both are incorrect

the first is almost correct, you need to switch A and B next to defends.

switch A and B on removes also

Player A Roll, Plays cards, Allocates, then B defends, then B removes.

Player B Roll, Plays cards, Allocates, then A defends, then A romoves

Player A Roll, Plays cards, Allocates, then B defends, then B removes.

Player B Roll, Plays cards, Allocates, then A defends, then A romoves

Close but not quite. A full combat round looks like this:

First SPACE combat:

Player A Roll, Plays cards, Allocates, then B defends, then B places damage tokens.

Player B Roll, Plays cards, Allocates, then A defends, then A places damage tokens.

Repeat the same for GROUND combat.

Both A and B remove all space and ground units who have damage tokens equal to or exceed their health.

Player A and B now decide if they want to or are able to retreat. If neither player retreats begin a new round of SPACE combat, followed by another round of GROUND combat.

The way you had it before, Player B's "killed" units don't get to shoot back after player Player A rolls for his shots.

You do remove units that are killed immediately. They go to your faction sheet to indicate they get a chance to shoot back, then they are fully removed after that. You don't leave them on the board.

How do cards that block damage work then if one player plays there cards before?

You do remove units that are killed immediately. They go to your faction sheet to indicate they get a chance to shoot back, then they are fully removed after that. You don't leave them on the board.

True, I guess I overlooked that part because where I've played the table hasn't quite been large enough to accommodate the board plus the 2 faction sheets so we just used the tokens to mark the units that will die at the end of the round. As long as you and your opponent know who will be removed, its all good.

How do cards that block damage work then if one player plays there cards before?

You block damage after damage is allocated. So the attacker rolls dice and plays cards to enhance damage. Then he places successful damage dice next to your units to show where each damage is going. After he does this you can play cards that block damage.

I too was confused with the written combat section. I thought it was written poorly. The ability to retreat looks like it was added to the book at the last second and disjointed from the rest of the combat sequence. We tried several variations of combat and I think we finally have it done correctly. However, don't forget the tactical deck reshuffle and removal of the combat damage after all combat is completed.

Player A Roll, Plays cards, Allocates, then B defends, then B removes.

Player B Roll, Plays cards, Allocates, then A defends, then A romoves

Close but not quite. A full combat round looks like this:

First SPACE combat:

Player A Roll, Plays cards, Allocates, then B defends, then B places damage tokens.

Player B Roll, Plays cards, Allocates, then A defends, then A places damage tokens.

Repeat the same for GROUND combat.

Both A and B remove all space and ground units who have damage tokens equal to or exceed their health.

Player A and B now decide if they want to or are able to retreat. If neither player retreats begin a new round of SPACE combat, followed by another round of GROUND combat.

The way you had it before, Player B's "killed" units don't get to shoot back after player Player A rolls for his shots.

What exactly is involved in "Player X defends"? By that, I assume you mean play tactical cards from your hand to cancel damage. If so, does that mean that Player B can't use cards he drew during his attack as a result of rolling Specials on his dice to cancel damage dealt to his ships by Player A's attack?

Yeah, my first learn to play game we rolled attack and defend simultaneously so we each had access to tactics that required use of cross-saber dice. Looks like that was wrong so in combat a slight advantage goes to the attacker unless the defender can play block damage tactics after assigning damage/destroying a unit.

Also we didn't complete ground combat until all space combat rounds had been resolved but it looks like that ground combat should happen each round if there are units in place, so conceptually all invading units have been deployed to ground prior to the space battle and losing ships only affects ground units during a retreat action?

losing ships only affects ground units during a retreat action?

Correct. It would only matter if you tried to retreat and didn't have enough space to carry your ground units.

Although there is a planetary bombardment card that affects ground combat.

Looks like that was wrong so in combat a slight advantage goes to the attacker unless the defender can play block damage tactics after assigning damage/destroying a unit.

If this is, indeed, the way an attack plays out, I don't think it would be incorrect to say that a *significant* advantage goes to the attacker (i.e,, "Player A"). Not being able to block damage with cards you draw from a Special result on the attack dice seems like a big deal.

Do not forget also another Attacker Advantage is that you can apply more damage to a target then it has health. That way you can make sure something is dead even if the defender has blocks.

Especially for cards where all the Rebels have to do is blow up one Star Destroyer.

Great doubts as to combat. What if player A wins the battle in space and player B wins the battle on the ground?

Great doubts as to combat. What if player A wins the battle in space and player B wins the battle on the ground?

This is covered in the rules and isn't a problem.

Player A controls Space. Player B controls the system. Player A has the system blockaded.

I feel like this got glossed over a little bit, so I want to make sure I understand correctly.

Is the following correct?

-Players A and B draw tactic cards according to their leader(s) in the battle.

Player A attacks:

-Player A rolls dice.

-Player A can draw new tactic cards using the Special results of dice rolls, and/or plays tactic cards.

-Player A assigns damage to enemy units.

-Player B can play tactic cards to block damage.

Player B attacks:

(same as "Player A attacks" above, but reverse A and B)

-IF PLAYER B DRAWS TACTIC CARDS DURING THIS ATTACK SEQUENCE THAT CAN BLOCK DAMAGE, HE OR SHE MAY *NOT* USE THEM TO BLOCK DAMAGE THAT WAS ASSIGNED DURING "PLAYER A ATTACKS" ABOVE.

Thanks for any clarification.

I feel like this got glossed over a little bit, so I want to make sure I understand correctly.

Is the following correct?

-Players A and B draw tactic cards according to their leader(s) in the battle.

Player A attacks:

-Player A rolls dice.

-Player A can draw new tactic cards using the Special results of dice rolls, and/or plays tactic cards.

-Player A assigns damage to enemy units.

-Player B can play tactic cards to block damage.

Player B attacks:

(same as "Player A attacks" above, but reverse A and B)

-IF PLAYER B DRAWS TACTIC CARDS DURING THIS ATTACK SEQUENCE THAT CAN BLOCK DAMAGE, HE OR SHE MAY *NOT* USE THEM TO BLOCK DAMAGE THAT WAS ASSIGNED DURING "PLAYER A ATTACKS" ABOVE.

Thanks for any clarification.

All this is true.

So when player b rolls for damage on units that have been assigned damage, he can't use any saber cards that he pulls that block damage since it's already been assigned to his units??

So when player b rolls for damage on units that have been assigned damage, he can't use any saber cards that he pulls that block damage since it's already been assigned to his units??

That is correct.

So when player b rolls for damage on units that have been assigned damage, he can't use any saber cards that he pulls that block damage since it's already been assigned to his units??

That is correct.

Well, it seems I've been doing that wrong