7 minutes ago, HadeusHawkyns said:

I'm curious why "Generic" has to mean "Cheap." A lot of what I'm reading makes it sound like people want generic commanders because some of the major names in some scenarios might not make narrative sense. I don't see why there couldn't be an unnamed commander that costs 100+ points that represented your typical high-ranking Rebel/Imperial. With some of the "generic" commanders like Veers, you could probably just give him a different paintjob and be done with it- he's not as distinctive as Luke, Leia, or Vader.

For one thing, why should the abilities of "random commander" be better than Leia? Otherwise, why would I bring them at 100 points when Leia or Veers is cheaper. Some of the argument reads to me that people don't want a name attached at all, they want a non-unique unit called "_____ Commander" to fill their command slot, so they can assign their own headcanon name, similar to "Space Marine Captain" or "First Lieutenant." I agree with you though, just repaint Leia or Veers, and headcanon name them whatever you want. Veers has a very generic look, and there are other female commanders in the Rebellion, it's not like they used her hairdo from ANH. People have already commented that the model doesn't really look like Leia, so just give her a different color skin and/or hair and the model is now some other female commander with Leia's stats.

Plus, at some point they will run out of the major names and potentially start doing model of smaller names. Han and Krennic are the only other "big" names I'd expect to see as Commanders, the rest are likely to end up as Special Ops units in my opinion, or unit upgrades. But that's a different conversation.

The issue is they need to be cheap because they won't have any abilities if you're expected to just dump upgrades on them. The problem is the base value of the model needs to be good enough that buying upgrades isn't just throwing good points after bad. If upgrades aren't just ridiculously undercosted this get very hard to do without having a base model that's already pretty great.

The best compromise is giving them an ability to the effective of "Imperial Stipend 30" that gets priced into the base cost of the model but lets them ignore the first 30(ish) points of upgrades. Kind of clunky, but it can work.

One of the key things about Commanders is that they provide 3 additional commands cards specific to that commander. We already have the generic command cards from the core set and the RRG states that "Each commander has three command cards unique to that commander." (Command Cards pg. 19).

So what is it that people are expecting these 3 command cards that are "unique to that commander" to do for these generic commanders that some people want?

2 hours ago, NeonWolf said:

One of the key things about Commanders is that they provide 3 additional commands cards specific to that commander. We already have the generic command cards from the core set and the RRG states that "Each commander has three command cards unique to that commander." (Command Cards pg. 19).

So what is it that people are expecting these 3 command cards that are "unique to that commander" to do for these generic commanders that some people want?

maybe they want 3 additional generic commands

I get where they're coming from, I think in this context and from this manufacturer, you're going to get named figures no matter what. They may not all be from movies or shows or comics or whatever though and some may be created specifically for this platform.

2 hours ago, NeonWolf said:

One of the key things about Commanders is that they provide 3 additional commands cards specific to that commander. We already have the generic command cards from the core set and the RRG states that "Each commander has three command cards unique to that commander." (Command Cards pg. 19).

So what is it that people are expecting these 3 command cards that are "unique to that commander" to do for these generic commanders that some people want?

That would be exceptionally easy to differentiate if they made generic commanders different kinds of officers. To use the Imperials as an example, you could have officers from the Stormtrooper corps, the navy, a technical officer, and so on. Command cards would then be tied to that commander's 'class'. It really is not an insurmountable problem.

1 minute ago, srMontresor said:

That would be exceptionally easy to differentiate if they made generic commanders different kinds of officers. To use the Imperials as an example, you could have officers from the Stormtrooper corps, the navy, a technical officer, and so on. Command cards would then be tied to that commander's 'class'. It really is not an insurmountable problem.

Sure, but your statement doesn't answer my question. What exactly are you wanting those 3 command cards that are "specific to the commander" to say and/or do exactly?

Or is this a case of I just want 2 copies of "Ambush", "Assault", and "Push" and no commander specific command cards?

2 minutes ago, NeonWolf said:

Sure, but your statement doesn't answer my question. What exactly are you wanting those 3 command cards that are "specific to the commander" to say and/or do exactly?

Or is this a case of I just want 2 copies of "Ambush", "Assault", and "Push" and no commander specific command cards?

What I am saying is the game designer's create command cards specific to the kind of officer they are representing. I am not saying I want specific commands, merely suggesting that it would be easy for game designers to come up with something tailored to a character. It really is little different than if they came up with commands specific to a named character, except that instead of using the character's in-canon background and abilities, they use an archetype for non-named commanders. A stormtrooper commander would have three different command card choices than a COMPNOR officer, for example.

1 minute ago, srMontresor said:

What I am saying is the game designer's create command cards specific to the kind of officer they are representing. I am not saying I want specific commands, merely suggesting that it would be easy for game designers to come up with something tailored to a character. It really is little different than if they came up with commands specific to a named character, except that instead of using the character's in-canon background and abilities, they use an archetype for non-named commanders. A stormtrooper commander would have three different command card choices than a COMPNOR officer, for example.

So, in a nutshell, you don't want any specific command cards, you just want a generic commander to do "unique" generic stuff, to make the story play out better in your head?

Is this desire purely driven by your personal mental narrative or is there a strategic reason for wanting a generic commander for army-building?

Just now, srMontresor said:

What I am saying is the game designer's create command cards specific to the kind of officer they are representing. I am not saying I want specific commands, merely suggesting that it would be easy for game designers to come up with something tailored to a character. It really is little different than if they came up with commands specific to a named character, except that instead of using the character's in-canon background and abilities, they use an archetype for non-named commanders. A stormtrooper commander would have three different command card choices than a COMPNOR officer, for example.

And why can't these different "classes" of Commander instead be named Characters? The Stormtrooper officer could be named Kayn Somos or Kreel, I'm sure there's a COMPNOR officer named somewhere in the media, and there are plenty of ISB agents.

6 minutes ago, NeonWolf said:

So, in a nutshell, you don't want any specific command cards, you just want a generic commander to do "unique" generic stuff, to make the story play out better in your head?

Is this desire purely driven by your personal mental narrative or is there a strategic reason for wanting a generic commander for army-building?

No. I do want specific command cards for non-named archetypal commanders. They should use the same template approach as named characters. When I said 'I don't want specific command cards' I meant that I did not have an example of a command card to give you that I wanted. That was an easily misread statement of mine.

8 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

And why can't these different "classes" of Commander instead be named Characters? The Stormtrooper officer could be named Kayn Somos or Kreel, I'm sure there's a COMPNOR officer named somewhere in the media, and there are plenty of ISB agents.

Well, for reasons already elaborated in this thread by others.

But briefly, a significant section of the wargaming community never use named characters. This happens for a variety of reasons, but mostly due to individual creativity. Wargamers invest a lot of time and effort in painting their armies, and often feel a greater sense of attachment to them if they create the names and context of their units and commanders. This is a phenomenon even in historical wargames, especially so in 18thC line battle games where the ImagiNations genre has thrived.

We currently have a situation in which a bunch of characters who never faced each other in a ground battle will fight it out ad nauseum like a Saturday morning cartoon. Now, each battle exists in its own what-if bubble, and that's fine, but this kind of thing often disturbs wargamers. Furthermore, we have what feels like an even odder situation to me of having people at grunt level being commanded in a skirmish by generals. A simple way to shift away from the cartoon absurdity of that would be to introduce generic commander options. Having generic, possibly tailorable options would enhance the tactical depth of the game if it was done right.

Maybe the wargaming community needs to embrace the Star Wars community and enjoy the named characters.

@srMontresorI am 90% certain that FFG devs have already stated that the Commander slot will always be filled by named Characters. Vader has in canon faced Leia and Luke in ground battle per the comics. I have not met a wargamer yet that is bothered enough by "narrative" issues of the game to prevent them from playing, and I've been playing historical games for years, wherein the players happily pit WW2 British against Americans. X-wing allows for battle to be fought between pilots from vastly different eras of Star Wars, that doesn't seems to have hurt the game any. Same with Armada's Admirals.

50 minutes ago, ninclouse2000 said:

Maybe the wargaming community needs to embrace the Star Wars community and enjoy the named characters.

They mostly have. Named characters are a big part of a lot of popular tabletop games these days. Warmachine and malifaux armies are commanded by named characters and games like guild ball are entirely character based. Even 40k has put a pretty big emphasis on named heroes in the last couple of years.

1 hour ago, Caimheul1313 said:

@srMontresorI am 90% certain that FFG devs have already stated that the Commander slot will always be filled by named Characters. Vader has in canon faced Leia and Luke in ground battle per the comics. I have not met a wargamer yet that is bothered enough by "narrative" issues of the game to prevent them from playing, and I've been playing historical games for years, wherein the players happily pit WW2 British against Americans. X-wing allows for battle to be fought between pilots from vastly different eras of Star Wars, that doesn't seems to have hurt the game any. Same with Armada's Admirals.

I agree. I do recall him saying something like that in an interview, though it could be interpreted differently. Even if he didn't directly say it, it has been heavily implied in quite a few of the articles that we are only getting named characters. Of course, given FFG is a business, all statements are subject to unspoken caveats that they are subject to change.

I also started historical wargaming by playing ahistorical games. In fact, I've played more ahistorical games than not, and I'm not bothered by this, even as a professional historian in my day job. Brits vs Yanks in a WW2 game wouldn't bother me much. I'd sooner do Brits vs Germans, but a game is a game. I sure as **** would be bothered by a WW2 skirmish game that insisted my Japanese SNLF company had to be led by Hideki Tojo, though.

1 hour ago, srMontresor said:

I agree. I do recall him saying something like that in an interview, though it could be interpreted differently. Even if he didn't directly say it, it has been heavily implied in quite a few of the articles that we are only getting named characters. Of course, given FFG is a business, all statements are subject to unspoken caveats that they are subject to change.

I also started historical wargaming by playing ahistorical games. In fact, I've played more ahistorical games than not, and I'm not bothered by this, even as a professional historian in my day job. Brits vs Yanks in a WW2 game wouldn't bother me much. I'd sooner do Brits vs Germans, but a game is a game. I sure as **** would be bothered by a WW2 skirmish game that insisted my Japanese SNLF company had to be led by Hideki Tojo, though.

It would be far stranger to have a historical battle where neither leader was (in)famous.

33 minutes ago, srMontresor said:

I also started historical wargaming by playing ahistorical games. In fact, I've played more ahistorical games than not, and I'm not bothered by this, even as a professional historian in my day job. Brits vs Yanks in a WW2 game wouldn't bother me much. I'd sooner do Brits vs Germans, but a game is a game. I sure as **** would be bothered by a WW2 skirmish game that insisted my Japanese SNLF company had to be led by Hideki Tojo, though.

And if it were a historical game, I would be just as annoyed. But it isn't, and in Star Wars Generals on both sides (and Vader) often lead small, important strike teams. There are lots of As the game continues, we will likely see more Commander releases, some of which might be named characters of a lower rank. Right now though, as a company it makes the most sense to launch the game with the big names: Vader and Luke, followed by Leia and Veers. Veers is probably at least in part due to the tie with Snowtroopers, and the fact that he was from the OT. Still, the named characters are going to draw in more new players than a no named officer. The characters are what really differentiate Star Wars from other sci-fi worlds, so any wargame in Star Wars has to reflect that. Legion's scale as more of a skirmish game is probably at least in part to keep the cost of entry low, as a complete 800 point army can be purchased for under roughly $200. It seems to me that Legion is intended to be an easy to learn wargame, to attract players who haven't played an infantry wargame before.

5 minutes ago, Derrault said:

It would be far stranger to have a historical battle where neither leader was (in)famous.

Depends on the scale of the battle, most Lieutenants are not well known unless they accomplished something really notable, which is generally the scale of Bolt Action. And at the skirmish level both sides are more likely to be led by Sergeants.

7 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

And if it were a historical game, I would be just as annoyed. But it isn't, and in Star Wars Generals on both sides (and Vader) often lead small, important strike teams. There are lots of As the game continues, we will likely see more Commander releases, some of which might be named characters of a lower rank.

For sure, but my point was about the scale of it and the lack of choice, not the historicity. For the record, I'm far more bothered by a general (Veers) leading a force smaller than the size of a platoon than I am by Vader or Luke doing so. In the OT there are multiple instances where unnamed officers lead battles, such as the Imperials at Endor, and I'd like the game to reflect that.

We will only see what future releases will hold, of course. For the moment, I see no good reason why they shouldn't do generic officers (excluding those reasons I cannot know, like limited budget and time).

30 minutes ago, srMontresor said:

For sure, but my point was about the scale of it and the lack of choice, not the historicity. For the record, I'm far more bothered by a general (Veers) leading a force smaller than the size of a platoon than I am by Vader or Luke doing so. In the OT there are multiple instances where unnamed officers lead battles, such as the Imperials at Endor, and I'd like the game to reflect that.

We will only see what future releases will hold, of course. For the moment, I see no good reason why they shouldn't do generic officers (excluding those reasons I cannot know, like limited budget and time).

The lack of choice is primarily because the game is only now being released, and trying to launch with large numbers of units could lead to supply chain issues, not to mention choice paralysis for potential customers. And a massive investment of time and money in development. By releasing with enough to get the game started they can start making money to fund further development. Plus later development will have the benefit of feedback from a wider audience than whatever playtesters they can gather from around the office.

Edit: The choice of Veers was probably driven by wanting to have a commander that is seen in the movies alongside the Snowtroopers, much like they chose to model Luke is in the outfit we wore on Bespin as that was the first time he dueled Vader, who is also in the Core box (plus then it gives them the option of later releasing "Luke Skywalker - The Last of the Jedi" as a Commander in his Endor outfit). I agree that Veers is not the commander I would have EVER pegged as being the second release for the Empire though.

As to the rank of individuals leading these forces, Governor Pryce frequently leads small, Legion sized forces against the Rebel forces in the Rebels Cartoon (which is part of the new canon), as does Grand Admiral Thrawn, despite both of the being in charge of large forces. This is often either because they happen to coincidentally be at the location of the attack, or because they want to witness first hand the destruction of their enemies (aka for plot reasons, much like how the "precise" Stromtroopers can't seem to hit the heroes in the OT). During the Clone wars the Jedi Generals frequently led small detachments on important missions. General Han Solo led the small Rebel strike team on Endor. So, while a general leading a regiment is highly irregular for the real world, it is an established part of Star Wars.

Personally, I see no good reason for FFG to ever release generic officers. The commander in charge of the Death Star's shield generator was Colonel Dyer. FFG could easily release a model for him or Major Hewex, who took charge after Han killed Dyer by knocking him into the generator with a toolbox. The thing about Star Wars is someone has named most of the "nameless" Imperial commanders in some reference book or another.

23 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Personally, I see no good reason for FFG to ever release generic officers. The commander in charge of the Death Star's shield generator was Colonel Dyer. FFG could easily release a model for him or Major Hewex, who took charge after Han killed Dyer by knocking him into the generator with a toolbox. The thing about Star Wars is someone has named most of the "nameless" Imperial commanders in some reference book or another.

Who, for all intents and purposes, may as well be 'unnamed imperial officer #234 and 235'. At the very least it's more economical to release a generic officer type so that people who want to fight the battle of Endor can say 'oh, this is that guy who fell into the generator pit', or they could say whichever similar character they want him to be. These names came from ambiguously canonical EU content which was a mixed bag of hack writing ranging from turgid to competent, on the whole. The characters weren't even credited (nor were the actors) in RoTJ. Star Wars Rebels certainly had named characters in skirmishes, but that's part of the narrative structure of a cartoon. I only watched one episode, though.

@srMontresor Those names are canon as they have been published in reference materials by Disney, not the old EU as an aside. Not that it really matters for the purposes of the film, but then again, neither does Veers honestly. The model of Veers could easily represent any random Imperial Officer for people wanting to recreate specific battles, it's not like Veers was unique in his helmet, armour, or choice of weapon.

40 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

@srMontresor Those names are canon as they have been published in reference materials by Disney, not the old EU as an aside. Not that it really matters for the purposes of the film, but then again, neither does Veers honestly. The model of Veers could easily represent any random Imperial Officer for people wanting to recreate specific battles, it's not like Veers was unique in his helmet, armour, or choice of weapon.

Well, Veers did go on the Grail quest. ?

3 hours ago, Derrault said:

Well, Veers did go on the Grail quest. ?

Sadly, some years after Veers stole the ATAC system, he was stabbed to death by some homeless children in a castle dungeon.

Ffg will not release nameless commanders nor will they release a build-a-commander box. However, they will release named commanders that fill generic roles.

Generic commanders are not going to be in this game. The Star Wars universe has too many characters to go through before having to resort to making a generic character.