I know it's been discussed already but I haven't seen this exact idea elsewhere. I want the discussion to be about and refining this specific method.

This method directly calculates game awarded threat and modifies it.

Overall mission modifyers:

Raise Threat level by 1.

At set up:

Total all the threat value of existing units. E.G 2 storm trooper grey and a red officer = 17. Award the imperial player 25% rounded up of that number, 5 in this case.

Resolve an optional deployment, deploying anywhere on the map where units reasonably would be able to start, based on where units already do start. Partial deployment of a single unit is allowed, paying the reinforcement cost per figure. Partial deployment of multiple units is not allowed.

In game:

Every time a reserved unit(s) is placed by a game effect award the imperial player an additional threat = 25% of their value rounding up.

After reserved units are placed, resolve an optional deployment spending no more than the threat awarded by the triggering deployment. Selecting figures in a sensible way. Such as a single extra Strom trooper if it's an imperial wave, or an extra gamorian guard for more skum oriented missions. Deploying figures close to or in a logical arrangement with the figures being placed by game effects. (On the same tiles or within 2 squares of a deployed figure as a guideline.) Partial deployment of no more than 1 unit is allowed.

Whenever threat is awarded by a game effect do not modify it unless the number is not related to threat level e.g. a fixed amount. If it is a fixed amount award 25% more.

End of mission awards:

Credits are awarded as if the player number was 4.

The imperial player receives a single extra experience or influence (imperial choice) once every block of 4 experience given to the 5th. What I mean by that is 1xp to the 5th=1xp to the imperial. No more is awarded until 5, 9 etc. The imperial player shouldn't have to wait until the 5th gets 4 whole points to see an extra of his own.

------------------

I'm playing tonight and will try this method out but anyone who wants to chip in ideas in the next 5 hours may help me avoid a glaring mistake I've made.

I also feel like agenda cards that award villains should cost 2 influence max but that's another story!

Thanks for reading and please do share your thoughts.

If your campaign group is just in it for fun, I guess this should work (I'd probably incorporate it in mine, if needed).

But if you're a more competitive group, I don't think it could fly- nor could any across the board fix. The game is simply far too complex for that.

Consider a mission like A New Threat. Without giving much away, the Rebels really need to split up as much as possible for this one. By giving them an extra full hero on the field, they have a huge advantage, regardless of what the Empire gets out of it.

A lot of missions are like this. Giving the Rebels more ability to move around on the board allows them to have much more freedom in how they execute scattered objectives.

I personally think that each and every mission would need its own personal modification for 5 players to be remotely balanced. But then again, we already have rules for 2 and 3 heroes, so I guess you could always just go into a mission knowing that if you're not at 4 heroes, you're not going to be playing an optimally balanced game.

I would love to see how 5 Rebels do on the table, though. Sounds fun

Well, let's see: for a 2 hero game, you each get an extra activation and 10 bonus health. For a 3 hero game you get 1 extra activation total, and +9 health total. This implies that a hero is worth 1 activation and 10 HP.

Therefore, for a 5 player game, you would need to remove 1 activation and ~10 HP. You could do this by giving each hero -2 HP, and each round the Rebels have to choose 2 heroes who take only 1 action that round (rotating heroes just like the extra activation token). Or -2 HP and each round 1 hero doesn't activate; though that seems worse.

Maybe then you wouldn't need to change the Imperial setup at all!

1 hour ago, Stompburger said:

for a 5 player game, you would need to remove 1 activation and ~10 HP. You could do this by giving each hero -2 HP, and each round the Rebels have to choose 2 heroes who take only 1 action that round (rotating heroes just like the extra activation token). Or -2 HP and each round 1 hero doesn't activate; though that seems worse.

I like the idea. -1 activation each round seems easier - one hero would have to turn his activartion token down at the beginninh of a round...

6 minutes ago, Jarema said:

I like the idea. -1 activation each round seems easier - one hero would have to turn his activartion token down at the beginninh of a round...

Better yet, the game only comes with 4 activation tokens. Just don't give one to one of the heroes each round.

Like I said. I want to discuss THIS idea not others. But now it is here I feel I have to respond......

The -1 activation is the worst suggestion I've seen around. It's the typical kind of suggestion given by an IMP player who is ignoring that games are meant to be fun....for everyone. You are going to get a player to sit there for a whole round and do nothing? I bet they will have a great time. Oh and then they get let behind so it's in the groups interests to activate the same characters again. By forcing rotation of the activations you are actually hobbling the Rebels in a major major way, someone gets left behind each turn. The extra threat is to balance the extra action and activation they get by giving the imp more units and damage dealing of their own. Much more fun and inclusive than forcing someone to sit out. -2 hp....don't even get me started. The HP variance is too big and if you want to argue that HP should drop it should be a % loss of each not a fixed amount to reflect different stats. Then again you have to consider the HP is there to represent certain defensive/offensive aspects of the character.

I agree that some missions have different parameters that were only intended to be used with 4-5 heroes. The thing is it works the other way too. Missions where you need to split up hurt 2-3 player teams. Missions in tight spaces can make a real mess of 5 heroes with blast and so on. The game is as balanced as possible but that's as possible. Some missions just are stacked in favor of one side or the other. That balances itself out over a campaign with a little luck. Equally them having more options to spread out applies to the IMP player too, more threat=more options. So I think it mitigates itself better than you might think. The IMP could drop a lot of heat on one of the splintered groups making a real mess of them before taking on the others. Tactics are worth more than threat but of course threat helps!

Please only post refinements or comments on this specific method. THANK YOU SUBTRENDY. No more talk about -1 activations and all that PLEASE!!!

The first game was played and it went well. I lost as Imps but that was due to a mistake, I moved a figure I didn't need to and placed it in the one space on the map that I needed to be empty to win.....*face palm*. That's in Jabba's Realm that I keep reading favors the rebels. So given I would have won if I hadn't rushed my turn I would say that the rules seem to work well.

The extra threat I got gave me tactical options to try and offset the presence of the 5th player very nicely.
The turns were longer leading to a longer game time, more activations on both sides and more options to assess. Possibly a timer could help there.

I gave myself +1 open group too and that seemed to be a good move and something I will do again next time.

1 hour ago, Pie Golem said:

Like I said. I want to discuss THIS idea not others. But now it is here I feel I have to respond......

The -1 activation is the worst suggestion I've seen around. It's the typical kind of suggestion given by an IMP player who is ignoring that games are meant to be fun....for everyone. You are going to get a player to sit there for a whole round and do nothing? I bet they will have a great time. Oh and then they get let behind so it's in the groups interests to activate the same characters again. By forcing rotation of the activations you are actually hobbling the Rebels in a major major way, someone gets left behind each turn. The extra threat is to balance the extra action and activation they get by giving the imp more units and damage dealing of their own. Much more fun and inclusive than forcing someone to sit out. -2 hp....don't even get me started. The HP variance is too big and if you want to argue that HP should drop it should be a % loss of each not a fixed amount to reflect different stats. Then again you have to consider the HP is there to represent certain defensive/offensive aspects of the character.

I agree that some missions have different parameters that were only intended to be used with 4-5 heroes. The thing is it works the other way too. Missions where you need to split up hurt 2-3 player teams. Missions in tight spaces can make a real mess of 5 heroes with blast and so on. The game is as balanced as possible but that's as possible. Some missions just are stacked in favor of one side or the other. That balances itself out over a campaign with a little luck. Equally them having more options to spread out applies to the IMP player too, more threat=more options. So I think it mitigates itself better than you might think. The IMP could drop a lot of heat on one of the splintered groups making a real mess of them before taking on the others. Tactics are worth more than threat but of course threat helps!

Please only post refinements or comments on this specific method. THANK YOU SUBTRENDY. No more talk about -1 activations and all that PLEASE!!!

The first game was played and it went well. I lost as Imps but that was due to a mistake, I moved a figure I didn't need to and placed it in the one space on the map that I needed to be empty to win.....*face palm*. That's in Jabba's Realm that I keep reading favors the rebels. So given I would have won if I hadn't rushed my turn I would say that the rules seem to work well.

The extra threat I got gave me tactical options to try and offset the presence of the 5th player very nicely.
The turns were longer leading to a longer game time, more activations on both sides and more options to assess. Possibly a timer could help there.

I gave myself +1 open group too and that seemed to be a good move and something I will do again next time.

I didn't mean to upset you. I don't think the -2 HP, -1 activation idea is super great, but I don't think it's as terrible an idea as you say.

I do think the game gets messed up if you want to play with any number other than 4 heroes no matter what method you use to try to rebalance it - including the game's built-in 2 or 3 hero setup. And I don't think having 5 heroes is worth the cost of imbalance or the effort of rebalancing; if you really need 6 people in your game just have 2 people on the Imperial team or give one player an ally to control.

-1 activation makes any missions with a "depart" condition hard. The -2 actions variant would work better in those.

I think it is worth having a go to get more people involved. Playing as an ally is getting short changed slightly. Some groups are 6 people and you either exclude someone or play something else. Two imperial players would be hard on the Imperials. They can't plan in secret easily and a lot of imperial play is listening to the rebels 'coms' if you like.

I understand the low maintenance approach but I want a good experience all around not necessarily the simple option. I think you make the point, the 2/3 hero set up isn't ideal either but the game gives you those as an option so why not go the other way. Having done it last night it really isn't much extra work but the game takes a little longer with the extra elements at play.

On 3/22/2017 at 6:09 PM, Pie Golem said:

Every time a reserved unit(s) is placed by a game effect award the imperial player an additional threat = 25% of their value rounding up.

Possible issue with this-

Take Diala's side mission (Temptation) for example. Obviously, some spoilers for that mission, so be warned.

Alright, so during that mission, a sort of spiritual vision of Vader appears (an homage to ESB's cave vision, I think) and attacks the players. Technically, this Vader uses Vader's original card, of Threat 18. However, according to the rules, the Vader is defeated after suffering damage to "twice the threat level". So, the Imperial player isn't getting a figure actually balanced at 18 threat, but something else entirely. Not sure how big of a deal it would be, but the 4.5 threat (rounded up to 5 under these rules) seems like it might be excessive.

And Temptation is not exclusive in this. A lot of side missions, particularly Hero specific ones, have minibosses that require a variable amount of damage based on the threat level. So, maybe an additional addendum to units like this- if they have to suffer a certain amount of damage according to a threat level number, take 25% of that. So, in the above example, if you're at threat level 3 that gets doubled, you'd take (3X2)/4 to get 1.5 (rounded up to 2). Seems a little more balanced to me.

1 minute ago, subtrendy said:

And Temptation is not exclusive in this. A lot of side missions, particularly Hero specific ones, have minibosses that require a variable amount of damage based on the threat level. So, maybe an additional addendum to units like this- if they have to suffer a certain amount of damage according to a threat level number, take 25% of that. So, in the above example, if you're at threat level 3, you'd take (3X2)/4 to get 1.5 (rounded up to 2). Seems a little more balanced to me.

Yup that is exactly how I would do it I think. In this instance you aren't getting Vader but a nerfed version so getting less makes sense.

It's not a bad idea, but I feel like there are other, simpler solutions already out there. My biggest issue is that it creates more steps to set up, in a game where set up already takes a pretty long time. Let's say I'm the IP. I've finally gotten the board set up and now I have to do more MATH while the Rebels just sit there? Ugh! And then I have to do it again at every game effect?

25% is hardly maths....it's not even a 5 second calculation.

You could do the calculations the week/day/hour before the game is supposed to start and write them on a piece of paper. I do this with the tiles and deployment units. Kinda sad that we don't have a fifth rebel to test these tweeks out.

I guess if you're an Imperial Player who really plays competitively and likes to remain steps ahead of his Rebels at all times, it would be a little harder to keep track of stuff- but if you're really that much of a Thrawn, I'd imagine that you shouldn't have much difficulty dividing by 4...

1 hour ago, subtrendy said:

I guess if you're an Imperial Player who really plays competitively and likes to remain steps ahead of his Rebels at all times, it would be a little harder to keep track of stuff- but if you're really that much of a Thrawn, I'd imagine that you shouldn't have much difficulty dividing by 4...

It's hard for some people!

Juice man - You can indeed, I always end my sessions by finding out what mission they will do next and if the next one is a fixed story mission they I get them to pick the side mission early so that I know the next two. Like you it lets me get the map pieces ready, try to paint figures and so forth. So making the notes then works well.

Pollux85 - If you are that unsure about 1/4 something then use a calculator or ask the players for help. I'm dyslexic myself, there are always ways around.