I know the title seems to be a bit of a stupid question BUT. ... sometimes I wonder.

First the reading of the publications. I have done about 5 campaigns with various groups and various people playing the Imperial Player. And it seems like in almost every mission there is a question around the wording of something in the campaign guide, or the IA player miss reads something and plays it wrong. You just have to scroll through the rules and campaign threads to see all the questions that come up. There have also been lots of times, and this has happened to me more than once, I have miss-read something on a mission. I know that you can only do so much and that is always going to happen but there are some simple tips and tricks a technical writer knows about to help with that. For example in Hoth for the Last Line mission I miss read the part where if a rebel player is next to either the siege wall or the reinforcement point it gets +2 block. I missed the reinforcement point wording even though I read it several times. If they would have say bolded it like I did here then your eyes are less likely to go over it. On almost every mission I can see points were they could have clarified stuff a bit better. Then there is stuff where it is unclear what is means that same mission the Last Line and the special setup instructions. After the mission there was a debate and then a post in this forum for clarification if it was done right.

Then there is the balance of some of the maps. I realize that some of the maps are meant to be one sided to help one side win over the other for balancing reasons but if you check the polls out there in MY opinion most of the maps are pretty one sided with a balance of one side winning 70% of the time and the other 30% of the time, not closer like 60% to 40%.

Then you have all the questions around characters like Mune Rin, etc etc that we see so many forum posts about.

It just makes me wonder who is play testing and reading this over? is it only the development team? that know the game in and out and so things are getting missed? or do they have some people that barely play it, or never played and say here you go let us know what you think?

I ask because my core group and I are just finishing Hoth and they have decided that they do not want to play anymore because of these problems and they are frustrated about it and it is taking the fun out of the game.

If it's a matter of players (whether Imperial or Rebel) not reading a mission properly then I think it has little to do with FFG or its playtesting process, and everything to do with the players skimming through the mission rules rather than reading them for comprehension and understanding.

Maps (I assume you're speaking of skirmish maps) are always a bit of a balancing act, which can be a challenge: on one extreme (thoroughly even deployment zones) you can give a big advantage to the player who doesn't start with Initiative, but on the other extreme (one zone too strong) you can give a big advantage to the player who does start with Initiative.

As for the character designs themselves, I think it wasn't until the Bespin Gambit expansion that Unique characters really started to be designed more competitively, so it's not surprising at all to hear that you're thinking this if you've only got as far as the Hoth expansion.

I'm sorry that your group is getting frustrated with things. Whenever we've played (whether Campaign or Skirmish) we've always had a blast.

All that being said, maybe it would be worth it to contact FFG if you've got some frustrations that need to be addressed on FFG's end. The designers clearly do love the game, and they're passionate about helping their players to have the best gaming experience possible with IA. If you've got some important feedback for them then I'm pretty sure they'd be willing to hear it.

FFG has always been pretty bad about specific rules interactions, and making things clear. They've improved somewhat, but still not great. At the same time, there's only so much they can do.

The problem with playtesting missions is, there's only so much they can do. You claim that you feel most missions are unbalanced one way or the other. But we'll have someone who comes in and will claim 'any decent' Imperial player win 90% of games, right before someone claims the exact opposite. There's a lot of things that can drastically change how the mission plays out - team composition, character builds, what equipment you happen to have, whether you bring allies, when you play side missions, what rewards players have won previously, what units the Imperial player takes, what class deck they are playing....And that's not even considering the retroactive effect of putting new heroes/equipment/units into old campaigns. While there's certainly some cases where they get it wrong, I'd say on the whole they do at least a reasonable job at balance when you consider the sheer amount of variety you can have going into a mission.

In my experience, the game is balanced as far as balance goes.

But there are a lot of variables as mentioned that will tip the scale back and forth.

I'll share with you some statistics of my games as Imperial

My first core campaign Playthrough: Imperial Wins : 7 ; Rebel Wins 5. Campaign win by Imperial. ( against average skill players - Military Might Imp Deck )

My second core campaign Playthrough: Imperial Wins : 9 ; Rebel Wins 3. Campaign win by Imperial. ( and this was against players who are hardcore gamers - Subversive Tactics Deck )

First RoH campaign Playthrough ( ongoing ): Imperial Wins : 4 ; Rebel Wins 3. (Same players of 1st Campaign - Armored Onslaught Deck )

I can't say how FFG does it, but generally you would want to have both advanced (has all the stuff) and basic (only has core) players to catch as many things as possible about playability, readability, and balance. FFG does not seem to credit beta-testers, so it's hard to estimate the ratio. But in addition to the enormous amount of combinations, people are people, so things do get missed and get through.

There are some missions with elaborate mission rules. In that case you have to read them and study them until all players understand them. If you are the Imperial player, you preferably go over them beforehand, so you can ask about the things that are not clear before the mission. The mission rules (just like abilities) use a lot of established concepts. Text space is not only limited on cards, there is only so much space to use for each mission.

I continue to be impressed by how complete the core rulebook is. There have been a few errors in the wordings in the abilities and missions, but overall it has been very well done for a new game.

I just finished a Return to Hoth campaign, and my biggest disappointment is that a lot of the missions have no time limits, and when there's a time limit, it's running against the imperial player. Combined with cheap allies and inconvenient deployment points the rebels can quite easily mow down the imperial troops. I won 1 of the 11 missions (with Precision Training, which I just could not figure out and get to work for me -- in addition the rebels being very, very good players). I'm currently playing more for the experience, but I would still prefer to win a bit more often. (I want to eventually try the campaign with some other class deck though - with house rules if needed.)

The campaign missions can vary widely in who they favor depending on team composition, player skill, and just luck. I think campaign balance has improved in recent expansions due to more testing as well as rule changes (eg drawing more items to buy).

But if you want a more strictly balanced game, Skirmish is going to fit that better than campaign as it's designed for competitive play.

PS: there is a playtester-thanks section in the Jabba's Realm Rulebook. Might be ones in earlier expansions as well (I've only got Jabba's Realm handy).

There is a playtester section in the core learn to play guide. The big box expansions have a section as well. 99 people playtested the core set. Before you get upset about any wrinkles that made it through the process, consider for a moment the things that didn't.

The campaign - to me - is like the old 1st ed AD&D Modules. The DM had to read them through very carefully, not just once, but often three or even four times. There were many key pieces of information that if missed, would alter the whole adventure and upset the balance.

But hey, I'm old school and we read things and not just the glossy highlights, but the whole thing and on occasion, make notes to remind us (because we're also often old).

nickv2002 hits the nail on the head. Campaign is a beautiful but unwieldly beast. Consider that a mission might be deemed balanced. Well, what if one side brings a hero that is just a little more favorable on that map? What if that hero has an ability or skill check that is extremely effective for the mission objectives? What if the Imperial player picked poor open groups? What if the Imperial player picked a class that focused on Vehicles and droids, neither of which were present on the current map, outside of open groups? What if the Imperial player is saving threat/xp for a bigger purchase after the current mission, but is inadequately prepared to face Rebels who have already spent xp/credits?

There are a ton of moving pieces (literally and figuratively) in the campaign. At one point, you have to accept that our mission that we initially deemed "balanced" has probably got to change to be deemed "as balanced as possible".

I think the playtesters tend to be the more dedicated players of their games. That's who they reach out to, and that's who volunteers.

It's possible that being on the more 'hardcore' end of the spectrum when playing the game, they may take things such as how easily things stand out on the page for granted. It's an important aspect, but that might fall to the wayside when you're more concerned with mechanics.

Just my assumption.

I am not an Imperial Assault playtester.