I love X-Wing, Armada, the LCG, and Imperial Assault. I used to love playing RISK as a kid and later on Axis & Allies. One would think this game would look awesome to me, and it DID - but it seems like the more they release news on it the more boring it seems.

I really want to be excited about this. Why are YOU excited about it?

Wait...just wait. The minute you see the components and touch them you know you'll be adding this to your collection. Hell, I'm buying one even though it'll likely never hit my table (playtime too long for my normal group)

I love X-Wing, Armada, the LCG, and Imperial Assault. I used to love playing RISK as a kid and later on Axis & Allies. One would think this game would look awesome to me, and it DID - but it seems like the more they release news on it the more boring it seems.

I really want to be excited about this. Why are YOU excited about it?

I'm really looking forward to it. It's a matter of taste. In the great scheme of strategy games, Risk and A&A are at the very light end of the spectrum. There are literally hundreds of heavier strategy games, some extremely so. Rebellion looks a bit heavier strategically than Risk and A&A, but I'm actually looking at it as a relatively short, light strategy game compared to the ones I normally play (normally intense GMT games). I also very much like the asymmetric nature of the game, and actually not that fussed about the models or the SW theme. If this was a generic space game with counters rather than models and the same mechanics I'd still buy it (Freedom in the Galaxy comes to mind).

Some people see heavy as boring, some see light as boring. It depends on your taste and temperament I guess. Maybe this isn't the Stars Wars game you are looking for .

It seems to me, that anything that isnt combat heavy, you consider boring as all of the games you list are all extremely combat heavy.

If you are comparing this game to those, yah, you will be dissappointed.

This is a strategy game and combat seems to be secondary yet still important part of the game. But to me, the missions are exciting as there seems to be a lot of strategic depth in how you use your leaders. What is also exciting to me is that among strategy boardgames, this game is really unique and doesnt really compare to anything.

But yah, to each their own, but i consider most games where combat is the only aspect of the game, like Risk, to be boring.

This seems perfect for me. I enjoyed War of the Ring, but found some of the rules a bit finnicky and the overall structure wasn't exactly to my preference.

This should fill that void PERFECTLY. I always want a longer 2 player game, for those days when plans fall through and your group of 4-6 fails to show up.

The only problem I will see is that it's going to cut into my X-Wing time, which is valuable practice for the tournament season...

I'm dissapointed in how opposing missions works. I was hoping it'd be more about deception and mind games instead of 'whoever rolls better on the dice wins'. Means the whole game is going to be decided by dice rolls.

Not exactly. You have to choose which leaders to leave in reserve to even GET the dice rolls. I WAS hoping for some subterfuge in regards to target locations, but there really isn't another way to do that.

I'm excited about the game because it looks like it will tell a grand story. I'm all about the narrative.

I'm dissapointed in how opposing missions works. I was hoping it'd be more about deception and mind games instead of 'whoever rolls better on the dice wins'. Means the whole game is going to be decided by dice rolls.

I thought the same at first, but i think it is more nuanced than that and the system is more of a risk vs reward.

The example they give, is a strategically bad one i think. There is no way you are going to send in your (likely) only 3 diplomacy character to oppose their only 3 diplomacy character, which is probably only a 60% chance of winning (unless it is a very nasty mission). Rather, if you wanted to use the emperor to oppose, you would generally play him vs 1 and 2 diplomacy characters, that way you have a strong chance of succeeding.

So it really comes down to how you use you use your leaders. Do you risk a character with only 1 symbol (which would get reliably shut down by any leader with more symbols). Or if the opponent plays a mission and you can only match it in symbols, is it worth it? Or is it better to use the leader elsewhere.

I'm dissapointed in how opposing missions works. I was hoping it'd be more about deception and mind games instead of 'whoever rolls better on the dice wins'. Means the whole game is going to be decided by dice rolls.

I thought the same at first, but i think it is more nuanced than that and the system is more of a risk vs reward.

The example they give, is a strategically bad one i think. There is no way you are going to send in your (likely) only 3 diplomacy character to oppose their only 3 diplomacy character, which is probably only a 60% chance of winning (unless it is a very nasty mission). Rather, if you wanted to use the emperor to oppose, you would generally play him vs 1 and 2 diplomacy characters, that way you have a strong chance of succeeding.

So it really comes down to how you use you use your leaders. Do you risk a character with only 1 symbol (which would get reliably shut down by any leader with more symbols). Or if the opponent plays a mission and you can only match it in symbols, is it worth it? Or is it better to use the leader elsewhere.

Still though, I was hoping for more deception than luck. Imagine sending Mon Motha to do a logistics mission and the imperial player sends Palpatine to oppose thinking its diplomacy. Or sending in a leader as a decoy to hopefully draw out one of their more important leaders.

Instead we have this system where theres no trickery... no deception, no decoys... just dice rolls.

I'm dissapointed in how opposing missions works. I was hoping it'd be more about deception and mind games instead of 'whoever rolls better on the dice wins'. Means the whole game is going to be decided by dice rolls.

I thought the same at first, but i think it is more nuanced than that and the system is more of a risk vs reward.

The example they give, is a strategically bad one i think. There is no way you are going to send in your (likely) only 3 diplomacy character to oppose their only 3 diplomacy character, which is probably only a 60% chance of winning (unless it is a very nasty mission). Rather, if you wanted to use the emperor to oppose, you would generally play him vs 1 and 2 diplomacy characters, that way you have a strong chance of succeeding.

So it really comes down to how you use you use your leaders. Do you risk a character with only 1 symbol (which would get reliably shut down by any leader with more symbols). Or if the opponent plays a mission and you can only match it in symbols, is it worth it? Or is it better to use the leader elsewhere.

Still though, I was hoping for more deception than luck. Imagine sending Mon Motha to do a logistics mission and the imperial player sends Palpatine to oppose thinking its diplomacy. Or sending in a leader as a decoy to hopefully draw out one of their more important leaders.

Instead we have this system where theres no trickery... no deception, no decoys... just dice rolls.

I do see your point. It does seem like it would have been more interesting if the opposing player, plays his leader to oppose before the mission is revealed. Shrugs.

Why did palpatine only roll 2 dice and not 3, since he has 3 diplomacy or did I miss something.

Why did palpatine only roll 2 dice and not 3, since he has 3 diplomacy or did I miss something.

He did roll 3, one was a blank result.

There is a bit more than luck, though. The other player has to decide if they want to stop your mission or move on with their other plans. That's not for nothing. It isn't, "I want to do this, let's roll!" It's, "I want to do this... do you stop you plans for only a chance at success?"

And this is just the vanilla setup. We have no idea what other conditions can be added later, or what kind of abilities other leaders bring into the fold.

I'm dissapointed in how opposing missions works. I was hoping it'd be more about deception and mind games instead of 'whoever rolls better on the dice wins'. Means the whole game is going to be decided by dice rolls.

Yeah, this second preview cooled me off a little bit.

I love X-Wing, Armada, the LCG, and Imperial Assault. I used to love playing RISK as a kid and later on Axis & Allies. One would think this game would look awesome to me, and it DID - but it seems like the more they release news on it the more boring it seems.

What exactly is turning you off?

For myself, I am seeing some inspiration in it from Twilight Imperium, which is probably my favorite game of all time, so I am pretty stoked

I'll be pretty sad if the leaders don't do anything other than provide icons and help their associated missions. I want sending Luke on a mission to feel palpably different from sending Han, for example. Really hoping there is enough design space that each of the leaders has their own special ability. Numbers and symbols don't wow me anymore.

Each hero has a mission where it is either easier to complete with that character like Leia, or an extra reward bonus like Luke's mission.

But other than that, they are just symbols and numbers. But the more powerful characters have more of both.

And as for a lack of deception, I think it is there, it is just in the activation phase, not the command phase. The activation phase is when you decide to send a character to a mission or hold it back. So for example if the rebel player has both Mon Mothma and Leia both on missions, so in response the imp player holds the emperor back to block at least one of them. Then in the command phase, the missions turn out to be a logistics mission and Stolen Plans (where leia gets +2 successes). The emperor then just sits on his hands (tho you could still use him for movement/attacking).

So there is an inherant risk to holding back characters to oppose and that is where the deception/hidden info comes into play.

I have X-Wing, Imperial Assault and Armada. All are fantastic games.

I'm buying Rebellion knowing full well that the playtime and the player count will mean I'll play it very infrequently.

BUT i'm excited by it because, as great as the above games are at capturing the feel/emotion/experience of Star Wars, they only manage it for their own little niche.

Rebellion however, seems to be trying it's best to encapsulate the whole kit and kaboodle. It's essentially: "Star Wars the Original Trilogy: The Game"

If playing X-Wing feels like the 'Death Star Trench Run' and Imperial Assault feels like every action scene and Armada feels like the Battle of Endor, then I'm sure playing Rebellion will feel like watching the entire original trilogy.

It's a Star Wars sandbox/storytelling generator - whilst also containing some awesome strategy, tactics and gameplay.

It also intrigues me that FFG have done the closest thing they'll ever do to a worker placement game.

I'm dissapointed in how opposing missions works. I was hoping it'd be more about deception and mind games instead of 'whoever rolls better on the dice wins'. Means the whole game is going to be decided by dice rolls.

The deception is there, as is the mind games.

You play the mission face down and assign a person to it. It's not revealed at this point.

So lets say the Rebel player puts down two missions. 1 for Luke and 1 for Leia. No idea what they are, or what they will do.

The Imperial player needs to decide at this moment what to do. They want to make to military moves which will require two leaders, they have 2 missions they want to do also, but then they don't have enough to oppose the 2 missions. Are they both important, or just one of them? What if the Rebel uses some of those reserve leaders to launch military attacks that I want to counter?

The Imperial player could delay doing a mission to keep another leader in his pocket.

During the command phase it could turn out both of those missions were minor, and while he was able to oppose them, it would have been more valuable to complete his own mission.

Or, he goes all out missions, and keeps no one back to counter only to have Leia reveal a diplomacy mission that could change the loyalty of a planet, and Luke's going to Degobah. Now do you counter one or both and perform no military actions? And if you do that, what happens if those reserve Rebel leaders were combat actions.

On top of that, which leaders do you retain. Leia has 2 diplomacy, 2 intel, and 1 spec ops. She's used on a mission, what do you keep back to counter? Palpatine with 3 dip and 2 int or Vader with 2 dip and 3 specops? You were hoping to use them on missions. What if you keep Palpatine back from a crucial mission to counter Leia only to have it be a spec ops mission?

And you shifted Vader to Palpatines diplomacy mission only to get countered by Mothma, and instead of having Vader's strong ground assault, you now have to send Tarkin or Tagge....ugh.

The assignment phase is blind to the opponent, and could include feints, or even a leader that can't even complete the mission. Plus you have the reserve leaders with plans still to be revealed.

While I understand the idea behind completely blind missions, it likely didn't playtest well. It likely resulted in a lot of wasted leaders. Luke doing any mission would evoke the Degobah scenario, so the Empire would want to counter with the appropriate leader, but it would just be another sabotage and another wasted leader. Eventually people do the math and figure out that it isn't worth the pure gamble when you could assure some use by doing your own mission. People stop countering missions and that mechanic is basically worthless.

When you reveal the mission, the opposing player still needs to make choices. Do I counter it? Can I effectively counter it? Will I risk loosing a defensive combat scenario? Can I delay an offensive combat scenario? Do I counter with this guy and weaken my combat ability, or risk losing the counter to keep my combat stronger?

Also, there is nothing preventing you from house ruling the mechanic. I was thinking about doing this myself, but after thinking through some scenarios, I doubt I'll even try it at this point.

Honestly, I think the hidden info is just enough to really make you think, but not so much that it defeats the very element it was trying to create.

I think kmanweiss has it exactly right (I had a very similar post my browser just ate). Remember, the procedure is leaders get allocated to missions with the missions face down, and then you alternate executing missions or placing leaders on the board.

Really the example given with Mon Mothma and Palpatine isn't very good play on the Rebel's part. Mon Mothma is fairly specialized, and in this case we can presume that it was pretty clear that she was going to be sent on Build Alliances. So keeping Palpatine back to counter her was a no brainer.

But what if it's Leia? She could be running Build Alliances, Infiltration or Sabotage. Which leader do you hold back then? That's where the deception element comes into play.

Also keep in mind that you don't have to run the missions first. Let's say you've held back a leader you're dead certain will be the perfect counter to the mission your opponent is almost definitely running. But lo, she doesn't run that mission first, but instead activates a system and moves her forces in there, and you NEED that system! And the leader you held back is also a good combat leader. What to do, what to do....

So bottom line: still REALLY excited.

-Will

There could also be cunning in the order in which you reveal your missions, e.g. saving Mon Mothma's immediate resolution mission for last, hoping that the Emperor will be held in abeyance in anticipation of countering her mission, which he will be unable to do.

What to do, what to do....

Shoot the hostage.

I'm actually getting MORE excited as they put out the previews. I am somewhat of a tinkerer though, and the one thing that I may consider making house rules for is the way that starfighters can only participate in space battles. After seeing The Force Awakens , X-wings and Tie Fighters are pretty cool in ground battles. I think I would give an option to assign the starfighters to either the space or ground arena, and I would force this choice at the start of every combat round. I'm not sure, but I might also think about an orbital bombardment option for capital ships too, but only if there are no opposing space units.

I am saying this without having seen all the cards or fully understanding the game yet, however.

What to do, what to do....

Shoot the hostage.

Well yea, but that's ALWAYS step 1.

-Will