The Rebels in our game are 4-0 so far. I play overlord in descent, but I must be terrible as the imperials. They just chew through my guys, i can barely hurt them. Any advice?
Edited by gylvan2002Can Imperial win a single campaign game.
I have been getting XP and using it and influence. All the imperial objectives in our campaign so far in mine are to wound all of the heroes, Jyn is killing about 4 imperials a turn. She kills two, then interrups and kills someone before she is attacked, then i attack and barely scratch her and she kills someone else. I can barely damage them, and the rebels kill them way faster than i deploy them. I crush the heroes in descent, but the imperials still seem very weak in this.
Edited by gylvan2002I have been getting XP and using it and influence. All the imperial objectives in our campaign so far in mine are to wound all of the heroes, Jyn is killing about 4 imperials a turn. She kills two, then interrups and kills someone before she is attacked, then i attack and barely scratch her and she kills someone else. I can barely damage them, and the rebels kill them way faster than i deploy them. I crush the heroes in descent, but the imperials still seem very weak in this.
I don't understand how Jyn is getting in the 4th kill you mention. Her ability only lets her interrupt once per round, unless you have fewer rebels and she has 2 activation tokens.
Is Jyn taking strain for attacking an imperial on someone else's turn? That is a lot of strain she should be taking. Her ability is also limited to once per round. At most she should be killing 3 imperials a turn. So far I haven't had any issues with Jyn, I have more issues dealing with Gaarkhan than I do with Jyn.
The fourth attack Jyn is getting is from Peacemaker. She has lots of time to rest up after wiping out all the imperials, she can just rest all day. I don't have any guys left on the board so they can just take plenty of rest actions. In fact, it seems like most games have a point where i get no actions because i don't have any models on the board. Doesn't seem like the imperials have a prayer.
Edited by gylvan2002How can the Rebels have plenty of time to rest when the missions are turn timed?
Not all of them are turn timed.
Even the ones that are timed aren't a problem, because they have killed everybody so can spare a turn or two to rest. They don't seem to be in any danger.
Edited by gylvan2002Most peculiar. Yet another thread about one sided game play. Hmmm. We met another group last night that was having difficulty with a few minor things and we our selves have had to re-educate our selves several times on the LOS rules(we think we have it this time), initially didn't catch that surges could be used once per attack to heal a strain, that rest recovered your endurance worth of points we thought it was always 4 for some reason(but did have the rest to heal over into damage at least). I don't think it's an issue as much with the games balance at this point as maybe the sheer volume of 'stuff' to figure out lets a few things slip through the cracks. Our problem is that the rebels keep winning because our Imperial guy keeps forgetting about Fyn's Havoc Shot, and like half of his own abilities. Last night in a side mission he only used Show of Force once. Even when I reminded him half way through that it refreshed every round, he still didn't use it for the next four rounds. He wasn't just being easy on us either, he simply forgot to use it. Even with that we still had two Heroes wounded though so it wasn't that awfully swung.
Which class upgrades did you go for?
All the imperial objectives in our campaign so far in mine are to wound all of the heroes
That should be your secondary objective, delaying the rebels so they run out of time should be your primary objective. Use stun/bleed whenever possible and position your troops so the rebels will have to slow down in order to kill them.
So far in my campaign as an Imperial I have yet to have any trouble defeating the Rebels. In the first mission (Aftermath) I lost by a slim margin and feel it was definitely winnable had I played it a lil more defensively. The second mission (Generous Donations) I won by a huge margin, in fact it was so huge I earned 5 influence. In the last mission we played (A New Threat) I bloodied Gaarkhan in round 7 to get my total bloodied hero count to 4, winning the match (even had the heroes not all been bloodied they never would have interacted with the 3 and final terminal).
I'm using Imperial Might by the way and play with my units doing a lot of tactical retreating, I'll gladly give ground to the heroes to conserve my resources to make a few stands in key locations. Hit and Run tactics works really well too (make it hard for the heroes to return fire or get into melee range).
Humm, that is all what i have been doing. I must just be terrible. I have been using military might for just volume of guys, and trying to slow them down as much as possible. Stormtroopers, and E-web's, and as much of them as i can get. I wounded 3 out of 4 last night in Imperial Hospitality. But still lost. 0-5 with the imperials. Feels very weak compared to the overlord from descent where i do very well as the overlord. The slowly recycling terrible troops, smaller boards, and no hand of cards to play feels very weak. Agendas are all very mediocre so far as well.
The more I hear in this forum about it and see at my FLGS I am becoming more confident in my belief that this game has a huge swing to outcome, based on players skill. A slight change from my earlier post. Like I've mentioned in ours the Heroes have two of the 'better' gamers (if there is such a thing) to sorta help direct the group, and gently nudge them in the right way, another good gamer is in the group but was new to the system at first. We also got one guy's girlfriend who is a gamer but strategy is just not her thing so while we work together she sometimes kinda just runs off and does her own thing, occasionally getting us in a tight spot, but we compensate for that . And while our Imperial guy is a good gamer, he still forgets what he has a lot of the time and ends up not using like more than 30% of his resources. If it was one of our two 'better' players as the Imps, and a team of said girlfriend types, our campaign would be going to the Imps hands down. Which I find really odd honestly. I've only got the assumption then that the game is actually just really balanced, and remembering all that 'stuff' you have as resources, skill of decision making and tactical movement is critical. A might bit odd for what I expected/hoped to be a bit more beer and pretzely.
Why do you find it odd that the side with better players will win more often? That makes sense to me.
One asset the Imperial player can take advantage of is the ability to read the entire mission ahead of time. Sometimes I won't deploy or reinforce my troops knowing that a certain event is "about" to happen. Then, when the door opens (or whatever), I have a bunch of Threat and can launch a massive counter-assault on the heroes that they might not be prepared for.
Another tactic that has helped me is focusing all my firepower on one rebel at a time. Not only does this increase the odds of wounding them (an Imperial objective in many cases) but it usually forces that character to waste a turn or so backing off or resting.
Why do you find it odd that the side with better players will win more often? That makes sense to me.
LOL Yeah I guess if you put it that way, yeah it does sound weird. 
But there are quirks to the design parts of it. Like the Hero side has up to four players to talk out strategy and coordinate with, but the Imperial side has only the one pilot. Pros and cons of both sides somewhat balance out the disparity. The Heroes can remind each other of abilities, bounce ideas around to find efficient avenues, likely have a higher number of mechanical options at any given moment available to use, but at the end will only be really as strong as their strongest 'leader' player, and with out team work will likely fail. But the Imperial side has all the mission knowledge, secret cards to deploy and use, and a single mind to keep focused on the objective.
But when we were playing the descent game, we noticed that about every other mission or so would lean mechanically to one side. It wasn't impossible for the disadvantaged side to win by any stretch. But for the disadvantaged side to win it seemed you had to play almost a perfect game, which may have required you to know some of the behind the scenes info first in some cases. And that was fine. We would upset it a few times, get knocked down, rally the next mission, then have a close call, then stomp the next one, all creating a very cinematic flow and feeling that we we're in control of our own fate but not just flailing against a set of conditions and checkpoints, but against intelligent forces that were plotting and scheming in the darkness. What I find odd is that maybe this one doesn't have those mechanical advantages installed and leaves it strictly up to the players skill. Which could explain why in say our game, outside the first mission, rebels are undefeated. But in others campaigns the Imps have it hands down.
In the end, I mean to say its odd that there aren't any speed bumps to disrupt the 'better' players from having more consistent victories. Not odd that they are winning in the first place. But more data might change my view if warranted. 
I think we've found it pretty even so far. The first mission - Aftermath - somewhat took the heroes by surprise; they only destroyed one terminal (of four) because they didn't realise quite how strict the time limit was, and spent far too much time trying to kill Imperial figures, not realising how threat would let me reinforce them. I think they were expecting it to be more like something like HeroQuest, where the heroes will win by default unless they really screw up. Not the case.
In the second mission, they got their act together. Came up with a plan, executed it, stuck to it. As the mission came close to an end they worked together to achieve it, leaving me with little chance. Good play, and they won.
In the third mission, they (IMO) lost their bearings again... they got distracted by chasing down crates and secondary objectives and got overwhelmed, I wounded all four and they lost. There was some bitterness about the mission being unfairly hard, until I pointed out their distraction... then they thought about it for a bit and agreed that actually, they'd screwed up, and that was why they found it difficult.
So far, I'd say it's pretty much about right. If the heroes play well, they can win; if they make mistakes, they will be punished for them. Of course that's only from a sample of three missions... but they've been hugely fun games, so far, with both sides winning and losing. Sounds about right to me.