Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ullr

The Corellian Compound Bow Question

Recommended Posts

The actual aerodynamic properties of the missile ARE affected by its shape and weight, though. 

 

Ranged (Heavy) is the skill that represents using a bow to fire aerodynamic missiles that are designed to fly a long ways and penetrate into their target because they've been fired with such force and still have a great deal of force because they're so aerodynamic.

 

So what Stewart is saying is that they picked Ranged (Light) to represent firing these missiles that have blunt, heavy tips that are not aerodynamic and aren't intended to be fired with such great force, because all they need do is connect with their target to explode and do damage.

 

Now that I understand that, it makes sense to me. To be honest, I'm a little surprised they felt that was worth distinguishing two different skills, but the explanation works for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You honestly believe they made a mistake or a typo and the original intent was that the explosive arrows were meant to be Ranged (Heavy), and then Sam Stewart explicitly made up that answer and lied about the reasoning behind it?

 

Doesn't it seem more likely that they arrived at the different skills because of the reasoning that Sam Stewart outlined, but that you just happen to disagree about whether that's a good idea?

 

You feel like "They made a mistake and then lied about it" is the more likely of those two?

Edited by progressions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You honestly believe they made a mistake or a typo and the original intent was that the explosive arrows were meant to be Ranged (Heavy), and then Sam Stewart explicitly made up that answer and lied about the reasoning behind it?

Yep. I see people pull crap like this all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would be the rationale behind lying about it as opposed to, say, admitting the mistake and putting out an errata about it at some point?

 

I've heard Sam Stewart himself admit many times in his interviews on Order 66 to some point or other that was either unclear, badly written, or flat out wrong in the released rulebook. He seems to me like an honest person who would admit a mistake rather than make up an elaborate rationale to lie about it.

 

It's just possible that it may be an honest disagreement between you and the people who write the rules, rather than some villainous cover-up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello again everyone,

I have really enjoyed reading everyones thoughts and idea on well everything that has come up. I would like to apologize for my lack of posting and what not. I wont lie it was interesting to see that someone resposed and said it was not an error or anything. I like the Ranged (Bow) custom skill idea. I dont mean to stir the pot or whatever, but i dont see why the guy would lie. It seems like it would be more work and effort to lie and cover up the mistake then to say 'oops it was a mistake. This is what it should be' now i still dont necessarily agree that it should be a different skill, or if it is it should still have the cumbersome rating, or if it has a different skill and lose the cumbersome 3 then the regular bow should gain accurate or something.

Anyways thank you everyone for the imput it was fun,

Ullr

Edited by Ullr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This book is already going to be edited/eratta'd for clarification. I previously asked him about the lack of description for the grav belt and he admitted it was a mistake in editing and will eventually be addressed. Though I don't understand the reasoning he gave me, I don't agree that he is offering a cop out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*looks at HappyDaze's last few posts*

 

Wow, talk about assuming the worst.  I may not entirely agree with the answer (and will probably house-rule the arrows to use Ranged: Heavy the same as the bow to keep things simple), but I'm not going around hurling accusations of "cop-outs" or "laziness" just because I haven't always agreed with his or FFG's decisions on how to stat things out.

 

As has been noted, Sam has openly admitted there were points where "we screwed up" when asked, with the confusion on Defense from armor and Ranged Defense from cover being able to stack (mostly in that the verbiage wasn't as clear is it should have been that they're not meant to stack).  There are folks that don't agree with that ruling, but none of them have tried to claim that Sam was making some sort of cop-out; they just decided they didn't care for the semi-official* ruling and deciding to run things how they wished for their games.

 

*I say this based on Rodney Thompson's long-standing statement that the only "official answers" on Saga Edition rules questions were those from the Errata/FAQ and Jedi Counseling, while any answers he gave on the Order 66 podcast was his view of things.  With any licensed product where changes in the material are subject to the approvals process, it's generally the best approach to take, even if the person answering is one of the lead designers of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This book is already going to be edited/eratta'd for clarification. I previously asked him about the lack of description for the grav belt and he admitted it was a mistake in editing and will eventually be addressed. Though I don't understand the reasoning he gave me, I don't agree that he is offering a cop out.

 

On that note, has there been any discussion on what exactly the Grav Belt _does_?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On that note, has there been any discussion on what exactly the Grav Belt _does_?

 

 

To my understanding, it's basically like the Anti-Grav Chute. Upside is it's smaller and just fits on your waist instead of your back (where a backpack probably is). Downside is it's more expensive, and I would assume, wouldn't do quite as good of a job at protecting you from falls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thoughts as an archer who has fired both 'standard' and decidedly 'non-standard' ammunition from the same bow:

1) Changing the skill from Ranged (heavy) to Ranged (light) makes no sense.  The mechanics of firing a bow don't change *at all* based on the ammo used.  I'll be ignoring the skill change in my own games.

2) A range reduction makes perfect sense.  Larger, heavier, less aerodynamic ammunition flies slower (and therefore shorter distances with the same accuracy) than lighter, more aerodynamic ammunition.

Edited by Voice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thoughts as an archer who has fired both 'standard' and decidedly 'non-standard' ammunition from the same bow:

2) A range reduction makes perfect sense.  Larger, heavier, less aerodynamic ammunition flies slower (and therefore shorter distances with the same accuracy) than lighter, more aerodynamic ammunition.

On the second point, I kinda disagree.  There's not much granularity between range bands, and Short Range caps out at several meters.  I'd say keep the special arrows as Medium range, since as you noted the delivery system is the same.  At most, maybe apply the Inaccurate quality to reflect that these arrows aren't quite as precise as a standard arrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thoughts as an archer who has fired both 'standard' and decidedly 'non-standard' ammunition from the same bow:1) Changing the skill from Ranged (heavy) to Ranged (light) makes no sense.  The mechanics of firing a bow don't change *at all* based on the ammo used.  I'll be ignoring the skill change in my own games.2) A range reduction makes perfect sense.  Larger, heavier, less aerodynamic ammunition flies slower (and therefore shorter distances with the same accuracy) than lighter, Morenish aerodynamic ammunition.

This is exactly what I plan to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, changing Heavy to Light is nonsense, because the weight is determined by the bow (the draw weight, not how heavy the bow is), not the arrows. If they wanted to show that an explosive arrow does not actually have to hit a target to cause damage, they should have explained it by going with enough Advantages (or maybe even a Triumph) on a failure (the arrow missed the target, but the blast was enough to cause some damage). At least, that's my 2 opinion on this matter.

 

Either way, I'm not changing to Ranged (Light) when using different arrows.

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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...