Stepping back into this because I remembered an issue that hasn't been discussed (Patrick briefly touched on it but barely).

It's not a case of releasing Palpatine or not releasing him; time spent developing Palpatine could be spent on developing something else.

But why is it more important to spend time developing someone else other than one of the main badies from the entire saga (thus far)?

I could easily say time spent developing something else could be time not spent developing Palpatine. That doesn't make it right.

This is more to counteract claims of "saying you don't want Palpatine in the game is selfish because you're taking it away from everyone else" (not actually quoting); the reason I and others don't want the time spent on him is we'd find him immersion breaking.

I know I've read the threads but I'm in the camp saying it wouldn't be, especially based on a CANNON book Lords of the Sith.

Stepping back into this because I remembered an issue that hasn't been discussed (Patrick briefly touched on it but barely).

It's not a case of releasing Palpatine or not releasing him; time spent developing Palpatine could be spent on developing something else.

But why is it more important to spend time developing someone else other than one of the main badies from the entire saga (thus far)?

I could easily say time spent developing something else could be time not spent developing Palpatine. That doesn't make it right.

This is more to counteract claims of "saying you don't want Palpatine in the game is selfish because you're taking it away from everyone else" (not actually quoting); the reason I and others don't want the time spent on him is we'd find him immersion breaking.

It is selfish. Here we go again. Ill explain.... again.

Youre already (and only) judging the idea by saying it breaks your gaming experience (thats selfishness and egocentric btw) without knowing anything else about it.

Let the players judge that when that time comes (the how/why/when).

No choice vs free choice.

I will point out Lords of the Sith was written in 2015.

I will point out Lords of the Sith was written in 2015.

Yup after all of the old EU was thrown out.

It's one of the few pieces of information we have on Palpatine Post clone wars Pre A New Hope.

I will point out Lords of the Sith was written in 2015.

Yup after all of the old EU was thrown out.

It's one of the few pieces of information we have on Palpatine Post clone wars Pre A New Hope.

Thats why Sam wrote that. Hes against anything EU made by Disney. Right Sam?

Its a divergent timeline. There's classic continuity, and new Disney continuity. I prefer original Star Wars. Original EU was written mostly by fans who, with varying levels of skill, still loved the franchise.

Just because Disney says EU is gone, doesn't mean much of anything at all. It just means they dont want to play in the same sandbox as everybody else, and so they can go play alone.

Its a divergent timeline. There's classic continuity, and new Disney continuity. I prefer original Star Wars. Original EU was written mostly by fans who, with varying levels of skill, still loved the franchise.

Just because Disney says EU is gone, doesn't mean much of anything at all. It just means they dont want to play in the same sandbox as everybody else, and so they can go play alone.

You realize the Disney logo showed up on the Twin Shadows box right?

Its a divergent timeline. There's classic continuity, and new Disney continuity. I prefer original Star Wars. Original EU was written mostly by fans who, with varying levels of skill, still loved the franchise.

Just because Disney says EU is gone, doesn't mean much of anything at all. It just means they dont want to play in the same sandbox as everybody else, and so they can go play alone.

I think its the other way around but Im not going to say how you should play in that sandbox so... its your problem not mine. Just saying.

Its a divergent timeline. There's classic continuity, and new Disney continuity. I prefer original Star Wars. Original EU was written mostly by fans who, with varying levels of skill, still loved the franchise.

Just because Disney says EU is gone, doesn't mean much of anything at all. It just means they dont want to play in the same sandbox as everybody else, and so they can go play alone.

You realize the Disney logo showed up on the Twin Shadows box right?

Sadly enough. FFG seems to be in creative control still.

My reply on that was "The way you write seems like FFG only have one IA game designer in part-time..."

Now Ill add that Im sure FFG knows how to manage the time their game designers have (of IA in this case) or they wouldnt be so successful in this business (if they wanted players opinion they would make a customers poll right? - "hey guys what figures you would like to see in IA for the next X years - pick y characters" ).

If youre not the owner dont worry about that. Sometimes those same game designers go well beyond their duty and even do much design in their own spare time. Also you dont know what steps they take for the alloted time.

Maybe that deveploment is already done maybe not... but im sure they explore every option. Its a business. Get over it.

They have a certain number of people working on the game, the way they budget this time is probably setting certain goals for each set for things they want to release in it. If they set Palpatine as one of these goals it will come at the expense of something else (if it's not then there is still a time cost in them developing Palpatine).

Stepping back into this because I remembered an issue that hasn't been discussed (Patrick briefly touched on it but barely).

It's not a case of releasing Palpatine or not releasing him; time spent developing Palpatine could be spent on developing something else.

But why is it more important to spend time developing someone else other than one of the main badies from the entire saga (thus far)?

I could easily say time spent developing something else could be time not spent developing Palpatine. That doesn't make it right.

This is more to counteract claims of "saying you don't want Palpatine in the game is selfish because you're taking it away from everyone else" (not actually quoting); the reason I and others don't want the time spent on him is we'd find him immersion breaking.

It is selfish. Here we go again. Ill explain.... again.

Youre already (and only) judging the idea by saying it breaks your gaming experience (thats selfishness and egocentric btw) without knowing anything else about it.

Let the players judge that when that time comes (the how/why/when).

No choice vs free choice.

It's not a matter of choice vs no choice. It's a matter of what options we'll have. I am saying that the option talked about here is not one that I'd like to have based on what I know about it.

I will point out Lords of the Sith was written in 2015.

Yup after all of the old EU was thrown out.

It's one of the few pieces of information we have on Palpatine Post clone wars Pre A New Hope.

Thats why Sam wrote that. Hes against anything EU made by Disney. Right Sam?

Let the man talk for himself. Besides even if he does, can you blame him when they put out crap like Rebels?

Stepping back into this because I remembered an issue that hasn't been discussed (Patrick briefly touched on it but barely).

It's not a case of releasing Palpatine or not releasing him; time spent developing Palpatine could be spent on developing something else.

My reply on that was "The way you write seems like FFG only have one IA game designer in part-time..."

Now Ill add that Im sure FFG knows how to manage the time their game designers have (of IA in this case) or they wouldnt be so successful in this business (if they wanted players opinion they would make a customers poll right? - "hey guys what figures you would like to see in IA for the next X years - pick y characters" ).

If youre not the owner dont worry about that. Sometimes those same game designers go well beyond their duty and even do much design in their own spare time. Also you dont know what steps they take for the alloted time.

Maybe that deveploment is already done maybe not... but im sure they explore every option. Its a business. Get over it.

They have a certain number of people working on the game, the way they budget this time is probably setting certain goals for each set for things they want to release in it. If they set Palpatine as one of these goals it will come at the expense of something else (if it's not then there is still a time cost in them developing Palpatine).

Stepping back into this because I remembered an issue that hasn't been discussed (Patrick briefly touched on it but barely).

It's not a case of releasing Palpatine or not releasing him; time spent developing Palpatine could be spent on developing something else.

But why is it more important to spend time developing someone else other than one of the main badies from the entire saga (thus far)?

I could easily say time spent developing something else could be time not spent developing Palpatine. That doesn't make it right.

This is more to counteract claims of "saying you don't want Palpatine in the game is selfish because you're taking it away from everyone else" (not actually quoting); the reason I and others don't want the time spent on him is we'd find him immersion breaking.

It is selfish. Here we go again. Ill explain.... again.

Youre already (and only) judging the idea by saying it breaks your gaming experience (thats selfishness and egocentric btw) without knowing anything else about it.

Let the players judge that when that time comes (the how/why/when).

No choice vs free choice.

It's not a matter of choice vs no choice. It's a matter of what options we'll have. I am saying that the option talked about here is not one that I'd like to have based on what I know about it.

Again its not your problem how they manage designers time. They can even have orders from above saying "you will make a Palpatine (or any other character you dont like) figure no matter what"

Yes it is. I want every character out. Then ill choose to buy those that I find that will enhance my gaming experience and dont buy those that dont (if it comes to that).

I will point out Lords of the Sith was written in 2015.

Yup after all of the old EU was thrown out.

It's one of the few pieces of information we have on Palpatine Post clone wars Pre A New Hope.

Thats why Sam wrote that. Hes against anything EU made by Disney. Right Sam?

Let the man talk for himself. Besides even if he does, can you blame him when they put out crap like Rebels?

Youre late. Sam already made his point (and very well even if I dont agree)... unlike you it seems.

Yes it is. I want every character out. Then ill choose to buy those that I find that will enhance my gaming experience and dont buy those that dont.

Firstly: There are not a finite number of characters, FFG have stated their intentions to tell their own stories and that will likely involve OC villains.

secondly: Your argument that "buy those that I find that will enhance my gaming experience and dont buy those that dont." is an option (with respect to Palpatine) amounts to "They might change their business model". Because as it stands unique characters are not being released without appearing in a campaign.

Yes it is. I want every character out. Then ill choose to buy those that I find that will enhance my gaming experience and dont buy those that dont.

Firstly: There are not a finite number of characters, FFG have stated their intentions to tell their own stories and that will likely involve OC villains.

secondly: Your argument that "buy those that I find that will enhance my gaming experience and dont buy those that dont." is an option (with respect to Palpatine) amounts to "They might change their business model". Because as it stands unique characters are not being released without appearing in a campaign.

Firstly: They did? Good to know. Much better. I never expected to have a finite number (its a business) unless they lose the license of course. But I was talking about the movies of course. (hope those OC villains arent generals or close to that because if they are Patrick will jump off from a very tall building).

Secondly: So what? I expect to show up. That doesnt mean anything. We will talk about that when hes released.

Yes it is. I want every character out. Then ill choose to buy those that I find that will enhance my gaming experience and dont buy those that dont.

Firstly: There are not a finite number of characters, FFG have stated their intentions to tell their own stories and that will likely involve OC villains.

secondly: Your argument that "buy those that I find that will enhance my gaming experience and dont buy those that dont." is an option (with respect to Palpatine) amounts to "They might change their business model". Because as it stands unique characters are not being released without appearing in a campaign.

Yup there's no way FFG would use villains from the movies like Vader, Boba Fett, or lowly Dengar. None at all!

Yes it is. I want every character out. Then ill choose to buy those that I find that will enhance my gaming experience and dont buy those that dont.

Firstly: There are not a finite number of characters, FFG have stated their intentions to tell their own stories and that will likely involve OC villains.

secondly: Your argument that "buy those that I find that will enhance my gaming experience and dont buy those that dont." is an option (with respect to Palpatine) amounts to "They might change their business model". Because as it stands unique characters are not being released without appearing in a campaign.

Firstly: They did? Good to know. Much better. I never expected to have a finite number (its a business). But I was talking about the movies of course.

Secondly: So what? I expect to show up. That doesnt mean anything. We will talk about that when hes released.

The point is, there will always be another OC they could be making over Palpatine, and I would rather have that OC.

What it means is there is every reason to expect (If they release Palpatine) that the choice you're offering will be "have Palpatine in a campaign or not have a campaign" (neither of these are options I particularly like).

Yes it is. I want every character out. Then ill choose to buy those that I find that will enhance my gaming experience and dont buy those that dont.

Firstly: There are not a finite number of characters, FFG have stated their intentions to tell their own stories and that will likely involve OC villains.

secondly: Your argument that "buy those that I find that will enhance my gaming experience and dont buy those that dont." is an option (with respect to Palpatine) amounts to "They might change their business model". Because as it stands unique characters are not being released without appearing in a campaign.

Firstly: They did? Good to know. Much better. I never expected to have a finite number (its a business). But I was talking about the movies of course.

Secondly: So what? I expect to show up. That doesnt mean anything. We will talk about that when hes released.

The point is, there will always be another OC they could be making over Palpatine, and I would rather have that OC.

What it means is there is every reason to expect (If they release Palpatine) that the choice you're offering will be "have Palpatine in a campaign or not have a campaign" (neither of these are options I particularly like).

I dont want one or the other. I want both.

Wait and see my friend... wait and see. Dont assume anything before its a fact.

Yes it is. I want every character out. Then ill choose to buy those that I find that will enhance my gaming experience and dont buy those that dont.

Firstly: There are not a finite number of characters, FFG have stated their intentions to tell their own stories and that will likely involve OC villains.

secondly: Your argument that "buy those that I find that will enhance my gaming experience and dont buy those that dont." is an option (with respect to Palpatine) amounts to "They might change their business model". Because as it stands unique characters are not being released without appearing in a campaign.

Yup there's no way FFG would use villains from the movies like Vader, Boba Fett, or lowly Dengar. None at all!

You missed his point friend. He was saying that none of the villains they are making dont show up in the campaign. If this trend continues and they release an Emperor figure, he *will show up in the campaign. We would have to edit him out with home brew, or simply eschew purchasing an entire campaign, and neither of those are desirable.

Yes it is. I want every character out. Then ill choose to buy those that I find that will enhance my gaming experience and dont buy those that dont.

Firstly: There are not a finite number of characters, FFG have stated their intentions to tell their own stories and that will likely involve OC villains.

secondly: Your argument that "buy those that I find that will enhance my gaming experience and dont buy those that dont." is an option (with respect to Palpatine) amounts to "They might change their business model". Because as it stands unique characters are not being released without appearing in a campaign.

Firstly: They did? Good to know. Much better. I never expected to have a finite number (its a business). But I was talking about the movies of course.

Secondly: So what? I expect to show up. That doesnt mean anything. We will talk about that when hes released.

The point is, there will always be another OC they could be making over Palpatine, and I would rather have that OC.

What it means is there is every reason to expect (If they release Palpatine) that the choice you're offering will be "have Palpatine in a campaign or not have a campaign" (neither of these are options I particularly like).

I dont want one or the other. I want both.

Wait and see my friend... wait and see. Dont assume anything before its a fact.

The way "not finite" works is it is not possible to have both (both being Palpatine and every OC villain they could create). (The quotation marks make that seem more hostile than I intended).

You're making an assumption when you say "If you don't like it don't buy it" as if not buying it doesn't have consequences.

Yes it is. I want every character out. Then ill choose to buy those that I find that will enhance my gaming experience and dont buy those that dont.

Firstly: There are not a finite number of characters, FFG have stated their intentions to tell their own stories and that will likely involve OC villains.

secondly: Your argument that "buy those that I find that will enhance my gaming experience and dont buy those that dont." is an option (with respect to Palpatine) amounts to "They might change their business model". Because as it stands unique characters are not being released without appearing in a campaign.

Firstly: They did? Good to know. Much better. I never expected to have a finite number (its a business). But I was talking about the movies of course.

Secondly: So what? I expect to show up. That doesnt mean anything. We will talk about that when hes released.

The point is, there will always be another OC they could be making over Palpatine, and I would rather have that OC.

What it means is there is every reason to expect (If they release Palpatine) that the choice you're offering will be "have Palpatine in a campaign or not have a campaign" (neither of these are options I particularly like).

I dont want one or the other. I want both.

Wait and see my friend... wait and see. Dont assume anything before its a fact.

The way "not finite" works is it is not possible to have both (both being Palpatine and every OC villain they could create). (The quotation marks make that seem more hostile than I intended).

You're making an assumption when you say "If you don't like it don't buy it" as if not buying it doesn't have consequences.

Huh? Why not!? Again give players a choice... let them judge what its best for their gaming experience. If one group wants to have Palpatine has the main villian they can use it if another wants that OC villian so be it... dont see any problem.

Of course it doesnt. Just home brew something around him (if it comes to that - again we dont know hows going to be). Its a game not rocket science. Youre still arguing around a "what if" scenario instead of waiting for when the time comes to judge that.

1. Those villain/ally box expansions have just as many campaign maps as skirmish maps. And it goes both ways for your PC game analogy. I've seen video games more focused on multiplayer with a tacked on singleplayer.

3. So your analogy was flawed because X-wing doesn't have a story mode like IA does. It only has the one mode that is similar to IA's skirmish. Of course X-wing requires expansions for its 'skirmish' mode when that is the only mode that game has. I'm saying that skirmish mode REQUIRES you to buy villian/ally packs just to use what is already included in the core set, its written in the rules. That is not a competitive rule or anything. If you want to use rebel saboteurs in a tournament, you NEED to buy the ally pack even though you get their card in the core set. That is a little different then X-wing with 'want a boost card to up your team rating? buy this ship expansion.' A game focused on a certain mode of play would not require you to buy expansions just to play it at all. Using your PC analogy from before, that'd be like saying 'blahblah' game is MP focused even though you had to buy an expansion just to get access to MP.

1. "I've seen video games more focused on multiplayer with a tacked on singleplayer." Yes, and I bet those single player campaigns still had bigger levels than than were included for multiplayer. Even if they don't all, are you saying the ones that do (eg Battlefield) are actually focused on single player? That would be a minority opinion, I suspect.

3. You seem to be hung up on these tokens as if they're a sign of it being campaign focused vs skirmish focused (although why you're hung up on there being a focus at all I don't know). That's nothing to do with campaign vs skirmish, it's to do with casual vs tournament. If you want to use something in a tournament you have to buy it, just like in X-Wing. The tokens are irrelevant, they're just a nice to have for casual play.

Yes it is. I want every character out. Then ill choose to buy those that I find that will enhance my gaming experience and dont buy those that dont.

Firstly: There are not a finite number of characters, FFG have stated their intentions to tell their own stories and that will likely involve OC villains.

secondly: Your argument that "buy those that I find that will enhance my gaming experience and dont buy those that dont." is an option (with respect to Palpatine) amounts to "They might change their business model". Because as it stands unique characters are not being released without appearing in a campaign.

Firstly: They did? Good to know. Much better. I never expected to have a finite number (its a business) unless they lose the license of course. But I was talking about the movies of course. (hope those OC villains arent generals or close to that because if they are Patrick will jump off from a very tall building).

Please refrain from talking for me. You can hardly talk for yourself as is.

1. Those villain/ally box expansions have just as many campaign maps as skirmish maps. And it goes both ways for your PC game analogy. I've seen video games more focused on multiplayer with a tacked on singleplayer.

3. So your analogy was flawed because X-wing doesn't have a story mode like IA does. It only has the one mode that is similar to IA's skirmish. Of course X-wing requires expansions for its 'skirmish' mode when that is the only mode that game has. I'm saying that skirmish mode REQUIRES you to buy villian/ally packs just to use what is already included in the core set, its written in the rules. That is not a competitive rule or anything. If you want to use rebel saboteurs in a tournament, you NEED to buy the ally pack even though you get their card in the core set. That is a little different then X-wing with 'want a boost card to up your team rating? buy this ship expansion.' A game focused on a certain mode of play would not require you to buy expansions just to play it at all. Using your PC analogy from before, that'd be like saying 'blahblah' game is MP focused even though you had to buy an expansion just to get access to MP.

1. "I've seen video games more focused on multiplayer with a tacked on singleplayer." Yes, and I bet those single player campaigns still had bigger levels than than were included for multiplayer. Even if they don't all, are you saying the ones that do (eg Battlefield) are actually focused on single player? That would be a minority opinion, I suspect.

3. You seem to be hung up on these tokens as if they're a sign of it being campaign focused vs skirmish focused (although why you're hung up on there being a focus at all I don't know). That's nothing to do with campaign vs skirmish, it's to do with casual vs tournament. If you want to use something in a tournament you have to buy it, just like in X-Wing. The tokens are irrelevant, they're just a nice to have for casual play.

3. You completely skipped the point I was making and went straight for the 'token' thing.

Hello Imperial Assault community-

This thread has unfortunately disintegrated into personal attacks and fighting, and it has now been locked. Please remember to treat all other users with respect, and feel free to continue beneficial discussion in another thread.

Thanks,

FFG Forum Moderator