Strictly speaking by the rules you are NEVER allowed to raise any skill above 2 during character creation and you are NOT allowed to spend XP at the start of a session, so for the rules lawyers p.35
 
"Players can spend experience points during character creation and at the end of each game session when they receive additional experience points."
 
Not sure anyone mentioned that already.
 
Now this still allows for loopholes and ways around restrictions, ultimately a player could save 60 XP and have a level 5 skill anyway at the end of the next session..  To that I can only say, min/maxing has always been possible in every game and no game has ever been created with clever enough mechanical rules, that rules lawyers couldn't crack.  There are a few here I'm sure they'll get right on disputing the above by quoting a few more pages to us.
 
The point is and this really goes to everyone, not just GM's.  Remember, role-playing game mechanics ARE ALWAYS UNBALANCED.  There is no such thing as a balanced role-playing game.  The balance comes from players and GM's getting together and not exploiting the weaknesses of a system for the sake of a better game.  
 
-Bigkahuna OUT!

That's a bit of a harsh response don't you think?  I mean he recognizes a problem and is seeking advice on how to deal with it, that alone tells me he's a great GM.
 
Suffice to say, I think the general advice is to be more flexible.  In a narrative system, terminology like "critical hit" doesn't really have an application in the narrative.  It has application in the mechanics, but as soon as you get to a point where your trying to determine whether an explosion of a bacta tank is or isn't a critical hit you'll get yourself in trouble.  You always want to roll with the narrative provided by your players and adapt the mechanical results from the rules, which hopefully have enough coverage for you to at least have an idea on something to draw on.  More than that you want to make sure they reflect the results of the roll, so if 3 advantages with a miss according to the rules is not a critical then the mechanical application should not be as effective as the critical success would be regardless of how the narrative is swung.
 
A good GM is two things, first and foremost he recognizes he is the host and entertainer of the gaming session and second that he is a participant to, not the ruler of the story or the rules.  I think most get the first part, the second is the most frequently screwed up.
 
I would personally argue that a good GM runs the rules as written, but that's more of a player preference.  I don't like tons of house rules adjustments or made up rules that complicate the game which is something a lot, if not most GM's obsess about and do far too much in my opinion.  A good game is one where the rule book, is the rule book and players can depend on it to know how things work. 
 
Yours is a good example where this second aspect of GMing can be problematic. When players either don't understand the rules, the rules are themselves unclear or if rules and the narrative kind of merge and need translation is where things can get complicate.  Which is why its always best to go back to the first and most important rule of GMing, making it fun.  In your case.. let the bloody thing explode... its not a story changing event, nor are you required to make any sort of consistent mechanical ruling because its a narrative event.  So there really is no reason to fight against it if you know what I mean.
 
I would however in this case set the player aside and nail the point home that a miss is a miss, regardless of any other added aspects of a roll because this is the rule which does not require interpretation.  This is important because while its fine to go right ahead and let the tank explode on a role like this, if you agree that a critical hit is a critical hit, the result will be that you will have to apply to other aspects of the rules that are mechanical, like actual critical hits.  In a sense, its kind of a catch 22 for you... in a war between rules and narrative you want the narrative to win, but at the same time not set a precedence that can later be used to fuel arguments about actual mechanical rules.

I started out interested but cautious.  After the first session I can very comfortably say that this is not only the best Star Wars RPG out there, but it may very well be the best RPG ever made.
 
I think at the heart is the fact that while being an extremely narrative focused game, the mechanics are well written, well thought out and non-invasive.  You don't stumble over them when you role-play and things like combat don't drag you out of the narrative, quite to the contrary, combat in EOTE is more narrative then narrative mode.  Their is so much fine detail available in those narrative dice roll that you can't help but create elaborate scenes and imagery.  
 
Personally I hope this narrative dice system takes off and becomes a fad because I can see a lot of really amazing games being developed using it.
 
4th edition was mentioned and I just want to throw a rock at that window and say that without question, it is the worst system I have ever played.  It represents everything that is wrong with where role-playing was briefly going and I'm so glad to see Wizards of the Coasts recognizes what a huge mistake it was.  

Strictly speaking by the rules you are NEVER allowed to raise any skill above 2 during character creation and you are NOT allowed to spend XP at the start of a session, so for the rules lawyers p.35
 
"Players can spend experience points during character creation and at the end of each game session when they receive additional experience points."
 
Not sure anyone mentioned that already.
 
Now this still allows for loopholes and ways around restrictions, ultimately a player could save 60 XP and have a level 5 skill anyway at the end of the next session..  To that I can only say, min/maxing has always been possible in every game and no game has ever been created with clever enough mechanical rules, that rules lawyers couldn't crack.  There are a few here I'm sure they'll get right on disputing the above by quoting a few more pages to us.
 
The point is and this really goes to everyone, not just GM's.  Remember, role-playing game mechanics ARE ALWAYS UNBALANCED.  There is no such thing as a balanced role-playing game.  The balance comes from players and GM's getting together and not exploiting the weaknesses of a system for the sake of a better game.  
 
-Bigkahuna OUT!

Strictly speaking by the rules you are NEVER allowed to raise any skill above 2 during character creation and you are NOT allowed to spend XP at the start of a session, so for the rules lawyers p.35
 
"Players can spend experience points during character creation and at the end of each game session when they receive additional experience points."
 
Not sure anyone mentioned that already.
 
Now this still allows for loopholes and ways around restrictions, ultimately a player could save 60 XP and have a level 5 skill anyway at the end of the next session..  To that I can only say, min/maxing has always been possible in every game and no game has ever been created with clever enough mechanical rules, that rules lawyers couldn't crack.  There are a few here I'm sure they'll get right on disputing the above by quoting a few more pages to us.
 
The point is and this really goes to everyone, not just GM's.  Remember, role-playing game mechanics ARE ALWAYS UNBALANCED.  There is no such thing as a balanced role-playing game.  The balance comes from players and GM's getting together and not exploiting the weaknesses of a system for the sake of a better game.  
 
-Bigkahuna OUT!

Actually you don't.  Its the politically correct thing you expect a publisher to say as it sound proper and looks good on paper, but filtering out your anti-fans is priority one of any good community manager and advertisement team.  The last thing you want is people who don't like your game to be able to see it, judge it and blog about it before its released.  Its the kiss of death.  
 
Early Access IS the rage, in fact, its more then just the rage, its effectively the new business model for making PC games.  It was discovered with Kickstarter.  Pre-orders into Beta is the triple A response to kickstarter and early access projects like those seen on steams greenlight.  You will see less and less open betas and more more and more paid betas under the guise of kickstarter projects, greenlight early access, etc.. etc..  
 
I agree that this is FFG's unwillingness to take a loss on printing, though I would say they are perfectly capable of offering PDF's they wisely choose not to do it.  Its the same principle as early access stuff, in fact if you look at some of the new models for early access you will find that some of them actually cost more then the game will cost when its released, that is the latest novelty.  The goal is to produce a product and test your consumers without ever spending a dime.  Its good business.  It keeps FFG in business and they can continue to poop out awesome games, which is what they do.  Their support for products that do well is unprecedented and its because they know how to run shop. 
 
Sure paying for a beta book is unpleasant and not everyone likes it.  Its a simple matter of not buying it.  Vote with your wallet.  If enough people think like you, it will resolve itself.

I think that would be extremely confusing and I don't see any reason to create sub-rules, that supersede existing rules, this is how most role-playing games get in trouble mechanically.  The system is quite simple, you pick a career at the start of the campaign and you can specialize anyway you like from that point forward.  Once the Rebel book comes out, you will simply have added character specializations to choose from. I wouldn't want players switching careers anymore then I would want them switching races.
 
I do expect that their will be some attention given to how to navigate a story from the Fringe to the Civil War, I imagine it will be covered extensively.  As a GM if I want to get the players into "rebel specializations", for example lets say they join the rebel alliance and train to be soldiers I would simply give them XP sufficient enough to get into their new specialization representing that training.  I would expect however that they maintain all the skills they have earned up to that point.
 
Another words what I don't think should be allow is for example a Smuggler: Pilot specialization character to be able to switch to say a Rebel: Pilot.  Even if such a rule was created I would ban it immediately.  Their needs to be strong continuity in a campaign first and foremost.

Free betas simply don't work, FFG is simply the first company to realize it, which is not a surprise to me, they are a leader in the industry.
 
Anyone who has been involved in the D&D NEXT beta will understand when I say that to call it a complete cluster **** is the understatement of the year.  All NEXT has accomplished is to trigger an endless edition war debate between members of the community and tried to somehow structure does endless complaints into a game.  The result is a game that has been drastically re-written with every packet and is no closer to being either a good game or a complete one.  It is and will remain a complete mess and it would not surprise me in the least if they shut the beta down and started over.
 
A paid BETA of a product that is already designed and ready to be played and actually tested ensures that fans interested in the product can get their hands on it early, play it and contribute to the minor details that need fixing.  Selling a BETA test book is not a money grab because it is not a requirement for you to buy it.  You can simply wait until the final book is released and get that.
 
Their is one aspect of FFG's Star Wars that is undeniable and that is the fact that its a phenomenal success, its not only the best Star Wars RPG we have ever gotten in 4 decades of the hobby, but it may very well be one of the best RPG's ever made.  If in order to get this level of quality they have to sell a BETA book.. its fine by me.  The only thing that matters is the end result to me and its been decades since I picked up a role-playing book and was truly impressed by the design.
 
FFG has more clout today as a role-playing game publisher than anyone in the business.

Free betas simply don't work, FFG is simply the first company to realize it, which is not a surprise to me, they are a leader in the industry.
 
Anyone who has been involved in the D&D NEXT beta will understand when I say that to call it a complete cluster **** is the understatement of the year.  All NEXT has accomplished is to trigger an endless edition war debate between members of the community and tried to somehow structure does endless complaints into a game.  The result is a game that has been drastically re-written with every packet and is no closer to being either a good game or a complete one.  It is and will remain a complete mess and it would not surprise me in the least if they shut the beta down and started over.
 
A paid BETA of a product that is already designed and ready to be played and actually tested ensures that fans interested in the product can get their hands on it early, play it and contribute to the minor details that need fixing.  Selling a BETA test book is not a money grab because it is not a requirement for you to buy it.  You can simply wait until the final book is released and get that.
 
Their is one aspect of FFG's Star Wars that is undeniable and that is the fact that its a phenomenal success, its not only the best Star Wars RPG we have ever gotten in 4 decades of the hobby, but it may very well be one of the best RPG's ever made.  If in order to get this level of quality they have to sell a BETA book.. its fine by me.  The only thing that matters is the end result to me and its been decades since I picked up a role-playing book and was truly impressed by the design.
 
FFG has more clout today as a role-playing game publisher than anyone in the business.

Keeping players wanting, is the key motivation of Edge of The Empire as is trying to find a way to relinquish themselves of their obligations. Its what the game is basically about. Once they accomplish either you are no longer playing Edge of the Empire and theme of the story is lost.  
 
The logistics of gaining wealth are made intentionally complex in Edge of the Empire.  The prices even for the most simple items is very high.  A simple blaster pistol is almost the combined wealth of a new character.  Its not intended that the price set be used for the purposes of determining the value of selling loot.  You don't have to change the prices, or even worry so much about rarity, just consider the story complexities of selling off weapons and equipment.
 
For example lets say your players have collected a small pool of weapons which on the open market is worth a combined total of 20,000 credits.  That's a lot of loot in the possession of the players.  They now seek to sell it and you know that if you give them 20,000 credits to play with they will turn those lesser pieces of gear into powerful pieces of gear.  Rather then running around with Blaster Pistols the group will outfit themselves with pimped out weapons and gear.  
 
Consider the situation and apply it to the Star Wars universe.  What happens when a new arms dealer enters a city and tries to sell 20,000 credits worth of product in direct competition with other arms dealers, or under the local authority, or what have you.  If you create an adventure of it, make selling gear more then just a trip to local shop as a insignificant part of the session you have ultimately failed to capture the spirit of Edge of the Empire.  Every actions the players take should have complications that are logical and believable, selling off loot falls into the same category.
 
In my opinion as long as everything they do is an adventure, with twists and turns, conflict and requires effort, whatever they get, they earned.  But as a GM its your duty to make it an adventure, nothing on in the Edge of the Empire can be simple.  That's in essence the spirit of the game.

I have been running adventures for the better part of 3 decades as a GM and their is one universal truth about a typical adventure, players WILL deviate from what you have planned and you won't be able to stop them without it being obvious that your doing it.  
 
As such the most important aspect of preparation is really knowing the adventure, knowing the motivations of the NPC's, having a strong sense of the setting and having a strong vision of the universe.  In essence no matter what the PC's do, you should know exactly what a place, NPC or situation would look like in that universe and be able to create it on the fly.  Aka, the players decide, lets go to a cantina, you need to know what a Star Wars Cantina looks like without having diagrams or written out scenes or stats for for it.  
 
Another words, whatever the players do, wherever they go, it should appear as if you knew they where going to do that and its part of the adventure.
 
Its why I always say first time GM's should run games in settings they are intimately familiar with so that its very easy and natural for them to describe surroundings and come up with events, characters etc.. on the fly.  I think in part this is why Star Wars is so popular as a role-playing setting, most of us have seen all the movies, read books etc... even without picking up the Edge of Empire book most people are already familiar enough with it to know what things would look like.
 
Stats and things.. they are important and shouldn't be neglected, but again a good roleplaying book will have that stuff in their and Edge of The Empire has done a great job on that end.  Knowing the rules is vital as well, you should be the expert in the room so read the book cover to cover.. its your bible as a GM.
 
My personal take on preparation of a first session is a focus on character creation.  You really want to make sure the back stories, motivations, goals and just the general start of the adventure is unified among the various characters/players.  Another words, people shouldn't be creating characters at home and then turning them into the GM for approval.  Character creation should always be done together, backgrounds should be defined together and as a GM you need to really guide players to create a real "team" that's diverse in ability but united in motivations and goals.    Now this isn't true about every roleplaying setting, I wouldn't for example do that in a world of darkness game, but in a game where players share a starship, their enterprise must be very unified or else it will be a problem.
 
In terms of Edge of The Empire specifically I would also say, really slow it down when narrating.  Its not so much preparation as a style of running but you want to make sure in this game that each role is narrated, each action vivid and each scene really illustrated in the minds of the players.  If you don't do that, instead of Star Wars your world will appear to be a generic science-fiction game.  Its a vital element of running a Star Wars setting.  You want to really drive home the little details and that can and will slow your game a bit, but I think you'll find your players will appreciate it.  In particular focus on creating narrative results to die rolls.  The systems genius is in those specialty dice and when used right its truly a remarkable gaming experience.

As for Obligations, in many ways I think they have been left rather vague in their narrative application because its part of the GM tool belt in terms of story writing.  You can kind of think of it this way.  A GM's job is to create adventures for the group, Obligations are a source of side quests and since every story needs a conflict, obligations create the key piece of information you need for writing stories.  
 
What I suggest is that you look over your players obligations and jot some notes down about what you plan to do with that obligations when you roll on it.  Then whatever the players are doing, throw the wrench in the program and throw them off track.
 
I personally think obligations should be rolled in secret.  The players should have no idea if obligations will be called into play, this way, if you miss it but you think the story would be well served by having an obligation come up.. you simply add it and no one is the wiser and vice versus.   Also if the players know an obligation is coming and worse yet know which one it kind of spoils it in my opinion for the players.

I'm not an expert on the Beta book, I don't particular care for Beta testing but its worth noting that there is about 200 pages in the Beta version of the game and over 400 pages in final product.  I don't know how much of the rules have changed, but that's a significant page count so I think its safe to assume their was at least a lot of additions.  
 
As for advice, pretty much the same GMing advice that applies to any RPG applies here.  I think the only unique aspect of Star Wars Edge of Empires in terms of things you might not be accustomed to is the narrative dice and learning to interpret them and use them for the narrative purpose they are designed for.  If you have played Fantasy Flights other system using a similar mechanic (Warhammer Fantasy Role-play 3.0) you will find it familiar, but other then that I'm not aware of any other game that does anything like it.
 
Perhaps other advisable things might be.
 
Remember that Edge of Empire is a unique perspective on the Star Wars universe.  There might be an instinct to push towards Star Wars story plots involving the foundation of the Star Wars movie stories, but really Edge of Empire is more about all the things you only get a glimpse of in the movies.  In many ways books have likely been the primary source of the story content of this particular take on the Star Wars universe.  The force for example is really not covered from the Jedi perspective, the Rebellion and Empire aren't really dealt with much.  If you try to breach these topics you'll have to draw from other sources and you might find some short comings in terms of class's and class abilities covering such topics.  For example their is no Starfighter or Imperial pilot classes, there isn't much coverage for diplomats or politician classes.  In essence topics that will/are covered in the Rebellion Era book.
 
I would also say that the obligation system is really a key function of Edge of Empire and in a way at the heart of core motivation for characters and groups, which is why its one of the first choices you make when creating a character.  Unlike most role-playing games where your background is a strictly narrative thing, or is the function of a perk/flaw system that suggests but does not obligate narratives, usually used for mechanical bonuses and penalties the obligation system is at the core a purely narrative mechanic crutch.  Almost all obligation are driven by economics where some form of currency is demanded whether its actual credits, or social currencies to some entity like family, obligations of duty or even vengeance.  In a sense the obligation mechanic represents an outlining task that you must continually pursue or be pursued by and this should be a very permanent condition for all characters and as a group, one players can never truly escape.  I think its important to put obligations center stage, it should be almost disruptive to the players, creeping up at the most inopportune times, always forcing their hand to deal with it.
 
Finally I would say that Star Wars Edge of Empire story style should be run like a movie rather then an episodic tv show.  Now this is just a preference, but Star Wars is a franchise founded in long and wide reaching story where the many characters play roles in a variety of key arcs of the Star Wars tale as a whole in my opinion.  Characters should always have long term ambitions that constantly draws them to some grand goal and while in Edge of Empire those goals are more selfish and driven by personal agendas and gains (Obligations), ultimately Star Wars is a story about a Civil War and as such Edge of Empire is the prelude story to a grander adventure.  I think for a good Star Wars campaign to have longevity you kind of need to always keep that core arch in mind and in a sense push players slowly but surely to a point where they must eventually choose sides.  Else you will end up with a group that will eventually be well equipped, rich and able to overcome their obligations with nothing more on the horizon to strive for.  At some point the Empire and the Rebellion must become part of their story which can take some time for you to reach that point but you won't have the luxury of writing new backgrounds for existing characters, their background story will be the one you are running Edge of Empire and so you want to start early.  Get them to take a side overtime.
 
That turned out to be more advice then I expected to give, but that's my two cents.

The golden rule of being a good GM is "give them what they want".  Role-playing games are first and foremost a social situation in which one person is the host, the rest are guests.  While naturally the GM should enjoy himself, he's as much part of it as the people he's hosting, in the end, the game is solely dependent on your guests having a good time.  If combat is what they want, then write adventures in which the combats are dramatic, epic in scale and challenging.  
 
That said, its kind of a temporary solution to be honest.  I have found that game groups and game systems that focus too much of a sessions time on combat do not last in the long term.  4th edition D&D is a very good example of that.  When it came out it was like "wow", combat is so great, but after a few months the complaints of "not enough role-playing" started rolling in.  Today 4e and a lack of role-playing is practically synonymous and Wizards of the Coast has taken a lot of flak for their effort to provide a great combat mechanic because they failed to support it with a mechanic that provides the building blocks for creating great stories.
 
You should continue to try to infuse story in your game and hope that your group starts to respond.  Most people will respond, its a natural state of the human condition to love stories, so you have that working for you.  If they don't however I think you'll find in time the group will start to fall apart as they tire of the linear gaming.

Bad players are bad players and while it can suck to find your group short handed on players, its far better to run a 2 player game then it is a 3 player game with one person their determined to screw it up for everyone else.
 
The advice is probably obvious, I'm sure you don't need to hear it but just for the record, boot his ass out and don't look back.  Booting a player for being a jerk intentionally is not only a good lesson for him, but its a good way to establish yourself to the other players as a guy who cares about their time, which was wasted by having a jerk at the table.  Unfortunately these stories aren't always so black and white and I understand that.  For most of us that "jerk" player might actually be a good friend, cousin, brother or otherwise.  Its not always so simple.
 
My story is what amounts to one of the biggest lesson I learned as a GM and one of the worst gaming experiences I have ever been a part of as it was a kind of catch 22 I couldn't get out of.  
 
I had a very good friend of mine that is a bit of a power gamer who greatly desired to join an ongoing campaign I had run for nearly a year.  I had managed to keep him out of the game not because I had anything against him joining, I can handle power gamers, but because the other players all knew him as well and didn't like playing with him.  He however kind of played the puppy eyes and pulled the friendship card so I convinced the group to let him join the game for the final chapter of this very long campaign.  
 
Right out of the gate I laid down the law for him about power gaming.  We where using 3.5 rules which was a very easy system to manipulate.  He created a reasonable character, so I thought and the first session with him in it started.  What he actually did was create a perfectly deadly combination of feats that at a first glance one might not notice.  He had a lot of system mastery and I overlooked it.  In the first scene of the game, he met the existing players, this was supposed to be more or less a formality as we had agree that he would be an old men at arms that one of the characters in the group was familiar with.  However in the first scene he opened up and attempted to conjule payment for his services that he was about to render.  The players didn't buy it and told him no thank you, services not needed.  He promptly threatened the group, drew his weapons and effectively became the bad guy.  Now I stopped the game, but the other players, rather miffed and pretty confident they could win a fight with this character wanted to ride the fight out as if it was a monster fight.
 
Spells where thrown, swords where drawn and the fight started.  Now I'm a fair GM and I pride myself on running the rules straight.  I don't play favorites, we rolled in the open and I told them before the fight started.... we can stop this right here and now, boot this player out of the game, erase the scene and pick up where we left off before he joined.  But the players insisted the fight took place.  What followed was 3 hours of the most intense arguing, rules lawyering and aggressive behavior I had ever seen out of any of these players.  When the fight was over, people where storming out of the house, telling each other to F-off.  The campaign never recovered and the group itself was never really the same after that.  Things where said that went far and beyond simple role-playing, things that I took personally, they took personally etc..
 
Morale of the story is, be a good GM.. keep bad players out of your game.

Bad players are bad players and while it can suck to find your group short handed on players, its far better to run a 2 player game then it is a 3 player game with one person their determined to screw it up for everyone else.
 
The advice is probably obvious, I'm sure you don't need to hear it but just for the record, boot his ass out and don't look back.  Booting a player for being a jerk intentionally is not only a good lesson for him, but its a good way to establish yourself to the other players as a guy who cares about their time, which was wasted by having a jerk at the table.  Unfortunately these stories aren't always so black and white and I understand that.  For most of us that "jerk" player might actually be a good friend, cousin, brother or otherwise.  Its not always so simple.
 
My story is what amounts to one of the biggest lesson I learned as a GM and one of the worst gaming experiences I have ever been a part of as it was a kind of catch 22 I couldn't get out of.  
 
I had a very good friend of mine that is a bit of a power gamer who greatly desired to join an ongoing campaign I had run for nearly a year.  I had managed to keep him out of the game not because I had anything against him joining, I can handle power gamers, but because the other players all knew him as well and didn't like playing with him.  He however kind of played the puppy eyes and pulled the friendship card so I convinced the group to let him join the game for the final chapter of this very long campaign.  
 
Right out of the gate I laid down the law for him about power gaming.  We where using 3.5 rules which was a very easy system to manipulate.  He created a reasonable character, so I thought and the first session with him in it started.  What he actually did was create a perfectly deadly combination of feats that at a first glance one might not notice.  He had a lot of system mastery and I overlooked it.  In the first scene of the game, he met the existing players, this was supposed to be more or less a formality as we had agree that he would be an old men at arms that one of the characters in the group was familiar with.  However in the first scene he opened up and attempted to conjule payment for his services that he was about to render.  The players didn't buy it and told him no thank you, services not needed.  He promptly threatened the group, drew his weapons and effectively became the bad guy.  Now I stopped the game, but the other players, rather miffed and pretty confident they could win a fight with this character wanted to ride the fight out as if it was a monster fight.
 
Spells where thrown, swords where drawn and the fight started.  Now I'm a fair GM and I pride myself on running the rules straight.  I don't play favorites, we rolled in the open and I told them before the fight started.... we can stop this right here and now, boot this player out of the game, erase the scene and pick up where we left off before he joined.  But the players insisted the fight took place.  What followed was 3 hours of the most intense arguing, rules lawyering and aggressive behavior I had ever seen out of any of these players.  When the fight was over, people where storming out of the house, telling each other to F-off.  The campaign never recovered and the group itself was never really the same after that.  Things where said that went far and beyond simple role-playing, things that I took personally, they took personally etc..
 
Morale of the story is, be a good GM.. keep bad players out of your game.

Bad players are bad players and while it can suck to find your group short handed on players, its far better to run a 2 player game then it is a 3 player game with one person their determined to screw it up for everyone else.
 
The advice is probably obvious, I'm sure you don't need to hear it but just for the record, boot his ass out and don't look back.  Booting a player for being a jerk intentionally is not only a good lesson for him, but its a good way to establish yourself to the other players as a guy who cares about their time, which was wasted by having a jerk at the table.  Unfortunately these stories aren't always so black and white and I understand that.  For most of us that "jerk" player might actually be a good friend, cousin, brother or otherwise.  Its not always so simple.
 
My story is what amounts to one of the biggest lesson I learned as a GM and one of the worst gaming experiences I have ever been a part of as it was a kind of catch 22 I couldn't get out of.  
 
I had a very good friend of mine that is a bit of a power gamer who greatly desired to join an ongoing campaign I had run for nearly a year.  I had managed to keep him out of the game not because I had anything against him joining, I can handle power gamers, but because the other players all knew him as well and didn't like playing with him.  He however kind of played the puppy eyes and pulled the friendship card so I convinced the group to let him join the game for the final chapter of this very long campaign.  
 
Right out of the gate I laid down the law for him about power gaming.  We where using 3.5 rules which was a very easy system to manipulate.  He created a reasonable character, so I thought and the first session with him in it started.  What he actually did was create a perfectly deadly combination of feats that at a first glance one might not notice.  He had a lot of system mastery and I overlooked it.  In the first scene of the game, he met the existing players, this was supposed to be more or less a formality as we had agree that he would be an old men at arms that one of the characters in the group was familiar with.  However in the first scene he opened up and attempted to conjule payment for his services that he was about to render.  The players didn't buy it and told him no thank you, services not needed.  He promptly threatened the group, drew his weapons and effectively became the bad guy.  Now I stopped the game, but the other players, rather miffed and pretty confident they could win a fight with this character wanted to ride the fight out as if it was a monster fight.
 
Spells where thrown, swords where drawn and the fight started.  Now I'm a fair GM and I pride myself on running the rules straight.  I don't play favorites, we rolled in the open and I told them before the fight started.... we can stop this right here and now, boot this player out of the game, erase the scene and pick up where we left off before he joined.  But the players insisted the fight took place.  What followed was 3 hours of the most intense arguing, rules lawyering and aggressive behavior I had ever seen out of any of these players.  When the fight was over, people where storming out of the house, telling each other to F-off.  The campaign never recovered and the group itself was never really the same after that.  Things where said that went far and beyond simple role-playing, things that I took personally, they took personally etc..
 
Morale of the story is, be a good GM.. keep bad players out of your game.

@Willmanx
 
I think that's right on the money.  Though I would say, let the players spend their advantages on the narrative, but you define the mechanical results of that narrative.
 
So for example in the case of "I shoot the tank and it explodes".. On a critical it might outright kill something, or do a bunch of damage, but on a miss, it might just knock them prone, or stun them for a round.  The idea is that the narrative "I blow up the tank" doesn't define the results mechanically only the narrative results.  Its ALWAYS the job of the GM to give the mechanical results, unless their is a defined rules for what should happen mechanically.  
 
This can be tricky, because a player might say "I blow up the tank, it explodes and kills the stormtrooper", which is still a narrative response and is legitimate.  As a DM you have to become kind of clever.  For example you might rule that it happens exactly as the players describe, but as they come out of cover to look over the scene the stormtrooper, bloodied and charred stands up and starts shooting again... aka the players only thought he was dead.  After all as a GM when you give the narrative you give the players the narrative they see and hear, not necessarily the actual mechanical results, at least you shouldn't. It will make them wary about the narratives they hear, including the ones they give based on their own results and frankly that's how you want it.
 
That said, it is always in your right to say, sorry I don't think 1 advantage is sufficient to blow up the tank, but you hit it and it starts leaking making the floor slippery.  Another words, counter a narrative with an alternative based on the original by identifying that the player simply didn't have the roll to accomplish what they hoped for.  In this case the accomplishment they where going for is "blow up", but the first thing that perhaps 1 advantage on a miss might allow is "hit the tank"... perhaps with 2 you could blow it up and with 3 you "kill the stormtrooper" and deal with the fact that it was technically a miss by waking up the dead stormtrooper.
 
I think in a narrative system like this, the GM just needs to be very clever in providing as many "yes's" as possible so that the players feel the controls as the game intends them to, but always consider the core function of the spirit of those mechanics.. A miss, is still a miss, so there should be a miss in that narrative somehow and there is nothing better than a miss that you think is a hit... its really classic Star Wars, its just that in the movies it happens to the stormtroopers usually .. aka they think they killed the characters but actually their 3 advantages where part of a miss roll and they are still alive.