We know the Imperials start off with a huge advantage. What we don't know is if the Rebels will be able to consistently attempt to level the playing field. What if they can't? What if the theme is so strong that the Rebels have to fight tooth and nail for even the slightest advantage, and just hope their base isn't discovered? Would that sour the game for you?

What are you hoping the balance between strategy and theme ends up being?

We know the Imperials start off with a huge advantage. What we don't know is if the Rebels will be able to consistently attempt to level the playing field. What if they can't? What if the theme is so strong that the Rebels have to fight tooth and nail for even the slightest advantage, and just hope their base isn't discovered? Would that sour the game for you?

What are you hoping the balance between strategy and theme ends up being?

That asymmetry is the very essence of the game - it seems, from all the countless previews, and reviews we've read.

The Rebels and Imperials are fundamentally playing different games to one another, and I imagine that the simplest way that the Rebels will lose is if they try and defeat the Empire and/or level the playing field. Their job is to do quick, daring, targeted missions in order to gain the influence of the galaxy. They also have an in-built inevitability - given enough time, all things being equal - they will win the game. So they need to stay out of dodge for enough time.

The Imperials will probably lose if they focus too much on building a huge army or on destroying the Rebels. They need to find the base and destroy it. I imagine one of the most fundamental tensions for the Imperial player will be that the wider they cast their net, the more easily the Rebels can slip through it, and the stronger they make the net, the easier it is for the Rebels to avoid in the first place.

The other thing I think FFG is not *quite* emphasizing enough is that for the Rebels to win they simply have to... not be discovered. Even if they do nothing, the time marker still approaches the Rebel marker which is a huge advantage for the Rebellion.

Having watched a few play-throughs, it seems to me that the Imperial's main job is to do everything they can to avoid just aimlessly tooling around the galaxy and guessing the Rebel base. Rather, they need to block Rebel missions and focus on intelligence missions to narrow the base considerably.

So both those things being said, I would say it looks like they've achieved both balance AND theme. In fact, I may say the Imperials are at a disadvantage if you consider that most players are going to try to run them TI style for their first game or two

I think that if the rebels would have more units or planets with resources they would destoy the empire too easily. Guerrilla tactics and desperate diplomatic missions are the bread&butter of rebel alliance.

Balance is important, but only so much as both sides have an equal chance of winning. The Rebels aren't supposed to be a superior military force. They are never supposed to be able to stand up to the Empire and duke it out for a victory. They have to play the subterfuge game and convince the people to overthrow the Empire.

Both sides play in totally different ways, and with completely different goals.

If anything, the Rebels may have the easier game to play. A poor player taking control of the Empire may never put enough pressure on the Rebels to even discover the base.

We won't really be able to tell if one side or the other has a major advantage though until the game has been released and there has been a lot of play time.

Like the others here, I'd say that the imbalance is the theme. This is supposed to be about asymmetric warfare.

But I think we're thinking of balance in different ways. One is that you have fundamentally different sides with different strengths. However, that doesn't mean that the game is unbalanced. I'd say a game unbalance would be if either side has a greater or lesser chance of winning the game.

I'm confident that they playtested this game enough to have achieved balance, but it will take individual players some time to learn the tricks to be good. Maybe playing the Empire will not be inherently more powerful, but just quicker; more seductive. (That's certainly why I always play the Empire in FFG's games (X-Wing, Armada, and the occasional Imperial Assault).)

We know the Imperials start off with a huge advantage. What we don't know is if the Rebels will be able to consistently attempt to level the playing field. What if they can't? What if the theme is so strong that the Rebels have to fight tooth and nail for even the slightest advantage, and just hope their base isn't discovered? Would that sour the game for you?

What are you hoping the balance between strategy and theme ends up being?

Theme primarily closely followed by balance.

Balance is important, but only so much as both sides have an equal chance of winning.

I'd much prefer if this game has the Imperials winning 2/3s of the time, rather than 50/50. It should be an amazing feat for the Rebels to win this war.

A game not worth playing is a game that doesn't get played often enough to justify it's cost.

Asymmetry doesn't mean imbalance. It just means different sides.

I value both theme and balance equally. If either are off it make the simulation less helpful. Granted asymmetry games are really hard to balance. But when people can pull it off it usually makes the game amazing. Which I think is the biggest reason everyone is so hype for this game.