Some of you have poked fun at my 102% serious claim of Rebel Bias, and with the advent of 2nd edition, I feel the need to explain what do I exactly mean by this term.
Now, as you have pointed it out, rebels sometimes get shafted, and other factions are sometimes great. How could I still see rebel bias everywhere, when there are clearly examples of great imperial and scum ships? Well... here is the explanation, you've been all waiting for. This little piece is about 1.0, mostly because we know more about it. Also, there is maybe 1.5% chance of the designers actually abandoning their wrongful practices, but don't get your hopes up.
Contrary to what you might think, Rebel bias doesn't actually mean that ALL rebel ships are supremely overpowered. It means, that certain notions of balance, lore accuracy, and design principles are often abandoned when creating rebel content. This is done in comparison to imperial content, which is very conservative.
"Now hold up" I hear you say. "Isn't that the same?"
No. Not at all. But first, let me insert a disclaimer here, because I have a feeling you will mention this otherwise. I don't think that every rebel ship is the result of this process. There are exceptions.
Rebel bias means that when designing ships, the devs rather err on the strong side with rebel ships... Now if you think I am some crazy person, think about it for a second.
This phenomenon is not unknown by wargamers. In EVERY edition of Warhammer, spacemarines were viable. They might not have been the best, but they weren't atrocious. It's because they are the mascot faction. Most of their IP revolves around space marines, they manufacture most of the figures for that faction. It would be financially unwise for them to make them unplayable. Their most recognizable product, is always viable. Maybe not the best, but just to be safe, they cannot be bad.
Star Wars, as I'm sure will come as a surprise to noone, is a bit skewed towards some factions. In a given time period, the main guys are always the Rebellion, Republic or the Resistance. (ReReRe... Haven't even noticed that before)
This translates to X-Wing very well. Now I'm going to give you an example, and just to beat on a dead horse, i'm going to illustrate my point with the Punisher and the K-Wing. Why? Because they were released at the same time, and they are supposed to fill a similar role.
I can believe that the K-Wing was supposed to be stronger by a tiny bit in design, and this is represented by the point cost difference. However, one does not need to be a rocket engineer to realize the difference between them is a tad larger than what the point cost lets you to believe. Many of my peers will say that this is just sheer incompetence, and that the Punisher was just THAT much weaker because the designers are THAT bad.
So.
PWT. Turret slot. Crew slot. Slam.
Vs.
Front arc. Double missile slot. System slot. Boost.
Sure enough, looks quite similar. They have the same amount of stuff... but the stuff is much better on the rebel side. So much better than pretty much everyone can immediately realize how uneven this comparison is. Just looking at an arc coverage, the K-Wing covers 4 times the area of the Punisher, while being more mobile. (A frequent problem with 1.0 design). Rebel crew slots are also famously powerful. Plus regeneration on Miranda... Now ask yourself the question... Do you think that anyone seriously believed that the Punisher is worth just a single point less? Now, if yes, what makes you think these people are even able to create any semblance of balance, lacking such fundamental understanding of game mechanics? This is a BIG difference.
Why? Why does such a big difference between power even exist? How could they not see it?
Or was it that they were aware of the discrepancy between the ships, but they choose to under cost the K-Wing on purpose, to err on the side of the heroes?
If you doubt that, think about the TIE aggressor. Why didn't it get an EPT on the second generic? Well, I guess they were afraid of the TLT-Ruthlessness combo... But do you think that the same people who wouldn't be concerned by releasing miranda, would be by a relatively weak synergy? Consider that in the same wave they made several lapses in judgement, again, erring on the side of rebel power.
Star Wars lacks nuance, and this can be seen in how the fiction treats its factions. There is a reason why they call a tanky rebel list Plot armor. There is more rebel crew, because there are more rebel characters. Simple is that. There are things inherent to the universe that favor rebels, and the designers in 1.0 didn't do a good job of balancing these factors. They have been enhancing this effect, especially by being careful with SOME cards, and not others.
Do you ever feel when you are flipping through imperial cards that these are ALMOST good? They just have a bit too many restrictions. If you wanna have fun, go and read imperial only upgrades and abilities, and compare them with similar abilities from others. 2.0 Wedge vs Soontir is a very good example of this, and a reason why I am worried about 2.0.
Luke Gunner is also suspect.
If you have above average perception abilities, you might notice how both Wedge and Luke are rebel characters.
so, I don't know what is your explanation to these things... Can they just be this blind, as to create blunders like the Punisher, without even realizing what are they doing? I seriously doubt it. To me it doesn't seem so far fetched, when you look at certain Rebel crew cards... They are way more efficient than most other crews, and they are well known characters... Is it an accident that the famous quasi protagonist of a TV show called Rebels, is a meta defining card with insane value?
