Jump to content

Weatherwax2099

Members
  • Content Count

    44
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Weatherwax2099


  1. 3 hours ago, Rikalonius said:

    I knew the game would come to end, but to end it with those idiots from Rebels, sans Hera, and not on Endor is annoying.  No Zuckuss of 4LOM but we have Dengar 🤢  No scout troopers.  No Imperial army troopers.  If there is not physical content, does that mean no Boba Fix, as that has been the medium for distributing skirmish fix cards?

    We can at least hope for them to add new digital campaigns for purchase the same way Mansions of Madness does. As has been mentioned elsewhere, there are plenty of existing forest tiles that could be used for an Endor campaign.


  2. 41 minutes ago, Mandelore of the Rings said:

    At the Star Wars Celebration or whatever it's called FFG is giving IA campaign demonstrations twice a day!  Isn't that a good sign?  Check out the schedule.

    It seems likely that the "death" of Imperial Assault will be simply an end to official skirmish support and/or no new products while keeping at least the Campaign boxes in print. With the app support, IA campaign occupies a popular board game niche (considering how many miniature-using, grid-based board games with campaigns seem to thrive on Kickstarter) and while it may not be the newest hotness as far as such games go, it is "the Star Wars one." Unless FFG or some other company has a similar game coming down the pipe, one would hope at the very least they'd want to hold that niche. 


  3. ...I'm not sure I'd want Darth Vader to be immune to attacks as long as a rStorm was standing near him. You could make literal invincible walls by putting a couple of leaders in each path with a single rStorm behind them.

    Edit: perhaps instead:

    Expendable: While a friendly, adjacent Leader is defending, you may suffer X hits to apply -X hits to the attack results.

    This still feels much more like a Guardian rather than a Trooper ability though. At least that's what Plo Koon tells me

     


  4. 1 hour ago, TylerTT said:

    the Warhammer community site averages 1-2 posts every day and they support far fewer game lines then FFG.

    I am aware but I'm still not sure there's a substantial difference on content for less popular lines, especially if you consider that GW's two major games are not intended for a player to buy all the content released for that game. Now granted this is second hand as I haven't bought into 40k or Sigmar but my understanding (from reading up on it every year or two when I start to consider buying in) is that getting all you need to make a competitive army with some options for changeups in a single faction is either comparable to or more than buying nearly everything in any one of the Star Wars lines.

    That isn't intended as a value judgment, just that those seem like two proper points of comparison. If there isn't any new content for your army's faction available then your personal meta at least can be as stale as a game like Imperial Assault not getting any content. So then do the less popular army factions in 40K get content updates more or less often than FFG games like Imperial Assault and Armada? My sense is that it probably is more frequent but not to a big degree. And of course the Warhammer games are big enough with decades of content that even without anything new, you can still probably add options to your army (if they haven't been eaten by the 'nids to differentiate game lines).


  5. 2 hours ago, Rikalonius said:

    I firmly believe some nerfs to a few cards, and a few "nerfs" to a couple of high-powered units, i.e. cost increases, is a whole bunch more efficient that choosing a certain set of units and reducing their cost, because that looks like those units are being groomed to be included, rather than having the units be mathematically balanced based on their value.  Someone said earlier all units can't be top tier units.  Of course not.  But if a unit cost 3, then it should be equal to other units that cost 3.  I know that is not easy to mathematically asses, but I think we can come close.  As Bitterman, how much would it change to increase e.Weequay, rather than 'buff' so many units by reducing their cost?

    The points increase for overpowered things rather than reducing the cost of underpowered ones also seems to be FFG'S design philosophy for X-Wing 2.0 which seems like the best analog for this season style points adjustment approach. 

    As this is basically an experiment of ways to balance the meta, I lean to trying something that would be the most straightforward change but providing a significant amount of data without being too onerous. So what about something as straightforward as banning Vader, and the Hunter trait for a season? That eliminates the most dominant pieces from the last couple of years of meta while not actually changing that many pieces and leaving the majority of post-Jabba content in place. See what new lists become dominant and you should have a good idea of what falls into the tiers below those pieces and an idea of where changes might be most effective. 


  6. 7 hours ago, subtrendy2 said:

    But someone like Chirrut?  He's with the Rebellion for like a day, and we see it all on screen.  

    Assuming that's even a concern for the designers, it's easy enough to work around that in anything set before Rogue One.

    Obviously we have to ignore the timeline discrepancies created by being able to bring characters into campaign missions that take place before or after those characters existed in the form represented by their deployment (all the dead/missing folks plus characters like Jedi Luke) but that's hardly new. As for designing missions that include the characters, set it before Rogue One and use what we know from other materials. Maybe on Jedha working with Baze and Chirrut to help refugees or secure some Force artifacts or some such or with Saw against the Empire. There are already plenty of "not exactly Rebel business" missions for characters like Han so just use something like that for Jyn.

    If you really want to go for some poignancy, maybe do some early campaign missions as flashbacks to the heroes working with the Rogue One characters before moving to the main story of the heroes doing a similar mission to get the info about the second Death Star or some other such crucial but probably suicidal mission. 


  7. 1 minute ago, NeverBetTheFett said:

    What is the consequence of violating a play tester non-disclosure agreement?

    Like can't play testers (you know who you are) tell us it's dead? Wouldn't they know if something was in the pipe? And what does telling us do? Would they get sued for millions? Get cut out of future IA play testing? 

    So bear in mind that I conducted playtesting research for the video game industry not tabletop but as I assume the standards of NDAs are consistent across industries...the consequences can be severe. Being caught breaking an NDA will almost certainly get you blacklisted from future play tests and fired if you're actually employed as a playtester.  Additionally, most NDAs are legal contracts so further civil lawsuits are certainly possible. Companies want to control the narrative around their products as much as possible and view any kind of leak as potentially costly down the line. Plus, you know, also kind of an a-hole move to leak something you were asked not to just to make yourself look knowledgeable, especially since testing is no guarantee something will be released and any given tester not being asked to test is no guarantee somebody else isn't testing it.


  8. 4 hours ago, TylerTT said:

    Games Workshop has been absolutely fantastic at managing this balance. Products for established lines are teased about a month or two away, new games are teased about three or four months away as these are more complex messages to send consumers.

     

    I'm not sure I'd say GW is far and away better than FFG at teasing and announcing products if you look at things company wide. FFG does one to two articles about their upcoming or existing products every week day. FFG just has way more game lines. I think it's fairer to look at individual factions in, say, 40K compared to FFG's Star Wars games. Sure the Space Marines may get new stuff and announcements frequently but then so do X-Wing and Legion.  Then ask players of, say, the Adepta Soritas how much attention and care they think GW gives them.

    With all that said, I'm far less bothered by IA getting reduced or even no more product releases than, say, Armada thanks to the Campaign and app.


  9. It seems like just making OTL trigger before the defender rolls dice is a perfectly fine change. "Might be able to nullify my attack with On the Lam" has become part of the calculation in attacking a figure with the Smuggler trait and over committing command cards and the like becomes a riskier proposition. If the defender has to make a similar calculation in deciding whether to use On the Lam, that seems like a balanced situation. It is a good way for Smuggler to serve as a counter to more offensive traits. Thematically, it does seem like Force Users (or at least those Force Users with white defense dice) should have a similar command card or something that can at least nullify a ranged attack as well as OtL can nullify a melee one.

    As for multiple Hunter command cards, that does seem a bit arbitrary even if it might promote a bit more diverse list building by making lower health less of point feeding trough. Personally, I'd rather see more command cards like OTL that can situationally stop one shot kills (i.e. avoiding attacks for agile characters like smugglers and force users or boosting blocks/weakening pierce for vehicles and guardians). Bounty hunters and snipers should be good at killing figures, especially when the situation or strategy (or whatever the random draws of command cards are meant to represent) lines up for them. Having an awesome hand of command cards and only being able to use one at a time sounds way less engaging then having an awesome hand and not being sure if you want to use them all on one attack because that Han might have On the Lam or the much cheaper guardian next to him might have some hypothetical "take the hit for an adjacent friendly figure" command card.

     


  10. 1 hour ago, subtrendy2 said:

    Some of the Rogue One characters don't have a timeline that makes sense in any context, because their time with the Rebellion is so restricted.

    With a pre-OT campaign, it doesn't seem particularly unreasonable. A couple of missions (or just side missions) on Jedha could easily account for Baze and Chirrut as, per their book, they were actively working on some covert resistance against the occupation and trying to help the innocent people. They even had a few run-ins with Saw's band. Cassian is easy to explain and could even be one of the main Rebel characters in such a campaign. Jyn could easily be involved in side missions or campaign missions about stealing from the Empire and what not. After all, Rebel command somehow knew who she really was and she got busted somehow. That's probably Loku's fault. That fish seems like a talker.

    That said, it does seem like doing a background story within a background story so I'm more interested in just getting the characters to play around with than having a campaign based around them. Maybe a few side missions.


  11. 30 minutes ago, subtrendy2 said:

    Of course, anything goes in Skirmish, but they'd be weird in campaign.

    You mean like Obi Wan Kenobi openly acting in all his Jedi glory in a campaign explicitly set after the Battle of Yavin? Or the at least four characters that should not be around during any OT stories per the events of Rebels, including two who were rather explicitly dead?


  12. 1 hour ago, MadFuhrer said:

    E-Webs are trooper-Heavy weapon.  Also, everyone seem to think that because most of the troopers die in 1 hit, that that makes them super weak.  but think about it this way;  They need to make 3 attacks to remove that 6 cost group.  Where you have bt, thrawn, blaise, or anyone else at 6 points is almost guaranteed to get 2 shot.

    But that one shot removes 1/3 of the offense of the group if not more, gives victory points, and their primary purpose requires being in frontline combat. And that's before you get to figures like Sabine and Drokata that might wipe the squad with blast. Thrawn and Blaise provide all their benefits and no VP until they're entirely defeated and they don't have to be in the frontline to do many of the things you would bring them for. BT has more health than a whole squad of rTroopers combined and will almost certainly do more damage even before he leverages his traits.

    If there was something that turned raw numbers into enough damage to matter (like the common Troopers of that other Empire...), then the cheaper squishy troopers might become competitive again. The fixes suggested above might help with that. Maybe something that let multiple trooper deployments with the same name and cost function as a single deployment for activation and the suggested Pierce and damage token effects. Six or nine rTroopers working up to pierce 3+ and bonus damage (or surges) would be enough to make even the toughest targets sweat. It worked for Order 66.


  13. 36 minutes ago, Rikalonius said:

    Skirmish has nothing to do with Thematic portrayal anyway, else how to explain the, prior to lately, overuse of Gideon and C3PO in many lists?

    Excellent point. I feel like ideally most of the recognizable characters should individually be good enough at something to be competitive in the right list. It gives the game a reason to have the Star Wars ip. That doesn't mean any given combination has to be top tier, certainly. 


  14. Just now, GuillotineTE said:

    I really like this one

    Seconded.

    With Stormtrooper Surge, maybe change "that figure" to "a friendly figure" or "a figure in the same deployment" or some such? With the fragility of Stormtroopers, I could see a lot of tokens never getting used because their bearer doesn't live long enough to attack next round. Distributing the tokens makes even rStorms a potential threat and if they can pass them out of the deployment, a good combo of cannon fodder and minor support. 


  15. Would Troopers gain significant value if instead of granting points for each figure, your opponent only gained half the deployment cost (rounded up presumably) of the squad when half the squad (really 2/3 given the size of most trooper deployments) was defeated? That way Reinforcement and the like still have value and aren't just feeding points but keeping one figure in the safe zone won't be very viable. This would mean points would be taken away when a squad gets reinforced back above half strength but it seems like there's enough victory point manipulation in the game these days that losing points isn't a crazy concept to grasp.


  16. 8 hours ago, Rikalonius said:

    What reason is that?  I'm not saying I disagree, but there's never been any official reason stated.  As Weather said, if you use a Mercenary faction setting, then he is trapped only in hunter lists.  This seems very anti-thematic for Boba Fett, where it makes perfect sense for Han and Chewbacca.  I know it was done with IG-88, but that doesn't mean it has to be.  

    Outside of avoiding a small set of potential balance issues, there doesn't seem to be any reason for the fixes to be faction specific. If it's to discourage using the crossover cards for high tier figures then you still have the problem of all the figures that are strong without a fix. If it's supposed to be some kind of thematic thing then it makes even less sense as I don't see any reason why Han would be weaker or holding back or something just because he's working for Scum and certainly IG-88 wouldn't care if he was killing for Jabba or Vader. Plus, again, you still have the pure-hearted farm boy Jedi and dedicated Rebel soldiers that will apparently give it their all for a good payday.


  17. 8 minutes ago, Jaric256 said:

    This doesn't work thematically, but I wouldn't mind 4Lom and Zuckuss replacing 3po and Gideon.  Doesn't even have to be focus, but filling that same role of a buffing support figure.  

    It's weird that two of the most vital and often included members of scum lists are rebels.

    If I remember correctly, in the old EU at least, Zuckuss is a spiritual force user that can see the future and seems to be more of a team player than a lot of bounty hunters and 4-LOM is a skilled thief, hacker, and manipulator. They do their work through planning, cunning, and cooperation rather than raw power. It doesn't seem at all unthematic to me for them to fill the spot of the rebel care package.

×
×
  • Create New...