a group of heroes that are outnumbered can make up for that with superior positioning (high ground) or better cover, planning ahead or knowing the lay of the land more intimately.

Yeah. The idea is that the Rebels are outnumbered but make up for it by being better trained to position their forces, use cover, conduct reconnaissance to discover the lay of the land and shoot straight.

Yeah, unfortunately his profile says he's a Brit.

And it isn't that the Rebels need to be better than the Empire that's important, it's that the PLAYER CHARACTERS are better than them. After all, in a good game, it's the PCs who will be making all the difference; if that's not the case, and you're shooting for a game where the Rebellion beats the Empire in all skill fronts, then the PCs might as well sit back and watch rather than participate.

Erik, do you actual KNOW anything about warfare? Or are you pulling 'facts' out of your arse? Because you seem to be speaking with unquestioned authority (only god knows why you feel you should be) about this.

I'd rather the PCs participate than have to carry the dead weight of their side.

It helps avoid questions about why they are fighting for these losers.

I didn't realise the Imperial Order of Battle used a points system to determine deployment strength. That sounds like you're heading back to your "everyone wants to play the SS in wargames" argument from your AluminiumWolf days.

I would have thought fighting for freedom was reason enough, or are you dropping that argument in favour of "only fight for the side that can win"?

The rebels make up for being outnumbered and outgunned by primarily fighting a guerilla war, with hit and run tactics. They avoid stand up fights with the Imperium, as that is exactly what the Imperium is set up to defeat. You try and stand and fight against a Legion of Stormtroopers and their support and you will find yourself very, very dead (Hoth gives a perfect example). If on the other hand you make lightning raids on areas where the enemy is more weak, gaining local superiority, strike when they are not expecting etc you can have a much smaller, less liberally equipped force cause havoc on the Leviathan that is the Empire. You undermine the authority of the Empire (much of which is based on its ability to maintain order), undermine morale of the less well commited, all while maintaining your own forces.

The Rebels only stood and fought when 1) they had to (Yavin & Endor) or 2) they had managed to manoeuvre themselves into a position where they did have the advantage. They couldn't afford to drain their forces by doing anything else.

Erik, do you actual KNOW anything about warfare? Or are you pulling 'facts' out of your arse? Because you seem to be speaking with unquestioned authority (only god knows why you feel you should be) about this.

That's how history books, especially military history books that exist more to mythologize their side talk.

Imagine most of this stuff comes from an X-Wing!: The experiences of a Galactic Civil War Fighter pilot holobook published long after the end of the conflict or similar. Only in this world it is actually the gods honest unvarnished truth:-

I tend to take such things with a grain of salt in real life, but for Star Wars it seems entirely appropriate.

The rebels make up for being outnumbered and outgunned by primarily fighting a guerilla war, with hit and run tactics. They avoid stand up fights with the Imperium, as that is exactly what the Imperium is set up to defeat.

The X-Wing game suggests Rebel pilots can always expect to fight outnumbered by at least 3 to 1. If they were not using hit and run tactics, they would be outnumbered 50 -1 or worse.

Another instance of 'let's just agree to disagree', because my Stormtroopers - and those, it appears, of most visitors to these boards - will be more than people who can't shoot remotely well, and who get butt-smashed by the heroes without a lick of difficulty. You play it your way (though we know by now that you probably don't even own the books, or it you do that you don't play/run any games).

Another instance of 'let's just agree to disagree', because my Stormtroopers - and those, it appears, of most visitors to these boards - will be more than people who can't shoot remotely well.

Then how come they always lose, especially since they so vastly outnumber their foes?

Because the story required them to? Because the Rebels had luck on their side? Because when they realistically WOULD win, the Empire did (Hoth, anyone?), and because the designers of the Death Star sucked balls by making each one have one glaring weakness.

Because the story required them to? Because the Rebels had luck on their side?

GM fiat and plot armour are not enormously satisfying reasons for the good guys to win.

Exactly. Which is why you should put the heroes up against dangerous foes that they can win against not because you LET them (by nerfing their stats and abilities), but through smart thinking and hard work.

because you LET them (by nerfing their stats and abilities)

Its better than because you LET them by constantly fudging dice rolls and having your supposedly competent enemies constantly doing stupid things. If the bad guys are gonna reliably miss and act like idiots anyway, we might as well have In Character reasons for why they do. Which, incidentally, is what Dave Filoni is providing for the Stormtroopers in the Rebels show in the podcast in the OP.

but through smart thinking and hard work.

Well, I agree Imperials are dumb and lazy compared to Rebels at least.

Who said anything about fudging rolls? I know that I never do, and yet my players' characters have done well and prospered because they take advantage of their surroundings and by using their brains. If you NEED to fudge results, or LET them do anything, then you're GMing wrong; in my 13 years of RPing/GMing (WEG and now EotE specifically), I've never gone soft on my players, nor represented the Empire as weak or incompetent, or fudged rolls to give players the edge - and yet they've succeeded, gone on to tell great stories, and emerged victorious.

So... you're wrong, Erik. Sorry snowflake.

and yet my players' characters have done well and prospered because they take advantage of their surroundings and by using their brains.

Yeah. Rebels tend to have better tactical skills than Imperials and generally act with more cunning and show more initiative than those who have had smarts and initiative drilled out of them by the Imperial system.

Its better than because you LET them by constantly fudging dice rolls and having your supposedly competent enemies constantly doing stupid things. If the bad guys are gonna reliably miss and act like idiots anyway, we might as well have In Character reasons for why they do. Which, incidentally, is what Dave Filoni is providing for the Stormtroopers in the Rebels show in the podcast in the OP.

Now, if you had actually PLAYED THE GAME you had known that both sides roll combat checks OUT IN THE OPEN.

Oh, and for the record, people have been saying for days now that you are misquoting Filoni.

Your version of Star Wars sucks balls dude! It is basically 7 guys from Real Madrid playing soccer against 11 pupils from the Yemeniti national under 16 team. It is boring, it is one dimensional and it is completely at odds with the movies, books, comics, tv shows etc.

I'd go so far as to say that not only your ideas and your capacity at debate suck, but that you personally suck.

Wow. Ignored all of my post, took one sentance, and tried to twist it, huh? You truly are a great wit, Erik - I knew I right to name my Stormtroopers after you.

*waves his DanteRotterdam flag*

You tell him, mate!

*waves his DanteRotterdam flag*

You tell him, mate!

And here I was thinking I might have been too hard on him...

Your version of Star Wars sucks balls dude! It is basically 7 guys from Real Madrid playing soccer against 11 pupils from the Yemeniti national under 16 team.

I'd have said more 7 guys from Real Madrid playing everyone in Yemen at the same time with the fate of the universe resting on the outcome.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwq6QXvhXEY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LI83A4Otuio

Yeah, that seems, to me, to be an even worse way of portraying things.

You do know the rebels are basically the same guys as the ones in the imperial armour, morals not withstanding? And you do know they hardly had time and/or training which the other side did have?

Also, great sidestep of the point where I basically showed you that you have NEVER PLAYED THE GAME. Care to reply on that?

You do know the rebels are basically the same guys as the ones in the imperial armour, morals not withstanding? And you do know they hardly had time and/or training which the other side did have?

The movies don't spend a lot of time focusing on the relative recruitment pools and training techniques employed by the two sides, but we can infer from results that the Rebellion has produced a more effective military machine.

It seems to me the Erik has trouble engaging his intellectual abilities to distinguish between how he thinks a good game should be run and how games work (because it is obvious that this nit has never played this game, or any other RPG for that matter)... and why the stories in the film end as they do... and by mixing in retarded and moronic comparisons to real life events and ideologies (although not recently it seems) he makes it all seem more serious, while we all know its a bunch of films, a fictional story and universe... and when it comes to the games there is no right or wrong, and ErikB is probably the most annoying player to have because he will hate playing in any game where he is challenged in any way and the GM is not holding his hand...

He keeps going on about how the rebels must be superbadass and the empire being moronic, how the rebels have superior training and all... to jump on the ErikB real world comparison band wagon: did the Vietcong have superior training and equipment? doubtful... yet the invading force (i.e. the evil empire, or the US) lost after some 19 years of war, the rebels used more than 20 years to form and win a battle. That means either a) the rebels are worse soldier than the Vietcong or b) the Empire is better at what they're doing than the US... (I mean no slight against any veterans (and relatives of these) from said war or the like with this comparison, but from my stay in the US a few years back I got the distinct impression that most people today (and back then really) think the whole thing was a bad idea).

The movies don't spend a lot of time focusing on the relative recruitment pools and training techniques employed by the two sides, but we can infer from results that the Rebellion has produced a more effective military machine.

Yeah, but no... we cannot infer anything about that from the movies (or, really, you can infer whatever you want, but it doesn't make it sensible or less retarded because you put it down into words)... because they tell us one side of the story, it has a plot, it says nothing at all how the rebels struggled against the Empire before they got their heroes... your regular rebel soldier was and is as expendable and crappy as a stormtrooper, I'd say worse in many instances...

Basically, if you have some intellectual capacity for thinking and processing around average levels you would realise that this can't be boiled down to a simpler right/wrong binary solution... I mean, sure, it can, but then it becomes stupid (and moralistic beyond reason) - and while stupid is fun, entertaining, simple and enjoyable, it's not necessarily as fun, entertaining and enjoyable as using your brain... what you are proposing is an ultimately stupid and boring game, might as well play Risk... or yahtzee... or if that is too much of a challenge, since the dice decide everything, you can play a computer game like Duke Nukem Forever and be lead by the nose through a misogynist and moronic world of stupid people and a retarded hero.