Jump to content

ema nymton

Members
  • Content Count

    46
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ema nymton

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    -
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    Bolton, Greater Manchester, United Kingdom
  1. Yeah, these are all the concerns I have with the idea. But I am not keen on the 1 pip per dice solution, as it still makes Force use too reliable. The discipline check means success is not guaranteed, and there is a risk to trying again as the roll can throw up threats, and maybe despair.
  2. He is an idea I've had, I am curious what people think of it. I have been trying to think if a way to handle repeat attempts at a force power out of combat, or other structured encounter. There seems to be two schools of thought on this. The first is that you can keep trying until you get enough pips. So assuming there are no time constraints or any penalty for failure, you basically just get the max possible number of pips. A bit like talking 20 in d20. The other approach is to rule that you only ever get attempt and if you fail you fail. Nether of this really appeals to me, I don't think success should be automatic, but I do think you should have a better chance of pulling something off if you have time to meditate and prepare properly. So here is my solution. A player can have another go at activating a force power, but first they must pass a discipline check with a difficulty of 2 + the number of failed attempts. So that is difficulty 3 for the second attempt. I would chuck in boost dice if the player is able to spend a long time meditating or if the environment is particularly good. So a day spent meditatating in a jedi temple might neet 2 or even 3 boost dice. So by my rule Luke fails his discipline check after failing to lift his X-wing, and goes on in a huff instead of having another go.
  3. I do agree completely that the text of the power is very clear that everything must start at short range, but from the Developer Answered Questions in the EotE forum comes this question/answer. Again i believe its the fluff, RAW and RAI not aligning properly.Hrmm, that is not a very helpful response by him. He doesn't say how the power should work in that case. I always thought part of the reason for the rules as written was to avoid the complication of having 2 possible ranges and only 1 set of range upgrades.
  4. From the description of the bind basic power on p286 of FaD core: "Binds basic power allows the Force user to restrain those nearby, preventing them from harming others and themselves." I think that's quite clear on what the power does. The control upgrade also only allows the target to be moved a single range band. It has been clarified by the developers that the range upgrade for Move affects both start and end range too, I'll see if I can find the post. On bind, yeah that is what the fluff says, but the rules say the target is immobilized, and the description of immobilized on page 223 says 'An immobilized character cannot perform maneuvers'. Nothing about actions. If you alow the basic power to prevent actions, what is the point of the upgrades that alow targets to be disorientated and staggered? As for move, if the developers have said then that is more than a clarification, it is a rules change, as the rules as written are quite specific. Did they clarify how the range upgrades should work with the change? As it is not as simple as just saying you can affect targets beyond short range. For example if I want to move an object from extreme range in front of me to extreme range behind me do I need enough range upgrades to reach extreme once or twice?
  5. A couple of quick points Move can only affect targets at short range, bind can potentially affect targets at any range. Also in game terms the immobilisation caused by bind only stops the target from using maneuvers, so they can shoot at you just fine, well they can't aim but otherwise fine. I'm not sure if the last two posts are confused on this, or just using immobilise in a general sense, rather than as a specific game term
  6. Most of the Talents in Shii-cho Knight can be used with Brawl, and there are only a couple that require a force rating.
  7. Why would uou ger lynched over that? GotG was amazing. well you know, this being a star wars board and all plus I was being a bit tongue in check.
  8. Got to say while I am not a fan of Abrams, and have some issues with the Force Awakens, it stands like a collossos next to the prequels. Mind you, and I'll probably get lynched for this, but I prefered Guardians of the galaxy to the force Awakens.
  9. Why not? He is. Oh come on, that's really unfair. Bay's done a couple of decent films.
  10. You know, I considered that idea before going with the one I posted above, as I wanted the shooter to be as free to act as possible,but on reflection it could work better. But is there anything in the rules about attacking a character you are not engaged with while engaged. Of the top of my head I can't remember anything, but have tended to assume you can't and have to disengage first. Should is specify that it only applies to Ranged attacks made against the target you are engaged with?Actually, thinking about it, my version was slightly different. My idea was that if you disengage you still count as engaged until the start of your next turn. Where I think the above would be more relevant. It's too early on the morning and my brain is not quite awake yet.
  11. That all ignores the 'my luck factor'. I don't think my player's GM understands the rules, and every time he spends a Destiny point he forgets to flip it.
  12. Star killer Base is my big bugbear with the film, nothing about it makes sense. Even it's very existence bothers me. From what I can gather the first order is a few remnants of the empire. Yet somehow they have the resources to build something that makes the death star look like a water pistol in comparison!
  13. I wonder if it will be last just like Bounty Hunter is for EotE The ones I am most interested in are warrior and mystic, so they will be the last two to come out. In fact FFG will probably loose the license or abandon the line with those two unpublished. Just the way my life goes.
  14. That's a better houserule than the one I proposed. Why thank you. I like it as I find it really simple and gives a more cinematic feel than the raw without actually making disengaging more difficult. It basically forces the gun guy to make a choice, he either disengages and moves flat out to hopefully put some distance between him and the Melee guy before turning and shooting. Accepts the penalty for using a gun in Melee, or switches to a Melee weapon. Which is how I think it should be.
  15. I’m thinking that you could have a rule where doing a double move away from someone and then shooting back at them would suffer at least one difficulty upgrade and a double setback, because basically you’re running flat out away from someone and then trying to shoot back at them while you’re running away.If you wanted to do a single move away from someone and then spend another maneuver to turn around so that you can shoot at them, I’d allow that. But then the melee character could do a single move maneuver to catch up to them and then be at Engaged range so that they could take a whack at them.Or, the ranged character could do a double move backwards and then shoot, but that would also result in at least one upgrade and one or two setback, due to moving backwards during combat and the dangers thereof.IMO, those options solve the same problem, while I think being more cinematic. They still give the player the option of choosing to do that thing, but they also make it more difficult. They all sound good, I still prefer my own house rules though as I just find it simpler.
×
×
  • Create New...