I'm sure this must have been asked before but I couldn't find a thread so apologies, but have there ever been any rumours or pointers that FFG would consider an Imperial Core Rulebook?

It seems like such a no brainer to me. Other than another lovely thick Core Book (it's a blue grey colour in my mind) full of lovely art who wouldn't want information on how to play Imperial Officers, ISB Agents or different types of Stormtroopers etc?

Are there reasons why this wouldn't work? I know I'd definitely be there on day 1 for a copy.

No rumors to my knowledge, just speculation. I don't think it's really any reasons it wouldn't work, strictly speaking, but there would be nothing it could bring to the table that the Age of Rebellion CRB doesn't already provide. All of the AoR careers/specializations are archetypal, so they can be recolored to fit an Imperial character without needing any changes (except maybe Agitator's Incite Rebellion talent, which at worst would need a rename).

The easiest way to fulfill this concept would be a book imparting advice on how to build Imperial characters, and advice to GMs on how to build Imperial campaigns. Probably nothing bigger than a 150 page sourcebook.

Have you thought about creating your own version to wrap around your AoR Core Rulebook?

An Imperial sourcebook similar to the region and base corebook would be more likely. I just can't imagine 6 new careers and 36 new specializations revolving entirely around imperials when many of the careers and specs already fit perfectly.

Probably nothing bigger than a 150 page sourcebook.

Wasnt this also true for age of rebellion and force&destiny?

I also would rather suspect an Sourcebook for the Empire for the Age of Rebellion Line. Allmost all of the Age of Rebellion Specs can be used for am Imperial Agent/Trooper/Pilot etc. therefore there is no Need to an additional Core Rulebook

Why would they? The AoR book covers military pretty well - just reskin Imperials for Rebels, and if you need specific details, the Imperial Sourcebook can be found for pretty cheap.

I don't really consider it a no brainer as I'm not sure FFG can convince people to shell out $60 for a book that will pretty much just be a retread of AoR.

I actually like this idea a lot. Not so much for reskinning existing things from Rebel to Imperial versions, but for providing context to set a campaign from an Imperial point of view. Love the idea of writing up some modular encounters for Imperial PCs to shut down some Rebel scum.

Probably nothing bigger than a 150 page sourcebook.

Wasnt this also true for age of rebellion and force&destiny?

Strictly speaking, no. AoR and Force and Destiny brought new and unique core mechanics to the table - Duty and Morality - and necessitated 6 new careers with 3 specs each (and a promised sourcebook for each career). As well, significant sections of new information had to be added: how to handle the military, more organizational material, whole sections of the galaxy that are more relevant, new enemies and equipment, etc. And they had to reprint all the core roles and basic equipment because each of the three core products is a totally different way to play the game . Yes, the products interact and cross-game parties are common, but a player of Age of Rebellion is not guaranteed to want anything to do with Edge of the Empire, etc.

Now, I'm not sure a "Nexus of Power" or "Lords of Nal-Hutta" sized book would be enough material to provide an Imperial "re-skin", but a whole Core book is unnecessary. Anyone wanting to play an Imperial campaign has a vested interest in Age of Rebellion, and much of the material in that book is exactly what is already needed, so reprinted the dice mechanics and basic items is absurd. That book already has stats for much of the Imperial and Rebel vehicles and adversaries; AoR doesn't even go so far as to say who is "good" and "bad", so you can't argue that an ideological flip-flop would need to happen to get the adversaries and vehicle sections up to par. The equipment all has a military focus, and wouldn't be much different. The worlds focused on by AoR's Core book are also of interest to Imperial players and GMs. And, unpopular as it might be among some circles, I agree that many of AoRs specs are identical to what an Imperial character would use. A Scout Trooper is no more or less a Sharpshooter than Rebel sniper. A Stormtrooper sergeant is no more or less a Tactician than a Rebel sergeant (except that the former would probably use Field Commander to order his troops "to their death" while the latter might order his troops "into cover"). A medic is a Medic, a Quartermaster a Quartermaster. The differences are largely ideological.

What would be needed in an "Imperial Sourcebook/Core" is expanded information about Imperial military structure/goals like we have to the Rebels in AoR Core, potentially a new Spec for each career that really brings the Imperial flavor, an expanded GM section, and - most importantly - advice on running and playing as the Empire. Official starting boons for an Imperial campaign (I can tell you now that it's most likely a sanctioned Lambda, a few TIE Aggressors or Bombers refitted to have 2 crew, or assignment on a base), advice on how to reskin the AoR Specs as well as a short write-up on adjusting flavor for those careers from Rebel to Imperial, a quick note on using Duty as an Imperial, perhaps a short chart of new motivations/duties, and a new set of... what is it, 9 backgrounds? Maybe some notes on what a campaign from an Imperial perspective could look like. At most, that's halfway between a Core and a Sourcebook.

All in my opinion, of course.

Probably nothing bigger than a 150 page sourcebook.

Wasnt this also true for age of rebellion and force&destiny?

Strictly speaking, no. AoR and Force and Destiny brought new and unique core mechanics to the table - Duty and Morality - and necessitated 6 new careers with 3 specs each (and a promised sourcebook for each career). As well, significant sections of new information had to be added: how to handle the military, more organizational material, whole sections of the galaxy that are more relevant, new enemies and equipment, etc. And they had to reprint all the core roles and basic equipment because each of the three core products is a totally different way to play the game . Yes, the products interact and cross-game parties are common, but a player of Age of Rebellion is not guaranteed to want anything to do with Edge of the Empire, etc.

Now, I'm not sure a "Nexus of Power" or "Lords of Nal-Hutta" sized book would be enough material to provide an Imperial "re-skin", but a whole Core book is unnecessary. Anyone wanting to play an Imperial campaign has a vested interest in Age of Rebellion, and much of the material in that book is exactly what is already needed, so reprinted the dice mechanics and basic items is absurd. That book already has stats for much of the Imperial and Rebel vehicles and adversaries; AoR doesn't even go so far as to say who is "good" and "bad", so you can't argue that an ideological flip-flop would need to happen to get the adversaries and vehicle sections up to par. The equipment all has a military focus, and wouldn't be much different. The worlds focused on by AoR's Core book are also of interest to Imperial players and GMs. And, unpopular as it might be among some circles, I agree that many of AoRs specs are identical to what an Imperial character would use. A Scout Trooper is no more or less a Sharpshooter than Rebel sniper. A Stormtrooper sergeant is no more or less a Tactician than a Rebel sergeant (except that the former would probably use Field Commander to order his troops "to their death" while the latter might order his troops "into cover"). A medic is a Medic, a Quartermaster a Quartermaster. The differences are largely ideological.

What would be needed in an "Imperial Sourcebook/Core" is expanded information about Imperial military structure/goals like we have to the Rebels in AoR Core, potentially a new Spec for each career that really brings the Imperial flavor, an expanded GM section, and - most importantly - advice on running and playing as the Empire. Official starting boons for an Imperial campaign (I can tell you now that it's most likely a sanctioned Lambda, a few TIE Aggressors or Bombers refitted to have 2 crew, or assignment on a base), advice on how to reskin the AoR Specs as well as a short write-up on adjusting flavor for those careers from Rebel to Imperial, a quick note on using Duty as an Imperial, perhaps a short chart of new motivations/duties, and a new set of... what is it, 9 backgrounds? Maybe some notes on what a campaign from an Imperial perspective could look like. At most, that's halfway between a Core and a Sourcebook.

All in my opinion, of course.

Lets see what we really need:

New duty mechanic fitting for imperials which is problematic because they have several independend structrures in play, the ISB, Navy and Inquisition.

Careers for Force Users within the Inquisition and as well within Intelligence (Hands). The navy position seems to have been taken by Vader exclusively oh seems to be as well head of Inquisition ;-)

Speaking of Vader's Inquisition, there is the Royal Guard as Independent entity and emperors hands, etc

Filling this alone will basically need most of the content of FaD and AoR and than some ;-)

You can make the argument that a core book is not needed, because you can just buy the other 3 and that is indeed true, because you would want all 3 for an empire campaign and than a lot of source books on top of that. Though all those source books would need their own branding and than you have this large themed sections of stuff that basically belongs into a core book and by that point you might as well just release a corebook with all an decent amount of variants from stuff from FoD and AoR and use the new brand in similar ways like you did it with the other 3.

Instead of duty I would go for a mechanic called PATRIOTISM, as everyone is always under suspicion of trahison and whatnot. Could work kinda like Morality in FaD, invert the scale and the lower it gets the more you will be put under the grill, also isn't patriotism the virtue of the wicked could allow a group to eventually defect and joins the rebellion or play maybe and undercover ISB agents that get's is loyalty to the empire called into question perhaps for playing is cover role two well.

I still think a sourcebook or two would work better then a corebook.

https://triumphdespair.wordpress.com/category/crush-the-rebellion/

This blog is really interesting and had their own concept called "Crush the Rebellion" which is basically taking Age of Rebellion and giving it an Empire spin.

I remember their mechanic was 'Agenda' the idea that each player had a secret goal they were trying to achieve over their campaign and that they had to meet specific objectives in order to reach their Agenda first. I don't know the specific details, but you can find it at the link above.

https://triumphdespair.wordpress.com/category/crush-the-rebellion/

This blog is really interesting and had their own concept called "Crush the Rebellion" which is basically taking Age of Rebellion and giving it an Empire spin.

I remember their mechanic was 'Agenda' the idea that each player had a secret goal they were trying to achieve over their campaign and that they had to meet specific objectives in order to reach their Agenda first. I don't know the specific details, but you can find it at the link above.

Agenda sounds very good. There are many good reasons to join the empire and usually they are diverse and you have to fight and struggle within the empire itself to achieve those goals.

Yeah, right now putting out another $60 core rulebook where a large portion of the text is going to be copy/paste from AoR probably isn't in FFG's best interests. After all, the core rulebooks are already selling well, though AoR seems to be the least popular (from what I've seen, which by all means is not all-encompassing) of the three. Plus, most Imperial-focused campaigns tend to last a very short period of time, as is frequently the case where the PCs are playing the villains of a setting.

A sourcebook in a similar vein to Strongholds of Rebellion would probably be the best approach, with a chapter discussing what tweaks to make to AoR to account for the PCs being on the other side of the Galactic Civil War. I don't know if they really need to swap out Duty with a similarly-themed mechanic, but perhaps instead include new types of Duty that have a bit more of a sinister bent. Or perhaps a new Motivation type to account for how most named Imperials do indeed have some form of personal agenda.

Try this: https://app.box.com/s/yeabou6jt02qbnpcrjxnoja5uqvgn3i3

Yeah, right now putting out another $60 core rulebook where a large portion of the text is going to be copy/paste from AoR probably isn't in FFG's best interests. After all, the core rulebooks are already selling well, though AoR seems to be the least popular (from what I've seen, which by all means is not all-encompassing) of the three. Plus, most Imperial-focused campaigns tend to last a very short period of time, as is frequently the case where the PCs are playing the villains of a setting.

A sourcebook in a similar vein to Strongholds of Rebellion would probably be the best approach, with a chapter discussing what tweaks to make to AoR to account for the PCs being on the other side of the Galactic Civil War. I don't know if they really need to swap out Duty with a similarly-themed mechanic, but perhaps instead include new types of Duty that have a bit more of a sinister bent. Or perhaps a new Motivation type to account for how most named Imperials do indeed have some form of personal agenda.

Imperias are not about duty, they are about selfish goals. "Come back and free all the slaves", "Protect the ones you love", "Gain all the power in the galaxy to protect your own lousy ass from external threats", "find you own missing father with the resources the empire offers", "enjoy the power given to you by the empire". Does are not per se evil goals, but they are certainly not based on a feeling of duty, but passion and desire.

edit:

And if you compare the Jedi code with the Sith code than this is a perfect parallel of both sides.

Personally, an Imperial Sourcebook would probably on par with a CRB size. It's not so much the rules that are being copied, but additional information, choices, and ideas for the RPG. I would figure that this would probably be a "Specialist" book, something that only GM and hardcore players would want to get.

1. Be flexible. An Empire based CRB would need to be flexible. The operations would cover from standard patrol and smuggler interdiction missions to combat operations against a Rebel cell, on to supporting Vader/Inquisitors against Jedi and Force-users. If anything, this is the one book that can easily be used in all three areas.
2. Have a mini/full campaign that can be used both ways for the GM to run.
3. A few "specialist" trees for player to dabble in that is likened to the Rebel Recruit tree in AoR and the Force Sensitive in EotE. This way a group of players could play a run on defecting from the Empire should they do so and have something unique.

Yeah, right now putting out another $60 core rulebook where a large portion of the text is going to be copy/paste from AoR probably isn't in FFG's best interests. After all, the core rulebooks are already selling well, though AoR seems to be the least popular (from what I've seen, which by all means is not all-encompassing) of the three. Plus, most Imperial-focused campaigns tend to last a very short period of time, as is frequently the case where the PCs are playing the villains of a setting.

A sourcebook in a similar vein to Strongholds of Rebellion would probably be the best approach, with a chapter discussing what tweaks to make to AoR to account for the PCs being on the other side of the Galactic Civil War. I don't know if they really need to swap out Duty with a similarly-themed mechanic, but perhaps instead include new types of Duty that have a bit more of a sinister bent. Or perhaps a new Motivation type to account for how most named Imperials do indeed have some form of personal agenda.

I think you really hit the monkeylizard on the head.

The material in AoR really covers most of the bases. So an Imperial source book of some kind (which I would kinda like) would probably have to spend more time talking about how to run an Imperial campaign than actual time talking about new talents and specs.

That's the real issue anyway, is the Empire itself. Playing on the side with the humans only club and massive resources is totally doable, it takes some tweaking, but I have no doubt you can do it.

The problem is when you tell the players they can be bad guys, they tend to go a little over the top, not just acting like villains, but going after each other too. Part of RPGs that makes them fun is the group effort. When the players start spednign less time on the adventure itself and more time trying to screw each other over, it gets decidedly unfun fast.

If they did it it could be a completely shameless reskin of AoR, exactly like the X-Wing Force Awakens core set. Make it clear the rules are AoR, every career/spec is identical to prevent power creep. But all the fluff on species (what am I saying, it would have 8 versions of Human ), equipment, locations, everything would be rewritten to be from the Imperial perspective. Fill it with plenty of Propaganda etc. hey it could even be a First Order book, kill 2 birds with one stone so to speak. I think the only major thing they could add is a new Universal Spec for Imperial Trained Force Users.

The problem is when you tell the players they can be bad guys, they tend to go a little over the top, not just acting like villains, but going after each other too. Part of RPGs that makes them fun is the group effort. When the players start spednign less time on the adventure itself and more time trying to screw each other over, it gets decidedly unfun fast.

Yeah, this.

My usual replies, as usual:

a) What exactly would an 'Imperial book' have that AoR doesn't? In what way would an Imperial Spy or Pilot differ from the careers we already have? What gear/ships/weapons etc would you need that aren't already there? You'd basically be shelling out for what you've already bought with another colour for the cover.

b) Totalitarian organisations expect success and so do not reward it, and punish failure harshly. We see this in the original movies all the time. Doing an Imperial game right would involve a lot of time lining up scapegoats and screwing other people over. Otherwise you're just playing the Alliance in a different outfit. You'd be advised to take a look at games like Paranoia to see how this would end. It might be fun as a one-off, perhaps, but there's unlikely to be a long term campaign to it.

c) RPGs are about things. Not every RPG is about everything. You're not supposed to play dragons in D&D. You don't play orcs or skaven in WHFRP because a bunch of them chumming around doing adventures in the Empire would be totally outside the lore and scope of the game. The Core Books present the Empire as a Bad Thing. This isn't Warcraft where you have to 'pick a side'. There's plenty of other games like Dark Heresy or Deathwatch where you're assumed to be playing evil characters.

That's not to say there wouldn't be some mileage in say, a post-movies game where things like the Fel Empire exist, elements that aren't cartoonish super-villainy. But you'd have to adapt the material for that. Or perhaps a one-off where a PC who intends to defect gets to play out his moral event horizon a la Finn in Force Awakens.

Bastions of Oppression for AoR and Foci of Darkness for F&D coming soon to an FLGS near you.

Yeah, right now putting out another $60 core rulebook where a large portion of the text is going to be copy/paste from AoR probably isn't in FFG's best interests. After all, the core rulebooks are already selling well, though AoR seems to be the least popular (from what I've seen, which by all means is not all-encompassing) of the three. Plus, most Imperial-focused campaigns tend to last a very short period of time, as is frequently the case where the PCs are playing the villains of a setting.

A sourcebook in a similar vein to Strongholds of Rebellion would probably be the best approach, with a chapter discussing what tweaks to make to AoR to account for the PCs being on the other side of the Galactic Civil War. I don't know if they really need to swap out Duty with a similarly-themed mechanic, but perhaps instead include new types of Duty that have a bit more of a sinister bent. Or perhaps a new Motivation type to account for how most named Imperials do indeed have some form of personal agenda.

Imperias are not about duty, they are about selfish goals. "Come back and free all the slaves", "Protect the ones you love", "Gain all the power in the galaxy to protect your own lousy ass from external threats", "find you own missing father with the resources the empire offers", "enjoy the power given to you by the empire". Does are not per se evil goals, but they are certainly not based on a feeling of duty, but passion and desire.

I can't really agree with you here. Some Imperials really are about their Duty, even if it's a twisted take on it by most standards. To say that they also have individual and self-serving goals doesn't negate this anymore than Rebels having such goals negates that they have a Duty to the Alliance.

Yeah, right now putting out another $60 core rulebook where a large portion of the text is going to be copy/paste from AoR probably isn't in FFG's best interests. After all, the core rulebooks are already selling well, though AoR seems to be the least popular (from what I've seen, which by all means is not all-encompassing) of the three. Plus, most Imperial-focused campaigns tend to last a very short period of time, as is frequently the case where the PCs are playing the villains of a setting.

A sourcebook in a similar vein to Strongholds of Rebellion would probably be the best approach, with a chapter discussing what tweaks to make to AoR to account for the PCs being on the other side of the Galactic Civil War. I don't know if they really need to swap out Duty with a similarly-themed mechanic, but perhaps instead include new types of Duty that have a bit more of a sinister bent. Or perhaps a new Motivation type to account for how most named Imperials do indeed have some form of personal agenda.

Imperias are not about duty, they are about selfish goals. "Come back and free all the slaves", "Protect the ones you love", "Gain all the power in the galaxy to protect your own lousy ass from external threats", "find you own missing father with the resources the empire offers", "enjoy the power given to you by the empire". Does are not per se evil goals, but they are certainly not based on a feeling of duty, but passion and desire.

I can't really agree with you here. Some Imperials really are about their Duty, even if it's a twisted take on it by most standards. To say that they also have individual and self-serving goals doesn't negate this anymore than Rebels having such goals negates that they have a Duty to the Alliance.

Duty to the empire:

Emperor? Nope,

Vader? Nope.

Zaarin? Nope.

Both Isards? Nope.

Tarkin? Nope.

Thrawn? Nope, his allegiance seems to be for Chiss ascendancy, his service for the empire is based on personal motives and loyality to the chiss. You could call this duty, but it not really empire related.

181st Squadron? Not really even when Soontir Fel might be a fringe case, and one that not only trained Wedge and half of Red/Rouge Squadron, but as well one who deflects later to the alliance.

Clone Troopers? Not happy about order 66, not happy at all. We see some of them on Alliance side based on duty.

Storm Troopers? Brain washed recruits, some of them forced into service, others lured in by propaganda. You could call this duty, but than their loyality is not really with the empire, but the propaganda image of the empire, no wonder that the alliance is full of imperial deflectors. ;-)

Don't get me wrong, imperials naturally have a sense of duty as well, but their duty does not lead to loyalty to the empire, but instead is using the empire to achieve personal goals even when those goals might be duty related.