A

F) I did it all for the miniatures!

Mostly D (85%). I knew there was a skirmish but had no idea what it was about. There is a little bit of F (15%) in there too, because Star Wars minis are fantastic fun.

E) don't know if I will ever get around to the campaign, but I haven't thrown out any of those parts yet.

also, wanted the game for the minis.

Campaign only

C) Both, but so far have only played Skirmish. We were going to finally start a campaign this week but one player couldn't show, and now another can't show next week, so hopefully we can still start by the end of the month (we played Skirmish instead to teach everyone the basics, so it wasn't a total loss).

Answer D is the closest to the correct answer for me. I bought it primarily (let's call it 70/30) for the campaign mode, which resembles an on-rails RPG, to play with friends. But I was aware of the skirmish mode and was interested in playing it if any of my friends picked up the game. It's ended up being closer to 50/50, largely because my schedule and my friends' schedules make it hard to get a full campaign group together very often.

C

I bought it to paint the miniatures.

A) Campaign only

First off, thanks to everyone who voted, 31 total votes is a good turn out, I appreciate the feedback. Let's see if we can get some productive discussion points out of this as well.

Ok so thus far here is our tally:

When you bought your first IA core did you plan to play:

A) Campaign only (10)

B) Skirmish only

C) Both equally (5)

D) Campaign but thought you'd try skirmish eventually (9)

E) Skirmish but thought you'd try campaign eventually (4)

F) What is Campaign and Skirmish? I just like Star Wars (3)

That means that out of a sample size of 31 posters, not a single one bought IA for skirmish purposes only. I don't find this surprising as it is advertised as a campaign game first. I guess the question is, what can be done to help advertise the skirmish side of the game? I just held a demo day at my LGS and we had a few people that were interested in the campaign, but seemed put off or pretty luke warm about the skirmish. Is it just an inferior product compared to other skirmish options? Is it poorly advertised? Do you need to warm up to the game to fully appreciate the skirmish?

29% of our poll users bought the game with the intent of playing skirmish, 16% equally and 13% mainly (but knew they would play the campaign). So I guess that section of the poll is where we can get some insight, what part of the skirmish appealed to the people who voted C and E? Was it easy to understand the distinction between campaign and skirmish? Was the initial up front cost off putting?

And for the 29% of the poll users that bought the game for campaign but thought they would try skirmish, did you think the skirmish would just be fun to try or was there something specific that grabbed your attention?

On 2/3/2017 at 10:43 AM, ThatJakeGuy said:

(I miss you so much Heroscape)

I you haven't tried it already, try "Magic the Gathering:Arena of the Planeswalkers". It is essentially a MTG branded rerelease of Heroscape. It uses almost the same rules, the same dice, and the same tiles.

The've added some things to make it feel like Magic. You start with one figure on the board, your Planeswalker, that can summon the rest of your forces and cast spells that you draw from your spell deck. The game comes with very few tiles, instead using a large cardboard board. It doesn't look as cool but it simplifies setup. If you own Heroscape terrain tiles, there's no reason you couldn't use those instead.

Right now there are three sets out, 2 of which can be played as a stand alone game. The game is realtively inexpensive.

I hope that the game is successful enough to justify continued expansions because I feel like its biggest problem is that there isn't enough variety in spells or creatures.

B)

I bought the game just to play skirmish. I've been playing Descent with my daughter recently so finally got around to opening up all of the cards and stuff that I hadn't used yet in all the expansions that I owned. We haven't started a campaign yet but provably will soon.

D at first, though the end result is I play skirmish much more often than campaign. Turns out 2-player competitive games are easier to set up for me than trying to herd up five people consistently for over a dozen games.

C) Both equally

We enjoy both game modes, but we now play skirmish far more than we do campaign.

I played SWM from WotC for many years, and even for several years after it stopped being produced. I loved it! Therefore I was really excited to see a new Star Wars skirmish game coming out. And honestly, I think that IA is far superior to SWM, in so many ways! IA Skirmish is my #1 favorite game of all time.

But we had also played and enjoyed Descent 2.0 for a while, and the thought of doing an improved version of that--and in the SW universe!--was thoroughly exciting.

C: While I play skirmish more than I do campaign, I enjoy running the Imperials in a campaign far more than playing skirmish.

11 hours ago, FrogTrigger said:

...

That means that out of a sample size of 31 posters, not a single one bought IA for skirmish purposes only. I don't find this surprising as it is advertised as a campaign game first. [1] I guess the question is, what can be done to help advertise the skirmish side of the game? I just held a demo day at my LGS and we had a few people that were interested in the campaign, but seemed put off or pretty luke warm about the skirmish. Is it just an inferior product compared to other skirmish options? Is it poorly advertised? Do you need to warm up to the game to fully appreciate the skirmish?

29% of our poll users bought the game with the intent of playing skirmish, 16% equally and 13% mainly (but knew they would play the campaign). [2a] So I guess that section of the poll is where we can get some insight, what part of the skirmish appealed to the people who voted C and E? Was it easy to understand the distinction between campaign and skirmish? [2b] Was the initial up front cost off putting?

And for the 29% of the poll users that bought the game for campaign but thought they would try skirmish, did you think the skirmish would just be fun to try or was there something specific that grabbed your attention?

First, I think this is a great idea, FT!

[Reminder: I gave C as my answer, but now my kids and I spend most of our IA time with skirmish rather than campaign.]

1. I absolutely do NOT think that the skirmish game is an inferior product!

Some background about me: I've played Star Wars Miniatures (SWM) for 10 years now, and at a high tournament level for most of that time. As evidence, and FWIW, I am referred to by many players in the SWM community as one of the best players in the game. I became known as "Mr. Autoloss" on Vassal after a while, because (like DTDanix for IA) I won the vast majority of matches that I played. I'm the only person to win the SWM GenCon Championship twice. (One of my friends said it's like being the world's tallest midget. "Yes, you're the tallest of that people group, but nobody cares!" lol) I helped to design and playtest the new "virtual set" pieces (new cards created to use the original WotC minis as proxies because our community won't let the game die, even 5 years later), and I'm one of a handful of players who was selected by the community to be on the Balance Committee, which helps to maintain a healthy meta for the game as new virtual set cards continue to be produced. I was "the Vassal guy" who spent many hours updating the vassal mod all the time. It's like I ate and breathed SWM.

The reason I mention these things is simply to support the statement that I know the ins and outs of a good tactical grid-based skirmish game. I know the layers of timing and strategy and tactics and meta-analysis and how those things are mitigated by map options, etc...all those kinds of things. And I always said that SWM was my favorite game of all time by a mile, that I'd never stop playing SWM, that I'd never sell my miniatures, etc. Well, apart from a just-for-shoes-and-giggles event one night over Christmas this year, I haven't looked at SWM since a single event at GenCon 2016....that's not because I now think SWM is dumb, but rather because it has been completely replaced. Eclipsed. Improved upon in a dozen ways. And it's IA Skirmish that's done it! IA Skirmish is my #1 favorite game of all time! I have never found a miniatures skirmish game that is as deep or challenging or satisfying as IA Skirmish...and it's only getting better all the time!

I haven't played Warhammer or any of the measuring-tape tabletop games, but apart from that I think I've played every other miniature skirmish game that's come out since SWM: World of Warcraft Miniatures, Dungeon Command, Heroscape, Arena of the Planeswalkers, a little bit of Heroclix and D&D Minis, even Super Dungeon Explore. They're all cool in their own way, and we still pull some of them out once in a while at home, but I'm saying that not a single one of them has the quality and depth of challenge and gameplay that IA Skirmish does. It occurs to me as I type this: Could it be that the difficulty in getting people into IA Skirmish is simply that grid-based miniatures skirmish games are a tough sell, no matter what? Could that be true? In their own way, each of these games that I've mentioned has good design and gameplay, etc. They're also all out of production. Games don't go out of production when they're thriving.

By contrast, Destiny has taken off like crazy, despite oppressive product shortages even now, 3 months later. Just yesterday I was at a 37-player event at my LGS! The game is obviously well-designed and a lot of fun, but it seems like people are just generally more interested in xCGs (CCGs or LCGs) than they are in miniatures skirmish games. Even X-Wing (another outstanding game) has a different layer and feel to it than a typical skirmish game...maybe part of its appeal has been that it's less restrictive and more free-flowing because it's not tied to a grid?

I wonder why these skirmish games seem to appeal to a smaller section of the gamer public than some other games do.

• Maybe their time has come and gone, and people are now burned out on miniatures games. They've done Heroscape and Heroclix and they're ready for something different, something non-miniature in nature.
• Maybe they are too competitive? I know lots of people who play these games "just for fun" or for "mass battles" (like the battle for Hoth or Endor)...they've tried the competitive arena and it just didn't fit for them.
• Maybe people are slow to embrace skirmish games because of storage or space issues? (But you'd think that would keep people out of X-Wing too then.)
• Maybe it's because miniatures skirmish games are too complex, involving physical out-maneuvering, in addition to the regular meta-analysis and deck-building that other games have too? (Although, X-Wing has more than its share of that too!)
• Maybe it's because miniatures skirmish games are (perhaps?) more prone to imbalance (ala 4x4 or trooper-spam) than xCGs are?
• Maybe it's just the problem that IA arrived after X-Wing...many people were already heavily invested in X-Wing and so they didn't have the time or money for another all-in, expansion-based game.

I don't know the answer. Perhaps its a combination of some of these factors, plus other factors that I haven't recognized yet.

Regardless, I do know that IA Skirmish is growing, and that it's at a healthier place than it's ever been, and that its future continues to look bright ("Hello IG-88, I haven't seen you in a while, but I was thinking we should reconnect again at some point soon..."). I also know that my 3 boys enjoy IA skirmish more than any other game in our house, and we have far too many games!

2a. The part of skirmish that appealed to me was simply that it was skirmish. ["Shut up, just shut up! You had me at 'Skirmish!'"] It offered the promise of possibly re-creating a community of Star Wars skirmish players again, and this time over a living game, rather than a dead, out-of-production one. I didn't know what to expect at first, because nothing had really been spoiled or explained on the skirmish end. But once I gave it a shot, I was hooked! So basically, what drew me to the skirmish side of the game was that I was already familiar with this kind of game and it appealed to me in a huge way. I had no trouble understanding the distinction between skirmish and campaign. They definitely are distinct from each other, though. [In fact, I find that I am much more competitive or effective or skilled at skirmish than I am at campaign.]

2b. This answer will be quite a bit simpler: from the start I knew I was going all-in on Imperial Assault. I saw the demo at GenCon 2015...in fact, one of my SWM buddies (and an excellent player too!) was in "the GenCon demo video" that was on YouTube, with Paul Winchester leading a group through the Captured scenario. I spoke with Cory K (the lead designer of IA), I watched any and every IA video or preview, etc. So I knew that for me, minor matters like money and initial buy-in cost were completely insignificant and irrelevant. [surfer dude] "I mean, it's Star Wars, dude! And it's a semi-rpg Star Wars! And another skirmish game of Star Wars! A 2-in-1 Star Wars game? Dude! Sign me up! Like, whoah!" [/surfer dude]

Thanks again for starting this conversation and using the innovative idea of a poll to get it started!

I agree that IA far outpaces SWM in gameplay, in pretty much every aspect of the game. I haven't played as much as I would like since there is not a great following in my area. The LGS is heavily invested in warhammer and has been for a long time, so a new minis game is cost prohibitive. The old SWM ground I used to play with mostly hasn't gotten into IA since the minis are not painted. I think it was being spoiled from the old SWM prepainted ones. X-wing is prepainted so doesn't suffer from that. I think the sculpts are far and away better, but they can't get past the having to paint their own. I think because it is Star Wars it needs to have color on the pieces to help recreate the battles. I know it is a minor point to keep someone out of the game, but it is a factor. Just might not be a huge factor. Maybe campaign players are OK with plain figures or don't mind getting their paintbrushes dirty so there are more of them in the poll.

13 hours ago, WWHSD said:

I you haven't tried it already, try "Magic the Gathering:Arena of the Planeswalkers". It is essentially a MTG branded rerelease of Heroscape. It uses almost the same rules, the same dice, and the same tiles.

The've added some things to make it feel like Magic. You start with one figure on the board, your Planeswalker, that can summon the rest of your forces and cast spells that you draw from your spell deck. The game comes with very few tiles, instead using a large cardboard board. It doesn't look as cool but it simplifies setup. If you own Heroscape terrain tiles, there's no reason you couldn't use those instead.

Right now there are three sets out, 2 of which can be played as a stand alone game. The game is realtively inexpensive.

I hope that the game is successful enough to justify continued expansions because I feel like its biggest problem is that there isn't enough variety in spells or creatures.

I saw that and I was interested but a combination of not having enough gaming budget and being 100% done with MTG man to that I passed on it.

In this post I am going to completely ignore FFG's business model and pretend this isn't a business for the purpose of trying to solve a problem.

So at our demo yesterday we actually had a few people flat out say that IA not having painted minis is one of the large factors why they haven't jumped in. X-Wing is painted and they love their minis, don't have the time (money wasn't even mentioned) but just literally time to paint. And I hear that, painting the minis does take time but you don't HAVE to paint them to play.. I never thought I would paint mine but got a lot of compliments on them, I must have plugged Sorastro's youtube channel about a dozen times. It's to late for that though, pre painted minis aren't coming for this game so we can't look at that as a solution, and the group that obsessed over the paint was a small fraction of those who said No to the skirmish.

I think it is a combination of what thereisnotry said, X-Wing came out first and grabbed the Star Wars hardcores and hooked them in fast and the wargamers probably aren't a huge fan of the grid (my store has a large Guildball following, which is basically a small skirmish team game like IA but on an open field). I don't think the price is a problem as X-Wing and Warhammer are even more expensive than IA, but I think it might be the entry point price. I kept really hammering home to people that the core is all you need to play, but they would then ask Oh ok so it would have all the maps I need to enter a competitive tournament? Well.. technically no.. you would need this this and this... "Ohhhhh". Once I unfortunately had to explain the map rotation A LOT of people got a sour look on their face, I felt like a used car salesman who just had to admit the car had engine problems. Where as with a game like X-Wing or Guildball, you play on the same mat every time with just obstacles changing. But again, we can't stop help this, IA needs to rotate maps to keep it fresh, there are only so many that are core only. So they came out with the printed maps, and many people thought that was a good idea, but didn't like the price point and the fact they had to buy all three right off the hop (technically right now they don't need to as one is core components, but that could change down the road). And I know people on this forum will say "Well at my LGS we just share.." and that is great for your community, but in a vacuum the map system is a problem for new players. But how do we fix that? Or can we? Can FFG downgrade the mats to a printable format that is much cheaper? Maybe offer a "Current rotation bundle" for a discounted price? I don't know this one is a tough one and I feel like it is the major sticking point for new players.

The third thing people didn't like is that they couldn't just buy into a faction. If they wanted to play scum or Rebel only, they couldn't just pick up those packs and build around that list. You are paying extra in the expansions for things that they don't want. But again, this problem is to late to be solved.. but ties into the next point.

The fourth thing people didn't like is that if they only wanted to play skirmish, they had to pay for a campaign they weren't going to play. A few guys said "Well this feels like the game was made for the campaign, with the skirmish just tact on at the end." I remember an interview with some of the original designers basically saying they had to beg to get the skirmish attached, so I really couldn't argue with them on that. So could this be solved with a skirmish only entry box similar to what they have for X-Wing? It won't be an all encompassed collection, but it's half the price of the core and includes all the components you need to fill out one list with the core tiles?

But even if they go this route people still need to buy the expansions for figures like the HK Assasins, or the Tuskan Raiders etc.. so the skirmish only crowd are still getting components they really don't want. But now if we look back at our poll, so far the skirmish only crowd (option B) is at 1/35, or 3% of our sample size. So is it just a viscous circle? People aren't buying this for skirmish because it is advertised as a campaign game, but to advertise the skirmish side of it might be counter productive since such a small sample of people are interested in the skirmish in the first place. Is it just a niche game and we need to accept that? Are there just to many unsolveable problems listed above that have already relegated this game to a smaller player base?

I think the most important question of this poll and all previous and current discussions on the topic is: how do we make the skirmish more appealing to the people who are currently only playing campaign in their living rooms? Our store was selling IA stuff yesterday during the demo, but nobody was interested in the skirmish, just the campaign. IA is obviously a successful game with a lot of people playing it, but I feel like over half the player base is only playing it at home (our poll speaks to that). So maybe that group of the poll can shed some light on this, what would drag you guys into the LGS to actually try out a tournament? Unfortunately I had 2 different people reference the 4x4 as a turn off when they first bought the game, then just went a completely different direction with other available competitive games. Did that stunt our potential growth?

A) Campaign only

D. While I did enjoy the campaign, I find myself wanting to play skirmish much more these days.

I suppose another question could be to the A) Campaign only people;

Why are you not interested in Skirmish?

I know for my sake I don't like the competitive side to tournament scenes.

Which leaves local friends. And I'd much rather prefer having a story game with four friends than a little battle with one.

Well bought it for campaign but ended up playing more skirmish when I do get a chance, time comes at a premium these days.

TINT how goes it been a long while since the SWM Vassal days. Don't trawl the forums as much as I used to but good to see a familiar name once in a while.

On 2/3/2017 at 6:50 PM, Boomer_J said:

F) I did it all for the miniatures!

I feel like picking up my guitar and knocking out some Limp Biskit (as much as I hate them) I did all for the minis.

I did it for the minis too.