I am a long time Descent player (both Descent 1st and 2nd Edition). My group and I literally have played these games for hundreds if not thousand(s) of hours.

I am almost always the Overlord.

I recently purchased IA, but have not played it as of yet. I am spending a significant amount of time reviewing all of the rules to make sure that I know the game in and out, as I will most likely be the Imperial player.

One question for those of you who have played IA. In Descent, the game is most balanced when played with 4 heroes (a 2 hero game heavily favors the OL, and a 3 hero game heavily favors the heroes).

How does IA play? In other words, is the game at its best playing with 4 rebel heroes?

I am specifically interested in responses as it pertains to the campaign mode, as I believe in Skirmish mode it is more about how you spend your allocated points.

Personal opinion.

Surprisingly very well balanced to the point that either Fantasy Flight should either be running the Federal budget or Fantasy Flight paid off royalties to The Force to keep an eye on all the dice being rolled in each and every game.

There have been multiple games where the outcome was only decided on the last rolls of the last round, and any picture taken of the game before then would not tell you who the clear winner was.

Of course all the above means is that this game is a pure fantasy simulation or rebel sympathizers' enterprise because as we all know in abject reality, The Empire is Victorious on ALL fronts .

Continue playing the Overlord ... er, Imperial player, loyal citizen, we are always watching.

Descent 2.0 VS. IA play very similarly, with some notable changes.

IA is built specifically for 4 rebel heroes, if there are three heroes, then the rebels get the "heroic" buff card which give all the heroes more health and a "floating activation". If there are two heroes, then the rebels get the "legendary" buff card which gives them even more health per hero, and 2 activation tokens per hero. We have tried playing with 2 or 3 heroes and playing with 4 heroes, and personally, I like 4 heroes on the table better than the buff cards, as there is more variety in hero actions, instead of just doubling up on the existing ones, but this may just be personal preference.

The biggest change is alternating activations. The heroes move a figure, then you move a deployment card's worth of figures, then back to the rebels. Instead of in Descent where the heroes do all their stuff and then the overlord does all his stuff. This here, is not just the most significant, but also the best change in this type of board game.

The Imperial player is not spending threat on a "hand of dirty tricks" like he does in Descent. Each mission has the dirty tricks built in and threat is either spent on putting more models on the table, or generating a mission specific effect.

IA feels much more streamlined (if you can believe it!) than Descent 2.0 does. it really feels like they removed as much as they could without totally destroying the inherent complexity of the game. All in all, this is a good thing.

A quick skirmish mode note: IA Skirmish has no Descent analog. Skirmish is its own 2-player deal. It is squad on squad combat with cards being played during the game for extra fun bonuses. That said, skirmish is freaking awesome.

The short answer based on my experience is that 4 Rebel heroes makes for a great game! Even when just two of us play, one plays the Imperials and the other takes four heroes. I really wouldn't even consider any other alternative, personally.

Thanks for the feedback everyone.

As in Descent, it seems 4 rebels are the way to go. Much like many of you, when we don't have enough physical players to each represent a single hero in Descent, someone (usually the most experienced/best gamer) runs multiples.

It seems like we will proceed in the same fashion with IA.

I loved Descent 2nd Edition. Playing it wih four of my friends are some of my favorite gaming memories.

But I never wanted to be the Overlord. Not really sure why, but I never enjoyed it, win or lose.

But in Imperial Assault, I'm exactly the opposite.

I have no desire (yet) to be a hero, when I can throw squads of Stormtroopers at them.

I've only played once so far (waiting for a replacement in the mail), so I can't offer too much in the ways of answering your questions, but I can say this:

The turns are much, much more fun.

No more

"Ha! As the Overlord I shall crush you!"

*heros destroy all minions before Overlords turn*

"... well... have this card! You get an exhaust token!"

I never found Descent balanced at all. Either the OL won everything (2 hero groups), or the heroes wiped the board (4 hero groups) Mind you that is in the base game no expansions.

Plus Descent didn't give me what I wanted, I wanted a kind of exploration crawler. IA with the hidden objectives and mission information, kind of gives that to me even though the focus is "get **** done" mission oriented.

With IA I have 3 separate campaigns going, 2, 3 and 4 hero games. I find that 2 hero's is really favorable to the hero's in high movement needed missions. Where as 2 hero's is not favorable in missions that require killing destroying many things across the map. Plus it seems to be harder to force a wound or withdraw since the health pool is so high. But all missions are still winnable, the Empire player just really needs to be 100% on top of all triggers and effects that can be inflicted. And value endurance draining effects very high. Even higher I feel than in any other mission. As it helps negate some of the speed the hero's have with double activation's.

3 heroes seems to be razor edge with a bit of movement advantage in the hero's favor.

And 4 seems to be perfectly balanced.

These are just my opinions based on the players in my various groups.

I'm currently running two campaigns. One with one rebel player and the other one with four. Both are played with four heroes though.

Like Kilazar said, a two hero campaign really gives the edge to the rebel players when it come to running across the map. But I think in the long run, in a two hero campaign, I think that the rebels are disadvantaged. The reason is that at the end of almost every mission, the rebels get at least 1xp and 100 credits per hero . So, not only they have less upgrades, they also have less money to buy stuff. It's the main reason the rebel player playing alone opted for four heroes.

The reason is that at the end of almost every mission, the rebels get at least 1xp and 100 credits per hero . So, not only they have less upgrades, they also have less money to buy stuff. It's the main reason the rebel player playing alone opted for four heroes.

Not really sure how valid this is ...

It is 100 credits per hero. The hero's can't give any left over credits to anyone, right? So if you have 2 heroes, you have 200 credits, 4 heroes, 400 credits, but it still is only 100 credits per hero. It's not as if they can spend anymore than the 100 credits per hero. So it ends up to the same amount of money per hero to buy stuff. No?

Credits are shared between all heroes, but the credits per hero balanced itself.

Also of note, each character does not get 4 xp for winning a 4 hero mission. So the xp reward remains unchanged on a per hero basis. Regardless of how many heroes are in the game, if a reward says "1 xp per hero" EACH hero gets 1xp. So the character progression does not change with the number of heroes in regards to xp and skills.

*edit*

One other thing about Descent vs IA. If you are used to being the Overlord, forget EVERYTHING you know about Descent. NOTHING applies. This goes for rebel / hero players too. But it is REALLY important for the Empire, as you must bring your A game, and be on top of all your events, triggers, and effects.

While some things will be similar, you will often find yourself basing items on how they work in Descent, only to find out that it's nothing like in Descent.