I know further in the thread there's a discussion about whether the game can be expanded, with a few ideas in there perhaps... I don't care to farm through it. I'd like to start a new discussion, one that starts out the gate discussing if an expansion can be done, what it would focus on.

Rebellion seems pretty airtight now as it is, but in a game today I noticed again how, well, useless the Deathstar is. You read that right... even when I'm driving as the Empire (since I was rebels that game), I use the Death Star purely as an inassailable Star Destroyer that mostly carries troops and lingers as a threat. I've never fired the Superlaser in any game of being the Empire, mostly because I feel there is no need. The Rebels are fleet-footed enough not to allow a Death Star to crush their fleets, and I find it more invalueble as a space carrier than as an offensive weapon (Vs one of the 8 Star Destroyers I can deploy better).

So immediately I thought of some avenue an expansion could work. It could give us more things to do with the Death Star, for starters.

Something like mission cards to improve loyalty in a system where there is a Death Star. I think we have a few, but something like where a system occupied by a Death Star could never have Rebel loyalty would be more useful for the Death Star. Or perhaps the ability could be expanded so that a sector with a Death Star in it could never gain loyalty for the Rebellion. Obvioulsy this should be tested, but it is somewhere interesting for the Death Star to go, and so it can be more than just the rare Superlaser.

Another avenue I thought could be TIE Interceptors and B-Wings added to the game. I don't know what they would do, or what their stats would be, but they could be unlocked via the missions (Shantipole for Rebels) or the project deck (TIE Development for Empire). This gives a sense of real research and development of weapons over the course of the GCW, instead of the project deck simply advancing build stuff and making SSDs available.

So to turn the thread over to you guys, what problems do you think can be fixed with the game? In what way are units under-utilized, what can be fixed? What new mechanics can you see opening up the game in a significant and fun way?

Those are some cool ideas, I've made a post called "expansion idea" that lists 'most' my ideas for an expanison if your interested in reading that. I've used the Death Star laser maybe twice (I usally play as the Rebels) and it makes sense that no one is going to rebel when there is a super weapon pointed at them.

I actually really like the Death Star idea, and I wouldn't mind more mission cards of "resolve this effect if x unit is present". For instance, maybe we could have an "Ion Blast" tech mission that resolves if a Star Destroyer is in a system with an ion canon, rendering the offensive capabilities of that SD useless for a turn, or maybe "Go for the Legs", giving Airspeeders an additional Red Die that can only be used against ATATs.

A few choice cards that persist after being completed could be cool, too. Something like Seek Yoda where the ring remains in play after being completed. Something like, until the Death Star enters a new sector, the sector containing a Death Star cannot gain loyalty for the Rebellion.

Empire might get more of these cards pulled out of the project deck with deeper or wider-ranged effects.

Rebels get them out of their mission decks, have small bonuses (ie Bothan spynet, allowing the Rebel player to discard up to two missions to draw one new one during Refresh phase) and never go away.

I would suggest against wanting an expansion that makes up for your inability to effectively use the Death Star. I would suggest instead you consider attempting to git gud.

The Death Star doesn't need to be buffed. But more missions, leaders, and action cards could be quite nice for the game.

Here's what i would prefer in a Rebellion expansion:

• An optional replacement combat system. I'm praying they include this as it's my #1 hope in the expansion.
• Not a lot, if any, new rules. The game is great as is (combat system is the exception for me) and I hope they don't make the game overly clunky with lots of new rules and exceptions.
• Considering the above, anything else would be great.

I can almost garuntee they will not change the combat system with an expansion. That's not really how expansions work. They're meant to expand upon the game, adding content and mechanics that may alter gameplay or add new strategies/balance certain aspects of gameplay.

Changing a core mechanic just doesn't seem like the kind of thing an expansion should do. You might make changes to keep certain units or strategies from being over powered (though I can't think of any examples of that in Rebellion) but that's about it.

I can almost garuntee they will not change the combat system with an expansion. That's not really how expansions work. They're meant to expand upon the game, adding content and mechanics that may alter gameplay or add new strategies/balance certain aspects of gameplay.

Changing a core mechanic just doesn't seem like the kind of thing an expansion should do. You might make changes to keep certain units or strategies from being over powered (though I can't think of any examples of that in Rebellion) but that's about it.

FFg has set a precedence for this with the DungeonQuest 3rd edition. Players disliked the combat system so they added combat variants, not replacing the previous system, they added an optional combat system.

More missions to add even more elements of theme would be welcome. What about six per side that have two candidates for added success, to mirror the combo action cards? The bonus would be limited to one of the leaders only.

And as mentioned elsewhere individual tactics decks would be welcomed, as they can expand on basic block/damage/special mechanics with specialized flavor.

I can almost garuntee they will not change the combat system with an expansion. That's not really how expansions work. They're meant to expand upon the game, adding content and mechanics that may alter gameplay or add new strategies/balance certain aspects of gameplay.

Changing a core mechanic just doesn't seem like the kind of thing an expansion should do. You might make changes to keep certain units or strategies from being over powered (though I can't think of any examples of that in Rebellion) but that's about it.

FFg has set a precedence for this with the DungeonQuest 3rd edition. Players disliked the combat system so they added combat variants, not replacing the previous system, they added an optional combat system.

A new edition of a game is basically a new game. Often core rules are changed in new editions of the game. And if a Star Wars Rebellion 2nd edition comes out it's possible that they would add an optional combat system. But I doubt we'd see that in an expansion.

More missions to add even more elements of theme would be welcome. What about six per side that have two candidates for added success, to mirror the combo action cards? The bonus would be limited to one of the leaders only.

And as mentioned elsewhere individual tactics decks would be welcomed, as they can expand on basic block/damage/special mechanics with specialized flavor.

6?

The way leaders work they would be added in sets of 2. So that each leader can have two action cards that can recruit them. One specific to them and one they share with the other person.

So six new hero specific missions per side would mean six new leaders which I think is pushing it. 4 max. But I think just 2 new leaders is sufficient. Hera Sulydus and Jyn Ersa for rebels, Thrawn and Gillad Pellaeon (or Orson Krennic if you want to keep it to Rogue One) would probably cover most of the needed areas. There's not a whole lot more variability you can add to the generals without giving both sides complete parity with their hero selections. Which is something you don't want.

Adding Bwings or Tie Interceptors would change nothing as the Ties and Ywings represent an entire Wing of fighters, (or more). So, they include Bwings and A wings and Tie Interceptors and Tie Advanced, etc

The Death Star is already very formidable. Once it is complete you need a VERY specific circumstance AND a card to defeat it. Offensively, it is a planet killer AND it throws a bunch of dice out on the attack.

If they do release an expansion, (which I guarantee they will not until they release a second edition), it will add some cards. MAYBE a new set of leaders, (And David? It's Hera Syndulla. Ththththtppptttt).

More missions to add even more elements of theme would be welcome. What about six per side that have two candidates for added success, to mirror the combo action cards? The bonus would be limited to one of the leaders only.

And as mentioned elsewhere individual tactics decks would be welcomed, as they can expand on basic block/damage/special mechanics with specialized flavor.

6?

The way leaders work they would be added in sets of 2. So that each leader can have two action cards that can recruit them. One specific to them and one they share with the other person.

So six new hero specific missions per side would mean six new leaders which I think is pushing it. 4 max. But I think just 2 new leaders is sufficient. Hera Sulydus and Jyn Ersa for rebels, Thrawn and Gillad Pellaeon (or Orson Krennic if you want to keep it to Rogue One) would probably cover most of the needed areas. There's not a whole lot more variability you can add to the generals without giving both sides complete parity with their hero selections. Which is something you don't want.

Oh, I was referring to mission cards. There would be six new missions per side with a choice of two leaders to choose from for the bonus (you can't double dip the bonus).

Something I've been thinking would make a great expansion is a similar element to the mercenaries found in the Shards of the Throne expansion for TI3. Add some Scum/Bounty Hunters (Dengar, Bossk, etc.) as leaders/ships which go up for auction that both sides can participate in to try and outbid for the services of that merc. Once acquired, that mercs loyalties could still be impacted by cards throughout the game that could cause them to switch sides at a moments notice and maybe have their services go up for re-auction periodically.

Would have to come up with the auction bidding mechanism (since there isn't any kind of "money" resource in Rebellion), maybe something as simple as each side getting three cards, each worth 1, 2, and 3 credits, there will only be three merc auctions throughout the game (let's say turns 2, 4, and 6), and each side bids on the available merc blindly using one of their cards. Each card can only be used once per game, so once you use your 3 it's gone. If there's a tie, then nobody gets the merc (so there's incentive for bluffing, etc.). This would be quick and simple, require only a moderate number of extra pieces and cards, shouldn't add much time to the game, and would add theme and complexity. The biggest obvious problem with my auction suggestion is that there would be games where no mercs would even be involved, but I'm just throwing that in off the cuff. Really the key ideas here are a couple extra leaders (maybe coming with a special ship) which have flexible loyalties and are up for auction (so each side has equal shot at them).

If they do release an expansion, (which I guarantee they will not until they release a second edition),

Huh? What makes you so sure? An entire new edition of the game with new and altered rules? I don't really think a second edition is necessary. And usually second editions of games aren't created unless the game has been out a long while and usually expansions are made before second editions.

Do you mean a second printing?

If they do release an expansion, (which I guarantee they will not until they release a second edition),

Huh? What makes you so sure? An entire new edition of the game with new and altered rules? I don't really think a second edition is necessary. And usually second editions of games aren't created unless the game has been out a long while and usually expansions are made before second editions.

Do you mean a second printing?

David, didn't we already have this discussion elsewhere? I said nothing about a new edition. I said expansion. If the rerelease the game, all bets are off, but, until they release Rebellion 2.0 there will be no expansions. You can tell by the way it was released and by the product code. Both of which show that they will not be releasing any expansions, (i need to sticky this explanation of product codes so I can stop repeating myself). Again, tho, if the do a full second edition, THEN they may release an expansion... or 12

Uh I'm not aware of an FFG policy which forbids them from creating an expansion if they give their product a certain product number. I do know from people within FFG that an expansion is in the works but I don't know any details.

Neither am I as that isn't what I said. Feel free to actually read a post before you troll it please.

If they do release an expansion, (which I guarantee they will not until they release a second edition),

Huh? What makes you so sure? An entire new edition of the game with new and altered rules? I don't really think a second edition is necessary. And usually second editions of games aren't created unless the game has been out a long while and usually expansions are made before second editions.

Do you mean a second printing?

If the rerelease the game, all bets are off, but, until they release Rebellion 2.0 there will be no expansions. You can tell by the way it was released and by the product code. Both of which show that they will not be releasing any expansions,

I mean that is literally what you said. You're saying FFG has a system in place which forbids them from making expansions to games that use this product code unless they create a second edition.

I said nothing about a new edition.

I guarantee they will not until they release a second edition

Previously, you and I have discussed this, and I showed you examples of how the product codes don't mean there won't be any expansion, just that the release model does not rely on expansions.

Actually, upon further reflection, Forgotten Lore, you may have nailed it. Games like Rebellion and TI may not have PLANNED expansions, but, a couple years down the road, they are looking at teh product line and BAM ,said game gets an expansion

I need to stop commenting on these threads. ForgottenLore, I meant I was not saying there would not be a new edition, just there wouldn't be an expansion UNLESS they released a new edition. And regards to the product codes, I have rechecked that part and it is always a 2nd or 3rd edition where they start to modify the model. Again TI is the perfect example. They are on, what, 3rd editin before they released expansions? I don't believe FFG had TI before 3rd edition. Correct me if I am wrong on that.

I need to stop commenting on these threads. ForgottenLore, I meant I was not saying there would not be a new edition, just there wouldn't be an expansion UNLESS they released a new edition. And regards to the product codes, I have rechecked that part and it is always a 2nd or 3rd edition where they start to modify the model. Again TI is the perfect example. They are on, what, 3rd editin before they released expansions? I don't believe FFG had TI before 3rd edition. Correct me if I am wrong on that.

Hey man, I'm not trying to "troll" you or anything, just trying to clarify where you're coming from. Are you saying that expansions aren't released for 1st editions of games for FFG?

I have 6 waves of expansions for Imperial Assault with a 7th on the way, so if that's what you mean, I don't think it's correct. And if the argument is that miniature games don't count, look no further than Eldritch Horror.

I guess I just fail to see why they need to "modify the model" of a game before releasing expansions.

Are you saying that expansions aren't released for 1st editions of games for FFG?

I have 6 waves of expansions for Imperial Assault with a 7th on the way, so if that's what you mean, I don't think it's correct. And if the argument is that miniature games don't count, look no further than Eldritch Horror.

I guess I just fail to see why they need to "modify the model" of a game before releasing expansions.

Or Arkham Horror, Or Elder Signs, or Mansions of Madness, or Star Craft, or like literally any of their games. There have been plenty of games of theirs that have gotten expansions without getting a second edition.

I've said it a number of times, but my expansion idea:

1) Flip the roles. The Imperial player hides the Death Star plans, and the Rebel player has to find and capture them.

2) Changes the game length. Instead of tacking on more stuff and weighing and already heavy game down, make the expansion scenario < 2 hours.

3) Adds some new stuff that could be used in the standard game as well. This could be new plastic units, or just heroes/projects/missions.

Frame it in the Rebels/Rogue One timeline, introducing characters from that period (the crew of the Ghost, Jyn, Cassian, Saw; Thrawn, Kallus, Orson Krennic). Use the same core rules, but change the overall mission parameters. Make it less focused on development and building up forces, but perhaps instead start each side with a sizeable force. The Imperials are trying to complete the Death Star, so their "Projects" become analogous to Rebel "Objectives" (strip mining, harvesting Kyber crystals, rounding up new workers, etc.)... if the Empire can complete enough projects to bring the Death Star online before the Rebels find the plans, they win. Probe Droid cards offer the Rebels hints of where the plans could be, and they must use their leaders and their fleet to investigate. Once they've found the plans, they have to launch a successful invasion and complete a mission to steal them -- if they can manage it, they win. With a little less emphasis on building up forces and no need to explore the whole galaxy, it would play like a new game using the same core rules as the first one (and hopefully provide a quicker version of the game for folks who don't have three hours to invest).

I don't think the game necessarily needs more plastic units, but if included they shouldn't be tied to planetary production but Mission and Project cards. For instance, the Empire can research Speeder Bikes, TIE Bombers, or the Interdictor-class tractor beam cruisers. The Rebels can perform specific missions to recruit planetary auxiliaries or steal a Nebulon-class frigate. This keeps the additional units special, allows players to incorporate them in regular games, and prevents them from unduly unbalancing the combat mechanics. But again, I think this risks adding more bloat... a small expansion with mostly cards is fine by me!

Allow some of the new heroes and mission cards to be used in regular games of Rebellion, and I think you have the perfect expansion. Enhances the old game without adding more weight, offers a distinct and new gameplay experience, and ties in well with other Star Wars releases going on right now (Rogue One, Rebels).

I've said it a number of times, but my expansion idea:

1) Flip the roles. The Imperial player hides the Death Star plans, and the Rebel player has to find and capture them.

2) Changes the game length. Instead of tacking on more stuff and weighing and already heavy game down, make the expansion scenario < 2 hours.

3) Adds some new stuff that could be used in the standard game as well. This could be new plastic units, or just heroes/projects/missions.

Frame it in the Rebels/Rogue One timeline, introducing characters from that period (the crew of the Ghost, Jyn, Cassian, Saw; Thrawn, Kallus, Orson Krennic). Use the same core rules, but change the overall mission parameters. Make it less focused on development and building up forces, but perhaps instead start each side with a sizeable force. The Imperials are trying to complete the Death Star, so their "Projects" become analogous to Rebel "Objectives" (strip mining, harvesting Kyber crystals, rounding up new workers, etc.)... if the Empire can complete enough projects to bring the Death Star online before the Rebels find the plans, they win. Probe Droid cards offer the Rebels hints of where the plans could be, and they must use their leaders and their fleet to investigate. Once they've found the plans, they have to launch a successful invasion and complete a mission to steal them -- if they can manage it, they win. With a little less emphasis on building up forces and no need to explore the whole galaxy, it would play like a new game using the same core rules as the first one (and hopefully provide a quicker version of the game for folks who don't have three hours to invest).

See, this could be interesting. Instead of a time limit, the Rebels have to find the DS plans, while the Empire has to find the Rebel Base. For the DS plans, though- Infiltration would be removed from the Rebel player's hand and be replaced with a different card- perhaps titled "I Rebel"- with the text: "Perform this mission on any planet. If successful, the Imp player must reveal if the hidden Death Star plans are on this planet." Then, if the Rebels manage to have any unit in that system at the end of the turn, they win. Rebels would also get other cards that could help them narrow down the system, since they won't have the military advantage of exploration that the Empire has.

The Rebels could not draw objective cards, and therefore could not defeat the Death Star- so, that might be a big advantage for the Empire. Maybe there should be a rule like: if the DS destroys a planet, the Imp player must name whether or not the plans are in the region. Additionally, the Rebel player may name a region, and the Imp player must reveal if the plans are in that region as well.

Would be cool also to replace post beginning of ANH characters (like Luke, Han, Chewie, maybe Lando) with more Rogue One centric characters like Jyn, Chirrut, K-2SO. Should find a way to get Krennic in there, too.