Hey,

So watching a few demo vids, there seem to be certain events that are triggered throughout missions.

If I am not mistaken, I believe in the campaign booklet there is also a segment where players controlling the Rebels are forbidden to look at mission overviews.

This heavy reliance on secrecy is good fun and all but thinking about it more made me question what happens when you want to run through the campaign a second time.

I understand you loose that sense of mystery BUT won't these events have an impact on game balance?

For example, during a second run through of the campaign, if the Rebels realize that Darth Vader spawns once a certain door opens won't the Rebel players simply avoid opening that door for awhile until everyone rests?

I've never played Descent before so feel free to elaborate haha.

Hmmm. I hadn't thought about this issue from a game balance perspective before. I expect the Imperial player will have things they can do to improve their situation. For example, if I use your example about Darth Vader and a given door, if the heroes take time to rest up first, that gives extra threat to the Imperial player to bring out more reinforcements. I don't know about other instance, though. I'm excited to find out if this affects balance, because if I find out this is a problem, it means I've been able to get this game to the table a lot!

It looks like there's enough scenarios that it will take a couple of run through a to do them all. Only those who have purchased the game will have seen the campaign guide, but in descent the overlord gets to choose monster groups, so if the imperial player can do the same that should provide some differences.

Also the ally and villain packs provide additional side missions and I'm sure there will be many expansions.

All this is to say there will be plenty of options to expand replay ability, if you run through the core set campaign so much that it loses some fun.

The side missions will mix things up a bit, so each time they play through the campaign, they may have different priorities on each mission. The Imperial player can easily mix things up by using different strategies in order to redirect the players. Expansions will provide new campaigns. If the players are using a different set of characters, they may be playing differently. Also, the game doesn't lend itself towards the players resting and prepairing a lot.

"Ok, we know Vader spawns when we open this door, lets take 2 rounds to rest up so we are ready."

2 more rounds of points the Imperial player can use to spawn enemies and when they open the door they have no only Vader, but 2 squads of stormtroopers also.

Also, you could modify the rules slightly as long as it doesn't throw off the balance. If Vader always spawns upon opening the 4th door...make it the 3rd.

I'd also assume that there will be player made campaigns that you could find and use, or even make up your own. If you aren't that great at coming up with ideas from scratch, you could create campaigns from the various RPG resources for the SW RPG.

Another thing that's popped out to me as I've read the rules is how often it emphasizes that several tokens have colored backs and that the color on the back of the token is hidden information (the Rebels can't peek at it). This suggests to me that the Imperial player may be able to move those tokens around the board from game to game so that the objective is never in the same square twice.

Let's not forget that there will likely be a number of boxed expansions as well. Descent 2.0 had the Lair of the Wyrm and the Trollfens expansions, among others. The IA boxed expansions will surely have further campaign missions and likely also brand new campaign arcs (along with the new hero characters in the box), so I really don't think we'll have to worry about replayability issues. If Descent 2.0 is any indication, there will be plenty of missions to choose from.

I am really looking forward to the inevitable mission/campaign creator. That will keep things interesting for a long time.

This suggests to me that the Imperial player may be able to move those tokens around the board from game to game so that the objective is never in the same square twice.

Good find!

Let's not forget that there will likely be a number of boxed expansions as well.

Wasn't the answer I was really looking for, because this just means that I have to spend more money on expansions and the core set is only good for a couple of run-throughs.

Again, I've never played a board game with scripted events before so I'm not sure how it will play out really.

The Imperial player can easily mix things up by using different strategies in order to redirect the players. Expansions will provide new campaigns. If the players are using a different set of characters, they may be playing differently. Also, the game doesn't lend itself towards the players resting and preparing a lot.

Different strategies and characters may certainly help, but it just seems inevitable that after the first time playing, there will be time dedicated to discuss the inevitable scripted event that will occur in a particular mission, which zaps immersion and disrupts the flow of the mission.

Not to mention that I'll take on the role of the Imperials and I will never experience that surprise element if I ever wanted to play as the Rebels.

Your last point is interesting though, and I certainly hope your right.

You didn't respond to the self or fan made missions at all.

Coming from RPGs, making missions/campaigns for players really doesn't seem like that big of a deal.

But fans will make tons of missions/campaigns. Do a google search for descent 2nd edition fan made quests and you'll find TONS of options.

FFG also has a Descent Quest Vault. Its a map making tool that you can use to make your own scenarios, upload them for others to us, or download and utilize other people's work. The Descent tool has over 720 entries. Seems like a descent amount of gameplay.

I completely understand your concern. Go back to heroscape and you had that actual issue where after a player completed a mission, he knew what rooms to avoid, where the traps were located, where the valuable treasure could be found. And the evil player had little control over any variation.

But I think you are really overlooking the options here.

Side missions, mission flexibility, Imperial player control, ease of self creation, and every other player of the game that will be sharing and swapping new content. Sure, if you live only off of what comes in the box and apply no creativity, it may only be a single playthrough, but that will really just be you limiting yourself.

But I think you are really overlooking the options here.

Side missions, mission flexibility, Imperial player control, ease of self creation, and every other player of the game that will be sharing and swapping new content. Sure, if you live only off of what comes in the box and apply no creativity, it may only be a single playthrough, but that will really just be you limiting yourself.

Thanks for the elaboration, it's much appreciated.

I'm new to board gaming in general, so for me personally, it's difficult to wrap my head around the idea of bringing your own ideas to a game.

I'll take the counter argument and say that a great game offers unlimited replay value without the need to seek out fan made missions, but this is only my opinion.

My disappointment stems from the fact that I was really hoping for a stand-alone board game, but Imperial Assault doesn't seem like it will meet that specific criterion (the need to purchase the expansions to replace tokens/campaign missions may loose significant appeal after one play through).

But who knows, maybe this game will turn me into a map creating connoisseur

(And I'm well aware I'm ignoring skirmish mode but the campaign is what I'm really interested in)

Yeah, I can see many GM's out there coming up with their own Campaigns and Stories to further the life of Imperial Assault with their groups. I'm likely to be one of them.

Now if only they'd come up with Character Creation Rules for custom Rebels and Villian Bosses to be tabled. Then you'll see some awesome Campaigns emerging from the fans.

You have to realize that not all games, and types of games are the same.

You're looking at a scripted adventure game with a 30 mission campaign guide. In what possible way could that not be something you could memorize and know all the quirks.

If you remove the hidden info, then there is even less in each adventure to learn/memorize, and the missions would be less interesting and more static.

Adventure games, almost by default, can't be randomized when you're talking boardgames. It's a scripted adventure.

Think of it like an adventure video game. Any of the fallout series of games works well for this. They all have a main plot, and several sub plots that can be completed, ignored or avoided. After the first time you beat the game, you know the secrets. You know where the best armor/weapons can be found. You know what are the most useful skills/abilities. You know where the hardest enemies can be found. The game is still an absolute blast to play over and over again however. Why? Because the player can add variety. Here, the player and the game(Imperial player) can add variety.

Scripted adventure games tend to be psuedo RPGs. You have a group of characters, a goal, and a path to take to achieve that goal. Like adventure computer games, and RPG modules, once played, the secrets are revealed. Much like PC adventure games and RPGs, your options are as follows: Purchase DLC (expansions), Create your own additions, download other's additions, just keep replaying.

Descent, heroscape, and other games like this (and RPGs) have always suffered from this issue. Creativity is the key. I remember heroscape coming with blank map sheets that you could copy to create your own dungeon levels.

But, more importantly, you are ignoring skirmish, and it very well may be exactly what you are looking for. It's more of the standard boardgame.

Skirmish can be, but is not meant to be a fight to the death. Kill all enemy units and you win. Bleh.

But each skirmish also has a mission that is involved. You can also win the match by gaining a certain amount of VP. These VP are gained by destroying enemy units and by achieving certain goals.

The base game comes with a couple missions, and each on the minor expansion sets adds another mission I believe.

This gives you the variety of not only trying new teams/squads, but also the variety of changing gameplay to a degree.

FFG has released that mission tool not only for descent, but also X-wing, so I fully expect them to release it for IA also. So I'd expect it to support mission/campaign play, but also skirmish play. As a new genre of games for you, you may need to open your horizons to new resources.

Really though, when you break any game down to the base components, you have that limited variety effect. TTR, Catan, WoW the boardgame, RISK, Axis and Allies, Zombiecide, 7 wonders, etc etc etc all play out generally the same way. People make the same moves for the same results time after time because eventually people start to see the one best move. If you really study the game, you can predict the players next move based on the info you know, and the info you've learned from playing against them before. Sure, there is some randomization with the die, or what card comes up, or where you start, but the boards are generally the same, and the strategies seldom change.

Think of the Skirmish mode of the game as the equivalent to your standard boardgame. Then realize that you also get a campaign on top of that to keep things interesting. You may find that there is just as much game in this box as any other box, and unlike other games, a few minutes on the internet can expand the limits dramatically....where as all those other games do not have any way to grow and evolve.

Also, I'm not trying to convince you (or anyone else with your concerns) to buy this game. Just trying to clearly explain the game and it's options so you can make an informed descision. The last thing I'd want is for someone to end up with a game they don't like that just sits on the shelf and gathers dust.

I see a lot of good points here, but I feel the conversation has diverged from the main concern: how does a scripted system affect balance on future replays? It's not about how fun it is to play repeatedly; it's about whether the Imperial player even stands a chance against veteran Rebel players. I think those adventure video games make a good example. it's a blast to play over and over, but it is also easier each time because you know what's coming. Surely it will be the same for Rebel players to at least some degree. But I suspect the Imperial Player to get better with more plays, too, so I'm really counting on the balance fate multiple plays being a minor - although present - issue.

Personally, I'm not worried about balance on a second play-through. There are many ways to even the playing field.

If I think it's getting too easy for the Rebels, maybe I'll just add another unit to the Deployment cards: now the regular Stormtroopers are deployed in groups of 4, rather than 3, and Elite Stormies come in threes rather than twos...that kind of thing. Or maybe start the mission with 1 higher level of threat from the start. In a game like this there are a whole bunch of variables that can be adjusted mid-campaign to make things more interesting.

Remember that the Imperial Player is kind of like the GameMaster in a RPG: he is free to adjust/tweak things so that they're more enjoyable for the gaming experience.

Really though, when you break any game down to the base components, you have that limited variety effect. TTR, Catan, WoW the boardgame, RISK, Axis and Allies, Zombiecide...

I'm glad you brought up Zombicide, cause I'm quite familiar with that game.

I'll argue that although it's nice to have a plethora of fan made missions online, the missions in the booklet offer unlimited replay value because the spawns are random. Sure they might get boring after awhile, but balance remains the same.

Strategies are constantly changing because you never know what will spawn, and although expectations can develop (stay out of yellow to avoid extra activations/abomination probably won't spawn in blue) you can never be 100% certain.

My concern with Imperial Assault isn't necessarily the scripted events themselves but the dependency on them for game balance. Budgernaut put it quite nicely:

how does a scripted system affect balance on future replays? It's not about how fun it is to play repeatedly; it's about whether the Imperial player even stands a chance against veteran Rebel players.

And I don't mean to cut your posts into a single segment haha, the effort you put forth in your posts is appreciated

(and after doing a little more research on skirmish mode, I'm glad to discover that it won't be a standard Team deathmatch game as you noted).

Personally, I'm not worried about balance on a second play-through. There are many ways to even the playing field.

If I think it's getting too easy for the Rebels, maybe I'll just add another unit to the Deployment cards: now the regular Stormtroopers are deployed in groups of 4, rather than 3, and Elite Stormies come in threes rather than twos...that kind of thing. Or maybe start the mission with 1 higher level of threat from the start. In a game like this there are a whole bunch of variables that can be adjusted mid-campaign to make things more interesting.

Remember that the Imperial Player is kind of like the GameMaster in a RPG: he is free to adjust/tweak things so that they're more enjoyable for the gaming experience.

See, I wish I had this type of attitude, but I guess I'm the "by the book" type. It'll be uncomfortable for me to introduce these twerks but I understand that there is a large majority of people who are fine with house ruling/customization. But as noted in an earlier post, maybe this game will be the one that helps me branch out to different styles

Remember that the Imperial Player is kind of like the GameMaster in a RPG: he is free to adjust/tweak things so that they're more enjoyable for the gaming experience.

I really hope this isn't true. I really hope IA is designed like D2E in this regard, where it's a challange and a totally legit outcome for the antagonist to win and the game is at it's best, when the antagonist really tries to win and he has a fair chance to win, when played by the rules. IMO this design aspect makes D2E one of the most exciting games I own, because each side can win without the alteration of rules.

You didn't respond to the self or fan made missions at all.

Coming from RPGs, making missions/campaigns for players really doesn't seem like that big of a deal.

But fans will make tons of missions/campaigns. Do a google search for descent 2nd edition fan made quests and you'll find TONS of options.

FFG also has a Descent Quest Vault. Its a map making tool that you can use to make your own scenarios, upload them for others to us, or download and utilize other people's work. The Descent tool has over 720 entries. Seems like a descent amount of gameplay.

I completely understand your concern. Go back to heroscape and you had that actual issue where after a player completed a mission, he knew what rooms to avoid, where the traps were located, where the valuable treasure could be found. And the evil player had little control over any variation.

But I think you are really overlooking the options here.

Side missions, mission flexibility, Imperial player control, ease of self creation, and every other player of the game that will be sharing and swapping new content. Sure, if you live only off of what comes in the box and apply no creativity, it may only be a single playthrough, but that will really just be you limiting yourself.

I totally like the idea of user created content. However it's often hard to find the qualitative and well balanced missions and you always run the risk of wasting your time with subpar missions.

Then again FFG campaigns include subpar missions as well (I'm sure) however I tend to trust payed content more to be tested thoroughly and balanced accordingly. Moreover I think designing a complete campaign with it's unique story is a lot of work and I think it will take some time before fans accomplish that.

All in all IA looks like an awesome game. However for 100$ I really hoped to not only get one campaign that loses a lot of it's appeal after the second playthrough (of course there is the skirmish game, but I play with more than 1 other person most of the time). I mean this kind of money gets you the D2E base game and a big box expansion (on amazon) and I thought this was a bit on the expensive side. However it gets you twice the heroes, 2 completely replayable campaigns and a lot more miniatures.

I'm not here to whine, but I think limited replayability of the main game is a legit concern for a 100$ game and for that amount of money I feel you shouldn't be dependent on fan support.

But that's just my opinion.

If it wasn't for the IP this would be a $60 core box. I don't fault anyone for looking into replayability prior to purchase. You're paying extra for window dressing here, no doubts. I mean...stickers....really.

Remember that the Imperial Player is kind of like the GameMaster in a RPG: he is free to adjust/tweak things so that they're more enjoyable for the gaming experience.

I really hope this isn't true. I really hope IA is designed like D2E in this regard, where it's a challange and a totally legit outcome for the antagonist to win and the game is at it's best, when the antagonist really tries to win and he has a fair chance to win, when played by the rules. IMO this design aspect makes D2E one of the most exciting games I own, because each side can win without the alteration of rules.

I hear what you're saying, and I agree: I hope that it isn't necessary to make any adjustments at all. And honestly, I don't think it will be. I've found Descent to be quite balanced. Sometimes I have to hold back a little, but that's because I'm playing with my kids (6-11 yrs old), who sometimes don't make the most tactically-wise decisions.

I was only trying to say that, while I do hope that the game is well balanced for multiple play-throughs, I'm not going to worry about it, since it'll probably require only minor (and easy) tweaks if the "I remember this mission" factor ends up making things too easy for the heroes.

There's nothing saying that skirmish can't be more than 2 player, just like X-wing and other games. Each player can draft 20 points worth, or they can split their drafted team however they want for instance.

If FFG releases a mission creation item, those missions are rated (as they are with the descent tool). Fan made databases of fan creations are often found on sites with rating also. So you know the campaign with 200 likes probably has less duds than the campaign with 10 likes.

Also, you can very quickly learn to distinguish the good from the bad. I've played lots of RPGs, and can very quickly tell a poor quality fan made adventure from a high quality one.

And, while replayability is a valid concern, I think it may be one that is more in the eye of the user that a reality of the product. Many successful campaign based games have come before this and have maintained cult followings for years. But I also think this type of game (like an RPG) isn't aimed at people picking up monopoly at Target. It's got a lot of core content (I think more than you might be envisioning) but it also has huge potential growth through very accessable means.