Jump to content

Magnus Arcanus

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Magnus Arcanus

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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?
  10. 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.
  11. 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?
  12. Interestingly, here is an answer from Sam back in 2014 on "double dipping" Force powers: Overwhelm Emotions Question asked by Jamwes: Is there "double-dipping" in EotE for talent Overwhelm Emotions and Force Power Influence Control upgrade for adding white pips to some skills? Overwhelm Emotions adds a Force Die per Force Rating while Influence allows an Influence Power check as part of the dice pool. Am I correct with my understanding of how these work with Force Rating 1? If I roll a Coerce check I add a force die (from Overwhelm) as well as a power check (from Influence). The net result is a skill check with 2 force dice. Answered by Sam Stewart: No, you cannot "double dip" in this case. You must choose one or the other.
  13. If you can only activate one Force Power at a time, how can you activate Ebb/Flow and Draw Closer at the same time? Because one is a Force "Power" and one is a Force "Talent"? I have a very hard time with that level of parsing words. Even if the argument is this 'stacking' can only occur with Ebb/Flow, there are a lot of Force Powers/Force Talents that have a skill check as part of the roll. This would imply you could use the augmentation effects of Ebb/Flow in addition to whatever benefit the Force Power/Talent in question offers.
  14. So in the Developer Answered questions there is this question/answer regarding the use of Ebb/Flow and Draw Closer (credit to question and submission to EliasWindrider) that was just posted. --------------------------- Rules Question: Suppose a niman disciple with draw closer has ebb/flow Can they be used on the same roll? I know you wouldn't get to add the force dice twice (because it's far to abusable) but could they share dice between the power and talent, for example if they have a white pip that they don't need to hit the target can they use it to get a strain (or 2 depending on upgrades) back? Hello Keith, You may, but you would not add the Force dice twice (as you noted). Hope this helps! Sam Gregor-Stewart RPG Manager Fantasy Flight Games ------------------------ My question is where should the line (if any) be drawn regarding how Force Powers/talents "stack". A previous ruling (which I have not posted here), suggested you cannot 'stack' Force Powers or Talents in any way; you pick what power/talent you intend to use and can only use Force Pips to fuel the effects of that power or talent. However this answer now stands that up on its head. You can conceivably use any effect(s) you want from stacked Powers or Talents, with the proviso you only get to roll your force dice once. And what about the action economy? Most force powers and talents are actions. How do you use two force powers that are both actions on the same roll? My initial answer would be "you can't." This developer answered question suggests otherwise by allowing Ebb/Flow to work with Draw Closer. All in all, I can't really say I like this answer, and am reluctant to use it my table. Maybe I am over thinking it?
  15. The simple answer is "Of course not." If the player in question requires a rules reference, refer to page 316 of the F&D core book, first column, 2nd paragraph of the "Rules Adjudication" section. Pay particular attention to the last sentence.
  16. So the concern is this character, that has been optimized for a specific focus in combat, can wipe up the floor with enemies when in the exact situation his/her character was built for. And to compensate, the GM has to up the encounter level, which puts pressure on the rest of the group. And there is an implied question of whether the GM should do something about it due to dissatisfaction from the other players at the table. While the combo is indeed impressive, it has its limitations. Some specifics (much of which has already been noted): Using the Control upgrade to heal wounds dealt to an enemy counts as the use of a stimpack (it is word for word in the Control talent description, there is no errata or developer clarification required). When this power is used against a nemesis level character or "important" rival, this generally will turn the result into a contested check of some kind, perhaps against resilience or discipline if the target is a Force user. The Suppress power would be an excellent counter to this build This power combo is useless against droids. This power has a range of engaged. Enemies with ranged weapons should take advantage The Protect power reduces damage; it doesn't increase soak. So the damage reduction of Protect would be useful against this use of Harm. Ranks in Calming Aura reduces the Force Points generated on a power by 1 per rank. Have an NPC with a few ranks in this talent show up. But I think there is another question embedded here, and that is "What should the GM do to deal with unsatisfied PCs..." My answer is: is it really the GMs job to deal this dissatisfaction? What are the player(s) in questions doing about it? What would the player(s) in question like to be done about it? The GM already has a lot on their plate. My take is it as much up to the player, if not more, to deal with these dissatisfying situations as it is for the GM. Now since I sort of stirred the pot here, I will give some ideas for in game responses both player wise and GM wise. The party is made up of Sith, and the whole philosophy of the are based on power and strength. It would not be unreasonable to have your own PC(s) react to this individual as such. "You are so powerful, you can clearly get yourself out of this mess you found yourself in". I would of course make sure to walk the very fine line of PC vs PC actions here, or the game can VERY quickly devolve into hurt feelings and lack of fun. But then again a very rational response to playing a sith in this person's company would be to give them the respect they deserve so you don't find yourself on their bad side, but also hoping they meet their end sooner rather than later. And if lack of action is all that is needed for this Sith to meet their ultimate end well... These overt displays of incredibly Evil Dark Side use (it is all narrative at this point, but is is 2 conflict every time this combo is used) is going to get noticed. At some point the opposition is going learn this persons tricks and look to neutralize them (see above). All in all, there is nothing subtle about this character's actions, and the heinousness of how he does (I mean, he is literally SUCKING THE LIFE FORCE OUT OF A SENTIENT BEING) is going to get him on the "Dispatch with extreme prejudice" list really, really fast. Bounty Hunters can target sith just was well as jedi.
  17. It requires a maneuver to disengage from an opponent, and this 'movement' only changes the character's relative position from said opponent from Engaged to Short. You cannot change your range to anything else. Any further movement would require a second maneuver.
  18. I'd recommend the mass combat rules from the supplement Lead By Example.
  19. You cannot use Ebb/Flow with Draw Closer (or any other power or talent that already has you rolling your Forcepool).
  20. The Basic power for Ebb/Flow only allows for recovering or inflicting strain. You need specific upgrades to get advantages or successes, and additional control upgrades to activate them multiple times. Also note that the Success/Advantage control talents add the success or advantage to the next skill check, not the current one. It is not specifically stated in the talent descriptions, but the spirit of this power is that it is to be used in structured time (e.g. within combat or other situations where initiative matters), not on any and all skill checks. Finally remember: YOU are the GM, and have the right to disallow any use of this power if you deem it is being used inappropriately. Make sure you read the power (including the long text descriptions, not just the paraphrased wording in the tree) fully and that you understand how it works.
  21. In principle, definitely not something I would allow at my table. The GM is under no obligation to allow a skill check just because the player wants it. In the given example above, it would be pretty simple: You tried and failed to charm the shop keeper. Further skill checks (using Charm or otherwise) to change the NPCs attitude automatically fail.
  22. What would you like to have happen to the character in question? Is there anything about the player behavior you want to change? From a realism standpoint, the character in question would be screwed. He would be arrested, court martialed, found guilty, and sent to prison, if not executed. But I get that isn't want you want to do, and that is fair, it is just a game. Do you want to hand wave the situation away? Then I'd seriously consider the option Happy Daze suggested; next session tap a destiny point (or three), and re-write the narrative. It could be as simple as "You pull your weapon on the recalcitrant soldier, his eyes betraying the utter fear and chaos of the situation. Staring down the barrel of a gun he regains his sense, and follows your orders. Your fears of having to pull the trigger fade away..." The other considerations are what do others at the table feel about this player's action? Was it a big deal? Did it disrupt the session and or campaign? My supposition is you are not terribly happy about it, as you clearly want to have there be some repercussions to the situation, which I think is totally fair. Also, have you considered asking the player what should happen to their character? Maybe they will have something totally awesome and you can save yourself some trouble of coming up with an idea on your own.
  23. Complex question, and not sure there is enough context here to give a solid answer. Much of it will depend on what time of game you are playing, and what the players at the table (you included) feel about the act that took place, and what repercussions it should have. In the sense of a military organization like the Rebel Alliance (I presume your party works for the Rebellion, however your post does not explicitly state as such), I cannot see summary capital punishment for refusing an order ever being condoned, and would be immediate grounds for court martial, charge of manslaugher (sentient slaughter if you prefer) at minimum. Even brutal regimes such as the Empire would typically not execute soldiers for simple refusal to follow an order. As such, the act of shooting an NPC to failure to follow an order is way, way over the top. With regards to "The player's invested in his character, so [you] don't want to take it way from them", what actions would have to take place before you would? From the limited information provided, it looks to me the player took a very, very bad action in response to a rather simple act by an NPC. If players make bad decisions, they should expect bad results. The answer to this question really comes down to the style of game you're playing. If players at the table accepted during session zero that bad decisions have bad consequences, then I would rule accordingly. If the flip side is the players really don't want severe consequences for bad decisions then letting it slide probably makes more sense, but it will require a little more explanation on the part of the player and GM (e.g. "Nobody liked Rid Shurt anyway, he was mean, nasty, and insubordinate. The squad all agrees, it wasn't friendly fire, it was a sniper's bullet. Of course the rest of the squad knows your secret now, and occasionally likes to remind said player of this knowledge..."
  24. I think this is a false analogy to a degree. I suspect we both agree Palps used the Magnitude upgrade to chuck those senate hover platforms at Yoda. Unless someone is going to try to say they were "minions" and Palps only needed a single strength upgrade to make it happen...
  25. And this is pretty much the viewpoint I share with the Pirate; being able to use move and bypass the magnitude upgrade just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. At my table I would require the magnitude upgrade if you are going to pick up an entire minion group and move them somewhere (gently or otherwise). Just my two cents.
  • Create New...