While a great deal of solid work was done building the EU/Legends, once I settled down about those stories being set aside, I realized that doing so was a logical extension of Lucasfilm's long-standing approach to the EU: it counts until and unless it's contradicted on screen.
With the prequels and, to a lesser extent, TCW, that was easy enough to do and avoid much contradiction, as they were dealing with a time period set 20-50 years prior to most EU stories. With the decision to make new movies set in that later timeframe, though, comes the issue of staying beholden to that expansive body of work, or tearing off one seemingly innocuous thread that has an unintended domino effect. Meanwhile, we hardcore fans familiar with the EU aren't enough to bring in the box office numbers that are necessary to keep a major motion picture franchise going successfully. So, while we might have whooped with joy at the presence of Ben Skywalker, Jaina Solo, Kyle Katarn, Corran Horn, and so on, the weight of their history can make it problematic to just drop them into a story. With characters like Rey, Finn, Poe, and Kylo Ren, (and even our returning characters) the whole audience comes in with the same level of information.
Using the MCU as an example again, it's similar to Joss Whedon's explanation as to why Coulson's team didn't show up with Fury in Age of Ultron. More people see the movies than watch Agents of SHIELD. The last that larger audience saw Coulson, he was dead, killed by Loki in Avengers. To have him show up alive and well either leaves that part of the audience confused (at least) or thinking Jose/Marvel can't keep things straight; the alternative is to bring the big action set piece to a screeching halt to summarize a storyline that took a significant chunk of a TV season to tell.
So, while I would have preferred the EU had been kept, the reasons it wasn't are sound. It opens up possibilities for stories all along the timeline, including ones that take inspiration from the EU.

The old canon was messy, and due for a reboot. It freed up the chance to tell stories inspired by, and in the spirit of the Legends stories, but without being bogged down by the nitpicking details like chronology.
I like it. I think it's cool that the A-Wing gets so much love in Rebels. Old canon isn't canon anymore. Why should we be beholden to it?

Filoni et al have basically stated precisely this: the rebels at Yavin had the X-wings and Y-wings. Phoenix Squadron had the A-wings and B-wings. We see them all at Endor because the Alliance has pooled their entire fleet for that operation

Filoni et al have basically stated precisely this: the rebels at Yavin had the X-wings and Y-wings. Phoenix Squadron had the A-wings and B-wings. We see them all at Endor because the Alliance has pooled their entire fleet for that operation

Filoni et al have basically stated precisely this: the rebels at Yavin had the X-wings and Y-wings. Phoenix Squadron had the A-wings and B-wings. We see them all at Endor because the Alliance has pooled their entire fleet for that operation

Filoni et al have basically stated precisely this: the rebels at Yavin had the X-wings and Y-wings. Phoenix Squadron had the A-wings and B-wings. We see them all at Endor because the Alliance has pooled their entire fleet for that operation

I feel like compelling someone to murder their friends is different from cutting those people down with a lightsaber. I think the "lighter" option would have been to compel the walker pilot to power down, or even non-catastrophically sabotage his own vehicle. It also undermines an enemy's ability to choose to stop fighting. And I think that's a pretty fundamental difference. If your opponents intend to kill you, then they have chosen to accept the risk that they themselves may be killed in battle. But they also have the free will to run away if they realize they're overmatched. And a Jedi of all people should respect when an enemy wishes to stop fighting.
 
Once you start undermining your enemies' free will, you're actually removing their ability to choose a non-violent resolution. I think the need to respect that choice is a pretty significant difference between the two scenarios.

I feel like compelling someone to murder their friends is different from cutting those people down with a lightsaber. I think the "lighter" option would have been to compel the walker pilot to power down, or even non-catastrophically sabotage his own vehicle. It also undermines an enemy's ability to choose to stop fighting. And I think that's a pretty fundamental difference. If your opponents intend to kill you, then they have chosen to accept the risk that they themselves may be killed in battle. But they also have the free will to run away if they realize they're overmatched. And a Jedi of all people should respect when an enemy wishes to stop fighting.
 
Once you start undermining your enemies' free will, you're actually removing their ability to choose a non-violent resolution. I think the need to respect that choice is a pretty significant difference between the two scenarios.

I feel like compelling someone to murder their friends is different from cutting those people down with a lightsaber. I think the "lighter" option would have been to compel the walker pilot to power down, or even non-catastrophically sabotage his own vehicle. It also undermines an enemy's ability to choose to stop fighting. And I think that's a pretty fundamental difference. If your opponents intend to kill you, then they have chosen to accept the risk that they themselves may be killed in battle. But they also have the free will to run away if they realize they're overmatched. And a Jedi of all people should respect when an enemy wishes to stop fighting.
 
Once you start undermining your enemies' free will, you're actually removing their ability to choose a non-violent resolution. I think the need to respect that choice is a pretty significant difference between the two scenarios.

I feel like compelling someone to murder their friends is different from cutting those people down with a lightsaber. I think the "lighter" option would have been to compel the walker pilot to power down, or even non-catastrophically sabotage his own vehicle. It also undermines an enemy's ability to choose to stop fighting. And I think that's a pretty fundamental difference. If your opponents intend to kill you, then they have chosen to accept the risk that they themselves may be killed in battle. But they also have the free will to run away if they realize they're overmatched. And a Jedi of all people should respect when an enemy wishes to stop fighting.
 
Once you start undermining your enemies' free will, you're actually removing their ability to choose a non-violent resolution. I think the need to respect that choice is a pretty significant difference between the two scenarios.

I feel like compelling someone to murder their friends is different from cutting those people down with a lightsaber. I think the "lighter" option would have been to compel the walker pilot to power down, or even non-catastrophically sabotage his own vehicle. It also undermines an enemy's ability to choose to stop fighting. And I think that's a pretty fundamental difference. If your opponents intend to kill you, then they have chosen to accept the risk that they themselves may be killed in battle. But they also have the free will to run away if they realize they're overmatched. And a Jedi of all people should respect when an enemy wishes to stop fighting.
 
Once you start undermining your enemies' free will, you're actually removing their ability to choose a non-violent resolution. I think the need to respect that choice is a pretty significant difference between the two scenarios.

That's some serious conflict. The mind trick is usually protrayed as one of those ambiguous powers. Using it to just trick guards into letting you past is pretty innocuous. It avoids violence, and it's not overly invasive. But probing deeper, and using it to completely subvert someone's will is pretty friggin' dark. Hell, if this weren't a kids show, it might have been darker to let the pilot live and have him realize that he just murdered his friends.
 
I don't allow "lack of options" as a mitigating factor in awarding conflict. That, in my mind is actually the fundamental struggle of a Force & Destiny game: Where does your character draw the line? What scenario can I put your character in that will compel you to tap into your darker self?

That's some serious conflict. The mind trick is usually protrayed as one of those ambiguous powers. Using it to just trick guards into letting you past is pretty innocuous. It avoids violence, and it's not overly invasive. But probing deeper, and using it to completely subvert someone's will is pretty friggin' dark. Hell, if this weren't a kids show, it might have been darker to let the pilot live and have him realize that he just murdered his friends.
 
I don't allow "lack of options" as a mitigating factor in awarding conflict. That, in my mind is actually the fundamental struggle of a Force & Destiny game: Where does your character draw the line? What scenario can I put your character in that will compel you to tap into your darker self?

I feel like compelling someone to murder their friends is different from cutting those people down with a lightsaber. I think the "lighter" option would have been to compel the walker pilot to power down, or even non-catastrophically sabotage his own vehicle. It also undermines an enemy's ability to choose to stop fighting. And I think that's a pretty fundamental difference. If your opponents intend to kill you, then they have chosen to accept the risk that they themselves may be killed in battle. But they also have the free will to run away if they realize they're overmatched. And a Jedi of all people should respect when an enemy wishes to stop fighting.
 
Once you start undermining your enemies' free will, you're actually removing their ability to choose a non-violent resolution. I think the need to respect that choice is a pretty significant difference between the two scenarios.

I feel like compelling someone to murder their friends is different from cutting those people down with a lightsaber. I think the "lighter" option would have been to compel the walker pilot to power down, or even non-catastrophically sabotage his own vehicle. It also undermines an enemy's ability to choose to stop fighting. And I think that's a pretty fundamental difference. If your opponents intend to kill you, then they have chosen to accept the risk that they themselves may be killed in battle. But they also have the free will to run away if they realize they're overmatched. And a Jedi of all people should respect when an enemy wishes to stop fighting.
 
Once you start undermining your enemies' free will, you're actually removing their ability to choose a non-violent resolution. I think the need to respect that choice is a pretty significant difference between the two scenarios.

I feel like compelling someone to murder their friends is different from cutting those people down with a lightsaber. I think the "lighter" option would have been to compel the walker pilot to power down, or even non-catastrophically sabotage his own vehicle. It also undermines an enemy's ability to choose to stop fighting. And I think that's a pretty fundamental difference. If your opponents intend to kill you, then they have chosen to accept the risk that they themselves may be killed in battle. But they also have the free will to run away if they realize they're overmatched. And a Jedi of all people should respect when an enemy wishes to stop fighting.
 
Once you start undermining your enemies' free will, you're actually removing their ability to choose a non-violent resolution. I think the need to respect that choice is a pretty significant difference between the two scenarios.

That's some serious conflict. The mind trick is usually protrayed as one of those ambiguous powers. Using it to just trick guards into letting you past is pretty innocuous. It avoids violence, and it's not overly invasive. But probing deeper, and using it to completely subvert someone's will is pretty friggin' dark. Hell, if this weren't a kids show, it might have been darker to let the pilot live and have him realize that he just murdered his friends.
 
I don't allow "lack of options" as a mitigating factor in awarding conflict. That, in my mind is actually the fundamental struggle of a Force & Destiny game: Where does your character draw the line? What scenario can I put your character in that will compel you to tap into your darker self?

That's some serious conflict. The mind trick is usually protrayed as one of those ambiguous powers. Using it to just trick guards into letting you past is pretty innocuous. It avoids violence, and it's not overly invasive. But probing deeper, and using it to completely subvert someone's will is pretty friggin' dark. Hell, if this weren't a kids show, it might have been darker to let the pilot live and have him realize that he just murdered his friends.
 
I don't allow "lack of options" as a mitigating factor in awarding conflict. That, in my mind is actually the fundamental struggle of a Force & Destiny game: Where does your character draw the line? What scenario can I put your character in that will compel you to tap into your darker self?

That's some serious conflict. The mind trick is usually protrayed as one of those ambiguous powers. Using it to just trick guards into letting you past is pretty innocuous. It avoids violence, and it's not overly invasive. But probing deeper, and using it to completely subvert someone's will is pretty friggin' dark. Hell, if this weren't a kids show, it might have been darker to let the pilot live and have him realize that he just murdered his friends.
 
I don't allow "lack of options" as a mitigating factor in awarding conflict. That, in my mind is actually the fundamental struggle of a Force & Destiny game: Where does your character draw the line? What scenario can I put your character in that will compel you to tap into your darker self?

That's some serious conflict. The mind trick is usually protrayed as one of those ambiguous powers. Using it to just trick guards into letting you past is pretty innocuous. It avoids violence, and it's not overly invasive. But probing deeper, and using it to completely subvert someone's will is pretty friggin' dark. Hell, if this weren't a kids show, it might have been darker to let the pilot live and have him realize that he just murdered his friends.
 
I don't allow "lack of options" as a mitigating factor in awarding conflict. That, in my mind is actually the fundamental struggle of a Force & Destiny game: Where does your character draw the line? What scenario can I put your character in that will compel you to tap into your darker self?

That's some serious conflict. The mind trick is usually protrayed as one of those ambiguous powers. Using it to just trick guards into letting you past is pretty innocuous. It avoids violence, and it's not overly invasive. But probing deeper, and using it to completely subvert someone's will is pretty friggin' dark. Hell, if this weren't a kids show, it might have been darker to let the pilot live and have him realize that he just murdered his friends.
 
I don't allow "lack of options" as a mitigating factor in awarding conflict. That, in my mind is actually the fundamental struggle of a Force & Destiny game: Where does your character draw the line? What scenario can I put your character in that will compel you to tap into your darker self?

That's some serious conflict. The mind trick is usually protrayed as one of those ambiguous powers. Using it to just trick guards into letting you past is pretty innocuous. It avoids violence, and it's not overly invasive. But probing deeper, and using it to completely subvert someone's will is pretty friggin' dark. Hell, if this weren't a kids show, it might have been darker to let the pilot live and have him realize that he just murdered his friends.
 
I don't allow "lack of options" as a mitigating factor in awarding conflict. That, in my mind is actually the fundamental struggle of a Force & Destiny game: Where does your character draw the line? What scenario can I put your character in that will compel you to tap into your darker self?

That's some serious conflict. The mind trick is usually protrayed as one of those ambiguous powers. Using it to just trick guards into letting you past is pretty innocuous. It avoids violence, and it's not overly invasive. But probing deeper, and using it to completely subvert someone's will is pretty friggin' dark. Hell, if this weren't a kids show, it might have been darker to let the pilot live and have him realize that he just murdered his friends.
 
I don't allow "lack of options" as a mitigating factor in awarding conflict. That, in my mind is actually the fundamental struggle of a Force & Destiny game: Where does your character draw the line? What scenario can I put your character in that will compel you to tap into your darker self?

Thats just it really. We do see them being reasonably effective. Kanan is shut down by the inquisition on two occasions, and in some stories just once would be enough to be a death warrant.
 
The Jedi has to succeed all his life, an inquisitor only has to succeed once to do his/her job.

I seem to recall Vader appeared in the Rebellion day module, "Rescue at Glare Peak". It did not stat Vader. The whole premise of the module is that Vader is coming, and you'd better haul ass out of there. Because his stats? If Vader catches you, you die.
 
I'm okay with this. I mean, I'm not saying in every adventure, Vader's arrival should necessarily herald the party's death. But if it fits the theme of the adventure, then sure. I don't mind extrapolating Vader into a purely narrative entity. The PCs should have opportunity to escape, and if they play smart, hopefully they will. If not, then Vader kills them. Let's face it: getting killed by Darth Vader actually sounds like a lot of fun.
 
If you want to do an "Inglourious Basterds" rendition of Star Wars, and have an alternate universe where an Alliance SpecOps team assassinates Vader? Then by all means, stat him up, and let 'er rip. Ideally he should kill a few PCs before they bring him down, but make it doable.
 
I'd rather the stat blocks remain homebrew considerations though. As people have said, official stat blocks lead to the, "If you stat it, they will kill it" mentality. I want to have that mystery available to me. I can build a Vader. No problem there. But if he gets made "official" I lose that mysteriousness. Even if I tell my players, "I'm not going by the Vader in the rules", the official stat block still creates a benchmark, and instills a certain, "We can take him" confidence. If there's no official stats for him, then the PCs have absolutely no idea what to expect. And that's a very powerful thing.