Jump to content

Magnus Arcanus

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Magnus Arcanus

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

978 profile views
  1. For what it is worth throwing "two opponents into one" requires use of the autofire rules. That is, you need enough pips to move both of the objects (which is 1 pip for base use, 1 pip for magnitude, and 1 pip for silhouette increase) being thrown, and then you increase the difficulty by one and need a success and at least two advantage/triumph to have them both hit. And it is 10 damage for each hit plus successes, minus soak against the targeted opponent. Still pretty good damage if both hit, but also highly probably a high WT rival or nemesis could eat that damage and be fine. Certainly not trying to patronizing here, just hoping to share some relevant rules on the topic at hand.
  2. I'd tell you to go with your instincts and nerf Move. As a GM who used this system for a long time, I found Move to be one of the more easily abused powers, and the way it is written is certainly not in keeping with much of the use of this power we see in the films. "Narrative" is usually the default go to for people to rein in game mechanics that are easily exploited, but over time I have greatly soured on this view, as all it really means is "push the burden of the game adjudication on to the GM." The net result is to create more situations of PC/GM conflict that is needed. Out of curiosity, how deep into the Move tree is the offending PC? With just a few force dice it gets silly fast if you have all the strength and magnitude upgrades.
  3. Know the rules, know how to build a dice pool, know what your character can do Pay attention to clues, hints, and plot hooks the GM gives. Avoid subverting the plot. I am sure I could post more, those are just three things that jump out at me.
  4. Any chance someone could spoil the stats of the Human Clones (or whatever the 'race' is called)? My group will be starting up a campaign where all the PCs are Clone Troopers.
  5. FFG and GW had an abrupt divorce, and per the terms of that divorce, FFG was required to stop selling any product under the WH lable. FFG was very transparent about this turn of events. It happened quickly, and in fact FFG still had WH products in their pipeline, which leads me to believe it was not expected. Given the investment into X-wing 2.0, Legion, and the recently announced SSD for Armada, I have a very hard time believing FFG is in any danger of losing their license to print SW games and material. They certainly may stop producing the RPG line if it isn't profitable (and profit on RPGs tends to be very, very thin). My guess is they will continue to produce a source book or two per year, assuming they don't take the plunge and create some sort of SWRPG 2.0.
  6. Can we please refrain from opening this can of worms on this thread, as it is a very useful one, and it will get locked very quickly if such discussion goes any further.
  7. Tramp, I am not looking to pick a fight, nor disparage you here. So just take that little nugget of context for what it is worth. Ultimately I think this statement is complete conjecture, and honestly, indicative of what we all as a community tend to ascribe to these Developer Answered questions. We are assuming there is more to their answer "behind the scenes" that some how peels back the design of the system. My own conjecture is nothing could be further from the truth regarding these Dev answered questions. My supposition is they read the question exactly as it is worded, and provide an answer exactly based on the context given in the post. Nothing more, nothing less. I highly doubt rulebooks are even consulted by the person answering the question, and (again without any intent to disparage the Developers) I often question whether they even know what the proper rules are. We tend to assume these guys and gals have infallible knowledge of not just the rules, but the full design philosophy memorized to perfection, and as such an answer they are giving is guided by this wisdom. In fact, I suspect they don't really know the rules that well, don't really play the game much, and don't really have time to do much more than give a cursory reading and answer to a question. These folks are working hard developing games, which requires vast amounts of time doing stuff other than memorizing rules. We are assuming Sam even remembers answering the original post back from 2014 or 2015 when giving his most recent answer on Ebb/Flow + Draw Closer. I've found the answers given when this system was fresh out of the gate were far more detailed and helpful. But once most of the supplements were released, answers are far more brief and simple. All in all: I go back to what I said before. I no longer send the Developers any questions, I'd rather they spent their time writing and editing new source books than giving half hearted answers to questions that are best left to the GM to decide anyway.
  8. I believe you meant to say "further" not "farther" And the above is about as harsh as I will be! You are correct about Ebb/Flow and the success/advantage control upgrade. My personal opinion is Ebb/Flow is one of the more poorly worded and vetted Force Powers, rumor has it even Sam Stewart fumbled a little bit when trying to explain how it works on an Order 66 podcast.
  9. This comment is in large part why I've stopped even sending any questions to the Developers. Its my game, I can figure it out.
  10. I am not sure this post is really about Juyo Beserker. Sounds more like you have some players who are meta-gaming the Morality and Destiny point mechanics and you are wondering what, if anything you should do about it. For Morality, I might start by asking your players what they want out of it. It is both a mechanical system, but also a story telling device. F&D characters are supposed to have challenges of ethics and morality that tempts and challenges them. If they don't want to roleplay those types of situations, might just ditch it. Destiny Points are supposed to be a free flow back and forth. As the GM if you feel the players are hording them, you are well within your rights to just flip them back to Dark. Maybe the PCs investigate a Dark Side vergence or something. Essentially, they aren't there to be gamed by the players. Again, they are a story telling device. Your comments about them arguing conflict gains is interesting. While it is certainly fair to hear them out, the GM is the final arbiter, period. This isn't just the whole "The GM is in charge bit", you certainly shouldn't lord it over them. But if they earn conflict for their actions, they earn conflict. The system assumes the PCs will earn some along the way. It goes back to what I said above; if they really want to keep arguing about it, maybe it is better to just drop the mechanic. For your Juyo Berserker, the Inner Peace talent doesn't reduce conflict beyond what has been earned. If you are feeling generous, you can allow it to apply to 'conflict that hasn't been earned in the session yet'. But there is no "-6 conflict". It only reduces conflict earned in the session. If none was earned, there is no other benefit. Its also interesting how the player can state they have "-6 conflict" and yet all the DPs are Light Side. You need Dark Side pips to activate this talent. Certainly something to ensure is being understood properly. One last thing to remember: The Dark Side using character still earns conflict for using Dark Side pips. The only thing that flips when you become Dark Side is that you fuel your powers with Dark Side pips instead of Light (And need to use a DP to use LS pips, along with spending strain). The generation of conflict on Force Pips doesn't change; DS pips still generate conflict. This is part of the reason why it is so difficult to be redeemed; you have to stop using Dark Side Pips for most of your powers.
  11. It is certainly a fair interpretation, but it is also a fair interpretation to read "You must choose one or the other" as being literal. You choose one power, and only one power in all cases.
  12. I fail to see how Ebb/Flow is any different than any other Force Power that allows you to add your Force Pool to skill checks. There is nothing about it that lends itself to be qualified as an 'incidental'. Further there is nothing in the rules or fluff text that lends to this interpretation. Or looking at it from a different angle, there is no more justification for Ebb/Flow being an incidental that is stack on top of an underlying skill check, than there is any other Force Power that adds Force Rating to the Die Pool. Consider these examples from a standpoint of Action Economy: How is using Influence to add your Force Rating to Intimidate checks any different than using Ebb/Flow to do the same thing? How is using Enhance to add your Force Rating to Athletics checks any different than using Ebb/Flow to do the same thing? How is using Seek to add your Force Rating to Perception checks any different than using Ebb/Flow to do the same thing? How is using Manipulate to add your Force Rating to Mechanics checks any different than using Ebb/Flow? In every one of these scenarios you are adding your Force Rating to a skill check, and skill checks are usually Actions. The only difference is in how you spend the Force Pips generated to create a mechanical effect that modifies the skill check in question. I am sure, next, some one will try to claim it is this difference in mechanic effect that sets Ebb/Flow apart and makes it such a unique power that it violates the rules of all other Force Powers out there (a violation that is neither explained, nor justified in any of the text of the power in question, but is instead being implied from an incredibly nebulous set of posts from a Game Developer who quite possibly didn't even look up the relevant rules in the Core Rule book before giving an answer*) * Caveat: This is in no way disparaging Sam Stewart or the RPG. The reality is we presume far more infallibility in these folks knowing and understanding the rules of the game than is fair. The reality is most game designers don't even play the games they design. One game designer for a different RPG system (Hint: It has lots, and lots, and lots of charts) admitted that not only does he not play the RPG he designed, he has never even played ANY RPG ever, and had no real desire to. He was an author by trade, and he was simply getting paid to do his vocation. Ultimately, there is a reason I've stopped bothering to send questions to the Developers.
  13. What evidence to you have to support this supposition? Where does it state Ebb/Flow is so much more of a special case than any other Force Power or talent?
  14. This makes no sense. The ruling (not the rule; there is no explicit rule) on double dipping uses the exact example of a Force Talent combined with a Force Power. The answer was you cannot double dip. So I am totally lost regarding the argument that Force Talents are "different" from Force powers and as such you can use a Force Power in conjunction with a Force Talent. All in all, while it is nice to have the ability to ask a rules question of the Developers, my experience is that the person answer the question answers exactly the question being asked, in exactly the context it was asked in, and no more. The answers tend to be very brief, in some cases too brief to fully understand. I also suspect there isn't much actual 'research' into the rules by the person answering the question to see what the relevant rules have to say on the issue. Which to me, while it is nice developers will take time out of their work day developing games to answer questions, I hold no illusions of the "infallibility" of their answers, especially considering I've gotten opposite answers to the same question I've asked in the past. Happy Daze pretty much nailed it in a previous post: There is little consistency in answers these days.
  15. I am struggling with this interpretation. How is Ebb & Flow really any different from any other Force Power that adds a rider to what is otherwise a skill check? In most (but not all), skill checks are already Actions; the Force Power merely adds an extra benefit or option to this skill check. For example, how is it any different to use Ebb & Flow on a Charm check than it is to use Influence on a Charm check? They both allow you to add your Force Dice to a skill check, and they both give options for modifying that Skill Check by spending Force Pips. Or consider this example: A player is using Misdirect with the Control talent to change the appearance of an object. This requires an opposed Deception vs Vigilance check. Under the rule Sam gave for Ebb & Flow + Draw Closer, it would be easy to intuit you could 'stack' the Ebb & Flow rider into this opposed check. So unused FP could for example recover strain, or inflict strain. But what if I have the Influence power + control upgrade that adds success/failure to skill checks using Deception? Can I use this power to add success/advantage to the roll if I want?
  • Create New...