I haven't used a can for decades because of terrible experience with frosting. I have thought about trying them again as it sounds like they've gotten much better over the years but I can't get them here (working in the developing world) due to shipping restrictions, and painting on varnish works just fine for me. I do have an airbrush which I'd love to use, but I'd have to pay at least 100USD in shipping to get a compressor sent here.

I only thin the gloss varnish when I want a subdued sheen, as on stormtrooper armour. The matt vanish I apply as is. As with anything you paint on a mini, you should always shake it for at least twenty seconds before using it.

That's never happened to me. I use Vallejo.

I hand paint on a gloss coat then a matt coat. I find the two coats in combination work the best for preserving all the highlights, and it's much more reliable than a spray can.

It's a real shame there's no vomit emoji.

They are great. The shine on the Imperial Guard helmets is perfect.

I water the gloss varnish down with about 50% water and it looks quite good.

Offer someone at your club a couple or more boxes of models if they'll assemble your's for you. That's fairly commonly done from what I hear.

There actually aren't that many imperial troops in that battle in RoTJ. If you look at the wide shots of them holding the rebels prisoner before the ewoks attack, there looks to be about a platoon's worth, maybe fifty or so. They stupidly run off into dense terrain that favours their opponents. Their defeat is plausible in the film. I've never liked the ewoks, but they're the least of that film's problems.

Yeah, that British square at Waterloo was destroyed by unsupported cavalry. The reality was, if a cavalry regiment held its morale on the charge, a square had no chance to stop it as the sheer mass and weight of a horse impacting at speed (dead or alive) would tear right through it. Squares relied on the enemy morale breaking enough so that the charge stalled, and that didn't happen nearly as much as the romantic conception of the infantry square would have us believe. Kipling's view is sheer romance.

A British square was famously annihilated at Waterloo by Napoleon's troops. Many were disordered through conventional battles in Europe and elsewhere. It's something of a persistent myth that infantry squares were solid defense against cavalry charges. I won't get into the details of that as that's not your point, which is that troops perceived as technologically 'primitive' were capable of beating professional, well-armed soldiers. Of that, like infantry squares being destroyed, there are many historical examples. Hopefully, to satisfy those that want them and represent one of the few on-screen battles, ewoks will be released. I won't buy them, but many would.

In ANH, almost every sandtrooper we see on screen is armed with a heavy weapon. Reflecting that in game would in itself make for an interesting unit worth making a separate kit and cards for.

I'm inclined to agree. The one thing this game doesn't need more of is extra components!

That's sad, but he made a good impact with his life.

The use of White Knight is actually substantially older than 2010. It has a long history in advertising and finance. In finance, it refers to a well-intentioned takeover of one company by another. In advertising, it was the subject of a very successful ad campaign for Ajax from the 1960s (i.e., coming to the rescue of housewives). In recent media sources, it has been used in print to refer to an individual championing a cause. Cross-referencing multiple UK English and US English definitions of the word as in Merriam-Webster and Collins, for example, will show multiple instances of its accepted use outside of the loathsome MRA movement in multiple contexts, including 'one that champions a cause' (Merriam-Webster). Out of curiosity, I checked both online and print versions of these definitions. Anecdotally, I remember it being a long staple of forum arguments to denigrate someone's seemingly fan-motivated defense of a company or product. Although I generally agree that one should avoid the use of such phrases which become better known as catch calls of antagonistic or offensive cliques, it is also important to not let such groups claim ownership of perfectly serviceable language.