Can someone please explain the different colors of the cards/dice to me?

Blue = Force user?

Red/Yellow = ??

Gray = equipment?

And how do they interact with the rules?

My google-fu fails me

Blue is Force. Red is "Command", so your military types. Yellow is Rogue, so all the Scoundrels, scum, bounty hunters, smugglers, etc. Grey is neutral.

In order to have a card in your deck, you need to have a character with a matching color. Excluding grey.

So you can team up any two characters, even of opposing sides (Luke and Vader for example) and that decides what two (or one) out of three colors (plus grey) you get access too?

On the bottom of each card it will say Hero, Villain, or Neutral. You cannot mix Heros and Villains. Also, grey isn't technically neutral (I misspoke). Grey is just "everything else".

If you can't mix Hero and Villain, how can you team up Luke and Vader?

If you can't mix Hero and Villain, how can you team up Luke and Vader?

You Can't.

Some of the thematic decisions here seem more like a first draft than a final product. 'Hero' and 'Villain' are about as generic labels as possible and it seems like an obvious missed opportunity to use something more theme appropriate like 'Light side' and 'Dark side'. Similarly, instead of having cards refer to 'blue' characters, wouldn't it be more thematic to have them refer to 'force sensitive' characters? Stuff like this helps draw people into the theme.

If you can't mix Hero and Villain, how can you team up Luke and Vader?

Even in a format where we could mix the heroes and villains, you wouldn't be able to afford both of them at the same time under the 30 point cap.

So you can team up any two characters, even of opposing sides (Luke and Vader for example) and that decides what two (or one) out of three colors (plus grey) you get access too?

I realized I didn't answer your question. You have it right aside from keeping heroes and villains separate. You choose your characters and that will dictate what cards you have access to.

Some of the thematic decisions here seem more like a first draft than a final product. 'Hero' and 'Villain' are about as generic labels as possible and it seems like an obvious missed opportunity to use something more theme appropriate like 'Light side' and 'Dark side'. Similarly, instead of having cards refer to 'blue' characters, wouldn't it be more thematic to have them refer to 'force sensitive' characters? Stuff like this helps draw people into the theme.

No, it's not.

The problem you have with doing "force sensitive" is that you end up with a million traits that you have to manage and make sure both make sense and can't be used abusively. Using the colors is more generic and easier to balance around because you don;t have to worry about "force users need more card support". It might be more thematic, but is more of a nightmare to balance.

Light Side vs Dark Side being the terms is more theme-y I guess, but I personally prefer Hero vs Villain. I personally think you could have a character that uses the Dark Side to be a hero and vice-versa. I think it's best to keep the force out of it when determining whether you are good or bad. While they frequently tie together, I don't personally see it as a hard and fast rule.

I mean I wouldn't exactly call Han Solo "Light Side" in ANH, but I would call him a hero.

Especially because I could easily see some of the characters in the new movies switching sides at some point. Having (okay, I'm just going hypothetical here.. hold the pitch forks) Kylo Ren (Villain) and Ben Solo (Hero) makes sense, especially given he seems to struggle with not feeling the Light side vs the Dark.

The problem you have with doing "force sensitive" is that you end up with a million traits that you have to manage and make sure both make sense and can't be used abusively. Using the colors is more generic and easier to balance around because you don;t have to worry about "force users need more card support". It might be more thematic, but is more of a nightmare to balance.

The problem you have with doing "force sensitive" is that you end up with a million traits that you have to manage and make sure both make sense and can't be used abusively. Using the colors is more generic and easier to balance around because you don;t have to worry about "force users need more card support". It might be more thematic, but is more of a nightmare to balance.

His argument was: why not use different words for the same purpose: blue=force, red=command, yellow=rogue.

But then you're locked into very specific connotations. Does a "First Order Stormtrooper" really exude Command to you?

The problem you have with doing "force sensitive" is that you end up with a million traits that you have to manage and make sure both make sense and can't be used abusively. Using the colors is more generic and easier to balance around because you don;t have to worry about "force users need more card support". It might be more thematic, but is more of a nightmare to balance.

His argument was: why not use different words for the same purpose: blue=force, red=command, yellow=rogue.

Well, that's an even simpler answer - because the game is more accessible and generic the way it is. Attaching more specific words make it more likely that you will have some sort of conflict later.

EDIT: Ninja'd

The problem you have with doing "force sensitive" is that you end up with a million traits that you have to manage and make sure both make sense and can't be used abusively. Using the colors is more generic and easier to balance around because you don;t have to worry about "force users need more card support". It might be more thematic, but is more of a nightmare to balance.

His argument was: why not use different words for the same purpose: blue=force, red=command, yellow=rogue.

But then you're locked into very specific connotations. Does a "First Order Stormtrooper" really exude Command to you?

Then again, perhaps you mean when coming across the word Command in card text you won't think to look to the stormtrooper.

The problem you have with doing "force sensitive" is that you end up with a million traits that you have to manage and make sure both make sense and can't be used abusively. Using the colors is more generic and easier to balance around because you don;t have to worry about "force users need more card support". It might be more thematic, but is more of a nightmare to balance.

His argument was: why not use different words for the same purpose: blue=force, red=command, yellow=rogue.

But then you're locked into very specific connotations. Does a "First Order Stormtrooper" really exude Command to you?

That doesn't matter. First Order Stormtrooper is Red and Red does mean Command according to the rules. They just use the color in card text, rather than the actual title.

Then again, perhaps you mean when coming across the word Command in card text you won't think to look to the stormtrooper.

lol, no they are trying to say that instead of "Spot a Red Character" They should make Red = Command and have the card text say "Spot a Command Character". because they think it is more fluffy that way.

Which it is, but as Aahzmandius_Karrde pointed out, there are connotation issues with that. The colors are generic and obvious and don't need a chart that says "Red=Command"

And they should have done the card on black and white

While calling the colors by there proper name would have been more thematic, anyone that has played any game with different 'factions' split by both color and name knows that 95% of the time people use the color anyways. It drives me nuts when my play group refers to Spirit cards in Lord of the Rings as Blue. This way, the game terms actually support what most people will say

While calling the colors by there proper name would have been more thematic, anyone that has played any game with different 'factions' split by both color and name knows that 95% of the time people use the color anyways. It drives me nuts when my play group refers to Spirit cards in Lord of the Rings as Blue. This way, the game terms actually support what most people will say

This is so true.

Stop trying to make the minutia more than it has to be. Hero/Villain/Neutral and Red/Blue/Yellow are simple and accessible and that is a GREAT thing.

The problem you have with doing "force sensitive" is that you end up with a million traits that you have to manage and make sure both make sense and can't be used abusively. Using the colors is more generic and easier to balance around because you don;t have to worry about "force users need more card support". It might be more thematic, but is more of a nightmare to balance.

His argument was: why not use different words for the same purpose: blue=force, red=command, yellow=rogue.

But then you're locked into very specific connotations. Does a "First Order Stormtrooper" really exude Command to you?

That doesn't matter. First Order Stormtrooper is Red and Red does mean Command according to the rules. They just use the color in card text, rather than the actual title.

Then again, perhaps you mean when coming across the word Command in card text you won't think to look to the stormtrooper.

lol, no they are trying to say that instead of "Spot a Red Character" They should make Red = Command and have the card text say "Spot a Command Character". because they think it is more fluffy that way.

Which it is, but as Aahzmandius_Karrde pointed out, there are connotation issues with that. The colors are generic and obvious and don't need a chart that says "Red=Command"

Except that chart is already in the rules...