The title phrase is right on the side of the box. I get very excited to play this game and have played 1 tutorial and 5 campaign missions so far with 2 of my gaming groups. In one group, we are 1-3 as rebels and the 1 win is due to a large error in understanding the rules by our Imperial player. We were all learning and he failed to understand that he could use threat to redeploy his defeated deployment cards. In the other group I play the Imperials and have won the first 2 missions with little effort on my part. After being handed my third and worst crushing defeat as a rebel last night, I started to grow concerned. I looked through the forum last night and am seeing that the Rebels need to run through the mission almost ignoring the Imperials to accomplish the objectives. This troubles me as it seems tactically unsound. I'm not saying that I expect everything to be completely realistic, we are playing a game in a sci-fi galaxy with swords of light and giant walking lizards after all. I'm a former military member with 14 years of service and have tactical experience. This revelation about how to win and it seeming to abandon tactics and strategy disappoints me. In my opinion these Hero's would not live to withdraw after recklessly running past their enemies, and therefore would be unable to continue the campaign.

I'm not hating on Fantasy Flight or this game, so please save the insults and hostility for someone else. I am still excited to play "Imperial Assault - A Game of Legendary Star Wars Adventure and Tactical Miniature Combat" and hope that one of you might have a differing opinion that helps me see the error in my reasoning. I truly love playing tactical games and seeing tactics actually applied with realistic effect. So let my know what you think.

I agree with you in terms of quasi-realistic tactics, however I think this game captures Star Wars tactics beautifully! Star Wars is pulp space opera and heroes do this sort of thing all the time.

Actually, ignoring all Imperial soldiers will also get you killed. The hard part is to evaluate which units are worth killing, and which can be "safely" ignored.

Not sure about Campaign but, if you are interested in tactics, the Skirmish mode is great, I thoroughly enjoyed it, and felt my superior (not bragging just saying, other guy kinda randomly moved around) tactics won the battle.

I think IA, and indeed most any game, whether tactical or not, has to take a pass on realism. The most important thing for any kind of board game or skirmish game is internal consistency, thematic consistency and decent balance. I'm not saying realism should get tossed out the window, just that it needs to take a backseat to the needs of the game.

I'm also a combat vet, but I've had to accept that applying too much realism to game mechanics rarely ends well, and there's a sea of mediocre and outright bad games that just don't get the mix I mentioned above right. Additionally, the perfect mix is often very subjective. That said, from what I've seen and what many others have posted, IA has a very good mix indeed, and for a game that's really the most critical aspect.

That said, losing immersion is never a good thing. It might be worth considering that although the imperial player is constrained by things like threat and deployment cards within the confines of the game, in the reality of the game setting the imps have nearly unlimited resources and manpower compared to the rebels. Within a space opera setting and facing an overwhelming foe, the rebels really only have three advantages: Personal skill, speed and audacity. They literally need to push the envelope in every fight in order to even have a chance, so I think the game mechanics that encourage/support this kind of rebel play are thematically acceptable, so long as the players find it fun.

I agree that skirmish mode might be the way to go since nobody "withdraws" in that mode. So if you rush the objectives and die, well, you die.

I also think there's a lot to be said for this being Star Wars. I mean, how did they really infiltrate Jabba's palace and come out alive? So you can definitely expect some deus ex machina that will pull the heroes out after the mission is completed. And during the mission, you can't expect the heroes to gun down all the Imperials -- the Empire's reserves are limitless.

Finally, I think board game tactics are different than battlefield tactics. Both are tactical, but the tactics are different. The biggest difference is that you can take more chances in a game since nobody's life is on the line. I suppose you could play more conservatively, but for better or worse, that doesn't appear to be how this game was designed..

These are my thoughts on the issue. They're just opinions, so take 'em or leave 'em. I can totally see how the rush-for-objectives type of play can be a turn off, but I find it refreshing.

You cant avoid imperial entanglement in Campaign, I don't get how anyone can complete a mission with objective without engaging each other.

The rebel player is forced into making decisions that will account for a surgical strike, the Imperial player will deal stall tactic, and in some of the videos I have seen the Imperials have been drawn into a Wookie trying beat the holy crap out of the main imperial unit at hand, this making it easier for the rebels to move around the conflict zone and try do the mission.

Yes the game is set up so the Imperials will win on the looks of things but if you play it right you should have no issues, me and a friend have done a dry run got a few rules wrong and we have addressed them over facebook and know next time we try again how it works, but even getting the rules wrong on Aftermath is was on the last dice throw of Turn 6 to complete the mission.

I think FFG have made an excellent product, and as players we just need to make a resource tool that will demystify any rules or tactics

I think it captures the source material rather well in the campaign. Its not that you totally abandon killing the Imps, but at some point you have to prioritize the mission over killing. As an example, the first mission:

I think that this is very true to Star Wars. Han/Luke/Chewie/Leia didn't outmaneuver and gun down every trooper in the Death Star, there were simply too many. They moved where they had to to complete the mission and then fled. If you think about it, in the OT they spend most, if not every, fight fleeing from the oppressive numbers the Imperials put out. I think this game captures that pretty well in the Campaign.

As others have said, the skirmish game captures more of what you are looking for, fighting tactically and maybe not killing everything, but killing enough to complete the mission taking medium/light casualties.

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I hear and agree with points you guys have made. I guess my disappointment probably stems from my desire to play a game with different tactical elements. I like the idea of moving from cover to cover, using covering fire and combined arms, using suppressive fire and grenades to allow your maneuver element to get in the right position. Those are types of considerations I enjoy managing. I will learn to play this game the right way and find the balance between attrition and heroic abandon. Thanks again for the replies.

Can I suggest Force on Force? If i recall that has a ton of the elements you are describing. Seems like it might be simple to add some of the rules in. Not sure. I doubt you could play with the tiles in that regard though...

By the sound of it, you ought to try the skirmish variant. It sounds more like your cup of tea. Me, I enjoy both variants and really like that I get very different things from them.

It might very well be that SW:IA just isn't what you thought it would be.

Ironically enough, I glossed over this thread over the last several days as I thought it was another 'This game is so awesome!' thread and I'm already keeping up with enough of those.

I have found quite the opposite experience than you have with SW:IA, although admittedly I have only played the earlier missions with two different groups. I've heard the game starts to lean in the favour of the Imperials in the later missions. As stated in several other threads, the common themes tend to be:

• One side (some say rebel, some say imps) wins the majority of the games.
• The games are always close, down to the last round or the last guy on the winning side.

It seems like if they haven't got it exactly right so far, they're pretty close for their 'first effort' in the franchise.