Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Trevize84

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

662 profile views
  1. Player 2 activating twice in a row and Player 1 wasting 1 activation sounds like someone helping the opponent to win the match...
  2. Let's assume size of miniatures was same. How do you deal with cards?
  3. Anything from Jabba's Realm and later, with the earlier exception of Greedo.
  4. A movie gives you enough content to know your hero background so that you can emphatically joy and suffer with him/her. You start an IA campaign, heroes are such just because RRG calls them that way. They have no background, unless you link them to the saga. They also don't create anything special with other team-mates or allies (excluding the fact you all win or lose together a mission). I imagine a campaign where you know where your heroes are coming from and where each of them would like to go. During mission you might find yourself alone in one part of a map with an ally or another team-mate and try to achieve something together, if you do those two guys can get something like a card or a bonus to abilities when they are adjacent or close. I imagine you can find yourself in situations where you can save or let an ally die and change the story. Imagine Diala letting Luke die to save Leia and because of that finding herself instead of Luke in front of Darth Vader for the finale. This is what I'd really expect from a great and well designed campaing. This is a strong plot, something built on top of a background that pretend you have full freedom of choice each one with proper consequences. That's what I mean. To do that you need a background different then "there're civilians taken as hostages and we are noble heroes that want to save them", this is too weak. That's why we need to link characters to the saga.
  5. From Todd: Arcing Shot must be played “before you declare an attack,” so unfortunately you cannot use it when redeclaring the target due to On the Lam. Additionally, Arcing Shot only applies to the initial declaration. Even if it was played before the attack, it does not apply to a redeclaration later during the attack.
  6. If you take any campaign (I won't tell spoilers) the plot isn't exciting. Finale is always the ending of a story that lives in the SW universe but is far from the big game. You're an anonymous squad of rebels doing great things against the bad guy. Think about Rogue One, you have new characters. They're totally unknown but what they've done is crucial for the saga. I'm not saying each campaign should end up into a finale that can have impact on the saga. I'm saying the campaign should take elements from the saga that helps you to link what you're doing with what is happening in the movies. Campaign events should be affected by events in the movie, and pretend it had effects on the saga. In example in Jabba's Realm some missions could have been somehow related to the mission for saving Han prisoner into the carbonite. It should still be compliant with the saga, but you know that Leia, Luke, Lando and the droid couldn't make it without you. This way allies would show up into mission because of mission rules to create that link with the trilogy.
  7. News from Italy. On the SWIA FB page (https://www.facebook.com/groups/assaltoimperiale.italia/permalink/2299525100323270/), AsmOPlay Italy replied to fans. I attempt a translation here, but I'm not a professional translator so this isn't a 100% correct and literal translation. Consider they are answering to several posts of people scared by weird and not very well defined rumors about FFG dropping translations and abandoning the game. Hello guys! Few replies to your posts: There's no will to abandon the game. We've always translated paper components on time for official releases and we'll keep doing it as soon as we'll get new content. As Filippo pointed out in the previous post, silence doesn't mean FFG isn't looking for a way to finally bring Yoda into Imperial Assault. 🤩 For what concerns kits for OP, we keep producing them and asking more than what stores pre-ordered, so that we are ready in case a new store or community wants to joing this game. For what concerns the app, our initial plans were to release it years ago. We had delays because of workload (digital content has no deadlines, for this reason it has lower priority than paper unless mandatory for playing the game, like in Mansion of Madness or The Lord of the Rings: Journeys in Middle-earth mentioned by other posts above), also FFG didn't take into account gender and number (those don't exist in english language, but unfortunately they do in italian and other languages) and code was changed only a couple of months ago, forcing us to edit again what we had already translated. We're working on this and we've never said we don't translate the app. It's not priority right now, but we can't wait the time we'll ship the app finally translated in Italian 😎 Thanks as always to everyone for your patience and the passion you put into this game. 🚀
  8. There was a time, I was supervising people playing one random mission as introduction to the game. The purpose was to create campaign groups and have a stable community of players in town. I wasn't imperial or rebel, so other than rules most of the effort was to prevent the alpha gamers to destroy game experience to everyone. Well, when an alpha gamer was at the table I knew already someone else in the party would have refused to join a campaign group. In most of the cases motivation was "I believe the game isn't enough fun" or similar reason. I believe a game that opens to such situations can be improved to consider the issue and prevent/attenuate it. Now going back to the rule. Having the chance of asking advice to 1-2 people is great, having 1-2 people discussing every possible choice that isn't inline with their opinion is bad. A rule that says "rebels can cooperate, if the owner of the current activation asks for it" makes a huge difference. Do you want to be a lone wolf? You can. Do you want help? You ask. Are you an alpha-guy? You shut up until someone asks you and if you talk the imperial will get a bonus or something. Not saying this is the way to go. Just saying that not taking into account alpha gaming into mechanics design is as bad as ignoring color-blind people into design of game components. In both cases you lost part of the audience.
  9. I'm saying my group is just fine. Problem is all the people that got this game spoiled because someone was dictating what to do. Those people left the game with the idea it's a bad game. I'm not saying my solution is THE solution, just saying you have 1 or 2 leaders around, you ask them advice. Which is like we all do in our life, we all ask advice to people we trust. You can get leader by election, by trait, by merit or whatever mechanism you prefer.
  10. I think alternatives are possible without copying Gloomhaven. The problem is during rebels turn. Among them, rebels play a fully-cooperative game. You just need to make it semi-cooperative. Solutions may vary, one simple solution that would also introduce some role playing is the following. First of all you need a clear and evident distinction among heroes giving them a "Trait" like Skirmish, but it also has to affect hero's builds. Regardless of what traits are available, the "leader" trait is the only one who can help decisional process of other rebels in the game. This way you don't have a "many-to-many" type of communication between rebels. It would be 1-1 because only one leader can lead the group. Ruling can specify a way to select a leader based on adjacency/distance from other heroes of the party. This would avoid alpha gaming and time wasted from "excessive" cooperation.
  11. Pandemic is the most known full-coop game. Everyone likes it and when I publicly say it's garbage I always get a lot of complaints. So I won't say Pandemic is garbage here...
  12. My group is quite able to work together, most of the times this behavior comes up because some players are new and some others are very experienced. It ends up in newbies to follow a de-facto leader. The leader itself isn't acting as a leader. The guy is playing like anyone else, he's just more experienced and statistically his proposals are much better than the others. This biases decisional process of newbie players and they end up following the experienced player even when he/she is wrong. This is still alpha-gaming. See Alpha gaming isn't a bad attitude itself. It's not a bad thing either in my opinion. Actually alpha-individuals are probably the top tier of our race as they can distinguish themselves from the masses because of their ability in something. You don't want the system to exclude them, you want the system to find the right spot for them. This is a design issue, this isn't ruling issue. Some people have attitude to lead, others have attitude to help, others have attitude to don't follow lead and do their choice and so on and so forth. We need a system that find for all these stereotypes the right spot and allow them to create their hero playing their role and cooperating the best way they can. That means player mush hold the full ownership of his hero and the most important part is the decisional part during campaing. At the same time you want the game to be cooperative, but you don't want to make it fully cooperative otherwise you end up in all the design issues fully-cooperative games like Pandemic have. I can't say what the right solution would be in terms of rules. On the other hands I wouldn't make this game an RPG like D&D either. In D&D you can't talk too long otherwise your turn ends. This should still be a strategic game after all. The only RPG elements I would bring are all those elements that are useful plot-wise to make the story strong. In example, ability to drop loot rather than only buying items, more interaction with NPCs to solve puzzles or get information about the objective, story forks during mission instead of triggered events, and so on. App is partially addressing this. And yes, my personal honest opinion is that fully-cooperative games are all broken by design and the best fix is to make all cooperative interactions semi-cooperative.
  13. Yes I know how allies have been fixed recently. I think they're still not worthy, unless low on price (say Hera). Also in ToL missions forces rebel to choose a spectre which is a solution that pisses off people so much, that we waste at least 5 minutes every setup because people complains with imperial... Also about the imperial choosing a rebel, the rule doesn't mention a time frame for this. Officially they're "still taking the decision", so they're fully able to take it, so the rule doesn't apply. That rule stated that way is useless. Alpha-gaming is due to 2 factors: first factor is bad-habit or if you want innate nature of human-beings in having someone leading a group, second is game design that opens to such attitude. Rebels are playing a fully cooperative game and we all know all the issues of fully cooperative games. We need a mechanism that still allows the owner of a hero to be the guy who mainly lead the initiative of its own hero. Too often we end up with rebel players sharing heroes, ownership shows up only when spending XP and items. Overthinking and time wasted is a side effect of the previous point, they discuss a lot to evaluate all possible solutions giving up the ownership of their hero and wasting time in evaluating pointless ideas, most of the times this makes them losing focus on objectives and making wrong choices without even realizing it.
  • Create New...