I feel as though between boardgamegeek and this community, there is a good representation and more than likely, a majority of players of this game. This includes the campaign and skirmish versions of Imperial Assault.

I can say I've been an owner of this game for roughly 1 and a half years, and mainly a campaign player, although I very much enjoy the very active skirmish community and have only dabbled non-competitively in this version.

I own almost all expansions, including big box/small box/blister/ally, and villain expansions and have painted roughly 75% of the minis I own. This is my first time painting miniatures and this is the game that got me into it.

I feel as though the community of Imperial Assault has a great deal to contribute towards this amazing game and in a fairly random way, shares this through the forums with absolutely no or very little expectation of compensation, let alone acknowledgement of their contribution to the game.

This game has had the same skirmish champion 2 times in a row and they're an active member in this forum.

This game has multiple blogs, podcasts, skirmish videos (most of which are amazing and show both innovative filming techniques and editing skills, aside from a great game). Most, if not all of these creators are active members in this forum.

I think everyone agrees that there are multiple units that need to be "fixed" or adjusted.

I think almost everyone has ideas as to how these units should be "fixed" or adjusted. A variety of examples exist on the web.

If a panel existed that focused just on these corrections and how to release them, could it perhaps influence the outcome of the game?

Do we really need skirmish upgrade cards to "officially correct" figures and deployment groups when we could probably agree on the best fix for them?

If Chewbacca's cost needs to be reduced by 5 or the Royal Guard Champion needs reach and a deployment cost reduction, I feel as though the community can do alot of the re-design or should at the very least get a say as to what that change is.

I think, even agreeing/voting on what these fixes/changes should look like should allow the producers/designers/makers to formally come out with an errata so that people can immediately incorporate the changes into their game.

What say you all?

While the hard erratas of the Core figures of the Officer, Sabs and Royal Guards was drastic and needed in order to make the game function, I'm not as worried about needing all the other iconic uniques today, per se, though it would certainly be nice if FFG did precisely that.

All of these changes are going to require some testing, as well as trying out different ways to bring it about.

The problem with hard erratas like we got with the Core figures is that it has the opportunity to create some player confusion for those that don't keep up with FAQ's and other updates. It was helpful that corrected cards were provided by FFG via Organized Play kits, but then some people were still left out because of the lack of community support local to their individual needs. Fortunately there exists at least one online auction site that can fill the void, for a nominal cost.

In the case of IG-88 and Vader, we've seen the evidence that they're going back to provide patches for these characters, with more on the way being implied. I'm perfectly OK with FFG dropping these into their other releases, since I'm buying them anyways and don't have to worry about chasing down errata'ed cards online later if I miss the Organized Play kit.

Also of note about using the Skirmish Upgrade route with IG-88 and Vader, is that it provides some thematic restraint on the game by "Faction Locking" them to their respective affiliations if you want to use their "corrected" versions. You could still drop IG-88 into an Imperial list, but he won't be the Focus'ed Death Machine he would be if you were rolling with Mercenaries.

I'd be shocked if the design team wasn't reading any of the numerous proposed ideas and working them in to their testing, so everyone should take comfort in knowing that we're probably being heard, again as evidenced by the results of IG-88 and Vader patches, with more to come.

As with all their releases though, FFG keeps a tight lid on what's going on behind the scenes until they're ready to make a formal announcement, so it's going to require that patience we all can't seem to maintain in order to get to the roll-out of whatever else they have up their sleeves, like that app we heard about at GenCon 2016.

In time, as we get closer to the release of Heart of the Empire, I'm sure there'll be a preview article showing the other two patched characters that were alluded to in the preview article.

What we should really have is a poll that is stuck to the main forum where everyone weighs in on who they thing they other two will be, with the obvious favourites being Han and Chewie, but a vocal crowd also seems to think some kind of Massive Vehicle/General Weiss patch is in there too, to coincide with the new walker.

There's still Boba Fett and Dengar to deal with too, and Kayn (who isn't nearly as iconic, in that he's an "original" design) if you want to really be thorough.

I don't think the game's success and playability in tournaments is currently hinging on our ability to run a competitive Boba Fett at the moment, but maybe I'm wrong. Lots of people love that guy.

It would very very nice if, at some point, FFG would release a "Skirmish pack":

- updated version of errata's cards

- additional copies of (at least) one regular and one elite deployment cards of units you can find in boxed espansions

- additional copies of Command Cards from boxed expansions (as the Core box was the last and only providing 2 copies of the most used cards and THAT was indeed very useful)

I guess that no IA skirmish player would lose the possibility to buy something like that in a split second.

While I think those faction-restricting upgrades are cool on Vader and IG-88, I don't think having only one fix per wave is fast enough for me. Right now, more than 60% of the deployment cards are overcosted or don't have a good reason for you to include them on any list. Having this slow fix-rate, I fairly doubt any of the campaing heroes are ever going to get their fix, nor many of the early wave units. So I would be happy with them having even a separate-PDF with all the errataed cards so you could just cut and print them.

3 hours ago, blackholexan said:

It would very very nice if, at some point, FFG would release a "Skirmish pack":

- updated version of errata's cards

- additional copies of (at least) one regular and one elite deployment cards of units you can find in boxed espansions

- additional copies of Command Cards from boxed expansions (as the Core box was the last and only providing 2 copies of the most used cards and THAT was indeed very useful)

I guess that no IA skirmish player would lose the possibility to buy something like that in a split second.

Seeing how it never happened in X-wing, I fairly doubt there will ever be one of these.

7 hours ago, Quigman said:

This game has had the same skirmish champion 2 times in a row and they're an active member in this forum.

This might be a stupid question, but...

who?

(clearly, I don't follow skirmish much)

Nope. Not gonna happen. There's no way you are going to get the Internet to agree on anything. At least not with any measure of consensus that would be recognized by outside forces, like tournament organizers. And yes, we do need skirmish cards.

I don't play skirmish, so I don't really have a dog in this fight, but I can tell you that if you go around saying that "the FFG Board's House Rules" are somehow more legit than the thing that FFG actually put into print, you'll legitimize everyone's house rules in tournament play. The rules would lose all meaning. And even if you did, how would you distribute this information to new players? A thread on here or Boardgamegeek.com cannot be required reading for new skirmish players.

The idea of us forming a sort of panel to influence the "new official" skirmish cards that FFG puts out is more possible, I think. But it's also probably unnecessary. I think the fact that FFG is issuing the patch cards in the first place is evidence that they are already on top of this and are hearing the feedback that we are giving them. The fixes will come in time. Besides, I like this game, but I'm not gonna work to improve it beyond my table. It's not my job to fix FFG's imperfect game. If people want it to be, they need to pay me. Please PM me for salary requirements.

So... I guess what I'm saying is "hooray for this thread and it's ideals of continuing to give FFG feedback, which I have faith they will incorporate." And also... "nope."

I'd rather leave that sort of development behind closed doors. It's just to speculate and come up with our own ideas on here, but we do that for fun. We're not professional designers as much as we think we know what's best for the game.

I trust the designers to sort that stuff out for us.

Boaty McBoatFace will be the latest figure release next wave!

~D

33 minutes ago, RogueLieutenant said:

I'd rather leave that sort of development behind closed doors. It's just to speculate and come up with our own ideas on here, but we do that for fun. We're not professional designers as much as we think we know what's best for the game.

I trust the designers to sort that stuff out for us.

I have a lot of fun throwing together and testing my skirmish upgrades. I enjoy discussing them with y'all and finding flaws and creative solutions.

But I'm not pretending to know more than the design team. They think about this game a hell of a lot more than anybody else, especially me. I feel delighted if any skirmish fix I suggested just so happens to be close to what was implemented by them.

3 hours ago, subtrendy2 said:

This might be a stupid question, but...

who?

(clearly, I don't follow skirmish much)

Just google the IA nationals champion for 2016 and 2017. I don't like naming people on public forums that I don't personally know.

Also, I don't really know what I was expecting when I ranted last night other than if there was general agreements on simple fixes (like maybe reducing Jyn's cost by 1((this is a made up example and by no means agreed upon by anyone))), perhaps it could encourage the designers to implement fixes in that way as opposed to skirmish upgrades/attachments.

I still like my idea of spending 1 deployment point and getting 750 or so credits to spend on tier I/II/III equipment upgrades. This could make some existing cards not often used way more useful without requiring skirmish upgrades.

I suppose this also has the potential to just break existing cards though.

Can you imagine Wookiee Warriors with force pikes!?

I actually like the concept of the Skirmish upgrades for heroes to change them. It is a simple way to do it and a player who has all the core box expansions are more likely to see it than an errata on the IA page. Though I think making them more available instead of buying a big box expansion is my only gripe about it. That and Imperials can't use IG-88 skirmish upgrade.

I think the FFG forum would function as well as the Galactic Senate if asked to agree on changes. I think this is best left to the Emperor and colleagues at FFG.

2 hours ago, VadersMarchKazoo said:

I think the FFG forum would function as well as the Galactic Senate if asked to agree on changes. I think this is best left to the Emperor and colleagues at FFG.

I call dibs on being the representative from the Asogians!

I like all you guys and gals

While I agree that a consensus is going to be difficult to achieve, discussing the game, its problems and potentials fixes is very much worthwile.

Even if you consider that the FFG team is better at balancing the game than the best players in the world (which is probably not true, as their goal is to make a fun game, while a tournament player's goal is to break the game), there are still only a handful of them and a whole lot more players. Let's say there are 10 people in the IA team whose job it is to balance the game and 10.000 active IA skirmish players (of which 10% participate in an online discussion). Even if you consider the IA team spends 10 times more time playing and that their testing is 10 times more efficient than a player's, our combined insight into the game is roughly equal.

Yes, but they have some of the best players in the game doing play testing, which involves giving feedback and making suggestions. Plus they know what else they have planned, which is important context that we don't have. Overall I think they're doing a good job, though the first couple of waves suffered from them not having enough experience with the game to make the unique figures efficient enough for their cost. I don't think outsourcing their design to the forums could have helped at all there!

Not a fan of this idea, personally.

I think my idea originated from reading so many comments about things needing "fixes" from the core box.

I think that if there is a general consensus on some simple fixes for characters, that could assist designers with the speed these fixes are created.

It'd be a real shame to leave so many figures in the dust.

Like if people agreed Saska should cost 4 instead of 6 with no other changes, that information could be a great help to designers so they don't spend too much time on that card.

Fenn, Biv, Verena, Gharkaan, Mak... I fear the way that "fixes" are being done

1. They're going to take a really long time to design/produce the fixes

2. There is a very real risk that the fixes not just bring these figures back, they make them OP (look at IG-88 basically being as strong as Jedi Luke!?)

3. Players have to purchase something that they may generally not want

Ultimately, as I don't play competitively, I'll just house rule cards and print off my own versions of them, but I really feel as though the IA community could assist with this whole process.

Even encouraging FFG to have an online poll that could be something like

"How would you "FIX" Saska?" A) Cost less points B) Stronger abilities C) More health

This could prompt them to just come up with a deployment card image that people could print and play with. For competitions, you would just have to show you had the original and use a sleeve with the old behind the newly printed version. It's cheap, it's relatively fast, and they've already got your money (most likely anyway).

Could work...

I was going to respond point by point, but I think I can just address everything in whole.

The fixes are not "coming slow" because the designers are pouring over each card one by one and it's taking them forever because of the staggering amount of work that entails. They are choosing to trickle them out in order to give each one a chance to be introduced and understood, and for players to get used to playing with and against it. It's an artificial bottleneck created intentionally, not one imposed on them by the workload. There's also marketing concerns at play, it doesn't look great to dump out a box of cards that "fixes" everything wrong with the game you have on the shelf next to it.

Entirely apart from that, if the entire community agrees that Saska should cost 4 instead of 6 with no other changes, that information has zero value to the developers. The community as a whole is missing a lot of information that goes into the design process, specifically the exact knowledge of what the designers intend each faction to do and how they intend them to do it, as well as information on where the game is going. Additionally, a flat reduction in cost is an errata, not a card fix.

And not everyone is getting 'fixed'. The community might think there are twenty odd figures that need an adjustment to be viable, but that doesn't mean there are twenty odd skirmish upgrades in the queue. Fixing cards is bad. It makes the game look bad. A hundred bandages is not a sign of good health, and that deters people from jumping in.

From what we can see, iconic characters are getting upgrades that allow them to see play because a Star Wars game where you don't play as Vader or Han Solo is a tragic misstep. So I think you can stop worrying about " Fenn, Biv, Verena, Gharkaan, Mak", because I doubt they are happening. At least, not with anything that directly addresses the unit. Boosts to rebel spies will help Mak (who isn't that bad of a card, and hardly in need of a fix on the same scale as Vader) and Wookie synergy / cards might make Gharkaan edge-case acceptable.

Lastly, and most importantly, I don't know why you think the community as a whole is capable of making good game design decisions. Your whole idea is predicated on the concept that if the community agrees on a change, it must be because it's correct. There is often a gulf between what players want and what is healthy for the game. Even if every voice on the forum agreed on the same rules change, the developers shouldn't make it unless they also independently arrived at the same conclusion.

14 minutes ago, squirrelfox said:

Entirely apart from that, if the entire community agrees that Saska should cost 4 instead of 6 with no other changes, that information has zero value to the developers. The community as a whole is missing a lot of information that goes into the design process, specifically the exact knowledge of what the designers intend each faction to do and how they intend them to do it, as well as information on where the game is going. Additionally, a flat reduction in cost is an errata, not a card fix.

I disagree here as we're talking about something that has already been designed as opposed to what is currently being designed and has admittedly been previously designed with primarily the campaign version of the game in mind. The rules have changed, so to speak, so I believe an errata is in order for some of these older cards.

If I'm understanding you correctly here, and I'm taking the liberty of generalizing, then what you're essentially saying is that the designers created Saska with the purpose of never being used?

People have bought the Core box and I can only assume would like to use as much of it as possible in both versions of the game. If an errata can get these figures on the board as opposed to collect dust as they are, then I say do it!

If the community is desirous of such a change from a cost of 6 to 4 for Saska, then that would show me that the community is also desirous of that card/figure being used. That is relevant information, especially when it can be easily corrected.

31 minutes ago, squirrelfox said:

And not everyone is getting 'fixed'. The community might think there are twenty odd figures that need an adjustment to be viable, but that doesn't mean there are twenty odd skirmish upgrades in the queue. Fixing cards is bad. It makes the game look bad. A hundred bandages is not a sign of good health, and that deters people from jum

This we can agree on, and I by no means was implying that every card needed and should receive a skirmish upgrade.

I believe that the iconic figures (Han, Chewy, Boba, etc.) should receive the fixes so that they can be not only what the designers want these figures to be, but also what the players hoped they would be in the first place. Essentially, a leader to build a particular squad around.

All of the heroes like Mak and them shouldn't be as powerful as Luke and Vader, but they should be playable.

It's well known the designers are now much more aware of the success of the skirmish version of the game and are taking that into careful consideration with current and future designs.

There are also a variety of new "well costed" figures that can be used as examples as to what a 4, 5, or 6 point character could/should cost.

I believe with the skills of the designers and the additional information the buyers/play testers can provide, an errata could be created to address a whole host of "over costed" figures.

46 minutes ago, squirrelfox said:

Lastly, and most importantly, I don't know why you think the community as a whole is capable of making good game design decisions. Your whole idea is predicated on the concept that if the community agrees on a change, it must be because it's correct. There is often a gulf between what players want and what is healthy for the game. Even if every voice on the forum agreed on the same rules change, the developers shouldn't make it unless they also independently arrived at the same conclusion.

I'm not entirely disagreeing with you here, but if not being able to use 10+ previously designed characters in skirmish is healthy, then I'm grossly out of touch with game health.

Also, the game developers have arrived upon the same conclusion that fixes are required. Yes they get to decide on the when and the what, but to say community feedback and/or consensus is utterly useless and should be ignored is a horrible idea for a designer.

These forums are essentially telling the designers how they would like to spend their money and also how they wish their money had been spent. It's up to the designers to make that happen.

I, for one, will say that if there are no official simple fixes or errata coming for a whole host of characters/figures and the Saskas and Fenns of this game are abandoned to gather dust I will be extremely disappointed and will definitely stop buying future expansions to show that.

Great discussion though and I really appreciate the variety of opinions shared!

2 hours ago, Quigman said:

If I'm understanding you correctly here

You aren't.

You're conflating two separate things here. The desire for previously printed characters to be 'fixed' and the desire for them to be fixed according to the dictates of the community. You need to take a step back and disentangle those notions.

Let's talk about Saska, Fenn, and Mak since you keep bringing them up. We can all agree that they should be playable, yes? But that doesn't mean they all need errata and special unique attachments.

Saska doesn't need to be fixed. She's not playable now, sure. But that doesn't mean she's permanent binder fodder. Saska is a 7 health Smuggler / Spy with a surgey attack, the ability to weaken, and she brings in one Merc group. None of that is bad, it's just not worth 6 points and she doesn't fit into any current lists. If Rebel Spies and Smugglers get a boost in terms of hot new command cards and unit synergy though, her value goes up without her card ever changing. Not to mention every new good Merc unit increases her potential as well. You don't need to change her to make her playable, you just need to change what she brings to the table. Which you can do through new cards and units.

Ditto Fenn and Mak. Fenn's issue is that there haven't been any Rebel Troopers good enough that granting one of them a single extra attack is worth it. But he and Ko-Tun might be the beginning of a power combo with the right Trooper / Leader cards available. For Mak to be viable you just need Rebel spies to have a little love. This kind of constructive rebalancing is better for the game because you don't have a couple dozen bandaids hastily slapped on, it works itself out through natural growth.

Errata is terrible for a game, it should always be a last resort.

And it should never be crowdsourced.

We also need to remember that for every old deployment card that changes, it will ripple outward to affect the relative power of many other deployment cards. So the more cards getting a hard "fix" at once the more potential there is for something to go wrong. There is a large pool of people out there who think it should be easy and fast to fix all the figures in this game.

But the reality is this isn't a video game where you can just patch stuff, see if it works, realize you just broke something even worse with your "fix" and hit the "oh crap turn it off!" undo button really fast.

To use a different metaphor, developing and course correcting for this game is like steering an old wooden galleon. If you realize you need to make a course correction it's going to take a little time and effort to make a small change that doesn't make it worse. And it takes a lot of people on the crew working together with the same goal and information, not a bunch of us who don't have the behind the scenes plans and scope and vision for the game. I And if you've got a big change to make it's going to take longer. It's not like driving a car and missing your exit and you can just hop off and turn around really fast. Honestly, I'm surprised they're fixing three things in one expansion but I'm happy to see it happen!

21 minutes ago, squirrelfox said:

You aren't.

You're conflating two separate things here. The desire for previously printed characters to be 'fixed' and the desire for them to be fixed according to the dictates of the community. You need to take a step back and disentangle those notions.

Let's talk about Saska, Fenn, and Mak since you keep bringing them up. We can all agree that they should be playable, yes? But that doesn't mean they all need errata and special unique attachments.

Saska doesn't need to be fixed. She's not playable now, sure. But that doesn't mean she's permanent binder fodder. Saska is a 7 health Smuggler / Spy with a surgey attack, the ability to weaken, and she brings in one Merc group. None of that is bad, it's just not worth 6 points and she doesn't fit into any current lists. If Rebel Spies and Smugglers get a boost in terms of hot new command cards and unit synergy though, her value goes up without her card ever changing. Not to mention every new good Merc unit increases her potential as well. You don't need to change her to make her playable, you just need to change what she brings to the table. Which you can do through new cards and units.

Ditto Fenn and Mak. Fenn's issue is that there haven't been any Rebel Troopers good enough that granting one of them a single extra attack is worth it. But he and Ko-Tun might be the beginning of a power combo with the right Trooper / Leader cards available. For Mak to be viable you just need Rebel spies to have a little love. This kind of constructive rebalancing is better for the game because you don't have a couple dozen bandaids hastily slapped on, it works itself out through natural growth.

Errata is terrible for a game, it should always be a last resort.

And it should never be crowdsourced.

I'll respond in order.

I'm not implying that the community should be able to dictate the changes of characters, so I apologise if I've given that impression.

I do feel that the community should have the ability to influence and/or suggest changes and give ideas to the designers that are seriously considered or even incorporated into the game. I think we're seeing that with skirmish upgrade attachments.

I'm not saying I'm the one to suggest the best changes, in fact, I probably am one of the worst for that as I don't play competitively. Ignoring hundreds of free opinions and potential design changes based on thousands of collective hours of play seems irresponsible, regardless as to whether they're game designers, players, or IA/FFG employees.

I don't think all characters need skirmish attachments. I think a few need them for sure, but not all and I've never said they all did.

Your suggestions as to how to naturally make Mak, Saska, and Fenn playable are definitely viable options, but they're definitely not the options I would like to see.

Your suggestions require players to constantly be purchasing the new material to make the old material playable. From a business perspective, I can see how this is a great option. Make money and fix some previous issues with no errata saying we needed to correct some mistakes/insert alternate word of choice here.

Personally, this is a deal breaker for me and quite honestly, a bit of a slap to the face. I didn't purchase the core box with the expectation of constantly having to purchase upgrades/expansions to make the core box fully playable. Errata sucks, sure, but I feel as though it'd be easier to set the standard now with the old characters before too many new command cards and new figures make those changes OP.

Errata may be terrible for a game and perhaps you're even right about it being a last resort, but we're well beyond that now with this game.

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2015/12/21/great-change-in-the-galaxy/

I'm not implying the 4x4 and sab errata were right or wrong, simply saying that this game has already seen errata.

I'm curious to know as to why you would never consider consulting the community for errata?

11 hours ago, Quigman said:

I'm curious to know as to why you would never consider consulting the community for errata?

Not to speak for squirrelfox, but I assume that's because it just makes the game messier.

And I would consider "consulting" the community a good thing. Just, not putting the task to them entirely.

19 minutes ago, subtrendy2 said:

Not to speak for squirrelfox, but I assume that's because it just makes the game messier.

But how?

I'm not a designer and don't have much experience with these types of games and I'm legitimitely curious.

Is there an organized way in which this could be done?

If so, or even maybe, what would that look like?

If it was possible, could it be given a test drive with a single character so as to not make too much of a mess?