Jump to content
WarrenH

Spitfire Talent

Recommended Posts

OK team, we have rock solid intel.........Vader has just gone into the Lamp's Plus, he's picking out new ceiling fans for his apartment on Coruscant..........We're gonna roll up in there hard..aim for the fans and let the Sith SOB have it with every off hand shot! 

 

Equipment check!  Primary hand......super soakers, check!  Off hand, Superior laser sighted Disruptor pistols, check!  Lets' get hot troopers! Go! Go! Go!................ :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK team, we have rock solid intel.........Vader has just gone into the Lamp's Plus, he's picking out new ceiling fans for his apartment on Coruscant..........We're gonna roll up in there hard..aim for the fans and let the Sith SOB have it with every off hand shot! 

 

Equipment check!  Primary hand......super soakers, check!  Off hand, Superior laser sighted Disruptor pistols, check!  Lets' get hot troopers! Go! Go! Go!................ :ph34r:

Can you please give it a rest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

OK team, we have rock solid intel.........Vader has just gone into the Lamp's Plus, he's picking out new ceiling fans for his apartment on Coruscant..........We're gonna roll up in there hard..aim for the fans and let the Sith SOB have it with every off hand shot! 

 

Equipment check!  Primary hand......super soakers, check!  Off hand, Superior laser sighted Disruptor pistols, check!  Lets' get hot troopers! Go! Go! Go!................ :ph34r:

Can you please give it a rest

Yup. Heaven forbid someone get creative like we see in movies. That would be wrong fun. 

Edited by Daeglan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would be a reasonable encumbrance for a chandelier? Basically, I need to know how many I could fit into a backpack.

Asking for a friend.

Did you tinker it and add a HP?...

 

Also it's a brave man that carries around a chandelier and scoff's at the ol 'shoot the lamp and then the Nemesis through face' trick....I salute your courage.....

Edited by 2P51

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's a fairly stupid argument to suggest that firing one pistol at a Nemesis with Adversary ranks should be harder than doing the same while also firing a gun in your other hand at a random object. You may think this is a sign of the boards being worse than they used to be. I see it as a sign of the arguments being worse than they used to be. You want to shoot the Nemesis? Declare him as the target of your two-weapon combat check. If you get two net advantages, put the shot from the other pistol into whatever you choose. But you don't get to argue that Spitfire allows a character to shoot a chair and then deny a Nemesis his adversary ranks and defense dice with their second shot, and then try and claim that's a perfectly defensible, mechanically consistent interpretation of the rules. That's absurd. That's a "It doesn't specifically SAY you can't do that..." type of argument.

What part of "ANY target with in range" is hard for you to understand? Or are you saying that FFG are a bunch of illiterate people who don't know what words mean? Because apparently this was written went through play testing was printed and released and no one had a problem with this as written. So I am gonna go with you guys are panicking about an ability that is no where near the problem you are making it out to be.

How delightfully rude of you! There's no need to be that way.

Anyhow, please show me the proof that Spitfire went through playtesting. Might it not have been simply written and, as can happen, slipped through as is, understood by its author, but once out became the confusing bit it is? Also, it's very much against the spirit of the setting and rules thus far for it to work as you suggest. Allowing rudeness myself, how hard is that for you to understand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah come on guys...

Drop it already...

 

You're both great members of these forums and offer great insights into the rules for more casuals members and readers.

You're both great contributors to these forums.

 

But this stupid argument has devolved into bickering.

You guys are better then this.

People are going to call out rudeness and ballyhoo, no matter how exalted they may be!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now we are inventing armored chandeliers swinging in a cat 5 hurricane as our excuse for this?  Maybe it's Darth Vader's chandelier so it's Adversary 4?

Really??? Per the aiming rules you add setback to hit specific areas. Per the silhouette rules a smaller target increases difficulty just like shooting at a rancor is easier because they are big targets. Do you even know the rules? Cause no where did I say anything about hurricanes. All I did was apply the rules as they are written. Near as I can tell it does not matter if the target is a living being a vehicle or an inanimate object. You can shoot at them. You should apply the rules no matter what the target is. Most chandeliers I have seen are smaller than a man. Most chandeliers the part you need to get them to drop is tiny. The rules state smaller silhouette means increase difficulty. Shooting a specific area on the target means setback per the aiming rules. I hope I never play in one of your games. You are so rigid I don't think it would be fun...Can't allow creative uses of talents now can we? Cause that would be wrong fun.

Can't respond fully.........we're on red alert...........3 squadrons of Tiffany chandeliers inbound armed with halogen bulbs.....get your head down man!!!!.............. :o

I guess you have never seen any movies at all. I have seen people swing from them in movies drop them on people...You do know that Star Wars has part of its roots in swashbuckling right? Did you see the three musketeers ever? 

But then I guess you don't really have a valid counter do you? Since you have to resort to mockery of something that is a staple of movies.

Yes, I might have multi-quoted, but...didn't. ;)

Anyway, swinging from chandeliers is most certainly a staple of swashbuckling films. However, we aren't duscussing that. We're debating (for some reason) why shooting inanimate objects in order to more easily strike a dangerous opponent, is stupid, both thematically and mechanically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK team, we have rock solid intel.........Vader has just gone into the Lamp's Plus, he's picking out new ceiling fans for his apartment on Coruscant..........We're gonna roll up in there hard..aim for the fans and let the Sith SOB have it with every off hand shot! 

 

Equipment check!  Primary hand......super soakers, check!  Off hand, Superior laser sighted Disruptor pistols, check!  Lets' get hot troopers! Go! Go! Go!................ :ph34r:

Can you please give it a rest

Yup. Heaven forbid someone get creative like we see in movies. That would be wrong fun.

Such as when Han shot the basket of rolls (before they could hit him with butter, of course) in the Bespin banquet hall, allowing him to sucker-shot the Dark Lord of the Sith? Man, I loved that scene! I heard that all later writing had to consider Vader's hatred of bread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'd have less of an issue if a PC targeted an actual opponent as opposed to intentionally targeting an inanimate object to just bypass ranks of Adversary.  That's just rule lawyering at it's worst.  

 

Or being cinematic. We see people shooting chandeliers in swashbuckling movies all the time.  How is this different than targeting a minion without adversary? If they are trying to knock down a chandelier that should at least add a couple setback. Instead of complaining think about what they are trying to do and set the difficulty appropriately as well as appropriate situational modifiers. 

it is a 25 xp talent that took an additional 50xp to get. A player should be able to be awesome with it. 

 

 

 

If a player tried this sort of nonsense in a game I was GMing, I'd look them in the eye and say "Explain to me how (and NOT in the game mechanics, but actually HOW) shooting the chandelier makes shooting the opponent on the other side of the room easier."

 

The game mechanics are there to model something -- they're just a map, while the "reality" of the game is the actual territory, and a player asserting "but the rules work this way no matter how little sense it makes" is telling me to trust the map instead of the ground under my feet. 

 

And if a player ever tried to excuse a gimmicky stunt like that with "but it's cinematic!"... :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

So now we are inventing armored chandeliers swinging in a cat 5 hurricane as our excuse for this?  Maybe it's Darth Vader's chandelier so it's Adversary 4?

Really??? Per the aiming rules you add setback to hit specific areas. Per the silhouette rules a smaller target increases difficulty just like shooting at a rancor is easier because they are big targets. Do you even know the rules? Cause no where did I say anything about hurricanes. All I did was apply the rules as they are written. Near as I can tell it does not matter if the target is a living being a vehicle or an inanimate object. You can shoot at them. You should apply the rules no matter what the target is. Most chandeliers I have seen are smaller than a man. Most chandeliers the part you need to get them to drop is tiny. The rules state smaller silhouette means increase difficulty. Shooting a specific area on the target means setback per the aiming rules. I hope I never play in one of your games. You are so rigid I don't think it would be fun...Can't allow creative uses of talents now can we? Cause that would be wrong fun.
Can't respond fully.........we're on red alert...........3 squadrons of Tiffany chandeliers inbound armed with halogen bulbs.....get your head down man!!!!.............. :o
I guess you have never seen any movies at all. I have seen people swing from them in movies drop them on people...You do know that Star Wars has part of its roots in swashbuckling right? Did you see the three musketeers ever? 

But then I guess you don't really have a valid counter do you? Since you have to resort to mockery of something that is a staple of movies.

Yes, I might have multi-quoted, but...didn't. ;)

Anyway, swinging from chandeliers is most certainly a staple of swashbuckling films. However, we aren't duscussing that. We're debating (for some reason) why shooting inanimate objects in order to more easily strike a dangerous opponent, is stupid, both thematically and mechanically.

 

No we are debating shooting a chandelier with the intent to drop it on some minions then shooting a nemesis.  I don't remember anywhere arguing just random objects with the goal to bypass adversary. And I think that is the big problem. You guys assume the goal is to bypass adversary by shooting a random object. The only question I have asked is how is shooting a chandelier different than shooting a minion? Considering they both would likely have the same difficulty. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I'd have less of an issue if a PC targeted an actual opponent as opposed to intentionally targeting an inanimate object to just bypass ranks of Adversary.  That's just rule lawyering at it's worst.  

 

Or being cinematic. We see people shooting chandeliers in swashbuckling movies all the time.  How is this different than targeting a minion without adversary? If they are trying to knock down a chandelier that should at least add a couple setback. Instead of complaining think about what they are trying to do and set the difficulty appropriately as well as appropriate situational modifiers. 

it is a 25 xp talent that took an additional 50xp to get. A player should be able to be awesome with it. 

 

 

 

If a player tried this sort of nonsense in a game I was GMing, I'd look them in the eye and say "Explain to me how (and NOT in the game mechanics, but actually HOW) shooting the chandelier makes shooting the opponent on the other side of the room easier."

 

The game mechanics are there to model something -- they're just a map, while the "reality" of the game is the actual territory, and a player asserting "but the rules work this way no matter how little sense it makes" is telling me to trust the map instead of the ground under my feet. 

 

And if a player ever tried to excuse a gimmicky stunt like that with "but it's cinematic!"... :rolleyes:

 

The nemesis doesn't see it coming because they are thinking I am shooting something else. 

Explain to me how shooting the chandelier is different than shooting a minion and getting the same result?

I agree shooting just random stuff is lame. But that is not what we are talking about. Lets try s different tack. I want to shoot that fuel canister with one shot so I can blow up some minioins and if I succeed I want to throw a shot into the nemesis. Would you have a problem with that? Used to do it all the time in Doom. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello.

 

I'm the player in Kilcannon's game that posed the question about the chandelier.

 

I think there have been interesting points made in this thread and people have covered what I may have said. I'm just here to fill in how it came up for anyone who may be interested.

 

It was after a game and someone was in XP range of Spitfire, so we started talking about it. It seemed odd that you could pop off relatively easy shots at a nemesis while there were minions around, but as soon as you killed the last one, you'd have to concentrate on the nemesis, which would make for a more difficult shot. 

 

Just thinking through, there seemed to be nothing special about shooting at a minion specifically, so why not just shoot at something else first. The difficulty would be the same, roughly. You could even shoot at something within short range, to make the shot easier. When it was noted that just shooting random nearby objects to get a better chance to his was silly, I thought of some "good reasons" to shoot at an object, such as a control panel or radio console or exploding barrel or even a chandelier for the purpose of dropping on an enemy. There seemed to be some continuum ranging from "that's reasonable" to "that's absurd" when picking the target one rolls against. I think we basically agreed to try and stay on the reasonable side, but there wasn't an exact ruling. 

 

I was just pushing the thought to see where it would go, not intending to implement the tactic.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello.

 

I'm the player in Kilcannon's game that posed the question about the chandelier.

 

I think there have been interesting points made in this thread and people have covered what I may have said. I'm just here to fill in how it came up for anyone who may be interested.

 

It was after a game and someone was in XP range of Spitfire, so we started talking about it. It seemed odd that you could pop off relatively easy shots at a nemesis while there were minions around, but as soon as you killed the last one, you'd have to concentrate on the nemesis, which would make for a more difficult shot. 

 

Just thinking through, there seemed to be nothing special about shooting at a minion specifically, so why not just shoot at something else first. The difficulty would be the same, roughly. You could even shoot at something within short range, to make the shot easier. When it was noted that just shooting random nearby objects to get a better chance to his was silly, I thought of some "good reasons" to shoot at an object, such as a control panel or radio console or exploding barrel or even a chandelier for the purpose of dropping on an enemy. There seemed to be some continuum ranging from "that's reasonable" to "that's absurd" when picking the target one rolls against. I think we basically agreed to try and stay on the reasonable side, but there wasn't an exact ruling. 

 

I was just pushing the thought to see where it would go, not intending to implement the tactic.  :)

just shooting random crap around the rooms seems lame. Shooting the chandelier to drop on the nemesis or a barrel of fuel or something with the intent to do damage to the nemesis seems much better. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now we are inventing armored chandeliers swinging in a cat 5 hurricane as our excuse for this?  Maybe it's Darth Vader's chandelier so it's Adversary 4?

Really??? Per the aiming rules you add setback to hit specific areas. Per the silhouette rules a smaller target increases difficulty just like shooting at a rancor is easier because they are big targets. Do you even know the rules? Cause no where did I say anything about hurricanes. All I did was apply the rules as they are written. Near as I can tell it does not matter if the target is a living being a vehicle or an inanimate object. You can shoot at them. You should apply the rules no matter what the target is. Most chandeliers I have seen are smaller than a man. Most chandeliers the part you need to get them to drop is tiny. The rules state smaller silhouette means increase difficulty. Shooting a specific area on the target means setback per the aiming rules. I hope I never play in one of your games. You are so rigid I don't think it would be fun...Can't allow creative uses of talents now can we? Cause that would be wrong fun.
Can't respond fully.........we're on red alert...........3 squadrons of Tiffany chandeliers inbound armed with halogen bulbs.....get your head down man!!!!.............. :o
I guess you have never seen any movies at all. I have seen people swing from them in movies drop them on people...You do know that Star Wars has part of its roots in swashbuckling right? Did you see the three musketeers ever? 

But then I guess you don't really have a valid counter do you? Since you have to resort to mockery of something that is a staple of movies.

Yes, I might have multi-quoted, but...didn't. ;)

Anyway, swinging from chandeliers is most certainly a staple of swashbuckling films. However, we aren't duscussing that. We're debating (for some reason) why shooting inanimate objects in order to more easily strike a dangerous opponent, is stupid, both thematically and mechanically.

No we are debating shooting a chandelier with the intent to drop it on some minions then shooting a nemesis.  I don't remember anywhere arguing just random objects with the goal to bypass adversary. And I think that is the big problem. You guys assume the goal is to bypass adversary by shooting a random object. The only question I have asked is how is shooting a chandelier different than shooting a minion? Considering they both would likely have the same difficulty.

Your argument has been to bypass a basic rule by attacking an inanimate object in order to easily strike a more difficult opponent. It's against the RAW and thematically makes no sense. If the talent ends up working that way I will be rather disappointed. I wouldn't allow a player to fire at a minion just to make hitting an Inquisitor easier.

Nobody is making assumptions as to what you think, they're basing an argument on what you've posted. In the end it matters not because nobody knows how Spitfire is supposed to function. Until we get a solid explanation we're on our own and need to use what works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello.

 

I'm the player in Kilcannon's game that posed the question about the chandelier.

 

I think there have been interesting points made in this thread and people have covered what I may have said. I'm just here to fill in how it came up for anyone who may be interested.

 

It was after a game and someone was in XP range of Spitfire, so we started talking about it. It seemed odd that you could pop off relatively easy shots at a nemesis while there were minions around, but as soon as you killed the last one, you'd have to concentrate on the nemesis, which would make for a more difficult shot. 

 

Just thinking through, there seemed to be nothing special about shooting at a minion specifically, so why not just shoot at something else first. The difficulty would be the same, roughly. You could even shoot at something within short range, to make the shot easier. When it was noted that just shooting random nearby objects to get a better chance to his was silly, I thought of some "good reasons" to shoot at an object, such as a control panel or radio console or exploding barrel or even a chandelier for the purpose of dropping on an enemy. There seemed to be some continuum ranging from "that's reasonable" to "that's absurd" when picking the target one rolls against. I think we basically agreed to try and stay on the reasonable side, but there wasn't an exact ruling. 

 

I was just pushing the thought to see where it would go, not intending to implement the tactic.  :)

just shooting random crap around the rooms seems lame. Shooting the chandelier to drop on the nemesis or a barrel of fuel or something with the intent to do damage to the nemesis seems much better.

This is something that can be done without Spitfire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

So now we are inventing armored chandeliers swinging in a cat 5 hurricane as our excuse for this?  Maybe it's Darth Vader's chandelier so it's Adversary 4?

Really??? Per the aiming rules you add setback to hit specific areas. Per the silhouette rules a smaller target increases difficulty just like shooting at a rancor is easier because they are big targets. Do you even know the rules? Cause no where did I say anything about hurricanes. All I did was apply the rules as they are written. Near as I can tell it does not matter if the target is a living being a vehicle or an inanimate object. You can shoot at them. You should apply the rules no matter what the target is. Most chandeliers I have seen are smaller than a man. Most chandeliers the part you need to get them to drop is tiny. The rules state smaller silhouette means increase difficulty. Shooting a specific area on the target means setback per the aiming rules. I hope I never play in one of your games. You are so rigid I don't think it would be fun...Can't allow creative uses of talents now can we? Cause that would be wrong fun.
Can't respond fully.........we're on red alert...........3 squadrons of Tiffany chandeliers inbound armed with halogen bulbs.....get your head down man!!!!.............. :o
I guess you have never seen any movies at all. I have seen people swing from them in movies drop them on people...You do know that Star Wars has part of its roots in swashbuckling right? Did you see the three musketeers ever? 

But then I guess you don't really have a valid counter do you? Since you have to resort to mockery of something that is a staple of movies.

Yes, I might have multi-quoted, but...didn't. ;)

Anyway, swinging from chandeliers is most certainly a staple of swashbuckling films. However, we aren't duscussing that. We're debating (for some reason) why shooting inanimate objects in order to more easily strike a dangerous opponent, is stupid, both thematically and mechanically.

No we are debating shooting a chandelier with the intent to drop it on some minions then shooting a nemesis.  I don't remember anywhere arguing just random objects with the goal to bypass adversary. And I think that is the big problem. You guys assume the goal is to bypass adversary by shooting a random object. The only question I have asked is how is shooting a chandelier different than shooting a minion? Considering they both would likely have the same difficulty.

Your argument has been to bypass a basic rule by attacking an inanimate object in order to easily strike a more difficult opponent. It's against the RAW and thematically makes no sense. If the talent ends up working that way I will be rather disappointed. I wouldn't allow a player to fire at a minion just to make hitting an Inquisitor easier.

Nobody is making assumptions as to what you think, they're basing an argument on what you've posted. In the end it matters not because nobody knows how Spitfire is supposed to function. Until we get a solid explanation we're on our own and need to use what works.

 

And yet RAW spitfire allows you to shoot at one target. And then use 2 advantage to hit any target with in range. No where does it say what that first target has to be. I do not know why you guys can't figure this out. Not exactly rocket science. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Hello.

 

I'm the player in Kilcannon's game that posed the question about the chandelier.

 

I think there have been interesting points made in this thread and people have covered what I may have said. I'm just here to fill in how it came up for anyone who may be interested.

 

It was after a game and someone was in XP range of Spitfire, so we started talking about it. It seemed odd that you could pop off relatively easy shots at a nemesis while there were minions around, but as soon as you killed the last one, you'd have to concentrate on the nemesis, which would make for a more difficult shot. 

 

Just thinking through, there seemed to be nothing special about shooting at a minion specifically, so why not just shoot at something else first. The difficulty would be the same, roughly. You could even shoot at something within short range, to make the shot easier. When it was noted that just shooting random nearby objects to get a better chance to his was silly, I thought of some "good reasons" to shoot at an object, such as a control panel or radio console or exploding barrel or even a chandelier for the purpose of dropping on an enemy. There seemed to be some continuum ranging from "that's reasonable" to "that's absurd" when picking the target one rolls against. I think we basically agreed to try and stay on the reasonable side, but there wasn't an exact ruling. 

 

I was just pushing the thought to see where it would go, not intending to implement the tactic.  :)

just shooting random crap around the rooms seems lame. Shooting the chandelier to drop on the nemesis or a barrel of fuel or something with the intent to do damage to the nemesis seems much better.

This is something that can be done without Spitfire.

 

And spit fire allows you to do so and then have a follow up shot be shot at the nemesis. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So following the rules as written is cheating now... interesting.

This is a silly statement given that nobody at this point knows exactly how this talent works.

 

 

I know exactly how it works.

 

But I'm not telling  :ph34r:

 

I know how it works. Because I can read. It is not a complicated talent. Why some people have trouble with it I don't know. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know how it works. Because I can read. It is not a complicated talent. Why some people have trouble with it I don't know. 

 

 

 

It reads pretty high on the Too-Good-To-Be-True-Ometer—for some, it's too high. That, and the fact that the name of the talent (for some) implies a very different mechanic, lead some to believe that the text is missing something, or is in need of greater explanation.

 

At least, that's what it looks like to me!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...