Not that it really matters for many but I got my first game of IA in and got to be frank didn't like it.

Let me explain, I have D2E, when I say I have D2E I have it all, and I enjoy it and was looking forward to playing IA, I love star wars and SciFi more generally than Fantasy.

I didn't buy it initially because I hadn't got as much D2E in as I wanted initially and then a friend bought it.

Basically, yes they have improved on D2E rules and I will be stealing a few of the rules for D2E house rules, things like one player then one group etc etc, really shakes things up and kills analysis paralysis. Minis are awesome and artwork is mind blowing.

My issue, Descent mechanics fit the game, its a medieval combat game with some archery and magic, IA is a shooter at heart or thats what star wars should be (with lightsabers occasionally and special mechanics for jedis), and it just doesn't feel like a shooter, Cover plays almost no part in the game like it should in a good shooter past can you see round the corner and I came to the conclusion it is a cheap rip off rather than it's own game experience.

You may say well proper cover mechanics would make the game longer as it is and you would be right, but surely that's the whole point of good game design, make the mechanics fit the genre, they did it with Armada capital combat is different to fighters, this could have been a great game instead it's just a cheap handle turn

Total anti climax. I know this isn't going to go down well on these forums but I just wondered if anyone else had felt the same?

Total anti climax. I know this isn't going to go down well on these forums....

Why bother posting this then? To incite the flame war?

Thanks for giving the game "a chance", if that's what you call a single campaign intro game. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. That being said, do you remember a single movie in the original trilogy where the main characters or the Stormtroopers were ducking for cover on a regular basis? Me neither. Which is why I am totally fine with the cover/LOS mechanics. As you mentioned, it also makes the game simpler, which is very good, since the LOS portion can be confusing early on as it is.

I think cover mechanics, even properly implemented, would just slow down the game. Defense dice do all the magic of simulated cover.

There was some discussion about the topic here:

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/138693-does-anyone-else-feel-there-should-be-a-cover-mechanic/

But I think it’s safe to say that the majority of IA players appreciate the offensive flow that the game provides.

Would it be nice if they implemented cover rules in a balanced way? Sure. Is it mandatory? Absolutely not.

Besides, there are plenty of things in the game that are used for defense (dodge symbol on the white die, Take cover command card, Mak’s Decoy and disengage class cards in the campaign…)

Were it me, I'd like to have seen a generic cover action. But you hardly need that to be true to the genre, because in star wars the heroes seldom if ever took cover when in a firefight.

I've never played Descent, so I have no feelings attached to that game either way. I also don't see anything wrong with reusing and evolving game mechanics from one game to another, if they're appropriate . However, I will admit there are several things that felt odd, coming from other wargames.

One thing was that performance (specifically the "to hit" type roll) is based more on equipment than the individual skill of either attacker or defender. Some of this is handled with Surge abilities, but it still feels like you'll get mostly consistent effects from a rifle or a vibroblade, regardless of whether they are wielded by a Wookiee or an old man.

The other big one, as you said, is a lack of any kind of cover mechanic. I disagree with Hida77: the Death Star rescue, Cloud City escape, and Endor battle all had plenty of hiding behind bulkheads and bushes in a firefight. That said, there was also Han standing in the middle of a docking bay, droids shuffling across open clearings and hallways, and other nonsense where someone clearly should have taken a blaster bolt to the face.

So I think there is precedence, but I don't know what it would add to the game. Mostly, there are times where the heroes are trapped or cornered in an escalating situation, and eventually the pressure of numbers becomes such that they have to break out. Game-wise, this is probably best associated with the heroes Resting: if the rebel players take a full turn to hide out of LOS and use Rest actions, that accounts for a similar situation, albeit much more abstract.

The big thing is that defensive bonuses for cover incentivize players to play defensively, which can lead to a much more stagnant game. That can work well for some games, but I don't know that it's right for Star Wars. Also, it would almost assuredly throw off the pacing of the current missions, which is already so tightly balanced, I think it would break the game. Ultimately, I've come to feel it's the right choice for the game. It's not perfect or ideal, but I think it still works.

- H8

A cover mechanic would force a complete (100 percent) rewrite of the campaign, as every mission would take more time to complete with the Imperial forces (most of which can't double attack) hunkering down defensively. My group's missions already take 2+ hours to finish. Any longer and we couldn't play, because we can only meet after 8 p.m., and everyone has work in the mornings, so we can't afford to go to 11:30-midnight every time we play. Playing until 11 last week was borderline too long already.

Coming from X-Wing and the LCG and never having played D2e I must say I absolutely love this game and the fast and sturdy mechanics of the game. To me they've really caught so much flavor especially in the unique characters.

Was your (only) game the tutorial mission or from the campaign start mission? If it's the first option I can only repeat what I e posted many times before: that LtP (as so many of FFG's other games) are in no way representative of actual gameplay or feel but strictly done to get into action and experience the game rules and situations.

Total anti climax. I know this isn't going to go down well on these forums but I just wondered if anyone else had felt the same?

Nope. I feel that the adjusted Descent2e mechanic works perfectly for Imperial Assault. The game is quick to play, captures the heroics and excitement of the films, and has a very cool set up not just for the campaign, but for the skirmish play as well.

I understand that you're coming into IA with experience from Descent and the good thing is that nothing in IA changes the way Descent2e plays, but I don't think you're going to find a lot of folks in this forum that will agree with you.

I do use cover, rather than sticking to the walls and corners, i always move 1 or two spaces out from behind a wall, take my shot, and use my remaining movement points to move back deeper into cover. works a treat.

Total anti climax. I know this isn't going to go down well on these forums....

Why bother posting this then? To incite the flame war?

Thanks for giving the game "a chance", if that's what you call a single campaign intro game. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. That being said, do you remember a single movie in the original trilogy where the main characters or the Stormtroopers were ducking for cover on a regular basis? Me neither. Which is why I am totally fine with the cover/LOS mechanics. As you mentioned, it also makes the game simpler, which is very good, since the LOS portion can be confusing early on as it is.

Obviously you haven't seen return of the Jedi? R2 leaves cover and is shot if you remember?, many other examples even in the prequels, Padme is pinned in and has to go out the window to get around.

Never said it was a bad game and don't think I was too unfair, just that the mechanics didn't fit the genre.

For those saying a cover mechanic would slow down the game you are correct but that's why I expect mechanics that suit rather than reskins. X Wing and Armada as good examples.

Well since x-wing and Armand's are two player guys I have a hard time comparing the champaign to a two player miniature game. The skirmish version of this game has the command deck and missions to give the game more flavor.

This is a close combat game and think the dice do a fine just. There isn't a lot of terrain and you have to attack the closes figure in Los so what good will cover do?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but your post does strike me the same way as if a football supporter from an away team stood in the home teams stand and started swearing at everyone! Ain't gonna end well!

Star Wars Miniatures from WotC had cover mechanics, which added to defense, iirc. I think the comment above that the defense die, especially the white die, simulate cover, sums it up nicely.

Cover is actually more of an issue in IA than it appears, and more than Descent. The requirement to draw a line to 2 corners means there are positions you can fire from and not be subject to return fire without movement.
As for whether Star Wars is a shooter, laser swords being the pinnacle of combat in a setting really doesn't suggest this. Star Wars' origins as a tribute to Samurai films make clear that if the game slowed down to a move and cover, Rainbow-six style approach it wouldn't be doing justice to its source material. YMMV etc.

Well, since you don't seem to mind house rule (you did say that you would borrow some IA rules for your D2E game), just make a Cover house Rule and be done with it. Something like: if one of the two points you target while looking for line of sight touch also touch an obstacle, add 1 defense result to the defender roll.

BUT. Making a cover mecanic will actually make the game more of a melee game than a shooter like you want it to be. You now penalize player even more for making a range attack by making it harder to hit; just move in and make a melee attack that doesn't care about cover.

If what you want is making position more relevant and improving the range game, you would need to include a rule about attack of opportunity, something like: You can take a guard action: Take a guard token. You can spend that token to attack an enemy unit that move in your line of sight as an interupt.

But for my part, I prefer to play a game as intended, especially one that can be played competitively. And since I have never played Descent, I am okay with IA ''only'' being a reskin. I enjoy it a lot and prefer the Star Wars theme over the fantasy one.

Well, since you don't seem to mind house rule (you did say that you would borrow some IA rules for your D2E game), just make a Cover house Rule and be done with it. Something like: if one of the two points you target while looking for line of sight touch also touch an obstacle, add 1 defense result to the defender roll.

BUT. Making a cover mecanic will actually make the game more of a melee game than a shooter like you want it to be. You now penalize player even more for making a range attack by making it harder to hit; just move in and make a melee attack that doesn't care about cover.

If what you want is making position more relevant and improving the range game, you would need to include a rule about attack of opportunity, something like: You can take a guard action: Take a guard token. You can spend that token to attack an enemy unit that move in your line of sight as an interupt.

But for my part, I prefer to play a game as intended, especially one that can be played competitively. And since I have never played Descent, I am okay with IA ''only'' being a reskin. I enjoy it a lot and prefer the Star Wars theme over the fantasy one.

This is interesting to read, I may borrow my friends copy and try this.

Incidentally imo a good cover mechanic needs to punish someone charging through the middle, may need as you said overwatch and 'cover me' rules to counter balance that (unless they are swinging a light saber of course)

The game does have a cover mechanic.

Your movement can be broken up. You move 1 square, araound a corner. You are now out of LOS and cannot be shot. During your turn, you have movement of say... 4? spend 2 to get back into LOS of your enemy, shoot, then spend your other 2 movement to get back into cover.

Alson in Skirmish there are cards that do something more like the partial cover that I think you are referencing. Takes an action to TAKE cover, but all of yoru defensive rolls for the rest of the turn gain an extra shield/caltrop/mitigation whatever that symbol is.

In my opinion the line of sight rules work fine for cover at the moment.

Saying that just because there is not an explicit cover mechanic in the game now does not mean that FFG could not add one later if they feel that it would add something to the game

In my opinion the line of sight rules work fine for cover at the moment.

Saying that just because there is not an explicit cover mechanic in the game now does not mean that FFG could not add one later if they feel that it would add something to the game

Again how would this cover mechanic work since los is so easy to use? Then factor in the dice mechanic not sure how this would work.

With most models getting a black die for defense (which can cancel up to 3 damage), how is this not enough of a mechanic to simulate cover?

Even Stormtroopers get a black die, and in the movies, they get hit buy a rock thrown by an ewok and die.

I think the system right now is very streamlined, and the battles flow quickly, and in my personal opinion , a better system than D1e or D2e.

Well, since you don't seem to mind house rule (you did say that you would borrow some IA rules for your D2E game), just make a Cover house Rule and be done with it. Something like: if one of the two points you target while looking for line of sight touch also touch an obstacle, add 1 defense result to the defender roll.

BUT. Making a cover mecanic will actually make the game more of a melee game than a shooter like you want it to be. You now penalize player even more for making a range attack by making it harder to hit; just move in and make a melee attack that doesn't care about cover.

If what you want is making position more relevant and improving the range game, you would need to include a rule about attack of opportunity, something like: You can take a guard action: Take a guard token. You can spend that token to attack an enemy unit that move in your line of sight as an interupt.

But for my part, I prefer to play a game as intended, especially one that can be played competitively. And since I have never played Descent, I am okay with IA ''only'' being a reskin. I enjoy it a lot and prefer the Star Wars theme over the fantasy one.

This is interesting to read, I may borrow my friends copy and try this.

Incidentally imo a good cover mechanic needs to punish someone charging through the middle, may need as you said overwatch and 'cover me' rules to counter balance that (unless they are swinging a light saber of course)

I'm glad I could help to maybe make you give a second chance to this game.

But be aware that in the campaign missions, time is usually a factor. Just in the first mission, the rebels have 6 turn to complete it, and there is not a lot of margin there. So forcing them to slow their approach, by punishing running head-on with attack of opportunity or the like, will probably end up in a decisive victory for the Empire. If I were to try this kind of rules, I would do it in skirmish mode where time (unless playing in a tournament) is not a factor.

And to be fair, if you already have all the D2E stuff and a friend of yours already have Imperial Assault, I would not bother buying into it myself. There is so many games outhere that you should maybe buy a game with a totally different mecanic and genre. Complete your collection so that you have a game ready for each occasion. Someone that don,t want to play Descent won,t probably want to play Imperial Assault, unless he's a diehard Star Wars fan.

Red,

I have played the intro, and yes it is a rush

I am mostly interested in this game for a cross over with X Wing game and was looking to play the skirmish mode more than the campaign, so that shouldn't be too much of an issue, but I heed your advice, it will suit defenders when I am inventing scenarios.

I was (before playing) and now I suppose hoping for a scenario where you are fighting over control of a stationary gun at a space station say and the winner getting free control of it in the X Wing mission, or they can decide to spike it at one of the two stations they have to capture to control it .

Then the imperials start dropping in storm troopers aboard shuttles that the rebels are trying to shoot down (in X Wing) and the gun will be a big win if the imperials can secure it. with every shuttle will have an effect on the skirmish of IA, which will effect who is trying to flee the station and get their loses off in X wing and so on and so forth.

And maybe some Scum trying to steal some stuff in the middle

Cheers.

IA does cover by staying out of sight, taking the move action, moving into shooting position and moving back into cover.

Which is the way it was mostly done in the films.... standing at a corner and popping out for a shot and back around the edge of the wall. While just standing on the wall corner square will often leave los to you from around the corner, the use of movement points allow you to hop back that extra square after shooting to conceal you.

I've given the OP a Like just to stick up for him against the tide of "how dare you say that here" bile, but I kinda disagree.

As others have said - you can take cover by moving behind cover.

I would like an Overwatch ability though. Well, I say I would like them - I've been in plenty situations where I wished I had one, obviously I don't know whether it would spoil the flow of the game.