Darth Vader: "Join me and we'll rule the galaxy as father and son!"
Luke Skywalker: "I'll never join you!"
Darth Vader: "I rolled two successes. You have to join me. Oh, and I'll use my Advantage to have Han Solo join as well."
Luke Skywalker: "Ummm Ok .... Can I get a cool black outfit?" 

They would be fools not to. Interest in the OT-era is only going to fade as the new movies come out. 

There's concept art in the Return of the Jedi sketchbook (pg 88) that shows the Home One as only slightly larger than an ISD. So it appears that the model makers intended the ships to be about the same size. The 3.7 km size is based on the size of a hanger bay door that is just an incidental feature of the model. 

I'd like to see a card pack released that has new starting encounters that are scenario specific. So 8 new cards for each scenario that feature other minor characters and events straight from the original game. As it is right now, the wastleland and settlement encounters are pretty generic and there are so few that you see the same ones every time you play. 
FFG has done these sort of card packs before. 

I'd like to see a card pack released that has new starting encounters that are scenario specific. So 8 new cards for each scenario that feature other minor characters and events straight from the original game. As it is right now, the wastleland and settlement encounters are pretty generic and there are so few that you see the same ones every time you play. 
FFG has done these sort of card packs before. 

Stuck two random words together trying to find an unused username for my AoL account. 

Quick question. As Standby triggers when an enemy unit "attacks, moves, or performs an action", can the move portion of the Force Push be used to trigger a Standby attack? For example, when pushing a unit out of cover or out of melee combat. 

No there are no agenda cards or errata updated cards in the new cali expansion. 

You said nothing that requires an apology. Movement rates are an issue for many similar games, and is something that, in this case, has a trivial solution. I've always found it best to consider solutions to potential problems before playing a game if a rule seems problematic. Sometimes it turns out that the rule change isn't needed but that's much better than giving up on a game due to a mechanic that doesn't work. 
Remember, you're playing the game for your own entertainment. If adjusting the rules makes the game more enjoyable, then the rules should be adjusted. This is especially true in solo or co-op games. Also, keep in mind that game designers have limitations on the rules they write which individual players do not have. 

Plus, if you only have one rank and the item's Rarity is odd, you pay more for no difference in the difficulty of the roll. I'm not sure why they didn't make Rarity from 0 to 5 and using that number directly as the number of Difficulty dice in the check. Instead you have a number that you have to use on a chart to get another number. I can't see the advantage of doing it that way. 

I was hoping for a Fallout LCG based on the Arkham one but with the addition of usable loot.  (Similar to how Maximum Apocalypse does it.) At certain locations or after killing bad guys, you can draw Loot cards into your hand as you would draw a card normally. Then after the game, you can keep a certain number of loot cards as part of your deck for the next scenario. 
Sort of combining an LCG with a deckbuilding game. 

I watched the video but I'm still unclear on how what's happening with SW Battlefront 2 any different from what already happened to SW Battlefront 1.  I'm assuming that they are stopping work on SWBF2 in order to start work on SW Battlefront 3. 

Of course not. I do, however, believe that the way many social media platforms are constructed encourages harassment (probably intentionally). If a system is designed to measure success by the reaction to a post; whether it's Likes, ReTweets, or # of Comments, then users will be rewarded for pushing the bounds of decent behavior just to get noticed. 
When I say, "if you use social media, expect to be harassed", I'm often accused of victim blaming or supporting harassment. But my intention is to condemn how social media platforms are designed to reward bad behavior. Just like how Jimmy Kimmel's "Mean Tweets" segments encourage people to send nasty tweets to celebrities in order to get their tweets read on the show. 

Of course not. I do, however, believe that the way many social media platforms are constructed encourages harassment (probably intentionally). If a system is designed to measure success by the reaction to a post; whether it's Likes, ReTweets, or # of Comments, then users will be rewarded for pushing the bounds of decent behavior just to get noticed. 
When I say, "if you use social media, expect to be harassed", I'm often accused of victim blaming or supporting harassment. But my intention is to condemn how social media platforms are designed to reward bad behavior. Just like how Jimmy Kimmel's "Mean Tweets" segments encourage people to send nasty tweets to celebrities in order to get their tweets read on the show. 

Of course not. I do, however, believe that the way many social media platforms are constructed encourages harassment (probably intentionally). If a system is designed to measure success by the reaction to a post; whether it's Likes, ReTweets, or # of Comments, then users will be rewarded for pushing the bounds of decent behavior just to get noticed. 
When I say, "if you use social media, expect to be harassed", I'm often accused of victim blaming or supporting harassment. But my intention is to condemn how social media platforms are designed to reward bad behavior. Just like how Jimmy Kimmel's "Mean Tweets" segments encourage people to send nasty tweets to celebrities in order to get their tweets read on the show. 

If KMT wasn't given access to a social team and actually saw all the hateful comments directed at her, then that is a pretty stunning condemnation of Disney and their failure to protect their actors. If, on the other hand, KMT's Instagram was being run by a team at Disney, then it's easy to imagine this entire incident is a publicity stunt. NOBODY is claiming that KMT was intentionally harassed by Disney. 
Also, please don't blame the alt-right for this harassment. We are huge Tico fans (#Ticopath), and would never do anything to KMT.  
How can we not love her??????!!!!!!

There is something really fishy about this whole situation. Firstly, and most importantly, why wasn't KMT given a social media manager by Disney to filter the crappy comments? Especially after what happened to Daisy Ridley. She's a major actor in one of their biggest franchises, yet Disney can't fork over a couple grand for an assistant to handle stuff like this? 
Secondly, Rian Johnson goes on Twitter just hours after the announcement but doesn't offer words of support or encouragement to KMT. Instead he immediately attacks the fans. Things were so bad for KMT that she had to quit Instagram yet Johnson, her director, never even mentioned her. 
Finally, while she left a cryptic comment, KMT never actually stated the reason why she deleted her Instagram. But this harassment narrative is accepted as fact. This looks to me like some fans are using KMT as a weapon to attack other fans. And that's just as bad as the original harassment IMO.

On thing I was hoping to see was an improved setup system like they have in SW Legion. With different cards dealt randomly and the ability for players to veto some of them. The cards in Legion are of three types: deployment zones, victory conditions, and special environment rules. You end up with one of each. While it might not be fair for tournaments, it would be great for casual games. 

The Hyperspace Report was the best thing to ever happen to Armada. Here's why ...
-The Hyperspace Report introduced X-Wing 2.0
-X-Wing 2.0 added Force tokens and Calculate tokens to support Jedi and Droid pilots.
-Jedi and Droid pilots were big in the Clone Wars
-X-Wing 2.0 is getting Clone Wars ships!
-Armada is getting Clone Wars ships!
 
Two new factions with a huge variety of possible ships. FFG can't announce these ships for Armada simply because they want to announce it for both games at the same time (as announcing one would spoil the other). 

Captain Phasma would be perfect.

Let me clarify. Because of the height of the AT-ST, there will be a large amount of terrain that can provide cover to vehicles (by virtue of it's ability to block 50%+ of the model), yet still be short enough for the AT-ST to shoot over. I guess the big problem is using the top if a miniature for LOS cover checks when the weapons that are actually shooting are located 2" below the top. 
If you used the same spot for both LOS checks then it wouldn't be an issue. 

I agree, but he wears the coat when they land then ditches it almost immediately.  So even as the leader of the commandos he should only be in his iconic vest and shirt.  

This is exactly my point. The building would also be treated as area terrain if you are on it. You're interpretation relies on subtle distinctions between terrain types that are not present in the actual rules. Not present because they don't apply.
 
If this rules from page 8 was meant to be applied in play then the wording would have to change as it's incorrect. Terrain doesn't provide cover to individual miniatures. Instead, terrain obscures miniatures. The rule should have used that term. Also, later in the same paragraph it says, "Terrain that completely blocks line of sight always provides heavy cover" which is nonsensical in play as terrain that completely blocks LOS to attacking miniatures makes the attack impossible. 
If you use the rules about blocking half the mini, then you also have to use the rules that you can attack minis where the LOS is completely block (albeit with heavy cover). Otherwise, you are cherry picking sentences out of a paragraph. 

Ok. I see where the guy messed up. However, if the actual rules text were meant that a mini could get no cover because that mini is "so exposed", then I don't see how the text would in no way call for this sort of check. LOS is clearly on or off and "obscured" minis is clearly base to base. Why even write text that you measure from base to base if the intent was to use top of mini to mini? I can understand a word or two being wrong, but the entire section is so clearly written and the diagrams associated with that rule shows a mini getting cover (the yellow one in the middle) despite not being obscured by the terrain at all. If Luke in the video doesn't get cover for being exposed on a building, then the Stormtroopers in the woods in that diagram shouldn't also be getting cover for standing next to, but not behind, some trees.  IMO this is clearly a mistake. 
I've seen FFG game designers playing fast and loose with the rules. The RPG designers, for example, are notorious for ignoring huge sections of the rules and just winging it in con demos. 

In the video you posted, Luke was in base contact with the building, so the building wouldn't have provided cover to his target in any case. This would also have been the case if Luke had been inside the building shooting out a window. 
Had Luke been shot at, he would have received cover from the building.