I REALLY enjoyed WotC's Star Wars Miniatures when it was still being played. Here's some pics:

I do admit to amassing a small Imperial army:

I even amassed a small Imperial fleet:

Here's a large Ewok force advancing on my Imperial bunker:

Here's my Snowtroopers disembarking from their AT-ATs:

Another large battle with Stormtroopers advancing on a Rebel cell in Mos Eisley:

Anyhoo, from an experienced Star Wars ground combat player:

1. Don't overpower the heroes to the point than no-name characters are unplayable. There will be people who will want to field Stormtroopers (like me!) or Tusken Raiders or an Ewok army.

2. Be prepared for people who want to scale up the battles. Skirmish is nice but I love BIG EPIC battles once in a while.

3. Make the game make sense - don't give characters abilities that make no sense - the Thrawn-swap for those other SWM players that remember it.

4. Don't create uber abilities that are subject to abuse - for SWM players, Furious Assault + Accurate Shot + Twin Attack allowing a single character to target as many characters as it can see and shoot each twice! In big games, this could mean a single character could shoot a gun a hundred times or more in one single turn! Thawn's initiative advantage was also too much for many players.

5. Think about releasing deluxe pre-painted packs. I plan to buy A LOT of your product and I'm not a painter. I'm already going to have the starter kit's minis professionally painted and it's going to cost me an arm and a leg. Please think about releasing at least some pre-painted Stormtrooper packs. I will put your kids through college if you do!

I, too, had a fair few SWMinis. I kept buying them thinking, "I don't really have time to play with them now, but this is an investment for the future." But by the end, power creep was just too much. I can hardly touch them anymore because the balance is so off. They're fun figures, but the game feels broken to me. So my hope is that FFG will really playtest their stuff and keep power creep to a minimum. They've done an excellent job with X-Wing, so I have high hopes for Imperial Assault.

I feel where you guys are coming from as I have quite a bit of Wot stuff too though I never really played it much.

I just buy them mainly as a collector and lover of the franchise. I thought too that eventually i would get around to being able to use some of them in an Edge of the Empire campaign. Alas finding time for that amidst Netrunner, X-Wing, Descent, working and raising a family is proving to be less than fruitful. Which leads me to this. My hopes actually are that they focus on the Descent style of play and less on the large scale skirmish stuff. I am an old school pen and paper guy that loves me some DnD and the like but finding time for campaign designs and prep work is next to impossible. I get alot of the same good out of Descent with almost 0 prep time. I would like to see a bit more roleplay elements and xp, character progression in this than Descent however. And as far as the painting goes, make all the pre painted stuff you want so long as I can still get it grey. Painting is one of the few prep jobs I actually enjoy. Cant wait for this. I hope it's as fantastic as I know it can be!!!

Do you guys know if the scale is similar enough that you could substitute or supplement with your existing figure collections?

Do you guys know if the scale is similar enough that you could substitute or supplement with your existing figure collections?

I read somewhere on Boardgame Geek that the scale is about 10mm different, with WotC minis being the smaller of the two. Sorry, I don't remember the actual numbers.

Since the game is grid based they should work just fine. Mainly cuz you are measuring from the squars rather then the base of the mini. But expect ppl to be saying "Arent you a little short for a storm trooper" when you use your wotc storm trooper minis lol

I have been playing star wars minis even longer than WOTC. Remember the west end games star wars minis? I play with my sons now and it is just a for fun game. But when I play my buddies power creep is inevitable but can be mitigated with creative ideas. So I am hoping for a game just like descent and the skirmish game i can hope for the best

Yeah, I played the West End Games version as well. It was amazingly done and very simple as a RPG. I had quite a few of the pewter minis as well.

I REALLY enjoyed WotC's Star Wars Miniatures when it was still being played. Here's some pics:

I do admit to amassing a small Imperial army:

I even amassed a small Imperial fleet:

Here's a large Ewok force advancing on my Imperial bunker:

Here's my Snowtroopers disembarking from their AT-ATs:

Another large battle with Stormtroopers advancing on a Rebel cell in Mos Eisley:

Anyhoo, from an experienced Star Wars ground combat player:

1. Don't overpower the heroes to the point than no-name characters are unplayable. There will be people who will want to field Stormtroopers (like me!) or Tusken Raiders or an Ewok army.

2. Be prepared for people who want to scale up the battles. Skirmish is nice but I love BIG EPIC battles once in a while.

3. Make the game make sense - don't give characters abilities that make no sense - the Thrawn-swap for those other SWM players that remember it.

4. Don't create uber abilities that are subject to abuse - for SWM players, Furious Assault + Accurate Shot + Twin Attack allowing a single character to target as many characters as it can see and shoot each twice! In big games, this could mean a single character could shoot a gun a hundred times or more in one single turn! Thawn's initiative advantage was also too much for many players.

5. Think about releasing deluxe pre-painted packs. I plan to buy A LOT of your product and I'm not a painter. I'm already going to have the starter kit's minis professionally painted and it's going to cost me an arm and a leg. Please think about releasing at least some pre-painted Stormtrooper packs. I will put your kids through college if you do!

On point 5, FFG already has a line of pre painted figures for other games like Arkham Horror. I would think it is very likely you'll see pre painted figures for imperial assault.

I've been playing competitive SWM (by WotC) non-stop since 2005. I was at Gencon a couple of weeks ago for SWM too, and while there I saw a demo of Imperial Assault. I'm excited for the campaign mode, because my kids already love Descent, and they'll go bananas for a SW-themed version of it! But I'm also very, very excited for the skirmish mode.

From my perspective, many of the OP's requests are only representing one side of the story. To label some of these WotC decisions as "mistakes" is rather one-sided, closeminded and ultimately unhelpful. Certainly, "broken" (ie, overpowered or poorly tested) pieces and tactics are no fun. But there is also a difference between a competitive game and a non-competitive (ie, "just for fun") kind of game. As long as things are balanced and reward good tactical play while offering several challenging decisions throughout the match, I'm happy with anything that FFG offers us.

I realize that not everyone likes competitive miniatures games (just as not everyone likes mass battles, which the OP suggested), but there are a whole bunch of us who are really stoked for this aspect of the game, and we want it rock! I think there's lots of room for differing approaches to Imperial Assault, and I hope that SW-lovers of all stripes will be able to enjoy it.

Btw, I will be using my WotC minis for this game, because painted is always better than non-painted...that, and I have more than 2000 minis that want to be played with....

1. To label some of these WotC decisions as "mistakes" is rather one-sided, closeminded and ultimately unhelpful. Certainly, "broken" (ie, overpowered or poorly tested) pieces and tactics are no fun.

2. But there is also a difference between a competitive game and a non-competitive (ie, "just for fun") kind of game. As long as things are balanced and reward good tactical play while offering several challenging decisions throughout the match, I'm happy with anything that FFG offers us.

3. (just as not everyone likes mass battles, which the OP suggested),

1. I don't think that it's "one-sided, closeminded, or ultimately unhelpful" to discuss things that went wrong with the previous Star Wars miniatures games. If you have a second side to the story, say what it is. I noticed that you didn't and instead went for a personal attack rather than discussing the point you disagree with. I find discussion about the game helpful. I find personal attacks "one-sided, closeminded, or ultimately unhelpful".

2. I've heard the "competitive" excuse used to whitewash what happened to WotC SWM. Things were definately not "balanced and reward good tactical play while offering several challenging decisions throughout the match" after the Universe expansion when Grand Admiral Thrawn, Nombombs, and super-stealth entered the game. At Galaxy Comics in Winnipeg, we had a great SWM community going right up until that expansion but then suddenly, if you were not playing a "competitive list", you lost no matter how good your "tactical play" was and no "challenging decision" was available. Players stopped coming and that store stopped hosting SWM. It got worse with Yoda on Kybuck and General OB1 and other very unbalanced pieces. The "meta" was extremely powerful and very, very restricted. After the Universe expansion, B&B (black (Vader) and blue(Thrawn)) ruled for years competively - if you weren't playing that squad, you weren't winning. Later, other over-powered pieces were released but, once again, if you weren't playing one of the very few "meta" squads, you weren't winning. Another store in Winnipeg, GameKnight, tried for years to keep the game alive but new players would come, try it once, and never play it again because they didn't want to be forced to play only a small number of characters. That's not "competitive" or "balanced", that's restrictive and rewards specific restrictive builds, not "tactical play".

3. Either you misread or you went from personal attacks to a strawman argument (exaggerating what I said to the point of ridiculousness so you can then argue against something that I did not say). I did not say "everyone likes mass battles". Read that again. "Be prepared for people who want to scale up the battles" is what I said. Not "everyone", just people. Maybe a few and maybe quite a few.

Anyhoo, WotC decisions cost them a lot of customers in Winnipeg, where I play, and that's why I say they made mistakes. The first four points I listed were the mistakes that people had troubles with when I tried to promote the game in my area. I still play WotC SWM with my own son. I still like the game, minus the over-powered uber characters.

Anyhoo, see what I did there. I discussed your points rather than attacking you personally and calling you names. Please try that next time.

Wow, no need to get defensive. I wasn't making personal attacks against you or any such thing, and I'm sorry you took it that way. I was simply trying to say that not all people see WotC's game as full of mistakes, as you were saying in your original post. It's unfair to represent your perspective as the only one.

I'll try another tack: It seems pretty clear that you didn't enjoy the "competitive meta" that WotC created. You didn't enjoy being forced to play the top tier of competitive squads in order to be competitive in a tournament; it sounds like you'd prefer it if you would've been able to compete with just about any squad you threw together. On the other hand, I thoroughly enjoyed the competitive scene! In fact, I consider SWM to be the single best game I've ever played, bar none. What you call a mistake I call the evolution of the competitive game. One other thing, which I won't go into further here, is that in a competitive (ie, 1 vs 1) game, something always rises to the top; perfect game balance is a myth, not a reality. Whenever there is some degree of sustained competitive play, there will be some dominant strategies and tactics that become recognized as the strongest or most effective in relation to others.

There were certainly periods during the game when the power level jumped up a notch. The Thrawn/NomBomb/Superstealth steps that you mention are good examples, and there were other big jumps too; I think that the addition of the Twin Attack special ability probably represented the biggest step of power creep. And at the time, I remember being unhappy about it. But because I'm a competitive player who enjoys testing my mettle at the highest levels of play, I adapted to it. That's the difference between a player who enjoys competitive play and a player who doesn't: the competitive-minded player is willing to adjust to changes (minor and major) in the game, while the non-competitive-minded player is not.

There is no judgment here; I'm not saying that competitive players are somehow better or superior to non-competitive players...they're just different. Ultimately, they play the game for different reasons. And both approaches are legitimate. As I said in my post, I hope that gamers of all stripes (not just competitive players and not just non-competitive players) will be able to enjoy SWIA. It seems like your original post is blocking out or sidelining a whole group of gamers, which is why I said that it was onesided, closeminded, and ultimately unhelpful.

I honestly hope that the skirmish mode of the game will have plenty of the elements that the WotC game did, with different and specialized tactics for different squads, each with their own strengths and weaknesses. That is the sign of a healthy game. If anything, WotC went off-base by not making more pieces that could compete at the top level. A big part of the problem there was their business model (blind booster buying), which was trying to offer incentives for people to buy more packs in hopes of pulling the high-powered pieces. Thankfully, FFG has a very different business model, which means that the difference in power of various pieces will likely be far less. In the end, I think it'll probably be a much more balanced competitive game because of that.

1. I wasn't making personal attacks against you or any such thing, and I'm sorry you took it that way. I was simply trying to say that not all people see WotC's game as full of mistakes, as you were saying in your original post. It's unfair to represent your perspective as the only one.

2.It seems pretty clear that you didn't enjoy the "competitive meta" that WotC created. You didn't enjoy being forced to play the top tier of competitive squads in order to be competitive in a tournament...

There were certainly periods during the game when the power level jumped up a notch. The Thrawn/NomBomb/Superstealth steps that you mention are good examples, and there were other big jumps too; I think that the addition of the Twin Attack special ability probably represented the biggest step of power creep. And at the time, I remember being unhappy about it. But because I'm a competitive player who enjoys testing my mettle at the highest levels of play, I adapted to it. That's the difference between a player who enjoys competitive play and a player who doesn't: the competitive-minded player is willing to adjust to changes (minor and major) in the game, while the non-competitive-minded player is not.

3. It seems like your original post is blocking out or sidelining a whole group of gamers, which is why I said that it was onesided, closeminded, and ultimately unhelpful.

1. You say that you are not trying to make personal attacks, then you accuse me of being " unfair " and representing my " perspective as the only one ." Your words, not mine, and complete and absolute BS designed to paint me as close-minded and unfair. Nor did I say that " all people see WotC's game as full of mistakes, as you were saying in your original post." I sincerely challenge you to point out where I said that in my original post. Another ridiculous strawman argument created to look me look foolish, as I would never say that "all people" agree with any point of view of mine. Please quit making this crap up. Just argue your own points and discussing the ones that I actually make.

2. A lot of people did not " enjoy the "competitive meta" that WotC created ." A lot of people " didn't enjoy being forced to play the top tier of competitive squads in order to be competitive in a tournament". The game died in Winnipeg as the game moved to more and more restrictive "competitive" squads. The same thing is currently happening to WizKids' Star Trek: Attack Wing with the introduction of the overpowered Borg. "Competitive" should not mean that you are only allowed to play a very specific build to win. That's not "competitive", that's "restrictive" because now, like WotC's SWM, WK's ST:AW only allows 10% of it's minis able to compete in top tier squads, 90% of its minis completely useless. Notice that in FFG's X-Wing game has the OPPOSITE trend - in the last big convention, GenCon, 90% of it's models were being used and only 10% or less were not. And those few models not being used, like the TIE Advanced, will be tweaked to become able to compete. The designers in FFG were interviewed by Team Covenant and said so. People are dropping out of Attack Wing in droves because of the introduction of the overpowered Borg just like players left SWM with the introduction of uber-powerful "meta" squads that you had to play or automatically lose the game. Not everyone is upset with uber-powerful pieces - powergamers (those who prefer the game to be over before you even start because they have more powerful game pieces than you do) thrive in this environment, but most people do not like to be utterly crushed in a game because the other player has better pieces than you do. Most people prefer the decisions you make during the game to mean something.

3. Once again, I am painted as the bad guy "blocking out or sidelining a whole group of gamers, which is why I said that it was onesided, closeminded, and ultimately unhelpful." What is your argument? That there sould be super uber-powerful characters that form a "meta", "competitive" build that people MUST use or lose the game? If that is your argument, you will block out or sideline most other gamers, just like what happened in Star Wars Miniatures and just like what is currently happening in Attack Wing. Go over to the boardgamegeek.com Attack Wing forums and see how happy people currently are with the state of the "competitive" (Borg) meta.

Now, again, see what I did there. I didn't make crap up, saying that you said stuff that you did not say, and accuse you of being "unfair". I argued the points you actually made using your own words. If FFG follows the "competitive", uber-powerful, restrictive, "meta" format that WotC used for SWM and that WK introduced to Attack Wing with the Borg, you will only attract powergamers and lose 90% of your player base. That is what happened to SWM and that is what is happening to Attack Wing. You can go to boardgamegeek.com and read about both debacles.

FFG is avoiding exactly this "competitive" format in X-Wing and it's working because players love being able to actually play all the models that a game produces. Check out FFG's X-Wing forums and you see exactly that. I'm hoping that Imperial Assault continues the less restrictive format that allows players to use any of the pieces they want to and still be competitive.

Once again, I'm not painting you as the bad guy! And I'm amazed at your ability to take offense at my words when I mean none by them--I guess that's the problem with faceless internet communication: tone of voice and facial expression are lost, which leaves too much room for interpretation. All I was trying to say was that there are people who think differently than you do about the WotC game that you've been slamming now for several posts. Apparently I've offended you by doing so, even though that was never my intent, and so I apologize.

I'm done responding now. I do sincerely hope that you enjoy SWIA as much as I hope to. It looks to me like it'll be an awesome game, for a whole variety of gamers. I haven't been this excited for a game's release...in a long, long time.

**** it! My popcorn was just getting ready!

But seriously, from my past experience with WotC Axis and Allies Miniatures, they did went too much into the powercreep that the game was not fun anymore on a competitive level. Some units were just too good while others too bad. It lead into a very limited choice in team building. They tried to fix it by reissuing a lot of unit with some tweaks but it didn't helped and got a lot of gamer angry by changing the scale. The fact that SWM was made by them actually turned me off from investing in the game.

X-Wing is now into Wave 4.5 (Wave 5 having been sold at Gencon but still on the boat for us poor common mortals) and pretty much any kind of build is still relevant. Only exception is the Tie Advanced and FFG said during Gencon that it was looked upon and they wanted to get it right. And quite frankly, this ship is not even as bad as some say it is.

So I thrust FFG to make this a great Star Wars skirmish game. I'm buying it for the campaign though, I'll have enough with X-Wing and Armada for my 1 on 1. Imperial Assault will be my 1 vs 4 and a nice break from my Edge of the Empire Campaign. Did I mentionned I was a Star Wars fan?

**** it! My popcorn was just getting ready!

But seriously, from my past experience with WotC Axis and Allies Miniatures, they did went too much into the powercreep that the game was not fun anymore on a competitive level. Some units were just too good while others too bad. It lead into a very limited choice in team building. They tried to fix it by reissuing a lot of unit with some tweaks but it didn't helped and got a lot of gamer angry by changing the scale. The fact that SWM was made by them actually turned me off from investing in the game.

X-Wing is now into Wave 4.5 (Wave 5 having been sold at Gencon but still on the boat for us poor common mortals) and pretty much any kind of build is still relevant. Only exception is the Tie Advanced and FFG said during Gencon that it was looked upon and they wanted to get it right. And quite frankly, this ship is not even as bad as some say it is.

So I thrust FFG to make this a great Star Wars skirmish game. I'm buying it for the campaign though, I'll have enough with X-Wing and Armada for my 1 on 1. Imperial Assault will be my 1 vs 4 and a nice break from my Edge of the Empire Campaign. Did I mentionned I was a Star Wars fan?

Lol...I think we're all Star Wars fans!

And yeah, as I said, a big part of it was in the business/marketing strategy that WotC used, with blind booster buying. By making just a few really amazing pieces they encouraged people to buy lots of boosters in the hope of getting one of the top pieces. And I do like the way that FFG is keeping a very close eye on the gameplay and meta developments in X-Wing. I don't play it because the dice aren't reliable enough (not enough successes on a D8 for my tastes), but I can totally understand why hundreds/thousands of other players are all into it. It really is a cool game, with some really innovative stuff going on.

And FFG also has another huge thing that WotC never did: they actually SUPPORT their games that don't have "& Dragons" or "the Gathering" in their names. Basically, if FFG makes it, you know it'll be worth getting into.

**** it! My popcorn was just getting ready!

But seriously, from my past experience with WotC Axis and Allies Miniatures, they did went too much into the powercreep that the game was not fun anymore on a competitive level. Some units were just too good while others too bad. It lead into a very limited choice in team building. They tried to fix it by reissuing a lot of unit with some tweaks but it didn't helped and got a lot of gamer angry by changing the scale. The fact that SWM was made by them actually turned me off from investing in the game.

X-Wing is now into Wave 4.5 (Wave 5 having been sold at Gencon but still on the boat for us poor common mortals) and pretty much any kind of build is still relevant. Only exception is the Tie Advanced and FFG said during Gencon that it was looked upon and they wanted to get it right. And quite frankly, this ship is not even as bad as some say it is.

So I thrust FFG to make this a great Star Wars skirmish game. I'm buying it for the campaign though, I'll have enough with X-Wing and Armada for my 1 on 1. Imperial Assault will be my 1 vs 4 and a nice break from my Edge of the Empire Campaign. Did I mentionned I was a Star Wars fan?

Lol...I think we're all Star Wars fans!

And yeah, as I said, a big part of it was in the business/marketing strategy that WotC used, with blind booster buying. By making just a few really amazing pieces they encouraged people to buy lots of boosters in the hope of getting one of the top pieces. And I do like the way that FFG is keeping a very close eye on the gameplay and meta developments in X-Wing. I don't play it because the dice aren't reliable enough (not enough successes on a D8 for my tastes), but I can totally understand why hundreds/thousands of other players are all into it. It really is a cool game, with some really innovative stuff going on.

And FFG also has another huge thing that WotC never did: they actually SUPPORT their games that don't have "& Dragons" or "the Gathering" in their names. Basically, if FFG makes it, you know it'll be worth getting into.

Yeah, I never bought into the booster formula. What I did was when a new expension was out, I bought every units I wanted individually. Since I was only playing the Allies, it was better this way since I was not stuck with a German or second rare I didn't want. I love knowing what I buy and the lack of rare system to boost the price on the secondary market.

And I don't know about the system of SWM, but in Axis and Allies you rolled so many dice that luck was a HUGE part of the game. That's the other reason I left. In X-Wing, you have actions like Focus and Target Lock to mitigate the luck factor. It still plays a part, but as soon as there is dice rolling implied in a game, luck can play a role.

**** it! My popcorn was just getting ready!

But seriously, from my past experience with WotC Axis and Allies Miniatures, they did went too much into the powercreep that the game was not fun anymore on a competitive level. Some units were just too good while others too bad. It lead into a very limited choice in team building. They tried to fix it by reissuing a lot of unit with some tweaks but it didn't helped and got a lot of gamer angry by changing the scale. The fact that SWM was made by them actually turned me off from investing in the game.

X-Wing is now into Wave 4.5 (Wave 5 having been sold at Gencon but still on the boat for us poor common mortals) and pretty much any kind of build is still relevant. Only exception is the Tie Advanced and FFG said during Gencon that it was looked upon and they wanted to get it right. And quite frankly, this ship is not even as bad as some say it is.

So I thrust FFG to make this a great Star Wars skirmish game. I'm buying it for the campaign though, I'll have enough with X-Wing and Armada for my 1 on 1. Imperial Assault will be my 1 vs 4 and a nice break from my Edge of the Empire Campaign. Did I mentionned I was a Star Wars fan?

Lol...I think we're all Star Wars fans!

And yeah, as I said, a big part of it was in the business/marketing strategy that WotC used, with blind booster buying. By making just a few really amazing pieces they encouraged people to buy lots of boosters in the hope of getting one of the top pieces. And I do like the way that FFG is keeping a very close eye on the gameplay and meta developments in X-Wing. I don't play it because the dice aren't reliable enough (not enough successes on a D8 for my tastes), but I can totally understand why hundreds/thousands of other players are all into it. It really is a cool game, with some really innovative stuff going on.

And FFG also has another huge thing that WotC never did: they actually SUPPORT their games that don't have "& Dragons" or "the Gathering" in their names. Basically, if FFG makes it, you know it'll be worth getting into.

Yeah, I never bought into the booster formula. What I did was when a new expension was out, I bought every units I wanted individually. Since I was only playing the Allies, it was better this way since I was not stuck with a German or second rare I didn't want. I love knowing what I buy and the lack of rare system to boost the price on the secondary market.

And I don't know about the system of SWM, but in Axis and Allies you rolled so many dice that luck was a HUGE part of the game. That's the other reason I left. In X-Wing, you have actions like Focus and Target Lock to mitigate the luck factor. It still plays a part, but as soon as there is dice rolling implied in a game, luck can play a role.

I played X-Wing quite a bit until the end of Wave 3 but eventually I just got frustrated with making all the right moves, only to lose an entire game on a single dice roll (either for me or for an opponent). While the luck of the dice was originally exciting, in the end it proved to be more frustrating than anything. I didn't buy any Wave 4 and haven't looked at the game since. Actually, a few weeks ago, I was talking about X-Wing with one of my friends we agreed that just 1 more Hit on the red dice and 1 more Evade on the green dice would make a huge difference. I'd still be playing the game (quite happily!) if it had slightly more consistent dice.

SWM used a simple d20 for everything.

I've decided that I will never buy into a blind booster game again. I played World of Warcraft minis (another great game that was cancelled too soon), and it was so frustrating to spend $15 on a booster only to get another $2 common. lol I migrated to Ebay-only for my purchases pretty quickly after a couple of those. And now the game is super-cheap on Ebay...I think $100 will get you almost everything, and it's a really fun game so it's not a bad investment, IMHO.

I played X-Wing quite a bit until the end of Wave 3 but eventually I just got frustrated with making all the right moves, only to lose an entire game on a single dice roll (either for me or for an opponent). While the luck of the dice was originally exciting, in the end it proved to be more frustrating than anything. I didn't buy any Wave 4 and haven't looked at the game since. Actually, a few weeks ago, I was talking about X-Wing with one of my friends we agreed that just 1 more Hit on the red dice and 1 more Evade on the green dice would make a huge difference. I'd still be playing the game (quite happily!) if it had slightly more consistent dice.

SWM used a simple d20 for everything.

X-Wing attack dice already have 4 success on 8 face and 2 focus result, thats 50% without modifier. With a focus token, it gives you a margin of success of 75% per dice, plus the potential of reroll with EPTs or TL. I consider them better odds and consistent than most dice game I played. Defense dice drop by one result to 37.5%-62.5%, but there is also the evade token giving a free result and the game encourage offense over defense, since the best defense is not getting shot at in the first place. Moral of the story, don't put yourself in a position where the entire game resolve on one dice roll (unless this roll determine the outcome for both party, in that case, that must have been a hell of a game and worth it!) and learn to anticipate the worst.

Yes, that's what I mean. 50% success rate without a Focus. But then, I've never really played the buckets-o-dice games before either, so maybe the dice in X-Wing are much more friendly than most games. My only competitive gaming has been with SWM, which has a lot less variance and more ways to increase your odds of success than a lot of games out there.

And I'm not saying that X-Wing doesn't offer alternatives or anything. It's a very well-thought-out game with plenty of tactical choices to make each round. But a range 3 shot from an X-Wing on a full health Tie Interceptor with a Stealth Device should not result in a kill, should it? Or a 4-dice attack at range 1 which rolls 1 success (and no Focuses)? Yeah, I've had that kind of thing happen a few too many times. It's a great game, but it's just not for me.

But a range 3 shot from an X-Wing on a full health Tie Interceptor with a Stealth Device should not result in a kill, should it? Or a 4-dice attack at range 1 which rolls 1 success (and no Focuses)? Yeah, I've had that kind of thing happen a few too many times. It's a great game, but it's just not for me.

My opinion, it's okay that an Interceptor can get blown up at range 3, they are very dodgy so when played right, there won't be a lot of shot on him and you still have 2 possible option to prevent that scenario: Hull/Shield Upgrade instead of Stealth Device (by taking Stealth Device, you accept to play the luck factor) and Evade token (which is not that hard to have with a Push the Limit Interceptor). As for the 4 dice attack that roll 1 success, I got that happened a lot, even with Focus and TL. **** happens. Try again next turn, because you should never put yourself in a do or die position that rely solely on your dice roll.

One thing that you learn in this game, or any dice game, is never base your strategy on the dice. You will roll blanks, a lot, and at the worst moments. So always prepare for the 'what if I miss?', that's usually why a good player will always beat a new one, regardless of dice results. Because he prepare for the worst. You could boost with your Interceptor to get in range 3 and get a shot, but by doing so, you aknowledge that you might get blown out of the sky, so maybe it's wiser to wait for next turn and get into fire position with a focus and an evade, or close enough to dodge the firing arc entirely with a nice barrel Roll+Boost. And if you do get blown up anyway, you didn't put all your eggs in the same basket now, did you?

But to each their own, you can't please everyone with a game system. And no game system is perfect. I also get frustrated at the dice sometimes.

I hear you, and I understand everything you're saying. The two brief examples I gave are among many. Any dice game will have wildly un-lucky, as well as wildly lucky, swings (I've had them in SWM too, for sure)...but for me the frustration with X-Wing is how often those swings happen. As I said, it's a good game. I just prefer games with less variance, that's all.

Agree to disagree then. For me it has been the total opposite, X-Wing is one of the game where, while present, luck is less a factor. Anima Tactics, now that was a very good game but boy if the dice god hated you...

But anyway, this is getting off-topic... so! Imperial Asault! Good game comin!

Exactly. Prepare for the worst and hope for the best! What emulates life better? It's a big ol' galaxy out there... anything can happen. Dice complainers have always bugged me more than a little for this reason. The random number generation of dice represent statistical likelihood of success or failure. I think as gamers we sometimes loose sight of this or our frustration causes us to forget it when our best laid plans are foiled by the luckiest rogue in the galaxy with all odds stacked against him. This is the thing we should remember most about dice and forgive them when they don't always come up in our favor. There is a story in every roll and sometimes it's epic (for good or ill.) We should all do better at times I'm sure to remember why we play games; to have fun! Let us try and not steal the thunder that just as easily could have been ours from those whom fortune seems to favor at that moment. Let us try instead when next we take that coupe de grace shot straight smack dab in the middle of the forehead from out of nowhere... let us look our opponent square in the eye when we say "Great shot kid, one in a million!"

WOTC and Wizkids (as well as many other companies) love to screw up great ideas.

The base sets tend to be pretty decent, but then power creep gets crazy (and I do believe this to be somewhat intentional to drive sales). And when they see any sort of slump in sales, they start introducing really crazy stuff. New rules, complete re-writes, bizarre powers. Typically without much playtesting.

I've seen it happen time and time again.

FFG on the otherhand goes the extra mile to keep things balance from beginning to end. Take a look at X-wing for example. Wave 1 ships are still competitive, and if a ship ever starts to get outclassed, they work very hard to create a way to revitalize that unit. New weapons, abilities, droids etc can all bring new life back to the old units. While there is certainly a meta of sorts for X-Wing, they have done an great job overall in maintaining balance.

This goes for all their products that I've owned over time. New additions add more flavor without throwing off the balance of the old. I hope, and expect the same to stay true to Armada, and this game also.

This game should be even easier for them to balance though as it's less of a competitive tournament style game and more of a typical boardgame.