Some don't think giving threat to the Imperials by adding an ally isn't a big deal and that the game as it is, is balanced.

It seems that others think otherwise.

So, this thread is for those that think a house-ruled tweak is needed. As far as the debate as to whether it is needed or not, please do that in a different thread.

Has anyone tried anything to any success? I was considering doing something as simple as 1/2 threat or double-health for the ally. Has anyone tried either one, or maybe something else?

Some don't think giving threat to the Imperials by adding an ally isn't a big deal and that the game as it is, is balanced.

It seems that others think otherwise.

So, this thread is for those that think a house-ruled tweak is needed. As far as the debate as to whether it is needed or not, please do that in a different thread.

Has anyone tried anything to any success? I was considering doing something as simple as 1/2 threat or double-health for the ally. Has anyone tried either one, or maybe something else?

I plan on changing allied operations to half costs rather than just reduce it by 2.

<Reasoning>

I've never actually gotten any of the unique allies so I haven't built an opinion on weather or not they're actually useful but I can see them being much worse than the troopers or saboteurs (who are fine). Halved costs is obviously much better for the more expensive allies. Given that allied operations needs another reward card to have any value I figure this is a good way to indirectly buff expensive allies.

That makes sense. Many times Imperials have goodies that make their troops better than their actual deployment cost. Example: a stormtrooper group cost six, but if deployed with assault armor... it still costs 6, even though it would stand to reason that it's value is about 8 or 9.

My idea is to have allies/villians always available. However completing their missions reduces their cost by 4. This makes it so theres still a reason to do Luxury Cruise.

In the 2 campaigns I've played through, Rebels only won a hero once, and never used them. I think a way to mitigate the "bonus" the Imperials get would be to change the amount of threat they get per the mission threat level. Hero Value - Mission Threat Level = Threat Imperial Receives (minimum of Current Mission Threat Level).

Rebels deploy Han Solo (12) for story mission 3 (threat level 4). Imperial receives 8 threat (12-4=8).

Rebels deploy Luke (10) for story mission 4 (threat level 6). Imperial receives 6 threat (10-6=4, but Imperial still get's the current mission threat level as the minimum for a Rebel deployment, so they get 6 threat).

C-3P0 and R2-D2 should be excluded from this since their values are so low to begin with.

I haven't tested this, but it seems like a logical way to determine how much threat the Imperial get's without getting subjective. It doesn't help you bring in standard Rebel Troopers in the later missions, but it could help tip the balance in earlier missions.

In the 2 campaigns I've played through, Rebels only won a hero once, and never used them. I think a way to mitigate the "bonus" the Imperials get would be to change the amount of threat they get per the mission threat level. Hero Value - Mission Threat Level = Threat Imperial Receives (minimum of Current Mission Threat Level).

Rebels deploy Han Solo (12) for story mission 3 (threat level 4). Imperial receives 8 threat (12-4=8).

Rebels deploy Luke (10) for story mission 4 (threat level 6). Imperial receives 6 threat (10-6=4, but Imperial still get's the current mission threat level as the minimum for a Rebel deployment, so they get 6 threat).

C-3P0 and R2-D2 should be excluded from this since their values are so low to begin with.

I haven't tested this, but it seems like a logical way to determine how much threat the Imperial get's without getting subjective. It doesn't help you bring in standard Rebel Troopers in the later missions, but it could help tip the balance in earlier missions.

That seems unfair to me. You're saying that they can deploy Han Solo on story mission 4 for the same cost as a regular stormtrooper group? You should look at the ally cards the same as the units the imperial player has to choose from. Obviously the imperial player isn't going to grab an AT-ST or Boba Fett as an open group on the first mission, just as the rebel players shouldn't grab Chewbacca on the first mission. You pick the higher cost allies in the later missions when the point value of threat is much less valuable.

It seems there are two solutions:

1) Make the ally cheaper. The downside to this is that they can appear in earlier missions that perhaps they shouldn't. Han or Chewie too early could lead to a wipeout.

2) Make the ally tougher. Doubling the health of the ally (or a similar formula) and giving the Imperial the normal threat is the best option, I think. The ally can survive the alpha strike, and the Imperial still gets good toys. Also, the later you get into a campaign the better the Imperials standard troops already are anyways. Beefing up the ally only balances it out in a way.

What about adding health to the Ally based on threat level?

If the threat is 4, the ally gets 4 health. 3 threat, ally gets 3 health, etc?

I'm not sure if I like the idea of just adding health to the ally figure, but if I was going to do it, that might be the way to balance it out.

I am planning a solo campaign and testing some house rules and I definitely want to tweak allies.

I'm not convinced increasing the ally health is the right answer, I took Han to a mission but I lost the mission due to the lost actions dealing with the extra minions as well as the extra minions assisting in the wounding of the heroes.

I like reducing the cost of them, but I haven't settled on the best way to do it yet. My feeling is that 1/2 is too much, I'm actually thinking reduce cost by 1/3. R2=2, C3PO=2, Sabs=4/5, Troopers=4/6, Luke= 7, Han=8, Chewie=10.

We will have to see.

Keep us updated. Thanks.

Depends on the ally. Luke is well worth it, while others aren't.

In the 2 campaigns I've played through, Rebels only won a hero once, and never used them. I think a way to mitigate the "bonus" the Imperials get would be to change the amount of threat they get per the mission threat level. Hero Value - Mission Threat Level = Threat Imperial Receives (minimum of Current Mission Threat Level).

Rebels deploy Han Solo (12) for story mission 3 (threat level 4). Imperial receives 8 threat (12-4=8).

Rebels deploy Luke (10) for story mission 4 (threat level 6). Imperial receives 6 threat (10-6=4, but Imperial still get's the current mission threat level as the minimum for a Rebel deployment, so they get 6 threat).

C-3P0 and R2-D2 should be excluded from this since their values are so low to begin with.

I haven't tested this, but it seems like a logical way to determine how much threat the Imperial get's without getting subjective. It doesn't help you bring in standard Rebel Troopers in the later missions, but it could help tip the balance in earlier missions.

I do something like this, rather than the full threat cost I grant the missions threat cost so you get a small bump but not something insane. This encourages my rebel players to bring the allies rather than winning them and leaving them at base.

In the 2 campaigns I've played through, Rebels only won a hero once, and never used them. I think a way to mitigate the "bonus" the Imperials get would be to change the amount of threat they get per the mission threat level. Hero Value - Mission Threat Level = Threat Imperial Receives (minimum of Current Mission Threat Level).

Rebels deploy Han Solo (12) for story mission 3 (threat level 4). Imperial receives 8 threat (12-4=8).

Rebels deploy Luke (10) for story mission 4 (threat level 6). Imperial receives 6 threat (10-6=4, but Imperial still get's the current mission threat level as the minimum for a Rebel deployment, so they get 6 threat).

C-3P0 and R2-D2 should be excluded from this since their values are so low to begin with.

I haven't tested this, but it seems like a logical way to determine how much threat the Imperial get's without getting subjective. It doesn't help you bring in standard Rebel Troopers in the later missions, but it could help tip the balance in earlier missions.

I do something like this, rather than the full threat cost I grant the missions threat cost so you get a small bump but not something insane. This encourages my rebel players to bring the allies rather than winning them and leaving them at base.

So then theres no reason to use any ally but Chewbacca? (the most expensive ally.)

I think the best solution so far is to reduce by 1/3.

I agree that it appears that there is little incentive to bring an ally.

My query however, is about everyone here trying to come up with solutions.

Are you, in campaign, an imperial or rebel player?

I'm an Imperial myself, so I'm loathe to start playing around with the mechanics of the game to give the rebels a benefit.

Just wondering which side of this discussion people are coming from.

I agree that it appears that there is little incentive to bring an ally.

My query however, is about everyone here trying to come up with solutions.

Are you, in campaign, an imperial or rebel player?

I'm an Imperial myself, so I'm loathe to start playing around with the mechanics of the game to give the rebels a benefit.

Just wondering which side of this discussion people are coming from.

I'm imperial player and, not to brag, but I usually win unless I intentionally hold back. I want the rebels to use allies to hopefully help them out.

I'm an Imperial who loves theme.

I agree that the allies feel a little underwhelming. I think Han is a little overpriced, but luke and chewie are a pretty good value and are worth the threat they give OR are at least only 1 pt too expensive

I am on the 2nd playthrough of the campaign with the new twin suns stuff. The first playthrough i played as imperials and also kind of just won almost every mission especially towards the end after i got both combat veterans and assault armor. One of the few missions the rebels won was to get luke skywalker. They used him in just 2 missions, the first he did awesome, his reroll ability was a big part of that mission for the rebels, but probably more importantly was that luke rolled at least 3 X results on his white dice and lived much longer than he should. The 2nd mission however that did not happen and he died by turn 2 and was basically a free 10 threat for me to clean up the board a few turns later.

This is why I think its so hard to determine the true value of allies. In general I think they are a little weak and could probably be a few pts cheaper though.

Ive only used han and chewie, and only seen luke played in those 2 missions. Han definitely seems like the weakest by far and should probably have only been 9 or 10 pts.

Chewbacca's ability is incredibly useful for avoiding dmg for your team, he also has the best defense having both a white and black defense die and generally does the most dmg with his normal atk combined with his slam ability, during the spice job mission he was absolutely incredible and he didnt even roll very well the whole mission.

The problem with the allies is generally with the more expensive ones Solo etc, The normal troopers are going to give the IP something equivalent where as he/she can use 10+ threat to deploy something more effective, and if/when the rebels manage to kill that unit the IP can bring it back.

We haven't seen much use of the villains yet but I expect that they will suffer some of the same issues, manly because they can't be redeployed and the normal squads are just more effective.

As we are starting a new campaign tomorrow I am going to suggest to the other rebel players that we have the low cost units in our side deck, troopers saboteurs twice and Luke, though I expect Luke will not see much use even if we get him as the rebel players were very reluctant to field him when I was IP.

But the next time I am IP I am going to try to deploy a Villain everything the rebels take allies, going to require me to win one first but I don't see that as much of a problem if I build my deck to have 4+ as rewards.

Why not just try the 1/3 reduction? It seems much simpler and more cohesive to the original intent of the developers.

I have played chewie in about half our current campaign, and I do not think the pricing is wrong. every game he has killed 15 points worth of imperials and a couple times double his deploy cost... im a rebel player and chewie is the only allie I have a lot of experience with but I don't think his cost needs adjustment.

my 2 pennies.