How many times are we going to have this discussion?
 
The missions and enemies are not overpowered.  Every mission is winnable by the Rebels. Some are skewed in the Imperial's favor, but the point remains.
 
I don't know what you were expecting from a tactical perspective.  The very first movie Han and Luke basically haphazardly rescue Leia amidst a swarm of troopers.  Then in RotJ we have a mission that has to be saved by Ewoks and even then the Rebels had no idea where they would enter from without Wicket's advice.  As far as I am concerned this is very fluffy.
 
I agree, you are looking for Skirmish it would seem.

I disagree with your assessment entirely.  Adding a Bonus die is not equivalent to removing setback dice. Sure, the Bonus die and Setback die are equivalents, but that does not mean that adding a bonus is at all the same.  Removing Setbacks is MUCH more powerful.
 
Example:
Aim with 1 setback
Normal Dice pool result
Bonus Die comes up blank but setback giving a failure and a threat.
 
That nets you negative results to the die roll in question. Sure it possible the setback came up blank as well, but thats the BEST case scenario, with all other being worse, since it will either basically cancel out with the bonus or add either a failure or threat to the result.
 
Versus:
True Aim removing the setback with no bonus:
Normal Dice pool + Nothing
 
In this case there was no chance that the setback dice added negatively to the pool. No chance of threat, failure being added with the drawback that you had to give up the potential bonus for aiming normally and suffer a strain.
 
I guess you could say Aim is the more risky, but potentially more rewarding outcome. and True Aim is the safer option.  You would be more likely to aim for harder checks since the bonus could put you over the edge to success and use True Aim on more average/mundane ones where the dice pool is lopsided in your favor to begin with, thus mitigating the possibility of failure/negative effects.

I'm less concerned about the innate power level of Poe/Maz, since it clearly is beatable. I'm more concerned about the health of the overall competitive meta, especially when it comes to deck diversity. The other "top tier" decks right now seem to be a response to Poe/Maz (in som way) — Palp and Anakin/Kylo both have specific advantages in the matchup against Poe which they leverage. 3+ character decks have been largely forced out of the meta by the threat of Poe's Thermal Detonators/U-Wings. Other Hero decks are sorely underrepresented in competitive placements in SoR, beyond a few scattered monoblue lists (I feel that some folks who clamor for Poe/Maz to be nerfed often miss that without Poe/Maz, there would barely be any Hero decks in the meta at all).
I'm not sure quite how to untangle this knot, and we'll likely be stuck for a few months waiting for the next release. The overall meta for SoR seems to have settled quicker than Awakenings, and the deck variety also seems to be much lower. Heroes desperately need more options for powerful cards, and certain playstyles could use some love (3+ character decks, support oriented decks, slow decks, mill, etc.).
Basically, I don't think Poe/Maz needs a nerf because it's too good or unbeatable. But I am worried that it's distorting the competitive scene and limiting deck variety, and I wonder if there are changes to be made which can make space for other decks to shine. Is there a way for it to be a good deck, but not one which unduly punishes 3+ character decks or monopolizes all competitive Hero deck options?

I personally think they have to reprint them to some degree.  Would the game be the same if Luke was only some to-be-released "Farmboy" or "Training" version as opposed to "Jedi Knight"? Same with Vader.  If we only had Pre-suit Vader, would people be happy?  I personally don't think so.
I do think that reprinting them exactly as they are may not necessarily happen, but at minimum a tweak to cost/ability/health/die wouldn't be too much to keep it fresh, even if the card was very similar otherwise.  It would still make you need to get the newer version so no "omg wasted legendary" syndrome, but also bring those characters to a place where they felt more or less impactful as the game required and prevent people from just playing the same old deck arc after arc.
Being able to get old cards is irrelevant if the old cards are rotating out anyway.  I'd prefer if/when they reprinted Jedi Luke (for example) that they tweak him slightly to fit in more with the arc at hand. 
For example, MRP'ing/adjusting Rey in the next Core to be 10/13 cost to break up some of the shenanigans would make perfect sense and keep her in the game if we assume that she doesn't see another version prior. 

Dislike: Jango anything.
Like: Anything not Jango.

I don't play Destiny anymore, but I've been attending FFG Worlds for 4 years and this comes as no surprise.  They want to host an "open" championship but won't actually hold it in an appropriately sized venue.  Their store is really nice, but much too small for these events.  Tickets always sell out really quickly.  I would prefer they move the event to a real convention center, or just make worlds a tournament for qualified players only.  I didn't bother trying to buy a ticket this year since the only event I was marginally interested in (SWLCG) is on Wednesday and I'll probably save myself the frustration and forgo November worlds as well.  Congrats to those of you who actually got a ticket!

Given that FFG's estimation and planning team seems to rely on darts and ouija boards...  no, I don't really have to wonder.

There is a difference between powerful decks/cards, Jango, and a Negative Play Experience, Loop. With Jango it can be fun if you play well and get a close game. Loop is a NPE as you can god roll but if they want they can just straight up negate that.
Worst case scenario in Jango is you roll bad they roll good you die turn 2, 3 at latest. Worst case in Loop they get 1 damage ahead and infinitely loop you for 35 minutes just for the win.

I agree 100%. I am not sure it needs an errata, but I will say if you get stuck in a game with it and have it done repeatedly, it is not fun at all.  That's not to say you can't sometimes break it up or get around it, but you need to be playing specific things and be prepared, which is not something that is necessarily easy or always possible.

I agree to some degree, but there are decks which can easily get a turn 1/2 Falcon without much trouble.
 
I don't mean to insinuate that it is unbeatable or anything, but it is the type of combo where you look at it and say "geez, a potentially abusive infinite combo already?".  Which Is why I am in favor of the Falcon change.  It solves the issue and all future issues with that card.
Trust me, they have. Most decks that include Hyperloop also include 2xReversal.  If you assume you will be generating the money to get Hyperloop, its not much of a stretch to get Reversal a lot too. But again, would be largely solved by having the Falcon RFG the card.

I think the fact that they came out and did a second run of Awakenings "but this is the last time guys!" kinda says it all don't you?
They are essentially saying "yea, there isn't enough out there, but this is our last mulligan; from now on, it is what it is".  The general concern is that if they continue to have shortages release after release what that means for the player base.  I, personally, seriously doubt that they will get it under control by SoR, which leaves me to hope that they get a handle on it on the xpack after that.  But I do think if we go 1-2 releases after SoR with no/little improvement, that the player base and the game on the whole will suffer as a result.  Whether that is true or not remains to be seen.  I think a lot of the knee-jerk is that the single largest complaint about the game is the shortages.  I think we can all agree if they can get a better handle on how much to produce (even if it is only a single run) then the game will be just fine.  The article they posted, however, doesn't give me that warm fuzzy "everything will be fine" vibe.  It kinda felt like "we have gotten a ton of complaints so we are fixing it this one time, but never again!".  That is not exactly what the people who can't buy product currently were hoping for.
Honestly, I don't know if the marketing/PR team at FFG just doesn't understand or what.  They would have done a lot better by saying "we recognize that our first run did not meet the demand and as a result we are doing another print run to try to fix that issue.  Going forward we have adjusted our processes to try to better anticipate and meet the demand with our print runs.  We do not generally plan to do multiple runs going forward, and it was our intent to only do single runs, but we recognize that the game has been vastly more popular than we anticipated and are trying to rectify that discrepancy.  We expect to be able to meet the demand going forward, but will constantly re-analyze if we were successful in our later releases." Or something like that.  The difference is you can read that as FFG recognizes an issue and are trying to fix it, but are hoping to avoid doing this in the future.  Whereas the current article reads more like "we are doing another run because of all the complaining, but this is the only time we will ever do it. Get used to it". At least to me.

I actually agree with the OP.  Make a political move and distract us from our angst. It works in America.  Have an controversial topic? Do something news-worthy and distract everyone from the topic and hope they forget.
 
Do they need to be articles per say?  I'd be fine with "Batch 1, enjoy!" being the only text LOL.  I know what you mean, but there are low-budget options.  They could easily throw a few podcasts a bone and not have to do any major work themselves.

I actually agree with the OP.  Make a political move and distract us from our angst. It works in America.  Have an controversial topic? Do something news-worthy and distract everyone from the topic and hope they forget.
 
Do they need to be articles per say?  I'd be fine with "Batch 1, enjoy!" being the only text LOL.  I know what you mean, but there are low-budget options.  They could easily throw a few podcasts a bone and not have to do any major work themselves.

I think the fact that they came out and did a second run of Awakenings "but this is the last time guys!" kinda says it all don't you?
They are essentially saying "yea, there isn't enough out there, but this is our last mulligan; from now on, it is what it is".  The general concern is that if they continue to have shortages release after release what that means for the player base.  I, personally, seriously doubt that they will get it under control by SoR, which leaves me to hope that they get a handle on it on the xpack after that.  But I do think if we go 1-2 releases after SoR with no/little improvement, that the player base and the game on the whole will suffer as a result.  Whether that is true or not remains to be seen.  I think a lot of the knee-jerk is that the single largest complaint about the game is the shortages.  I think we can all agree if they can get a better handle on how much to produce (even if it is only a single run) then the game will be just fine.  The article they posted, however, doesn't give me that warm fuzzy "everything will be fine" vibe.  It kinda felt like "we have gotten a ton of complaints so we are fixing it this one time, but never again!".  That is not exactly what the people who can't buy product currently were hoping for.
Honestly, I don't know if the marketing/PR team at FFG just doesn't understand or what.  They would have done a lot better by saying "we recognize that our first run did not meet the demand and as a result we are doing another print run to try to fix that issue.  Going forward we have adjusted our processes to try to better anticipate and meet the demand with our print runs.  We do not generally plan to do multiple runs going forward, and it was our intent to only do single runs, but we recognize that the game has been vastly more popular than we anticipated and are trying to rectify that discrepancy.  We expect to be able to meet the demand going forward, but will constantly re-analyze if we were successful in our later releases." Or something like that.  The difference is you can read that as FFG recognizes an issue and are trying to fix it, but are hoping to avoid doing this in the future.  Whereas the current article reads more like "we are doing another run because of all the complaining, but this is the only time we will ever do it. Get used to it". At least to me.

I think the fact that they came out and did a second run of Awakenings "but this is the last time guys!" kinda says it all don't you?
They are essentially saying "yea, there isn't enough out there, but this is our last mulligan; from now on, it is what it is".  The general concern is that if they continue to have shortages release after release what that means for the player base.  I, personally, seriously doubt that they will get it under control by SoR, which leaves me to hope that they get a handle on it on the xpack after that.  But I do think if we go 1-2 releases after SoR with no/little improvement, that the player base and the game on the whole will suffer as a result.  Whether that is true or not remains to be seen.  I think a lot of the knee-jerk is that the single largest complaint about the game is the shortages.  I think we can all agree if they can get a better handle on how much to produce (even if it is only a single run) then the game will be just fine.  The article they posted, however, doesn't give me that warm fuzzy "everything will be fine" vibe.  It kinda felt like "we have gotten a ton of complaints so we are fixing it this one time, but never again!".  That is not exactly what the people who can't buy product currently were hoping for.
Honestly, I don't know if the marketing/PR team at FFG just doesn't understand or what.  They would have done a lot better by saying "we recognize that our first run did not meet the demand and as a result we are doing another print run to try to fix that issue.  Going forward we have adjusted our processes to try to better anticipate and meet the demand with our print runs.  We do not generally plan to do multiple runs going forward, and it was our intent to only do single runs, but we recognize that the game has been vastly more popular than we anticipated and are trying to rectify that discrepancy.  We expect to be able to meet the demand going forward, but will constantly re-analyze if we were successful in our later releases." Or something like that.  The difference is you can read that as FFG recognizes an issue and are trying to fix it, but are hoping to avoid doing this in the future.  Whereas the current article reads more like "we are doing another run because of all the complaining, but this is the only time we will ever do it. Get used to it". At least to me.

I actually agree with the OP.  Make a political move and distract us from our angst. It works in America.  Have an controversial topic? Do something news-worthy and distract everyone from the topic and hope they forget.
 
Do they need to be articles per say?  I'd be fine with "Batch 1, enjoy!" being the only text LOL.  I know what you mean, but there are low-budget options.  They could easily throw a few podcasts a bone and not have to do any major work themselves.

I think the fact that they came out and did a second run of Awakenings "but this is the last time guys!" kinda says it all don't you?
They are essentially saying "yea, there isn't enough out there, but this is our last mulligan; from now on, it is what it is".  The general concern is that if they continue to have shortages release after release what that means for the player base.  I, personally, seriously doubt that they will get it under control by SoR, which leaves me to hope that they get a handle on it on the xpack after that.  But I do think if we go 1-2 releases after SoR with no/little improvement, that the player base and the game on the whole will suffer as a result.  Whether that is true or not remains to be seen.  I think a lot of the knee-jerk is that the single largest complaint about the game is the shortages.  I think we can all agree if they can get a better handle on how much to produce (even if it is only a single run) then the game will be just fine.  The article they posted, however, doesn't give me that warm fuzzy "everything will be fine" vibe.  It kinda felt like "we have gotten a ton of complaints so we are fixing it this one time, but never again!".  That is not exactly what the people who can't buy product currently were hoping for.
Honestly, I don't know if the marketing/PR team at FFG just doesn't understand or what.  They would have done a lot better by saying "we recognize that our first run did not meet the demand and as a result we are doing another print run to try to fix that issue.  Going forward we have adjusted our processes to try to better anticipate and meet the demand with our print runs.  We do not generally plan to do multiple runs going forward, and it was our intent to only do single runs, but we recognize that the game has been vastly more popular than we anticipated and are trying to rectify that discrepancy.  We expect to be able to meet the demand going forward, but will constantly re-analyze if we were successful in our later releases." Or something like that.  The difference is you can read that as FFG recognizes an issue and are trying to fix it, but are hoping to avoid doing this in the future.  Whereas the current article reads more like "we are doing another run because of all the complaining, but this is the only time we will ever do it. Get used to it". At least to me.

While I think your idea is great, the only thing FFG needs to do to solve the immediate problem is make their print runs large enough to support demand and have some product leftover for restock the next six months or so after release.

It's not an encouraging sign for the long term health of the game if we only have a 3-4 month window to buy into any given set. I doubt Vader will ever attain the value of, say, a Black Lotus or green Hurricane, but nobody is going to be willing to part with their cards after boosters sell out. This is very much bad news. 

The only part that makes me uneasy is the idea of base sets replacing each other every year, that seems a bit too fast.

Rule of thumb: if you have to ask "Would you guys consider that cheating?" the answer is yes. Yes it is cheating. That covers 99% of all these types of questions.  You know there is a question because your conscience is telling you it feels wrong.  It feels wrong because it is. You know this before you asked the question.
Is holding dice a special way before rolling them cheating? No, not in and of itself, although I would expect if your opponent noticed it he would be highly suspicious.  I would be.  Many of the ways you can influence a dice roll start with that.
Is holding the dice and using some sort of special "technique" to always "roll" what you want cheating? Yes, no question.  The whole point in having dice is to provide a random element in the game you have to contend with and play around.  If you are trying to circumvent or somehow control the dice outside of what the rules allow, you are cheating.  That is the definition.
cheat CHēt/ verb gerund or present participle: cheating 1. act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage, especially in a game or examination. 2. avoid (something undesirable) by luck or skill. "she cheated death in a spectacular crash"  
 
Also, it is offensive that you tried to paint "being competitive" as trying to do such things.  No, that is not being competitive.  Being competitive is learning the mechanics of a game and acting within the rules to win more than you lose.  It is explicitly NOT cheating.  
I have known many "casual" people to cheat and many many more competitive people who wouldn't be able to live with themselves if they won knowing they cheated their opponent. cheating has nothing to do with a person being casual or competitive.

I get what you are trying to say, but the perception of cheating is a much bigger deal than specific game play interactions to the integrity of the tournament.
You are right though, as I said.  If I couldn't explicitly tell, I'd probably warn the player in question to stop and move on.  If he persisted then it would give me ammunition to issue a game loss or DQ later.

That's a perfectly valid assessment, and I'm sure I'd do the same. I just wanted people to think about this in terms of what you're actually supposed to do in Destiny; craps this is not, so leveraging casino etiquette and getting riled up in the process wasn't getting us anywhere. 

I agree, but being competitive and being a WAAC player are not the same, no matter how much people like to try and group them.  This is a perfect example of that.

You say, and I quote, "It is rolling just as usual."  This is a false statement.  Rolling as usual doesn't involve setting the die in your hand to a specific facing before throwing it.  Instead of rolling as usual, you are talking about adding a step with the intention of creating a non-randomized roll.
It is commonly understood that taking any mechanical action designed to modify the results of a die roll and create a non-randomized roll is cheating.  If you get caught doing so in a place like Las Vegas, your best outcome is that you'll be ejected after forfeiting any winnings. 
You asked for an opinion and got one.  Most communities consider any "dice rolling strategy" intended to impact dice results to be an attempt at cheating.  Even if there is no measurable outcome, it's still an ATTEMPT at cheating.  Anyone who attempts to cheat, successful or not, should rightfully be excluded from gaming.  Cheaters are toxic to a healthy community.