Jump to content

kelann08

Members
  • Content Count

    133
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by kelann08

  1. I'm looking for some resources akin to those made for Edge. I know it's early in release, but I'm hoping someone is working on a character creation sheet that incorporates both Edge and Age. I would expect many people are just treating them as the same game even though FFG sees them as separate lines. Any suggestions? I've found talent trees but that's about it so far. Something that includes a breakdown of character creation options would be very helpful.
  2. I put together an updated version of Gribble's sheets to bring it up to date with the Core Rulebook: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B81dmvsSRmGHZ1NOMEU1ZzkzcWs The formatting isn't perfect, but all the page numbers and statistics should be correct. Let me know if anyone finds an error. Brilliant, I've been looking for this. Now we just need it updated to the AoR core book...
  3. I hope they continue to tackle this divided by sectors. I like the regional designation. It helps me better physically sort my homebrew adventures.
  4. My group played there once and I've seen a few playing there on Saturdays. We are sticking to playing at my house right now and are pretty full up but I bet if you dropped by and asked around, you might have some luck. I know Madness has a guild on Board Game Geek so you might try posting in their forums. If you find a group, let me know. I'm GMing right now and I'd love to be in a group as a player.
  5. All the game companies I've had experience with use fourth quarter to mean Oct/Nov/Dec. The only companies who consider fourth quarter any differently are usually financial companies.
  6. Got mine yesterday at my FLGS, was very please/surprised.
  7. 1. I've answered most questions posed towards me. If I missed some, please point them out to me. Sometimes, I didn't answer specific lines because I was focused on another line of conversation that was going on in the thread, because that portion was more important to me at the time, so there are probably a few I really did miss. 2. As opposed to running people off by accusing them of not being roleplayers, of not understanding the game, of not understanding roleplaying, of being minmaxers? The only thing I actually badgered anyone about was them telling me I was factually wrong about something without providing a single shred of evidence I was wrong. Factually wrong. Not an opinion. FACT. I'm sorry, but if someone is going to accuse someone of being wrong, they don't get to just get it accepted as truth, they have to prove it. 3. Oddly, we are three conversations away from where I started in this thread, yet for some reason you can't catch on that I'm not talking about the same thing anymore, and so have obviously dropped that line of discussion, yet for some reason you are implying that I am still arguing the same points. Very difficult when we aren't even having the same conversation. We are currently discussing whether the specific names of careers and specializations have meaning or if its the capabilities that they embody that has true meaning. You are welcome to join the conversation of course, but you don't seem to actually want to, instead content to warn people off from discussing things with that person who is badgering on the same points even though we are three conversations away from the original point he joined. The topic may have shifted, your tactics have not. Why would I wade into yet another debate when all it does is fuel your need to argue? This has gone well beyond any kind of rational discussion and has instead become a way for you to get all the attention you crave. Also, you missed three questions in the post you quoted.
  8. Your character has been sniped many times, he just doesn't know when to lay down and be dead. That's a metaphor.
  9. I ask questions because some of the statements are absurd. If someone is going to insinuate that I do not find roleplaying important because I don't adhere to the idea of the names of careers and specializations being 100% literal, then I ask questions because that is a leap of logic that makes ZERO sense. If someone is going to accuse someone of something with a shaky foundation, don't be surprised if questions that point out those shaky foundations are posed. Its a basic debate method, with a history spanning two and a half millennia, and if debate is not allowed on this forum, I'm not sure why the forum exists. Also, I'm not even sure you are reading my posts. I've made many a long post in which I defend my position and the reason for it. I've also made several posts that are just one question, because people always seem to avoid answering the questions that are included in the longer posts of my position. If people can't answer questions about their view, its probably not a strong position now is it? And at least I'm asking questions about the actual discussion taking place, rather than an offtopic post taking potshots at someone because they have a different point of view than me. So unless you have something that actually addresses the actual subject of conversation, rather than accusing me of being oh so bad for debating my point of view, I suggest you kindly be on your way. Maybe if you treated it less like a debate and more like conversation, you'd get better responses. I've been reading your crap since the beginning and have just decided its better to warn people off of you than attempt to convince you of something you won't be convinced of. Why bother with the discussion when you can't come to a resolution? Is the end of it all everyone telling you you're right? Is that how you see this ending? I'm sorry if that's the case, because it isn't going to happen. And running everyone off because you've badgered them to death with your questions and lack of answers doesn't count as a win.
  10. The thing you're missing, Freak, is that he IS trying to be argumentative. Many of his posts consist of more questions that answers. He doesn't make a statement to defend his stance, he asks you to defend yours so he doesn't have to. That's the very definition of argumentative.
  11. I'd like to restate your initial assertion - see below. Norton is running a house rule. That's fine for him. We may disagree on the end result how it applies to players but if that makes him and his players happy, so be it. You, on the other hand, are trying to justify this house rule by saying the rules don't say you can. That's a completely different animal and you're flat out wrong. Its not a disagreement of opinion - its a factual certainty. First, by definition, you're trying to prove a negative. If you don't know what that means, admit it so we can move on. Saying you aren't is just ignorant. So you want us to prove that the game says you DON'T get XP back for buying specializations in which you have already bought non-career skills. I'd like you to prove where it says you CAN. Because as I read it, it doesn't say that you can. Inherently, the book asserts that if it doesn't say that you CAN do something, then you can't. We don't need to prove that the book says you can't because it doesn't say you can. How is it penalizing your players? They knowingly chose to buy those skills with the added tax. They had full information of what they were doing and they did it anyway. There's no penalty there. How does applying the rules as written "piss off" your gamers? If members of my group did that, I'd get a new group. Again - its not a penalty. He chose to buy those skills. He knew he was paying extra. When the life of his character suddenly took a dramatic turn, that's how the game works. Its part of being in a growing and living game. If you let them plan it out to the nth degree and never throw a curve ball, where's the fun? Worse yet, you let them plan it out, throw a curve ball and then FORGIVE them for planning years in advance and not being prepared for the unknown? None of this is a penalty. Its the game. Its about exploring and adapting and, sometimes, making mistakes. It wasn't a mistake at the time and it doesn't cripple your character. Setbacks are a part of roleplaying and real life. We overcome them and move on. Don't give freebies because of it.
  12. The rules also don't say that you cannot hold your GM at gun point for all the XP you want but it doesn't mean you can do it. The absence of a rule does not mean that you can do it. The player DID spend 193 XP. If he bought non-career skills its more expensive. It doesn't mean he didn't spend the XP. He chose to gain those skills at a more expensive point in his PCs life. Regarding Order 66 Podcast, I'll have the check the episode, but that fan podcast regularly has the DESIGNER of the game as well as co-designers and developers on for rules questions. There's a very, very good chance that question was answered by Jay Little (lead designer, Edge of the Empire), not GM Dave or GM Chris. Don't be so quick to write off a "fan podcast".
  13. At this point, I couldn't care less. You're painting a massive target on your back with this tracking crap and its getting in the way of the actual discussion - whether or not your house rule is equitable or not. Maybe that's your plan - get the focus off of your rule, which has been proven to be skewed toward the player who purchases non-skill ranks before purchasing the specialization, and hope people get flustered enough to just go away before you have to admit your house rule is unfair. This isn't remotely a matter of opinion. The fact of the situation is that Player A has an advantage in one or more games over Player B. Player B is being penalized in those games because he chose to buy into the specialization before buying ranks in the skills. This is encouraging power gaming and min/maxing. If you can't see this, you're being intentionally obtuse. If you want people to stop picking on you about the tracking stuff then stick to the original topic and ignore the rest.
  14. Please tell me what I'm having to track extra. I've made huge points about this already. If there is added tracking, list ONE situation with added tracking. ONE. All it takes for you to be right is to actually have ONE case. I'm getting irritated in this thread because everyone keeps saying "you will have to do x" over and over and over again, and providing ZERO examples of why I would have to do x. I'm tired of restating the same thing 80 times. Provide ONE example of a situation where I would have to track anything. There. And I've explained like 5 times now, THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE HOUSE RULE. That was a discussion that that is the only thing you have to track IF YOU WANTED TO TRACK TOTAL XP SPENT. Normally if you want to track total XP spent, you have to track two things, double up stuff form starting character and when you bought specializations. The house rule eliminates the need to track the second one. That has NOTHING to do with the house rule adding any tracking. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Can you please READ WHAT I'M WRITING. I'm having trouble tracking all the posts you're not responding to. Is it because you can't refute them? Maybe I should get an excel spreadsheet....
  15. Please tell me what I'm having to track extra. I've made huge points about this already. If there is added tracking, list ONE situation with added tracking. ONE. All it takes for you to be right is to actually have ONE case. I'm getting irritated in this thread because everyone keeps saying "you will have to do x" over and over and over again, and providing ZERO examples of why I would have to do x. I'm tired of restating the same thing 80 times. Provide ONE example of a situation where I would have to track anything. There.
  16. Look at it in stages, not at the end result. Player A spends 20XP getting a rank two new non-career skills. Player B spends 20XP unlocking a new specialization. Player A gets an immediate benefit. The next game, he will get to roll those skills better. Player B gains no immediate benefit. All his ranks and die rolls are identical to the last session but Player A now has more options and higher chances at success. Now both players get 20XP and go back to the buy phase. Player A spends 20XP to unlock the specialization he bought non-career skills in. Player B spends 20XP on two new skill ranks and a talent in his new specialization. Player A, under your trackless system, got 10XP back. He spends that on a new talent. This means Player A played an entire session (possibly more if they didn't buy like this immediately after their next session) with additional skills and better dice pools than Player B. But now they are both on equal footing. At the end of two sessions, player A and B both have two new ranks, one new talent and one new non-career specialization. But after one session, Player A got bonus dice. You have given Player A 10 additional experience points allowing him to reach equal footing with player B because player B went for his specialization first. Your logic about this method keeping your players from not min/maxing won't hold up as soon as they realize its better for them to buy as many non-career ranks as possible then get refunds by buying the specialization after. They get all the benefits over how many games they play without the tax of getting them early. You have to see how this plays out in favor of Player A, thereby penalizing Player B. That's some intense rage at people you don't know, buddy. You have spent way too much time angry about people about tracking crap. It doesn't make much sense. Have you been accused of this before and its a sore point? This thread is equal parts unpleasant and amusing - unpleasant because these are good forums for people who love the game to share ideas, and amusing because you're coming apart at the seams with every post you make. I think maybe you might want to step away for a while because this can't be healthy for your blood pressure. If you do nothing but argue and disagree with people on this thread, then why are you here? The only reason I can come up with is that you enjoy being angry and arguing and that's not a healthy mindset. Trust me, I know.
  17. See below. Seems to work just fine. Two failures cancel two success but the despair remains and the triumph is counted alongside the success it contributes. Took me a long time to roll a triumph and despair at the same time...
  18. Yup, that one thing we've been clamoring for has come to pass: the FFG dice app now has an option in settings that will have it cancel out matching results (success and failure cancel, etc) and give you the "net roll". There's no animation or anything fancy. Just roll the dice like usual and the results at the bottom are the net result. If you want the "gross result" or raw data, you'll have to read the dice. Fantastic addition to the app, especially making it an option for those who prefer to do their own interpretation. Also - it works for X-Wing as well.
  19. This is one of the most important things to keep in mind: just because, from a technical standpoint, you decide one day to buy the skill and it takes 5 seconds to doesn't mean your character spent those 5s gaining those skills or considering his interest. At its best, its a process that your character grows into regardless of how long it takes to buy the spec or skills.
  20. Multiplayer would be fun, but in my mind it needs to be balanced team play. 2v2 or 3v3. Odd numbers or every man for himself leads to individuals getting focused and picked off then subsequently being left to do nothing while everyone continues to play and have fun.
  21. Brawn 5, Melee 0 - Huge arms, holds a vibroaxe, doesn't know which end to stick them with but does a great job of just beating them over the head with it. Probably uses it more like a cudgel than an axe. Every once in a while he'll get it aimed the right way (likely by accident) and land a crit. As his skill goes up, he'll learn to aim it the right way and seek out weak spots on his opponent thereby increasing the damage he deals. Brawn 1, Melee 5 - Tiny, spindly arms, knows how to wield a vibroaxe like a surgeon uses a scalpel. He can pick it up but he can't swing it with much force at all. What he can do is find gaps in armor, turn the blade to slip past his opponent's guard. He can put the business end of that weapon anywhere he wants any time he wants but his lack of force means he does only decent damage. As his brawn goes up, he'll be able to land with more force thereby increasing the damage he deals.
  22. This is the bull I'm talking about. Just because I find it simpler that total xp spent stays the same no matter which direction you buy things in, does not mean that I'm a minmaxer who is playing competitively. I find that personally, for my group, it opens up people to NOT think about what they are buying from a mechanics standpoint and just buy things that make sense in character, because from a mechanics standpoint it would no longer MATTER whether you bought the specialization first or not. It also let's me recheck total xp spent with a simple spreadsheet without needing to track what order they bought things in. Its absolute, 100% elitist bull to accuse anyone who doesn't agree with you on how the game runs of being a minmaxer. Its a way to knock down anyone who disagrees with you with insults rather than talking about the actual thing they are discussing. Its a way to set yourself up as discussing from a perspective of being the purer player. 1) Calm down. You are obviously associating the term "min/max" with some horrible offensive term. There is a time and a place for it, as I've said before. I've played games that require it to win. Several guys in my group are that style of gamer. Nine games out of ten I have people eeking every last ounce of power out of their plays. I see EotE as that one out of ten game where I can tell my players to not do that. I'm implying min/max, not because of how you want to track XP, but because it appears that way to me when a player is looking MONTHS down the road at how his XP is spent and tracking the most efficient way to do it instead of wondering what his character is going to be doing tomorrow. If you want to add that level of complexity because it encourages your players to not min/max then go for it. Anything to keep people focused on the growth and role play instead of gaming the system. 2) I don't automatically assume you're min/maxing because I disagree with you. I explain above why I thought that was the case (incidentally not accusing you at all of doing that, but rather implying your players do). It seems as though you agree that your players have that inclination, hence the desire for the house rule. I think the actions of your players is a min/max tendency - not your desire to refund XP because they bought into a specialization and made something a career skill. If you need to cut that off at the pass somehow, go for it. I said this in a BGG post I made earlier today: if I have to house rule a game to enjoy it, I just won't play it. I use house rules to fix something broken in either my players or the game in a game I already enjoy. 3) Calm down. Beginning and ending your post with "Calm down." is presumptuous and belittling. You are attempting to make your argument look better by trying to discredit him. This, f course, feeds back into why he's upset with you in the first place. Are you intentionally trying to bait him? Please explain in more detail how I am attempting to "discredit" him because that's not happening at all. He does in fact need to calm down because he's throwing around a lot of unnecessary language and vitriol over what appears to be a misunderstanding. If you want to discuss belittling others, let's talk about you feeling the need to list the people you ignore in your forum signature.
×
×
  • Create New...