7 hours ago, sionnach19 said:

I'm not quite sure why folks feel the need to barge into this thread with no interest in the broader conversation, just to vehemently defend something which isn't under attack and criticize people for things they haven't said.

Modern politics, bruh

On 2017-03-31 at 0:01 PM, sionnach19 said:

I'm not quite sure why folks feel the need to barge into this thread with no interest in the broader conversation, just to vehemently defend something which isn't under attack and criticize people for things they haven't said.

Not sure if you are talking about me...

Just because I disagree that planetary overlays would make an interesting or worth while expansion, that doesn't mean I have no interest in "the broader conversation". Isn't that what this thread is about - whether or not we feel Rogue One will/should prompt a related expansion?

Also, I joined this conversation over 3 weeks before you, so I don't see how that constitutes "barging in".

Modern politics indeed!

40 minutes ago, crimhead said:

Not sure if you are talking about me...

Just because I disagree that planetary overlays would make an interesting or worth while expansion, that doesn't mean I have no interest in "the broader conversation". Isn't that what this thread is about - whether or not we feel Rogue One will/should prompt a related expansion?

Also, I joined this conversation over 3 weeks before you, so I don't see how that constitutes "barging in".

Modern politics indeed!

See, you didn't say "I disagree that planetary overlays would make an interesting or worth while expansion". That's a totally reasonable thing to say, and I would have been interested in reading about why you think that.

What you did say:

Quote

Do "prequel-filler systems" not count as "planets seen in the movies"? It sounds like you want this game to represent planets seen in movies that you liked but not the movies you didn't like!

How many movies/comics/series is Disney going to sanction? Are people going to want planets added/replaced/renamed every time there is new story published? Sorry, no. I don't understand this even a little bit.

doesn't reflect the conversation at all, or at least anything I posted. I never introduced a personal standard of disliking the prequel movies and wanting to remove their influence, nor did anyone suggest that the game board should be updated every time Disney releases new material.

By all means, point out your concerns with map overlays! Voice your opposition to a Rogue One expansion! But it's impossible to have a conversation about any merits or issues when folks fail to grasp the arguments that have been laid out, misrepresent what's been said, or simply talk past one another. But whatever, you were here first; clearly I'm intruding on this thread with my delusions of having a reasonable conversation.

16 hours ago, sionnach19 said:

What you did say...

doesn't reflect the conversation at all, or at least anything I posted. I never introduced a personal standard of disliking the prequel movies and wanting to remove their influence, nor did anyone suggest that the game board should be updated every time Disney releases new material.

I quoted you directly - how can that possibly not reflect anything you said?

You certainly stated a motivation (whether personal or otherwise) to remove prequel systems in favour of more recent prequel systems (R1). I do not understand this as a motive for an overlay expansion. It is wholly trivial. This is a perfectly reasonable reaction to your text I quoted last page.
I actually agree with you - many people would prefer to see the planets from recent and popular movies over planets from the less popular Lucas Film prequels. I just happen to think this is a poor reason to shoe-horn in an expansion. This is a fair point.

Yes, I realise you proposed subtle changes such as altered adjacencies and production icons. These ideas are presented not as their own end, but as play-based justification for the inclusion of R1 planets. Such inclusion (intentionally or not) comes across as the primary motive for such an expansion. Maybe it wasn't?

If you had expressed that altering space lanes and production icons was actually your main desire, and that overlaying new planets was simply a convenient solution for this, I would have responded differently.
I'd have suggested these will at best have a low impact on game play - especially considering we chose our set up to play around the planetary lay-out. At worst they could disrupt balance - personally I suspect it took a lot of testing to get the adjacencies and production "just right".

Just because I took issues with a particular point, it doesn't follow that I don't understand the broader context.

As for being here 1st, I don't consider you to be "intruding". This is a public forum. Just saying that calling me out on allegedly barging in is incorrect. It's also irrelevant. I like to think we can discuss this game without having to justify our presence.
Sorry we got off on the wrong foot.

On 3/30/2017 at 7:17 PM, sionnach19 said:

See, the problem is that you're basing significance entirely on population and cartography. Which is cool, I get it; you have a map of the Star Wars galaxy and you want to show it off. But you didn't address the actual, canon significance (as opposed to the theoretical cartographic significance) of all the planets I mentioned above -- nor the much more reasonable claim that not everyone who plays Rebellion is cool enough to have maps, and god forbid they want planets seen in the movies to be represented on the game board. I understand that some of these planets didn't exist back when the game was designed -- that's why we're in a thread about a hypothetical expansion, talking about using optional map overlays to represent systems better known by most fans. Maybe this conversation isn't for you?

But sure, this game should cater to the abrasive diehards with an atlas. By all means, have fun explaining the economic significance of Toydaria to your gaming buddies!

Your philosophy is completely backwards. In fact it's this very philosophy right here that is the cause of so many bad adaptations.

The idea that a board game should be created to force a recreation of the events depicted in the lore. As opposed to the idea that a board game adaptation should be created so the starting conditions mimick the starting conditions of the lore and that all possible events (not just the events that happened) are incorporated into the mechanics.

Also I'm not just talking population. I'm talking industry, economic importance, hyperlane connectivity. For example Felucia is a relatively unimportant planet however it is a key planet in the Perlemian Trade Route so it would be the type of place fights would be over. Hence it's presence on the board. I actually wrote an article analyzing the lore accuracy of the planets productions here: https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/233956-how-lore-accurate-are-the-planet-productions/

The canon significance is not what matters. It's the lore significance. So the original trilogy didn't cover a battle over Malastar for it's fuel resources. However that is totally something that could have happened (and did happen in legends I believe.) Given it's significance in the region to remove it from the board wouldn't make sense unless you replaced it with a more economically significant planet.


You know you could Replace Mon Calamari with Lothal from star wars rebels. It's probably a more well known planet now a days. But Mon Calamari is a much more economically important system than Lothal. And they are close enough together that you can just assume they are the same area.


I didn't have an atlas before playing this game. Actually I didn't know much of anything about the cartography of the star wars galaxy. It was this game specifically that caused me to get interested in the galaxy's cartography and I was happy to realize how lore accurate it is (mostly.) So much so that now whenever I watch a star wars movie or TV show I'm thinking in terms of the rebellion map because that's what I'm used to.

My point is that lore accuracy is important. Maps stick in people's heads. And so you need to do maps justice. As much as possible at least so that you aren't misrepresenting the lore.

For example the Star Wars Risk: Original Trilogy Edition map is a crime against humanity.


As for overlays, you'd have to have a reason for why the planets presented are superiority important. You could argue that Scariff is more strategically important than Rodia. Hell I could too. But THAT should be your argument. Not "Hey you know what would be cool? having Scariff on this map."

Personally if I were to add Scariff to the board I would probably replace Geonisis as during this time period Geonosis was steralized, and while a lot of factories and gear were lying around on the planet and was a big target for salvagers it simply wasn't really a "populous planet" like the other ones on the board. And Scariff did have a lot of natural resources. Even if they had a tiny population of 475,000. However I think the placement isn't quite right.

22 hours ago, davidumstattd said:

Your philosophy is completely backwards. In fact it's this very philosophy right here that is the cause of so many bad adaptations.

The idea that a board game should be created to force a recreation of the events depicted in the lore. As opposed to the idea that a board game adaptation should be created so the starting conditions mimick the starting conditions of the lore and that all possible events (not just the events that happened) are incorporated into the mechanics.

Yeah, I certainly talk to enough Axis & Allies players who want the rules to crack down on unconventional and ahistoric strategies. I enjoy those myself.

On 4/4/2017 at 10:41 AM, crimhead said:

You certainly stated a motivation (whether personal or otherwise) to remove prequel systems in favour of more recent prequel systems (R1). I do not understand this as a motive for an overlay expansion. It is wholly trivial. This is a perfectly reasonable reaction to your text I quoted last page.
I actually agree with you - many people would prefer to see the planets from recent and popular movies over planets from the less popular Lucas Film prequels. I just happen to think this is a poor reason to shoe-horn in an expansion. This is a fair point.
Sorry we got off on the wrong foot.

The important distinction, for me at least, is that while Rogue One (and the Rebels cartoon, which I think would also have a place within this kind of expansion) is technically a prequel, it occurs within the historical era of the Galactic Civil War where as the prequel trilogy (and Clone Wars cartoon) do not. Some folks may want to replace systems from Ep.I-III due to preference/popularity alone, and I agree that would be a poor reason to shoe-horn in an expansion. But offering map overlays which introduce systems better connected to the timeline of the Galactic Civil War is not quite the same thing, nor is it "wholly trivial". It's not about popularity or preference, but giving the gameboard the opportunity to reflect the actual conflicts which occurred between the Empire and the Rebellion during this time period.

The preference some people have for the game board to reflect systems from more recent conflicts is not then inconsequential, and it can be its own "end". It's a game we play for fun, and if adding Scariff or Jakku to the map would make the game more fun for folks, then it's reason enough regardless of a gameplay-based rationale for change. It's also not like an optional map overlay would take away anybody's ability to play with the regular game map, anyways. It's possible that the map overlays could cater to the folks who want them, without being forced on the people who don't. It may not be your priority, but if other players -- regardless of motivation -- would enjoy the addition of new systems, which don't in any way change the basic map which you prefer; what's the problem?

Me too.

Quote

Yes, I realise you proposed subtle changes such as altered adjacencies and production icons. These ideas are presented not as their own end, but as play-based justification for the inclusion of R1 planets. Such inclusion (intentionally or not) comes across as the primary motive for such an expansion. Maybe it wasn't?

If you had expressed that altering space lanes and production icons was actually your main desire, and that overlaying new planets was simply a convenient solution for this, I would have responded differently.
I'd have suggested these will at best have a low impact on game play - especially considering we chose our set up to play around the planetary lay-out. At worst they could disrupt balance - personally I suspect it took a lot of testing to get the adjacencies and production "just right".

I don't have a watertight idea of what the map overlays would achieve -- I simply proposed them as an alternative to the folks suggesting map extensions, which I think would be an inferior way to add new systems to the map. New/alternate production icons would be one option (which could perhaps offer a way to include new units that rely on new build symbols), as would altered adjacencies -- but I'm just spitballing. I think a low impact on game play is a good thing, actually -- I wouldn't want map overlays to drastically change the way the game functions. Simply introducing an alternate board with a few different travel routes or options for different types of builds is more than enough for me, to provide a subtly different play experience for folks interested in trying something different than the base gameboard.

I totally agree that a poor implementation could disrupt balance, and it likely did take plenty of playtesting to get the balance of adjacencies and production "just right". But I don't understand the logic -- if FFG did it once, why couldn't they do it again? Couldn't they just use a lot of testing to balance the alternate adjacencies and productions to get them "just right" as well? I'm more than willing to acknowledge that poorly balanced map overlays would be a disaster, and I'd never attempt to design something like that myself. But that possibility doesn't remove the possibility that map overlays could be done well, and offer subtle changes which give folks an alternative way to enjoy the game.

On 4/4/2017 at 4:22 PM, davidumstattd said:

Your philosophy is completely backwards. In fact it's this very philosophy right here that is the cause of so many bad adaptations.

The idea that a board game should be created to force a recreation of the events depicted in the lore. As opposed to the idea that a board game adaptation should be created so the starting conditions mimick the starting conditions of the lore and that all possible events (not just the events that happened) are incorporated into the mechanics.

I don't actually disagree with your broad point here -- slavish conformity to the actual events of the Star Wars lore would make for a bad game. But that's not what I suggested, and I think you're missing the fact that Rebellion does force the game to conform to some of the events in the movies. For instance, the Death Star must always be destroyed by a group of snub fighters -- it can't be destroyed by capital ships, or by a group of infiltrators who blow the reactor from the inside. Luke's Jedi training always happens with Yoda, who is always hiding on Dagobah. Luke is the only one able to become a Jedi, and the only one able to defeat Vader (or Palpatine). The characters themselves limit the freedom of the game to express any possible events -- for instance, Bail Organa isn't included, though in most games Alderaan is never destroyed. Like most games of this scope, building upon source material, there needs to be some sort of balance: between faithfulness to the events of the source material, and the freedom to do things not depicted in the source material.

As you say, ideally the game allows us to recreate all possible events and not just the ones that happen. I agree! But "all possible events" ought to include ones that actually do happen. The Empire can't complete construction of the Death Star over Jedha. The Rebels can't attack an Imperial base on Scariff. The Rebels can't finally cripple the Imperial war machine over Jakku. Players are not only unable to recreate events of the films (if they so choose to), but they don't have the freedom to create alternate stories in those same locations. Obi Wan Kenobi can't go to Eadu to free Mon Mothma from General Tagge. General Veers can't launch an invasion on Scariff to take it back from Admiral Ackbar. You see, these planets are just the settings of the events -- not the events themselves. Incorporating them within an expansion doesn't force the game to slavishly adhere to all the events of the Galactic Civil War. Instead, it allows players to let new stories play out against these familiar backdrops. You may not care whether these backdrops are familiar or not -- but for many people, being able to play out alternate battles across systems they know better enhances their experience. Nobody is trying to recreate the events of the movies -- everyone is looking to play out a new story, one that's all the more interesting because it takes familiar characters and locations but flips them on their head. Giving players the option to play with planets they're more familiar with makes this experience stronger for them. And as I said above, optional map overlays in no way jeopardize or inhibit your ability to enjoy the game board as it is. It's permissible for an expansion to cater to other kinds of players who might be more casual (and probably make up a larger percentage of the game's audience anyways).

Quote

I actually wrote an article analyzing the lore accuracy of the planets productions here: https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/233956-how-lore-accurate-are-the-planet-productions/

The canon significance is not what matters. It's the lore significance. So the original trilogy didn't cover a battle over Malastar for it's fuel resources. However that is totally something that could have happened (and did happen in legends I believe.) Given it's significance in the region to remove it from the board wouldn't make sense unless you replaced it with a more economically significant planet.

I didn't have an atlas before playing this game. Actually I didn't know much of anything about the cartography of the star wars galaxy. It was this game specifically that caused me to get interested in the galaxy's cartography and I was happy to realize how lore accurate it is (mostly.) So much so that now whenever I watch a star wars movie or TV show I'm thinking in terms of the rebellion map because that's what I'm used to.

My point is that lore accuracy is important. Maps stick in people's heads. And so you need to do maps justice. As much as possible at least so that you aren't misrepresenting the lore.

That's a great article, and I look forward to reading through it over the next few days!

Again, I'm not sure we really disagree on the big picture stuff here. I 100% agree that maps are important, and fidelity to the star charts is important. Just because an event didn't happen doesn't mean it couldn't have, and it's important that the game board lets us entertain those what-ifs.

My issue is that slavish adherence to the maps can create its own problems. You're placing too much importance on cartography, in my opinion. You're giving the fidelity of the map more priority than the basic concerns I have: letting more casual players easily recognize the source material, and enjoy telling stories on planets they recognize rather than ones they have never heard of. There are plenty of systems included on the game board which aren't there for the strategic location or economic value -- they're included because they show up in the Star Wars movies. Endor wouldn't have been a blip on anyone's radar were it not the site of the Death Star construction. Likewise with Hoth. So I think the game has already made concessions to the actual events of the source material, and not just the abstract lore itself -- it includes systems that showed up in the films/TV shows, not because they're the most important but because people are more familiar with them. I think that's good, because I think familiarity is more important than strict adherence to cartography/lore -- this game is more fun for most people if they're familiar with the locations and characters. Again, I get that may not be your personal preference -- but I'm arguing that it's the preference for the majority of the playerbase (who are more casual than us here discussing it online!), and I would expect an expansion to cater to the broader playerbase.

Also, we don't need to assume that the game board for Rebellion is a comprehensive and complete representation of the Star Wars map. The board does not have to include only the most valuable planet in a section of space, since it is the most lore-logical location for a battle. Inevitably, important locations will need to be left off the board. I think important production centers can be omitted for less valuable worlds which players are more familiar with -- I'm not denying the strategic and economic value of a planet like Mon Calamari, or challenging the lore at all. I'm simply suggesting that for the purposes of a board game, a planet which players have seen and might be more familiar with like Lothal could be a better inclusion (not to understate the important Imperial manufacturing presence on that world, either).

Besides, a map overlay can avoid some of your concerns by changing the spacing of systems -- it doesn't have to be a one-to-one replacement, where Scariff outright replaces Tatooine or Ryloth. Perhaps a larger map overlay covers Bothawui, Tatooine, and Ryloth; and instead changes the boundaries to allow for Kamino (which certainly has military value -- "what if" the Empire continued using clones?), Scariff, and Ryloth. This would be the only way to get planets like Jakku or Jedha on the map in my mind, as they would crowd in around Corellia and Endor.

Map overlays in an expansion aren't trying to undermine the cartographic fidelity of the base game board. It could be done thoughtlessly, "just because", but that's not what I'm suggesting. There's a way to uphold Star Wars lore and still introduce map overlays to subtly change the game board, and allow planets which are more familiar to most folks to make their way into the game.

The fact that I agree with most of the main points you make in your counterargument should be a clue that we aren't communicating well -- either I haven't expressed myself clearly enough, or you haven't read my posts carefully enough; and vice versa. I'm trying to interact with your position more charitably than I did at first, and I hope you'll do the same.

1 hour ago, sionnach19 said:

I don't actually disagree with your broad point here -- slavish conformity to the actual events of the Star Wars lore would make for a bad game. But that's not what I suggested, and I think you're missing the fact that Rebellion does force the game to conform to some of the events in the movies. For instance, the Death Star must always be destroyed by a group of snub fighters -- it can't be destroyed by capital ships, or by a group of infiltrators who blow the reactor from the inside. Luke's Jedi training always happens with Yoda, who is always hiding on Dagobah. Luke is the only one able to become a Jedi, and the only one able to defeat Vader (or Palpatine). The characters themselves limit the freedom of the game to express any possible events -- for instance, Bail Organa isn't included, though in most games Alderaan is never destroyed. Like most games of this scope, building upon source material, there needs to be some sort of balance: between faithfulness to the events of the source material, and the freedom to do things not depicted in the source material.

In lore capital ships would not be able to destroy the DS due to it's design. You do have a good point on sabatures on the inside. In lore Krennic was absolutely paranoid about such an attack so the defenses against such an attempt were extensive. However this does seem like it should be a choice. There is theoretically a way for a sabotage team to destroy the DS and the empire player can take steps to prevent that. This kind of interplay would be good for the game. And I do agree that in some places the game overtly conforms to the established events. I still think Leiah should be able to be trained to be a jedi for example. But it should be less likely than Luke.

Also now that you mention it "Return of the Jedi" should be able to be triggered by Jedi Luke or Obi Wan.

The game is far from perfect in regards to keeping things open ended.

I actually like that Alderaan is often not destroyed as in lore a lot of people in the empire were like "Seriously what were they thinking? Destroying Alderan was a bad move" though personally I think it can be justified to gain loyalty in Cato Neimodia or Corellia without having to move units there first. Plus Alderan is actually a marginally common rebel staging ground and base location due to the face the empire rarely goes there.

2 hours ago, sionnach19 said:

That's a great article, and I look forward to reading through it over the next few days!

Again, I'm not sure we really disagree on the big picture stuff here. I 100% agree that maps are important, and fidelity to the star charts is important. Just because an event didn't happen doesn't mean it couldn't have, and it's important that the game board lets us entertain those what-ifs.

I once had Lando be trained to be a Jedi by Yoda. Good fun. To some extent you have to kinda squint and make your own stories with what you're given.

I feel that Rebels has more of an impact on Rebellion changes than Rogue One did. For all the hubub they make about Lothal (drawing attention from the likes of the Grand Inquisitor, Vader, Tarkin) you'd think it would make an impact on the board, the same way Kessel did. How things are unfolding in the history of the rebellion, the Lothal Rebels are also pretty important. Both are absent.

The Grand Inquisitor and Thrawn would be great player pieces for the Empire. Hera, Ezra, and Sabine for the rebels.

On 1/19/2017 at 3:55 AM, myrm said:

An expansion, no, I doubt it - but a new Rogue 1 game using the basic rules concepts could work...

On 1/20/2017 at 5:33 AM, Frimmel said:

I've not convinced this game requires an expansion and it certainly doesn't need an expansion based on that mediocrity. Maybe give it a mission card or two as part of a larger expansion, maybe add Jyn or Krennic as leaders, if there just has to be an expansion but certainly not its own expansion. I still don't know most of the character's names and likely still wouldn't know "Krennic" if he weren't in Battlefront.

This game was born practically perfect and with a level of excellence that deserves considerably better than to be tainted with Rogue One's copious shortcomings.

Vindication

For those who now don't want their game anymore. I'll buy it from you, but not at $100. It is a used game after all.

2 minutes ago, Marinealver said:

Vindication

For those who now don't want their game anymore. I'll buy it from you, but not at $100. It is a used game after all.

You initially asked if folks thought there would be an expansion. I answered that question. While this does look like it adds some interesting things to the base game the article suggests a bit of an either/or with regards some of it which would make it more on the lines of being its own game as much as an expansion.

And why would release of an expansion not make me want a perfectly fine game anymore? I'm not required to purchase the expansion.

I was wrong on this but it doesn't make Rogue One any less of a mediocre movie.

52 minutes ago, Frimmel said:

I was wrong on this but it doesn't make Rogue One any less of a mediocre movie.

Well, it's manifest that you are deluded on the one count. On the other, I also had my fear that they would do an expansion.

1 minute ago, Mikael Hasselstein said:

Well, it's manifest that you are deluded on the one count. On the other, I also had my doubts that they would do an expansion.

If you drop all the scenes with Darth Vader from the movie would you still consider me delusional? If the thing ended with the plans are transmitted- Jyn gets blown up - roll credits instead of the three minute pre-opening credits teaser to Star Wars? The movie got distracted by its own macguffin.

As to expansion:

Quote

Accordingly, Rise of the Empire introduces brand new mission decks for the Empire and Rebellion that pluck your games of Rebellion outside the timeframe of the original Star Wars trilogy

This doesn't suggest an expansion so much as an alternate version of the game. I suspect you'll play with either these mission decks or the original mission decks. I also doubt all the leaders will just get added to the leader pool but considering I was wrong on this thing existing in the first place...

Well, I loved the movie - yes, even the non-Vader parts.

But, we live in mostly free countries, I am sure - you're welcome to embrace your delusions, and enjoy whatever it is you enjoy, and disparate whatever you feel the urge to dislike.

2 hours ago, Marinealver said:

Vindication

I don't really know how I feel about this. I definitely wanted some kind of expansion, but I would have hoped that we'd get more planets (Kuat, Jakku, Lothal, Korriban, Scarif, Nar Shaddaa, Taris, Rakata Prime, Jedha, Takodana, etc) and maybe rules for a longer, larger scale campaign.

Still, it will be interesting to see more details on this as time goes on. Hopefully, since they are doing Rogue One first, we will see more character expansions. On my personal list:

Governor Price
Admiral Sloane
Admiral Thrawn
Count Vidian
Yupe Tashu
Jylia Shale