So I've been having a good time speculating with others on various other threads but came to a line of thought that I felt might be a good discussion point.

To date, we've seen fairly parallel releases between the Rebels and Empire. Each of them get a similar unit (Corps, Special Forces, etc) released on a rotating basis, month to month. I've always wondered if this is sustainable as there seem to be more grunt troopers that the Empire could release (Shoretroopers, Swamp/Mudtroopers, Imperial Navy Troopers) while the Rebels really just have Echo Base troopers as a corps concept.

This got me thinking that FFG could still rotate releases but the unit type really does not need to be paralleled. Rebels could get some unique Special Forces units (the rest of Rogue One, Phoenix Squad) while the Empire keeps spitting out the Corps troopers. This would also help define the two armies: Empire has plenty of corps choices while the Rebels have more SF choices.

Thoughts?

I'm really not sure what to expect after March 2019. At that point we will have had 12 months of releases, including the release of the game. We will have 13 unique expansions for each faction.

If FFG follows their current trend then we should get another release in April that will have a single unit for each faction, or a "neutral" expansion like Priority Supplies.

As for asymmetric releases, it could become a thing but it will depend on how those releases affect game balance.

If FFG previews C3PO alongside an AT AT people might blow their gaskets.

9 minutes ago, VadersToothbrush said:

If FFG previews C3PO alongside an AT AT people might blow their gaskets.

Right? I mean, c'mon, how dare the Rebels have that kind of rhetorical firepower when all the empire gets is some easily-tripped robot camel.

17 minutes ago, VadersToothbrush said:

If FFG previews C3PO alongside an AT AT people might blow their gaskets.

I'm all for asymmetrical releases. I find the symmetry rather annoying, honestly. The Rebels and the Empire are *supposed to be* asymmetrical. Highly differing faction styles is one of my favorite things in a good wargame, so I'm hoping they steer on that direction soon.

I'm interested in a balanced game between two factions, so I like the symmetrical release model that FFG is doing. I'm also collecting and painting both armies, though, so I'm it's in my interest to have both factions up to date so that I can host interesting battles.

I haven't played X-Wing 1.0 so I'm only going on what I've read, but it seems like FFG learned a lesson there allowing power creep among smaller faction ships. If they're applying that lesson to Legion, then I can't see them having too many asymmetrical releases.

Also, from a business perspective, symmetrical releases keep players of both factions happy. Imagine the Galactic Empire getting 2 or 3 releases in a row, I'm sure rebel players would be irked and could potentially leave the game.

On the other hand...the Rebels won't have Operative parity until Chewy's release, so there has been some asymmetry there. /shrug

And then there's the meta...I imagine if one faction got a bit more release love, would we'd see folks skew to the side with more choices?

My guess is that they'll keep the vehicles/operatives/personnel upgrades asymmetrical. I guess we'll see after the Erso/Krennic release...

Did we ever need them? I think not.

They probably d it so they can fit the same upgrade cards in each release.

4 hours ago, Albertese said:

I'm all for asymmetrical releases. I find the symmetry rather annoying, honestly. The Rebels and the Empire are *supposed to be* asymmetrical. Highly differing faction styles is one of my favorite things in a good wargame, so I'm hoping they steer on that direction soon.

The co-released units already are inverse for the most part.

Yeah, I'd love to see asymmetrical releases.

9 hours ago, Prokins said:

I'm interested in a balanced game between two factions, so I like the symmetrical release model that FFG is doing. I'm also collecting and painting both armies, though, so I'm it's in my interest to have both factions up to date so that I can host interesting battles.

I haven't played X-Wing 1.0 so I'm only going on what I've read, but it seems like FFG learned a lesson there allowing power creep among smaller faction ships. If they're applying that lesson to Legion, then I can't see them having too many asymmetrical releases.

Also, from a business perspective, symmetrical releases keep players of both factions happy. Imagine the Galactic Empire getting 2 or 3 releases in a row, I'm sure rebel players would be irked and could potentially leave the game.

On the other hand...the Rebels won't have Operative parity until Chewy's release, so there has been some asymmetry there. /shrug

And then there's the meta...I imagine if one faction got a bit more release love, would we'd see folks skew to the side with more choices?

My guess is that they'll keep the vehicles/operatives/personnel upgrades asymmetrical. I guess we'll see after the Erso/Krennic release...

I guess with asymmetric releases most people don't mean different amounts of units for the factions but more different kinds, allowing to shape a stronger faction identity. They could for example do the Occupier tank alongside bothan spies. Sure asymmetrical releases could be problematic, but StarCraft for example shows that (few) very different factions can be balanced. I don't expect legion getting so many factions that it becomes undoable.

I wish they were more parallel.

Boba and Chewie should have released together. Jyn and Krennic should release together. Pathfinders and Death Troopers should release together.

I accept that that probably falls apart when the new factions release, though.

Well, in the case of Jyn and Krennic (and Palpatine), they do have rules that tie pretty strongly in to whichever troops box that released along them, so doing it this way was probably better.

11 hours ago, LennoxPoodle said:

I guess with asymmetric releases most people don't mean different amounts of units for the factions but more different kinds, allowing to shape a stronger faction identity. They could for example do the Occupier tank alongside bothan spies. Sure asymmetrical releases could be problematic, but StarCraft for example shows that (few) very different factions can be balanced. I don't expect legion getting so many factions that it becomes undoable.

I want to do a Zerg Rush with Separatists. Call it the B1 Rush

21 hours ago, Prokins said:

I'm interested in a balanced game between two factions, so I like the symmetrical release model that FFG is doing. I'm also collecting and painting both armies, though, so I'm it's in my interest to have both factions up to date so that I can host interesting battles.

theres going to be 4 factions soon, hopefully more. I'd prefer less symmetry, but favor some balance

Palpatine is much stronger than Han. In fact, most imperials are better than their rebel counterparts but that makes it more thematic. I docwish the AtSt was a bit stronger or cheaper

17 hours ago, buckero0 said:

theres going to be 4 factions soon, hopefully more. I'd prefer less symmetry, but favor some balance

Palpatine is much stronger than Han. In fact, most imperials are better than their rebel counterparts but that makes it more thematic. I docwish the AtSt was a bit stronger or cheaper

You can have a unit be cheap or strong, but not both.

For what it’s worth, the sides are already asymmetric, but the new releases do introduce similar tactical options:

ie Grunts (Rebel Troopers/Stormtroopers), CQC Commander (Luke/Vader), CQC corps (Fleet Troopers/Snowtroopers), Support Commander (Leia/Veers), Sappers/Snipers (Commandos/Scout Troopers), etc...

The Han, Boba, Palpatine, and Chewie releases represent the biggest re-arrangement and the widest difference in commander/operative options and what those options bring.

3 hours ago, Derrault said:

The Han, Boba, Palpatine, and Chewie releases represent the biggest re-arrangement and the widest difference in commander/operative options and what those options bring.

But still use a common tactical theme, at least in that they are both special forces and commander.

23 hours ago, LennoxPoodle said:

But still use a common tactical theme, at least in that they are both special forces and commander.

I was just comparing those 4, not the units releasing alongside, which maintain the similar makeup.

Since historically, the announcements have been early in the month and we already got our December one, the wait till early Jan is gonna be a long one (for me). It is truly where I'm not sure where or what they will go with from here. Shoretroopers are the only ones left that I can guess, because Saws Partisans? as Rebels? Possibly. Or do they "break from the year long mold" as talked about here and start going off doing random releases?

In any case, I'm excited BECAUSE of the uncertainty.

parallel releases don't necessarily mean a balanced game. Giving super offense to side A and super defense to side B is asymmetrical, but balanced.

On 12/17/2018 at 3:24 PM, Xiervak said:

parallel releases don't necessarily mean a balanced game. Giving super offense to side A and super defense to side B is asymmetrical, but balanced.

They do generally mean similar strategic options are provided to each side, and that is balanced.

CLONE WARS

CLONE WARS

CLONE WARS

I was very surprised when they started doing parallel releases. The symmetry is probably the weakest part of the game. I would like in the future to have more than one way to build a force outside of changing the commander. I also think that the 800 point level will change eventually. I think Fantasy Flight is so obsessed with making the game balanced that they are playing it safe. Legion has been out for less than a year so it might be that they just wanted a nice stable set of units before they started trying new things. At the rate they're going I think they will burn out and won't really ever be able to compete with GW.

29 minutes ago, Winged Gundark said:

I was very surprised when they started doing parallel releases. The symmetry is probably the weakest part of the game. I would like in the future to have more than one way to build a force outside of changing the commander. I also think that the 800 point level will change eventually. I think Fantasy Flight is so obsessed with making the game balanced that they are playing it safe. Legion has been out for less than a year so it might be that they just wanted a nice stable set of units before they started trying new things. At the rate they're going I think they will burn out and won't really ever be able to compete with GW.

Agreed. At least the Commanders and Operatives being released are not mirror images of each other.