Listeners to our podcast might already expect this, but today I released my counter article to Jodocast's X-Happens.

In The X-Files, I ramble a bit about how the dodge is good for the campaign, but a problem in skirmish.

http://boardwars.eu/the-x-files/

Give both articles a read and maybe join in on the conversation on twitter: https://twitter.com/BoardwarsEU/status/793031464334008320

I think this is an interesting article, and thank you for putting time into writing it!

I agree that the dodge is excellent in campaign as it can create some very dramatic moments and some great comebacks. And it is also very thematic, with many of the heroes wearing little armor and relying on their cunning, quick reflexes, and cover to help them survive in combat - just like in the movies.

But I disagree that this is bad for skirmish. First of all, why wouldn't you want the same drama and comeback potential in skirmish also? Those things are what differentiate a game like this from a more thoughtful, methodical game like Chess or Go. It puts it in the realm of games like poker, Magic the Gathering, and countless other games that involve both strategy and risk management. You can't control the random effects (except through command cards, though even for those, what you draw is random), but you can play around them and take them into account in your strategy. And those who do that best will win more than those who don't.

The theme is the same as well. Combat is unpredictable and only partially controllable; the random dice results represent that. Any game involving combat where it was impossible to miss your opponent would be hard-pressed to stay engaging and interesting.

Finally, I disagree about the influence of the dodge result. In your article, you say:

"Decisions are made. Combos happen. With the dodge result, this all goes away because of how all-encompassing its effect is."

The dodge is not all-encompassing - it feels this way because it has the potential to block any amount of damage, but in practice it does far less than that. You can't evaluate an effect based on its potential; you have to look at what it actually does in the game. And in this game, the dodge result is often equivalent to 4-5 blocks - very powerful, for sure, but not "all-encompassing". Add to this the fact that, as you mention later in your article, there are ways to remove, avoid, or play around the dodge result, and it starts to look much less powerful. You might as well complain about being able to miss due to not rolling enough damage or accuracy - those results have the same effect, are also random, and also can be mitigated through smart play.

The dodge is good for the game. It makes it exciting. It makes comebacks more attainable in an inherently snowbally game. It makes you manage risk and respond to unlikely situations. It keeps you from knowing from the start how the game will end. It's thematic. It's counterable. It's available to all players. And all those things are true of chance - of which the dodge is only a small part. And chance is a good thing for Imperial Assault.

Yeah if your opponents like to roll lot of dodges in your local meta, just bring the GI or eISB infiltrators.

I think the white dice could be completely blank, save one dodge pip and there would still be complaints. I don't know what it is about that X that people just so worked up over. The white dice is inherently weaker, save that one pip. A white dice character is going to take more damage overall. I've watched many a battle report and I just don't see enough dodges to ever think it is a problem.

If defending characters had a ton of reroll ability, this might be a problem. As it typically is, though, an otherwise unremarkable defense die typically has no more than a 1 and 6 chance to block an entire attack. That's not all that high, especially (as many others have said) it typically doesn't offer a ton of other protection on the other 5 sides.

HK's eat white dice for dinner. And along with lots of command cards that just synergize with them it gets even crazier. Tough luck, element of surprise, heightened reflexes add in cards to add damage to their attacks with stuff like assassinate or tools for the job and even some medium to big white dice characters can die to one attack from an hk.

Leia is a great example of this. Just messing around with some jabba/rancor proxy lists the other day I took out Leia in one attack two games in a row. What white dice? Haha don't get me wrong sure it's frustrating to have someone xman off all your damage but the game has done a lot to help mitigate the xman and there are lots of tools to work around it.

I understand what the author says though. Even if it's not going to effect the outcome of the game much since it doesn't show up often, it still leaves a bad taste in the mouth of the guy who's attack was nullified. I guess the question is more about game design. Should a designer allow for a player to have a negative play experience or feel bad at all. I think it's fine personally and side with the JodoCast article. I don't like the inquisitor's ability though. It seems like weakening an already rather weak defense die is unnecessary punishment. Maybe something that instead turned a dodge into a one block or two block would be better. It's bad enough those with white die defense have to gamble 1/6 chance of no defense.

HK's eat white dice for dinner. And along with lots of command cards that just synergize with them it gets even crazier. Tough luck, element of surprise, heightened reflexes add in cards to add damage to their attacks with stuff like assassinate or tools for the job and even some medium to big white dice characters can die to one attack from an hk.

Leia is a great example of this. Just messing around with some jabba/rancor proxy lists the other day I took out Leia in one attack two games in a row. What white dice? Haha don't get me wrong sure it's frustrating to have someone xman off all your damage but the game has done a lot to help mitigate the xman and there are lots of tools to work around it.

I would say too much at this point, as you have noted.

I understand what the author says though. Even if it's not going to effect the outcome of the game much since it doesn't show up often, it still leaves a bad taste in the mouth of the guy who's attack was nullified. I guess the question is more about game design. Should a designer allow for a player to have a negative play experience or feel bad at all. I think it's fine personally and side with the JodoCast article. I don't like the inquisitor's ability though. It seems like weakening an already rather weak defense die is unnecessary punishment. Maybe something that instead turned a dodge into a one block or two block would be better. It's bad enough those with white die defense have to gamble 1/6 chance of no defense.

Yeah, I think that "negative experiences", particularly in a game where each side has different objectives, calling balance into question.

The BGG thread on Star Wars Rebellion is seeing a similar thing now, where players are complaining about a particular Imperial strategy that many feel is "dominant". The thing is, many players argue that the strategy has plenty of weaknesses, but the Rebel players simply failed to exploit them.

I think gaming can get a little personal sometimes. If some part of gameplay, particularly a "negative experience", results in one side's chances improving, then it's easy to shift the blame on the game. In reality, there are a lot of options (users here have already mentioned HKs and Command Cards) to mitigate the rolls.

IS this really a thing? My 6 year old has better sportsmanship. Or is this just the internet providing the world with another way to expose those without intestinal fortitude? Play the game or don't play the game. Whiners are the ones giving others a negative gaming experience. The game has dice. 16.7% of the time you'll get an X result. Learn to deal with it or play around it, but please leaving your whining to yourself.

But I disagree that this is bad for skirmish. First of all, why wouldn't you want the same drama and comeback potential in skirmish also?

I understand what the author says though. Even if it's not going to effect the outcome of the game much since it doesn't show up often, it still leaves a bad taste in the mouth of the guy who's attack was nullified. I guess the question is more about game design. Should a designer allow for a player to have a negative play experience or feel bad at all. I think it's fine personally and side with the JodoCast article. I don't like the inquisitor's ability though. It seems like weakening an already rather weak defense die is unnecessary punishment. Maybe something that instead turned a dodge into a one block or two block would be better. It's bad enough those with white die defense have to gamble 1/6 chance of no defense.

That's a ridiculous question. In any game where there are winners and loser there is going to be "negative" play experience. I've been a few Risk games I wanted to flip the table. My brother nearly did in family Monopoly night on New Years eve.

A game where you decisions mean nothing because you got screwed over by the dice is a waste of your time.

That isn't what's happening in IA, though.

Again, I don't doubt the drama or the lousiness of getting boned over by a dodge result. But so much of the hand wringing over it feels incredibly reductive. I can't count the number of missions or skirmishes that I've won solely because someone did or did not step on the exact space I needed them to stand on, and the odds of that are much smaller than a dodge result. I've won / lost missions because of what got found in loot crates. What command card I drew. When someone rolled the exact 4 die attack they needed against the exact defense roll they needed to OHKO a figure. When someone positioned a figure that ended up leaving them one space away from being able to get precious victory points. Or when my focused Inquisitor rolled the absolute worst possible result on all 4 of his dice.

ALL of which are MUCH LESS LIKELY than that dodge result. They're just not as obvious. I get how badly it feels. I really do. I lost at least one match in regionals this year against someone that rolled 5 dodges (though not in a row, thank you based god). But none of the arguments I've heard "against" compel me to think it's a broken mechanic.

FWIW almost none of this is directed at you specifically, I just walked in from work and kept mashing keys.

But I disagree that this is bad for skirmish. First of all, why wouldn't you want the same drama and comeback potential in skirmish also?

What you call comeback potential has another name. Getting screwed over potential.

A game where you decisions mean nothing because you got screwed over by the dice is a waste of your time.

It's all part of playing a dice based game, don't like it? go play chess.

I really love all of the tactical aspects of this game. This is why I play it (and Star Wars is awesome).

I don't love the variance. It's extremely frustrating to not be able to depend on anything in this game.

You just have to make the best, most reasonable play you can at the given time, and if the dice disagree, well, too bad.

If I'm playing someone and we both have a group of cross-training elite stormtroopers, I can shoot and do 0 damage, and he can shoot and kill 1 or 2 guys.

My opponent didn't do anything better than me. In fact, I might have outplayed him tactically which let me get those 3 shots in first.

However, he rolled better so I lose if this was a key moment of the game.

This complaint isn't against the dodge specifically, but the dodge result is the epitome of frustrating variance in this game.

Over multiple games, it kind of all evens out. However, when you get to the single elimination part of a tournament, you only get one shot.

But I disagree that this is bad for skirmish. First of all, why wouldn't you want the same drama and comeback potential in skirmish also?

What you call comeback potential has another name. Getting screwed over potential.

A game where you decisions mean nothing because you got screwed over by the dice is a waste of your time.

You should have been around the table during the Venezuelan Thermopylae when I dumped 60 units into Central America and had twenty of them get blown away by 3 units in Venezuela because of bad dice rolls. I've had plenty of useless offense rolls that have produced no damage. So it isn't just "the dodge" that can cause consternation. Dice represent the fog of war. Do you think everything goes as planned when the bullets starts flying in warfare? There is no dice game in which bad dice rolls don't cause anger. That is why we do it. If it the outcome is already known, what's the point of the contest? If everyone is min-maxing and using the exact "right" build, then what is the fun?

I really love all of the tactical aspects of this game. This is why I play it (and Star Wars is awesome).

I don't love the variance. It's extremely frustrating to not be able to depend on anything in this game.

You just have to make the best, most reasonable play you can at the given time, and if the dice disagree, well, too bad.

If I'm playing someone and we both have a group of cross-training elite stormtroopers, I can shoot and do 0 damage, and he can shoot and kill 1 or 2 guys.

My opponent didn't do anything better than me. In fact, I might have outplayed him tactically which let me get those 3 shots in first.

However, he rolled better so I lose if this was a key moment of the game.

This complaint isn't against the dodge specifically, but the dodge result is the epitome of frustrating variance in this game.

Over multiple games, it kind of all evens out. However, when you get to the single elimination part of a tournament, you only get one shot.

Maybe it should be best of 3. Still, how many times have has the dodge appeared when you threw crap dice? Sometimes you curse the dodge when it comes just after the opponent had a great roll and you rolled a blank, then you roll a dodge when they roll nothing. I'm sure nobody is complaining about their opponents dodging a bad roll.

I think too you have to remember there is already a 1/6 chance of NOTHING happening when rolling the white. That perfectly balanced out the dodge in my mind.

But I disagree that this is bad for skirmish. First of all, why wouldn't you want the same drama and comeback potential in skirmish also?

What you call comeback potential has another name. Getting screwed over potential.

A game where you decisions mean nothing because you got screwed over by the dice is a waste of your time.

It's all part of playing a dice based game, don't like it? go play chess.

We're discussing one face of one die, not "dice based games." IA's dodge result doesn't break your Axis and Allies game.

There is a reason why they don't even playtest the game with it's own dice, but with cards, and the dodge result is a large part of that.

If you play enough, like I have, you'll have had a number of games ruined by it. Quite a few. Number of games ruined by the opponent rolling a disproportionate amount of triple blocks on the black or me rolling single block or evade? Uhhhh... none that I've been able to notice. So why has one die screwed over quite a few games and the other hasn't? Take a wild guess.

Why do you even play if this one dice result has "ruined so many of your games"?

Jeez, dramatic much?

I absolutely like games with dice. The variation of dice results just should not be too extreme. If the variation of dice results is too extreme, then luck becomes more important than strategy. But in my opinion luck should not be more importantant than strategy in a strategy game.

There are three extremely luck based dice rolls in imperial assault, that often decide a game: White dice, Grenadier and Trample.

I'e seen all three of these cause problems in competitive games, when a weaker player still wins just because of luck on one of these rolls.

There are three extremely luck based events in imperial assault, that often decide a game: White dice, Grenadier and Trample.

I'e seen all three of these cause problems in competitive games, when a weaker player still wins just because of luck on one of these rolls.

Positioning should alleviate trample and grenadier to a large extent though, yes? I've never felt especially lucky (good or bad) on either side of those, it's been more about me or my opponent not planning appropriately.

Like that time that I forgot that Echo Base Troopers were... troopers, had 7 Stormies clustered together because my opponent had nobody with blast and I thought I was in the clear to meatwall. . Then out comes Grenadier and my face was all :|

i'm anything but a mathematician, but these just come down statistics, not luck in my mind. You've got 33% a chance to roll 3 dmg on a red die, and 50% to roll 2dmg. So unless you're talking about the unlucky time you roll the 1dmg on the red die (16.7%) you should count on them doing damage. That's why there's only one grenade in a list and you have to take troopers. That's also why the Bantha rider has no defense and can only Trample once per round normally. As KalEl mentioned, I think there is plenty of strategy left in positioning and mitigation of playing certain cards or figures. Even if you roll the 1 dmg, on some figures that's better than nothing. I've rolled plenty of attacks on figures like Boba Fett which never produce any damage at all.

As to the White Die, there has to be some influx of luck and sway of the game, or you'll lose the fun factor. If it was all down to statistics or if the damage was guaranteed, why even play the game, you would know who was going to win before you even played. The white die adds some extremes (you'll see people roll a blank or one block which is even worse than the one evade usually and have their figure die instantly more times than you'll see the Xdodge.

I don't know how many times I've one-shot Leia or just killed her with 3 shots in a row. That's got to be more depressing than rolling an Xdodge. The opponent realizes they've positioned her wrong or doesn't have enough other activations left to get her out of harms way. I've seen the same with Luke. He's died to 1 group of troopers before being full health. The white die is supposed to be swingy, that's the risk of taking that figure and the point cost of that figure should be similarly appropriate.

I'e seen all three of these cause problems in competitive games, when a weaker player still wins just because of luck on one of these rolls.

Exactly! That's fantastic! A weaker player can still win against a stronger player, and a player who is far behind can come back into the game. The better player will still win most of the time, so there is reward for skilled play, but you have improved accessibility and sustained the tension and drama of the game by providing a way for the weaker/losing player to still sometimes win.

I'e seen all three of these cause problems in competitive games, when a weaker player still wins just because of luck on one of these rolls.

Exactly! That's fantastic! A weaker player can still win against a stronger player, and a player who is far behind can come back into the game. The better player will still win most of the time, so there is reward for skilled play, but you have improved accessibility and sustained the tension and drama of the game by providing a way for the weaker/losing player to still sometimes win.

Agreed. If you want to constantly crush your opponent, play chess.