37 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Misunderstood your comment is how. My previous comments regarding Commander targeting order cards having multiple targets if there is more than one with the same name still stands though.

Edit: regardless this is a moot point unless FFG suddenly changes their stance on Star Wars being character driven so character only Commanders.

no worries, i haven't kept up with the recent videos. I agree that it doesn't seem likely to happen, if it does it wont happen for a while.

12 minutes ago, jcmonson said:

no worries, i haven't kept up with the recent videos. I agree that it doesn't seem likely to happen, if it does it wont happen for a while.

Well one thing is, that any gap a generic commander could be designed to fill could just as easily be done with SOME named character, either one whose name we know from some Star Wars media, or some background character/FFG original. By releasing a "generic" to fill that design space, they deprive themselves of the opportunity of giving one of those command cards to Hando, Krennic, Saw, etc.

They also just said in that developer interview that they see characters as being the core thematic tie in of Star Wars.

tgsts pretty well a death knell for generics - everything is likely to be named and themed.

yeah, I was just commenting that 2 commanders with the same cards could work within the rules.

In the Endor video they just put up, they use the promotion rule to play without Commanders - seems like that's gonna be the way to go.

Yeah, for personal scenario play, it looks like you'll just want to "promote" a unit and they function as a commander, and you can say whatever you like about that guy. But he's not going to get special upgrades.

(Inb4 X-Wing esque "take a slot to gain a slot" type upgrades)

22 minutes ago, svelok said:

In the Endor video they just put up, they use the promotion rule to play without Commanders - seems like that's gonna be the way to go.

Interesting...

That explains how they expect the Challenge Missions from the Launch Event to work with just a squad of troopers and either a T-47 or an AT-ST on either side.

I’ll reiterate what others have said about wanting to include unnamed characters to provide an avatar for the player in their army. I’ve always viewed wargames as very close kin to role playing games. Heck RPGs as we know them sprang up out of the wargaming scene. I don’t view playing these games as entering into a mental contest with an opponent like I would if I were playing chess or poker. Instead for me it’s playing toy soldiers with a set of guidelines. If the system isn’t robust enough to handle the inclusion of a few unnamed commander types there may be some other issues that need to be looked at.

2 hours ago, LordUrban said:

I’ll reiterate what others have said about wanting to include unnamed characters to provide an avatar for the player in their army. I’ve always viewed wargames as very close kin to role playing games. Heck RPGs as we know them sprang up out of the wargaming scene. I don’t view playing these games as entering into a mental contest with an opponent like I would if I were playing chess or poker. Instead for me it’s playing toy soldiers with a set of guidelines. If the system isn’t robust enough to handle the inclusion of a few unnamed commander types there may be some other issues that need to be looked at.

As you said, D&D developed from the wargame Chainmail. But we don't play Chainmail in order to tell the stories in D&D, we play D&D. The wargame inspired the writing of the RPG to tell stories of their characters between battles, and in fact early editions of D&D required owning the rules of Chainmail to resolve combats. Wargames are typically intended to be strategy games, not roleplaying, and chess is actually an early strategic wargame. There aren't any rules for GROWTH of the commander or their units, nor any penalties that carry over. At the start of every game, your force is in the exact same state it starts every game in. If the game was intended to tell a story, it would be designed with more campaign elements, like Mordheim, Heroes of the Aturi Cluster, or the Corellian Conflict Armada Campaign (I think? I don't own the last one so can't say for sure). Losses could carry over, you could have to roll to see if you could get replacements, could check to see if you were able to repair/replace any damaged or destroyed vehicles, and the commander could grow in abilities at the end of each game, or suffer wounds that carry over from game to game. There would be repercussions for failing a mission besides just losing the game, and rewards beyond winning for succeeding.

If you want to tell stories using your own characters in the Star Wars universe, then FFG has RPGs for that, including Age of Rebellion, or you can homebrew up a campaign. Alternately, a name on a card shouldn't prevent you from self inserting if that's what you want to do, just ignore the name on the card, your imagination shouldn't be restricted by a few words on a piece of cardboard. Paint/convert the model and just ignore the names on the cards you are using. Veers is an incredibly generic Imperial Officer model, lots of other commanders in Star Wars media have worn that uniform with an E-11 and that armour. Just because the CARD says General Veers doesn't mean in you mind it has to BE General Veers. IA has a ton of RPG elements, but I don't recall people complaining about not being able to play as "generic scoundrel" or "generic soldier."

If a game that is not designed for generic Commanders cannot support generic Commanders, then that is NOT an issue with the rules. By your logic, Warmahordes (and a few other wargames I'm sure) has an issue because players can only use specific named characters as their army's leader. Same goes for Armada, as it requires the selection of a named Admiral, not just an "Admiral ability." But if such a limitation was a core component of the game's design, then the game is operating as intended, and breaking the limitation should cause issues.

I'm not understanding why people are against the idea of a generic commander.