Generic Generals

[NeonWolf 942]

If you go watch the video that FFG just posted on their Youtube channel I think everyone will get their answers about FFG putting out generic commanders...

[MasterShake2 5,184]

Just now, NeonWolf said:

If you go watch the video that FFG just posted on their Youtube channel I think everyone will get their answers about FFG putting out generic commanders...

I'm lazy, what was the answer

[NeonWolf 942]

@MasterShake2 TL:DW...not gonna happen

[UnitOmega 2,818]

Alex Davy specifically said he though of star wars as a character-driven, mythological saga so commanders are part of that character focus, as might other things. 

[MasterShake2 5,184]

41 minutes ago, NeonWolf said:

@MasterShake2 TL:DW...not gonna happen

Just watched it...I don't think he said what you think he said...

[NeonWolf 942]

3 minutes ago, MasterShake2 said:

Just watched it...I don't think he said what you think he said...

I admit I was paraphrasing, but let me support my point with some text from the RRG pg.20 under the Commander entry

Quote

• Each unique commander has three
command cards specific to that commander which can only
be used if that commander is included in an army.
        »» Commander-specific command cards are identified by
             the image in the upper-right corner that matches the
             image on that commander’s unit card and by the name
             of that commander appearing below the name of the
             command card.
       »» A player can include any number of a commander’s
            command cards in their command hand, but can include
            no more than one copy of each card.

How exactly do you propose to have a "generic" commander with this rule in place?

Also, what do you think he said that I misinterpreted?

[MasterShake2 5,184]

8 minutes ago, NeonWolf said:

I admit I was paraphrasing, but let me support my point with some text from the RRG pg.20 under the Commander entry

How exactly do you propose to have a "generic" commander with this rule in place?

Also, what do you think he said that I misinterpreted?

Well, the rule says Unique commander, which a generic would not be, so it wouldn't apply. This also kind gives the game away that the possibility of non unique commanders is on the table.

 

I think you're interpreting Character Driven as meaning no non-characters. A game can still include non-characters, but still be focused on the characters. To put it simply, the presence of Vader does not exclude the possibility of an Imperial Officer. In fact, we see Vader with these officers all the time in the movies...they just come down with sudden asthma attacks around him frequently.

Edited March 20, 2018 by MasterShake2

[Caimheul1313 2,990]

I believe in another interview he was asked if FFG was planning on releasing non-character commanders and flat out said no. If they were to release non-unique commanders, then nothing forces a character in the army anymore. The rules require a Commander, not a unique Commander. The random Imperial officers would probably fit in the Support slot, while Commander Imperial officers will have names, like Veers.

[WAC47 1,796]

4 hours ago, UnitOmega said:

Alex Davy specifically said he though of star wars as a character-driven, mythological saga so commanders are part of that character focus, as might other things. 

He perfectly summed up my thoughts on the matter!

Because you have to take a commander, keeping commanders unique is the main way to ensure that the game stays focused on the iconic characters and stories of Star Wars! And there should be a plenty of options to choose from moving forward, so practically any character archetype you want should be covered.

Totally understand if people disagree though.

[Kubernes 736]

I don't think it would be that difficult to make non-uniques commanders interesting enough. Off the top of my head you could create a new upgrade card for them that they would have to take. Call it something like "background", "personality", or "origin". This card would give them some special ability and command card. Maybe that experienced Smuggler was an ex-imperial officer or survived a rancor pit and so on. Would also be the perfect way to really give some cool prizes or push a campaign.

At the very least make some new characters like the ones in Imperial Assault. I'm sure people didn't forget about that one?

[Bohemian73 161]

I want a named character, but I am okay with a non-commander, read officer, that can be added in a support slot. There are a lot of options for what this support officer could do.

[Caimheul1313 2,990]

48 minutes ago, Kubernes said:

At the very least make some new characters like the ones in Imperial Assault. I'm sure people didn't forget about that one?

I believe this is likely FFG's plan for backfill/if an established character does not fit a particular design (such as Special Ops units buffing Commander or something). Making non-unique officers interesting isn't the problem, it's the fact that introducing a non-unique commander could in theory cause some other gameplay "issues," primarily affecting tournament play. Perhaps more importantly FFG has (apparently yet unsurprisingly) stated/hinted/implied in more than one interview that they will only be releasing named Commanders. 

I get why people want the generic option, but I want to be an advocate for finding creative solutions to the issues within the existing rules. Such as using the existing models/cards as "Counts as" your own homebrew character, and using homebrew commanders for casual play scenario games with opponent approval of course.

[toffolone 93]

I think that generic commander are useless. Already Leia or Veers are few points if you wwant to go light on characters. And they have courage level 2.

A generic commander so should have courage 1 in order to cost less.  But courage 1 is useless since troops already have courage 1.

More probably they will put out more "supporting  role" charcaters like General Madine or Admiral Ackbar or director Krennic, Admiral Motti or General Tagge... With command cards and/or extra abilities that give more versatility (does this word exists?)  to the army

[Shanturin 267]

Idk if anyone posted this earlier, but... yeah, don't get your hopes up for generic commanders anytime soon
 

 

[Kubernes 736]

8 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

I believe this is likely FFG's plan for backfill/if an established character does not fit a particular design (such as Special Ops units buffing Commander or something). Making non-unique officers interesting isn't the problem, it's the fact that introducing a non-unique commander could in theory cause some other gameplay "issues," primarily affecting tournament play. Perhaps more importantly FFG has (apparently yet unsurprisingly) stated/hinted/implied in more than one interview that they will only be releasing named Commanders. 

I get why people want the generic option, but I want to be an advocate for finding creative solutions to the issues within the existing rules. Such as using the existing models/cards as "Counts as" your own homebrew character, and using homebrew commanders for casual play scenario games with opponent approval of course.

How does a generic commander it affect tournament play any differently than any other new unit or character? 

[Caimheul1313 2,990]

Just now, Kubernes said:

How does a generic commander it affect tournament play any differently than any other new unit or character? 

Being significantly cheaper for one. Not to mention customizability for can result in unexpected combinations that were not noticed in playtesting. Also, by not being named, the unique label doesn't make as much sense, so now there is duplication of Commander, so any "Commander only" Command cards would have two valid targets. If you are fielding Leia or Vader and they die, then the cards in your hand that only allow you to issue orders to that commander whiff. With two commanders with identical names, if one is removed the card still has a valid target. Time spent developing the unit in such a way to avoid such interactions, or command cards given to such a unit would both probably be better spent  making a named commander of some sort (FFG original or random background character) filling a similar role.

[buckero0 1,956]

4 hours ago, toffolone said:

I think that generic commander are useless. Already Leia or Veers are few points if you wwant to go light on characters. And they have courage level 2.

A generic commander so should have courage 1 in order to cost less.  But courage 1 is useless since troops already have courage 1.

More probably they will put out more "supporting  role" charcaters like General Madine or Admiral Ackbar or director Krennic, Admiral Motti or General Tagge... With command cards and/or extra abilities that give more versatility (does this word exists?)  to the army

Honestly, courage 1 would be a waste. Courage 2 is pretty short for 90pts.  I don't want the game to become so obtuse that it feels like a commander is a burden to your list.

[NeonWolf 942]

35 minutes ago, Kubernes said:

How does a generic commander it affect tournament play any differently than any other new unit or character? 

Also, if you scroll up a bit, you'll see a post of mine from yesterday with quotes from the RRG that state you can only include 1 copy of a command card from a Commander in your hand.  If you have two generic commanders, that are the same model, you wouldn't be able to include 2 copies of their command cards.

It would be pretty silly for FFG to create a Commander that would have this limitation.  As @Caimheul1313 said, the developers time would be better spent elsewhere, creating iconic unique Commanders that are characters from the existing, canon, material.

While this is a tabletop, miniatures wargame, it is NOT that one full of grim darkness, nor will it ever be, I expect.  I totally understand the desire that people have to create their own stories set in the Star Wars universe and want to use this game as the vehicle to accomplish that.  However, the expectation that FFG is going to create non-named, generic commanders just to accommodate that desire is unrealistic.

Edited March 21, 2018 by NeonWolf

[Caimheul1313 2,990]

To build upon @NeonWolf's post, and to reiterate what I have said previously, for making your own story with the tools FFG is providing the best option is to convert, either by paint scheme or cutting and re-gluing, or just think of the model differently. The General Veers model looks like pretty much any other Imperial Officer in armor and Leia could easily represent some other female Rebel (near) human commander in your force. So far only the force users are particularly restrictive, mostly as force users are (depending on the media) relatively rare in the Star Wars universe during the GCW.

The name on the card won't limit your storytelling if you don't let it. If you want to run a campaign of some sort with your own homebrew character, then make up rules for them as long as you and your opponent agree. 

[jcmonson 302]

7 minutes ago, NeonWolf said:

Also, if you scroll up a bit, you'll see a post of mine from yesterday with quotes from the RRG that state you can only include 1 copy of a command card from a Commander in your hand.  If you have two generic commanders, that are the same model, you wouldn't be able to include 2 copies of their command cards.

actually, it wouldn't.  All it would do is force you to take the 4 Generic command cards that come with the core set.

[Caimheul1313 2,990]

21 minutes ago, jcmonson said:

actually, it wouldn't.  All it would do is force you to take the 4 Generic command cards that come with the core set.

Which leaves you two cards short if you ONLY take a generic commander. So essentially they would have produced a secondary commander only, which in my mind sounds more like a Support slot unit.

Edit: Something like "Imperial Officer" or "Rebel Officer," with an ability like "Command relay: Can give orders to a unit within Range 1-2 of this model as if they were in range of the Commander." Not that I expect THIS to be a released thing either.

Edited March 21, 2018 by Caimheul1313

[jcmonson 302]

1 hour ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Which leaves you two cards short if you ONLY take a generic commander. So essentially they would have produced a secondary commander only, which in my mind sounds more like a Support slot unit.

Edit: Something like "Imperial Officer" or "Rebel Officer," with an ability like "Command relay: Can give orders to a unit within Range 1-2 of this model as if they were in range of the Commander." Not that I expect THIS to be a released thing either.

how so? There are the 4 in the base set plus the 3 from commanders.  If you took 2 commanders with the same cards you wouldn't be able to double up, but you would still be able to take the required 7

[Caimheul1313 2,990]

27 minutes ago, jcmonson said:

how so? There are the 4 in the base set plus the 3 from commanders.  If you took 2 commanders with the same cards you wouldn't be able to double up, but you would still be able to take the required 7

Misunderstood your comment is how. My previous comments regarding Commander targeting order cards having multiple targets if there is more than one with the same name still stands though.

Edit: regardless this is a moot point unless FFG suddenly changes their stance on Star Wars being character driven so character only Commanders.

Edited March 21, 2018 by Caimheul1313

[Kubernes 736]

2 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Being significantly cheaper for one. Not to mention customizability for can result in unexpected combinations that were not noticed in playtesting. Also, by not being named, the unique label doesn't make as much sense, so now there is duplication of Commander, so any "Commander only" Command cards would have two valid targets. If you are fielding Leia or Vader and they die, then the cards in your hand that only allow you to issue orders to that commander whiff. With two commanders with identical names, if one is removed the card still has a valid target. Time spent developing the unit in such a way to avoid such interactions, or command cards given to such a unit would both probably be better spent  making a named commander of some sort (FFG original or random background character) filling a similar role.

Why do they have to be significantly cheaper or even cheaper than other options? It just seems that the cheap = unbalanced approach is potentially flawed.

A better case is a character like C3P0 and Argus from Imperial Assault where these figures are both cheap and effective/efficient. That’s easily remedied by play test and point balance.

The idea of balance also goes with that point about the command cards (I.e. a work around). The whole “backstory” upgrade can easily fix this issue by allowing the command card to be used by that one commander.

Someone might say a player would just choose the same kit twice to which the response is to simply put the unique restriction on it.

There’s so many easy fixes to all of these issues.

[Caimheul1313 2,990]

13 minutes ago, Kubernes said:

Why do they have to be significantly cheaper or even cheaper than other options? It just seems that the cheap = unbalanced approach is potentially flawed.

A better case is a character like C3P0 and Argus from Imperial Assault where these figures are both cheap and effective/efficient. That’s easily remedied by play test and point balance.

Because why would Leia be cheaper in points and therefore less effective in game than generic rebel trooper who didn't get to star in any media? Adding a "Backstory" upgrade is messy, why limit those? Did only one person with a smuggling background choose to join the Imperial Academy/Rebel alliance? If one background is stronger or better it will be the only one to see play. Also, if they want to do a Rebel commander with a smuggler background, that sounds like Han Solo to me. An Imperial Officers with a merchant background could just as easily be Corporal John Doe, a background commander whose name is from some reference material or made up by FFG.

It's moot anyway, FFG has chosen not to go that route at all.

Edited March 21, 2018 by Caimheul1313