I don't like it. Part of the downside of using a mixed deck is that a smart opponent can potentially take out one of your other affiliation objectives and leave you with no resources for that side. This completely takes out that downside. There should be a downside to using mixed affiliation decks.

Both your ideas will mess with the balance of the game itself. With the Affiliation card providing at least 1 resource at all times for any Affiliation, you now could potentially toss in a third Affiliation if you tossed in just 1 Objective Set (Think 7 Jedi Objectives, 2 Smugglers & Spies, 1 Rebel). On the chance that you could pull them all you could have Luke, Leia and Han out on at least your third turn. Sounds thematic but it would be incredibly powerful. 2 Units with Targeted Strike, one of them available every turn for attack/defense. When you pull Leia it's an extreme Issue... Leave her for a battle when your Units are exhausted and specifically lose the Edge. She's captured at an enemy objective and now Han and Luke are ready to blow up said Objective to get her back.

There are neutral decks in the game that ignore resource match requirements and there are cards that you play for free that can do just the same. I think if you are that worried about getting that match you might want to toss in one of those Objective Sets.

As far as the idea of choosing your Objectives, I think the larger reason this was added to the game was for the benefit of those that had mixed Affiliation decks. The ability to then choose out of 2 Objectives the next time you need to put one into play could tip the balance heavily in your favor.

For example, let's say you're playing a mixed Sith/Scum & Villainy deck. Your first Objective gets destroyed so on your next turn, you draw the top 2 cards of your Objective Deck. You come up with Jabba's Orders and Cruel Interrogations was under it. Your opponent only has 2 cards in hand. You choose Cruel Interrogations and capture one of the cards he has, and it happens to be Yoda, crippling his chances of defending on your turn. Had you followed the rules of the game you would have pulled Jabba's Orders from the top of the deck. That still would have given you a benefit of knowing what is in your opponent's hand. With the choice, however, you were able to tactically wreck your opponent and go on the offense this turn. A bit too powerful if you ask me.

There's already a large way of dealing with the random card draws in this game and that is to discard them into an edge stack. If you do so on your opponent's turn, then your next turn means 6 more cards. To have a way of choosing your next Objective every time would be insane. Now there are some Objectives that allow you to choose your next Objective but they are limit 2 per deck like any other standard Objective.

I've played 15 or so games of Star Wars as of yet and I'm enjoying it so far.

However, when it comes to deck building, I find it rather odd that in order to build a multi-faction deck, it's best to choose the minor faction affiliation card to assure resources matching is not going to be a problem on turn 1, as well as being forced to only splash the minor faction to at most three objectives (because of the ability to choose 3 out of 4 objectives at the start of the match).

Not only do I find it annoyingly non-thematic but it also can limit the player in a way he cannot choose a faction-limited objective set from his "main" faction. Keep in mind that I only got around 15 games under my belt (against the same opponent), but I'd like to know the reasoning behind this decision. Is it a balance thing? It seems only a crutch to me, limiting deck building for no good reason.

I've played around with the idea of house ruling the affiliation cards, so that they can generate one resource of any faction of their respective side (light/dark). They are unique from other cards anyway, seeing how they're indestructible but only provide one resource I don't see this house ruling as game breaking. On the plus side, it would at least guarantee the player to play one card of any faction in a turn, as well as letting the player choose the faction he actually wants to be. I think this falls in line with the overall feel and fast pace of the game (being "mana screwed" is not really a thing by design in this game, I think).

However, I'd love some feedback on this idea by more experienced players than me.

The other thing I dislike, also in conjunction with multi-faction decks, is the completely random nature of replacing an objective after it has been destroyed. I feel there should be some choice involved, they're objectives after all, and the game gives you a choice 3 out of 4 at the start of the match at least. So I'm thinking: Replacing an objective by drawing two and choosing one, discarding the other back into the objective deck. Implications, thoughts?

Any feedback is appreciated.

what you're referring to is advice on deck-building for maximum efficiency and not actual rules for it. It's simply what people have tested in the past and found to work the best for consistency in their decks. You can build your decks any way you like as long as you follow the actual deck-building rules:

No Less Than 10 Objectives

All Cards in Draw/Command Deck Must correspond with Objectives chosen

No more than 2 of any specific objective (unless otherwise stated, like "limit one per objective deck")

No "affiliation x only" objectives that don't match your affiliation card

And then, of course, anytime you play a card from your hand that costs 1 or more resource, at least one must come from a matching resource type.

I've played 15 or so games of Star Wars as of yet and I'm enjoying it so far.

However, when it comes to deck building, I find it rather odd that in order to build a multi-faction deck, it's best to choose the minor faction affiliation card to assure resources matching is not going to be a problem on turn 1, as well as being forced to only splash the minor faction to at most three objectives (because of the ability to choose 3 out of 4 objectives at the start of the match).

Not only do I find it annoyingly non-thematic but it also can limit the player in a way he cannot choose a faction-limited objective set from his "main" faction. Keep in mind that I only got around 15 games under my belt (against the same opponent), but I'd like to know the reasoning behind this decision. Is it a balance thing? It seems only a crutch to me, limiting deck building for no good reason.

I've played around with the idea of house ruling the affiliation cards, so that they can generate one resource of any faction of their respective side (light/dark). They are unique from other cards anyway, seeing how they're indestructible but only provide one resource I don't see this house ruling as game breaking. On the plus side, it would at least guarantee the player to play one card of any faction in a turn, as well as letting the player choose the faction he actually wants to be. I think this falls in line with the overall feel and fast pace of the game (being "mana screwed" is not really a thing by design in this game, I think).

However, I'd love some feedback on this idea by more experienced players than me.

The other thing I dislike, also in conjunction with multi-faction decks, is the completely random nature of replacing an objective after it has been destroyed. I feel there should be some choice involved, they're objectives after all, and the game gives you a choice 3 out of 4 at the start of the match at least. So I'm thinking: Replacing an objective by drawing two and choosing one, discarding the other back into the objective deck. Implications, thoughts?

Any feedback is appreciated.

I think being "mana screwed" totally is a part of this game in a similar fashion to MtG. There are now plenty of cards to make a single-faction deck in six different flavors, but you're almost always going to be better off using a mix of two factions. The balance between the number of objectives for each faction is a fundamental part of the game.

I think you can make anything a house rule, but when you leave the house, you have to fix your decks.