I'm waiting and disappointed.

Late reply but I find the value versus dollar cost for LOTR to actually be quite good. It costs me $20 for a scenario pack, roughly with tax little less. I usually play the scenario once blind just to get blindsided and if its a toughie lose, then I can go back look at the cards and build my deck accordingly. But even so, the first play through is about the same length as a movie, 1.5 to 2 hours, for a similar price (cheaper if you add in popcorn/drink) but now I get the replayability. I ALSO get to use cards from that deck in my future play throughs of other scenarios. So the value even carries forward from deck to deck. Eventually cards fall out of favor in your deck, only to be brought back in at a later date or if you switch your heroes around.

The deck building aspect alone of LOTR is great, I spend hours just pouring over different combinations then testing them out. It's like building a list/cc deck in skirmish. So if we are just looking at the value of the paper cards then yes it will be expensive, but if you actually start bringing in the play value its a real steal for the entertainment and enjoyment you will get out of it. I don't own all of LOTR, but I own enough for a lot of variety (a few waves/story expansions). And it sits on my shelf for a few months then comes back with a vengeance till I get my fix, its great.

Also there is an internet mod you can play out there that is free to play and has everything in it... even play online with others LFG. Not officially supported by FFG though..

As for today:

Path to Carcosa was announced April 17th, got its first preview article July 12th.

That's three months.. we're almost at three now right? So that is a comparable..

The flip side of that though is that they've had like 10 other articles for various things since then :/

54 minutes ago, Stompburger said:

Hey guys, this is really getting off topic from our normal "How long are we going to wait for an article today before giving up?"

If you don't mind, please limit your discussion to the topics of waiting and disappointment.

For real, not nearly enough negativity on this thread today.

So, what are we more worried about- the Han Solo movie, or the current state of Imperial Assault's release schedule?

6 minutes ago, subtrendy2 said:

For real, not nearly enough negativity on this thread today.

So, what are we more worried about- the Han Solo movie, or the current state of Imperial Assault's release schedule?

Blade Runner 2049 looks awful.

9 minutes ago, subtrendy2 said:

For real, not nearly enough negativity on this thread today.

So, what are we more worried about- the Han Solo movie, or the current state of Imperial Assault's release schedule?

I will forever wonder what could have been with Phil Lord and Chris Miller's Star Wars movie. If anyone could make a Star Wars movie that was also a comedy and still have it work, it is them.

Fair enough. I would express unhappiness with the GoT article today, but actually, it's pretty smart timing given the season just premiered. I suppose you could play six-degrees of Kevin Bacon and go from the Dragon Queen in GoT to the Han Solo solo movie in one step...So it's only 2 degrees of separation from IA (Han Solo being in IA of course).

16 minutes ago, subtrendy2 said:

For real, not nearly enough negativity on this thread today.

So, what are we more worried about- the Han Solo movie, or the current state of Imperial Assault's release schedule?

I'm actually happy with the decision by Disney/Lucas Films to can Miller-Lord. My general thinking is that this really shows that they are willing to take a loss to ensure that the product is good. Switching directors mid-movie is not cheap and they didn't do it to maximize profits in the short-term. This was a bigger picture decision to invest in the greater SW universe. It also shows that they value their writers at least as much as their directors, which is a big change from hollywood 15 years ago. IMHO

On 7/14/2017 at 10:47 AM, subtrendy2 said:

Fun fact, they've had 7 articles articles since HotE's announcement

So, uh, make that 8.

1 minute ago, VadersMarchKazoo said:

I'm actually happy with the decision by Disney/Lucas Films to can Miller-Lord. My general thinking is that this really shows that they are willing to take a loss to ensure that the product is good. Switching directors mid-movie is not cheap and they didn't do it to maximize profits in the short-term. This was a bigger picture decision to invest in the greater SW universe. It also shows that they value their writers at least as much as their directors, which is a big change from hollywood 15 years ago. IMHO

All I can say is that I think the biggest disappointment of the prequels is that it didn't do much to grow the Star Wars universe. The original trilogy takes place in a big massive galaxy with an entire host of creatures and civilizations. In the prequels, it's downright boring how much the Imperial Senate resembles an actual legislative body, and that vast galaxy gets swapped out for a galaxy where Mustafar is a hop, skip, and a jump from Courscant (seriously, on that whole planet, how did Palpatine find Anakin so quickly, and just moments after Obi-Wan left?) TFA grows it a little, but it felt more like a very enjoyable bowel movement that we all knew we had to get out of the way to make room for the really good stuff.

I don't care who or what they value, so long as they show me something good, and I think finding a way to work with people that have vastly different perspectives or takes on Star Wars is important to that. I applaud their decision to do what they think is best. Unless of course, the movie comes out and is actually lousy. I'll also pine after what could have been until the movie comes out and it is completely awesome.

2nd article went up and it's GoT. Looks like we're out of luck again today.

1 hour ago, FrogTrigger said:

That's three months.. we're almost at three now right? So that is a comparable..

3 months!? And still nothing?

29 minutes ago, Stompburger said:

3 months!? And still nothing?

Really it has only been like 70 something days. We still have a few weeks left. Does that make you feel any better?

The wave is still marked to be at the printer. I am not expecting an article before that changes.

So, why not change this to:

Why still At the Printer?

6 minutes ago, a1bert said:

The wave is still marked to be at the printer. I am not expecting an article before that changes.

So, why not change this to:

Why still At the Printer?

Also a really good question.

5 minutes ago, a1bert said:

The wave is still marked to be at the printer. I am not expecting an article before that changes.

So, why not change this to:

Why still At the Printer?

Just wild speculation, but has FFG ever announced a delay of a product after it was sent to the printer?

(FFG has changed the production priorities before, and I would not be surprised if SW: Destiny has again taken the priority position. Also, it may be just a delay in updating the Upcoming page. It's not unheard of either.)

I dont think the place that makes the plastic models for IA do the dice for Destiny. Itll prob go "On the Boat" to "Shipping" in like 2 week period like last time. Then theyll scramble to release 5+ articles in 2-3 weeks. I think they have a cat running IA's support team.

~D

Imperial Assault is my go to game, my numeral uno but no updates sense early May.

Is Fantasy Flight Games giving up on Imperial Assault? Maybe they are giving up because of licensing issues? Do you think we will see an expansion after “Heart of the Empire”?

44 minutes ago, Portage said:

Imperial Assault is my go to game, my numeral uno but no updates sense early May.

Is Fantasy Flight Games giving up on Imperial Assault? Maybe they are giving up because of licensing issues? Do you think we will see an expansion after “Heart of the Empire”?

Yes IA will continue and yes we'll see more expansions....and an app. I have more money to give them and they know it:)

I'm still holding out hope beyond hope that the drop in IA production/coverage is the calm before the app storm. They love to just blindside us with this kind of stuff (descent app, mom 2nd w/ app).

At this pace hote is due in sept, which gives them three months to produce another mini wave, possibly, before Christmas. This is a small box expansion(ish) short from the previous two years (not exact science I know but roughly).

Replace that content with the app and watch th world erupt in celebration!!

I love you guys - you're all so optimistic on this! I'm trying to be, but fear IA is slipping further and further down the priority chain with FFG.

I don't think it will be dropped at all, there doesn't appear to be any logic in that - but I guess it just takes too much of their ultimately limited design resource to produce something like a boxed set, for a dedicated and decent sized audience, but an audience that is unlikely to grow much (it's not an entry point like x wing, or destiny).

I'd be very happy if we saw less boxed sets for a few years and more blister waves, to keep some momentum. At a very wild guess I'd say a blister wave works out easier and more profitable than the boxed set (happy to be shown I'm wrong on this!)

Something would be better than nothing.

15 hours ago, Union said:

Sorry, but GW isn't more expensive, you're kidding yourself. The main box for 40k costs less and has more figures. And while yes, GW does have some very expensive optional figures, most of these are large things that aren't even an option on IA. They also have much cheaper ones too, which IA doesn't have. If you want any ally packs in IA you're going to pay as much for 2 Jawas as you would for squad in GW. If you want 2 rancors you're either buying an entire extra box set or going to the secondary market, and if you're going to the secondary market, again GW will be cheaper.

GW charges premium prices as it seems you're aware. FF charges MORE. As I said they've chosen a smaller player base for a higher profit margin. To beat a dead horse with yet another example X-Wing is a FAR FAR more accessible game than 40k or WF and has the best license on the planet behind it, but it has a TINY player base in comparison, again, because you pay out the butt for a single figure.

I know this is off topic, but the difference here is that the main box for IA allows 2 people to play skirmish, but it also allows 5 people to play campaign. In a 5-person group, if you have one person willing to invest 200 $, you get a great game for 4-5 people. In WH, you would need every person to invest that much if they all wanted to play at the same time.

20 hours ago, Union said:

Sorry, but GW isn't more expensive, you're kidding yourself. The main box for 40k costs less and has more figures. And while yes, GW does have some very expensive optional figures, most of these are large things that aren't even an option on IA. They also have much cheaper ones too, which IA doesn't have. If you want any ally packs in IA you're going to pay as much for 2 Jawas as you would for squad in GW. If you want 2 rancors you're either buying an entire extra box set or going to the secondary market, and if you're going to the secondary market, again GW will be cheaper.

GW charges premium prices as it seems you're aware. FF charges MORE. As I said they've chosen a smaller player base for a higher profit margin. To beat a dead horse with yet another example X-Wing is a FAR FAR more accessible game than 40k or WF and has the best license on the planet behind it, but it has a TINY player base in comparison, again, because you pay out the butt for a single figure.

Have to disagree with most of this I'm afraid.

GW is easily at the top end of the scale here, in terms financial and physical commitment - you need large numbers of figures at high $ cost, you need a large playing area, you need stacks of terrain, and it would take considerable time to paint an army.

FFG is also at the higher end of the price range, but the overall financial and physical costs aren't in the same ball park as someone really committed to GW.

another factor is that for many years GW blatantly changed rules and systems to favour people who threw money at the hobby - my last real interest in their systems was with a Warhammer system that favoured infantry blocks ten wide and four deep...and even bigger in some cases....

Finally, x-wing is great fo our hobby, great mechanics, beautifully painted models at a very fair price - I really don't see the gripe here? If anything, the moan should be how you can have a prepainted x wing model and an unpainted jawa at almost the same price!