I really want to see "Prize" ships. Medium and Bulk transports, so we could have Commerance raid type scenarios.

I would likely Just use a small base with 1 or 2 shield on each side, no weapons, and 3 hull. 2 command no squadron and Two engineering.

The transports were at Endor because the Rebels lost their ground base at Hoth and were forced to take their entire command and all their resources mobile. The medical frigate was there too despite not being an offensive ship. I would love yo see them release the transport, but only as a mission/ objective piece.

The transports were at Endor because the Rebels lost their ground base at Hoth and were forced to take their entire command and all their resources mobile. The medical frigate was there too despite not being an offensive ship. I would love yo see them release the transport, but only as a mission/ objective piece.

That medical frigate is a combat ship. Its the Redemption from the core set.

Personally I would love to see the GR-75 represented in this game in some way, perhaps as an objective piece or some kind of support fighter squadron thing. Or maybe throw some small amount of guns on it ala Q ships from WW2.

Yes, there are plenty of reasons for (and even a few examples of) the rebels to have done weird stuff with the ships. They also stripped a bunch of MC80s of all their weapons and used them as cargo ships. That doesn't mean I want an MC80 card with no weapons.

The imperials could strip all the turbolasers off of an ISD and replace it all with lasers for an anti-starfighter ship - but it wouldn't 'feel' right.

I'd rather them make up a new ship (which I hate), than for them to shoehorn some function into a ship that exists, but didn't do anything like that in the Star Wars Universe we know.

You mean the Star Wars universe you know.

So basically you have your own personal standard of canon, and they'd better not violate it?

Relax man, there's plenty of room in the galactic pool.

If everyone believed that if they haven't seen it in a book, or movie, or show that's specifically official canon then it doesn't belong, it'd be a much less rich setting (the same really applies to any body of fiction).

I like how I say something, you completely change my quote, and then attack the fake quote.

I'm referring to the EU. Which is a defined thing, a licenced thing. Fiddling around with it for no reason other than to fiddle around with it seems like a waste.

Yes, there are plenty of reasons for (and even a few examples of) the rebels to have done weird stuff with the ships. They also stripped a bunch of MC80s of all their weapons and used them as cargo ships. That doesn't mean I want an MC80 card with no weapons.

The imperials could strip all the turbolasers off of an ISD and replace it all with lasers for an anti-starfighter ship - but it wouldn't 'feel' right.

I'd rather them make up a new ship (which I hate), than for them to shoehorn some function into a ship that exists, but didn't do anything like that in the Star Wars Universe we know.

You mean the Star Wars universe you know.

So basically you have your own personal standard of canon, and they'd better not violate it?

Relax man, there's plenty of room in the galactic pool.

If everyone believed that if they haven't seen it in a book, or movie, or show that's specifically official canon then it doesn't belong, it'd be a much less rich setting (the same really applies to any body of fiction).

I like how I say something, you completely change my quote, and then attack the fake quote.

I'm referring to the EU. Which is a defined thing, a licenced thing. Fiddling around with it for no reason other than to fiddle around with it seems like a waste.

Outside of bolding and italics, I didn't change your quote at all, much less completely. I hit the quote button, did some bolding and italics, and then made my comments. You can compare my quote of you with your original statement.

So I'm not quite sure what exactly it is you think I altered.

Who's to say that a squadron style base has to be one size?

Why not give it an oversized squadron base and 10hp, with the rogue trait.

call it a support squadron or something.

Would then open the door to things like the decimator, heavy freighters, gozanti etc

I would like the transport to appear in some form or another for the game as it seems to have been heavily used by the Rebellion. Squadron support would be a good way to go and if FFG kept it cheap then it wouldn't need to have firepower, maneuverability or much in the way of shields/hull points. Having them as objectives during games would be a cool idea as well making them multipurpose either as ships for the Rebellion or to be worth victory points that need to be fought over. I'd certainly include at least one in my Rebel fleet if FFG were to release it as part of one of the later waves.

Eventually I am sure they will likely put out Transports type ships for many of the reasons listed already.

However, right now, I am not interested in such ships at all. I want to see more items like we see in Wave 1 and Wave 2.

You know, cool stuff.

I hope they don't use the transport in Armada. It's a cargo ship and nothing more. It's got a couple weak little laser cannons, but honestly, a ship like the Falcon has more firepower.

The reason you see them in fleet actions in the movie is because they were used as fire ships (suicide/kamikaze).

Basically, the Empire would ignore them in combat (as they had very for weapons). The large cargo ships would simply be set on collision courses with large Imperial ships, blasters firing straight ahead. Sometimes the cargo areas would be loaded with explosives to increase the damage of the ramming attack.

The Rebels did this because they were plentiful, it worked well as a surprise attack, and they were just plain desperate, so anything they could bring to the Battle of Endor went to serve in any capacity they could find.

They were not sturdy combat craft. More than half the GR75s that tried to escape Hoth were destroyed despite Ion cannon/X-wing support.

Their attack would be weak, they'd be relatively slow, they'd offer no real tactical advantage.

There are plenty of craft that actually were used to command groups of fighters, or transport fighters. There are plenty of different types of ships that act as platforms for specific types of weapons.

There would be no reason to shoehorn the GR75 into Armada and upgrade the heck out of it to make it useful.

If push comes to shove, I'd prefer them to create more new ships like the Raider rather then use unarmed freighters.

Yes, there are plenty of reasons for (and even a few examples of) the rebels to have done weird stuff with the ships. They also stripped a bunch of MC80s of all their weapons and used them as cargo ships. That doesn't mean I want an MC80 card with no weapons.

The imperials could strip all the turbolasers off of an ISD and replace it all with lasers for an anti-starfighter ship - but it wouldn't 'feel' right.

I'd rather them make up a new ship (which I hate), than for them to shoehorn some function into a ship that exists, but didn't do anything like that in the Star Wars Universe we know.

You mean the Star Wars universe you know.

So basically you have your own personal standard of canon, and they'd better not violate it?

Relax man, there's plenty of room in the galactic pool.

If everyone believed that if they haven't seen it in a book, or movie, or show that's specifically official canon then it doesn't belong, it'd be a much less rich setting (the same really applies to any body of fiction).

I like how I say something, you completely change my quote, and then attack the fake quote.

I'm referring to the EU. Which is a defined thing, a licenced thing. Fiddling around with it for no reason other than to fiddle around with it seems like a waste.

Outside of bolding and italics, I didn't change your quote at all, much less completely. I hit the quote button, did some bolding and italics, and then made my comments. You can compare my quote of you with your original statement.

So I'm not quite sure what exactly it is you think I altered.

I said "The Star Wars Universe we know", and in the attack you said "You mean the Star Wars universe you know. So basically you have your own personal standard of canon, and they'd better not violate it?"

You refuted your own comment, not mine. This is called a Straw Man Fallacy.

"The Star Wars Universe we know" is the EU canon - a well defined boundary. You're arguing that somehow I'm editorializing it into my own little world. Which: no, I'm not.

Yes, there are plenty of reasons for (and even a few examples of) the rebels to have done weird stuff with the ships. They also stripped a bunch of MC80s of all their weapons and used them as cargo ships. That doesn't mean I want an MC80 card with no weapons.

The imperials could strip all the turbolasers off of an ISD and replace it all with lasers for an anti-starfighter ship - but it wouldn't 'feel' right.

I'd rather them make up a new ship (which I hate), than for them to shoehorn some function into a ship that exists, but didn't do anything like that in the Star Wars Universe we know.

You mean the Star Wars universe you know.

So basically you have your own personal standard of canon, and they'd better not violate it?

Relax man, there's plenty of room in the galactic pool.

If everyone believed that if they haven't seen it in a book, or movie, or show that's specifically official canon then it doesn't belong, it'd be a much less rich setting (the same really applies to any body of fiction).

I like how I say something, you completely change my quote, and then attack the fake quote.

I'm referring to the EU. Which is a defined thing, a licenced thing. Fiddling around with it for no reason other than to fiddle around with it seems like a waste.

Outside of bolding and italics, I didn't change your quote at all, much less completely. I hit the quote button, did some bolding and italics, and then made my comments. You can compare my quote of you with your original statement.

So I'm not quite sure what exactly it is you think I altered.

I said "The Star Wars Universe we know", and in the attack you said "You mean the Star Wars universe you know. So basically you have your own personal standard of canon, and they'd better not violate it?"

You refuted your own comment, not mine. This is called a Straw Man Fallacy.

"The Star Wars Universe we know" is the EU canon - a well defined boundary. You're arguing that somehow I'm editorializing it into my own little world. Which: no, I'm not.

Here let me clarify.

I bolded and underlined your comment, "...Star Wars Universe we know" in my quote of you.

Then I said in my own statement, "You mean the Star Wars universe you know...." to imply that as far as I'm concerned, what you are doing is latching on to what you consider to be the gospel truth of Star Wars that constitutes a line in the sand from which you are unwilling to budge. As if any sort of change or addition to the body of fiction must meet your standards of what is canon, or it is not to be allowed.

Thankfully you don't have that sort of authority.

I think I made myself pretty clear. I did not alter your words. I stated my interpretation of your words.

But basically what we have here is this. I think additions to the universe are fine, they keep the fiction alive and growing and are essential to its longevity as a franchise. And this means new things and new ideas, especially in games that have to create products and content to maintain sales and customer interest. Quite frankly, a vast swathe of what we consider "Star Wars" was invented after the fact (of the movies) and a lot of that didn't come right from the mind of George Lucas. New ideas, new things have been being introduced for decades now.

You are already playing games with content invented outside of the movies. So why draw the line at this topic of all things? War capable converted transports? Why not? Could be fun. Has some precedent in previous fiction, and some verisimilitude with the kind of guerrilla tactics the rebels had to employ.

Yet, somehow, that idea irks you and you stand against it as if it somehow violates your religion.

And you turn to established EU to hold up your position.

Funny thing is, most, if not all, of the EU has been tossed out by Disney and there is a whole new realm of possible fiction that we'll be seeing as they make their movies and license other companies to invent more Star Wars. So your intractable stance is ultimately untenable and futile.

FFG is already, under license and blessing of Disney/Lucasfilms, inventing Star Wars content. Witness this beauty:

So where does that leave you? Pretty much shuffling your feet and grumbling about ideas you don't like as if that really means anything.

I'm fine with you having an opinion and personal preferences. Just please don't try to pass off your preferences as having some sort of canonical authority in a venue that has historically been pretty wide open to a lot of established and new work well beyond the scope of any single vision of Star Wars. You can have canonical authority when you are one of the licensed content creators.

Here let me clarify.

I bolded and underlined your comment, "...Star Wars Universe we know" in my quote of you.

Then I said in my own statement, "You mean the Star Wars universe you know...." to imply that as far as I'm concerned, what you are doing is latching on to what you consider to be the gospel truth of Star Wars that constitutes a line in the sand from which you are unwilling to budge. As if any sort of change or addition to the body of fiction must meet your standards of what is canon, or it is not to be allowed.

Thankfully you don't have that sort of authority.

I think I made myself pretty clear. I did not alter your words. I stated my interpretation of your words.

But basically what we have here is this. I think additions to the universe are fine, they keep the fiction alive and growing and are essential to its longevity as a franchise. And this means new things and new ideas, especially in games that have to create products and content to maintain sales and customer interest. Quite frankly, a vast swathe of what we consider "Star Wars" was invented after the fact (of the movies) and a lot of that didn't come right from the mind of George Lucas. New ideas, new things have been being introduced for decades now.

You are already playing games with content invented outside of the movies. So why draw the line at this topic of all things? War capable converted transports? Why not? Could be fun. Has some precedent in previous fiction, and some verisimilitude with the kind of guerrilla tactics the rebels had to employ.

Yet, somehow, that idea irks you and you stand against it as if it somehow violates your religion.

And you turn to established EU to hold up your position.

Funny thing is, most, if not all, of the EU has been tossed out by Disney and there is a whole new realm of possible fiction that we'll be seeing as they make their movies and license other companies to invent more Star Wars. So your intractable stance is ultimately untenable and futile.

FFG is already, under license and blessing of Disney/Lucasfilms, inventing Star Wars content. Witness this beauty:

So where does that leave you? Pretty much shuffling your feet and grumbling about ideas you don't like as if that really means anything.

I'm fine with you having an opinion and personal preferences. Just please don't try to pass off your preferences as having some sort of canonical authority in a venue that has historically been pretty wide open to a lot of established and new work well beyond the scope of any single vision of Star Wars. You can have canonical authority when you are one of the licensed content creators.

Firstly:

I'm not saying I have canonical authority. However, there IS a canonical authority - The Star Wars 'Legends' canon is now set aside as no longer being part of the new Disney driven arc. Therefore, any references to it (i.e., anything that isn't part of the first 6 films and The Clone Wars), which is what is also known as the EU, are not part of the Disney canon.

Using things like, say, the Victory Star Destroyer, means FFG is operating outside of the Disney canon, and inside the Star Wars Legends canon.

Secondly:

I don't venerate the EU canon nearly as much as you think I do. I judge any part of the Star Wars Universe on its merits, both from a storytelling perspective, and a logical perspective.

Timothy Zahn wrote epic, engaging stories, that grabbed hold of the feel of Star Wars - it understood the SWU.

Anything written by Kevin J. Anderson, on the other hand, was the gold-standard of utter crap. Same with the Episodes I-III.

More than anything, I want things to make sense (at least insofar as an intergalactic war with humans and aliens makes sense).

GR-75s were little more than 3 separate plates of hull held together with magnetic shields. Fitting them with heavy weapons just doesn't make sense.

If you feel the need to get your fanboy rocks off, go ahead and get a 3D printer, make a model, come up with your nonsensical stats, photoshop a ship card, and play with yourself. However, it has no business in the FFG Armada game since it just isn't apropos.

Rebel transports would work fine as support ships, fireships and ECM ships. As support ships maybe they'd be able to transfer command points over to squadrons or other capital ships.

.

I could definitely seem them as having a role as retrofitted fighter-carriers. If the Imperials bring in the Star Galleons or the Gozanti class crusiers we see in Rebels, the GR75 would be a perfect counterpart. A jury-rigged fighter support ship to compete with a specialized one.

As there is already a "Heroes and Villains" pack for Armada, I can see Imperial and Rebel transports being in a "Workhorse" pack. Maybe 2-3 ships in a pack that are between squadron and 'small' size. They'd invent a 'bulk transport' or 'picket' siz

Here let me clarify.

I bolded and underlined your comment, "...Star Wars Universe we know" in my quote of you.

Then I said in my own statement, "You mean the Star Wars universe you know...." to imply that as far as I'm concerned, what you are doing is latching on to what you consider to be the gospel truth of Star Wars that constitutes a line in the sand from which you are unwilling to budge. As if any sort of change or addition to the body of fiction must meet your standards of what is canon, or it is not to be allowed.

Thankfully you don't have that sort of authority.

I think I made myself pretty clear. I did not alter your words. I stated my interpretation of your words.

But basically what we have here is this. I think additions to the universe are fine, they keep the fiction alive and growing and are essential to its longevity as a franchise. And this means new things and new ideas, especially in games that have to create products and content to maintain sales and customer interest. Quite frankly, a vast swathe of what we consider "Star Wars" was invented after the fact (of the movies) and a lot of that didn't come right from the mind of George Lucas. New ideas, new things have been being introduced for decades now.

You are already playing games with content invented outside of the movies. So why draw the line at this topic of all things? War capable converted transports? Why not? Could be fun. Has some precedent in previous fiction, and some verisimilitude with the kind of guerrilla tactics the rebels had to employ.

Yet, somehow, that idea irks you and you stand against it as if it somehow violates your religion.

And you turn to established EU to hold up your position.

Funny thing is, most, if not all, of the EU has been tossed out by Disney and there is a whole new realm of possible fiction that we'll be seeing as they make their movies and license other companies to invent more Star Wars. So your intractable stance is ultimately untenable and futile.

FFG is already, under license and blessing of Disney/Lucasfilms, inventing Star Wars content. Witness this beauty:

So where does that leave you? Pretty much shuffling your feet and grumbling about ideas you don't like as if that really means anything.

I'm fine with you having an opinion and personal preferences. Just please don't try to pass off your preferences as having some sort of canonical authority in a venue that has historically been pretty wide open to a lot of established and new work well beyond the scope of any single vision of Star Wars. You can have canonical authority when you are one of the licensed content creators.

Firstly:

I'm not saying I have canonical authority. However, there IS a canonical authority - The Star Wars 'Legends' canon is now set aside as no longer being part of the new Disney driven arc. Therefore, any references to it (i.e., anything that isn't part of the first 6 films and The Clone Wars), which is what is also known as the EU, are not part of the Disney canon.

Using things like, say, the Victory Star Destroyer, means FFG is operating outside of the Disney canon, and inside the Star Wars Legends canon.

Secondly:

I don't venerate the EU canon nearly as much as you think I do. I judge any part of the Star Wars Universe on its merits, both from a storytelling perspective, and a logical perspective.

Timothy Zahn wrote epic, engaging stories, that grabbed hold of the feel of Star Wars - it understood the SWU.

Anything written by Kevin J. Anderson, on the other hand, was the gold-standard of utter crap. Same with the Episodes I-III.

More than anything, I want things to make sense (at least insofar as an intergalactic war with humans and aliens makes sense).

GR-75s were little more than 3 separate plates of hull held together with magnetic shields. Fitting them with heavy weapons just doesn't make sense.

If you feel the need to get your fanboy rocks off, go ahead and get a 3D printer, make a model, come up with your nonsensical stats, photoshop a ship card, and play with yourself. However, it has no business in the FFG Armada game since it just isn't apropos.

You were saying sensible things, and then at the point I've bolded, you went off the tracks. You have exactly no authority to say anything has no business in anything about FFG or Armada, nor what is and isn't apropos.

You just can't seem to grow beyond stating your opinions as fact.

If you were to say, "However, in my opinion, it has no business in the FFG Armada game since it just isn't apropos", I'd have no issue with your words. I fully support your right to an opinion, even if I disagree with it.

But the bald-faced declarations of yours just come off as arrogant and condescending to anyone who disagrees with you. And that's where I take umbrage and point out that your opinions are just that, opinions.

And at this point I'll just leave it at that. No real sense in making more drama out of it. I don't agree with your opinion, and question your manner of delivery of it. Whatever. It's not particularly important.