On 10/27/2019 at 4:45 PM, EVIL INC said:

Many claim game balance and other such things but if it is available to all players, thean it would be just as fair for all players. I think it is to keep folks from multi-purposing models between different armies. force you to buy more models. of course, it is also a line. In making rules, you have to draw the line....somewhere. Easier to keep it strict and official rather than somewhere down the slope.

My group, Im setting up where we as players are not representing the empire or rebels or whatnot but instead we are crime lords who are able to buy equipment and hire men on the black market. This allows us to have "stormtroopers", fighting side by side with droids. Mix and match as we like. I know thats farther along than your talking about but we are just branching it in a different direction where we can pool resources as players to save money and allow poorer players to play that might not otherwise be able to do so. It also lets us play in a campaign mixing the different games. We are only doing legion and x wing but we have the maps done up and a way to play it out. We are even able to bring in outside groups like Jabbas forces as NPCs

If one combination of units is significantly more effective than all others, and free crossover is allowed, then the majority of armies will either have that combination of units, or the "counter" to that specific combination, so all armies in a tournament start to look the same (more so than now). If one unit is more effective than all others, then it isn't "balanced" just because everyone can take it. Now the game is "did you bring X thing? No? You lose." I've seen it before in 40k. "Balance" doesn't just mean that two opposing forces are roughly equivalent, it also means that units are appropriately pointed, and there aren't any "uber" units, significantly more effective for their cost.

If faction doesn't actually matter, more units get shelved as unusable. Why field Wookies for melee if I can take the superior Royal Guard? (This is just an example, not a statement of opinion on those units). Also, freely allowing for mixed units can dilute the "Star Warsness" of the official events, the ones that advertise the product. I think more fans would be attracted to a game of obvious Rebels vs obvious CIS than two muddled together armies with Stormtroopers fighting alongside Wookies against Palpatine leading Tauntauns, and droids.

That said, in your local games, do whatever your group finds the most fun.

I have seen through 30+ years in 40k and other like games, you will have that no matter what. The only way to have perfect balance is having all sides be forced to have the exact same items on the exact same field such as chess or checkers and even then, first player will have the advantage. That being said, I have played against the "superior army with one made up of lesser units and won. Likewise, i have been the one beaten while I had the superior army. The superior army shows trends of specific competative players but by no means determines what actually "is". It still holds up that balance is not the reason because it is possible to juggle the points and abilities while adding in addendum's to make it "balanced" even so (as we have with the living rules and points.

But at the end of the day, whatever the reason, the fact remains that "it is what it is". We as players have the choice of going strict or coming up with alternatives in our gaming groups. To attend tourneys or not or whatever else. You can have anything goes or only like alignments or even do such things as allowing specific "allies" that come at a higher point cost. Do what works for you.

4 minutes ago, EVIL INC said:

I have seen through 30+ years in 40k and other like games, you will have that no matter what. The only way to have perfect balance is having all sides be forced to have the exact same items on the exact same field such as chess or checkers and even then, first player will have the advantage. That being said, I have played against the "superior army with one made up of lesser units and won. Likewise, i have been the one beaten while I had the superior army. The superior army shows trends of specific competative players but by no means determines what actually "is". It still holds up that balance is not the reason because it is possible to juggle the points and abilities while adding in addendum's to make it "balanced" even so (as we have with the living rules and points.

But at the end of the day, whatever the reason, the fact remains that "it is what it is". We as players have the choice of going strict or coming up with alternatives in our gaming groups. To attend tourneys or not or whatever else. You can have anything goes or only like alignments or even do such things as allowing specific "allies" that come at a higher point cost. Do what works for you.

Yeah, and in 40k it has often been worse since GW has made new units significantly better on purpose to sell models. I also am aware that Legion has some "standard" lists as well, which will be more prevalent whenever the game gets to the point where releases slow down. I'm also aware that the game isn't truly balanced, which is why I put that word in quotes in my last post, it's more about the "perception of balance," since as you said, only games like chess or checkers come close to "balance" owing to both sides having identical forces on blank terrain. I will also fully admit that "competitive" lists are frequently designed to take on other "competitive" lists, and therefore don't have the tools to defeat "non-competitive" lists fielded by a good player.

Developers though want to have a "balanced" game, encouraging equal usage of units and armies, rather than one particular army being perceived as having an advantage and being "unbalanced." So, by limiting the potential unit combinations, they have fewer combinations they have to test. There's no need to check if an army with Veers and Droidekas is incredibly powerful, nor a reason to change rules to reduce the effectiveness of that combination since the rules don't allow for them to be in the same army. So, since they can focus their testing on a smaller number of situations, it is possible (albeit unlikely) that the new unit will be more "balanced" than if the developers had to test the new unit alongside every other currently existing unit, instead of just the ones in their faction.

And we continue to be on the same page with your last paragraph, do what works for you and your playgroup. If it isn't "officially" supported, oh well, that doesn't mean FFG is going to send the fun police to confiscate your miniatures.

I do believe we will have some variation of allied factions as FFG did tease sub factions

13 minutes ago, chr335 said:

I do believe we will have some variation of allied factions as FFG did tease sub factions

In what way? I seem to have missed that...

12 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

In what way? I seem to have missed that...

I honestly don't remember it was one of those Twitter announcements I think

There was a question about it in that AMA on Youtube/Twitch a while back, they said they want to do it and are planning to work it out, but no specifics.