Just curious, when it says 4 players is it actually 4 players making their own decisions, or is it 4 players two per side with 2 people making 1 set of decisions.

Is that confusing? Two teams, but each individual on each team has full control of their portion of the game and their decisions impact all of the 3 other players, or two teams and each team makes joint decisions that really only affect the other side.

Basically is this just a 2 player game that they labeled as 4?

It is essentially a 2 player game being labeled as a 4 player game. However, they do split out actual control of the game. So yeah, you have separate functions and control separate leaders and what not...but essentially, it's still a 2 sided game. You could make selfish plays and only worry about your role...but that would likely be a poor way to play, so you end up coordinating a lot between and essentially hive minding the game.

2 hours ago, kmanweiss said:

It is essentially a 2 player game being labeled as a 4 player game. However, they do split out actual control of the game. So yeah, you have separate functions and control separate leaders and what not...but essentially, it's still a 2 sided game. You could make selfish plays and only worry about your role...but that would likely be a poor way to play, so you end up coordinating a lot between and essentially hive minding the game.

Fair enough. Is it still a fun four player experience or does it feel like you are bored half the time waiting for your turn since they basically just split your turn in half?

You still coordinate with your teammate, and every action that occurs is very important to you. Plus, you are in charge of half the combat, so if any combat occurs, you're involved. There is a little bit more down time, but it's still an engaging game. I don't think I'd ever go out of my way to play 4 player (I have other games I rather play if I have 4 players), but if someone else wanted to, I'd play.

I actually really like this game as 3 player -- put 2 on the Empire and 1 on the Rebels. Now you really project the feelings of being overwhelmed to the Rebellion player. In tandem, the Imperial players talking to each other about their plans gives the Rebels something to work off as well.

Also when I played, I just ignored the separation of powers for the most part. Mostly played it as 2-group-think players vs 1.

As others have said, it's basically just splitting up the original two teams to two players a side.

There is a bit more to it, though. Take a look at how the turn order changes. The ability of one side or another to take two turns in a row can easily make for some very interesting developments that would otherwise be impossible in the standard two player rules.

16 hours ago, subtrendy2 said:

As others have said, it's basically just splitting up the original two teams to two players a side.

There is a bit more to it, though. Take a look at how the turn order changes. The ability of one side or another to take two turns in a row can easily make for some very interesting developments that would otherwise be impossible in the standard two player rules.

You're not wrong. They do mix up the turn order for 4 player games...but this is kind of a moot point. You could do that in a 2 player game also if you want to mix things up. It's really just an oddball rule they through in to just attempt to further distance the 4 player rules from the 2 player rules. It's tacked on for no real reason and should honestly just be an optional rule at the end of the rulebook.

While in general I do think that the game is tighter as a 2 player, I also enjoy the 4 player version.

There are other skills and dimensions that come into play in a 4 player game that are missing from the 2. You have to manage your team and communicate enough to win but not enough to tip your hand to the opponent. That can be challenging.

Do you guys play with like a piece of paper so you can pass vital information in secret? Or just make it all open board?

The set up for the game is not that great for 2 v 2. The best 2 v 2 games has another objective for each to accomplish that could create conflict with their own teammate. Also the Generals are way to dependent on Admirals to actually force good teamwork.

One thing I have tried is to mix up the control of the units a little. The Rebel General takes control of the U-wing while the Rebel Admiral gets control of the Ion Cannon. As for Empire the General takes control of the Gozanti and the Admiral gets the shield generator.

That way it gives the General some agency as far as map presence. Still often it will be on making the decisions and the other following.

Wow old thread, anyway I bought Rebellion a while ago and have played about a dozen four player games since then, love it. It absolutely is a great 4 player game. It will end up being more like a team vs team instead of an individual 4 player game, for sure. But we have a great time playing against each other, we don't really make a lot of decisions on our own we basically just pool all of the decisions.

So my advice for 2v2 would be don't take the rule book as gospel, customize it how you see fit, definitely keep the suggested turn order that is important, but as far as you control this I control this.. we did away with that quickly.

Highly recommend for 2v2, I enjoy the 2v2 more than 1v1. Great game to play over beers.. once you know what you are doing :p

Interesting, and is it easy to coordinate on the Rebel side? Asking this since you have a bit more of information to hide because of the Hidden Rebel Base right? Are you using codewords or something like that?

On 12/3/2018 at 1:18 AM, Gridash said:

Interesting, and is it easy to coordinate on the Rebel side? Asking this since you have a bit more of information to hide because of the Hidden Rebel Base right? Are you using codewords or something like that?

No just whispering to each other. I'm not sure what the official rules are on table top, but we essentially do our best to give each other privacy and have low key conversations as we plan our moves. Some of it can also be a feint or a bluff. Works well.