... I honestly have no sympathy for anyone willing to pay $70+ for a single card in order to play in a tournament. If you are willing to pay that much, you are only justifying their marketing technique.

Yes That is the entire point of this thread. People shouldn't have to spend the money on a third and fourth core set simply for a grey deployment card... There are many of us not willing to pay it and it is hurting the competitive environment of this game. It is also detracting new people from buying into the skirmish game.

... I honestly have no sympathy for anyone willing to pay $70+ for a single card in order to play in a tournament. If you are willing to pay that much, you are only justifying their marketing technique.

Yes That is the entire point of this thread. People shouldn't have to spend the money on a third and fourth core set simply for a grey deployment card... There are many of us not willing to pay it and it is hurting the competitive environment of this game. It is also detracting new people from buying into the skirmish game.

Not being a competitive player, I may be misunderstanding something.... I understand that the best list in most competitions has been the 4x4, which can only be built by spending money, right? So why are people less pissed at the people willing to feed into this marketing strategy and buy 4 core sets in order to field this list than they are at the company who made the product? Every single person who plays with a 4x4 does so because they outpurchased the players who rightfully said "$70 for a single card is ridiculous." So call those people chumps, call them cheaters, call them opportunists or whatever you want. THEY are the one's who are ruining the competition, because they are all fielding the SAME list! There are tons of threads on this board complaining about how BROKEN/OP the 4x4 is, and now this thread laments that not everyone can field it because it is so expensive?

In the video game world, players hate those who rely on cheats, hacks, or exploits in order to win, because frankly they are playing cheaply (ironic use of the word). The 4x4 is currently the best example of an exploit in this game. We should not be rallying to further the exploit.

... I honestly have no sympathy for anyone willing to pay $70+ for a single card in order to play in a tournament. If you are willing to pay that much, you are only justifying their marketing technique.

Yes That is the entire point of this thread. People shouldn't have to spend the money on a third and fourth core set simply for a grey deployment card... There are many of us not willing to pay it and it is hurting the competitive environment of this game. It is also detracting new people from buying into the skirmish game.

Not being a competitive player, I may be misunderstanding something.... I understand that the best list in most competitions has been the 4x4, which can only be built by spending money, right? So why are people less pissed at the people willing to feed into this marketing strategy and buy 4 core sets in order to field this list than they are at the company who made the product? Every single person who plays with a 4x4 does so because they outpurchased the players who rightfully said "$70 for a single card is ridiculous." So call those people chumps, call them cheaters, call them opportunists or whatever you want. THEY are the one's who are ruining the competition, because they are all fielding the SAME list! There are tons of threads on this board complaining about how BROKEN/OP the 4x4 is, and now this thread laments that not everyone can field it because it is so expensive?

In the video game world, players hate those who rely on cheats, hacks, or exploits in order to win, because frankly they are playing cheaply (ironic use of the word). The 4x4 is currently the best example of an exploit in this game. We should not be rallying to further the exploit.

The issues here is that they aren't cheating they are playing within the rules FFG has established. This isn't just about the 4x4 list. All the content of twin shadows will have the same issue. The Tusken Raiders who's low point cost has them designed to be a spammable unit in skirmish, but there is only one grey card in the box! So to spam the unit as intended by the game design you have to buy twin shadows up to 4 times! This is nuts and horrible design / marketing / whatever you want to call it.

... I honestly have no sympathy for anyone willing to pay $70+ for a single card in order to play in a tournament. If you are willing to pay that much, you are only justifying their marketing technique.

Yes That is the entire point of this thread. People shouldn't have to spend the money on a third and fourth core set simply for a grey deployment card... There are many of us not willing to pay it and it is hurting the competitive environment of this game. It is also detracting new people from buying into the skirmish game.

Not being a competitive player, I may be misunderstanding something.... I understand that the best list in most competitions has been the 4x4, which can only be built by spending money, right? So why are people less pissed at the people willing to feed into this marketing strategy and buy 4 core sets in order to field this list than they are at the company who made the product? Every single person who plays with a 4x4 does so because they outpurchased the players who rightfully said "$70 for a single card is ridiculous." So call those people chumps, call them cheaters, call them opportunists or whatever you want. THEY are the one's who are ruining the competition, because they are all fielding the SAME list! There are tons of threads on this board complaining about how BROKEN/OP the 4x4 is, and now this thread laments that not everyone can field it because it is so expensive?

In the video game world, players hate those who rely on cheats, hacks, or exploits in order to win, because frankly they are playing cheaply (ironic use of the word). The 4x4 is currently the best example of an exploit in this game. We should not be rallying to further the exploit.

The issues here is that they aren't cheating they are playing within the rules FFG has established. This isn't just about the 4x4 list. All the content of twin shadows will have the same issue. The Tusken Raiders who's low point cost has them designed to be a spammable unit in skirmish, but there is only one grey card in the box! So to spam the unit as intended by the game design you have to buy twin shadows up to 4 times! This is nuts and horrible design / marketing / whatever you want to call it.

The Baltimore Ravens complained about perfectly legal tactics employed by the Patriots in a playoff game (memory fails, but it had to do with changing-up eligible receivers too quickly/regularly for the defense to keep up with the new formations). It was legal, but still kinda cheap, and thus people were upset about it. I would love for the boxes to have more content in them as well. All I'm saying is that this issues STARTED with them skimping on the minis. If they didn't want to have Han in the box, then he shouldn't have been in the box. Sell expansions that actually EXPAND the game, not replace less optimal parts of what you already released. It's no different than releasing video games with 'day-one' DLC that SHOULD have been part of the game in the first place! But in the end, if people BUY the product, there is no incentive to change the marketing. So start by hating the people who SUPPORT the current problematic marketing by feeding into it.

(I'm really more bitter about the lack of support in MY complaint than in the card complaint itself, but seriously... it's a card!)

@tomkat364

(I'm really more bitter about the lack of support in MY complaint than in the card complaint itself, but seriously... it's a card!)

Could you summarize that again? We've all gone around, rather hyperbolically I'd say, through different facets of this, so I've sort of lost track of all the angles by now.

I think after 4 pages, the consensus is that it would be equitable for all involved if they just released packs of models (with 1 of each deployment card) for the non-unique units found in the Core, and by extension the expansion boxes as well.

So rather than having to buy up several Twin Shadows to fill the ranks of Tuskens/Heavy Stormtroopers, or worse-still, 4 Cores, you could focus on packs for the models you want expanded, as well as get new Command cards and potential Campaign content put in there.

I'd prefer it if the models in the expansion packs were the uniques and just had chits for all of the generics. Have all of the A+V packs be the generic units and include the red and gray deployment cards. No one is going to buy multiple Han Solos, Boba Fetts, or Chewies (ok, people who really like to paint or do model conversions might) for Skirmish or Campaign. People would buy multiple Trandoshan Hunter, Royal Guard, and Tuskan Raiders though.

People who want a cheap and complete Campaign would be happier because the box price could stay low, they'd have cardboard mooks with sculpted villains, and be able to buy plastic mooks if they want to. Skirmish players would be happy because everything they buy in a boxed expansion comes with the limit that can be deployed in a squad and they can buy as many A+V expansion packs as they need for the number of generics that they want to run.

@tomkat364

(I'm really more bitter about the lack of support in MY complaint than in the card complaint itself, but seriously... it's a card!)

Could you summarize that again? We've all gone around, rather hyperbolically I'd say, through different facets of this, so I've sort of lost track of all the angles by now.

I think after 4 pages, the consensus is that it would be equitable for all involved if they just released packs of models (with 1 of each deployment card) for the non-unique units found in the Core, and by extension the expansion boxes as well.

So rather than having to buy up several Twin Shadows to fill the ranks of Tuskens/Heavy Stormtroopers, or worse-still, 4 Cores, you could focus on packs for the models you want expanded, as well as get new Command cards and potential Campaign content put in there.

My gripe is the existence of cardboard chits for major characters. I'm fine with the ally/villain pack concept to fill out skirmish, but I think it should be completely separate from the campaign. There is no reason to have Han or Boba in the campaign at all, if they aren't willing to provide those figures in the boxes. They are cashing in on the name/character multiple times, which I think is a much bigger 'sly' marketing choice than the extra cards. EVERYONE who buys this game wants Han and Boba, FEW people want extra deployment cards. The fact that they made the chits not tournament legal only accentuates the cheapness of this decision. So regardless of how many games they have done this with in the past, I think that should be a bigger 'issue' than pleasing the few people who are really upset about their other tactics. But everytime I have tried to discuss that issue, I'm told to just pony up the cash and thank Fantasy Flight for the amazing game they have created.

Edit: +1 to WWHSD's post above

I'm of the opinion that this is all a conscious decision on the part of FFG. If it isn't then they did zero play testing of Skirmish before deciding on the contents of the core set. The first time I tried skirmish with a friend I saw the officers and the guards and figured that building a list with as many of those units as I could fit would probably be a good idea. I wasn't wrong.

My gripe is the existence of cardboard chits for major characters. I'm fine with the ally/villain pack concept to fill out skirmish, but I think it should be completely separate from the campaign. There is no reason to have Han or Boba in the campaign at all, if they aren't willing to provide those figures in the boxes.

Gotcha. But this sort of brings us back to the problem of cost and packing more plastic in the box. If they don't have campaign materials for all of our much-loved Star Wars characters, the game will never sell the same as it would if you had to buy them entirely separately as an add-on.

I liken this particular product (vs the rest of the Doom family) to trying to order pizza for a group of people; you won't please everyone on toppings, and you'll just wind up ordering pepperoni, which is terrible.

If it ran as an entirely campaign-driven game like the titles that came before, it'd just be the same tired questions the Descent boards have about "needing" the Lieutenant Packs or not. If they went full-on Skirmish-only, then they would still have to come up with a solution for a playing surface, and there would still need to be some kind of starter box, which in itself would still generate some kind of complaining from the community.

I guess they figured their market wouldn't be able to support both products as separate entities, so they just combined it all, blah blah, see my Brundlefly post a few pages back.

To be honest, I was just happy to get a Descent 2.5 reworked with Star Wars stuff. I love this series, and the continued attention its mechanics have gotten over the years to tighten it up and streamline it. This Skirmish thing really muddies the waters and I hope this becomes a big teachable moment for FFG to rethink these product lines while they're doing testing.

I would still submit that while it's ridiculous to pony up the dough for a 4x4 list, that should be the catalyst for people to get creative and champion a different build that isn't Rebel Blast. Anyone that's heard me talk on it knows where I stand with that so I won't go into it again in detail. Twin Shadows and the following wave will give Skirmish a shot in the arm it needs to be less about the Core Set builds and "maybe" we'll luck out and get the packs we should have had announced.

But let's get real; there's no way they're not going to scoop an extra $10 here and there by not making all these famous Star Wars characters available separately, from a business point of view, which, let's remember, they are completely entitled to do.

Am I saying we should be thanking FFG for putting Vader and Luke in the Core Set? Yes? No? I don't know. All I know is that they didn't have to, by any means, as a Vader model would have sold like hotcakes as a separate SKU.

I'd prefer it if the models in the expansion packs were the uniques and just had chits for all of the generics. Have all of the A+V packs be the generic units and include the red and gray deployment cards. No one is going to buy multiple Han Solos, Boba Fetts, or Chewies (ok, people who really like to paint or do model conversions might) for Skirmish or Campaign. People would buy multiple Trandoshan Hunter, Royal Guard, and Tuskan Raiders though.

People who want a cheap and complete Campaign would be happier because the box price could stay low, they'd have cardboard mooks with sculpted villains, and be able to buy plastic mooks if they want to. Skirmish players would be happy because everything they buy in a boxed expansion comes with the limit that can be deployed in a squad and they can buy as many A+V expansion packs as they need for the number of generics that they want to run.

But the mooks are far more common in the campaign than the Uniques, as an Imp player in the campaign I can safely say my game would be far more depressing with your model than the current one. Models in the Box should be the most commonly used, and while it's a little underwhelming to have a cardboard chit, major characters I'm much more likely to have sufficient proxies of relevant scales as a random fan than stormtroopers or the like (and the core AT-ST is a more than acceptable proxy for GW).

While I'd love everything in the core and the proper expansions thats a lot of plastic and from a campaign point of view mooks make more sense than specials (apart from PCs) and focusing on skirmish has the issues that by its nature its more varied and so harder to satisfy a large portion with the included stuff without having everything, and throws campaign balance out (component restrictions, and doing it all on paper would be a mess) in what lets remember is a campaign game system modified with to also have a skirmish component.

There are a number of easier solutions, the 1st is releasing Skirmish upgrade card packs to alleviate the deployment card issue, 2nd is to make all non unique models available in A/V packs, 3rd is to use the skirmish/campaign icons to get round component limitation issues. Personally I'd use all 3, using the 1st to correct existing issues (with future packs having them in already), 2nd for both existing and future, and the 3rd to maintain campaign balance though I'd suggest that you'd only really need to mark skirmish extras for this.

Extra model packs are always going to be an easier sell to the competitive skirmish scene than the campaign scene.

The big problem with having all the cards in the core set is that it's a waste of space for everyone except the people who want to play competitive skirmish and can't borrow the spare cards (On this forum maybe not, but I'm sure you're in the minority in terms of the game's players). If every core set came with 25 extra deployment cards it would give everyone else a "what are all these cards for?" moment when they opened the box, and a giant mess afterwards. The lack of figure packs for troops in the boxes was a mistake but they've at least shown intentions of slowly fixing it (and honestly I think prioritising getting new troops out makes sense because the way the meta is now is not the way they want it to be).

The big problem with having all the cards in the core set is that it's a waste of space for everyone except the people who want to play competitive skirmish and can't borrow the spare cards (On this forum maybe not, but I'm sure you're in the minority in terms of the game's players). If every core set came with 25 extra deployment cards it would give everyone else a "what are all these cards for?" moment when they opened the box, and a giant mess afterwards. The lack of figure packs for troops in the boxes was a mistake but they've at least shown intentions of slowly fixing it (and honestly I think prioritising getting new troops out makes sense because the way the meta is now is not the way they want it to be).

Since all of the extra deployment cards would be for generic units that already have models in the box I don't think any campaign player would be at loss for what to do with them.

It's hard to say what the breakdown of players is. If you only count people that purchased at least one core set that will probably drop the numbers for campaign quite a bit. I'd guess I probably know about 10 people that have Imperial Assault. All of the play Skirmish competitively and most of them own more that one core set. Most of them also play campaign as well.

The big problem with having all the cards in the core set is that it's a waste of space for everyone except the people who want to play competitive skirmish and can't borrow the spare cards (On this forum maybe not, but I'm sure you're in the minority in terms of the game's players). If every core set came with 25 extra deployment cards it would give everyone else a "what are all these cards for?" moment when they opened the box, and a giant mess afterwards. The lack of figure packs for troops in the boxes was a mistake but they've at least shown intentions of slowly fixing it (and honestly I think prioritising getting new troops out makes sense because the way the meta is now is not the way they want it to be).

Excuse me, but a "big problem?" I count exactly 7 extra regular deployment cards. Estimated waste of space: 5 millimeters.

To be fair you might have something there in the confusion department because the campaign imperial player who is not paying attention might include all the cards in his open group and realize too late he doesn't have enough figures to play them all. That's probably the ultimate reason why these cores and deluxe boxes don't include them. But that's why those extra cards would've had a "skirmish only" symbols on them and I personally think not including them is a bigger problem than any slight confusion including them would've caused.

But that is hindsight, as is any other wisdom about how the model should've been done. The important question is: What will FFG do now to fix this?

My suggestion: Start announcing A&V packs for the core non-uniques AND include 1 extra regular card in them so we can use the figures we already own.

I'm not talking about people not knowing what to use them for. I'm talking about the negative feeling of getting a wad of cards you can't use. (I'm not saying it compares to how annoying it'd be to not have the additional components and need but I assure you it would be a thing).

When I said players I did actually mean owners. With many games people often get an impression that competitive players are a larger amount of the scene than they are due to how they group up more whereas casual players tend to stay isolated from the discussion.

I count exactly 7 extra regular deployment cards.

Okay yeah, 25 was silly thinking about making enough cards to use them all. Still 14 (about 1/3 more deployment cards) would serve the practical purpose better (like it or not, they're not going to design the game around people buying 2 core sets). I'm still going to maintain that trying to diversify the meta with more new troops is better for the game than spamming out core set troops.

I'm not talking about people not knowing what to use them for. I'm talking about the negative feeling of getting a wad of cards you can't use.

Like... the Command Cards?

I'd prefer it if the models in the expansion packs were the uniques and just had chits for all of the generics. Have all of the A+V packs be the generic units and include the red and gray deployment cards. No one is going to buy multiple Han Solos, Boba Fetts, or Chewies (ok, people who really like to paint or do model conversions might) for Skirmish or Campaign. People would buy multiple Trandoshan Hunter, Royal Guard, and Tuskan Raiders though.

People who want a cheap and complete Campaign would be happier because the box price could stay low, they'd have cardboard mooks with sculpted villains, and be able to buy plastic mooks if they want to. Skirmish players would be happy because everything they buy in a boxed expansion comes with the limit that can be deployed in a squad and they can buy as many A+V expansion packs as they need for the number of generics that they want to run.

This would have been the perfect solution. But it probably wouldn't have sold as well.

I'm sure FFG used the current model, which is a compromise of figures spread throughout boxes and packs, because they know their audience and they know how to sell their product.

With the above model, Campaign players would be less drawn to the product: "So we're just playing with little cardboard tokens? No figures - that sucks"

Skirmish players would complain that the game's just a big expansion fest.

------------------

EDIT: To clarify, my point doesn't contradict the fact that FFG could have made that compromise a bit 'kinder' or 'softer' by including the necessary deployment cards. It does smack of a complete cash-grab that I won't be able to play more than 1 group of regular Heavy Stormtroopers/Tusken Raiders without shelling out £25 for the Twin Shadows box. And that ONLY lets me run 2 of them, despite having the figures for 4 groups.

If the 'correct' number of cards was included, I wouldn't have a problem at all with buying a second Twin Shadows box. I'd get the two extra groups (which would be around £10 each anyway if they were in packs), and be able to run 0-4 regulars of each.

It's just a really strange decision by FFG, because they're probably actually missing out on $$$ if anything. There's probably 3 types of skirmish players:

1) Mr. Briefcase who can and will buy Twin Shadows x4, just for the cards

2) Mr. Rational Competitive who wants to be able to run up to 4 of everything and has no problem with say, buying 4 packs of Saboteurs to do so, but doesn't want to spend £100 on Twin Shadows boxes, when £75 of that will just be for a few cards

3) Mr Casual who probably buys 0-1 of everything and leaves it at that.

When it comes to organised play/sales, Mr 1 and Mr 2 are both important, Mr 3 is a happy bonus.

But if they want to support Skirmish and see it become as big or at least begin to become comparable to X-Wing, then they need to keep it accessible. THE best thing about the competitive X-wing scene is that anyone can field anything for a reasonable price.

Now I'm Mr 2 - Rational Competitive and I'd buy a 2nd Twin Shadows box if that was all I needed, but what's the point in buy a 2nd box if all it lets me do is run a 2nd group? So they've lost that £25 that they otherwise would have had.

Would it not be better for FFG's sales/organised play to appeal to BOTH Mr 1 and Mr 2?

It also damages the meta and list diversity too - which is clearly high on FFGs agenda with the recent pass rule and that fact that they said "We also understand that there is player concern about the power level of some individual figures, and to that end, several figures are still being closely monitored for balance"

If the 'correct' number of cards was included, I wouldn't have a problem at all with buying a second Twin Shadows box. I'd get the two extra groups (which would be around £10 each anyway if they were in packs), and be able to run 0-4 regulars of each.

I'd venture to guess that most Skirmish players would agree with that.

If the 'correct' number of cards was included, I wouldn't have a problem at all with buying a second Twin Shadows box. I'd get the two extra groups (which would be around £10 each anyway if they were in packs), and be able to run 0-4 regulars of each.

I'd venture to guess that most Skirmish players would agree with that.

Exactly. So the question is, what's best for sales? and what's best for the game? And is there even a distinction to be made between the two? The current distribution model leads us to conclude that FFG do believe there to be a distinction - i.e that the current distribution is good or better for sales. We don't have access to their numbers/knowledge.

But it just seems odd to me. Get majority of sales from people buying most of it and from those players that'll buy x4 Twin Shadows? Or get sales from all 3 types of player that I described.

We can presume that FFG believe that the latter approach will result in less sales, but even if that's the case, it may prove to be shortsighted, if the current approach prevents competitive skirmish from taking off.

I'm sure FFG used the current model, which is a compromise of figures spread throughout boxes and packs, because they know their audience and they know how to sell their product.

If the lesser number of models had a significant effect on the price it may have increased sales of the core set. The $100 price is kind of hard to swallow for someone that is undecided about buying into the game. If having less plastic in the box drops it to the $70 range then it seems like you've just widened the audience for the game.

I'm not talking about people not knowing what to use them for. I'm talking about the negative feeling of getting a wad of cards you can't use.

Like... the Command Cards?

The big wad of useless stuff like:

6 Hero Sheets

10 Story Mission Cards

14 Side Mission Cards

18 Agenda Cards

54 Hero Class Cards

27 Imperial Class Cards

36 Item Cards

12 Supply Cards

18 Reward Cards

1 Entrance Token

35 Strain Tokens

12 Ally and Villain Tokens

4 Activation Tokens (these might have been useful if they had included enough to cover the number of deployment cards in most Skirmish squads, it's a lot easier to flip tokens than it is to tap cards when you've got limited space)

Yeah, I can see how 7 more deployment cards for Campaign only players to deal with would be irksome.

I'm not talking about people not knowing what to use them for. I'm talking about the negative feeling of getting a wad of cards you can't use.

Like... the Command Cards?

The big wad of useless stuff like:

6 Hero Sheets

10 Story Mission Cards

14 Side Mission Cards

18 Agenda Cards

54 Hero Class Cards

27 Imperial Class Cards

36 Item Cards

12 Supply Cards

18 Reward Cards

1 Entrance Token

35 Strain Tokens

12 Ally and Villain Tokens

4 Activation Tokens (these might have been useful if they had included enough to cover the number of deployment cards in most Skirmish squads, it's a lot easier to flip tokens than it is to tap cards when you've got limited space)

Yeah, I can see how 7 more deployment cards for Campaign only players to deal with would be irksome.

I think this just illustrates even more how much of an afterthought skirmish was.

Does it really matter, if skirmish was an afterthought or whatever?

It is a part of the game, there already is a strong competitive scene (and the game is not even 1 year old), and many people buy Imperial Assault only for the skirmish mode...

Does it really matter, if skirmish was an afterthought or whatever?

It is a part of the game, there already is a strong competitive scene (and the game is not even 1 year old), and many people buy Imperial Assault only for the skirmish mode...

It does matter, because it goes to the mind-set FFG were/are in when designing the game and expansions.

Expecting them to balance it more when you have no clue what their true aim is may be futile...

I for one hope they make expansions that provide Skirmish players with suitable options, even if I don't play the mode myself...

But so far, the content seems to indicate that Campaign is the priority, wouldn't you agree?

I agree.

With the FAQ and the coming releases, balancing will be less of an issue.

I for one hope they make expansions that provide Skirmish players with all suitable cards for the included figures ...

I think, ideally, a Wave pack for a non-unique unit should contain the following;

1 elite deployment card

2 regular deployment cards

enough figures to field 2 deployment cards worth of units.

That way, if you want enough to field in a skirmish you can get two.

If you want enough to field in a campaign, you can get one.