Facebook groups (and really any site that blocks read access to people with accounts only) are never a good replacement for things like forums. Though Facebook in particular is extra bad in that regard.

Facebook groups (and really any site that blocks read access to people with accounts only) are never a good replacement for things like forums. Though Facebook in particular is extra bad in that regard.

Facebook groups (and really any site that blocks read access to people with accounts only) are never a good replacement for things like forums. Though Facebook in particular is extra bad in that regard.

Facebook groups (and really any site that blocks read access to people with accounts only) are never a good replacement for things like forums. Though Facebook in particular is extra bad in that regard.

Facebook groups (and really any site that blocks read access to people with accounts only) are never a good replacement for things like forums. Though Facebook in particular is extra bad in that regard.

Facebook groups (and really any site that blocks read access to people with accounts only) are never a good replacement for things like forums. Though Facebook in particular is extra bad in that regard.

Facebook groups (and really any site that blocks read access to people with accounts only) are never a good replacement for things like forums. Though Facebook in particular is extra bad in that regard.

Facebook groups (and really any site that blocks read access to people with accounts only) are never a good replacement for things like forums. Though Facebook in particular is extra bad in that regard.

I just though the turn around from this was too funny to ignore.
For what it's worth this whole conversation has seemed to odd me, when I think about my favorite Star Wars characters most of them are phenotypically different especially, considering the number of white male characters to choose from (the fact that so many come off as whiny doesn't help. Seriously what is with the collection of whiny/child-like white male jedi protagonists? First Luke, then Anakin, then Ezra...).
As for the Mandolorian himself he is a kind of bland distilled version of the Mandolorian idea that Boba Fett inspired. As he distinguishes himself more and interacts with more characters (especially other Mandolorians) he will become more interesting. That is part of why Grogu is so interesting beyond being cute, there is a mystery there (about Yoda's species, among lots of other things), that people are anxious to learn more about. There doesn't seem to be much in terms of mystery or new things we could learn about Din, all of the blanks are too easy to fill in. That's why interest in him really can only grow by seeing how interacts and changes to his interactions with these more mysterious things that are foreign to him.

This looks awesome, I now regret not trying to get comfortable with Armada in Vassal (and really against other people in a competitive setting) and trying this out. Good luck to all of the participants.
GK any interesting highlights or notes from the games you have watched so far?

This looks awesome, I now regret not trying to get comfortable with Armada in Vassal (and really against other people in a competitive setting) and trying this out. Good luck to all of the participants.
GK any interesting highlights or notes from the games you have watched so far?

This looks awesome, I now regret not trying to get comfortable with Armada in Vassal (and really against other people in a competitive setting) and trying this out. Good luck to all of the participants.
GK any interesting highlights or notes from the games you have watched so far?

As a new player, that is still a little unsure if I want to get into this game, I think this discussion is fascinating. My first time using the clones I didn't end up using Fire Support at all. I didn't think it was good. I approached it from the perspective of action efficiency. You are sacrificing an action, an activation, and the need to issue an order to a corps (limiting activation control), in exchange for a single more powerful attack. That didn't strike me a great trade-off, more like something that is very niche that may be occasionally useful (I also didn't understand the clone token sharing so I thought they were weak in comparison to other factions corps units and wondering how Fire Support facilitated the sharing I had heard about). Having read this thread (and plenty of the rules reference) and watched the video in the OP I understand now I was very wrong in my assessment. Both describe what I hadn't grasped initially how forcing the niche nature of Fire Support being useful to come up more often could in turn make it very powerful despite the costs.
So with that said here is the 2 cents of a new relative outsider on the issue. I think the logical first step to toning it down would be the checking for panic as described a few times in this thread (probably in the form having to perform the rally step when being declared for fire support but before rolling). That just makes thematic sense (rules that thematic that also help achieve balance are the best kind). If that isn't enough I am not sure what you do next though. Fire Support (or the general cross support nature for clones) feels like a good mechanical theme for their story theme, and it seems like it would be easy to nerf Fire Support into uselessness given all of the drawbacks listed above already connected to it. I think any kind of dice cap is just going to change the specific upgrades and squads used in tandem with it, instead of addressing the real issue.
The next best idea I can come up with (if the panic change isn't enough), is what if you tied Fire Support to a using a standby token? Instead of it consuming an active issued order, instead it required spending a standby token for the unit to provide Fire Support? That way you remove some of the inherent weaknesses of Fire Support in exchange for building a fix to the issue of being immune to panic and at the same time providing more counter play to the opponent since you would have to get the standby token in the first place (and it's easier to remove for the opponent).

Characters thought dead coming back is a bit of a hallmark of the serial style stories that inspired Star Wars. Darth Maul was quite interesting as a crime-boss in Clone Wars and is used in some of the most highly-regarded story-arcs of the series. It is not "bad form" to tell good stories even if you bring back the dead to do it. 
I think a cheap shot that can really only be answered with another cheap shot is worse than either. 
I don't think it is. Perhaps not these specific Sith but this sort of thing would provide a much better framework for an ongoing conflict and for more of the spinoff sorts of stories they wanted. It would be a far better premise in my opinion for what happens when a large governmental structure is over-thrown while not requiring flushing the win of the OT out of the airlock. A failing of the ST in my opinion is the lazy threadbare underdeveloped premise that was a transparent attempt at a reboot of the OT. This premise at least would have a logic behind it as one just needs to look at what happened upon the dissolution of the Soviet Union as a source for this premise. 

I do things like this all the time in FlyCasual, and that seems like it would be a lot better than Vassal or TTS. My variation though is usually trying to use like a single 100 point ship (or 2 ships that add up to 150 points) against a more expensive fleet (either 130 or 200 respectively). FlyCasual also handles the iteration part much better since so much more is automated than either Vassal or TTS. The main downside of course it may be missing a few cards that you could use in those systems. It also I believe has a better AI than the rule-set FFG presented.

The AI in FlyCasual will still sometimes fly itself off the board, so there is that. Really that program in general is responsible for keeping me as interested (And buying product) in X-Wing as anything due to a lack of other opportunities to play normally. The big downside of it, is it's multiplayer support is comparatively weak next to Vassal and TTS (which shouldn't matter for this), however once you get used to the automation in FlyCasual, Vassal and TTS feel painful by comparison (FlyCasual is much closer to a board game made into a video game like Talisman or Catan on Steam, than a virtual tabletop).

I do things like this all the time in FlyCasual, and that seems like it would be a lot better than Vassal or TTS. My variation though is usually trying to use like a single 100 point ship (or 2 ships that add up to 150 points) against a more expensive fleet (either 130 or 200 respectively). FlyCasual also handles the iteration part much better since so much more is automated than either Vassal or TTS. The main downside of course it may be missing a few cards that you could use in those systems. It also I believe has a better AI than the rule-set FFG presented.

It supports both readings, but anyone unwilling to share dice is going to get questions as to why. And a marshal siding with the refuser given this thread better have solid reasoning as well.

My take:
Alpha - 33 points, 1 talent, 1 mod
Saber - 38 points, 2 talents, 1 mod
Turr - 40 points, 2 talents, 1 mod
Soontir Fel - 56 points, 2 talents, 1 mod
The generics may need to go down again next cycle but I really wouldn't want to over-buff them for fear of an overreaction. Other potential buffs to throw in:
Ruthless - 0 points
Daredevil - 2 points
Intimidation - 2 points
And you have a few potential options. 6 ruthless Interceptors is a very bad spam nonbo but has interesting implications if you ever happen to shoot at a ship adjacent to one of your own ships that's already died (somehow). Or 35 point intimidation Alphas would make awesome little blocker-fillers. 2 for 70 slots in neatly with a couple of real aces. Snap/Juke Turr Phennir would be super interesting, though 54 points is still quite a lot to pay for such a squishy bug. Five Crack/Ruthless Sabers with a 5-point bid would be really interesting, or 5 predator sabers without. Alternatively, 46 points for an Outmaneuver/Predator saber fits into a list easily, though it's still probably an overinvestment.
I still don't see anything horrifically broken, or even that good here. But at least it gives some interesting options to play around with.

One solution that I have always liked but don't see discussed much is giving some ships some points for free that must be spent on certain kinds of upgrades for the ship. Using the Jumpmaster as an example (and forgive me, I don't much about the ship so the numbers in the example could be off), instead of reducing the cost by 10 points, instead when you add one to your list you get 10 points in crew and torpedo (or whatever) upgrades that can only be spent on that ship. This will allow ships that are meant to be heavy ordinance platforms (like a TIE Bomber), to be costed closer to what it should represent in the squad with the ordinance while giving the points back. The same line of thinking works for large ships that are supposed to be kitted out more that run the risk of being spammed if their cost is lowered enough to allow them to be properly kitted out. Other examples would be giving Khiraxz some free points to spend on modifications and illicit mods. The TIE Interceptor is probably the hardest to fix with this approach because they weren't classically meant to be super customizable and not all of their pilots have talent slots. You could still give them a couple of free points to spend on modifications but it could feel off do to the lore.

Rich coming from someone who helped cause a different thread to devolve into a second amendment rights debate. It's fine to de-rail a thread about your pet issue though right? You realize @Mep's last two comments on the issue before @SpiderMana responded were attacking Spider directly right? It's funny every time I see someone introduce the "SJW" phrase on the internet they are using it as an insult and usually are more disruptive than whatever person they are targeting. Of course calling someone a small person is always constructive to discourse, right?
Personally, I would love to see the issue dropped since it does like a misunderstanding. But I hate hypocrites more. Though, if you would like to stop belaboring the point, by all means I am sure everyone would prefer it.
 
As for Nantex I think it's going to be a niche ship. If you aren't regularly getting people in its bullseye it's unlikely to be worth its points because it will probably be expensive for just 2 atk die ship with a mobile arc.

Rich coming from someone who helped cause a different thread to devolve into a second amendment rights debate. It's fine to de-rail a thread about your pet issue though right? You realize @Mep's last two comments on the issue before @SpiderMana responded were attacking Spider directly right? It's funny every time I see someone introduce the "SJW" phrase on the internet they are using it as an insult and usually are more disruptive than whatever person they are targeting. Of course calling someone a small person is always constructive to discourse, right?
Personally, I would love to see the issue dropped since it does like a misunderstanding. But I hate hypocrites more. Though, if you would like to stop belaboring the point, by all means I am sure everyone would prefer it.
 
As for Nantex I think it's going to be a niche ship. If you aren't regularly getting people in its bullseye it's unlikely to be worth its points because it will probably be expensive for just 2 atk die ship with a mobile arc.

@JJ48 here is the post you appear to be objecting to. The third line makes it pretty clear the poster is open to the idea that there may be a misunderstanding going on. What part of this strikes you as deliberately misinterpreting someone else's words?

Rich coming from someone who helped cause a different thread to devolve into a second amendment rights debate. It's fine to de-rail a thread about your pet issue though right? You realize @Mep's last two comments on the issue before @SpiderMana responded were attacking Spider directly right? It's funny every time I see someone introduce the "SJW" phrase on the internet they are using it as an insult and usually are more disruptive than whatever person they are targeting. Of course calling someone a small person is always constructive to discourse, right?
Personally, I would love to see the issue dropped since it does like a misunderstanding. But I hate hypocrites more. Though, if you would like to stop belaboring the point, by all means I am sure everyone would prefer it.
 
As for Nantex I think it's going to be a niche ship. If you aren't regularly getting people in its bullseye it's unlikely to be worth its points because it will probably be expensive for just 2 atk die ship with a mobile arc.

Rich coming from someone who helped cause a different thread to devolve into a second amendment rights debate. It's fine to de-rail a thread about your pet issue though right? You realize @Mep's last two comments on the issue before @SpiderMana responded were attacking Spider directly right? It's funny every time I see someone introduce the "SJW" phrase on the internet they are using it as an insult and usually are more disruptive than whatever person they are targeting. Of course calling someone a small person is always constructive to discourse, right?
Personally, I would love to see the issue dropped since it does like a misunderstanding. But I hate hypocrites more. Though, if you would like to stop belaboring the point, by all means I am sure everyone would prefer it.
 
As for Nantex I think it's going to be a niche ship. If you aren't regularly getting people in its bullseye it's unlikely to be worth its points because it will probably be expensive for just 2 atk die ship with a mobile arc.