So I like IG-88, but I've been trying to justify putting him on the board... ever... over two squads of troopers and I can't. He is far less health, far far less damage, less activations, more susceptible to stun/blood/weaken. For having to spend a fairly priceless 3 influence to even get him in the first place him being WAY worse than 2 squads of troopers is ridiculous. He should never see play unless the Imperial player mocking the Rebels at how much they suck because he is effectively a massive handicap. The only POSSIBLE way to get your points out of this guy is if you ALSO have Sorin and he is beside him using him as a sock puppet.

He needs to be errated to significantly less points for campaign, or have some benefit like give an influence point if he survives or something because, wow, he's just stupid as he stands.

Dengar at 7 points is over pointed as you may as well take an elite officer for 5 instead, but 7 points isn't nearly as terrible as IG-88's ridiculous 12 with no stun. 7 or 8 points really seems to be the break point here, anything more that just goes off into stupid territory.

15 points for the Champion? LOL, yeah right, that is AT LEAST 3 rounds of saving up threat which means 2 rounds where units could have been tossing out damage or stuns and slowing down the Rebels, it is so completely impossible for this guy to be worth his points it's ridiculous. Maybe his points work okay in skirmish, but if you're playing campaign, don't bother buying him, he's a joke.

Similar bad things can be said for high point figures on the Rebel side with Chewbacca and Han Solo. Wow, putting one of these guys on the field gives the Imperial player so much extra threat it isn't funny. Again, 2 more storm trooper squads, which... will shoot either of these guys dead in one round leaving the Imperials with.. two free storm trooper squads, thank you very much! They either need to be way less points or again give some significant bonus if they stay alive like extra credits or something. It's impossible to pull their weight at the points they cost.

Again, cheaper units like Leia can occasionally be a tactical choice, and Rebel Troopers or Echo Base Troopers can often be a good choice, but the high price uniques? NEVER.

I think this post is a vent, but I will still bite. I think RGC works great in campaign and can tip the scales for a mission if you time it right. The only problem with RGC is that you probably need to use HVT or the other one that reduces 5 deployment cost. So you have to invest an Influence plus the 3 Influence to get him. I generally only get these guys if I am starting to snowball, then that gives the Rebels a chance to catch up until I bring him out to play and then it is pretty much a guaranteed win. I dropped him in the first room in The Source and they didn't even make it out of that room before they were injured.

I also think that if you're Rebels get an ally early on it is a good idea for you to go after a villain as you can bring them in for free when they bring their ally. You need to gauge when the Rebels will bring the ally, but generally table talk is enough to tip their hand.

As for Skirmish, RGC is one of the most popular villain builds right now with a combination of RGC, IO's ST's and PD's. You get the droids to self destruct at the end of the round, do damage to your enemy, and give the RGC a free attack. On top of that the IO's get his 6 speed moving him across the map and the ST's prove as great fodder to trigger Executioner and stack up damage if they are ignored.

I do agree with IG-88, I've actually been working on a few buyer guide reviews so I just went over him in great detail and I can't build a defense for using him in Campaign OR Skirmish. His health sucks for the cost. If he was 9 or maybe 10, it is more reasonable, but 12 for a 10 health villain that only rolls one black die is just not feasible. I get that he has a built in block, I get that he can recover damage, but honestly you have to shoot and then use your five speed to hide every turn or you will be dead by the next round.

I think this post is a vent, but I will still bite. I think RGC works great in campaign and can tip the scales for a mission if you time it right. The only problem with RGC is that you probably need to use HVT or the other one that reduces 5 deployment cost. So you have to invest an Influence plus the 3 Influence to get him. I generally only get these guys if I am starting to snowball, then that gives the Rebels a chance to catch up until I bring him out to play and then it is pretty much a guaranteed win. I dropped him in the first room in The Source and they didn't even make it out of that room before they were injured.

I also think that if you're Rebels get an ally early on it is a good idea for you to go after a villain as you can bring them in for free when they bring their ally. You need to gauge when the Rebels will bring the ally, but generally table talk is enough to tip their hand.

As for Skirmish, RGC is one of the most popular villain builds right now with a combination of RGC, IO's ST's and PD's. You get the droids to self destruct at the end of the round, do damage to your enemy, and give the RGC a free attack. On top of that the IO's get his 6 speed moving him across the map and the ST's prove as great fodder to trigger Executioner and stack up damage if they are ignored.

I do agree with IG-88, I've actually been working on a few buyer guide reviews so I just went over him in great detail and I can't build a defense for using him in Campaign OR Skirmish. His health sucks for the cost. If he was 9 or maybe 10, it is more reasonable, but 12 for a 10 health villain that only rolls one black die is just not feasible. I get that he has a built in block, I get that he can recover damage, but honestly you have to shoot and then use your five speed to hide every turn or you will be dead by the next round.

HVT gives you threat level threat and DP (2 influence) reduces any card cost by 5. In either case that threat is better spent elsewhere. RGC is not even close to being worth 15 points in campaign. For the same cost eTroopers and rTroopers will more than double his damage and have more health and be an extra activation and can be reinforced and has range. If you're after the bleed, 2 deployments of rTrandosians will outdamage him, outbleed him, out strain him and has more wounds, more activations, and can be reinforced. It's completely impossible for him to even come close to being worth 15 points.

Hrmmm I am not sure what you are trying to argue here? I said that RGC can be useful, that is something that can't be argued, and with the right cards you can sneak him into missions. You came back spitting venom. I think you need to step away from the game for a bit and take a break

Hrmmm I am not sure what you are trying to argue here? I said that RGC can be useful, that is something that can't be argued, and with the right cards you can sneak him into missions. You came back spitting venom. I think you need to step away from the game for a bit and take a break

He would be just as "useful" if he cost twice as many points. That doesn't change the fact that at 15 points he already is severely over pointed.

Nowhere did I "spit venom" but with that YOU have decided to make this person. I suggest that you step back from posting for a bit and be a bit more considerate both of what you are posting and how.

Union maybe you should be a bit more consideradte of what and how you post as you are the one sounding a bit aggressive in your post. Think about why FrogTrigger was the only one responding you this far.

And maybe think about the Uniques that way : Just don't look at them as possibilities for open groups and play them when they are a story trigger.

It is the campaign mode after all, try to have fun with it. If they don't contribute to your fun level, then don't use them. Uniques are meant to be something special. Where would be the fluff with the RGC or Boba being in every mission?

The uniques serve a purpose in the missions where they are deployed for free. If you don't like them, don't spend influence on them, you will eventually get them as a reserved group. The high points cost was about balancing them in skirmish, while still allowing them to be super powerful when they appear for free in campaign.

If you really feel so strongly about it, you'd accomplish way more by just making your own house rule than complaining here. Half of the people that play campaign are ignoring the last campaign errata that FFG handed down anyway, so official campaign errata isn't worth much.

Half of the people that play campaign are ignoring the last campaign errata that FFG handed down anyway, so official campaign errata isn't worth much.

With regard to the OP, I think you are underestimating the psychological value of the pieces. Everybody knows how to handle another squad of troopers. Tossing out an unexpected RGC or IG88 causes uncertainty, and that leads to mistakes.

I'm talking campaign, of course. Skirmish is a whole different kettle of fish.

In general, my stance is that both high-cost Villains and high-cost Allies need a buff in Campaign. They are overcosted for campaign situations, and that's that. Han/Luke/Chewbacca suffer the same fate on the rebel side.

I'm all for entertaining a conversation about house rules that work, but we should approach this constructively instead of destructively. Do you have a fix in mind?

Personally I've contemplated the idea that allies/villains get cheaper based on the number of them you have at your disposal. Something like "Allies cost N less, where N is the number of allies you have gained". However, this relatively benefits lower-cost heroes as much as higher-cost heroes, so doesn't quite do what we want.

I haven't personally been tempted enough to try the route of acquiring a high-cost villain - I imagine I would do so when I can stack threat-gaining agendas and/or I'm afraid of a higher-cost ally coming into play.

Half of the people that play campaign are ignoring the last campaign errata that FFG handed down anyway, so official campaign errata isn't worth much.

Is this true?

I gotta say, as the usual Imperial player, those Royal Guards needed nerfed big time. They were just auto-include every time, for practically every Imperial player I've seen. Their stun made Rebel victories ... difficult. With the new version, it's more fun and more tactical as for where they go, or if you even bring them, instead of right up in their faces like a dare all the time.

I would wholeheartedly recommend using the errata.

Half of the people that play campaign are ignoring the last campaign errata that FFG handed down anyway, so official campaign errata isn't worth much.

Is this true?

I gotta say, as the usual Imperial player, those Royal Guards needed nerfed big time. They were just auto-include every time, for practically every Imperial player I've seen. Their stun made Rebel victories ... difficult. With the new version, it's more fun and more tactical as for where they go, or if you even bring them, instead of right up in their faces like a dare all the time.

I would wholeheartedly recommend using the errata.

Yep, I agree. It's nice to see other groups get used now, and has added a lot of balance into the campaign, especially on the story mission side of things where the Imperials have seen a better win percentage.

It is the campaign mode after all, try to have fun with it. If they don't contribute to your fun level, then don't use them. Uniques are meant to be something special. Where would be the fluff with the RGC or Boba being in every mission?

It would seem you've missed the entire point of what I've said.

They don't contribute to ANYONE'S fun level since they are... overpointed...

Again...

If you slap down Han Solo, thinking "hey, he'll be fun" and the Imperials go, wow, thanks for all those points, slap down 2 squads of troopers then proceed to murder Han Solo... and still have those 2 squads of troopers left... thus allowing them to stomp all over the Rebel player... Please explain where ANYONE is going to have fun in that? They are massive fun ruining traps for players that don't know any better.

As to your second point, you CAN'T see Boba "every mission", that is not how the game works.

*IF* you put a crappy agenda set into your deck

and *IF* you draw the Agenda card

and *IF* you have the 3 influence for it and waste it on having him as an option rather than something useful

and *IF* you don't lose the mission where the Rebels have the possibility of getting double credits

THEN you have the option of putting Boba into your open groups, an overpointed card you often couldn't get into play anyway.

You are spending agenda points on nothing more than the OPTION of playing him. Because of that he should be slightly better than his threat cost because you've given up a whopping 3 agenda points on a gamble to have him rather than potentially 3 good agenda cards. Instead he is somewhat worse than this threat.

It seems you don't understand the value of agenda missions. If they play it you have already won as they loose a side mission slot. THAT is what you are paying 3 influence for.

Either you pay for getting something as they don't play it or you pay to deny them one of their missions and you still have the chance to win.

And why not have those options to balance the game if you notice the players are on different level?

But on the other hand if you would really wanted something productive out of this you could just have used one of the other topics to discuss about the cost of allies.

If you think the villains (and heroes) are overcosted and you'd be better off using multiple stormtroopers and other units, then use multiple stormtroopers and other units instead of the villains and don't spend influence on any villain agenda missions you might have.

Boom, your problem is solved.

FFG isn't going to errata all the hero and villain cost values just so that some of them are a bit more cost efficient. Baer is right in that the point of the villain agenda missions are meant to possibly take away one of the heroes' side missions. If they choose your villain agenda, they lose the chance to get an ally or reward, and you gain the chance to get a strong ally. If they choose not to do the villain agenda side mission, then you get a free villain that can help counteract any ally they might gain from whatever side mission they choose. If they lose the side mission, you gain a free villain and extra influence for winning while the Rebel players only get some credits and experience. If you never use the free villain you gained, so what?

My only complaint is that often times there are agenda sets with awesome stuff paired with missions I have no interest in. Sure, I *assume the sets are internally balanced, but its still disappointing to have a 4 influence mission card show up on my upgrade stage after Aftermath.

They are overcosted for campaign situations, and that's that.

I disagree about the Villains.

People seem to forget that there are multiple ways of gaining threat:

- There are agenda cards that give you threat

- There are agenda cards that reduce deployment costs

- There are mission triggers that give the Imperial player additional threat

- *Every* side mission requires the Imperial player to double the threat value during setup

All these options + the usual gain during the status phase = a pretty good chance to deploy a villain.

I wasn't saying it's infeasible to deploy a villain, I'm saying that they cost too much compared to alternatives. I'd rather choose Elite stormtroopers or Elite royal guards if I have excess threat instead of Boba / Vader.

I'm not saying I'm definitely right on this, this is just what I've seen so far. I'd love to be shown a situation where bringing a Villain was a better call. I just haven't seen it yet.

It seems you don't understand the value of agenda missions. If they play it you have already won as they loose a side mission slot. THAT is what you are paying 3 influence for.

Either you pay for getting something as they don't play it or you pay to deny them one of their missions and you still have the chance to win.

And why not have those options to balance the game if you notice the players are on different level?

But on the other hand if you would really wanted something productive out of this you could just have used one of the other topics to discuss about the cost of allies.

*facepalm*

Don't run it and let them have Boba, an overpointed trap they've wasted 3 agenda on when they could have gotten sustained fire and tracking beacon instead.

Or... run it and win for double credits.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I understand EXACTLY the negative value of agenda missions for overpointed cards. You clearly don't.

And you made quite clear that you do NOT understand the value of agenda missions

If they win it they get double credits but even if they do or do not win it they have one mission slot less to gain one of their powerful upgrades.

So please start reading what you are actually citing before answering. And if you don't like the missions then don't buy them.

There are enough agenda sets in the main time that a GOOD imperial player can match the agenda deck to the player level skill.

I really don't understand your whining here. It is totally up to you if you play them or not as there is enough choice by now.

And things like "*facepalm*" just makes me jappy that I do not have a guy like you in my playgroups and local skirmish meta. Those things only let you look like a whining little boy.

I'd rather choose Elite stormtroopers or Elite royal guards if I have excess threat instead of Boba / Vader.

As Sam mentioned in an earlier post, Villains are psychological pieces that make the Rebels panic.

Plus, during some of the later missions, even elite stormies or elite guards (especially with the errata!) don’t put up much of a fight against heroes with plenty of upgrades/tier 3 items.

I still think Villains are fine.

It seems you don't understand the value of agenda missions. If they play it you have already won as they loose a side mission slot. THAT is what you are paying 3 influence for.

Either you pay for getting something as they don't play it or you pay to deny them one of their missions and you still have the chance to win.

And why not have those options to balance the game if you notice the players are on different level?

But on the other hand if you would really wanted something productive out of this you could just have used one of the other topics to discuss about the cost of allies.

*facepalm*

Don't run it and let them have Boba, an overpointed trap they've wasted 3 agenda on when they could have gotten sustained fire and tracking beacon instead.

Or... run it and win for double credits.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I understand EXACTLY the negative value of agenda missions for overpointed cards. You clearly don't.

Eek. I'd really like to have a civil, constructive conversation about this, as opposed to the bickering or personal attacks.

As Sam mentioned in an earlier post, Villains are psychological pieces that make the Rebels panic.

I'm not sure this is a great balance argument. "It makes my playgroup panic and they don't know how to deal with a villain" is a fine reason why you might find a lot of use out of villains, but that seems more like a shortcoming in your rebel rivals' strategic presence than a true balance argument.

My playgroups are usually pretty unconcerned with villains. They just walk right past them, accepting a strong attack here or there, but overall remaining unphased.

Plus, during some of the later missions, even elite stormies or elite guards (especially with the errata!) don’t put up much of a fight against heroes with plenty of upgrades/tier 3 items.

Actually, this is a good point. Maybe villains really shine more in the last 2-3 missions of the campaign, where you have far more threat by default, and the rest of your units might as well be made of butter.

I found that elite troops are still more useful in that they synergize better with the class attachments the Empire has toward the end of the campaign, but that perhaps doesn't generalize with every class deck.

Familiarity breeds contempt, this is true in war. I dont use my villains a lot, that keeps the special, and different from the norm. When faced with an unfamiliar situation, the chance for mistakes increase. "Panic" is a strong word.

The second thing is, unless you come into a windfall, your not going to have an agenda mission till halfway through the game, and your not going to field one of the villains till 2/3 of the way through at the earliest. So yeah, your going to use them surgically, late in the game, where their presence would tip the scales. Fighting Vader to the death is very different if he has Fett or Jax at his shoulder backing him up.

I just played Dark Obsession (Vader Agenda) on the rebels who drew into High Moon and Homecoming (mission for Luke). Now 2 of them play games, the other 2 dont, but they cant decide which one to do. Theyre leaning more on the "Anti-Vader" position to try and deny me Vader. Do I care about Vader? Yes and no: i think hes a good card. If they get Luke, Han, or Chewie, they will most certainly bring him on every mission so thats giving me 10+ threat to begin with. By end of rd 2 Im already playing Vader. Sure hes 18, but he gets 4 attacks. He also has 2 black dice to roll. Thats better than elite troopers. Troopers only get 3 attacks in total and in the end, 1 black dice to roll. Sure its about double the deployment cost, but he should be living longer than those elite troopers. Most of the time they run from Vader anyways...

~D

How does your vader gets 4 attacks per round?

Probably using Imperial Officer and Sustained Fire.

(Non-heroes can't perform more than one action containing at least one attack during their activation. They can perform more attacks from other abilities. No figure can perform the same special action twice during their activation.)