TimmerB123 wrote:
There will be some satisfaction in characters going from a disappointing game to a superior one, but then again, as the superior game, we'll be stuck with characters from a disappointing game.
Disappointing?
Different strokes for different folks, I guess. I prefer Imperial Assault to SWM, actually. It obviously doesn't have the depth of characters and available squad choices that SWM has...and it won't have that for a while.
[But then, it also doesn't have the TN group! lol oops, that probably wasn't good to say]But IMO it has gotten a lot of things right already, that SWM never had.
--The range factor (which Les mentioned) should've been present in SWM from the start
--Command Cards (which Les also mentioned) add a whole extra layer to squad building and the actual gameplay
--Mission Objectives are a very different (and far more interesting) version of Gambit. They are different on every mission (and each map has 2 missions), and they force your tactics to be different in each mission. This is a HUGE advantage over SWM, where you are technically "engaged in the game" if you're sitting in Gambit. I have never once seen a stalemate situation in IA, where neither squad is willing or able to engage the other squad without losing the game. But that happens regularly (less and less regularly recently, thankfully) in SWM.
--It is virtually impossible to get a points lead and run away (ie, stall) in IA, since the maps are so small and enemy characters only hinder movement but don't block it. It is a much more fluid gameplay experience. And faster.
--Games are usually over in 30-40 minutes, rather than the 60+ that we often find with SWM.
--NO LOCKOUTS! Seriously, this factor alone should be enough to grab the interest of SWM players.
--No JarJar Binks.
--FFG is actually interested in the tournament experience for its players, whereas WotC...well, at least they produced the minis. In IA a Players Group has just been formed, at the initiation of the game designers, to keep a pulse on how the competitive scene is going. The game designers are actually
interested and
invested in peoples' enjoyment of the competitive game. This is
leagues ahead of anything WotC ever did.
--this is just a start, but I'll stop here since I need to get back to work.
I'll also mention this since I think it bears on the discussion: There were 3 of the regular/main/longtime SWM players in the IA Championship this year: Matt Peterson, Jonny Brooks, and me. We finished 6th, 9th, and 10th (respectively), in a field of 54...and I was a single dice roll away from going 4-1, which would've placed me in the Top 8. This says a number of things: experience with SWM is a huge advantage in IA, because a lot of the thinking and tactics are quite similar. Basically, if you're good at SWM, you'll likely be good at IA too. Something about outmaneuvering your opponent on a gridded map, and learning to think in terms of priority of targets and timing, etc...these skills from SWM transfer over to IA almost directly.
So I guess you're allowed to call IA a disappointing game. You'll just be mistaken in doing so.