Jump to content

ManateeX

Members
  • Content Count

    788
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ManateeX

  1. No idea why, but I've always had a soft spot for Murne ever since her release. Ithorians are cool, I guess? Game-wise, I just love how unexpectedly tanky she can be if you build her around the Lead form the Front card.
  2. Unfortunately, FFG is officially done. As a community I think we did all of the pestering that we can do leading up to the Andrew Navarro AMA that they held a few weeks back; there were dozens of IA-related questions and they were leaps and bounds more popular than the other games'. Even with all that, the answer was that, for "business reasons", they consider IA to be a complete product and they won't be doing any more releases. They wouldn't even entertain ideas like putting IA cards in Legion packs.
  3. I don't know that I'd call these RIAST changes minimalist, really. Changes to the way initiative works, or to how buffs only affect your faction, or to SoS/Blaze, or killing On the Lam, or removing various traits and abilities from figures - these have a pretty significant impact on how the game works on the whole. As penguizaur said, you can't really take a list from vanilla IA and sit down at a table and expect everything to work the same way (and chances are that list won't even be legal) With that said, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, either. Like cnnemmick said, the official FFG version is dead. If nothing changes, then we're just going to see the same old lists making the same old plays until interest goes away completely. I guess to me, it seems as though the two systems are taking fundamentally different approaches. At the beginning of DerBear's post he says that one of the main goals of RIAST is to make as many figures playable as possible. I think RIAST is doing a good job of that, and I would agree that increasing the costs of some figures is probably the easiest way. The rules changes also make a given game more predictable and less swingy, particularly by removing Lam and all of initiative plays. It changes the game from what it is currently but it does breathe a lot of new life into old plastic. My sense of the IACP, on the other hand, is that they're more interested in taking the game as it is now and continuing to introduce new content (so far they've had new deployment cards for old characters, new attachments, and simple cost changes) that will keep the meta evolving going forward, but without removing anything that players are currently using. For better or worse this is closer to the FFG approach, had FFG actually kept up support for the game. Now personally, I really like the current game (crazy initiative swings and all) and I lean towards the latter approach as being more fun for me. If I've found a fun list that I love playing I want to be able to keep using it without worrying about something facing the banhammer (I don't know if anybody was watching the recent results from the US nationals at Nova, but the runner up list was a really awesome and creative Han/Leia/MHD box that wouldn't have been viable without On the Lam). I'm also coming around to the idea of having completely new content released - even if we could get everything in the current game perfectly balanced, even that meta is eventually going to get stale if nothing ever changes. I'm not saying that everyone will or should agree with me - I'm sure there's probably a lot of support for banning take and having a less swingy game - but I do think that it's probably true that the two approaches are too far apart at this point to really come together.
  4. Yeah if you are buying this game to get into the competitive, organized play skirmish than now is a terrible time to get into it. If you are buying it for literally any other reason (standard campaigns, app campaigns, skirmish with friends, painting cool minis, etc.) then now is a great time to get the game, when it's more likely to be on clearance racks but not yet sold out. Personally I'm a bit salty about how FFG has handled things since I love the Organized Play that they do, but for all of the other game mode there is tonnes of great content out there. Just because they're not printing more doesn't mean what you have is broken or something - it's still fun to play.
  5. I'll pretty much just reiterate what was said above, but my answer would be: no. There's no real need to get any multiples - there are so many figures out there that its really easy to make lists that don't use any duplicates. I've never bought any except Terro, just because I like having both a Terro figure and a Dewback figure and because I'm a completionist. If you want a slightly longer answer, in competitive skirmish I have seen multiples of Jawas (some people run a swarm of 6 of them) and Alliance Smugglers (max 2) on a somewhat consistent basis. Not really anything beyond that, though - I've seen people run double-rangers, but it's not very common (and also not the best IMO).
  6. In addition to what TheStag said, Tabletop Admiral also has the IACP stuff including season 2. You just need to edit your collection to add "IACP" to the list.
  7. Wow! Was he also running creatures, or did he bring that as specifically anti-lothcat tech? Edit: Thinking about it, maybe he had Terro?
  8. We're talking edge cases, but another application could be the alliance smuggler. He gets to move two spaces after an interact, and in rare cases it could be better to interact and move 2 spaces (e.g. through another figure or blue terrain) than it would be to spend 2 movement points to pick up the thing and the other two points to move.
  9. #2) Yes - unless there is some other text that prohibits it (e.g. "During your activation, spend 2 movement points...") then you can spend any movement points you get to retrieve the token, including MP that might be gained from a special action like the "urgency" command card. #1) My first instinct was no, since I've never seen it done, but I can't actually find anything in the rules to support that. Under "Retrieving Tokens" in the RRG: So if the mission rules actually use the word "retrieve" (e.g. "A figure may spend two movement points to retrieve a token...") then I would argue that yes, by RAW, you should be able to retrieve a token in the traditional way as well. Whether or not that's the actual intent of the rule is another case entirely, of course, and I could see an official ruling going the other way as well. I could also see someone arguing that, since mission rules supersede core rules, the movement points rule overrides the usual interact rule - to which I'd argue that the two aren't mutually exclusive, but who knows.
  10. We need a "boooooo!!!" reaction added to this message board
  11. I'm also curious as to what the future of Imperial Assault might be (particularly skirmish), and, if the answer is still that there is no physical product in the works, my followup question would be: why? I've never had more fun with tabletop gaming than I have with this fantastic game, but then it all just sort of went away without any communication from FFG one way or another. I'd just love to know if there was some specific reason that this game has been essentially discontinued (again from a skirmish point of view), or was it just more a matter of shifting priorities to newer games like Legion? And thanks again for making such a great game to begin with - as I said up top, it's the most fun I've had with plastic and cardboard.
  12. I wouldn't say that skirmish players moved to Legion so much as FFG moved to Legion. You can't really have a vibrant skirmish game if nothing changes, and FFG has already announced that they're not working on any new plastic. Even if they do miraculously release a Yoda expansion or something a year down the road, it's way too late to save skirmish where the player base has already taken a huge hit. Between the lack of new content and them leaving Spectre Cell dominant for so long, unfortunately the damage to the skirmish side has already been done.
  13. Deploy as close as possible, with the player who rolled the die choosing the location if there are multiple valid spaces
  14. And not only did the jawa swarm win in the final, but it did so against the second place list which was Han, Murne, Jarrod and Jyn. *sigh*
  15. I'm in a weird spot with FFG. Arkham Horror (2e) is up there with my favourite games of all time, but since I already own it and still love it I haven't been very interested in their other Arkham Files stuff. I did try (and I really enjoyed) the card game, but it gets pricey if you try to keep up with everything so so far I've only got the one run of expansions. They make TI4, another one of my all-time top games, but I know that the only people I'll ever get to play it with are the people who already own it so there's no point in me getting my own copy. And then of course there's Star Wars, my favourite IP. I've had mountains of fun with IA, both campaign and skirmish, but the way they just kind of stopped with no communication at all (which really hit the skirmish game hard) left a bad taste in my mouth. In theory I'd be interested in Destiny or Legion, but buying into IA so much only to have it stop suddenly has left me not wanting to spend so much money on what will probably be another similar experience. So that's my odd relationship with FFG in a nutshell: on the one hand they're almost certainly my favourite gaming company (they make 3 of my top 4 games) but on the other hand I find myself not at all interested in buying anything that they're making right now.
  16. I hope you're right, but I'm guessing some of their not wanting to outright announce that it's dead is that they're still selling the campaign boxes (and probably making new apps) and they're still running skirmish OP events. Coming out and saying that the game is finished would probably have a negative impact on both (even though I have no idea why that would affect whether people buy the campaign game, people always seem to worry about it for whatever reason).
  17. I felt similarly. I followed Sorastro's videos (fist things I ever painted!) but I generally left out the battle damage and weathering. Yes, it's probably more realistic, but I just love seeing my stormtroopers in that nice, shiny, white
  18. I see that comments on world domination are suspiciously absent...
  19. Yeah, I really wish they had something like the ? tokens when the game was released. Just imagine a world where taking these support characters was an interesting choice to make vs something that they had to subsequently balance a whole faction around.
  20. As someone who has no affiliation whatsoever with the IACP, I have to ask - um, what?? Is this comment at all helpful? You seem to be implying that the IACP steering committee intentionally designed this survey in such a way that it told them what they "wanted" to hear. Just think about that for a second. Why would they do that? Secret IACP Steering Committee Master Plan (Confidential) Step 1: Change imperial assault skirmish in a way that suits us Step 2: Convince the dozens, nay, perhaps SEVERAL HUNDRED people worldwide who might play IA without FFG support that we are correct by posting nefariously misleading surveys. (Insert evil laugh here) Step 3: ??? Step 4: Profit? World domination??? Haha I'm not trying to make light of your comment (well, not completely) but I seriously just don't understand where you're coming from. What do you mean by "YOUR" community vs "THE" community? Since before this began they've done nothing but ask for feedback over and over. Here, on the big facebook group, on every IA podcast under the sun. Exactly how do you propose that they reach THE community at large that they haven't already tried? ****, they have asked the community for suggestions on how to improve the surveys themselves. This does not sound like the work of madmen bent on total IA domination, but rather a group of people taking real time out of their lives to do the best they are able to keep the game we love alive. As for smothering criticism, if someone who's not even affiliated with the project saying "*sigh*" on a message board is enough to counter whatever point a person is making, I'd have to ask how good a point it was to begin with. Not to mention the fact that this voter feedback survey had a place at the bottom for comments about what you might like to see, and the IACP published each one of those suggestions in their feedback report. If there are any great ideas out there waiting to be found, wouldn't that have been a great place to put them so that the community could later vote? So if you have suggestions for how to fix IA, let's hear them! If you have suggestions for how to better solicit or tally community feedback, let's hear those! And sure, I guess if you just want to complain and be sad, you're welcome to do that, too
  21. Thematically I like changes like this (except the Jabba one, personally) but the problem with doing this in a competitive game is similar to the problem we talked about earlier with raising costs on things like eQuays. If you remove focus from Mercs and especially Rebels, two factions who have had all of their units designed around having it since day 1, who's going to stop Vader? You'd end up with competitive tournaments being imperial lists as far as the eye can see. Now you can say that these figures giving out focus shouldn't have been so powerful to begin with, and I agree with you on that (as would, I'd wager, the designers of the game in retrospect) but the fact is that, as it stands today, the figures that we have have been built with freely available focus in mind. You can't just get rid of it wholesale without completely changing the game balance (and tilting it towards the faction that doesn't rely on focus). Also, the Doubt card has helped to reduce the "sit back behind cover and focus your whole army" strategy that some people didn't like - if focus ends up still being a problem, I think going that route is probably a better way to do it. Maybe add some ways to remove conditions, but limit them to the rebel army or something like that to prevent imperial abuse?
  22. See page 4 of the FAQ https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/filer_public/84/a8/84a83869-63ea-4087-95c7-50039c4b5f0a/swi_faq_v4.pdf With that said, I don't know if there's an image of the new card text so I'm not sure what you'll be able to do with it.
  23. I guess one more thing to add that's just occurred to me (although it's kind of a continuation of my previous post) is that if we're balancing "down" then we would need to nerf every single Tier-1 figure simultaneously (otherwise we'll end up with a few standouts who just dominate). It's going to be tough to get every one of those changes right and even tougher to get enough people to agree what needs to be changed and how, not to mention it brings a whole mess of errata that we would need to start remembering all at the same time. Bringing lower figures up, by contrast, can be done in more controlled one-at-a-time way, gradually (re)introducing new figures as interest and comfort level dictates.
  24. My issue with trying to balance things to the lower power level of early skirmish is that there never really was a consistent power level in early skirmish. The first few waves were wildly unbalanced - no realistic number of cost increases on other figures will ever make me want to take Biv or Fenn or Garkhaan or Sorin or Fett or RGC or wing guards or ..... to a competitive event. I'm not unsympathetic to what you're saying - in a perfect world I, too, would like to see the average damage reduced. The issue, though, is that we're starting from what has been and is a pretty balanced meta from wave 7 onward (original SC notwithstanding). Yeah you could make weequays a bit more expensive or remove some of the big hunter cards, but if you do than it's just going to be Vader, Vader, Vader as far as the eye can see with nothing that can get through his defence to bring him down. The original Vader got around that by being too slow and too expensive to field a list around, but the downside to that was he just never got played. It's not just a simple thing to start reducing costs and banning cards without also taking into account the things they counter (and the things those counters counter). And at some point, I think I'd rather just keep the newer figures who are already in a good, fun place (Vader, Han, Thrawn, etc.) without having to nerf all of those to the ground as well. I'm not saying it's not a noble idea to balance to a lower lever, I just think it's far far easier to bring other figures up to the higher level a few at a time.
  25. That's pretty much my exact story. I still enjoy the campaign, no doubt, but I tried a local skirmish tourney on a whim and LOVED it. It's just the right amount of skill/thoughtfulness/randomness for me, not to mention the fact that the list-building gives me something to think about at lunch times
×
×
  • Create New...