Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Dunefarble

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

708 profile views
  1. Okay, I feel like you're under the impression that I'm arguing with you over this, when I'm not, so... I'm gonna stop replying to this thread. It seems to just be confusing you.
  2. This... I can't argue with this. It's ludicrous, the level of denial in play. Some of the text you outright ignore, some of it you seem determined to deliberately misinterpret, and the rest you hold up as ultimate proof.
  3. I don't know why you're implying that I disagree with this? I don't, I've never said I did? When shields or no shields can have the same effect with the same amount of damage rolled, that to me feels like it sometimes works, sometimes doesn't. It'd be like having to roll for your armor working, imo.
  4. ...Okay? Even if you're right and it IS an inherently non-lethal crystal, that doesn't make it a training emitter. You're still failing to address the fact that the book states that a training emitter is made up of a crystal AND a modified generator.
  5. Accurate, but the shields are what's emphasized time after time. It just sparks odd to me that, if the overall durability is the major aspect that they specifically call out the shields. That IS just in general lore, though, not specifically the movies. My main problem is the idea of shields SOMETIMES working, sometimes not. IMO the films are so vague that I don't feel they can offer a definitive answer as to HOW they reflect damage. SO the two obvious resources to me are the FFG books, or the lore. When my group played (a specific starfighter campaign) using the raw rules, we had balance issues. So we turned to lore and house ruled the shields. I offered our method for those who had run into the same problem. If you want to play with raw, be my guest, I don't care. But, if you ARE going to house rule, I don't think being wishy-washy about shields vs soak is a good idea. Shields follow a different repair and destruction mechanic and, like I said earlier, knowing WHY things work a certain way is important to me, as a player. Having shields sometimes work this way and sometimes work that way and sometimes just randomly doing nothing at all would be incredibly aggravating, and illogical. THAT's what I was arguing against. That and the idea that more shields can somehow equal more armor. There's no logical sense there. Sure, some armor can be more defensive for whatever reason (camo, slim profile, higher agility, whatever), but having a defensive rating on armor doesn't translate to having more armor.
  6. But it does NOT fit with other information presented in the books. Palpatine as a stalwart Jedi fits with him being strong in the Force.... if you ignore a few other bits of key information. The way the training emitter is portrayed within the primary source is counter to your interpretation. Ignoring that doesn't change it. Not sure what the kimber stone has to do with the argument. I'm not denying the idea that kathracite is inherently weaker then other stones. I'm denying that kathracite ALONE is what makes a saber a training saber. To me, it's clear that the two components work together and must go together in order to function. Therefore, in order to have a training emitter in a cyclical array, they are BOTH installed, and a standard generator would connect to the alternate crystals. I'll admit, its vague and open to interpretation, especially if it was presented in a vacuum. But previous statements regarding the emitter being made up of two, codependent aspects are NOT vague. They are very specifically laid out.
  7. To me, it feels MUCH too random. Sure, it may prevent an attack... or it may do nothing at all. The lack of shields on the TIEs versus the presence of shields on the x-wing is portrayed as a massive difference in survivability, but with the mechanics as they are... its a little help, but not much, imo. To clarify, I don't necessarily think they should be stronger, just more predictable in performance.
  8. I never said the movie portrayal was lazy storytelling. In the films, the 'players' (characters) have a set of information that they make decisions based on. Do we, as observers, need a complete chain of thought explanation? No, we have other cues that let us know that some level of familiarity with the 'mechanics' are in play. BUT as PCs in our own campaigns? Yes, we need to know the specifics that our characters would know in order to make similar plans and decisions. Your example - -is a perfect demonstration of why it's important. Why don't we have weapons that can penetrate it? What's the difference? How is the difference achieved? This information is important in order to come up with a plan, and 'because I say so' isn't useful to either the mechanical OR the narrative game play. I don't disagree with the basic principle, but I do disagree with the game play execution. I'm in the group that says full powered and present shields should demonstrably deflect attacks, not possibly deflect attacks. I could see the argument that one is a ray shield only and one is a combined ray AND particle shield, but I agree that power level is absolutely a factor as well. You don't expect your cell phone to operate the same as a building sized supercomputer.
  9. From a rules perspective, sure. The mechanics combine the two, which is why its called a 'training emitter' and not a 'training crystal'. But you CANNOT claim, from a lore perspective, that the crystal alone is enough to make something a training saber. Its just not accurate by the information presented in the books. If you want to house rule it, sure, but the raw flat out does not support your fluff.
  10. Really? 'It's broken but so are other things so we should just ignore it or make random things up instead of trying to find a useful system' is not a defense. Until I start trying to come up with plans around a specific set of rules. Then they had better be consistent or, as a player, why should I even bother. I say the shields hold, because I say so is not narrative demands, it's just lazy storytelling. I'll be the first to say that FFG is consistent with how they present shields vs armor. That's not the point of the thread. The point is that the way they present it DOESN'T fit the narrative because the narrative isn't consistent. Hence the problem in the first place.
  11. She has actually stated on numerous occasions throughout the series that she wasn't a Jedi, not only to Vader when she fought him, but before, including to Ezra and Kanan. That's... still just a claim that she's not a Jedi... not that her blade color is because she's not a Jedi. Kyla's point still stands.
  12. No! No! No! This is almost (but not quite) as infuriating as freaking potions. It LITERALLY says they are "common lightsabers WITH INTERNAL MODIFICATIONS" in the freaking book. Do they have game mechanic style modifications? No. Are they modified lightsabers within the context of the Star Wars universe? YES!!!!!! It's right, freaking there in the lore section! In the lore section, because its part of the lore. Not in the game mechanics section, because the game mechanics don't apply. Lore, yes. Mechanics, no. BUT LORE IS FREAKING YES. And again, JUST after that - "training lightsabers can be turned into full-powered lightsabers simply by changing out the power generator AND -" <- see the freaking 'and', the sentence modifier, "replacing the crystal." That's why it takes two ******ed hard points, you obnoxious nincompoop, IT'S GOT TWO ******ed COMPONENTS.
  13. This seems pretty obvious to me. I think it's a good example of narrative driven vs mechanics driven, actually. The narrative inspired "GM" wanted Ahsoka to have white blades, so he massaged the mechanics to make it fit.
  14. I find it a little ludicrous that there's an actual argument about whether the definition of armor is subjective or not. It's... really not. It's not a made up, Star Warsian concept. Armor is armor. The idea that defensive rating is a more significant aspect then soak is beyond ludicrous. If that were accurate, armored clothing and power armor would not have the same defense rating despite a 8950 credit cost difference. And the 'shield generator is actually armor' argument is ridiculous. You know what else is labeled under "armor"? A performer's costume. A utility vest. Diplomat's robes. A freaking hologram. There is a clear difference between armor in game mechanics terms and armor in gear classification terms. To claim otherwise is being intentionally contrarian. A shield generator is neither armor, nor a shield, in a functional sense. It is a generator. It is a generator that generates... wait for it... a SHIELD. Not the most creative name, but apparently a little too creative for some.
  15. Well... whatever the in universe answer is supposed to be... in order to improve shield function to something more predictable in game mechanics terms, we treat it more like parry. Optional strain for a specific result. So far it's worked great in our fighter squadron campaign. I legit can't remember if *we* house ruled it, or stole it from someone else, though so I can't take credit.
  • Create New...