When facing Gideon as the Imp player, I consider him an extremely high value target. After all, he is like a known Jedi-collaborator and a high ranking Alliance strategist. Instead of moving on to another Hero after wounding him I proceed to concentrate all fire on him. When that old bald rebel scum has to double rest every single activation just to stay alive his commands are meaningless, and then strain is once again a factor for the rest of the Heroes using their crazy voodoo abilities like it's supposed to be.

On 11/18/2017 at 7:20 PM, aRandomBoardGamingDude said:

When facing Gideon as the Imp player, I consider him an extremely high value target. After all, he is like a known Jedi-collaborator and a high ranking Alliance strategist. Instead of moving on to another Hero after wounding him I proceed to concentrate all fire on him. When that old bald rebel scum has to double rest every single activation just to stay alive his commands are meaningless, and then strain is once again a factor for the rest of the Heroes using their crazy voodoo abilities like it's supposed to be.

I'm playing a campaign with Gideon now, and while I agree his usefulness is off the charts and it makes sense to go after him both thematically and mechanically, simply wiping him out in every mission is bound to be a serious negative experience for his player. Heck, even in a single mission, being the one defeated guy out of the game while your companions have suffered next to no damage sucks a lot.

It's kind of the same problem I have, conceptually, with stun. Stunning a hero is the most effective thing you can do with a single surge, and between RGs, Imperial Industry and Tech Superiority I have plenty of means to do so. But being reduced to a single action per round again and again just feels so anti-fun . I like bleed much more - it's like a soft stun that sacrifices effectiveness for giving the player choice, which is imo healthier for the game experience. Although I suppose If I had as many opportunities to inflict bleed as I currently do for stun, it would feel overbearing too.

52 minutes ago, Kraemet said:

I'm playing a campaign with Gideon now, and while I agree his usefulness is off the charts and it makes sense to go after him both thematically and mechanically, simply wiping him out in every mission is bound to be a serious negative experience for his player. Heck, even in a single mission, being the one defeated guy out of the game while your companions have suffered next to no damage sucks a lot.

Although very powerful indeed, Gideon does not feel like a fun character to play since you rarely attack, spending most of your gaming turn commanding other heroes to do the fun stuff. So I can imagine a poor rebel player controlling Gideon not having much fun if the imperial player goes after him each and every mission.

In a two rebel-player game where both rebel players control 2 heroes that's a different story since the rebel player controlling Gideon still has one hero to avenge the loss of the commanding rebel commander. Same goes for a three rebel-player game controlling one hero each with Gideon as the 4th hero.

Yep, Gideon the command-bot in a three-Rebel-player game is an ideal situation where I'd feel no regret mowing him down mercilessly