Just wondering, I don't think they mentioned it.

Four can play the game. Two imperials, two rebels. The decisions are split up between an admiral and a general (space units and ground units respectively). The reference sheets have a reverse side for four player games. Leaders with blue in the middle of their base are used by the admiral, and those with orange are used by the general.

Four can play the game. Two imperials, two rebels. The decisions are split up between an admiral and a general (space units and ground units respectively). The reference sheets have a reverse side for four player games. Leaders with blue in the middle of their base are used by the admiral, and those with orange are used by the general.

Not doubting you, but where did you get this info? or are you 'in the know'?

Four can play the game. Two imperials, two rebels. The decisions are split up between an admiral and a general (space units and ground units respectively). The reference sheets have a reverse side for four player games. Leaders with blue in the middle of their base are used by the admiral, and those with orange are used by the general.

Not doubting you, but where did you get this info? or are you 'in the know'?

Yeah, we've known since the original announcement/product page that it's 2-4 players.

But I've seen any of that detail, such as decisions being split across space and ground units, and the reference sheet etc

I'm fairly sure it's pretty much a 2-player game with a gimmick to split roles.

So today it says 2-4. How does that split up.

Is it teams of two, or 4 player free for all?

Does anyone know?

Two teams. Players taking on the roll of either admiral or general for their team. Player sheets are two sided, one side for the two player game, and the other side for team play.

So today it says 2-4.

It's actually always said 2-4.

Splitting player roles between Admiral (space units) and General (ground units) doesn't make sense. Ground units cannot move without the aid of space units. The general could be held hostage by the admiral if the do not agree on strategy.

I would expect something more along the lines of splitting the "leader pool". We each get control of 2 leaders, rather than one person with 4.

But, just my opinion.

Splitting player roles between Admiral (space units) and General (ground units) doesn't make sense. Ground units cannot move without the aid of space units. The general could be held hostage by the admiral if the do not agree on strategy.

I would expect something more along the lines of splitting the "leader pool". We each get control of 2 leaders, rather than one person with 4.

But, just my opinion.

You will. In the centre bottom of each leader token, there's an either blue or orange square. Admiral gets the blue (space) ones, and general gets the orange (ground) ones. Or this is what is generally believed, but it seems legit to me.

You will. In the centre bottom of each leader token, there's an either blue or orange square. Admiral gets the blue (space) ones, and general gets the orange (ground) ones. Or this is what is generally believed, but it seems legit to me.

I can buy the blue/orange lining up with rebel1/rebel2 or empire1/empire2. But, if they were locked to space and ground, the leaders wouldn't have both space and ground tactic values. However, I can see why people would think that. The space units all have blue resource icons while the ground all have orange.

This may be an apples to oranges comparison, (and also my opinion) but in imperial assault the rebels all play different characters and can sometimes choose to boost themselves or an ally player. Yet the game works perfectly because they work together to accomplish a single goal. (Usually)

The same with this. As long as the general and admiral have a single goal (find rebel base) it is easier for them to work together. The admiral needs the general because he cannot subjugate systems with ships, so that should make him more willing to work with the general instead of against him.

And if the general can command space vehicles and command a few for transportation, that could possibly also work.

You will. In the centre bottom of each leader token, there's an either blue or orange square. Admiral gets the blue (space) ones, and general gets the orange (ground) ones. Or this is what is generally believed, but it seems legit to me.

I can buy the blue/orange lining up with rebel1/rebel2 or empire1/empire2. But, if they were locked to space and ground, the leaders wouldn't have both space and ground tactic values. However, I can see why people would think that. The space units all have blue resource icons while the ground all have orange.

The game doesn't work that way. You don't need a space leader to move naval units, and you don't need a ground leader to move the ground units. 1 single leader can move all the military units (both naval and ground).

It's just a way to split the leaders into 2 pools of leaders to be used by 2 players.

Its really just a gimmick so they can say 2-4 players instead of 2 players. You'd likely have a shared hand of mission cards, and would still need to pretty much agree on your overall strategy otherwise it would be pretty chaotic.

While I would like a good multiplayer star wars board game. I am perfectly fine with this being a two player game. Since most of the time it is just my wife and I playing games this works for us. I have Game of thrones 2nd edition and Twilight imperium 3rd for larger groups and to be honest neither of those to games get played nearly enough. The fact that this might be perfictly balanced for two players is just awesome.

Its really just a gimmick so they can say 2-4 players instead of 2 players. You'd likely have a shared hand of mission cards, and would still need to pretty much agree on your overall strategy otherwise it would be pretty chaotic.

I foresee a lot of 2-player teams having to momentarily leave the room to discuss strategy...

I don't mind if the 4-player version is just the roles split between Admiral and General. I find that games like this are almost always more fun with teams, if just because you have a partner to strategize with. And especially for games that take upwards of 3 hours, it's nice to have more players.