6 hours ago, DrDevidents said:

I think a second edition is definitely needed, due to the level of inaccessibility with Skirmish and the high cost of entry. Because of the rotating map system, the game requires you own the Core, several expansions and figure packs just to be able to play in a tournament.

I don’t care about figure costs or imbalance but right now if someone wanted to play in an X-Wing tournament they can do so for under €100. For a game like Shadespire they can play for about €40. The current costs for being able to play in Imperial Assault is about €250.

A second edition is needed to re-evaluate this system and introduce a competitive field that is cheaper to enter. Obviously it’s FFG so you’ll want to buy everything but it’s far more enticing to new players if the entry point is affordable.

Also not having to carry a bundle of map pieces or multiple play mats to each tournament would be good. As would a play mat that is usable for more than a year...

A so-called second edition could be fully compatible with the existing material but be both a time-jump for the campaign and a redesign of the tournament play for Skirmish.

Legion is IA second addition for skirmish. If there was ever a second edition I'd hope it will be campaign only, like Descent. You are right about the entry cost, they are super high... for skirmish. Skirmish was originally secondary for IA. I wish it would have stayed that way. With the app, however, there doesn't even need to be a second addition, because the app can make changes to enemy abilities with just a small update.

Maps is a thing in IA. On one hand competitive tournament players (like me) can't wait to get rid of certain maps sooner or later, because they get boring (50+ games on one map till it rotates out), because they have a certain impact on the meta (long hallways = great for snipers / lots of corners to hide = great for brawlers), because there are broken interactions (Junk Droid in Nal Hutta), or ...

On the other hand, the entry point for more casual players, that just want to attend a tournament every now and then is really high, if you include 3 to 4 maps per year and all the boxes you "need" multiples of in competitive play (at the moment 2 boxes of Jabba's Realm just for the second elite Weequay card and 2 boxes of Heart of the Empire just for the second elite Jet Troopers card).

So in my opinion, FFG should not change the map rotation, but make 1. the maps cheaper and 2. available from the day, they are in rotation.

1. It's nice, that the official maps are high quality and extremely durable. But the maps are in rotation for about a year and usually see a max of 50 games in that time. But they are made of a synthetic material with a half-life of (estimated) several thousand years. Do we really need that? A 5$ PVC map would be as good for most players.

2. A product that can be used for just a year should not be late for delivery by weeks and months EVERY TIME. Our FLGS just doesn't order the maps anymore, because there were maps in the past he just received after they went out of rotation. I don't know, if it works in the US, but here in Europe it doesn't. FFG should release a map BEFORE it becomes tournament legal.

And regarding multiple boxes: Please FFG, if you include 2 groups of a given figure, then please include 2 regular AND 2 elite cards for that group.

Y'know, it seems to me that releasing figure packs of units only included in boxed expansions might go some way to addressing the cost barrier issue. While I play primarily campaign, I'd bite on Probe Droids just because I have the crappy, original pre-flying stand version.

55 minutes ago, bill_andel said:

Y'know, it seems to me that releasing figure packs of units only included in boxed expansions might go some way to addressing the cost barrier issue. While I play primarily campaign, I'd bite on Probe Droids just because I have the crappy, original pre-flying stand version.

There's 2 versions of Probe Droids?

I know some people have modded them, but I'm pretty sure there's no official "flying" version.

And honestly, I don't mind- probe droids are one of my favorite sculpts anyway.

Maybe Imperial Assault will gains a LCG's cooperative version (like Arkham Horror Card game). Or Fantasy Flight will turns IA on a Warhammer quest's sucessor with a retheme.

In my perspective IA will gain a some sort of card game version.

Sorry, and I don't mean to be a smartarse, but how is an IA card game different from the... 2...? 3....? Star Wars card games FFG already have going? Are you envisioning some sort of adventure-building card game where we re-use the IA heroes? If so, I'm VERY intrigued, but if not... then I don't get it... Also, I'm dumb

Ehh they can just re print each expansion as they add a new campaign for it to the app.

Legion is not skirmish. Our rounds take about 2 hours in legion. IA skirmish rounds are 1/3 that.

I would want a new IA base set to Star the cast of the upcoming resistance cartoon and let players be those characters. Give it a few map boards like epic duels for fast set up and characters with tighter more basic special rules.

1 minute ago, TylerTT said:

I would want a new IA base set to Star the cast of the upcoming resistance cartoon and let players be those characters.

All expansions expect you to have the core set (and require nothing else), so a new base set cannot happen without a full reboot, which I think is pretty unlikely at this time.

So, in effect it would be just another boxed expansion, or a separate standalone game (with or without expectations for expansions).

1 minute ago, a1bert said:

All expansions expect you to have the core set (and require nothing else), so a new base set cannot happen without a full reboot, which I think is pretty unlikely at this time.

So, in effect it would be just another boxed expansion, or a separate standalone game (with or without expectations for expansions).

This is not true. A new base set can happen, like with the Force Awakens X-Wing.

It can have new characters, new tiles, new cards, new scenarios but the same rules, dice and tokens.

On 5/6/2018 at 7:52 PM, Rikalonius said:

Legion is IA second addition for skirmish. If there was ever a second edition I'd hope it will be campaign only, like Descent. You are right about the entry cost, they are super high... for skirmish. Skirmish was originally secondary for IA. I wish it would have stayed that way. With the app, however, there doesn't even need to be a second addition, because the app can make changes to enemy abilities with just a small update.

Legion is not the second addition of IA Skirmish. That is like saying that Armada is the second edition of X-Wing. Different rules, different scales, different settings.

I can understand anyone who doesn’t play the Skirmish side of IA not caring about it. But it’s the side supported through Organised Play and FFG Worlds/Euros. It’s popular and people would like to see improvements made to it. I, for instance, would like to see the competitive maps use only tiles from the Core Set in order to reduce the cost of entry for new players.

4 minutes ago, DrDevidents said:

This is not true. A new base set can happen, like with the Force Awakens X-Wing.

It can have new characters, new tiles, new cards, new scenarios but the same rules, dice and tokens.

Yes and no. The Force Awakens core set for X-Wing duplicated everything in the old X-Wing core which the expansions expected to be in the core.

For Imperial Assault this would mean that for a new core set you need to
1. Duplicate all tiles. Graphics can be different, but tiles need to have the same shapes and terrain need to match.
2. Duplicate or provide replacements for all rebel allies, imperial, and mercenary groups expected by expansions. They do not need to be the same but need corresponding groups of the same figure count and (approximate) cost for all groups in the core with replacement rules.
3. Include a supply deck, item decks, at least one imperial class, at least 6 agenda sets.
4. Include dice and tokens.
5. Have new heroes and a new campaign.

- If you don't have the core box, what attracts a new player to buy this instead of the "old" core box?
- If you purchase the "new" core, what detracts you from being interested in the core campaign, heroes, and groups?
- If you are interested in both campaigns, you are then forced to purchase a lot of overlap, which is all fixed if the new content is just a 2-3 new expansions. In X-Wing you benefit from having duplicates of the material of core set (dice and templates), so you have no trouble purchasing both. But the X-Wing core costs 1/4 of the IA core.

What I would like to see is an overhaul and rewrite of the rules as they stand now, preferably with a "living rules" document with hyperlinks to more in-depth articles to make it easier to learn the basics but still have all the rules and implications and interactions at your fingertips (and easily updatable).

36 minutes ago, a1bert said:

Yes and no. The Force Awakens core set for X-Wing duplicated everything in the old X-Wing core which the expansions expected to be in the core.

For Imperial Assault this would mean that for a new core set you need to
1. Duplicate all tiles. Graphics can be different, but tiles need to have the same shapes and terrain need to match.
2. Duplicate or provide replacements for all rebel allies, imperial, and mercenary groups expected by expansions. They do not need to be the same but need corresponding groups of the same figure count and (approximate) cost for all groups in the core with replacement rules.
3. Include a supply deck, item decks, at least one imperial class, at least 6 agenda sets.
4. Include dice and tokens.
5. Have new heroes and a new campaign.

- If you don't have the core box, what attracts a new player to buy this instead of the "old" core box?
- If you purchase the "new" core, what detracts you from being interested in the core campaign, heroes, and groups?
- If you are interested in both campaigns, you are then forced to purchase a lot of overlap, which is all fixed if the new content is just a 2-3 new expansions.

Again, not entirely true. If you are interested in both campaigns then the only overlap between the two cores is the rulebooks, tokens and dice. And you’ll likely want extra dice anyway. The second Core would have different tiles, different miniatures, different cards and different scenarios.

It would be expensive, sure, but the Core is already significantly more value than any other expansion and this would still be true.

But that second Core, fully compatible from the campaign side, could help as a reboot for Skirmish. It could come with sufficient miniatures for three faction teams (possibly even introduce a fourth faction), and introduce a tile set that all map rotations could be pulled from for OP.

As such for Campaign mode, the second Core would just act as a particularly high value expansion and be totally optional (for campaign you are not ever forced to purchase anything). But for Skirmish it would represent a new, fresh start and a method of keeping the initial buy-in cost low for new competitive players.

1 hour ago, DrDevidents said:

Again, not entirely true. If you are interested in both campaigns then the only overlap between the two cores is the rulebooks, tokens and dice. And you’ll likely want extra dice anyway. The second Core would have different tiles, different miniatures, different cards and different scenarios.

It would be expensive, sure, but the Core is already significantly more value than any other expansion and this would still be true.

But that second Core, fully compatible from the campaign side, could help as a reboot for Skirmish. It could come with sufficient miniatures for three faction teams (possibly even introduce a fourth faction), and introduce a tile set that all map rotations could be pulled from for OP.

As such for Campaign mode, the second Core would just act as a particularly high value expansion and be totally optional (for campaign you are not ever forced to purchase anything). But for Skirmish it would represent a new, fresh start and a method of keeping the initial buy-in cost low for new competitive players.

So you are suggesting a new box that functions as very expensive scenario for campaign players, but is really a self-contained skirmish reboot that makes all other IA miniatures irrelevant, but gives a full set of "teams" for 3 or 4 factions? So essentially you want a skirmish only IA core? I think A1bert has it more correct. What I think we need is a new box that takes all existing cards and tries to up their viability.

29 minutes ago, Rikalonius said:

So you are suggesting a new box that functions as very expensive scenario for campaign players, but is really a self-contained skirmish reboot that makes all other IA miniatures irrelevant, but gives a full set of "teams" for 3 or 4 factions? So essentially you want a skirmish only IA core? I think A1bert has it more correct. What I think we need is a new box that takes all existing cards and tries to up their viability.

I didn’t suggest that at all. That’s ridiculous.

Sure it would be an expensive campaign box, but with a scenario the size of the core, similar amount of models and tiles it would be extremely good value, much more so than the expansions.

It would be backward compatible in all aspects, all figures existing and future would still be viable. No previous purchase is made irrelevant. But if you had a varied tile set that could form the basis of all competitive maps going forward then the new Core would be a much better buy for new players. A better figure distribution and a Core set of tiles would make it a viable purchase for both Campaign or Skirmish. Right now, the existing Core is great value for the campaign side but very poor for the Skirmish side. What I’m suggesting is a Core that balances both and provides a more robust stepping off point regardless of which side you play.

Fixing just the cards does not fix IA’s biggest problems from a competitive perspective and would just add an *additional* required expensive to play.

2 hours ago, DrDevidents said:

The second Core would have different tiles

If the tiles are different (besides different graphics) the existing expansions are not compatible, you would still need the core box. (And why would FFG spend on just graphics?)

Sorry, A1bert, I don’t know what you mean about tiles only have different graphics? Every expansion has had new tiles, which FFG spends money on to have new “graphics”.

Why wouldn’t FFG spend the money just like with every IA box? A new core would have a new scenario and setting, like Yavin IV for instance, so it would obviously have tiles themed appropriately. Obviously they’d be compatible with existing tiles.

40 minutes ago, DrDevidents said:

Sorry, A1bert, I don’t know what you mean about tiles only have different graphics?

The expansions require that you have the core box - both for the initial and reserved groups and sometimes for allies, and for the tiles. Without the tiles you can't build the maps, and replacing them with some other tiles with different terrain can break the missions. So, if you want to have "different tiles" than the core, they can be only different by their appearance, not their shape or terrain.

Obviously their shape has to be the same, for combatability but we’re talking a second Core here.

But I think I finally understand where you are coming from. After a second Core, any theoretical future expansions would need to use the tiles from it because the original core is different. Thus after a second Core release all expansions would require that you bought the second Core and while the first Core and it’s expansions are fully playable, they now become a closed system. Likewise, the older expansions would not be comparable in campaign mode with the second Core.

This is true. I wouldn’t have an issue with this, a similar thing has happened in plenty of games such as Descent or Mansions of Madness. But I do understand the concern now.

I do wish the issues with Skirmish were fixed though, as it has become impossible to grow the community. The cost barrier just to bring a basic team to an official tournament is a joke.

6 hours ago, a1bert said:

Wh at I would like to see is an overhaul and rewrite of the rules as they stand now, preferably with a "living rules" document with hyperlinks to more in-depth articles to make it easier to learn the basics but still have all the rules and implications and interactions at your fingertips (and easily updatable).

So you can spend less time on the forums & other places on the Internet answering rules questions? ? ?

34 minutes ago, DrDevidents said:

Obviously their shape has to be the same, for combatability but we’re talking a second Core here.

But I think I finally understand where you are coming from. After a second Core, any theoretical future expansions would need to use the tiles from it because the original core is different. Thus after a second Core release all expansions would require that you bought the second Core and while the first Core and it’s expansions are fully playable, they now become a closed system. Likewise, the older expansions would not be comparable in campaign mode with the second Core.

This is true. I wouldn’t have an issue with this, a similar thing has happened in plenty of games such as Descent or Mansions of Madness. But I do understand the concern now.

I do wish the issues with Skirmish were fixed though, as it has become impossible to grow the community. The cost barrier just to bring a basic team to an official tournament is a joke.

So you want a 2nd Core box with new tiles, figures, deployment cards, heroes, Imp decks, agenda sets, has updated rules, and makes the old Core a Closed System, but is backwards compatible with the existing expansions?

I guess I just don't see the difference between what you are describing and a 2nd edition of the game that comes with a conversion kit.

1 hour ago, Pollux85 said:

So you want a 2nd Core box with new tiles, figures, deployment cards, heroes, Imp decks, agenda sets, has updated rules, and makes the old Core a Closed System, but is backwards compatible with the existing expansions?

I guess I just don't see the difference between what you are describing and a 2nd edition of the game that comes with a conversion kit.

I guess one advantage would be variety.

Right now, missions only include components from the wave the mission is from in addition to core. I guess instead of getting 1+X all the time (1 being core, x being the mission's wave) giving us 2x (2 being second core version, obviously) would allow for some more variety in a campaign- particularly if you could mix 1x and 2x side missions into a campaign.

Another big advantage already mentioned would be a second core would allow for huge erratas to rules, and if it came with a conversion kit then a second core could bring new components to the game while fixing the old stuff, and while being a new entry point for new players. Best of both worlds, really.

5 hours ago, a1bert said:

The expansions require that you have the core box - both for the initial and reserved groups and sometimes for allies, and for the tiles. Without the tiles you can't build the maps, and replacing them with some other tiles with different terrain can break the missions. So, if you want to have "different tiles" than the core, they can be only different by their appearance, not their shape or terrain.

Mansions of Madness second edition released new tiles, heroes, etc, and didn't worry about compatibility with the older set or expansions, but offered a conversion kit to let you use the old components in the new system, and then released those components in new edition expansions for those that didn't have 1st edition already... So that could work with IA....

1 hour ago, subtrendy2 said:

I guess one advantage would be variety.

Right now, missions only include components from the wave the mission is from in addition to core. I guess instead of getting 1+X all the time (1 being core, x being the mission's wave) giving us 2x (2 being second core version, obviously) would allow for some more variety in a campaign- particularly if you could mix 1x and 2x side missions into a campaign.

Another big advantage already mentioned would be a second core would allow for huge erratas to rules, and if it came with a conversion kit then a second core could bring new components to the game while fixing the old stuff, and while being a new entry point for new players. Best of both worlds, really.

No I get that. I just feel like at this point people are calling the same thing different names. This whole last page has been difficult to follow. People have ideas and I'm just not getting it. Oh well.

5 minutes ago, Pollux85 said:

No I get that. I just feel like at this point people are calling the same thing different names. This whole last page has been difficult to follow. People have ideas and I'm just not getting it. Oh well.

For sure, I'm sure we're all coming at this from a different angle.