Yesterday I finally wrote the last 2 missing guides on the Inquisitor and Greedo. While doing so I also touched the articles on Sorin and Kayn since they are somewhat affected by what is included with the Inquisitor pack. Also I did another pass of spellchecking (focusing on "it's" and "its" errors). And I created a new subdomain that directly takes you to the list of the guides, so you can reach the list under:
Like always: If you have any comments or critique, I am open to improvements. 
Yesterday I finally wrote the last 2 missing guides on the Inquisitor and Greedo. While doing so I also touched the articles on Sorin and Kayn since they are somewhat affected by what is included with the Inquisitor pack. Also I did another pass of spellchecking (focusing on "it's" and "its" errors). And I created a new subdomain that directly takes you to the list of the guides, so you can reach the list under:
Like always: If you have any comments or critique, I am open to improvements.
Love these lists! Helped me get a handle on which packs corresponded to which expansion, and now I use your site to explain this to others.
Now, I'm also taking your painting advice into account, since I got tired of all my grey and tan figures.
Keep up the good work! 
I feel some of your grades are a little too critical, but since it is all subjective and I'm probably at this point going to get at least one of everything anyway, I don't mind so much.
I feel some of your grades are a little too critical
I'd love for you to elaborate on that. I am always out for improving the stuff I write!
Luckily for you the value of the packs have increased considerably (which is why the average rating has been going up). So future reviews should have better scores in both departments.
Also I do get back and revise older packs when cards are released that help them out, like with Kayn and Sorin. So some ratings might go up over time.
Perhaps it's my gentle soul or my boundless enthusiasm, but I remember looking at this a few months ago and blowing it off because the majority of the skirmish grades were 1.2.3/5 I had just started playing and found the few packs I had purchased were all useful in one way or another. Maybe a little more clarification on how you are grading them. I haven't played most of the ally packs in Campaign (the tokens work just as well and we don't do that many side missions)
How do you gauge the Wookiee Warriors as 2/5? What are they lacking (2/5 is a dismal, or failing grade) Or Leia as 4/5 in skirmish. What holds you back from giving it a 5/5? Bantha Rider and Allied Smuggler were some of the first purchases I made after learning how to play. I still love both of those and use them regularly. You gave them both 4/5. Lando got 3/5, but I would say as far as usefulness or quality of command cards or even in competitiveness in the skirmish game, Lando is worth more than the Bantha Rider or Allied Smuggler. Is it just overall Fun Factor or what?
I see that most of these were done or published in July of this year and I would probably not give Chewbacca or Han a fantastic grade as they are harder to use and less desireable from a newcomer's purchase point.
For another example, Agent Blaise got 3/5, you say you aren't that impressed with some of the command cards as they are not very usable or effective if A.Blaise is taken in your list, did that knock the points down? (Collect Intel was a leftover card from Rebel Sabs I think, there are some repeats and some cards that just are never used unfortunately) You say Zillo technique will not be used much (which I find ironic as I think 90% of the Imperial lists I've seen have it in their list or want it in the list) It looks like you dock some points for the the model being different from the artwork.
I think that Boardwars.eu is very useful site (Campaign part, I don't play Skirmish).
Usually the Agenda sets I take are the same that are 4/5 or 5/5 in jacenat's guides. It means that are correct grades. (to me)
The only things I would suggest are:
- to cover the agenda/reward sets from Core/Hoth/Bespin/Twin shadows too,so It would be easy to make comparison to expansion packs
- to make a value of the hero in the expansion pack, even if he is obtainable in Core/expansions (like Han Solo).
Thanks Jacenat for your work.
cover the agenda/reward sets from Core/Hoth/Bespin/Twin shadows too,so It would be easy to make comparison to expansion packs
Our patreon (patreon.com/bweu) has a strech goal of actually writing stuff about the box releases. It starts with just reviews of the Heroes and Imperial Class decks, but with enough support I would write about all contents of the boxes. However, how interests in our listeners and readers currenly lie, I can't justify spending that much time on it. I'd rather prepare our next tournament, the image database and do stuff for the podcast. You are certainly welcomed to contribute on patreon and convince me otherwise
- to make a value of the hero in the expansion pack, even if he is obtainable in Core/expansions (like Han Solo).
Unfortunately I don't fully understand what you mean with that. The reivews are heavily focused on the gameplay aspects of the packs and the model does not factor into the rating at all. If you are gonna buy the pack for using the model in the campaign, you wouldn't care for anything in the review anyway. At least that's my understanding.
How do you gauge the Wookiee Warriors as 2/5? What are they lacking (2/5 is a dismal, or failing grade)
That's actually easy. Wookies just don't have that much support currently. Most lists in the current meta focus on ranged attacks leaving them at a disadvantage with just 4 speed. Also they don't benefit from creature cards (which would increase their value considerably). Long story short, they are just to slow and too easy to negate without special tools.
Or Leia as 4/5 in skirmish. What holds you back from giving it a 5/5?
As in my previous reply, having no skirmish score at 5/5 is actually a problem and Leia is one of the packs that may deserve a higher score.
For another example, Agent Blaise got 3/5
You say Zillo technique will not be used much (which I find ironic as I think 90% of the Imperial lists I've seen have it in their list or want it in the list)
Blaise got used more than anticipated, though that may just be an artifact of how much doors are in the current tournament maps.
Zillo was a wrong call on my part.
It looks like you dock some points for the the model being different from the artwork.
Models do never factor into the ratings.
If nothing else, a little forward or blurb explaining the criteria of how the grading scored, what gains points, what detracts points.
A buyer's guide in my mind it to help guide someone interested in purchasing the product. It appears, after perusal that this is more focused on the Campaign side of things, which is fine, I think FFG to a certain extent has just started to realize that there is a skirmish community or target audience.
In my mind, from the Campaign or Skirmish side of things, when I am looking analytically (doesn't happen very often, as we all know most purchases are emotional, not analytical) at making a purchase, I would look at value of the product. How does it enhance the game-playing experience, is this a figure/card/whatever that I would use repeatedly (more value) is there a Fun Factor, or competitive advantage that this figure holds. Is it balanced with the other pieces, is it an improvement, etc.
Just looking at your subjective opinions, it looks like you don't like the game, or don't find many of the pieces worth buying. It looks like you're trying to not get people to buy the ally/villain packs from your scores.
I know these are all subjective, but it's a buyer's guide, which really boils down to Buy it or Don't Buy it for the reader.
I think I disagree with several of your opinions, which is fine, I think I would have a few more "Buy it" recommendations as well, if I were asked to compile a similar document.
All this being said, I've looked at your website more in the last 2 days since you posted this than I ever have before so maybe you've accomplished your goal already (any attention = good attention) I prefer your new reviews because they breakdown the cards and uses for each of them. I did notice Obiwan had a discrepancy between his scores as well.
Edited by buckero0I know you said you aren't trying to spend too much time on each article, as I could only imagine it would take awhile (especially to go back and touch up/redo all of the previous packs/figures) but here's how I'd do it. I would divide the skirmish and campaign versions of each card and come up with a 5 point list that gives 5 different categories.
Topic Rating (min .1 to max 1)
Cost
Traits
Abilities
Attack/Defense
Health/Speed
Total:
Then you write your overall review. That way it lays out what you give each figure.
~D
If nothing else, a little forward or blurb explaining the criteria of how the grading scored, what gains points, what detracts points.
I deliberately choose not to, because they ratings are just a rough guideline. The actual text about the pack is what counts. Ratings will always be subjective, which is why I think it would be wrong to further the illusion that they are not by breaking the rating down.
In my mind, from the Campaign or Skirmish side of things, when I am looking analytically (doesn't happen very often, as we all know most purchases are emotional, not analytical) at making a purchase, I would look at value of the product. How does it enhance the game-playing experience, is this a figure/card/whatever that I would use repeatedly (more value) is there a Fun Factor, or competitive advantage that this figure holds. Is it balanced with the other pieces, is it an improvement, etc.
Which is what these articles try to deliver on. Just that you can't express that in points.
This whole convesation is also the reason they points are sometimes funnily named at the end of an article and why they were initially not displayed on the overall list.
The scores should not matter. People should make up their own mind since the decision to buy specific packs is often very subjective.
I think I disagree with several of your opinions, which is fine, I think I would have a few more "Buy it" recommendations as well, if I were asked to compile a similar document.
And you are certainly very welcome to create a guide. Be sure to let me know so we can mention it on the podcast.
3 of the 4 new packs got their articles now, with Jabba right around the corner!
Luke: http://boardwars.eu/wave-8-ally-pack-luke-skywalker/
Rangers: http://boardwars.eu/wave-8-ally-pack-alliance-rangers/
Terro: http://boardwars.eu/wave-8-villain-pack-captain-terro/
Enjoy
I love ur buyers guide! I have been consulting it for what to buy for my gaming group when we start our campaign. I'm buying all things 4 and 5 for campaign. But recently the page doesn't show the number ratings anymore. e.g. 3/5 or 4/5. It just shows dashes and stars in the table. What's that about? or is it my computer since windows updated?
16 hours ago, fanIam said:But recently the page doesn't show the number ratings anymore. e.g. 3/5 or 4/5. It just shows dashes and stars in the table. What's that about? or is it my computer since windows updated?
This was a deliberate change done by me. I dislike the quarrel about the points. The stars just direct attention to packs I think are currently the most interesting. So new players should check them out first, regardless on if they previously had a high or low score.
It's a great website!! 
I miss the new entries and reviews though .. and it woud be great if you could also link which skirmish map comes with which add-on.
35 minutes ago, Findariel said:I miss the new entries and reviews though
Already completed 2 of them. But I still need to get to writing Maul and polishing the articles. Expect them soon, probably on the weekend or soon thereafter.