50 minutes ago, homedrone said:

I don't think the Rebs get to place BASE BASE like that.. each Reb player places one of each in any order.. ('either order' would have been less confusing I think.)

This is how I would interpret it as well. When it's a Rebel player's turn, they place 2 markers, and secretly note 1 as a base and 1 as an outpost. Then the next Imperial players places a base, followed by a different Rebel player picking 2 and secretly marking which is which, etc.

Gold star for most informative and useful forum post of the week.

Great job and many thanks for posting!

You're welcome.

Oh... you meant the op.

Sorry.

18 minutes ago, Xindell said:

This is how I would interpret it as well. When it's a Rebel player's turn, they place 2 markers, and secretly note 1 as a base and 1 as an outpost. Then the next Imperial players places a base, followed by a different Rebel player picking 2 and secretly marking which is which, etc.

Indeed. I hadn't really taken that into account when I posted my revised list.

Will update.

1 hour ago, Kendraam said:

Great OP Green Knight, excellent points (disagree with you on Rieeken and map vs book on the planet data!)

He ? Fortunately I'm not really trying to reach a consensus or anything. It's just me spewing out a string of observations.

On both counts the opposite views are entirely valid.

As we look though:

Thematically speaking, Who do you want to have the best, and who do you want to be harder to define.

Corellia-Imp-Reb-Imp-Reb-Imp-AlltheRebels

Accomplishes the goal of both giving more choice locations to the Imperial Players.

If you're paying attention, The Rebels are going ot be 50/50 on choosing bases vs outposts anyway... As each rebel player has to have one outpost and one base as part of their selection. You won't know which, but you know if you hit one of a players 2 systems, the other is the other, as it is.... No two ways about it.

Ergo, we figured giving the Imperials the choices at the start was more important, and then the Rebels can populate their choices afterwards...

Under no circumstances were we allowing the Rebels to place 6 markers, and *then* deciding which of them were outpsots, and which of them were bases....

... But honestly, I think that'd be a better balancing feature, overall. Its not like you need to calculate any difference in resource generation until after the first round is played, anyway.

Updated placement list:

(still assuming the alternate "option B" for base placement)

Empire: Corellia 45+yards
Empire: Nubia 41+yards
Rebels: Saberhing [outpost] 16+yards
Rebels: Selonia [base] 37+yards
Empire: Xyquine 36+yards
Rebels: Vagran [base] 33+yards
Rebels: Duro [outpost] 17+spacers
Empire: Crash's Drift 38+spacers
Rebels: Centerpoint [base] 30+spynet
Rebels: Raider's Point [outpost] 4+spynet

Imps: 45 refit, 160 resources

Rebs: 45 refit, 137 resources (162 if they drop spynets and go max resources)

Here the first rebel player might opt to take Saberhing as an OUTPOST location. This does indeed make it exposed to REGULAR assault, but the Asteroids objective can be useful on the defense. Alternatively Selonia can be the outpost and Saberhing the base. Less fallout, more traditional objective choice.

Going down this route represents an interesting conundrum for the Imps on turn 1:

The rebels declare a Raid on their first assault...does the empire try to ****** a poorly defended Yard or launch their own Show of Force. If they forgo a Show of Force they'll lose out on resources, and Rebels might bag a good handful on their special. And they can't be ENTIRELY sure where the base is. Short term vs. long term. Risk vs potential gain. Very interesting.

Perhaps the rebels now, seeing the Imps have overextended, launches an early base assault on Corellia itself? It's an option at least. Or a "harmless" basic assault on a worthless planet in the boonies. Froz for example. At worst the imps get the opportunity to construct a base at the worst location and they are behind in points, which can actually be a benefit early on.

Pretty much the same dynamic applies at Vagran/Duro and the spynet locations (or Polanis/Corfai).

Seems a much more open and interesting start.

Green Knight - typo on Crash's Drift points value above; should be 13.

I think the 'correct' way (booklet/rules) is that the Rebels just place one presence at a time - but, that said, I'm liking the look of this alternative set-up. As you say it gives more interesting options.

I slightly disagree on the choose of the last few planets though - Spynet is much more useful than Spacers. If playing Rebel I'd have Centerpoint instead of Duro, then if the Imps don't take a Forvand or Raider's Point I'd have the third Rebel player take both. Only loses you 15 resource points.

If I was Imperial I'd be taking Centerpoint instead of Crash's Drift to stop this - I may even try and nab two Spynet locations and risk not getting a third yard.

27 minutes ago, Kendraam said:

Green Knight - typo on Crash's Drift points value above; should be 13.

I think the 'correct' way (booklet/rules) is that the Rebels just place one presence at a time - but, that said, I'm liking the look of this alternative set-up. As you say it gives more interesting options.

I slightly disagree on the choose of the last few planets though - Spynet is much more useful than Spacers. If playing Rebel I'd have Centerpoint instead of Duro, then if the Imps don't take a Forvand or Raider's Point I'd have the third Rebel player take both. Only loses you 15 resource points.

If I was Imperial I'd be taking Centerpoint instead of Crash's Drift to stop this - I may even try and nab two Spynet locations and risk not getting a third yard.

Crash's Drift looks good to me: 25+13=38.

Centerpoint/Saberhing needed fixing though. but net resources the same.

Spynet IS very useful. Not more than yards, but possibly better than Spacers. I agree there.

Great thread. It's really helpful to see more strategy discussions like these (especially as my team is getting slaughtered in CC).

I will add that I feel that the dynamic does change significantly with 4 players. Not being able to declare two of the assaults really hurts the losing team, by comparison to 3v3.

Additionally, if both teams have more of an offensive and defensive fleet, it seems (from a grand sample size of 2 rounds) that the same fleets will continue to play each other.

14 hours ago, Xindell said:

This is how I would interpret it as well. When it's a Rebel player's turn, they place 2 markers, and secretly note 1 as a base and 1 as an outpost. Then the next Imperial players places a base, followed by a different Rebel player picking 2 and secretly marking which is which, etc.

Yup, also agree with this. Otherwise, no wonder it's skewed. So:

Imp (Corellia)

Imp Player 1 (Base)

Reb Player 1 (Base and Outpost)

Imp Player 2 (Base)

Reb Player 2 (Base and Outpost)

Imp player 3 (Base)

Reb player 3 (Base and Outpost)

19 hours ago, Green Knight said:

He ? Fortunately I'm not really trying to reach a consensus or anything. It's just me spewing out a string of observations.

On both counts the opposite views are entirely valid.

First, Thanks for the OP. Very well written and appreciated.

I can see the setup either way. I have read it so many times my brain hurts (as I'm sure many of us have), but not found a "correct answer."

While I personally agree with you that Rieekan-unscarred-zombie-retreat is garbage and potentially overpowered, I actually don't think opposite views are valid. The rules and the card are very explicit about stating START OF and END OF the Status Phase. It just works (to my chagrin) and, using the rules as written, I cannot determine a logical argument as to otherwise. If you can, I would like to hear it (although it is probably in a thread somewhere that I haven't read yet).

***As a side note, Rieekan-unscarred-zombie-retreat may be why the setup of: IMP IMP REB IMP REB IMP REB REB REB REB is correct, even if it seems unfair in resources to the Rebels.

18 minutes ago, SirDave said:

First, Thanks for the OP. Very well written and appreciated.

I can see the setup either way. I have read it so many times my brain hurts (as I'm sure many of us have), but not found a "correct answer."

While I personally agree with you that Rieekan-unscarred-zombie-retreat is garbage and potentially overpowered, I actually don't think opposite views are valid. The rules and the card are very explicit about stating START OF and END OF the Status Phase. It just works (to my chagrin) and, using the rules as written, I cannot determine a logical argument as to otherwise. If you can, I would like to hear it (although it is probably in a thread somewhere that I haven't read yet).

***As a side note, Rieekan-unscarred-zombie-retreat may be why the setup of: IMP IMP REB IMP REB IMP REB REB REB REB is correct, even if it seems unfair in resources to the Rebels.

I did consider that, but decided it would be a sign of unbelievably poor game design - you MUST use Rieekan, so we made it harder for you... ?

24 minutes ago, SirDave said:

First, Thanks for the OP. Very well written and appreciated.

I can see the setup either way. I have read it so many times my brain hurts (as I'm sure many of us have), but not found a "correct answer."

While I personally agree with you that Rieekan-unscarred-zombie-retreat is garbage and potentially overpowered, I actually don't think opposite views are valid. The rules and the card are very explicit about stating START OF and END OF the Status Phase. It just works (to my chagrin) and, using the rules as written, I cannot determine a logical argument as to otherwise. If you can, I would like to hear it (although it is probably in a thread somewhere that I haven't read yet).

***As a side note, Rieekan-unscarred-zombie-retreat may be why the setup of: IMP IMP REB IMP REB IMP REB REB REB REB is correct, even if it seems unfair in resources to the Rebels.

I doubt that would be a reason as there will be plenty of campaigns where Rieekan won't be picked.

The rules are definitely unclear, and it's simply a matter of judgement within your circle of players. We adjudged it to be fairer resource wise if the rebel player placed 2 for each Imp base, but that's because the Imps start off with 2 without response. We only have 2 players so it went like this:

Imp (Cor)

Imp Base

Rebel Base/Outpost

Rebel Base/Outpost

Imp Base

Rebel Base/Outpost

Rebel Base/Outpost

If we hadn't done it this way it would have been very lopsided:

Imp (Cor)

Imp Base

Rebel Base/Outpost

Imp Base

Rebel Base/Outpost

Rebel Base/Outpost

Rebel Base/Outpost

12 minutes ago, Green Knight said:

I did consider that, but decided it would be a sign of unbelievably poor game design - you MUST use Rieekan, so we made it harder for you... ?

Never underestimate the power of the Dark Side.

Nice break down!

I love the campaign. It has a real world feel. No longer do you fight to the death, but consider what is an appropriate level of risk and loses you can sustain. Oh so good.

Still surprised more arent running Rieekan CR90B's with engine tech and reinforced blast doors.... No one is coming out of that alive. Except Rieekans entire fleet....

Edit, Hyperlane Raid is one sided you say..... let me show you... (Ok, outside this one option it seems difficult)

I must agree with the op on the whole Rieeken zombie thing. Anyone that believes it makes sense that a Rieeken zombie somehow miraculously heals by escaping is completely outside the entire spirit of the campaign. Plus, the Rieeken FAQ states the ship is destroyed in the Status phase, regardless of damage cards or hull points. Even healing damage can't save it once a Rieeken ship reaches the required damage to die, it just hangs around a bit longer. Clearly it is intended that there is no way to 'save' the ship. Who says the ship still needs to be 'on the table' to suffer death from it's wounds anyway? So it jumped, then the Status phase kicks in and it dies a horrible death tearing itself apart in hyperspace. I get that there can be a debate as to the 'rules' of it, but anyone who believes that the intent is effectively unkillable Rieeken ships is not someone I personally would want to play a campaign with.

Then again, with my limited opponent options, beggars can't be choosy.

Go to the rules forum. They worded it so specifically that it looks like the had every intention...

Oh I get the wording and I understand the argument. I simply believe that the intent is not to create 2 turns of the game where a certain admiral's ships are unkillable due to a quirk in the wording. I find it rules lawyery and against the spirit of the campaign. My opinion. Therefor, I would prefer to not play a casual/fun/non-competitive campaign system with folks who, in my opinion, are dodging the spirit of said campaign.

To each their own, though.

7 minutes ago, Xindell said:

Oh I get the wording and I understand the argument. I simply believe that the intent is not to create 2 turns of the game where a certain admiral's ships are unkillable due to a quirk in the wording. I find it rules lawyery and against the spirit of the campaign. My opinion. Therefor, I would prefer to not play a casual/fun/non-competitive campaign system with folks who, in my opinion, are dodging the spirit of said campaign.

To each their own, though.

That's my stance as well. Can't support it by any hard rules, but I can just not play.

Has anyone experienced Dodonna in the big battle yet? I imagine him unbalancing that a bit.

what I learned after rd1 is that the hl raid shouldnt be done with a fleet of lighter, flanking ships. Especially not when the Imp sets all obstacles and big heavy angry triangles plough towards you through that inverted, no room leaving playing field, and just need to reach my setup zone, while there is simply no room to flank, and no nice upgrades help survive.

Cant blame anyone than me for not thinking about that earlier.

Damnit and here I am declaring my first Hyperlane Raid for our next round.

Edit: From my experience playing 2v2 as Rebels with each round so far ending 1:1 I feel like we're missing the 2nd assault option a lot on the turns with initiative. 3v3 seems better balanced so that Rebels can spread out early.

36 minutes ago, Polda said:

Damnit and here I am declaring my first Hyperlane Raid for our next round.

Edit: From my experience playing 2v2 as Rebels with each round so far ending 1:1 I feel like we're missing the 2nd assault option a lot on the turns with initiative. 3v3 seems better balanced so that Rebels can spread out early.

Agree. To mitigate this, we ensure fleets are hidden knowledge until after they've all been assigned to battles. Otherwise, if you don't, the leading player will always decide the match ups...