4 hours ago, 2P51 said:

The New Republic is way worse. They left than clandestine forward operating base without enough gas to get anywhere. ......

Possibly the best explination of the New Republic I have ever seen

Personally speaking, I'd love to play some Imperials, maybe some good proper rules for being a Chiss or Stormtrooper or even Imperial Navy Officer. Some proper ship specs and classes. Even different trooper types would be nice too.

But I can also understand why there is more stuff AGAINST the empire instead of FOR it. As many have pointed out, the meritds and flaws ofd both sides really do indeed depend on certain points of view.

Disney did allow some books to be published, This is those books published under the Legends banner

• The Jedi Path
• The Way of the Sith
• The Imperial Handbook
• The Rebel Handbook
• Bounty Hunter Code

Now persaonally I have only Jedi Path, I'd love to get my hands on a copy of Imperial Handbook and Way of the Sith as well as Bounty Hunter Code, and Rebel Handbook. Each one of these sheds light on vastly different topics, and Bounty Hunter Code actually really details how Bonty Hunters really work {they're not heartless monsters, they really actually have a code of conduct!}

6 minutes ago, Ni Fang said:

Possibly the best explination of the New Republic I have ever seen

Personally speaking, I'd love to play some Imperials, maybe some good proper rules for being a Chiss or Stormtrooper or even Imperial Navy Officer. Some proper ship specs and classes. Even different trooper types would be nice too.

But I can also understand why there is more stuff AGAINST the empire instead of FOR it. As many have pointed out, the meritds and flaws ofd both sides really do indeed depend on certain points of view.

Disney did allow some books to be published, This is those books published under the Legends banner

• The Jedi Path
• The Way of the Sith
• The Imperial Handbook
• The Rebel Handbook
• Bounty Hunter Code

Now persaonally I have only Jedi Path, I'd love to get my hands on a copy of Imperial Handbook and Way of the Sith as well as Bounty Hunter Code, and Rebel Handbook. Each one of these sheds light on vastly different topics, and Bounty Hunter Code actually really details how Bonty Hunters really work {they're not heartless monsters, they really actually have a code of conduct!}

Of those, the Bounty Hunter Code and Imperial Handbook were great, but the Rebel book was a letdown.

3 hours ago, HappyDaze said:

The Republic that the Alliance is fighting to restore didn't want its members to be able to decide their own fates; they fought against separatism and made villains of those that wanted freedom from their ineffective and flawed government. Even after the Clone Wars are over, Mothma refuses to let former Separatists into her Alliance. The Republic she wants to restore will be the same as the Republic that died, only with Mothma and her crew in charge instead of Palpatine.

Ok, I'm curious , and a bit disappointed . What is the source of this ? Is that a novel ? If so, do all of the leaders of the alliance want the same thing as Mon Mothma ? And how does it end ?

Even if I'm wrong about the intent of the leaders, the fact that there were New separatists proves that the rebel-in-the-street did not "foolishly fight for an idealised republic", but for a choice. A choice that they were denied in the end, due to the failure of their leaders.

And that makes me sad...

12 minutes ago, Ni Fang said:

Possibly the best explination of the New Republic I have ever seen

I'm confused, is that a joke ? Because the New Republic is dead at that point

41 minutes ago, AbsatSolo said:

Ok, I'm curious , and a bit disappointed . What is the source of this ? Is that a novel ? If so, do all of the leaders of the alliance want the same thing as Mon Mothma ? And how does it end ?

Even if I'm wrong about the intent of the leaders, the fact that there were New separatists proves that the rebel-in-the-street did not "foolishly fight for an idealised republic", but for a choice. A choice that they were denied in the end, due to the failure of their leaders.

And that makes me sad...

I'm confused, is that a joke ? Because the New Republic is dead at that point

The source for the Republic making villains of separatists is Episode II, Episode III, The Clone Wars (both series), and numerous others. The main source citing Mothma against the inclusion of former Separatists in the Alliance are The Essential Guide to Warfare and The Rebel Files . As to how it ends, what future version do you want? In all cases, the New Republic falls apart after a few decades because it's hopelessly flawed. In the EU, the New Republic eventually has to team up with the Imperial Remnant and the Chiss just to get their trains running on time.

On 1/16/2019 at 5:55 PM, AbsatSolo said:

They want to restore the republic, more generally speaking, meaning a system where everyone sits around a table and discusses the problem, as Padme says in AotC

If you think about it, most of the people we see in the moves don't really remember the republic. Han was a Corellian street rat and probably doesn't remember much of anything before the Clone Wars...even then he probably had no understanding of the galaxy. Same with Lando.

Luke And Leia were born after the end of the war (hours after, but still after). As for anyone older...there's probably a lot of divergent opinion about what the New Republic would look like. You've probably got a LOT of old separatists saying "I told you so." Mothma and Organa probably telling a lot of people to work past their differences and all these things will be addressed once Palpatine is overthrown. There's also probably a lot of profiteers, aspiring profiteers and corporate interests that are planning to wrest as much control from the new government as possible. Other than that you've got people fighting in the name of a dream and a thing they never experienced and so they put their own imprint on that idea.

You could have an old Munn family that's biding their time and supplying the Alliance with their ancestral fortune in order to regain control of the banks and finance system when the Empire is deposed.....Hutts lending support in exchange for promises that their territorial integrity and independence will be restored. Plenty of stuff for diplomats to do.

The separatists were lackies of giant corporations and financiers whatever their personal reasons. The CIS were not the anarchist and libertarian wet dreams you make them out to be. The CIS were also lead by 2 sith.

The republic was deeply flawed because it allowed exactly these elements, the greedy and the power hungry, too much room. NOT because the republic unified the Galaxy in one political system.

10 minutes ago, TheShard said:

The separatists were lackies of giant corporations and financiers whatever their personal reasons. The CIS were not the anarchist and libertarian wet dreams you make them out to be. The CIS were also lead by 2 sith.

The republic was deeply flawed because it allowed exactly these elements, the greedy and the power hungry, too much room. NOT because the republic unified the Galaxy in one political system.

The Dooku and the Separatist Council were bad guys, but many of the members of the Separatist Senate and the common people that wanted freedom from the Republic were quite different.

Right but those people were used to destroy the progressive parts of the republic in order for it's flaws to grow and dominate. Eventually being able to overthrow any public say so over the decisions made about the Galaxy. Until it was only the very rich and powerful in charge.

1 hour ago, TheShard said:

Right but those people were used to destroy the progressive parts of the republic in order for it's flaws to grow and dominate. Eventually being able to overthrow any public say so over the decisions made about the Galaxy. Until it was only the very rich and powerful in charge.

Don't fool yourself. It's always been only the very rich and powerful in charge, and it likely will always be that way. The public never had any great sway over the Republic, and how could they when the size of the Republic is so vast that even billions of oppressed voices barely register as a murmur. The Republic (and their Jedi) wanted to maintain peace, but it was not a universally benevolent peace. Sometimes those oppressed minorities were willing to break that peace for their own betterment, and then the Republic was quick to label them as "bad guys" for trying to better themselves.

All of those oppressed people had it worse after the republic. The CIS was not an attempt to better anyone but those that were already fighting for the top spot.

Those who wanted to see something improve for themselves were used by CIS.

In fact it was largely the peeling away into separate isolated groups that allowed the Empire to so quickly rest control of the mechanisms of power.

If people had tried to organize under their own power (eventually to a degree, the rebellion) it could have turned out differently.

The problem is those fighting for "Independence" loosened the republic enough for a single faction to dominate 8t and build an empire.

It's not Independence that they needed it was a closer nit and more fair system. Not to just abandon the idea of something intergalactic.

In fact if the only thing positive about the republic was that it built up connections and established relationships around the Galaxy and brought together immeasurable amounts of species into one organization, it will have done something meaningful.

It just didn't do it well enough. In allowing or tolerating slavery, nepotism and family autocracies, oligarchies and monopolies in order to keep everyone together, it sowed the seeds for it's own destruction. It set the conditions where those things could spread. It should have stamped those things out.

The Empire did them no favors, but that wasn't the end they were seeking. They wanted independence and the ability to control things on "local" levels, but they were not given the chance (with a few odd exceptions). Instead, the Empire continued to punish them for their acts against the late Republic (and so too did Mothma's Alliance).

Well, whats funny, the Empire saw the Rebels as the bad guy, and the rebels saw the Empire as the bac guy, with hte common folk who were caught in the cross fire simply living each day hoping they'd not get blown to bits. Some of whom worked in Empire owned factories as well, just common every day folks.

The Common folk simply wanted am eans to live, the Empire gave it to them making their stuff, and then so did the rebellion. But some would say the Empire paid better

On 1/15/2019 at 12:25 PM, HappyDaze said:

The Rebellion wants to restore the Republic. The Republic was a horribly corrupt and ineffective form of government that led to much chaos and suffering in the galaxy. This wansn't all Palapatine's doing either--the Republic was rotten to the core long before he came around. The Republic really shouldn't be considered a "good thing" except in comparison to the Empire; it's the South Park choice between a ****** and a turd sandwich. Restoring the Republic is just going for the lesser evil rather than trying to do something new and (hopefully better), but the Rebellion eats up all of that revisionist history.

This is how I see it. I feel like the folks saying that something like this shouldn't be done because of politics are seriously simplifying what in actuality is a pretty complex, dense conflict. If you think every Imperial is a moustache-twisting supervillain and every Rebel is a shining virtuous superhero, that's just not how it is. There are heroes and villains on both sides.

With that said I do understand the people saying Disney wouldn't let it fly given the possibility of a bad reaction in a knee-jerk climate. When there are people who will genuinely call you an evil monster for having political disagreements and become vocally outraged over it for example, as a company it's an unfortunate necessity to be careful with what you do. It isn't right, but it's reality.

8 hours ago, Galakk Fyyar said:

There are heroes and villains on both sides.

Lucas even told us that, but he never really showed us that. While there wasn't enough time for it in EII/EIII, I wish more time in TCW would have focused on the other side. Specifically, I wish there had been a few episodes showing a group of sympathetic Separatist protagonists that are fighting for their freedom even if that means that they have to ally with greedy mercantile/industrial powers to get the financial and military backing to do so.

47 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

Lucas even told us that, but he never really showed us that. While there wasn't enough time for it in EII/EIII, I wish more time in TCW would have focused on the other side. Specifically, I wish there had been a few episodes showing a group of sympathetic Separatist protagonists that are fighting for their freedom even if that means that they have to ally with greedy mercantile/industrial powers to get the financial and military backing to do so.

I feel like the stage was hamfistedly set in the Prequels and a little more elegantly in TCW, but we weren't really directly shown this whole "bad good guy" trope until Rogue One.

56 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

Lucas even told us that...

Lucas has explained Star Wars from his own "evolving" and self-contradictory points of view over the past 40 years.

As a result, anything Lucas says is only true "from a certain point of view" and "at a certain point in time."

This is without working a mob of Expanded Universe writers with their own points of view and contradictory additions int the mix.

For this reason, I generally only reference primary sources (on-screen canon) and take Lucas with a liberal dose of salt.

I'm sure you've heard of the unreliable narrator in literature? Lucas is an unreliable creator.

6 hours ago, Vondy said:

Lucas has explained Star Wars from his own "evolving" and self-contradictory points of view over the past 40 years.

As a result, anything Lucas says is only true "from a certain point of view" and "at a certain point in time."

This is without working a mob of Expanded Universe writers with their own points of view and contradictory additions int the mix.

For this reason, I generally only reference primary sources (on-screen canon) and take Lucas with a liberal dose of salt.

I'm sure you've heard of the unreliable narrator in literature? Lucas is an unreliable creator.

On screen evidence? This is on-screen canon:

RANT WARNING

1 hour ago, HappyDaze said:

On screen evidence? This is on-screen canon:

Sure. And that is a part of Lucas' evolving interpretation of his own work that renders him an unreliable creator. He injected a weird dissonance into his creation that was at odds with what he'd created before. People can play all the disingenuous moral equivalency games they want to make an argument that the Empire (or separatists) can be seen as good guys "from a certain point of view" and that the republic was so deeply flawed that it could be taken as "the real bad guys." Not all "points of view" are equally valid. There were "Good Germans" fighting for the Nazis in WWII. So what?

Sophomoric "look how smart I am because I twisted the source material out of historical and meaningful context" tom-foolery and the result of a radically altered narrative from what the original trilogy suggested is not profound. Yes, that "point of view" is given some weak contextual support by Lucas in this "heroes on both sides" throw-away platitude, but does that line hold water when we actually watch the movies? Not really. The Jedi are clearly hidebound and make some flawed moral choices, but Dooku, Palpatine, and Grevious, et all are clear cut villains seeking evil ends through evil means. That there are off-screen heroes fighting on both sides is utterly irrelevant because the movies aren't about them .

The Clone Wars are the public face of an ancient struggle between the Jedi and Sith. That's a struggle between light and dark, peace and suffering, good and evil. That's what Star Wars has always been about. That Lucas and a morass of expanded universe writers muddied those waters can produce interesting stories, but it can also be problematic in that it drives the incessant and banal "certain point of view" arguments that recast villains as heroes. Yes, politically, the clone wars were fought between a deeply flawed republic at war with a bunch of plutocratic corporate overlords. Yes, there were good people fighting on both sides. But, in the end, who cares? Star Wars has never been about galactic politics .

I saw the original star wars in the theaters. I grew up with that trilogy. Star Wars was a story with clear heroes and clear villains that served as a morality play about good, evil, and redemption. Luke is our Hero. Vader is our villain. Luke, in the end, redeems Vader despite all the evil he did for Palpatine. Star Wars has always boiled down to morality. If you are arguing galactic politics and not basic morality you have lost sight of the forest for the trees. It doesn't matter if the old republic was flawed, or that the trade federation and separatists were, respectively, cynical and useful idiots for the Sith. WThe Sith are the bad guys.

Let's be really clear about this: Our heroes are Anakin (for a while), Obi-Wan, Qui-Gon, and Padme. Our villains are Dooku, Palpatine, Maul, and Grevious. Ironically, while Obi-Wan tells us that only Sith deal in black and white, its Anakin's insistence on his twisted point of view that makes it impossible for him to turn away from the dark side when Obi-Wan is trying to redeem him. He employs weak-sauce justifications for mass murder, terror, despotism, and hatred. I find most of the arguments in favor of the separatists and, worse, the Empire, that fans make echo Vader beat for beat. hen you enslave entire species, destroy entire planets, and seek "peace, justice, and freedom" through mass murder, terrorism, and despotism, you aren't the good guys, no matter what you tell yourself.

Obi-Wan said it all: "You have let this dark lord twist your mind until you have become the very thing you swore to destroy."

Or, to quote the Maharal of Prague: "If you want to sharpen your mind play chess; don't distort the truth."

• Star Wars I-III are a morality play about the fall of Anakin Skywalker.
• Star Wars IV-VI are morality play about the redemption of Anakin Skywalker.
• Star Wars VII-IX are... honestly, I have no idea what they are about.

Everything else is just commentary.

And, with that, I am not commenting on this thread again.

1 hour ago, Vondy said:

That there are off-screen heroes fighting on both sides is utterly irrelevant because the movies aren't about them .

That's OK, what they show on-screen is totally irrelevant to me because my games aren't about them. I'll take the backdrop and explore it a bit more and make it what I want. Canon is meaningless to me, and all of the source material is just a starting point for my gaming needs. I have no reverence for Star Wars other than I can turn it into a fun gaming setting. Note that "turn it into" part because, as is, it's mostly trash.

I think the closest we will get with anything for the Imperials will be Dawn of Rebellion, it does have some Imperial profiles in it for playing as Imperial characters and most of the source and adventure books for all three branches include Imperial character profiles {TIE pilot, stormtrooper, etc} So even if we dont get a actual honerst to goodnesst Imperial sided branch of Star Wars through FFG, we can at least use what skills there are provided in each book to adapt for Imperial characters we can make

On 1/27/2019 at 7:22 PM, Vondy said:

RANT WARNING

And, with that, I am not commenting on this thread again.

To be entirely honest, all of that seems like your own point of view and preferences, which shouldn't be expressed as the ultimatum of what everyone else should view and experience Star Wars as. Whether you're correct, incorrect, or in-between about the topic is irrelevant to the point that other players may want a book for their own games and own experiences, which if they differ from yours does not make them wrong in the way they enjoy or look at Star Wars, and to be clear neither are you wrong yourself for the same reasons.

On 10/26/2018 at 8:21 PM, themensch said:

Surely a splatbook would sell like hotcakes, although I question whether we need a full core rulebook for such purposes. Either way it would be a fine addition to the line.

Yeah I agree, I think a splatbook would be the right way to go.

Having said that, I applaud FFG for not making Imperial Characters an explicit character path. If you want it bad enough it is easy enough to accomplish on your own. Why do Stormtroopers and Officers need new careers above what is in the Core books. Is there a need for the Guard Duty Small Talk talent?

What talent trees do you all think work best for different imperial/trooper types?

Diplomat is probably the main one I could see being replaced out of the AoR Core; maybe with something out of Edge.

Purge Trooper looks like it might be pretty fun, but not sure which current talent trees I'd go with the try to replicate them.

There are a total of 20 specializations in each Core book at the moment, I think - 3 each across 6 careers plus two universals. I was just kind of thinking about which I'd swap out for others in a re-skinned Age of the Empire core book.

I'd probably go with Imperial Academy Cadet and Force Sensitive Outcast for the Universal specs, for example.

That's the flaw (genius?) of the star wars line of NDS games. Since every career is a set defined talent tree they can pump out soldier with a big gun, soldier with a small gun, soldier who does other things and all of them get a full blown talent tree. It lets them keep the books flowing based on superficial and narrowly separated specializations despite the fact that they're basically the same thing with a different name and a different cool ability.