Would a little Demolisher nerf bring balance to the force, er.. game

[Mogrok 526]

@AnalBuccaneer, if you really think Rebels have the advantage at every meaningful comparison point, just look no farther than the Regional Data that has been collected.  Rebels make up about 40% of the total lists, but only represent 12% of the Top 4 lists.  Meaning Imperials are disproportionately placing highly in events (88% of the Top 4 builds) despite only being 60% of the field.  If anything you believed were actually true, we'd see the inverse of what we're actually seeing.

  

 

Well I play imperials cause I hate the rebels...not the game...just from the movies.  I also like the decepticons, cobra, and the zentraedi. I am sure there are lots of other people like me out there.  So that statistic isn't really a strong comparison to prove anything. 

[AnalBuccaneer 8]

I would just like to mention that the only Rebel lists that have won are Rieekan based. While the Imperials have 3 commanders out of 5 winning.

 

Edit: typo on the data, post no longer relevant.

Edited May 3, 2016 by AnalBuccaneer

[Madaghmire 7,274]

 

I would just like to mention that the only Rebel lists that have won are Rieekan based. While the Imperials have 3 commanders out of 5 winning.

 

thats what i thought as well, but if you notice, an ackbar list took 1st just as much as rieekan, the publisher's data base was incomplete... the tournaments in which the ackbar lists took 1st, he did not have the brackets (to determine how well they did in the top 8/top4 etc)... it appears he added this extra data in some charts and omitted it from others.... but either way, your point is still valid.

 

I'm lost here, would you mind pointing me to where you saw that? I assumed it was in Schmitty's regionals data thread but I'm missing it.

[AnalBuccaneer 8]

 

 

I would just like to mention that the only Rebel lists that have won are Rieekan based. While the Imperials have 3 commanders out of 5 winning.

 

thats what i thought as well, but if you notice, an ackbar list took 1st just as much as rieekan, the publisher's data base was incomplete... the tournaments in which the ackbar lists took 1st, he did not have the brackets (to determine how well they did in the top 8/top4 etc)... it appears he added this extra data in some charts and omitted it from others.... but either way, your point is still valid.

 

I'm lost here, would you mind pointing me to where you saw that? I assumed it was in Schmitty's regionals data thread but I'm missing it.

 

 

Sorry, im looking at his graphs on: http://concentratefire.blogspot.com/2016/05/regionals-results-data-april.html

 

also, on his FFG thread https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/217480-regionals-data/

 

down in the comments, he replys to a post "I had meant to add that to the post. I have the full lists and rankings for 3 regionals and attendance and top finisher data for 4 others."

 

hmm, i am mistaken... on his blogspot it says "ackbar swarm" it would appear that is a typo and it should be a rieekan swarm.

 

either way, he says he has 7 data sets, and only 6 reported on... it would seem we are a little incomplete.

[AllWingsStandyingBy 4,659]

 

@AnalBuccaneer, if you really think Rebels have the advantage at every meaningful comparison point, just look no farther than the Regional Data that has been collected.  Rebels make up about 40% of the total lists, but only represent 12% of the Top 4 lists.  Meaning Imperials are disproportionately placing highly in events (88% of the Top 4 builds) despite only being 60% of the field.  If anything you believed were actually true, we'd see the inverse of what we're actually seeing.

  

 

Well I play imperials cause I hate the rebels...not the game...just from the movies.  I also like the decepticons, cobra, and the zentraedi. I am sure there are lots of other people like me out there.  So that statistic isn't really a strong comparison to prove anything. 

 

 

Actually, no.  Data like this is the only really meaningful thing from which we can draw conclusions about balance.  For your objection to be meaningful, you'd have to have evidence (or at least reasons) to support the idea that:

 

• The best Armada players have a psychological trait(s) that necessarily compels them to play Imperials instead of Rebels purely on fluff reasons (and, contingently, that if these same players did prefer Rebs for fluff they would be winning with Rebel lists and we'd see 88% of the Top 4 being Rebels instead of Imps).

This is pretty absurd, of course.  Sure, some people might play Imps because they like Imps better than Rebs.  But some people might also play Rebs because they like the Rebs better.  Furthermore, we have no reason to believe that fluff concerns always outweigh relative perceived competitiveness when choosing a faction or building a list.  There's not much reason to assume these sorts of things won't be a push at best.

Regardless, it doesn't even matter because we have data on both representation and performance.  The issue you are noting about faction selection is an issue of representation, not performance.  Rebels and Imps are somewhat close to evenly represented at Regional Tournaments (40%/60% respectively), yet there is a substantial skew in Imperials being over-represented in the Top 4 (almost 90% of Top 4 squads have been Imperial).  This suggests that, independent of whatever reasons people use when deciding upon a faction to play, Imperial squads are performing substantially better on the table when it comes to game performance.  Which is the reason so many people feel that Imperials have an innate advantage, and many believe it rests upon the same "concern cards" people were worried about even back in Wave 1: the Demolisher title and Rhymer, both of which are unsurprisingly over-represented in the Top Performing squads at Regionals.

[B2000 13]

The beauty of a powerful ship is that it requires new tactics and new ships to handle the threat. Both require time, practice, and patience. The terms "nerf" and "OP" indicate a concession and I don't accept them.  Nor should the designers. This happens all the time in real life, so just accept it because everything changes in time.

Tiger Tank Op rekts my Sherman's please nerf!!

The Tiger was exactly the example I was alluding to, very good. Yes Shermans were "demolished" but there was no "nerf the Tiger" flag raised. They adapted with new tactics and later new weapons. Do the same and let it be.

[Drasnighta 26,831]

War is not a Game.

 

War is neither Fun nor Fair.

 

Games are.

[TheEasternKing 607]

 

 

@AnalBuccaneer, if you really think Rebels have the advantage at every meaningful comparison point, just look no farther than the Regional Data that has been collected.  Rebels make up about 40% of the total lists, but only represent 12% of the Top 4 lists.  Meaning Imperials are disproportionately placing highly in events (88% of the Top 4 builds) despite only being 60% of the field.  If anything you believed were actually true, we'd see the inverse of what we're actually seeing.

  

 

Well I play imperials cause I hate the rebels...not the game...just from the movies.  I also like the decepticons, cobra, and the zentraedi. I am sure there are lots of other people like me out there.  So that statistic isn't really a strong comparison to prove anything. 

 

 

Actually, no.  Data like this is the only really meaningful thing from which we can draw conclusions about balance.  For your objection to be meaningful, you'd have to have evidence (or at least reasons) to support the idea that:

 

• The best Armada players have a psychological trait(s) that necessarily compels them to play Imperials instead of Rebels purely on fluff reasons (and, contingently, that if these same players did prefer Rebs for fluff they would be winning with Rebel lists and we'd see 88% of the Top 4 being Rebels instead of Imps).

This is pretty absurd, of course.  Sure, some people might play Imps because they like Imps better than Rebs.  But some people might also play Rebs because they like the Rebs better.  Furthermore, we have no reason to believe that fluff concerns always outweigh relative perceived competitiveness when choosing a faction or building a list.  There's not much reason to assume these sorts of things won't be a push at best.

Regardless, it doesn't even matter because we have data on both representation and performance.  The issue you are noting about faction selection is an issue of representation, not performance.  Rebels and Imps are somewhat close to evenly represented at Regional Tournaments (40%/60% respectively), yet there is a substantial skew in Imperials being over-represented in the Top 4 (almost 90% of Top 4 squads have been Imperial).  This suggests that, independent of whatever reasons people use when deciding upon a faction to play, Imperial squads are performing substantially better on the table when it comes to game performance.  Which is the reason so many people feel that Imperials have an innate advantage, and many believe it rests upon the same "concern cards" people were worried about even back in Wave 1: the Demolisher title and Rhymer, both of which are unsurprisingly over-represented in the Top Performing squads at Regionals.

 

 

Aren't the regional data reports showing 2 Rebel wins, 3 Imperial wins? 

 

That is the only important figure, the top 4 or top 8 can be skewed by a Regional with 8 people and 7 play Imperials, not because Imperials are better, but because they like playing them, if no Rebels win any Regionals at all, then there is the issue you are alluding to, but that is not the case is it?

 

Didn't Rebels win the worlds last time around? when everyone was screaming the sky is falling because of all ship Demo fleets? fancy that. 

[shmitty 3,315]

I would just like to mention that the only Rebel lists that have won are Rieekan based. While the Imperials have 3 commanders out of 5 winning.

 

thats what i thought as well, but if you notice, an ackbar list took 1st just as much as rieekan, the publisher's data base was incomplete... the tournaments in which the ackbar lists took 1st, he did not have the brackets (to determine how well they did in the top 8/top4 etc)... it appears he added this extra data in some charts and omitted it from others.... but either way, your point is still valid.

I'm lost here, would you mind pointing me to where you saw that? I assumed it was in Schmitty's regionals data thread but I'm missing it.

 

Sorry, im looking at his graphs on: http://concentratefire.blogspot.com/2016/05/regionals-results-data-april.html

 

also, on his FFG thread https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/217480-regionals-data/

 

down in the comments, he replys to a post "I had meant to add that to the post. I have the full lists and rankings for 3 regionals and attendance and top finisher data for 4 others."[/size]

 

hmm, i am mistaken... on his blogspot it says "ackbar swarm" it would appear that is a typo and it should be a rieekan swarm.

 

either way, he says he has 7 data sets, and only 6 reported on... it would seem we are a little incomplete.

I'm going to have to replace that graph. No Ackbar Swarms have won a tournament. I have no clue where that came from. Weird.

An Ackbar player has made the Top 8 in the data that I have, but that's it. Rieekan is the only Rebel Admiral that is getting much done right now.

I'm working on getting the full data formatted in such a way that everyone can see it. That'll probably wait til next week as there are a few large Regionals this weekend that should add significantly to the data.

[Rocmistro 1,090]

 

@AnalBuccaneer, if you really think Rebels have the advantage at every meaningful comparison point, just look no farther than the Regional Data that has been collected.  Rebels make up about 40% of the total lists, but only represent 12% of the Top 4 lists.  Meaning Imperials are disproportionately placing highly in events (88% of the Top 4 builds) despite only being 60% of the field.  If anything you believed were actually true, we'd see the inverse of what we're actually seeing.

  

 

Well I play imperials cause I hate the rebels...not the game...just from the movies.  I also like the decepticons, cobra, and the zentraedi. I am sure there are lots of other people like me out there.  So that statistic isn't really a strong comparison to prove anything. 

 

 

**** yeah, dude. We *need* a Zentraedi faction in Star Wars Armada!

[Madaghmire 7,274]

only if i get that yellow and black fighter thingee with the skull on it, i called dibs, you all heard me

[thecactusman17 3,192]

@AnalBuccaneer, if you really think Rebels have the advantage at every meaningful comparison point, just look no farther than the Regional Data that has been collected.  Rebels make up about 40% of the total lists, but only represent 12% of the Top 4 lists.  Meaning Imperials are disproportionately placing highly in events (88% of the Top 4 builds) despite only being 60% of the field.  If anything you believed were actually true, we'd see the inverse of what we're actually seeing.

Well I play imperials cause I hate the rebels...not the game...just from the movies.  I also like the decepticons, cobra, and the zentraedi. I am sure there are lots of other people like me out there.  So that statistic isn't really a strong comparison to prove anything.

 

Actually, no.  Data like this is the only really meaningful thing from which we can draw conclusions about balance.  For your objection to be meaningful, you'd have to have evidence (or at least reasons) to support the idea that:

 

• The best Armada players have a psychological trait(s) that necessarily compels them to play Imperials instead of Rebels purely on fluff reasons (and, contingently, that if these same players did prefer Rebs for fluff they would be winning with Rebel lists and we'd see 88% of the Top 4 being Rebels instead of Imps).

This is pretty absurd, of course.  Sure, some people might play Imps because they like Imps better than Rebs.  But some people might also play Rebs because they like the Rebs better.  Furthermore, we have no reason to believe that fluff concerns always outweigh relative perceived competitiveness when choosing a faction or building a list.  There's not much reason to assume these sorts of things won't be a push at best.Regardless, it doesn't even matter because we have data on both representation and performance.  The issue you are noting about faction selection is an issue of representation, not performance.  Rebels and Imps are somewhat close to evenly represented at Regional Tournaments (40%/60% respectively), yet there is a substantial skew in Imperials being over-represented in the Top 4 (almost 90% of Top 4 squads have been Imperial).  This suggests that, independent of whatever reasons people use when deciding upon a faction to play, Imperial squads are performing substantially better on the table when it comes to game performance.  Which is the reason so many people feel that Imperials have an innate advantage, and many believe it rests upon the same "concern cards" people were worried about even back in Wave 1: the Demolisher title and Rhymer, both of which are unsurprisingly over-represented in the Top Performing squads at Regionals.

 

Aren't the regional data reports showing 2 Rebel wins, 3 Imperial wins? 

 

That is the only important figure, the top 4 or top 8 can be skewed by a Regional with 8 people and 7 play Imperials, not because Imperials are better, but because they like playing them, if no Rebels win any Regionals at all, then there is the issue you are alluding to, but that is not the case is it?

 

Didn't Rebels win the worlds last time around? when everyone was screaming the sky is falling because of all ship Demo fleets? fancy that.

It is true that smaller player counts might skew the data, that's why we are talking about Regional events.

Even if a Rebel ends up winning, the overabundance of Imps indicates a severe breakdown in the meta already. If players of equal skill are bringing ships from both factions, then we should see a more even split of the top 4 and top 8 between them. If those players are not radially represented across both factions, then we should at least be seeing a more equal number of viable builds.

The lists in the top 8 across all regions are split largely between Demolisher-MSU and Rhymerballs. That's a sign that these two cards are having a tremendous effect on the game beyond all other cards. Looking at both to determine if an adjustment is necessary is reasonable. Remember, this isn't just the wave 2 meta: Demolisher was the overwhelming winner in the top 8 of worlds last year too and was beaten by a hard counter and poor deployment.

[thecactusman17 3,192]

I've got it:

 

After you declare an attack from your side arc, you may exhaust this card to make on additional attack against a ship or squadron from your front arc, even if you've already attacked that hull zone or squadron this round.

 

What it does:

 

1:  You may make two long range attacks from you front arc over the course of a round.  This eliminates the requirement to go first and encourages list variety.  It also makes the Demolisher slightly more powerful beyond short range.
 

2:   You may direct one or both front arc attacks at squadrons, improving the power of the GSD2 ship upgrade.

 

3:  You need to declare a side arc attack.  This makes GSD2 a more effective choice as it can damage targets beyond short range with it's side arc.

 

4:  Preserves the triple-tap power of the existing upgrade.  Only The ability to use Intel Officer twice against a ship before it's next activation is eliminated.

Edited May 3, 2016 by thecactusman17

[Snipafist 7,536]

War is not a Game.

 

War is neither Fun nor Fair.

 

Games are.

If I could like this 100 more times I would do so.

[Blackout7 0]

I don't think the Demolisher title is the real problem. Intel Officer is the real problem. Normally you don't get any accuracies on the high damage black dice. Intel Off adds another 7 to 8 dam over those 2 turns of shooting. even if the target survives the onslaught, it is left defenceless with no brace token. Intel Officer is way to cheap for what it dos  

[Lyraeus 4,759]

I don't think the Demolisher title is the real problem. Intel Officer is the real problem. Normally you don't get any accuracies on the high damage black dice. Intel Off adds another 7 to 8 dam over those 2 turns of shooting. even if the target survives the onslaught, it is left defenceless with no brace token. Intel Officer is way to cheap for what it dos  

My counter is this, are there any other ships that can produce that level of damage in such a level consistently?

[Hastatior 1,444]

 

I don't think the Demolisher title is the real problem. Intel Officer is the real problem. Normally you don't get any accuracies on the high damage black dice. Intel Off adds another 7 to 8 dam over those 2 turns of shooting. even if the target survives the onslaught, it is left defenceless with no brace token. Intel Officer is way to cheap for what it dos  

My counter is this, are there any other ships that can produce that level of damage in such a level consistently?

 

Precisely. Intel office is fine. Watch, put one on an ISD, Shoot at something with your full front arc and Intel the brace. If there is no other threat and the target is likely to survive, it keeps its brace and intel officer is used up. If there is another threat and its likely to survive it can still eat the damage and keep the brace for the other attack. If its not likely to survive it just loses 1 use of the brace which is not massively OP for the points. It only becomes stupid with the triple tap across 2 turns with the double use of intel officer. It effectively reduces your expected return of 3 braces down to 1 brace.

[Lyraeus 4,759]

I don't think the Demolisher title is the real problem. Intel Officer is the real problem. Normally you don't get any accuracies on the high damage black dice. Intel Off adds another 7 to 8 dam over those 2 turns of shooting. even if the target survives the onslaught, it is left defenceless with no brace token. Intel Officer is way to cheap for what it dos  

My counter is this, are there any other ships that can produce that level of damage in such a level consistently?

Precisely. Intel office is fine. Watch, put one on an ISD, Shoot at something with your full front arc and Intel the brace. If there is no other threat and the target is likely to survive, it keeps its brace and intel officer is used up. If there is another threat and its likely to survive it can still eat the damage and keep the brace for the other attack. If its not likely to survive it just loses 1 use of the brace which is not massively OP for the points. It only becomes stupid with the triple tap across 2 turns with the double use of intel officer. It effectively reduces your expected return of 3 braces down to 1 brace.

This is why DtO has Intel Officer on all of its ships. It is needed becuase I will use it to push damage through limit their reactions, etc. It takes a concerted efforts.

[Madaghmire 7,274]

After seeing the gozanti preview I have a little more hope that flotillas will provide tactical options for dealing with Demolisher. I have high hopes for a slicer tool/tractor beam laden gozanti. Maybe it pans out, maybe not, but at this juncture I want to see how the meta shifts post wave three, although I think as a community we should keep our eyes on certain cards that appear over-represented in the regionals data.

[Drasnighta 26,831]

Until everyone takes a Demolisher to Worlds, I don't see what the problem is.

[Truthiness 5,696]

After seeing the gozanti preview I have a little more hope that flotillas will provide tactical options for dealing with Demolisher. I have high hopes for a slicer tool/tractor beam laden gozanti. Maybe it pans out, maybe not, but at this juncture I want to see how the meta shifts post wave three, although I think as a community we should keep our eyes on certain cards that appear over-represented in the regionals data.

 

Would a Gozanti tractor beam work against a Demolisher?

[Lyraeus 4,759]

Sure. The issue though is currently that Demolisher can stay out of long range then jump into close range.

[Truthiness 5,696]

If it wants to waste that jump on a flotilla, no problem. I already push a ship ahead of the main effort as Demolisher bait. It's easy enough to set a trap if you're willing to lose a ship. The reason it works for me right now is because of Rieekan. A flotilla makes that tactic feasible for everyone not named Rieekan. You can force the choice between either sucking a slicer tool/tractor beam combo to the face, or you expose Demolisher to fire in exchange for a 35 point ship.

[Hastatior 1,444]

If it wants to waste that jump on a flotilla, no problem. I already push a ship ahead of the main effort as Demolisher bait. It's easy enough to set a trap if you're willing to lose a ship. The reason it works for me right now is because of Rieekan. A flotilla makes that tactic feasible for everyone not named Rieekan. You can force the choice between either sucking a slicer tool/tractor beam combo to the face, or you expose Demolisher to fire in exchange for a 35 point ship.

My thought exactly. Any time you give a powerful opponent a choice between 2 bad options you win.

 

Slicer tool, tractor beam and the title to have a chance to potentially burn a def token could be a powerful incentive to take out flotilla vs other target.