12 minutes ago, Boba Rick said:

I don't know of any Scum and Villainy characters that weren't motivated primarily by money or power.

Jabba, Dengar, Xizor, Boba Fett, Bossk, IG-88, ect... if you could find ONE that wasn't primarily motivated by money or power, they weren't motivated by the idea of ending the rule of the Galactic Empire. That's all I'm saying here, Saw's motivation was attacking the Empire - though it may have been vengeance and the tactics were cruel and inconsistent with that of the Alliance to Restore the Republic. You wouldn't call Cassian Andor a S&V character, but he committed cold-blooded murder to protect a Rebel secret at the beginning of Rogue One.

Fenn Rau for one. We also have Old Teroch and Kad Solus who are mercenaries, but have also have Rebellion sympathies.

Power can also be disintangled from money as Maul wants power, but I don't think he gives a rat's @$$ about money. Heck, he wants the downfall of the empire as or more intently than perhaps even Saw.

2 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

Fenn Rau for one. We also have Old Teroch and Kad Solus who are mercenaries, but have also have Rebellion sympathies.

Power can also be disintangled from money as Maul wants power, but I don't think he gives a rat's @$$ about money. Heck, he wants the downfall of the empire as or more intently than perhaps even Saw.

I don't know about Old T and Kad, but Fenn Rau supported the Empire until he became a Rebel. That's why he got in a fight with Phoenix Squadron.

Just now, Boba Rick said:

I don't know about Old T and Kad, but Fenn Rau supported the Empire until he became a Rebel. That's why he got in a fight with Phoenix Squadron.

But if I remember the episode correctly, that wasn't his motivation or end goal. He was concerned with protecting Concord Dawn and up holding the honor of his Protectors. He dealt with the Empire to keep them off his back. Heck, even when he did ally with the Rebels, it was on the terms of his people and beliefs. While he helps, his goals are more centered on his people.

ultimately the factions can be defined by their goals:

Empire: create and enforce a New Galactic Order.

Rebellion: Undermine and bring down the Empire in order to restore the Republic.

Scum: fulfill their personal desires, be it it money, power, fame, or just survival.

23 hours ago, Celestial Lizards said:

I don't get the name, but I will definitely try this.

Since some called the tie reaper a palp canoe, (as opposed to palp mobile for the shuttle). Since both palp and now Krennic (is expected to) shake up the meta we could call call them explorers.

Lewis and Clark were explorers who mapped the Louisiana purchase after the US bought the land from France.

I threw whisper in because like Lewis and Clark’s Native American Guide Sacegaweea , she will end up doing most of the work in the list.

I wonder when we're due more news. FFG can't tease us with a T-65 Fix and then go cold for months can they?

6 minutes ago, jimmius said:

I wonder when we're due more news. FFG can't tease us with a T-65 Fix and then go cold for months can they?

Oh you sweet summer child.

Yes.

1 minute ago, thespaceinvader said:

Oh you sweet summer child.

Yes.

I agree

1 minute ago, thespaceinvader said:

Oh you sweet summer child.

Yes.

ive literally been playing since wave 1, i know ffg's whack release schedule.

just thought they'd make an exception for basically the biggest release since the new core

...

See previous post.

And this isn't a specially big release. It's not even a movie release tie in.

It's an oddball release though, an Aces pack announced and classified as part of a main wave release.

But also no they won't say anything until a month or so before it comes out. Do we even know what ballpark they're planning on releasing Wave XIV in?

I needs it.

I needs the X-Wing fix.

4 minutes ago, UnitOmega said:

It's an oddball release though, an Aces pack announced and classified as part of a main wave release.

But also no they won't say anything until a month or so before it comes out. Do we even know what ballpark they're planning on releasing Wave XIV in?

Best guess is late may/early June. It appears to be in the same wave release style as imp vets.

Worst case Gencon.

2 minutes ago, UnitOmega said:

Do we even know what ballpark they're planning on releasing Wave XIV in?

Uh, I don’t think baseball and plastic ships have much in common, but hey, you go do what you wanna do. Fly casual!

1 hour ago, Boba Rick said:

I needs it.

I needs the X-Wing fix.

So you need an X-Wing fix fix?

?

On 2/16/2018 at 4:40 PM, Jeff Wilder said:

Gotta be honest, whenever I see this I always wonder, "How much of this is an actual joke, and how much of it is just pretending to be a joke?" (The way I answer my own question differs depending on who's saying it.)

The ISB office is too close for me to either confirm or deny any amount of joking...terrorists got everybody around here on high alert.

On 2/19/2018 at 9:53 AM, Sekac said:

There's a gigantic difference between a standard gun and a DEATH Star.

A pistol can be used for competition shooting, for self defense, or for policing.

A weapon designed to destroy entire planets has no purpose other than to commit crimes against humanity. It's not a weapon of war, because the vast, vast majority of the population of a planet at war with the Empire would be innocent civilians. Neutralizing a military threat would be a side-effect of using the death star.

Its destructive power is so indiscriminate that "weapon of mass destruction" fails to capture the scale of it. "Weapon of Total Extinction" is more fitting. Can you think of a single legitimate use of a weapon designed to kill billions at a time? Target practice? Self-defense? No, of course not.

And the 3 uses we saw of the Death Star were:

1) Wipe out a population to keep them quiet about the Death Star

2) Friendly fire to keep cover up the Empire's failure to protect the death star's plans.

3) To destroy the home planet of a single prisoner who was being difficult.

So no, I don't think all weapons manufacturers are guilty. But weapons manufacturers who designed weapons primary to kill innocents by the billions and selling them to bloodthirsty regimes certainly are.

If you can't see the difference, that's on you.

There is a gigantic difference between a weapon and a weapon: a weapon can be used to get better and killing things, killing things that don’t like you, and killing things you don’t like.

A gun is designed to destroy entire planets single shot by single shot (or hundreds of shots a minute) and has no purpose other than to commit crimes against humanity since we live in a world where we can raise enough food to feed ourselves multitudes over. It is only a weapon of war, because the vast, vast majority of the population of a planet is not at war and are innocent civilians.

It’s destructive power is so indiscriminate that "weapon of mass destruction" fails to capture the scale of it. "Weapon of Total Extinction" is more fitting. Can you think of a single legitimate use of an object designed to more efficiently and effectively kill over and over and over again? Target practice? Self-defense? No, of course not. Those are just more excuses to possess the power to kill.

And the 3 uses we know of for any gun:

1) Wipe out a population Of people

2) Friendly fire to keep people from doing what you don’t want them to do

3) To destroy anyone who was being difficult.

So yes, I do think all weapons manufacturers are guilty. Weapons manufacturers designed weapons to kill innocents by the billions and selling them.

If you can't see the similarities, that's on you.

1 minute ago, Rakky Wistol said:

There is a gigantic difference between a weapon and a weapon: a weapon can be used to get better and killing things, killing things that don’t like you, and killing things you don’t like.

A gun is designed to destroy entire planets single shot by single shot (or hundreds of shots a minute) and has no purpose other than to commit crimes against humanity since we live in a world where we can raise enough food to feed ourselves multitudes over. It is only a weapon of war, because the vast, vast majority of the population of a planet is not at war and are innocent civilians.

It’s destructive power is so indiscriminate that "weapon of mass destruction" fails to capture the scale of it. "Weapon of Total Extinction" is more fitting. Can you think of a single legitimate use of an object designed to more efficiently and effectively kill over and over and over again? Target practice? Self-defense? No, of course not. Those are just more excuses to possess the power to kill.

And the 3 uses we know of for any gun:

1) Wipe out a population Of people

2) Friendly fire to keep people from doing what you don’t want them to do

3) To destroy anyone who was being difficult.

So yes, I do think all weapons manufacturers are guilty. Weapons manufacturers designed weapons to kill innocents by the billions and selling them.

If you can't see the similarities, that's on you.

Of course I see the similarities. Killing is killing. I never once made the case that there are no similarities. It isn't the similarities that matter, its the differences.

If Tarkin only had a glock and Leia called him smelly, he might shoot her. That'd be evil. Maybe he'd be really evil and kill 15 people she loved (16 if he had a round chambered). That's really ******* evil.

With a death star he killed her entire planet and BILLIONS of people on it.

A pistol makes you a murderer. A death star makes you an extinction level event. There is no equivalency there. There just isn't.

If someone builds a death star and uses it frequently and recklessly, it has to go. If innocent lives are lost in the process, that's a tragedy. But there really isn't an argument to be made that killing innocents in the process of eliminating the death star makes rebels as evil or more evil than imperials who were exterminating multiple populations a week.

Have they run the Biathlon at the olympics yet?

4 minutes ago, GrimmyV said:

Have they run the Biathlon at the olympics yet?

Nice way to lighten things up before this thread gets locked!

Those little black circles are the epitome of evil, clearly they had it coming. All hail the noble skiers!

Why would the thread get locked? Nobody is stepping out of line. It's a good philosophical debate. Sure it's way off topic, but anyone expecting 24 pages of on-topic discussion about a teaser should readjust their expectations.

On 2/23/2018 at 5:53 PM, AT Leader said:

I agree It is known.

FTFY

17 hours ago, Sekac said:

Why would the thread get locked? Nobody is stepping out of line. It's a good philosophical debate. Sure it's way off topic, but anyone expecting 24 pages of on-topic discussion about a teaser should readjust their expectations.

Nothing yet quite there, just the sort of conversation that can quickly get out of hand.

On 2/23/2018 at 10:16 PM, Sekac said:

Of course I see the similarities. Killing is killing. I never once made the case that there are no similarities. It isn't the similarities that matter, its the differences.

If Tarkin only had a glock and Leia called him smelly, he might shoot her. That'd be evil. Maybe he'd be really evil and kill 15 people she loved (16 if he had a round chambered). That's really ******* evil.

With a death star he killed her entire planet and BILLIONS of people on it.

A pistol makes you a murderer. A death star makes you an extinction level event. There is no equivalency there. There just isn't.

If someone builds a death star and uses it frequently and recklessly, it has to go. If innocent lives are lost in the process, that's a tragedy. But there really isn't an argument to be made that killing innocents in the process of eliminating the death star makes rebels as evil or more evil than imperials who were exterminating multiple populations a week.

How important is scale? Do you need a spectrum of evil?

For us killing millions to billions of ants in an ant hill or bug bombing a house is the same #s. Does that make the human more evil than the one that squashes a single roach (and, in fact, the elite of the empire did get to the point where they were "godlike" over the "insects" in power, position, and intent).

If you used a weapon to kill them 1 by 1 or a "Death moon" to do it all at once, does it matter? Isn't 1 bullet kills a dictator saving millions the same as 1 deathstar blasting 1 planet to save hundreds of billions?

Using a weapon to kill is using a weapon to kill. Designing a weapon that kills is designing a weapon that kills.

44 minutes ago, Rakky Wistol said:

How important is scale? Do you need a spectrum of evil?

Important and yes. Do you believe a Hitler type would deserve the same punishment as a drunk driver who ran a pedestrian down? If you believe those deserve different punishments (as I do) then you believe in a spectrum of evil. If you don't believe those deserve separate punishments, you are either very soft on genocidal maniacs or very draconian with reckless fools.

Killing bugs is a tricky argument. We value lives of birds more than bugs, dogs more than birds, and humans more than dogs. Whether or not that's right is a separate philosophical debate that I don't really care to get into, but it's hard wired into us instinctually. Trying to apply scale of evil to lives we value little in the first place is difficult.

1 hour ago, Rakky Wistol said:

If you used a weapon to kill them 1 by 1 or a "Death moon" to do it all at once, does it matter?

No, not if the end result is the same. But the terrifying prospect of a super laser is billions of lives are lost with a single press if the button. Using a pistol to kill billions presents an opportunity to stop the genocide.

1 hour ago, Rakky Wistol said:

Isn't 1 bullet kills a dictator saving millions the same as 1 deathstar blasting 1 planet to save hundreds of billions?

No. A bullet killing a dictator kills just the dictator. There isn't collateral damage in that.

Also, there's no argument to be made that destroying Alderaan was to save hundreds of billions. It was to torture a difficult prisoner. Tarkin massacring hits own troops was because they failed him, and destroying Jedda was to test the weapon against an unruly population. There was no greater good. Tarkin was a genocidal maniac and he had a weapon of genocide, that's why he used it.

1 hour ago, Rakky Wistol said:

Designing a weapon that kills is designing a weapon that kills.

Again, the argument can be made that a gun can be used for a "just kill" (I.e. killing a ruthless dictator). That can't be done with a super laser. It is designed to kill everyone--primarily innocent men, women, and children, and it also might wipe out a military threat secondarily (if it's used that way, which it never was).