Most people don't like to lose, and with losing out on potential rewards, some people even take it alot worse than others.

Has anyone tried the campaign that no matter which side loses, both get their winning reward? Of course you'd still play the next story mission based on who won. The only trouble I can think of is, how would you handle optional objectives like Imperial Hospitality's or a mission like Generous Donations.

Input is welcome.

Sounds lame.

If "some" people don't like losing - in a board game, of all things - maybe "some" people need to learn to become adults. Or, you know... reach a mental age of seven.

It's not a "winning reward" if you get it whether you win or lose. It's just a reward for sitting at a table rolling dice for a couple of hours. Of course, not all games are zero-sum and come to that, not all games involve "winning", but this is a game where you can win or lose and it's not very rewarding to get the reward no matter what happens. Just a waste of time.

If "some" people don't like losing - in a board game, of all things - maybe "some" people need to learn to become adults. Or, you know... reach a mental age of seven.

It's not a "winning reward" if you get it whether you win or lose. It's just a reward for sitting at a table rolling dice for a couple of hours. Of course, not all games are zero-sum and come to that, not all games involve "winning", but this is a game where you can win or lose and it's not very rewarding to get the reward no matter what happens. Just a waste of time.

Believe me, I wish said people wouldn't take losing so personally. I myself don't care if I win or lose, as long as the game is fun.

In this particular game, I suppose the bigger issue is that early losses can easily snowball into continuing losses, because the winner keeps getting more powerful, so the losing side can feel less and less like they even had a chance. In theory the mission structure is probably intended to prevent that, but in practice I'm not sure it does a very good job of it.

I dont think the real issue on the table is "winning or losing." The real issue is whether or not providing equal rewards will make the campaign more competative and enjoyable in the long term.

It's an interesting idea. Our first campaign snowballed really hard into Imperial favor. We'll have to see if the same is true on subsequent campaigns.

In this particular game, I suppose the bigger issue is that early losses can easily snowball into continuing losses, because the winner keeps getting more powerful, so the losing side can feel less and less like they even had a chance. In theory the mission structure is probably intended to prevent that, but in practice I'm not sure it does a very good job of it.

Unfortunately this only pertains to story missions and even worse, those missions tend to have the more boring rewards (exp and credits as opposed to a new skill.)

I dont think the real issue on the table is "winning or losing." The real issue is whether or not providing equal rewards will make the campaign more competative and enjoyable in the long term.

It's an interesting idea. Our first campaign snowballed really hard into Imperial favor. We'll have to see if the same is true on subsequent campaigns.

My group can get so distraught over losing, I've already started to bring my B-game and mess around a little just to keep them from getting trampled and complaining. I'm hoping this can remedy the problem. The only issues I see are, now they might just rush for the crates not giving a crap about the objective or always going to secondary objectives (like in Imperial Hospitality) cause now theres no actual risk.

They sound like a difficult bunch. Have you thought about playing with others who maybe aren't as demanding? Just a thought :/

It sounds like your group is running the rebels side - and that is a problem for the kind of people you are describing.

In my experience, the rebel players need to be very strategically-minded and concentrate pretty closely on the balance between thinning out opponents and working objectives. You're allowed almost zero margin for error as the rebel. It's unfortunate that your group can't all just play the imperial side and let you run the four heroes yourself (unless that's a possibility), because the imperials (when they don't have the objective) really are just there to slow the rebels down - and I believe the game overestimates its average patron's strategic skill set on the rebels' side...

I've played about 6 campaigns and the imperial player ALWAYS has a much easier time than the rebels (we're talking 70/30; 80/20 imps to rebel wins).

Also, I've resolved to suggesting strategies to my rebel players if they aren't seeing an inevitable trap or mistake - and I'll remind them constantly to play to the objective and stop trying to kill everything. It helps, but even then it doesn't always result in a rebel win...

put some star wars music on, quote the movies, talk about how cinematic some turns are, really sell the flavour text when reading it, have snacks and drinks. fun all round. don't need to worry about winning or losing

It sounds like your group is running the rebels side - and that is a problem for the kind of people you are describing.

In my experience, the rebel players need to be very strategically-minded and concentrate pretty closely on the balance between thinning out opponents and working objectives. You're allowed almost zero margin for error as the rebel. It's unfortunate that your group can't all just play the imperial side and let you run the four heroes yourself (unless that's a possibility), because the imperials (when they don't have the objective) really are just there to slow the rebels down - and I believe the game overestimates its average patron's strategic skill set on the rebels' side...

I've played about 6 campaigns and the imperial player ALWAYS has a much easier time than the rebels (we're talking 70/30; 80/20 imps to rebel wins).

Also, I've resolved to suggesting strategies to my rebel players if they aren't seeing an inevitable trap or mistake - and I'll remind them constantly to play to the objective and stop trying to kill everything. It helps, but even then it doesn't always result in a rebel win...

Ya, I do that too. Giving them advice and saying "you only need to deal X damage to kill it" and telling them that they can use that surge instead to recover a strain. Even in the second to last mission I warned them about the thread on these forums about Last Stand. At how people were questioning if any rebels ever won. Yet they still insisted on doing it and got thoroughly wasted by Vader. That was a real mood killer when that happened but I kept telling them I warned them.

put some star wars music on, quote the movies, talk about how cinematic some turns are, really sell the flavour text when reading it, have snacks and drinks. fun all round. don't need to worry about winning or losing

Thats almost exactly what I do. I play some of the battle music on my phone.... joke at how a stormtrooper just got vaporized by the disruptor gun, etc etc. I don't mean to stand on a soap box, but personally I don't care if I win or lose... I really think from now on I'll just mix up some stuff so I intentionally lose more missions. Like instead of Darth Vader showing up, just use Boba Fett or the royal guard champ instead.

Like little kids sports. Everyone gets a trophy for playing, win or lose.

I'm sorry to repeat myself, but seriously? The aim of playing a game is most often to have 'fun'. You sound like you're bending over backwards to make the experience as enjoyable as possible for a group of people who sound to me like a massive pain in the arse...

As gamers we all have off days, but these guys need to pull the stick out, get on the bus and shape up or ship out!

Grrrr.... I am so angry for you!

I feel sorry for you, but really, I think you're playing the wrong game. More to the point: this is not the right game for that group.

This is not an RPG. It is not made to have the Good Guys win all the time, and it is certainly not balanced for that. This is a game made to have a winner and loser, and so that both sides have to fight hard for the win. It is not a game where a couple friends say, "Let's have some adventures and fight monsters and beat the Bad Guy together!" and it just happens.

I kinda wish it was. Or at least, I wish I had that game too! But this is most certainly not it.

I don't know what game would fit that (at least for Star Wars). Let me know if you do, though! Maybe try the RPG, or write your own missions/scenarios, or both.

- H8

Maybe it's time to break out candy land for your group. :/

I think most of you missed the point.
Since the campaign is 11-14 missions long, each mission the imperial player wins add to his arsenal (same for rebels!).

Snowballing is a concearn in this game! It's not terrible entertaining playing the last 2-3 missions when one team only won 1-2 missions before. The other team is going to steamroll. This has happened twice now in our campaigns and it's detrimental for the motivation to finish the campaign if you get behind by about 1/2 of it.

Though shorter campaigns as well as better balanced campaigns certainly would help from FFG side.

In the meantime I have some very subtile houserule now to mitigate this effect:

* The side mission deck only holds 9 cards now

* The rebels select 2 hero (red) missions, 2 ally (green) missions

* The rest are grey missions

* The rebels can chose to swap one grey mission with one randomly drawn red mission (which they don't get to see)

* If the rebels already have an ally recruited, they can chose to discard one green mission and draw the next side mission during the campaign status phase

This prevents ally side mission lock (which is terrible) and introduces a choice as for which rewards you specifically aim for. Also it thins the side mission deck considerably and thus makes constructing the deck more of a conscious choice rather than "put everything in and see what comes up". Since this mostly buffs the rebels (albeit only slightly), the IP gets to draw one additional agenda card each imperial upgrade phase. Initially I thought reducing the number of agenda sets by one would be good, but that might lead to not enough choice for the IP during the upgrade stage. Drawing one card more changes things enough I feel.

We still have to start the 3rd campaign where we will implement these, but I feel confident about the changes.

I think jacenat has a point. It's like in Halo 4 where you'd get ordinance drops if you were doing really well. That was the dumbest thing ever if you were interested in leveling the playing field. I understand that there needs to be rewards for winning, but maybe this game should be different. The reward is in having a good match up. And when things just snowball for the winner over and over, it seems like it just spreads the results farther apart.

Make-it-take-it doesn't work well in basketball, shouldn't be a thing. Losers need the buff.

Maybe a way around this is to reverse the outcomes in the campaign missions. If the imperial player wins, then just follow the rebel win condition, and vice versa. Just a thought...

Maybe a way around this is to reverse the outcomes in the campaign missions. If the imperial player wins, then just follow the rebel win condition, and vice versa. Just a thought...

This opens the game up for intentional losses. IMHO if you would edit the rewards, I would cancel all additional rewards from story missions. Side missions (as well as forced agenda missions) would still give the rewards listed. This way there is an incentive to win the side missions and there is no incentive to lose missions. However, I expect Rebels to come ahead on this deals since most side mission rewards go to the rebels and they will get a bit stronger than the IP by the last mission on average. Also this basically locks in a fixed XP rate at which the players progress. Not sure if that's good or bad though.

This all would be much more viable too if some side missions from the side mission deck would actively help the IP on rewards. Currently the IP has to spend Influence and win the mission. I am already toying with the idea of letting the IP buy forced missions at a discount and then shuffle them into the side mission deck, but since they have different card backs this could be a problems. Sleeves would help here, but I have yet to buy some.

I don't know. I do see what you're saying. The winners get stronger and the losers are struggling to survive more and more because of it. Though, that is the nature of the game...campaign wise, at least. But in these cases it's where the losers need to rethink their actions, figure out what they've been doing wrong, and tackle the next objective with a new plan of attack. Fighting the odds means having to use strategic methods in everything you do on the board. In the case of the Rebels, they need to communicate, and sometimes one or two must make a sacrifice for the team as a whole to win against the more powerful foe. Looking to the Imperials, the single entity controlling them has the advantage to always know what each of their units are going to be doing, as it's that one person that's making the choice. So, he or she needs to take stock of the situation, and know what each of their units are capable of at any given time. It can be mind numbing at times...and out right frustrating at others, but...that's pretty much what thinking games such as this are all about. Taxing your mind against an opponent that's doing the same. Each unit is capable of doing great things, in the right hands with some good forethought and determination.

@Raine +1

I don't know. I do see what you're saying. The winners get stronger and the losers are struggling to survive more and more because of it. Though, that is the nature of the game...campaign wise, at least. But in these cases it's where the losers need to rethink their actions, figure out what they've been doing wrong, and tackle the next objective with a new plan of attack. Fighting the odds means having to use strategic methods in everything you do on the board. In the case of the Rebels, they need to communicate, and sometimes one or two must make a sacrifice for the team as a whole to win against the more powerful foe. Looking to the Imperials, the single entity controlling them has the advantage to always know what each of their units are going to be doing, as it's that one person that's making the choice. So, he or she needs to take stock of the situation, and know what each of their units are capable of at any given time. It can be mind numbing at times...and out right frustrating at others, but...that's pretty much what thinking games such as this are all about. Taxing your mind against an opponent that's doing the same. Each unit is capable of doing great things, in the right hands with some good forethought and determination.

This does in no way invalidate the assumption that there is a snowballing effect that does alter the outcomes of missions enough to discourage players. What you say apply to almost all games (aside from the asymmetrical aspects).

Thing is, my current campaign is 9:2 in favor of me (IP) and especially missions with round limits are very hard or near impossible because of the previous wins giving me hefty XP advantage as well as a myriad of one time and reusable agenda cards. The 2 missions I lost so far was one where I made a huge tactical mistake and the other where I was giving them a bit of slack (as well as the mission being slanted to rebels). We will play it by the book to the end, but the rebels grew increasingly discouraged because nothing they tired worked. And this isn't even their first campaig! They also take about 5-10 minutes to discuss activations and they usually are dead on on what to do, but because I am so far ahead, they just can't stem the tide.

I think the core box is a bit poorly balanced (subversive tactics is WAY too strong, tech superiority is weak as hell, and some heroes are more useful against certain decks, but as rebel player you can't react to that because the IP choses class decks after rebels chose their heroes). This along with the relatively long campaign (11 missions) makes it not as good as it could be.

I know some of what I'll say here has been said before, but I'd like to try and shed a different light.

First, the game, or certain missions, are imbalanced.

Second, the Rebels/Imperial suck and as they lose more, they get weaker.

Third, losing all the time makes my group not want to play anymore.

While those all are true statements (stronger with some groups than with others), they all have varying degrees of value. Granted, I've only played through 2 complete campaigns (and started 2 others), but from what I've seen, the campaign as a whole is surprisingly balanced. There certainly are individual missions that have bias toward one side or another. There are also missions that will favor certain heroes over others. But I will argue that every mission is winnable, by any team, with any given setup, with any amount of xp/threat/money. There's too much dice rolling to say that it's impossible to win mission x.

While it is also true that there can be a snowballing effect, see my last statement in the paragraph above. Now, the odds will certainly favor one side or another based on the mission, the amount of xp/threat/money one side has and experience players have. This takes us to our 3rd point. In my experience, there are 2 types of gamers: Casual and Hardcore. This game has been designed with an uncanny ability that can cater to both.

Casual gamers are the ones that are going to complain about losing and make remarks when they lose. There are two options that this point: 1) Suck up your pride and take one for the team. 2) Play another game. Casual gamers are in it to have fun or just to be enjoying time with other humans. People aren't having fun when they're losing (until booze gets added to the party), especially casual gamers. They need to have the opportunity to win (there's a whole other argument to made about what to do if you give them the opportunity and they squander it, intentionally or otherwise, but that's not for this post).

Hardcore gamers are the polar opposite of the casual gamer. Every moment during the game is spent thinking about the game, the next move, the move after that and everything to the end. Hardcore gamers relish in both victory and loss. The victory gives bragging rights, the loss strengthens resolve for the next round (are these people having fun or does the game take on a form of work?).

The old adage about oil and water, it's true. It's also true that casual and hardcore gamers don't mix (unless the hardcore game is willing to play on a casual level). The real trick in a game that uses 5 people is to find the right group. While I'd rather be playing IA than not playing IA, I'd rather not play IA than destroy my casual opponent. I have no reservations about losing as long as everyone is having fun. Plus it hurts the community as a whole. You only get to make one first impression, and it's really hard to convince someone to play IA that had a bad experience in the past.

I beg the entire community, don't destroy casual gamers, not only does it hurt IA, but it reflects poorly on all tabletop gaming. If your casual gamers are not having fun, do whatever you can to make their experience more enjoyable. Then, play a different game. I'd like to see a world with more tabletop gaming, and while your personal pride might be hurt a little, the rest of your group and the entire community will benefit.

Hmmm... Or just don't take a narrative game so seriously. Being overly competitive in this type of game spoils the feeling of being part of the story. One of the best things about this game is that you can take an active roll in the Star Wars universe without committing yourself to a full on RPG experience. The balance in SW lore terms is fantastic, one side gets to play as part of a team that is greater than the sum of its parts, this is exactly how the Rebel Alliance works in the films. The other side gets to play as a singular entity that uses its minions to suppress the opponent, just like the cinematic Galactic Empire!

I guess my point is, again play the campaign for the story not so much FTW!

But I will argue that every mission is winnable, by any team, with any given setup, with any amount of xp/threat/money.

I disagree. We played "Sorry about the Mess" this week. Take a look at our campaign sheet (which is already almost updated to after the mission ... just need to add the Agenda Cards I bought):

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1b2xKRghuOok9JDLsJjuU9Pv1QTa0ZnHM53vUwhPCxgk/edit?usp=sharing

In the first round, 1 shot from 1 Stormtrooper on Han was enough to deal 3 damage + 2 damage (with Surgical Strike). The Rebels tried to get restorative items from the chest, but didn't have any luck. I saved threat and did not deploy after the 1st and 2nd round. End of 2nd round the elite Trandoshans were deployed. They hung back to flank later. The Rebels opened the door early in the 4th round (first activation actually). I deployed a Nexu, Royal Guards and the E-Web inside the hangar. Han takes his free shot and hides behind the other Rebels. During my activation I activate the trandoshans and deal another 5 (3 + 2 from Surgical Strike) and another 3 (4-1 defense), ending the mission. I used only 4 of my XP cards (Weary Target, Prey Upon Doubt, Surgical Strike and Savage Weaponry) and the Rebels basically were helpless. Even if they would not have opened the door but instead turned back on the elite Trandoshans I could have deployed a sizable force at both deployment Points to wedge them and slowly chip at Han.

Surgical Strike contributed 4 damage on Han this mission over 2 Attacks. This mission doesn't seem winnable late campaign against Subversive Tactics, even if the Rebels know the mission triggers.

You may be overlooking the possibility that the designers anticipated snowballing and allowed for it in the mission structure.

Not all missions are equally hard. Suppose that if you win, you get buffs, but the next mission is harder for you (a "hidden" debuff)... snowballing would not therefore occur.

You need to take a more holistic view of the game design (and allow for the possibility that the game designers may not have been completely incompetent) before making sweeping changes. First you would need to be sure, and not just from a single anecdotal data point, that snowballing is actually a problem, before seeking to fix it. Yes, the winners get more rewards, but the cards they are holding are not the only factor in determining whether they are more likely to win the next game.