Stan Fresh

Members
  • Content count

    962
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Stan Fresh

Recent Profile Visitors

709 profile views
  1. There's also this glorious bit of stupidity: Ladies and gentlebeings, behold the knee-sabers.
  2. Ah, living in a filter bubble instead of dealing with your ****. Cool.
  3. Yeah, let's condescend to other people for liking Star Wars differently than you do. We're talking about pretending to be star princesses and space cowboys, after all! Those are serious matters that make it necessary to **** on others in the pursuit of ideological purity.
  4. You know perfectly well that I already provided a quote showing that knocking someone over is entirely within the scope of spending three Advantages. Simply ignoring it doesn't stop it being true.
  5. Where in the Advantage/Threat tables are effects very similar to Parry and Reflect?
  6. The talent allows you to bend the narrative. Without it, a player has to justify and negotiate knocking someone over by referencing the agreed-upon fictional situation of the game. There's room for the GM to go "I don't see that happening, sorry". With the talent, the knockdown effect just happens, and the GM has to accommodate the narrative layer so that it matches up with the mechanical layer of the game. The talent tells everyone "this character can routinely knock people over, even when the situation wouldn't seem to allow it".
  7. Are you ******* kidding me with this? I'm not "picking and choosing". You had already mentioned the three advantages in the bit I quoted from your comment. There's no need to repeat things already agreed upon. Try reading comments constructively instead of with a hostile attitude. Zeus Christ. What makes me right is that I can quote where the rules agree with what I'm saying. And I'm done with you.
  8. First, let's keep it to what I actually wrote: "temporarily inflict something along the lines of a critical". Of course it requires GM approval, I never said otherwise. That's true of all rules that need a measure of interpretation and negotiation between GM and player. It doesn't negate the existence of those rules. Furthermore, "something along the lines" is a bit different from just picking a critical hit as is and applying it. I think it's clear from my wording that you couldn't just pick any crit effect and apply it unchanged. And I also note that "(an easy crit is being stunned, an average crit is being knocked over and suffering 1 strain, so it's well within range for that)". So we're not talking about just killing someone outright or any of the other high-level crits, but examples from the two most basic groups of criticals. You can always do it without having to negotiate or justify employing this move. Well, yeah.
  9. Ah, okay. The "you" in the post, along with quoting me, had me confused.
  10. Did you mistake me for Whafrog? 'cause I posted the quote to agree with your view.
  11. "When dealing damage to a target, have the attack disable the opponent or one piece of gear rather than dealing wounds or strain. This could include hobbling him temporarily with a shot to the leg, or disabling his comlink. This should be agreed upon by the player and the GM, and the effects are up to the GM (although Table 6 - 10: Critical Injury Result is a good resource to consult for possible effects). The effects should be temporary and not too excessive." From the table on spending Advantages and Triumphs in Force & Destiny. So, yes. You can spend 3 Advantages to temporarily inflict something along the lines of a critical hit.
  12. Yeah. You can use 3 Advantages to temporarily inflict something along the lines of a critical (an easy crit is being stunned, an average crit is being knocked over and suffering 1 strain, so it's well within range for that), or you can spend 3 Threats on the specific effect of knocking the target prone.
  13. You can't even know whether the stuff from the trailer will end up in the movie. Or was ever intended to be in the movie in the first place.