The Aussies burnt them in 1882

To be fair, the English burned them... They just sent the ashes to Australia afterwards ...

... Where they remain for at least 4 more years 😁

29 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

To be fair, the English burned them... They just sent the ashes to Australia afterwards ...

... Where they remain for at least 4 more years 😁

You are a font of all knowledge on Armada, but leave cricket history to those who go through the pain of watching England play. It was the Australians.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ashes

On an Armada note, I think Bail might be waiting for the Starhawk. I've got this feeling it will be the right ship for him.