Jump to content



Photo

Edge of the Empire Beta Update: Week 3


  • Please log in to reply
60 replies to this topic

#41 Cyril

Cyril

    Member

  • Members
  • 172 posts

Posted 19 September 2012 - 09:25 AM

selderane said:

 

And if you encounter someone familiar with the weapon, or one like it?  Or someone who simply doesn't care?

No, Defensive on the item itself makes no sense.  Also, the description for the Defensive quality makes it clear that the ability comes from the nature of the item itself, not your enemy's reaction to it.

If I'm familiar with a lightsaber and what it can do, you can bet your last credit that I'm going to be even more frakking careful around it that Joe the Smuggler (or Steve the Marauder since we're talking about melee combat) who has never seen one. I don't know how well trained the guy is, I'm going to let him posture for a while before trying to get into melee with him.

As for someone who doesn't care? Well, in that case it doesn't matter if it's a lightsaber, a vibro-ax, a heavy repeating blaster, or a starship gun. He's going to charge in, and he's eventually going to come to a messy end.

And let's put aside the rubbish notion of "text rules everything" shall we? Yes, text does rule when it's clarifying a rule or explaining something within the system. It doesn't matter if they're good at fending off incoming attacks because they're designed to do so, because they're challenging or even somewhat scary to attack, or simply because they're sized like the weapon of an anime character and as hard to get around as it is to wield. Defensive is defensive.



#42 Cyril

Cyril

    Member

  • Members
  • 172 posts

Posted 19 September 2012 - 09:30 AM

OB-1 said:

Just one more (somewhat unrelated) thing: I was thinking that a lightsaber, being such a elegant, almost weightless and mystic weapon, could use Force Rating instead of Brawn of Agility when determining combat check dice. That way, it would be next to useless to somebody without the skill and/or a Force Rating. What do you think?

This was brought up in the other thread, and I think it's a good idea - as a substitution. You still have plenty of examples in the EU (and even in the films) of characters who have very limited or even no connection to the Force still being able to use a lightsaber, and in many cases, use them terrifyingly well. Han is able to activate Luke's and use it to save his life. This is the most limited end of that spectrum. On the other end of the no-Force-mojo spectrum you have General Grievous who dealt death to Jedi on a constant basis in the Clone Wars using their signature weapon.

You also have to account for the Jedi that may not have had a strong connection with the Force, and instead, chose to devote their lives to mastering the art of fighting with a lightsaber. They may have had a bunk Force rating, but they were terrors with the weapon.

Make substituting your Force Rating an option as a higher level Jedi/Force-user talent and I think you're onto something.



#43 gribble

gribble

    Member

  • Members
  • 411 posts

Posted 19 September 2012 - 10:24 AM

Slaunyeh said:

I think removing the breach quality from lightsabers was the right call. Lightsabers have really never been shown to cut through everything like it wasn't there, in any canon I'm familiar with.

I can think of at least two examples in Return of the Jedi, without having to think too hard. Probably the biggest was Luke chopping the front of a speeder bike on Endor - if that isn't a personal scale weapon ignoring vehicle/starship scale armour I don't know what is! He also used it to cut the binder cuffs off Han, Chewie, etc, although I guess it could be argued that was sunder. I'm sure there are more in the movies, not to mention the numerous books, comics, etc.

Regardless, good to see that Sam has spoken up about it being an error. I'm comfortable with the changes now, although agree with everyone about defensive. Either it should reflect training - in which case neither Vibroblades nor lightsabers should have it, or it is an intrinsic property of "sword type" weapons, in which case both should have it. I don't really have a strong feeling either way, but I do believe it should be consistent as both weapons are wielded in very much the same way. Perhaps remove from both as the default, and add a weapon upgrade (cross guard hilt or something) that provides it at level 1? Although, now that I've suggested that, I guess that could explain vibroblades having the defensive property (they usually have a cross-guard hilt) and lightsabers not (there may be some with one, but if there are I've never seen them in canon)…

:)


Star Wars Edge of the Empire (Beta test) resources

Reference Sheets | Combat Reference Sheet | Critical Cards | Talent Tree Reference

 


#44 JediHamlet

JediHamlet

    Member

  • Members
  • 108 posts

Posted 19 September 2012 - 10:35 AM

I believe the Lightsaber should be kept the way it was.

Breach makes complete sense -- and is being put back in.

Defensive on both sword and a lightsaber makes sense with the change to just affecting melee defense. If a person uses a maneuver to put a weapon between them and their opponents, it should be beneficial -- and a lightsaber even more so. It can slice through just about any relatively light material ("light" being anything less than hull plating).

Deflection should remain also, but limit it to the user's Force Rating (not the power Deflection, just its use with the lightsaber). This could account that lightsabers are "tuned" to the Force and even a relatively untrained user might have the Force guide their hand in tense combat moments. Also, by limiting the Deflection rank by the user's Force Rating we have the potential to improve lightsabers through better crystals and what not, but they are only going to benefit you to the point that you can feel the Force.

Leaving Deflection on the lightsaber (but under the above restriction) would allow a scene similar to the scene where Luke deflects the shots from the training remote. With that gone, under the current set of rules, that would not be possible. (There's no "Deflect" in the Froce Exile talent tree -- I know the Sense Power was probably meant to cover that situation, but sometimes, when it's not spelled "D-e-f-l-e-c-t" it doesn't feel like "Star Wars".)

 

 



#45 Shakespearian_Soldier

Shakespearian_Soldier

    Member

  • Members
  • 957 posts

Posted 19 September 2012 - 11:59 AM

Thanks for the clarifying Sam: the reinstatement of Breach and the removal of Defensive makes a lot more sense to me. I think Breach + Sunder + Vicious 2 does well to represent the dangerous weapon we all know well from the movies. :)


"Beg for your life. No, doing so won't save you - but it will make your death more amusing to watch."
- Vago the Hutt; Star Wars: Edge of the Empire


#46 Slaunyeh

Slaunyeh

    Member

  • Members
  • 376 posts

Posted 19 September 2012 - 08:40 PM

selderane said:

Learning means skill.  I have no problem with Defensive being an extension of the Melee or Lightsaber skills.  But inherent to the item itself?

But some weapons are inherently easier to defend with than others. A sword, for instance, is easier to parry with than, say, an axe (this is actually one of the inherent advantages of the sword as a weapon). So in some cases it makes perfect sense to have the Defensive trait, to reflect that. Now, whether a razor-sharp beam of light is more inherently defensive than something else, I can't say. :)



#47 Slaunyeh

Slaunyeh

    Member

  • Members
  • 376 posts

Posted 19 September 2012 - 08:43 PM

gribble said:

I can think of at least two examples in Return of the Jedi, without having to think too hard. Probably the biggest was Luke chopping the front of a speeder bike on Endor - if that isn't a personal scale weapon ignoring vehicle/starship scale armour I don't know what is! He also used it to cut the binder cuffs off Han, Chewie, etc, although I guess it could be argued that was sunder. I'm sure there are more in the movies, not to mention the numerous books, comics, etc.

I'm pretty sure those speeder bikes used to be character scale, anyway, so I had no issue with that. Now, if he'd cut the front, or a leg, off an AT-AT you'd have a point. Instead he opted to cut open the lock of a whatever hatch and stove a thermal detonator in there.

I'm not really considering fanfic as an unbiased source of how awesome lightsabers/jedi are. The EU is notoriously skewered.

Also, I'm not saying that a lightsaber shouldn't be able to cut through stuff. I just disagree with how much stuff we ever see being cut through effortlessly. Anyway, the topic of Breach was already dealt with. I disagree, but I accept the ruling.



#48 EldritchFire

EldritchFire

    Member

  • Members
  • 490 posts

Posted 20 September 2012 - 03:21 AM

FFG_Sam Stewart said:

Hi everyone!

Big update this week; we're doing a lot of adjustments with weapon damage and some weapon qualities.

Going forward, I'd like to get some people's thoughts on the Auto-Fire and Blast qualities (or other qualities and abilities that allow you to hit multiple targets, or a single target multiple times). Thanks!

I posted my thoughts on Blast in the equipment thread, but I can reiterate here. 

 

EldritchFire said:


The Blast Quality seems wonky to me, anyone else?

 

The old saying goes, "almost only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades," but I don't see almost working with the blast quality. Shouldn't it instead be activated on a miss, to cause blast rating damage (with the usual AA cost)? Or spend a number of advantages equal to the blast rating to cause half damage on a miss?

Also, it's completely useless on vehicle-scale weapons! It causes damage to all engaged characters, friend and foe alike. It might be picking nits, but there is no such thing as "engaged" for vehicles.

-EF

As for auto-fire, in my (gaming) experience it's used for two things: spray and pray, and burst. Spray and pray is all about covering the area with so much lead (or blaster bolts) that you're bound to hit something. In EotE, that may be done with adding boost dice, maybe?

As for burst fire, that's more what the current rules show: concentrated fire to put multiple shots into one target. 

-EF

 



#49 GM Chris

GM Chris

    Member

  • Members
  • 397 posts

Posted 20 September 2012 - 03:45 AM

selderane said:

GM Chris said:

 

I actually really like the idea of lightsabers and vibro-swords having Defensive 1.

Remember, Defensive only applies to melee attacks.  And those two weapons (basically, swords…) should be able to be used in that capacity, force-abilities or no.  It's just a part of fencing.  You're using your sword AS a shield, basically - to block incoming melee blows.  This is the FIRST thing a fencer learns.

 

 

Emphasis mine.

Learning means skill.  I have no problem with Defensive being an extension of the Melee or Lightsaber skills.  But inherent to the item itself?

Your own definition says no.

That's a good point, sir!

My only reply would be that in Star Wars, we never see someone pick up a weapon and have "no idea how to use it".  Even a normal person on Earth with no training in fencing can pick up a sword, and get the basic concept of using the heavy piece of forged and folded steel to block an incoming attack.  ;-)

But you make a fair point.  :-)


Host of The Order 66 Podcast:  http://www.d20radio.com

 

Find all the EotE Order 66 Episodes right here:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/Order66


#50 gribble

gribble

    Member

  • Members
  • 411 posts

Posted 20 September 2012 - 01:15 PM

FFG_Sam Stewart said:

Going forward, I'd like to get some people's thoughts on the Auto-Fire and Blast qualities (or other qualities and abilities that allow you to hit multiple targets, or a single target multiple times). Thanks!

I posted this in the equipment thread as well, but I'll repeat here:

Another poster said: if someone has the choice to activate Blast…there's always going to be someone that chooses not to. And I could see a scenario where a player lobs a grenade at a foe and chooses to save the adjacent friendly NPC from the grenade's wrath.

To which I replied: I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing - grenades are really meant for groups of enemies - if you're going after a single foe there are better weapons to use, so it's not like PCs will use this abusively as the best way to hurt the opponent. I can see then using it as "positioning the grednade just right to get the bad guy but not the ally.

However, I think it'd be interesting to give the GM the option of activating a blast weapon with the same threat cost as the usual advantage cost to activate, for just this situation… in fact, if FFG don't use that as an official rule, I certainly will be in the games I'm GMing…

:)


Star Wars Edge of the Empire (Beta test) resources

Reference Sheets | Combat Reference Sheet | Critical Cards | Talent Tree Reference

 


#51 LethalDose

LethalDose

    Member

  • Members
  • 782 posts

Posted 21 September 2012 - 05:13 AM

FFG_Sam Stewart said:

Hi everyone!

Big update this week; we're doing a lot of adjustments with weapon damage and some weapon qualities.

Going forward, I'd like to get some people's thoughts on the Auto-Fire and Blast qualities (or other qualities and abilities that allow you to hit multiple targets, or a single target multiple times). Thanks!

I also posted in the equipment thread about this:

Autofire seems too cheap to activate with just one adv, especially since it can be activated multiple times and it only tends to appear on weapons that already have high damage output (Rifles and repeaters).  This was initially a concern on the theory side (essentially doubling damage for a single advantage), but was independently repeated by my players after they saw it in action.  My advice: increase the cost of activating autofire to at least 2 adv

Burst:  I think this is great, but there are some recent posts in the equipment section regarding TDs.

 

-WJL


"All models are wrong, but some models are useful."  - George E. P. Box


#52 Donovan Morningfire

Donovan Morningfire

    Looking for a saint? Look elsewhere.

  • Members
  • 4,386 posts

Posted 21 September 2012 - 05:26 AM

LethalDose said:

FAutofire seems too cheap to activate with just one adv, especially since it can be activated multiple times and it only tends to appear on weapons that already have high damage output (Rifles and repeaters).  This was initially a concern on the theory side (essentially doubling damage for a single advantage), but was independently repeated by my players after they saw it in action.  My advice: increase the cost of activating autofire to at least 2 adv

 -WJL

Regarding Autofire, just a thought, but maybe instead of changing the cost, alter the game effects so that you can only hit a target once, and that Autofire only lets you hit additional targets, with minion groups called out as the exception to this?


Dono's Gaming & Etc Blog - http://jedimorningfire.blogspot.com/

"You worry about those drink vouchers, I'll worry about that bar tab!"


#53 OB-1

OB-1

    Member

  • Members
  • 61 posts

Posted 21 September 2012 - 07:25 AM

I. According to my own experience, I think Auto-fire is fine as it is.

This considering,

1. On one hand, the added difficulty to use auto-fire (+1 [P]), which, beyond the first hit, only lets the active player spend an [adv] to shoot again vs. the first target or another target (but only 1 more) "engaged with the first target", as many shots as spent [adv] but only to a maximum of 2 targets. And only then when they are engaged with each other (which is a condition that rarely applies). If there is no target engaged with the first, auto-fire only applies to the first target.

and then there are the walking fire rules by which you must add two difficulty (+2 [PP]) to the targeted enemy which is in the first place the most difficulty to hit amongst all the selected targets, in case you want to hit anybody else beyond the original target and the one (just one) target that is (eventually) engaged with him.

There is clearly a trade-off and a gamble here that makes sense and is fun to play.

Specially as the adversaries will scatter and add the most setback dice as they can manage with cover, high ground, prone position, etc… These add up and can be a lot.

2. On the other hand, the results I witnessed so far were very cinematic and not unrealistic at all.

Come on people, this is a Galaxy where a blaster shot is gonna hurt, let alone a E-web or light saber wound. Thermal detonators should kill, or at least KO everybody in the room, or within the blast radius.

This weapons are dangerous, and that is according to the player's expectations and as such they help facilitate a more envolved story to be told and shared at the table, as far as I am concerned. They promote sound tactical decision making  and roleplay on the part of the players (GM included, on behalf of NPC's).

 

II. I have a different opinion on the mechanics regarding jet packs and grenades, where i feel there is substantial room for improvement.

Jet pack rules could be more simplified and easy to use, according to the poster Ferretz on the Equipment Feedback Thread (page 4, first post).

The blast rules as they stand now don't make a lot of sense, as they give the active player the sole control whether they activate or not.

 

III. What I am trying to say is that there is really no point in tonning down the inerent danger level of some weapons below what is expected.

I have found that is not an impediment to telling good stories and having criative combat engagements. Quite the contrary.

Players adjust accordingly as they better understand the system.


"General Kenobi: Years ago you served my father in the Clone Wars (...)"

#54 OB-1

OB-1

    Member

  • Members
  • 61 posts

Posted 21 September 2012 - 08:43 AM

selderane said:

 

GM Chris said:

 

I actually really like the idea of lightsabers and vibro-swords having Defensive 1.

Remember, Defensive only applies to melee attacks.  And those two weapons (basically, swords…) should be able to be used in that capacity, force-abilities or no.  It's just a part of fencing.  You're using your sword AS a shield, basically - to block incoming melee blows.  This is the FIRST thing a fencer learns.

 

 

Emphasis mine.

Learning means skill.  I have no problem with Defensive being an extension of the Melee or Lightsaber skills.  But inherent to the item itself?

Your own definition says no.

 

 Actually… I was thinking that it would be fine that lightsabers don't have a defensive quality and vibro weapons do, on the account that the later are solid and made to block and the former are almost weightless.But I am not sure. I know lightsabers (can) melt other objects. 

The thing is, I don't remember seeing, in the movies or elsewhere, a duel between a light saber wielder and a vibro sword one, so I am not sure what is being simulated here.

Maybe I am just not very knowledgable on the subject. 

But, what do you think, to let, in this kind of scenario, the light saber dude use threat from the opponent pool to activate the same effects described from the Sunder Quality. 

The thing is, Qualities appear to be designed to be used by the active player (mostly by spending advantage).

Would activating those effects out of turn unbalance the system or it's fair game regarding the rules that govern the use of threat?

What do you think?

 


"General Kenobi: Years ago you served my father in the Clone Wars (...)"

#55 LethalDose

LethalDose

    Member

  • Members
  • 782 posts

Posted 23 September 2012 - 04:11 PM

OB-1 said:

On one hand, the added difficulty to use auto-fire (+1 [P]), which, beyond the first hit, only lets the active player spend an [adv] to shoot again vs. the first target or another target (but only 1 more) "engaged with the first target", as many shots as spent [adv] but only to a maximum of 2 targets. And only then when they are engaged with each other (which is a condition that rarely applies). If there is no target engaged with the first, auto-fire only applies to the first target.

and then there are the walking fire rules by which you must add two difficulty (+2 [PP]) to the targeted enemy which is in the first place the most difficulty to hit amongst all the selected targets, in case you want to hit anybody else beyond the original target and the one (just one) target that is (eventually) engaged with him.

So, first, I think you and I have had different experiences in the game.  Which is fine, it just shows were stress testing in in a different way.  I am a big proponent of keeping the combat lethal, but I feel the current state of autofire is just too much.

A portion of the autofire quality reads:

"Each time it [activates], the weapon deals an additional hit to the target or another target engaged with the first target."

I don't see how this is only limited to two targets.  If multiple targets are engaged with the original, each additional hit could be assigned to an additional target engaged with the original target.  But the above passage also refers to walking fire, pg 137, so I am very unclear if multiple targets that are engaged are even legal we didn't declare walking fire in advance.  Its a point that needs clarification.

My much larger concern does not deal with characters mowing down minions, or even henchmen, too quickly, but the opposite:  I found it was too easy for NPCs with autofire weapons to mow down PCs with a single roll.  And not even a particularly "lucky" roll at that, since advantages are plentiful to say the least.  

The moment I would provide the following example:  fighting Cordol at the end of the published adventure "Crates of Krayts".  The toughest, and well armored, player character had suffered a small number of wounds (three or so) earlier in the adventure.  When Cordol hit him 3 times (only requiring 2 Adv, granted to him by a pair of boost dice his cronies provided on their checks).  This floored him and crit him twice (also at +20 on the crit roll, and pierce 1).  Again, for effect:

Two advantages can be spent to triple the damage output of one attack on one target.

Maybe my players and I "Aren't doin' it right", but the amount of damage just those two adv caused seems very very concerning.  The source of my concern is not one adv is simply too cheap, its one (or more) advantages are simply too frequent and cause sitiuations like the one I described above.  This has concern about large numbers of advantages has been voiced on several other threads.  However, since I doubt we can reduce the rate with which adv are produced because dice are probably at the printers for the beginner set, cost and mechanism modfication are the only tools we have to balance these abilities.  As a GM, I would really prefer that I be able to play my villians to the hilt the same way that the PCs can, without concern that I have to pull punches too frequently (e.g. not use rolled results as effectively as possible).

That last line may be viewed as self-contradictory, but I have no problem "fudging" a roll on occassion. I just I prefer to keep it to a minimum, and hopefully with the narrative system, I'll be forced to do it less.

I think compared to other ways of spending individual advantages, this ability is just screamingly too effective, even given that its harder to activate.  At medium range, the difficulty make an attack with autoshot is "hard", three purples.  Not that bad, and even easier if other minions set up shots.

@ DM: I fail to see how limiting the number of hits is better than increasing the price.  A hit limit just doesn't fit with the autofire flavor, and seems very artificial.  Increasing the price simply moves the cost of activating the weapon quality to the 'default' level of other qualities (as described in on page 105).

 

TL; DR version: I want to be able to hurt my players and use autofire appropriately, without worrying I can drop one in a single common roll.  This is not currently the state of game.

 

-WJL


"All models are wrong, but some models are useful."  - George E. P. Box


#56 OB-1

OB-1

    Member

  • Members
  • 61 posts

Posted 24 September 2012 - 02:34 AM

LethalDose,

I appreciate the problem you are trying to convey better now. I haven't tested autofiring rules vs. the players yet, and your post further clarified your concerns.

The challenge seems to be encountering the sweet spot between the aplication of Difficult dice [currently +1 and +2 for auto-fire and walking fire, respectively] and the number of advantages needed to activate the auto-fire effect (hit with an extra shot). And I agree that the line between walking fire and auto-fire should be clarified.

As a GM I see myself using walking fire against my players rather than focusing fire repeatedly on a single one. On this respect I feel the walking fire rules on multiple opponents are more  balanced and that your main area of concern is less the rules for hitting multiple targets but more the rules for hitting a single target muliple times, which is the less difficult effect resulting from autofire, while at the same time is potencially the deadliest against the PCs. And this is where I am begining to think you may have really a point here.

Maybe this rules can be ajusted without loosing too much of their effectiveness, while at the same time answering the concerns you so have put so well.

I just don't know if simply increasing the adv cost will cut it, cause it may make the mechanic much less effective in some instances.

Maybe you could, per exemple, increase the adv cost for the extra hit while allowing for just for 1 adv cost to produce cool special effects such as suppressive fire, pinning down opponents, etc, with appropriate special rules, that either can take a manouver away from the opponent, or add a setback die for the lesser cost of only 1adv (which could be used multiple times for more seback dice: see links provided above regarding  lost ability to return fire).

But I don't know if these ideas, which codify some of the players creativity and are made of special cases would make things more complicated at the table or not.

And, for the sake of balancing arguments remember that by the current rules a player being down on wounds doesn't mean being necessarily dead. I think the risk to go down must remain real, even if not common. 

Autofiring rules should feel dangerous, and players should be affraid to walk stright into such a weapon in any circunstance.  

So even if feeling the need to nerf the current autofiring ruleset don't do it so much as to take away the players incentive of thinking tactically out of the box, as per example, trying to flank the opposition, and being mindful of risks in general.

tl;dr: I now understand your point when you say that being a "big proponent of keeping the combat lethal", you "feel the current state of autofiring is just too much". Just don't nerf the mechanic so much as to make an eventual future state of autofiring just too little.

Regarding fudging: I prefer to roll my dice in the open, and as a matter of personal preference I'd rather not to fudge dice results, but I have done that in the past and I also understand where you are coming from here.


"General Kenobi: Years ago you served my father in the Clone Wars (...)"

#57 gribble

gribble

    Member

  • Members
  • 411 posts

Posted 24 September 2012 - 12:43 PM

The more I think about it, the more I think that the basic autofire effect should be 2 Adv to activate.

However, I like the idea of reducing the Adv cost when using autofire to cause pinning or suppression, as suggested.


Star Wars Edge of the Empire (Beta test) resources

Reference Sheets | Combat Reference Sheet | Critical Cards | Talent Tree Reference

 


#58 WarrenH

WarrenH

    Member

  • Members
  • 55 posts

Posted 25 September 2012 - 03:14 AM

What if auto fire required 1A for the first extra hit, 2A for the second, then 3A and so on?



#59 LethalDose

LethalDose

    Member

  • Members
  • 782 posts

Posted 25 September 2012 - 10:04 AM

WarrenH said:

What if auto fire required 1A for the first extra hit, 2A for the second, then 3A and so on?

It's okay, but I'd prefer a flat price the way it is now, just for simplicity, but what've you've described is certainly an improvment.

 

@gribble and OB-1 

Suppression and pinned down are great ideas, and I think they should be in the Star Wars RPG game, and given their more military in nature I think its more likely we'll see them in in Age of Rebellion vs the current book.  I think they are more akin to separate actions than activations of advantages (its very similar to apply setbacks or immobilize status), but if its what we get, I think they are much more balanced and less concerning options vs autofire as it stands.

Glad to see its leading to civil conversation, though.

 

-WJL

 


"All models are wrong, but some models are useful."  - George E. P. Box


#60 gribble

gribble

    Member

  • Members
  • 411 posts

Posted 25 September 2012 - 04:46 PM

LethalDose said:

I think they are more akin to separate actions than activations of advantages (its very similar to apply setbacks or immobilize status), but if its what we get, I think they are much more balanced and less concerning options vs autofire as it stands.

Yeah, I was thinking that as I ruminated over it - kind of a deal damage or instead effect rather than doing both.


Star Wars Edge of the Empire (Beta test) resources

Reference Sheets | Combat Reference Sheet | Critical Cards | Talent Tree Reference

 





© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS