I was just looking over Target of Opportunity, which is the Ally Side mission for the Rebel Saboteurs in the Base set, and it looks like it's now impossible with the recent Sab nerfs.

The mission has a door with 8 health and 5 defense, and Sabs get (+ 1 surge) when attacking it. The idea is that you have to free the Sabs, then use them to blow up the door.

With the old Sabs, with surge -> 2 Pierce, this isn't so bad. But with the new ones it's absurd - they have a 19% chance of doing 1 damage on their attack. It seems like this mission should be changed now that the Sabs don't have so much pierce? Maybe a Rebel group with lots of Focusing and/or higher level items could do it, but early in the campaign I'm pretty sure they're going to lose.

Any thoughts on this? I'm thinking I just give the Sabs their surge -> 2 Pierce ability back when attacking the door; otherwise I'll just use the mission from the Sab ally pack.

Any thoughts on this? I'm thinking I just give the Sabs their surge -> 2 Pierce ability back when attacking the door ; otherwise I'll just use the mission from the Sab ally pack.

That's what I did.

Honestly in the times I've played the mission I've never even freed the sabs, after a certain point in leveling up it's faster from the heroes just to break the door themselves. That said I think your proposed fix is a good one.

Just had this same problem last night! Like you suggest, I gave the sabs Pierce 2 against the door, but I didn't catch it fast enough and they ended up running out of time without opening the door. I think the mission needs to be in the next errata for sure.

Depending on the group using blasts and cleaves (if you allow that) on the door is the better choice, but I agree to give the sabs pierce 2 for a surge on this mission seems the better way to go.

Why shouldn't you allow using cleave on the door? It is an available target for an attack.

Use the original Sabs for the Campaign, errata Sabs for Skirmish.

The campaign was designed for units like Imperial Officers, Royal Guards, Saboteurs and similar errata'd units to be played in their original state. I would play them with the original printed text unless it is somehow incompatible with the mission.

Use the original Sabs for the Campaign, errata Sabs for Skirmish.

The campaign was designed for units like Imperial Officers, Royal Guards, Saboteurs and similar errata'd units to be played in their original state. I would play them with the original printed text unless it is somehow incompatible with the mission.

That doesn't make sense to me. In the FAQ, the Imperial Officers are specifically changed in Skirmish only. I think if FFG wanted the other units to also be changed for Skirmish mode only, they would have put similar restrictions on their updates, or made separate skirmish and campaign versions like they have for Leia and R2.

The door has 5 defense, and uninjured Sabs get +1(surge) on attack rolls in this specific mission. This mission was built around the idea of Sabs having Pierce 4 to break down the door, a fact that may have been forgotten when the errata was released.

The door has 5 defense, and uninjured Sabs get +1(surge) on attack rolls in this specific mission. This mission was built around the idea of Sabs having Pierce 4 to break down the door, a fact that may have been forgotten when the errata was released.

I completely agree - I think this is an oversight on FFG's part, and it requires using the Sabs in their original state against this door.

But in general I don't think it's fair for the Rebels to bring them to a mission as allies in their original state. Their power level vs. cost still matters for campaign because the Imperials only get their cost in threat when the Rebels bring them to a mission, and in their original state their power level was too high for how much they cost.

My group has found this mission crazy sided towards the Rebels, so I think the nerf will actually help to balance it better. Now, grant it, both times it was played was late in the campaign and the Rebels were heavily upgraded, but Imperial players haven't even come close to winning this one yet.

Once the rebels have access to reliable Pierce, this mission is of trivial difficultly at best. The sabs are in the mission entirely for the purpose of providing Pierce.

Maybe reduce the Defense value of the door to 2 + 1 Black Die if using the new Sabs? But then, adding the randomness creates some wonky situations.

Yeah, I was just worried about how hard this would be early on in the campaign.

2 block + one black die is pretty close to the same (according to http://mattyellen.github.io/imperial-assault-calculator/)

You could also do 1 black die + 1 block, and add a black die for incapacitated Sabs (you'd get rid of the +1 surge for healthy Sabs). This gives the sabs approximately the same damage profile, only a little worse than the original. If it made it significantly harder you could reduce the HP of the door by 1 or something.

Of course, you can just use the side mission from the Sab ally pack, if you have it. Which is what I'm going to do I think. Thanks for all the helpful feedback though!

Why shouldn't you allow using cleave on the door? It is an available target for an attack.

Because you place your figures and if you don't place them in a way that the heroes can attack them from a spot where they can cleave the door, you don't allow cleave.

The same with blast. If you position your figures away from the door, there is no chance for them blasting the door.

Ok. I was a bit confused about your choice of words there. It's quite hard to prevent the Rebels from cleaving the door with Diala having force throw though.

The imperials can very easily prevent cleave and blast to the door by simply not positioning themselves near the door (adjacent for Blast, far enough for cleave - take reach into account).

They can still be thrown.

I have asked Paul about this yesterday via email. I will get back once he replies.

The campaign was designed for units like Imperial Officers, Royal Guards, Saboteurs and similar errata'd units to be played in their original state. I would play them with the original printed text unless it is somehow incompatible with the mission.

absolutly not. There even is a different errata for Officers in Campaign play than in Skirmish which shows quite well that the errata is intended for both game modes.

Also the campaign is much better with the erratad units, because it will bring out all the different units instead of always going for the so strong pre-erratad Imperial Guards.

on topic: I found this mission to be extremely easy for the rebels pre-errata, I'm not sure if I would change it back. However if you desire to do so, giving the sabs "surge:pierce 2" when attacking the door seems reasonable.

The campaign was designed for units like Imperial Officers, Royal Guards, Saboteurs and similar errata'd units to be played in their original state. I would play them with the original printed text unless it is somehow incompatible with the mission.

absolutly not. There even is a different errata for Officers in Campaign play than in Skirmish which shows quite well that the errata is intended for both game modes.

The reason why the Saboteurs and the RGs were errataed for the campaign is because

* The changes were in the abilties, where you can't put enough text to distinguish for campaign and skirmish.

* Not enough space on the card to distinguish both modes for Protector and Vengeance.

* No rules in the base game for skirmish or campaign only deployment cards.

I really think they wouldn't have errataed them for the campaign if they could have done it easily.

The campaign was designed for units like Imperial Officers, Royal Guards, Saboteurs and similar errata'd units to be played in their original state. I would play them with the original printed text unless it is somehow incompatible with the mission.

absolutly not. There even is a different errata for Officers in Campaign play than in Skirmish which shows quite well that the errata is intended for both game modes.

The reason why the Saboteurs and the RGs were errataed for the campaign is because

* The changes were in the abilties, where you can't put enough text to distinguish for campaign and skirmish.

* Not enough space on the card to distinguish both modes for Protector and Vengeance.

* No rules in the base game for skirmish or campaign only deployment cards.

I really think they wouldn't have errataed them for the campaign if they could have done it easily.

There aren't rules in the base game for Skirmish- and Campaign-only deployment cards, but they do exist. Not sure why they didn't do that for officer - maybe because it was a small enough fix.

The campaign was designed for units like Imperial Officers, Royal Guards, Saboteurs and similar errata'd units to be played in their original state. I would play them with the original printed text unless it is somehow incompatible with the mission.

absolutly not. There even is a different errata for Officers in Campaign play than in Skirmish which shows quite well that the errata is intended for both game modes.

The reason why the Saboteurs and the RGs were errataed for the campaign is because

* The changes were in the abilties, where you can't put enough text to distinguish for campaign and skirmish.

* Not enough space on the card to distinguish both modes for Protector and Vengeance.

* No rules in the base game for skirmish or campaign only deployment cards.

I really think they wouldn't have errataed them for the campaign if they could have done it easily.

I really don't think that's the case. As a matter of fact the pre-erratad sabs and royal guard were crazy good even in campaign play, maybe not boarderline broken, but good enough to always be the best choice. If the changes really weren't intended for the campaign mode, they could've been listed in the skirmish section, use smaller textsize or something the like. Saying these changes to campaign play is due to some kind of technical limitation really boogles my mind.

Anyway the campaign play is much better balanced and fun with the errata because there are fewer easy choices and more variety in groups that hit the board, so imo they bettered the campaign mode as well.

Sorry to bring up the old thread but we managed to find this tonight mid-game as we had ran into the same issue since this was the second mission and first side mission they took on. After watching them put a total of 4 damage on the door over two rounds and coming onto round 6, I gave them pierce 2 for the final round and they managed to scrape out a win. Definitely should be addressed as they could only deal 1 damage and at that rarely.