It seems a little odd that a character can be eliminated yet get the same benefits as all of the players who survived. I feel that they should miss out on the do and credits for the mission.

This would help to discourage the 'run to the objective' play style that can screw up some missions. I lost Aftermath to a group of four heroes. I wounded one and made two withdraw. They killed one just one imperial officer the whole game but took down the terminals by the end of round 4. It all felt a bit ridiculous ...

If theythey were ignoring your units, you should have been using them to block the terminals. You get enough stormies to make them have to kill at least one squad if you place them on all adjacent spaces

So the one who makes a heroic sacrifice in order to accomplish the mission is the one who should be penalized?

Maybe if the Rebel players kill enough Imperial figures, then you can lose all your XP and Influence from that mission too. Would that be good?

I understand your frustration over "rush" tactics, but unfortunately I think that is baked into the game's design, which is based on action economy in a small space over a short time.

- H8

For the rebels, gameplay is based on teamwork. You start shafting one player in ANY regard to reward, the whole team falls apart.

If there was a penalty, Id get to listen to endless bitching about how I'm picking on certain players. No thanks. I like how it is now. Everyone can focus on the mission rather than just keeping their character alive.

All points taken. What if the penalty was just that you don't get any credits for players who withdrew? As credits are held collectively rather than individually, it would mean that no one player would be penalised. Would anyone find it unfair?

If a player withdraws it is usually enough of a penalty in itself to the objective of completing the mission. If the players have managed to succeed the mission without the character you've murdered then good on them.

Also, the "Imperials win when all heros are wounded" win condition and the lack of any further penalty for a withdrawn character (other than fewer actions and firepower in the actual game) is entirely to discourage the Imperial player just nuking one character till they are removed. Adding a further penalty to the withdrawn status, especially one which builds up over time (lost credits means less items which means less power later in the campaign) reinserts an incentive to just targeting one player constantly.

If a player withdraws it is usually enough of a penalty in itself to the objective of completing the mission. If the players have managed to succeed the mission without the character you've murdered then good on them.

Also, the "Imperials win when all heros are wounded" win condition and the lack of any further penalty for a withdrawn character (other than fewer actions and firepower in the actual game) is entirely to discourage the Imperial player just nuking one character till they are removed. Adding a further penalty to the withdrawn status, especially one which builds up over time (lost credits means less items which means less power later in the campaign) reinserts an incentive to just targeting one player constantly.

Was just going to say same thing but not saying it as well.

Just curious ionic, but why is an idea of a penalty so important?

All points taken. What if the penalty was just that you don't get any credits for players who withdrew? As credits are held collectively rather than individually, it would mean that no one player would be penalised. Would anyone find it unfair?

Yes I would, because of the way the game is currently designed . If you're asking if it's "realistic" or whatever, then I think you could rationalize all sorts of reasons back and forth, and I wouldn't necessarily disagree, but not for the current game.

Let me try flipping your reasoning around again. You said you wounded one character and eliminated two - so wounded them, and then wounded them again . If you had directed that effort toward the one unhurt hero instead, you should have been able to wound that one too, and won the mission . In other words, you lost the game because you decided to ignore your stated mission in favor of your own personal objective of knocking players out of the game. It seems to me that maybe you're the one who should be penalized, no?

"You have failed me for the last time..."

- H8

Something just feels off to me about the way that rebels can rush past/through the Imperial players ignoring the hits to get to the objective. Maybe it's because I've played too much Iron Man X-Com and it feels odd that leaving a hero to get to shot to pieces doesn't result in any serious negative consequence ...

I've played Aftermath with 2 groups now. The first was made up of experienced gamers who moved slowly and cautiously and lost as a result. The second group was my wife and son who just charged for the objectives and won as a result. The fact that the experienced gamers lost while my wife and 4 year old won makes me feel that there must be something in the game/mission design that runs counter to the way that experienced gamers instinctively play tactical minis games. One of the rebel players had the same feeling as me.

Don't get me wrong. I think it's a really enjoyable game but rules such as allowing players to run through hostile figures and the need to prioritise movement over combat just feel strange to me.

All points taken. What if the penalty was just that you don't get any credits for players who withdrew? As credits are held collectively rather than individually, it would mean that no one player would be penalised. Would anyone find it unfair?

Yes I would, because of the way the game is currently designed . If you're asking if it's "realistic" or whatever, then I think you could rationalize all sorts of reasons back and forth, and I wouldn't necessarily disagree, but not for the current game.

Let me try flipping your reasoning around again. You said you wounded one character and eliminated two - so wounded them, and then wounded them again . If you had directed that effort toward the one unhurt hero instead, you should have been able to wound that one too, and won the mission . In other words, you lost the game because you decided to ignore your stated mission in favor of your own personal objective of knocking players out of the game. It seems to me that maybe you're the one who should be penalized, no?

"You have failed me for the last time..."

- H8

I take your point. It was only my third game and I definitely made mistakes. I took targets of opportunity rather than seeking out what was tactically the best target. I suppose I just need to get use to the mechanics and how to manipulate them to my advantage. My gaming group (who I beat at Aftermath) will be starting our next session with Under Siege so I'll be the one who has to rush forward.

The fact that the experienced gamers lost while my wife and 4 year old won makes me feel that there must be something in the game/mission design that runs counter to the way that experienced gamers instinctively play tactical minis games.

There is IMO. It's the round limit. Most missions that have them the round limit is low enough that you don't have a lot of extra time. You pretty much have to rush to the objectives or you'll never win.

IA players could debate if this is a good or bad thing, but either way that's how it is.

Take Aftermath, if you don't rush the objectives, but rather try to kill everything along the way, odds are you'll never win. Because the Heroes aren't nearly powerful enough yet to do that. But in later games when the heroes are more powerful, the Imperial Player has more forces so things never really change.

I've played though the campaign once, and for the most part if there was a round limit, the only viable tactic is heading straight for it, and only shooting stuff as you come in contact with them.

So putting a further penalty on withdrawing would most likely cause a snowball effect where the heroes find it harder, and harder each mission to win.

Something just feels off to me about the way that rebels can rush past/through the Imperial players ignoring the hits to get to the objective. Maybe it's because I've played too much Iron Man X-Com and it feels odd that leaving a hero to get to shot to pieces doesn't result in any serious negative consequence ...

I've played Aftermath with 2 groups now. The first was made up of experienced gamers who moved slowly and cautiously and lost as a result. The second group was my wife and son who just charged for the objectives and won as a result. The fact that the experienced gamers lost while my wife and 4 year old won makes me feel that there must be something in the game/mission design that runs counter to the way that experienced gamers instinctively play tactical minis games. One of the rebel players had the same feeling as me.

Don't get me wrong. I think it's a really enjoyable game but rules such as allowing players to run through hostile figures and the need to prioritise movement over combat just feel strange to me.

I understand, and for the most part I agree with you. There is something fundamental that feels "off" from traditional miniatures wargaming.

I just don't think your idea is going to solve it. The game is just too tightly balanced as it is now; if you tinker with one aspect, you have to recalibrate everything.

Let's say we implement some things to prevent moving through enemies. Now the Imperial player take 2 Nexu as open groups (because, as we all know, every Imperial Facility includes a kennel full of highly-trained space tigers?!?) and stacks them 4 spaces deep in a corridor - which, of course, the spacetiger completely occupies from shoulder to shoulder - on the way to the objective.

What do the Rebel players do now? You can't expect them to keep the same time limit as the original mission parameters if you're changing the amount of time it takes to get somewhere. If you raise the time limit, then the IP needs to block the corridor, because otherwise the Rebels have more than enough extra time to cover the distance. The likely conclusion to this, is that the game becomes "stuff as many monsters Imperials into that corridor as you can, and hope the Rebels don't get too lucky on the attack dice." (FYI, I have read things from people that say this is exactly what often happened in Descent)

In short: no, this doesn't play like a "proper" wargame. I don't think there's any easy solution to this, short of simply playing a different game. Personally, I've come to accept that it's still a fun game on its own, and when I get tired of it, I still have some neat Star Wars toys I can use for other games someday.

- H8

In short: no, this doesn't play like a "proper" wargame.

Yeah if you're looking for something like a Star Wars version of Infinity or Malifaux IA really isn't what you want. The campaign is more of a dungeon grinder then a squad based tactical miniature game.

Even the skirmish game isn't quite the same as something like Infinity or Malifaux. Which isn't to say it's a bad game. Just not quite the same thing as those other games.

Considering how easy it is for the Imps to win already if your group is slow I don't think adding penalties for the only viable rebel tactic is a particularly good idea, unless your goal is to make the rebels even more angry and quit

Thanks for all the feedback. The IA forum seems much more sensible a place than the X-Wing forum.

There's no danger of me quitting. I love the campaign aspect of the game. I suppose I'm just going through a period of adaptation and need to unlearn what I have learned! Can't wait for tomorrow night's session to keep moving on up that learning curve.

Glad to hear it....this game is a ton of fun. I look forward all week to the weekend play session.

Yes, but they also don't through the middle of groups of storm troopers to get to where they're going.

OP's issue seems to be far less about rewarding heroes who withdraw and more about heroes rushing objectives. There are definitely ways to counter rebel rushes and most often a flat-out rush is an easy win for Imperials.

Although interestingly enough... Doesn't the mission say Imperials win if all rebel players are wounded? I don't think you have to actually force them to withdraw, so completely killing off two of them does you no favours when you can simply end the mission by doing the same amount of damage - give or take - and simply wounding the whole party ending things instantly.

Obi-Wan escapes too but in a different way, heh.

Obi-Wan is defeated and withdrawn from the board. The Rebels decide the cost in threat is too high to redeploy him as an ally in later missions.

I look at it like this:

* Han, Chewie and Luke go to rescue Leia

* Obi-Wan hunts and shuts down the tractor beam

* Han, Chewie, Luke and Leia now dash to the Falcon to escape

They are not running around the entire Death Star killing everyone they see.

They hit an objective then on to the next one. Always on the move.

Obi-Wan escapes too but in a different way, heh.

And Obi-wan still gets XP?

I look at it like this:

* Han, Chewie and Luke go to rescue Leia

* Obi-Wan hunts and shuts down the tractor beam

* Han, Chewie, Luke and Leia now dash to the Falcon to escape

They are not running around the entire Death Star killing everyone they see.

They hit an objective then on to the next one. Always on the move.

Obi-Wan escapes too but in a different way, heh.

And Obi-wan still gets XP?

He leveled up hardcore. Got that last XP to buy the "Force Ghost" upgrade

If the OP's main concern is rushing, maybe he should just increase the mission time limits?

When you've got only like six rounds to hit four objectives that take multiple rounds to get to, it doesn't make a lot of sense to stop and fight unless you absolutely have to.

If the OP's main concern is rushing, maybe he should just increase the mission time limits?

When you've got only like six rounds to hit four objectives that take multiple rounds to get to, it doesn't make a lot of sense to stop and fight unless you absolutely have to.

I have to say, I don't really care for the time limits, or the required rushing, either. Mostly they seem arbitrary and "game-y". I feel like the threat system should be facilitating the sense of time pressure on the Rebels.

"Hurry! We need to reach the control center before every Stormtrooper in this sector gets here !"

vs.

"Hurry! We need to reach the control center before we miss the 3:19 Uptown Express ! We don't have credits in the budget to get a taxi!"

- H8