17 hours ago, TalkPolite said:

Probably because thematically it fits in with the Imperials who have so many famous bounty hunters. Game play wise? I’m sure Rebels will get an equivalent eventually.

Fett was the first Imperial Operative, so FF has already had almost a year (one year this September) to correct this. Just sayin’. 😁

12 hours ago, Thraug said:

I like I like that the factions have different qualities. It would be goofy for the rebels to have bounty hunters as they are not in any of the movies, which is what 95 + percent of the people are exposed to for Star Wars.

Should the Empire get Z6s, or lots of Ion, or a Luke equivalent? No.

Each side should have equal, but not the same opportunities/options. Balance does not mean thing have to be exactly the same.

Besides if the Empire got Z-6s, they’d just be Republic troops. 😋

16 hours ago, Angry Ewok said:

Theme be darned... the rebel equivalent should have been released along side it.

I for one am getting very bored by equivalents being released alongside each other. Personally I feel like Bounty is sort of "trying to hard" or something anyways, and not actually thematic at all. It would be better to just have an Assassinate mission or something. And I don't feel like there IS a rebel equivalent. Sure you could give them a VP for killing a character but that's not the path I'd like to see this game head down.

Quote

Without balance theme is useless and actually a detriment.

Well that's debatable.

Quote

Someone please, LOGICALLY, Justify how this is fair.

They can't. Because....

Points-buy game systems are never fair. They can only approximate balanced forces. Everyone agrees that 10 stormtroopers are better than 1 wookie. But exactly how much better can get hard to figure out. Points-buy systems help two friendly players put out two roughly equal forces. This is glossed over now, but it's still as true as it was when they used to include such a caveat in published rulebooks. People hate this idea because of the self esteem we all tie to skill mastery. But it's still true, even if people hate it.

I’m afraid I can’t really see bounty as a major balance issue to be addressed. Frankly, if I was asked to ‘fix’ inter-faction balance I would look at DLTs (remove Impact, replace with Crit-on-surge) before the bounty rule.

I’m not pushing hard for this either btw.

4 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:

They can't. Because....

Points-buy game systems are never fair. They can only approximate balanced forces. Everyone agrees that 10 stormtroopers are better than 1 wookie. But exactly how much better can get hard to figure out. Points-buy systems help two friendly players put out two roughly equal forces. This is glossed over now, but it's still as true as it was when they used to include such a caveat in published rulebooks. People hate this idea because of the self esteem we all tie to skill mastery. But it's still true, even if people hate it.

That’s all true, but the Bounty imbalance should be painfully obvious, even for people like me who are not professional game designers.

When a game is based on victory points and one side has options to gain VP above and beyond what is on the table, and the opposing side doesn’t have an answer, that is far beyond the imbalance you illustrate.

26 minutes ago, JediPartisan said:

That’s all true, but the Bounty imbalance should be painfully obvious, even for people like me who are not professional game designers.

When a game is based on victory points and one side has options to gain VP above and beyond what is on the table, and the opposing side doesn’t have an answer, that is far beyond the imbalance you illustrate.

Except the other side does have an answer: Kill the unit with Bounty, or otherwise prevent the target unit from being killed by the unit with Bounty.

12 hours ago, syrath said:

On the earlier seven samurai nod episode he wasn't working for sidious but was being paid by he farmers and ended up fighting alongside Obi-Wan, iirc that was the episode Embo was introduced. As for bounty this is indeed a way for an imperial player to gain points over the rebel player and on the face of it seems unfair, however both Bossk and Boba ain't cheap and are a considerable investment on points in a game where many of the objectives are easier the more activations you get. So even if Boba does slap a bounty on , let's say the easiest to kill, Rebel Officer. Now you can use that officer as a distraction or even as a trap, as Boba is rather prone to getting shot down by Z6 troopers in the games I've played against him. Only played against Bossk once and his Armor is rebel trooper paper thin.

Yes, working for farmers for money. That’s not indicative of anything but purely mercenary motives.

The willingness to knowingly work for a Sith Lord means he’s definitely on the dark side of the spectrum.

Rebels have infiltrate which is essentially the ability to claim a box and run to safety first turn.

There is balance. If fett has been out a year and hasn't broken the game with bounty, don't you think it isn't that great?

If there wasn't, bounty lists would stand out a lot more. (and one day they might, but I haven't seen it yet).

1 minute ago, Derrault said:

Yes, working for farmers for money. That’s not indicative of anything but purely mercenary motives.

The willingness to knowingly work for a Sith Lord means he’s definitely on the dark side of the spectrum.

To many in the era the Jedi were corrupt puppets of the republic and the with didn't exist. So loyalty to money doesn't make you dark side

First thing: collecting bounty is not so easy as the op implies.

The bounty hunter must be the one that inflicts the last wound on the target. Which means that target is quite safe until bounty hunter can shoot him.

Then maybe the target has emergency stims. So taeget can decide if use those or not.

Second thing: the bounty hunter must be alive at the end of the game in order to collect the bounty.

Boba fett has only 5 wounds, while bossk has 7. One lucky round from the opponent and they are gone.

12 minutes ago, toffolone said:

First thing: collecting bounty is not so easy as the op implies.

The bounty hunter must be the one that inflicts the last wound on the target. Which means that target is quite safe until bounty hunter can shoot him.

Then maybe the target has emergency stims. So taeget can decide if use those or not.

Second thing: the bounty hunter must be alive at the end of the game in order to collect the bounty.

Boba fett has only 5 wounds, while bossk has 7. One lucky round from the opponent and they are gone.

probably even easier once Fire Support joins the game.

1 minute ago, crx3800 said:

probably even easier once Fire Support joins the game.

Easier to collect the bounty or easier to kill the bounty hunter?

3 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:

Easier to collect the bounty or easier to kill the bounty hunter?

Good point.

I was thinking easier to kill the bounty hunter. It would possibly make earning the bounty easier, if Fett manages to shoot each weapon with a mortar backing it up.

But he then has to stay alive for the rest of the game.

Going after the bounty is a double edged sword

1/ using bounty hunters is a sizable amount of points to spend just to get a victory point. On Recover the supplies there are 3 victory points up for grabs so having bounty is a bigger advantage here. For other objectives pursuing the bounty is a quick way of your opponent wracking up points that no amount of bounty will fix, so it becomes a choice of either going for the bounty VP but sacrificing objective VPs.

2/ most objectives favour more activations

3/ for some Commanders having a bounty allows you to pull someone out of position and even trap the bounty hunters.

4/ bounty doesn't trigger if you get killed by a standard unit, providing some measure of protection on the target. In the case of Palpatine or clambering you can even suicide to deny the point if it is likely to happen.

Having read this thread some thing have become clear to me that there is an urgent need for some balance changes. Namely:

1) Rebels need Hondo. I am not sure what skills he would have to counter Bounty, and I really don't care. Rebels need Hondo.

2) This is also true for Hera and Chopper. NEED them. For balance or something.

3) Bountly looks pretty sexy, as a rebel player it forces me to keep my head down or at least keep bounty hunters from their prizes, but they are on 100+ point models. If they bounty and run, that substantially weakens the use of the model. Ia m not convinced it is as killer as it seems. YMMV I am pretty new at this one.

I really don't think bouty is so game breaking that one side having it and the other not is game breaking. Plus, its nice to see the two sides being differentiated some more. This game is only gonna be stable in the long term (im talking 40k long term) if the factions play significantly different from each other that its interesting.

8 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Except the other side does have an answer: Kill the unit with Bounty, or otherwise prevent the target unit from being killed by the unit with Bounty.

Meanwhile the player with bounty has the ability to exert more control over the table than the other player forcing one of their commanders to play defence and stay hidden, or risk losing a victory point without any way of gaining a VP of their own.

I got beat by bounty. nerf pls

I play rebs exclusively and have had no issue with bounty. they have alot of hoops .to.jump.through to.get it

8 hours ago, syrath said:

To many in the era the Jedi were corrupt puppets of the republic and the with didn't exist. So loyalty to money doesn't make you dark side

Except he literally knows that Palpatine is a Sith Lord, same as some of Palpatine’s cronies (ie the Sidekick with the horns in the senate).

The point is that loyalty to money != altruism/selflessness and abnegation of self interest is a core tenant of the light side of the force; selfishness and greed fall squarely in the dark side, categorically.

On 7/16/2019 at 8:43 AM, Angry Ewok said:

aside from pointing out how badly this can swing games, and how both sides don't have access to it, I want to offer a suggestion to amend this issue:

1. Remove Bounty all together, just play the game like it was set up, no VP adding

2. Make it a risk to use, if a player uses bounty and does not collect it their needs to be a consequence, so there is a thought process there of "is this worth using," instead of using it because why not its on the card...

2.a maybe make it optional to use and if the marked unit survives and the bounty hunter dies bounty awards a VP to the other team, this creates a meaningful decision about when/how to use bounty that has real consequences, it also offers the opportunity for counterplay against it

2.b maybe make the bounty act like it currently does but a collected bounty doubles the value of the marked unit when calculating MoV. this is still a huge edge in a lot of games that go to tie breakers, but does not force one player to extend their units forward to tie VP, losing attrition in the process.

3. create rebel alternate VP options of similar type. (if this was going to be done it should have been done already, releasing stuff that intentionally creates this VP scoring issue, even to 6-9 months does not respect your players)

The main issue is what ever is done, it needs to force decisions on the user. Right now Bounty is a fire and forget threat that Imps can fire off without thought and it may win them a close game. In order to counter that minimal brain power tactic, players on the other end of it must constantly play around this threat from turn 0 through turn 6.

Have you actually played Imperial? If so, how often do you score with bounty? More than 50%?

Playing bounty is not as straightforward as you make it sound. You can't go in willy-nilly at the target or risk loosing your 140 points bounty hunter. You need to wait for an opening before you can claim the bounty. Even then, most units these days have some means to cancel the bounty, i.e. e stim.

In your point 2a, it's a reverse bounty. Why it's worst because just about anyone can kill the bounty hunter and collect the VP. What's the point?

In your point 2b, Unless you're aiming for a tie, why waste effort trying to bump your MOV artificially?

In your point 3, So you say it's overpowered, yet you want the same thing for the rebel. This would not amend the issue. Case in point: both sides have snipers.

Like most things already in the game, you need to build a list that takes this keyword into account. Strategies around it rather than calling it broken.

4 hours ago, Derrault said:

Except he literally knows that Palpatine is a Sith Lord, same as some of Palpatine’s cronies (ie the Sidekick with the horns in the senate).

The point is that loyalty to money != altruism/selflessness and abnegation of self interest is a core tenant of the light side of the force; selfishness and greed fall squarely in the dark side, categorically.

If you are force user, which embo isnt. At least where canon/RIG references are.

9 hours ago, JediPartisan said:

Meanwhile the player with bounty has the ability to exert more control over the table than the other player forcing one of their commanders to play defence and stay hidden, or risk losing a victory point without any way of gaining a VP of their own.

Fett and Bossk are hardly powerful enough to "force" defensive play. I never indicated they needed to keep the bounty hidden in the back corner, just that they should screen them, same as you should always do with important commanders. The player has complete control over the unit with bounty and complete knowledge, it's not like it's written on a piece of paper and hidden. Functionally, they have a means of costing the Bounty player VP, by defeated the bounty hunter either before or after the target is defeated. It's not like the original wording of key positions, where the blue player automatically gets an extra VP over the red player if both players do nothing, the bounty hunter player has to meet a particular set of criteria: their unit with Bounty has to land the final blow. Dying to emergency stims doesn't count as far as I can tell (since e-stims doesn't 'remember' where the damage came from), and it does mean your opponent might be less willing to attack the bounty target with any other unit. Meanwhile, you're never under that sort of restriction when it comes to targeting their bounty hunter.

Infiltrate and suppressive also affect the way your opponent plays, as does list composition in general. The most defensive play I ever see is when I field 3 fire chickens. I was able to exert more control over the board, does that mean the list needs to be nerfed?

4 hours ago, syrath said:

If you are force user, which embo isnt. At least where canon/RIG references are.

Everyone in the Star Wars universe uses or is aligned with the force. And in other games he’s listed as aligned with the Dark Side.

For those of you who are talking about how assassination isn't thematic for the light side/rebellion.

Luke was an assassin.

The entire point of training him was to kill Vader and the Emperor. Luke came up with the idea to try to redeem Vader, Yoda and Obi Wan were squarely against it.

Luke: "I can't kill my own father
Obi Wan: "Then the Emperor has already won, you were our only hope."

Also, Cassian was ordered to assassinate Galen. Even though he didn't they still bombed the facility thereby achieving the same goal.

And don't tell me there's not a few guys in the rebellions like this guy here.

6 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Fett and Bossk are hardly powerful enough to "force" defensive play. I never indicated they needed to keep the bounty hidden in the back corner, just that they should screen them, same as you should always do with important commanders. The player has complete control over the unit with bounty and complete knowledge, it's not like it's written on a piece of paper and hidden. Functionally, they have a means of costing the Bounty player VP, by defeated the bounty hunter either before or after the target is defeated. It's not like the original wording of key positions, where the blue player automatically gets an extra VP over the red player if both players do nothing, the bounty hunter player has to meet a particular set of criteria: their unit with Bounty has to land the final blow. Dying to emergency stims doesn't count as far as I can tell (since e-stims doesn't 'remember' where the damage came from), and it does mean your opponent might be less willing to attack the bounty target with any other unit. Meanwhile, you're never under that sort of restriction when it comes to targeting their bounty hunter.

Infiltrate and suppressive also affect the way your opponent plays, as does list composition in general. The most defensive play I ever see is when I field 3 fire chickens. I was able to exert more control over the board, does that mean the list needs to be nerfed?

I never said Fett and Bossk alone can force defensive play.

Any point of damage that the targeted unit takes means that that unit is closer to being used as the means to gaining that VP. If the target unit is low enough in health, either Boba or Bossk can use range 4 to finish the job. Since there are few rebel units that can answer at that range, the duo will more than likely be successful. Also in two commander lists, one commander is usually risked to reap enemy units. Rebel units usually use Luke or Leia, both are very good on the attack, yet the rebel now has to keep the targeted unit away from combat other wise risk losing them. Keep in mind the only Commanders or operatives on the rebel side that have weapon ranges greater that 2 are Chewie and Jyn and to not use an expensive unit in combat is wasting points. Even if Bounty isn’t collected, the threat is still there and the fact that one side has a possibility for more VP is more than enough of an advantage. And as I’ve said it before, would you play Monopoly and give all the other players $500 more to start? Why should one side have access to more possibilities to victory than the other? There is no other ability in the game that has a possible VP attached, and that’s the whole point. If Bounty were setup so the Bounty player gains a VP if successful, but if the target survives, the target player gains the VP, and if the target is killed by another unit, no one gets the VP, things would be more fair (of course they would also have to add “may” to the bounty key word, so it’s not mandatory). Or just give the Rebels a unit that can gain a VP through some means (doesn’t have to be Bounty).

Infiltrate and Suppressive don’t give or guarantee a VP if successful.