Yeah, it's an interesting dichotomy. IA is interesting in that a victory is truly meaningful when both sides are actually striving for it, rather than one side trying to win while the other tries to make an interesting story.

On the other hand, I think to some degree the Imp player really does set the difficulty of the game. Some might even argue that the simple action of not choosing the Subversive Tactics class deck was "throwing the game". There are definitely some better choices than others, and any conscious sub-optimal choice could be used as a demonstration that the Imp is taking it easy on his rebels- but there are so many other factors at play that should be considered, such as theme- which, of course, puts the Imp in the seat of a storyteller, once again.

It's a weird circle of logic, is I guess what I'm trying to say.

All good points. In the end, it depends on your player base. To the original thread poster and Rikalonius, an Imperial Player who plays more like a DM with a bunch of newbies or rather non-hardcore players, is going to get a better overall experience out of the playgroup if sometimes you just "Let the Wookiee Win".... But for others, when the play group is made up of hardcore gamers and people who've been around the industry long enough, you can play campaign competitively and that's what makes this game so great. There are so many different levels to this game, it's really hard sometimes to just sit back and appreciate how well this game is. Now some things aren't always "even"...but overall, the game is very well balanced. It just depends on what level the group is at when it comes to competitive board games and what the group wants out of the experience. In the end, we all want fun, and Imperial Assault IS fun

~D

All good points. In the end, it depends on your player base. To the original thread poster and Rikalonius, an Imperial Player who plays more like a DM with a bunch of newbies or rather non-hardcore players, is going to get a better overall experience out of the playgroup if sometimes you just "Let the Wookiee Win".... But for others, when the play group is made up of hardcore gamers and people who've been around the industry long enough, you can play campaign competitively and that's what makes this game so great. There are so many different levels to this game, it's really hard sometimes to just sit back and appreciate how well this game is. Now some things aren't always "even"...but overall, the game is very well balanced. It just depends on what level the group is at when it comes to competitive board games and what the group wants out of the experience. In the end, we all want fun, and Imperial Assault IS fun

~D

Bingo! I like this post. You are correct. It CAN accommodate all levels of play. I've said this in another post. It is great that challenging content is there for those that desire it, but it is hard to get, as you said non-hardcore gamers, to be excited if they are just destroyed.

It can, and it should, accommodate all levels of play.

That said, it's also very easy for the game to be poorly handled and put players off it.

Rebels loosing three or four missions in a row because the Imperial is playing for keeps may put them off.

Imperial loosing three or four missions in a row because they "take it easy" to make in enjoyable for the rebels may find its too dull a game.

Heck even the Rebels may become bored with winning too much.

As many have pointed out, the game is very finely balanced and can go either way depending on a multitude of factors.

In the end, the attitudes of all the players going in is what makes this game enjoyable or not.

I'm guessing that most of us have played KoTOR (Knights of the Old Republic game not the MMORPG), and I'm sure we've all played enough to see many of the variations of character interactions. same goes here, the Players, once the campaign has been completed, ought to be wanting to go again with either a different party mix or even rotate through as the Imperial Player.

I love the setup of this game and I think there is more for this game to run with. A new campaign setting (read: Nar Shaddaa - I want it. You hear me FFG!!!!! I want it now! - sorry for that outburst people) can take the game into far off reaches.

IA has quickly become my personal favourite for miniature gaming and not just from the FFG Star Wars stable.

The campaign is balanced and the gameplay is smooth - obviously a tweak here or there means nothing between friends - and so with a team of likeminded players, the game will be a blast.

The campaigns are fairly well balanced. I played the first campaign we ever did as Imperial and lost badly. The few first missions were really close but after that, it started snowballing for the rebels. But the finale was closer than I thought possible going into it.

The next few campaigns I've played, I've been a rebel and the Imperial player has been really competitive. He chose Subversive Tactics for 2 campaigns which is absolutely nightmare to play against (you can do that but it's not fun). We lost those campaigns. Our rebel group composition has been crap though.

But overall I think the campaigns are balanced. The only one I don't like, is the Bespin campaign.

Too many narrow paths. The Imperial player can block objectives so easily.

Pretty much how my experience with the campaign mode has been thus far.

First campaign - I was the Imperial player, got absolutely crushed by the Rebel players. Plenty of rules mistakes. Still plenty of fun.

Second Campaign - Other player wanted to try Imperial side. Picked Subversive tactics. Group agreed never to use that deck again

Every other campaign - fairly close, equal mission victories for both sides.

(except Bespin, which I made a thread about it here: https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/229032-bespin-gambit-hardest-campaign-to-date-spoilers/ )

Overall, IA’s campaign mode is awesome and well worth your time. Can't get enough!

In my experience of playing through a full 4-5 campaigns, I think it is pretty balanced. There are certainly story missions that favor one side, or the other, but then there are side missions that really depend on the threat level. Once I can endlessly reinforce my units, Rebs usually need to work a new strategy.

Our last side mission was Means of Production, and came down to the very last roll. When that happens, both sides have fun.

Yeah, I love it when it comes down to the last roll. That's happened a few times now and it's been split as to which side won. I've seen the win/loss percentages of the various missions, and my group of Rebels have done better than the average. So (for instance) my next one to run is "One Step Behind" from the Return to Hoth set. The odds say there's a 70+% chance the Rebels should win. This sounds like a challenge! :-) However, the Rebels should have lost (by the odds) the last one we did and they managed to squeak it out on the last remaining Rebel's roll before a room full of Imperials would have surely blasted her into the extended universe.

So yeah, I feel it's balanced enough. May not be perfect for every mission, but we're all having fun with it.

Ya I think Hello Kitty Island Adventure might be more up their alley if they just want a guaranteed win

I love this. You should see some of the crying over on the Doom forums about how these types of games are imbalanced or need a solo mode so people won't get mad at the overlord player. The only safe space in Doom should be the one behind the shotgun/chainsaw/BFG.

That said, the only real imbalance I've seen in IA or Descent 2.0 comes from a skill disparity. Things may slightly lean in favor of one group or another (in certain situations) but they've not been flagrantly skewed. Now, Doom 1.0 and Descent 1.0.... those could be rough on the players.

Ya I think Hello Kitty Island Adventure might be more up their alley if they just want a guaranteed win

I love this. You should see some of the crying over on the Doom forums about how these types of games are imbalanced or need a solo mode so people won't get mad at the overlord player. The only safe space in Doom should be the one behind the shotgun/chainsaw/BFG.

That said, the only real imbalance I've seen in IA or Descent 2.0 comes from a skill disparity. Things may slightly lean in favor of one group or another (in certain situations) but they've not been flagrantly skewed. Now, Doom 1.0 and Descent 1.0.... those could be rough on the players.

I'd have thought Doom fans would be hardcore dudebros...

Ya I think Hello Kitty Island Adventure might be more up their alley if they just want a guaranteed win

I love this. You should see some of the crying over on the Doom forums about how these types of games are imbalanced or need a solo mode so people won't get mad at the overlord player. The only safe space in Doom should be the one behind the shotgun/chainsaw/BFG.

That said, the only real imbalance I've seen in IA or Descent 2.0 comes from a skill disparity. Things may slightly lean in favor of one group or another (in certain situations) but they've not been flagrantly skewed. Now, Doom 1.0 and Descent 1.0.... those could be rough on the players.

I'd have thought Doom fans would be hardcore dudebros...

But, I like Doom...cuz I'm old. I want the game to be difficult so it can feel a fraction as frantic as the video game while I'm waiting for my turn. It's kinda weird wanting an app or solo play, or complaining about balance in a game that isn't out yet. I personally don't understand why people always ask how to solo multiplayer games.

Dont pay attention to what people say. First time players will have a hard time as there are crucial things as a Rebel player to always remember and until you get your ass handed to you a few times, you will struggle and thats perfectly fine.

#1 Focus on the objective; dont focus on "killing" everything

#2 Never open a door on your last action

#3 Maximize your strain and remember Surges (~) can be used to remove Strain on heroes

#4 Line of Sight (LoS) is key

#5 Imperial player is not allowed to play Subversive Tactics

~D

This is all good advice. It isn't easy, don't get me wrong. I first came to the game from Star Wars minis, so my brain didn't concentrate on objectives either. The campaign is a bit counter intuitive for players because it isn't about eliminating the enemy. That being said, I've played the imperial player for inexperienced players and I've done some things to aid them, because i want the game to be fun. I think half threat is too much imbalance against the imperial player. Were you playing Aftermath , or where you trying to play an expansion starter mission? I once played Aftermath where I gave the Rebels the credits an XP of an expansion game, and they walked through it, because it is just that razor-edge balanced.

Agreed on the balance of aftermath. I've played that mission at least 7 times and everytime it comes down to the last round, and often the last activation of that round.

Ya I think Hello Kitty Island Adventure might be more up their alley if they just want a guaranteed win

I love this. You should see some of the crying over on the Doom forums about how these types of games are imbalanced or need a solo mode so people won't get mad at the overlord player. The only safe space in Doom should be the one behind the shotgun/chainsaw/BFG.

That said, the only real imbalance I've seen in IA or Descent 2.0 comes from a skill disparity. Things may slightly lean in favor of one group or another (in certain situations) but they've not been flagrantly skewed. Now, Doom 1.0 and Descent 1.0.... those could be rough on the players.

Skill disparity totally! See that in my games. I usually play Imperial Player because I enjoy it, and I win against new players, but my core group I usually lose against because they're better gamers than I am (I only rarely win in other boardgames against them because of luck rather than skill). Then with the one group one of the Rebels wanted to be Imperial Player, and I'm playing Rebels for the first time... we've lost almost every mission. She's using Inspiring Leadership...

In my experience of playing through a full 4-5 campaigns, I think it is pretty balanced. There are certainly story missions that favor one side, or the other, but then there are side missions that really depend on the threat level. Once I can endlessly reinforce my units, Rebs usually need to work a new strategy.

Our last side mission was Means of Production, and came down to the very last roll. When that happens, both sides have fun.

Yeah, I just had a close "Means of Production" game too. That definitely seems like one of the very closely balanced ones.

Core seems pretty balanced, Hoth is a bit easy for the Rebels, Twin Shadows is hard for the Rebels, Bespin is unbalanced and impossible for the Rebels.

As things get released it seems to be getting harder for the Rebels as there are more options for the Imperials. We've gone from the overpriced AT-ST originally to having Repulsor Tank, Bantha and Rancor as options. We'll have good 4 point deployments that aren't a single figure probe droid and 5 points that aren't a single 5 health officer.

Rebels ARE getting some power boosts like the Electrostaff and Ancient Lightsaber, and better ally choices than the grossly overpointed Luke/Han/Chewie, but they seem to have less of an impact.

My latest estimate.

Core seems pretty balanced as long as the rebels lose Aftermath, Return to Hoth seems easy for the rebels, Twin Shadows is a bit on the hard side for the Rebels, and Bespin Gambit varies a lot depending which heroes and which class deck is used due to mostly having small maps. (Not being able to deploy out of sight of the rebels makes a lot of its missions quite hard for the imperial player if the rebels are any good).

I do not appreciate missions that have no time limits.

It's impossible for an assymmetrical game to be balanced by definition. One side is going to have an advantage depending on the choices the players have made before each mission and on the parameters of each mission.

I would say there are an equal amount of missions that favor each side, but sometimes one side will get an advantage for multiple missions in a row. The rebels have much more powerful abilities than the empire when they are optimized properly, but the Empire benefits from having perfect information in each mission and less decisions ie opportunities for mistakes to make than the Rebels do. The Empire also benefits from winning by default in many of the missions if the time limit is reached, which allows the Empire to play passively while the rebels have to stay proactive.

The Empire has more units to control, but their range of actions is generally far more limited to just move and a single attack, while Rebels have to make more complex choices about their actions, how many actions they can afford to use on attacks, they have to manage their strain and health with rest actions and the doors/objectives and crates with interact actions. Strain is a much more complex resource to manage than threat, and properly utilizing the shared pool of credits between the four heroes is much harder for new players than managing influence and agendas.

It's impossible for an assymmetrical game to be balanced by definition. One side is going to have an advantage depending on the choices the players have made before each mission and on the parameters of each mission.

I would say there are an equal amount of missions that favor each side, but sometimes one side will get an advantage for multiple missions in a row. The rebels have much more powerful abilities than the empire when they are optimized properly, but the Empire benefits from having perfect information in each mission and less decisions ie opportunities for mistakes to make than the Rebels do. The Empire also benefits from winning by default in many of the missions if the time limit is reached, which allows the Empire to play passively while the rebels have to stay proactive.

The Empire has more units to control, but their range of actions is generally far more limited to just move and a single attack, while Rebels have to make more complex choices about their actions, how many actions they can afford to use on attacks, they have to manage their strain and health with rest actions and the doors/objectives and crates with interact actions. Strain is a much more complex resource to manage than threat, and properly utilizing the shared pool of credits between the four heroes is much harder for new players than managing influence and agendas.

Interesting. It might suggest that the Imperials are easier for a new player than the Rebels, as long as there is an experienced player to coach them and fix mistakes...

It's worked for our group, our imperial player is our second least experienced player with the game, but he loves the Empire so I taught him how to play as the Imperial player, although I still keep track of everything between missions and answer rules questions and set up the map (I make him keep track of his agenda cards so they can stay secret). It works fine as long as the Rebel player that owns the game is willing to give up some of the surprise factor so they can help the imperial player remember when to read off mission events, and can also not spoil it for the other rebel players. It can also require some planning ahead of time by the Rebel player that owns the game, or they can just scan the upcoming mission files and send them to the Imperial player.

For example, when we started the Bespin Gambit campaign, I knew we were definitely going to add in the side mission from the ISB enforces pack, but that meant I would have to be looking at the mission insert to know which tiles to bring and verify the mission rules. So months ahead of time, I scanned the insert to give to the Imperial player, and then I used post-it notes to cover up the actual map itself, so that by the time we actually played I had completely forgotten what the map looked like and could look at the map sheet without completely giving away the location of the objectives. We actually lost that mission to the Empire by a single turn because it took us too long to locate the final terminal.