Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About davidumstattd

  • Rank
  • Birthday 09/02/1990

Recent Profile Visitors

822 profile views
  1. Adding new leaders is relatively easy balance wise as it doesn't make a lot of huge changes to the primary dynamic. hardest part is coming up with missions that don't break or dilute the mission deck.
  2. According to all the data collected on polls and recorded games both sides are nearly equal in likelihood to win overall. However within specific metas its common for either side to win more often than the other due to player style
  3. The rebel base is kinda all the empire should think about.
  4. Cards only break the rules they say they break. So you still need a leader, can't retreat to places with enemy units etc. the only difference is you do you do it immediately. That's the only rule change. So 1.yes 2. No 3. You can't retreat into a combat, so I don't see how you could have multiple retreats in the same activation.
  5. rebellions are all about critical mass. Once you hit that critical mass more rebel bases start popping up and the ability for the empire to stop the rebellions is not sufficient to stop the growth in rebellions.
  6. You can assign 2 leaders to subversion. In addition to using subversion to oppose you may also send a leader from your leader pool to oppose. There is a whole section in the rulebook on subversion. It is indeed a very different mission than any other mission and a bit tricky to understand.
  7. More symmetric is the term you're looking for. Not more balanced. In canon that conflict only lasted a year though. And I find asymmetry more interesting in games when it's balanced.
  8. From a lore perspective there really can't be a board expansion. The unknown regions (the only part of the map doesn't cover) weren't really important to the Galactic Civil War. Illum and Endor are already on the map. The only argument I could see made would be for Jakku and Csilla. But more for the theoretical influence they could have instead of actual influence.
  9. More balanced? The base game is one of the most well balanced game designed.
  10. With Jabba and Fett being imperial leaders I think it's near impossible we'll have a crime based faction added to the game. Or a new faction at all. Which is kinda a shame.
  11. That wasn't the scenario. The scenario was no ground troops. At the point where all that is left is an undestroyable Death Star or DSUC the rebels must retreat or be destroyed.
  12. Mandalor should absolutely not be a faction. every planet on the board is a faction already with it's own infighting (political or military) and various side supporting the rebels or empire. Mandalor isn't special in that regard. Some mandalor themed missions or objectives could be nice though. As for leaders I don't think I'd have Kallus as an imperial leader unless you had some interesting betrayal mechanic. Which could be interesting. The Grand Inquisitor could be a good leader. Personally I feel Count Vidian has a place given his importance to the imperial war machine in the early stages of the rebellion. Iden Versio from Inferno Squadron could be a great leader too. Now that I think about it Iden Versio totally should have been the leader instead of Krennic's Finest. She fits perfectly for that skill set.
  13. Retreat or be destroyed. Yes. This is the same situation as a normal Death Star without Death Star Plans
  14. If you have any question check out the BGG page. We've answered almost every conceivable rules question and if we haven't we're happy to do a new post.
  15. Embrace the theoretical events. Good adaptations of games involve what could have happened. Not just what did.
  • Create New...