2 hours ago, Deathseed said:

Someone who can proofread.

Don't be that guy.

17 hours ago, Church14 said:

I almost don't want Thrawn. He is such a hands down favorite of mine. I'm worried he will be overpowered and as terrifiying as he should be. That, or underwhelming.

*Thrawn (Xpts): objectives you choose do not count towards your total armada size.

This would open up some really interesting lists, with interesting bids.

8 hours ago, Teloch said:

I love this, but it would never happen because how do you deal with Thrawn v Thrawn ?

My guess would be something like

"You may select an additional objective from your pile that begins at round 3"

Also, I'd be keen to see a Captain Pellaeon card, wether its a Commander or Officer card

Maybe if you dont change the first/second player rather than ignore the first/second special rule of the objective it could work.

Something like "your opponent ignore the special rule that affect him" or something better worded. This way you could be the "stronger" player no matter if you go first or second. Thrawn vs Thrawn would mean no special rule for anyone.

Problems: objectives without special rules or both side special rules like mine fields.

The first could be easily solved with good objectives in your fleet and choosing well the enemy one (all red ones have special rules I think but bot sure)

No idea how to fix the mine fields problems with that wording.

I let the problem for better minds.

@Crabboknailed the Spynet idea. It may not be Thrawn, but that is a great call. I could totally see that being his ability, maybe even with a few tweaks.

What about Skilled Spacers? They seem like hot garbage in CC but how about:

Episode VII-VIII Leia Organa: "Some kind of powerful Skilled Spacer language that she does."

1 hour ago, Variety said:

*Thrawn (Xpts): objectives you choose do not count towards your total armada size.

This would open up some really interesting lists, with interesting bids.

Um, if I may.

If you believe the Objectives have "Points Costs" as per the bottom of the Objective Card in the first place... You are doing it Wrong.

All Objectives are always free to Take. You must take one of each colour. You must have three.

The Number at the bottom of the card is how many Victory Points a Victory Token is worth in that Objective, when you gain it, as per the Rulebook .

NOT a Points Cost to Take that Objective..

...

I hope this Blows your Mind and freshens your game, somewhat

Piett will be released if/when the Executor is released. My bet is on Thrawn because of Rebels.

I'd like to see Thrawn, but I believe he really should be an aggressive card. In every engagement he's involved in he learns how to bypass they enemy's defenses and basically deals a no-win situation.

If I were to build a Thrawn card it would be worth a full 40 points.

"Once per round when a friendly ship reveals it's command dial, it may choose to discard it without resolving it, if it does, during one of it's attacks targeting a ship, it may choose a number of the defending ships defense tokens up to it's command value. Defense tokens chosen this way cannot be spent or discarded during that attack."


I feel like this fully captures what Thrawn was about, breaking through enemy defenses. For an ISD, absolutely devastating, but at a very high build cost, for medium ships, VSD, Interdictor, it makes them more fearsome, and for small ships provides perhaps a means to deal with enemy floatillas, or gives them just enough punch to be relevant, imagine an arquiten being able to disable both evades on an mc30 once per round.

Probably too OP, but that's what Thrawn was... OP....

4 hours ago, Variety said:

*Thrawn (Xpts): objectives you choose do not count towards your total armada size.

This would open up some really interesting lists, with interesting bids.

im both kinda glad and laughing at this.

Glad because BOTH my friend and i did the same **** thing so i dont feel as dumb knowing im not the only one, laughing because eventually i found the blip about what that number means many games later on my own.

That number is victory points, not squad points. If you destroy a station in Station Assault, you get a victory token thats worth 40pts. If you spend an accuracy in Intel Scan you get a victory token worth 10pts. These add to your total victory score at the end in addition to kill points.

Once we noticed that it completely changed our opinions on....what HALF of the objectives? lol

13 hours ago, Gottmituns205 said:

Don't be that guy.

Too late.

I may be summarily shot for saying this, as I seem to be in the minority whenever I bring this up, but here goes...

I never liked Thrawn. In fact, I rather dislike him. I always thought his whole shtick was kind of silly--he looks at your kindergarten finger-painting and knows everything there is to know about you, your family, heck, even your entire species, and is now able to defeat you perfectly in every way ever, thus making him the worst gaming buddy of all time, and a bit of a Mary Sue.

I always thought someone should have drawn a really bad picture on purpose and left it where Thrawn would find it. Then he would create an incredibly intricate plan to address the subtle neurosis of your drawing, only to have it all crumble because it was a fake. Or maybe he would know it was a fake, because he is so brilliant, and he could even ascertain the exact way in which you faked, enabling him to create a counter-trap to your trap.

He just seems a little silly, like someone took the whole "know your enemy" bit to the point of absurdity. I admit I haven't seen the new season of Rebels yet, so I am going off of legends rather than canon, but I guess I just don't like him as I remember him from the olden days.

1 minute ago, Jedhead said:

I may be summarily shot for saying this, as I seem to be in the minority whenever I bring this up, but here goes...

I never liked Thrawn. In fact, I rather dislike him. I always thought his whole shtick was kind of silly--he looks at your kindergarten finger-painting and knows everything there is to know about you, your family, heck, even your entire species, and is now able to defeat you perfectly in every way ever, thus making him the worst gaming buddy of all time, and a bit of a Mary Sue.

I always thought someone should have drawn a really bad picture on purpose and left it where Thrawn would find it. Then he would create an incredibly intricate plan to address the subtle neurosis of your drawing, only to have it all crumble because it was a fake. Or maybe he would know it was a fake, because he is so brilliant, and he could even ascertain the exact way in which you faked, enabling him to create a counter-trap to your trap.

He just seems a little silly, like someone took the whole "know your enemy" bit to the point of absurdity. I admit I haven't seen the new season of Rebels yet, so I am going off of legends rather than canon, but I guess I just don't like him as I remember him from the olden days.

You have the right to your opinion, i defend your right to feel the way you do and say it-but yeah, you're probably going to be shot

Just now, idiewell said:

You have the right to your opinion, i defend your right to feel the way you do and say it-but yeah, you're probably going to be shot

I know, but I have been holding this back a long time. Anyone who feels the need to shoot may do so, but I will go down knowing that at least I shot first (at Thrawn)

I had to get it out, though. *shrug*

No worries, sir. I'll give you a proper burial

50 minutes ago, Jedhead said:

I may be summarily shot for saying this, as I seem to be in the minority whenever I bring this up, but here goes...

I never liked Thrawn. In fact, I rather dislike him. I always thought his whole shtick was kind of silly--he looks at your kindergarten finger-painting and knows everything there is to know about you, your family, heck, even your entire species, and is now able to defeat you perfectly in every way ever, thus making him the worst gaming buddy of all time, and a bit of a Mary Sue.

I always thought someone should have drawn a really bad picture on purpose and left it where Thrawn would find it. Then he would create an incredibly intricate plan to address the subtle neurosis of your drawing, only to have it all crumble because it was a fake. Or maybe he would know it was a fake, because he is so brilliant, and he could even ascertain the exact way in which you faked, enabling him to create a counter-trap to your trap.

He just seems a little silly, like someone took the whole "know your enemy" bit to the point of absurdity. I admit I haven't seen the new season of Rebels yet, so I am going off of legends rather than canon, but I guess I just don't like him as I remember him from the olden days.

I'd suggest that you've mis-characterized him a bit. It's never that he could just glance at artwork and take someone unaffiliated apart. It's that artwork was the most prominent sign of his habit of studying and personally inhabiting the psychological makeup of his opponents and exploiting the limitations of their cultural and mental conditions.

In the opening chapters of Heir to the Empire, Thrawn defeats an opposing force by realizing the likely species of an opposing commander, and proceeding to employ a strategy that defeats them by deploying and approaching in a way that does not conform to typically ordered forms of engagement. The seemingly disordered approach is what brings victory by catching his opponent off guard. He doesn't discount that it might fail, he probes the enemy a bit before settling on his strategy.

Thrawn isn't a weird little hippie with an art fetish. He's an intellectual admiral in the style of old who would learn about the enemy at a cultural or anthropological level to better understand them. His art collection is a symptom, not a cause, of that philosophy. And that's why he's been a fan favorite in the face of many paint-by-numbers Star Wars villains since.

42 minutes ago, thecactusman17 said:

I'd suggest that you've mis-characterized him a bit. It's never that he could just glance at artwork and take someone unaffiliated apart. It's that artwork was the most prominent sign of his habit of studying and personally inhabiting the psychological makeup of his opponents and exploiting the limitations of their cultural and mental conditions.

In the opening chapters of Heir to the Empire, Thrawn defeats an opposing force by realizing the likely species of an opposing commander, and proceeding to employ a strategy that defeats them by deploying and approaching in a way that does not conform to typically ordered forms of engagement. The seemingly disordered approach is what brings victory by catching his opponent off guard. He doesn't discount that it might fail, he probes the enemy a bit before settling on his strategy.

Thrawn isn't a weird little hippie with an art fetish. He's an intellectual admiral in the style of old who would learn about the enemy at a cultural or anthropological level to better understand them. His art collection is a symptom, not a cause, of that philosophy. And that's why he's been a fan favorite in the face of many paint-by-numbers Star Wars villains since.

What he said.

14 hours ago, thecactusman17 said:

I'd suggest that you've mis-characterized him a bit. It's never that he could just glance at artwork and take someone unaffiliated apart. It's that artwork was the most prominent sign of his habit of studying and personally inhabiting the psychological makeup of his opponents and exploiting the limitations of their cultural and mental conditions.

In the opening chapters of Heir to the Empire, Thrawn defeats an opposing force by realizing the likely species of an opposing commander, and proceeding to employ a strategy that defeats them by deploying and approaching in a way that does not conform to typically ordered forms of engagement. The seemingly disordered approach is what brings victory by catching his opponent off guard. He doesn't discount that it might fail, he probes the enemy a bit before settling on his strategy.

Thrawn isn't a weird little hippie with an art fetish. He's an intellectual admiral in the style of old who would learn about the enemy at a cultural or anthropological level to better understand them. His art collection is a symptom, not a cause, of that philosophy. And that's why he's been a fan favorite in the face of many paint-by-numbers Star Wars villains since.

You are correct, I mis-characterized him thoroughly. I was making fun of him, so I was being facetious and tried to make him look a bit ridiculous. If I am being honest, though, I am really just complaining that I think they took the whole "know your enemy" piece too far. He is far too accurate and all-knowing to be even remotely realistic (in my opinion), which is what bothers me. I guess I don't buy that anyone can so completely inhabit the mental make-up of many different species so completely and almost effortlessly. It would take a lifetime to gain that level of knowledge, even if you were very, very good at it. Think of how hard it would be to inhabit the minds of all humans everywhere here on earth--and we are a single species on a single planet, and you and I are even part of said species/planet. We can't come close to doing this for our own group, while Thrawn seems able to do this for every species from every planet simultaneously.

I find this to be a bit too outrageous.

So why would the slightly outrageous bother me in a universe of the completely outrageous, you might ask? I guess I am willing to suspend disbelief for other characters who are full-out breaking the laws of our reality by using the force and whatnot, because I don't have to make it conform to my little rules of reality. Similarly, I am willing to let Star Wars ignore laws of physics and whatnot when I am immersed in the un-reality because it is part of the whole unreal package.

For some reason, though, as soon as you say "this guy is totally real, 100% logic-based, traditional philosopher type" I suddenly start using a different set of criteria to judge him (the criteria I use to judge my real world here). My logical mind tells me that he is too all-knowing to be real, and revolts.

Maybe it is unfair to suddenly switch criteria like that, but I think that is what happens for me.

This is, of course, 100% opinion, and I know I am in the minority and I am in no way offended by those who like him. I just wanted to explain a bit more beyond my silly caricature above.

*edit* Grammar...I should proofread before I post!

56 minutes ago, Jedhead said:

You are correct, I mis-characterized him thoroughly. I was making fun of him, so I was being facetious and tried to make him look a bit ridiculous. If I am being honest, though, I am really just complaining that I think they took the whole "know your enemy" piece too far. He is far too accurate and all-knowing to be even remotely realistic (in my opinion), which is what bothers me. I guess I don't buy that anyone can so completely inhabit the mental make-up of many different species so completely and almost effortlessly. It would take a lifetime to gain that level of knowledge, even if you were very, very good at it. Think of how hard it would be to inhabit the minds of all humans everywhere here on earth--and we are a single species on a single planet, and you and I are even part of said species/planet. We can't come close to doing this for our own group, while Thrawn seems able to do this for every species from every planet simultaneously.

I find this to be a bit too outrageous.

So why would the slightly outrageous bother me in a universe of the completely outrageous, you might ask? I guess I am willing to suspend disbelief for other characters who are full-out breaking the laws of our reality by using the force and whatnot, because I don't have to make it conform to my little rules of reality. Similarly, I am willing to let Star Wars ignore laws of physics and whatnot when I am immersed in the un-reality because it is part of the whole unreal package.

For some reason, though, as soon as you say "this guy is totally real, 100% logic-based, traditional philosopher type" I suddenly start using a different set of criteria to judge him (the criteria I use to judge my real world here). My logical mind tells me that he is too all-knowing to be real, and revolts.

Maybe it is unfair to suddenly switch criteria like that, but I think that is what happens for me.

This is, of course, 100% opinion, and I know I am in the minority and I am in no way offended by those who like him. I just wanted to explain a bit more beyond my silly caricature above.

*edit* Grammar...I should proofread before I post!

Based on your word uses in previous posts, Grand Admiral Thrawn knew you were going to say that.

Just now, cynanbloodbane said:

Based on your word uses in previous posts, Grand Admiral Thrawn knew you were going to say that.

To put it bluntly, Thrawn is the embodiment of Sun Tzu's "Art Of War".

I have to chime in that I think Thrawn is not as super badass zomg awesome as the reputation that has been built up around him.

I totally understand why the reputation exists, mind you. The books were the first decent taste of Star Wars post OT that existed (I am pointedly ignoring ewok movies, early cartoons and other assorted nonsense. I said decent and I'm sticking to it). However, not only are the books firmly "ok" and not necessarily deserving of all the praise they get, but Thrawn's entire philosophy functions only when races are viewed as a homogenous group. It's part D&D insofar as "all members of x race do y" and...well racist isn't the right word for it. Sure the empire was racist (or specist, whatever), but Thrawn wasn't about that because his tactics actually worked in the books. Psychology and understanding the enemy doesn't work in the way it's portrayed. Sure, maybe it would give him an edge in overall strategy, but expecting your enemy to react in a specific way tactically because "you know the race's art" is just dumb.

Granted, Thrawn's inability to consider outliers is what gets him killed, but it never should have worked in the first place. I know, I know, decrying the lack of "realism" in Star Wars is ridiculous. Still, the whole approach is absurd.

Note: I still like Thrawn, I just think he's given a lot more credit than deserved.

I have to disagree. I think there's a big difference between disliking a character and a character being overated.

Thrawn is a great antagonist with a cool unique perspective on the universe. People focus WAY too much on the art angle, which is something that was always less a superpower and more an aspect of his perception. Sure maybe he can percieve that an alien species cant stand disorder but what good is that if you dont know what your doing as a military commander? His strength is as a strategist.

Ultimately what I find compelling about Thrawn is that his real victories arent on the battlefield but his reorganization of the Imperial Navy and the Empire as a functioning war machine. Thats what I love about him and those books. He takes a tattered mess of a navy and whips them into shape. Seeing the Empire grow in strength from nothing to a powerful threat again over three books as the New Republic also struggles to grow is fantastic.

This is why I think Thrawn Trilogy, which with the duology are really the only ones that count. Thrawn post Endor is far cooler and desrving of the reputation the character recieves then pre Endor.

Based on the episodes of Rebels I've seen so far, maybe Thrawn's ability is actually like this

After losing a match, state that you now know much more about your opponent and earn score the match as a minor victory

On 2/18/2017 at 5:21 PM, Forresto said:

I have to disagree. I think there's a big difference between disliking a character and a character being overated.

Thrawn is a great antagonist with a cool unique perspective on the universe. People focus WAY too much on the art angle, which is something that was always less a superpower and more an aspect of his perception. Sure maybe he can percieve that an alien species cant stand disorder but what good is that if you dont know what your doing as a military commander? His strength is as a strategist.

Ultimately what I find compelling about Thrawn is that his real victories arent on the battlefield but his reorganization of the Imperial Navy and the Empire as a functioning war machine. Thats what I love about him and those books. He takes a tattered mess of a navy and whips them into shape. Seeing the Empire grow in strength from nothing to a powerful threat again over three books as the New Republic also struggles to grow is fantastic.

This is why I think Thrawn Trilogy, which with the duology are really the only ones that count. Thrawn post Endor is far cooler and desrving of the reputation the character recieves then pre Endor.

You know what? Fair enough.

Keep in mind, one factor of Thrawn's brilliance is that he doesn't reward stupidity or class, he only promotes and rewards skill, endeavor and potential ability.

Look at what happened with Konstantin, I doubt he's still an admiral, he's likely been demoted.

This is an outlier in the Imperial Navy, most rank comes from who you know and family wealth. This radical departure in Thrawns navy means his commanders, his enlisted and his intelligence community are the best of the best rather than the best connected. This has a massive impact on his successes, as his personnel are trained to learn from their mistakes. Just ask the tractor beam operator he executed for blaming his Lt. for failing when he simply needed to explain his mistake and how he fix it in the future.

His studies of cultures aids his knowledge of species he fights, and gives him insight to their psychology which is definitely a boon to his tactical decisions. However, his tactical plans would be pointless if his crews were as inept as the rest of the Navy who rely almost solely on technological superiority.

To this end his Admiral skill should almost read "Before the game begins you may reduce the number of command dials assigned to any ship in your fleet by 1. Once per round, before revealing a command dial, you may change any one of that ships dials." This would best represent his obscenely well trained crews.

44 minutes ago, Gadgetron said:

Keep in mind, one factor of Thrawn's brilliance is that he doesn't reward stupidity or class, he only promotes and rewards skill, endeavor and potential ability.

Look at what happened with Konstantin, I doubt he's still an admiral, he's likely been demoted.

This is an outlier in the Imperial Navy, most rank comes from who you know and family wealth. This radical departure in Thrawns navy means his commanders, his enlisted and his intelligence community are the best of the best rather than the best connected. This has a massive impact on his successes, as his personnel are trained to learn from their mistakes. Just ask the tractor beam operator he executed for blaming his Lt. for failing when he simply needed to explain his mistake and how he fix it in the future.

His studies of cultures aids his knowledge of species he fights, and gives him insight to their psychology which is definitely a boon to his tactical decisions. However, his tactical plans would be pointless if his crews were as inept as the rest of the Navy who rely almost solely on technological superiority.

To this end his Admiral skill should almost read "Before the game begins you may reduce the number of command dials assigned to any ship in your fleet by 1. Once per round, before revealing a command dial, you may change any one of that ships dials." This would best represent his obscenely well trained crews.

I actually thought of that (minus changing one Command a turn) as the Emperor's text as a commander. It would represent his (or Joruus') battle meditation that was used to make the Imp Navy more efficient.