So I read through the rulebook for the upcoming expansion, Balance of the Force , but I did not see anywhere in the rules where it specifically states whether there is one affiliation card for the team or if each player has his or her own affiliation card. There is only the implication in the scenarios that each player has an affiliation card. If so, then does that also hold true in 2v2 gameplay?

Also, if each player has his or her own affiliation card, then what happens if two or three players on the same team want to use the same affiliation but you do not have enough copies of the actual card because you only have one or two core sets? Can each teammate pretend to have the same affiliation card or are you forced to choose a different affiliation card?

Each player has their own affiliation and I am sure if you run out of copies you can find some sort of a mutually agreeable solution or just borrow one from the opposing team maybe.

Each player has their own affiliation and I am sure if you run out of copies you can find some sort of a mutually agreeable solution or just borrow one from the opposing team maybe.

And just for the sake of getting it out there so that there is no confusion: I am assuming that you can have different affiliations (as long as all team members are LS or DS, of course); team members are not required to have the exact same affiliation, right?

Again, I just want to make sure that no one misunderstands this.

And just for the sake of getting it out there so that there is no confusion: I am assuming that you can have different affiliations (as long as all team members are LS or DS, of course); team members are not required to have the exact same affiliation, right?

Right, what makes you think it might be otherwise ?

Right, what makes you think it might be otherwise ?

Nothin'...except for the fact that the rulebook just doesn't come right out and say it.

I often ask questions that most people take for granted. I'm a reasonably intelligent person, but some people just think differently than I do. So I hate leaving things open to interpretation, no matter how remote the possibility is. I've discovered over the years that you can never be too clear about anything, especially game rules. (Don't forget the possibility that maybe I'm taking something for granted and assuming that a rule is there when it isn't.)

Of course, if an extremely stubborn person does interpret this differently, then he or she could say "yeah, but the people on these forums aren't necessarily FFG employees, so how do they know?" But I can't do anything about that other than not play the game with him or her.

Right, what makes you think it might be otherwise ?

Nothin'...except for the fact that the rulebook just doesn't come right out and say it.

I often ask questions that most people take for granted. I'm a reasonably intelligent person, but some people just think differently than I do. So I hate leaving things open to interpretation, no matter how remote the possibility is. I've discovered over the years that you can never be too clear about anything, especially game rules. (Don't forget the possibility that maybe I'm taking something for granted and assuming that a rule is there when it isn't.)

Of course, if an extremely stubborn person does interpret this differently, then he or she could say "yeah, but the people on these forums aren't necessarily FFG employees, so how do they know?" But I can't do anything about that other than not play the game with him or her.

I would point out that the multiplayer rules specifically are built on top of the original single player rules. Anything not specified in the multiplayer rules defaults to the single player rule. That is why a lot of these things aren't mentioned. The rules state the changes to deckbuilding for 2v2, namely that the limit 1 applies to both decks collectively as does the traditional limit of 2. Nothing else is specified so all other rules remain in play (including how you select affiliation cards for each deck).

Someone that obtuse could argue that it doesn't say I can't put LS objectives in my DS deck and that I no longer have to use the cards that match an objective set in 2v2 because it doesn't explicitly say so.

Someone that obtuse could argue that it doesn't say I can't put LS objectives in my DS deck and that I no longer have to use the cards that match an objective set in 2v2 because it doesn't explicitly say so.

Of course that possibility does exist, however remote. Although, now no one can say that my initial question has never been addressed. I'm satisfied.

Someone that obtuse could argue that it doesn't say I can't put LS objectives in my DS deck and that I no longer have to use the cards that match an objective set in 2v2 because it doesn't explicitly say so.

Of course that possibility does exist, however remote. Although, now no one can say that my initial question has never been addressed. I'm satisfied.

Glad I could answer your question.

I was just pointing that out so you have a counter-argument for where that reasoning leads if someone decided to go that route and refused to listen to you. That seems to help some people here. I wasn't calling you obtuse, I was addressing the possibility that you run into someone that won't listen. =)

Edit: Typo.

I'm with the OP on this one. It is important, especially for our international player friends, that some things are more explicit.

Jerjerrod's Task wins by capturing an affiliation card from each LS player, erego each player has their own affiliation card in multiplayer games. QED.

Jerjerrod's Task wins by capturing an affiliation card from each LS player, erego each player has their own affiliation card in multiplayer games. QED.

Right. I alluded to that in my original post. However, my question was whether or not that translated to 2v2 as well, since the gameplay between 2v2 and scenario decks is different.