All weapons require some sort of a "weapon ready" action or maneuver (note the use of lower case words here).

Different actions/manuevers will be appropriate to different weapons, but they all fall under the same overall category. That category is called "Draw".

If you have the Quickdraw talent yourself, or you have an attachment on the weapon which effectively gives you the Quickdraw talent, then you can perform this "weapon ready" action/maneuver as a capital-"I" Incidental. Otherwise, it takes a capital-"M" Maneuver to get a weapon ready to use.

Now, getting a weapon ready to use can be done before combat actually begins — state that you’re drawing your weapons, or whatever you need to do to get ready for combat. In that case, when combat comes, you don’t need to perform a Draw Maneuver, or a Quickdraw Incidental.

But there are also consequences for being outside of combat while you have your combat weapons ready to go. Accidents can happen, and accidents with weapons out and ready to go will tend to be more dangerous than accidents with weapons in safe mode.

In this case, someone is reading the fluff and insisting that the affected weapons must always be 100% totally ready to use. What they’re overlooking — perhaps intentionally — is that there is a very specific mechanic in this game for getting weapons ready to use, and there is a very specific talent that is available which can help you avoid most of the drawbacks of having to spend a Maneuver to get a weapon ready to use.

The wrist-mount option specifically does not give you this Quickdraw talent. Unfortunately for these people, rules and game mechanics trump fluff.

If you want the fluff to win in your game, then just rule that all wrist mounted weapons automatically have the Quickdraw talent, and you’re done. That’s not RAW, but you should feel free to use whatever rules you want in your game. But don’t call it RAW and then proceed to completely ignore the actual game mechanics in question.

This is all just repetition of your previous two posts. You have a personal list of things you would not find sensible or safe and argue therefore that the rules must be in accordance with that. We should probably on that basis also say lightsabres don't exist.

Again, there's nothing in RAW that requires a "Draw" manoeuvre for wrist mounted weapons and using your personal preferences on safety for what a PC is likely to do, is fine in your game if you want, but does not make it RAW.

Well lets look at the movies... Did Jango or Boba do anything to ready their wrist mounted weapons? Answer. No they did not. They just started using them. Because that is the whole point of wrist mounted weapons. That they are just ready to use. Hence the whole "always ready to use" line.

You can go that way, sure. If it’s a palm pressure plate, $DEITY help you if/when you shake someone’s hand.

And if it's the neural interface directly to your brain which is explicitly mentioned? Or the specific hand gestures? I gave examples earlier of spiderman's two outer fingers straight, two inner fingers pressed toward the wrist, palms upwards. Or two rapid taps of thumb and little finger together. Stop ignoring things explicitly stated in the description of how it works (special gestures, neural interfaces) in favour of your own examples specially picked to show it as impractical. That's not examining things to reach a conclusion, that's trying to force things into a pre-chosen conclusion.

I haven't quoted the rest of your post because it's again flawed - arguing that you need the Quick Draw talent to perform a free Draw manoeuvre when nothing in RAW indicates such a manoeuvre is necessary and much suggests that it wouldn't be (e.g. it's an incidental to switch firing modes which we can think is comparable).

Personally, I thought the only safty on a star wars weapon was Stun Setting, or removing the power pack.

In any game I run, barring narrative to the contrary, a wrist mount can be left ready at all times.

Personally I think it's academic because nothing in RAW has indicated that a Draw manoeuvre is required to fire the wrist mounted blasters but I'm happy to oblige with a quote.

As often as I agree with Knasserll on these boards, I have to disagree on this one. Personally I think nothing in RAW indicates that a Ready maneuver is NOT required to fire the wrist mounted blasters. The Base Modifiers are the only rules for the attachment, which only mention hands free. Anything said in the description before the Base Modifiers is fluff, not game rules.

I will agree that it is a question more on the academic side of things. If a GM is happy with the Ready maneuver being used when the wrist blaster is first put on, then great. Nothing in the rules indicates that walking around with a weapon at the ready all day is dangerous. However, in my games, if a player is walking around with a weapon at the ready at all times then I'm willing to spend Dispair to have the weapon accidentily fire.

I guess I don't see why spending a maneuver to Ready the weapon isn't such a big deal. More often than not, in the games I play in the players can usually tell when a fight is going to happen. Which means that players can ready/draw their weapons before the fight starts. There are still advantages to having a wrist mounted blaster, such as using a Deception or Skulldugery to silently Ready the weapon during negotiations that are going bad without the NPCs noticing.

Stop ignoring things explicitly stated in the description of how it works (special gestures, neural interfaces) in favour of your own examples specially picked to show it as impractical.

This line I think is the key difference in the two sides of this conversation. I could flip this line and say, "Stop applying things stated in the description, because the description is not game rules." I'm only looking at the rules written in the Base Modifiers while people who think a ready isn't needed are applying the fluff in the description.

A description does give guidence on how an item works in the game world, but it doesn't have game rules. Think about the description as a salesman's pitch. The weapon dealer would say, "A wrist mounted blaster is great because the gun is always at the ready. You never have to draw it during a fire fight." However, once you buy the weapon and walk out of the store you realize that you still need to Ready the weapon (as per game rules) and that the only actual rules the attachment gives is that your hands are free.

As for when the player Readies his weapon, and how dangerous it is to have a weapon always on, is between the player and the GM. In my games, having a Ready weapon would result in accidents where the weapon fires with Dispair.

Well lets look at the movies... Did Jango or Boba do anything to ready their wrist mounted weapons? Answer. No they did not. They just started using them.

IMHO, this is faulty logic. Lets look at the movies. Did Jango or Boba ever reload their weapons? Did they ever use Stim Packs? No? Then I guess weapons never run out of ammo and Stim Packs don't exist. Or did they do it off screen? They could've readied the wrist blaster off screen. Or, they could also just not care about it accidently going off. Or they talked with the GM and the GM decided that he will never spend Dispair to accidently have the weapon go off.

While we wait for the rules question answer to come back, let me list how I view the wrist mounted blaster.

Game Rules:

A wrist mounted blaster allows you to weild a blaster while having hands free to do other things, such as weild other weapons, open doors, ect. A Ready Maneuver is required to use a wrist mounted weapon, because it is not stated in the Base Modifications that the Ready Maneuver is not used.

In Play:

A player is free to spend the Maneuver to Ready a wrist mounted blaster when they first put on the weapon. This way they won't be bogged down by having to spend a Maneuver to Ready the weapon during combat.

---------------------------

In my games, I would inform my players that walking around town with a Ready weapon could result in the weapon accidently firing due to Dispair being rolled. This would be the same for wrist mounted blasters, shock gloves, or any other weapon held Ready while non-combat actions are taking place. I wouldn't do this for every Dispair, but I'd let it known that it was an option. (It could be interesting to watch the players struggle through a Pulp Fiction type moment where they accidently blow away the informant and have to deal with the mess the Dispair created.)

It is up to the GM to decide how they want to spend Dispair. If a GM wanted to error on the side of realism, then they could also use Dispair to have a weapons malfunction. If a GM wanted to not hinder the players in this fashion, then they are free to ignore this recomendation. There is nothing printed in the rules that indicates that Dispair must be spent in this fashion, so it is up to each GM to decide if negitive concequences could happen when a player has a Ready weapon outside of combat in their games.

Well lets look at the movies... Did Jango or Boba do anything to ready their wrist mounted weapons? Answer. No they did not. They just started using them.

IMHO, this is faulty logic. Lets look at the movies. Did Jango or Boba ever reload their weapons? Did they ever use Stim Packs? No? Then I guess weapons never run out of ammo and Stim Packs don't exist. Or did they do it off screen? They could've readied the wrist blaster off screen. Or, they could also just not care about it accidently going off. Or they talked with the GM and the GM decided that he will never spend Dispair to accidently have the weapon go off.

Well'p, you should really check the Interwebs before making such claims... and although I cannot prove they are "readying" them in these screen grabs they are interacting directly with their wrist mounted weapons prior to or during firing them which is good enough for me. Further since it is very likely that this is the inspiration for the Wrist Mount in the game I'm going to say that even though they could be fired in some other way for the rest of an encounter you still have to do something, anything , to fire that bad boy up in preparation to release all that destructive goodness. That anything is a Maneuver and if you want to forgo that Maneuver cost all you have to do is attach a re-skinned Filed Front Sight Mod to make that Maneuver an Incidental.

http://gearmedia.ign.com/gear/image/article/915/915897/weapons-locker-boba-fetts-arsenal-20081002060931912-000.jpg

http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20091103234118/starwars/images/8/86/JangoFlamethrower-AOTC.jpg

And the same would go for the Weapon Mount, which is likely based on the Predator sholder gun and has to be raised up before firing.

Personally I think it's academic because nothing in RAW has indicated that a Draw manoeuvre is required to fire the wrist mounted blasters but I'm happy to oblige with a quote.

As often as I agree with Knasserll on these boards, I have to disagree on this one. Personally I think nothing in RAW indicates that a Ready maneuver is NOT required to fire the wrist mounted blasters.

Ah, but that is not what I wrote. I didn't say that nothing in RAW indicates you don't need to use a "Draw" manoeuvre (not "Ready", btw). There are many things that the RAW doesn't say are forbidden - indeed if you start with that approach then your rule book tends toward infinity in size. No, I said that was nothing in RAW that indicates that you did need to perform a Draw manoeuvre. This brings us on to the second part of what you wrote:

The Base Modifiers are the only rules for the attachment, which only mention hands free.

You're arguing that an attachment only overrides the base rules for a weapon if it says so. Problem is that the base rules for a weapon don't say they always require a Draw manoeuvre to use either. Pretty obviously if the blaster is already in your hands then you don't need to perform a Draw manoeuvre and the rules don't say you do, either. So there's nothing that the attachment needs to explicitly overrule. Which brings us on to the third part:

Anything said in the description before the Base Modifiers is fluff, not game rules.

No, I don't believe that's correct because there is no boundary between the two in such a case as this. When is the "Draw" manoeuvre necessary? When a weapon is holstered or stowed or otherwise needs a special action to make it ready. None of these conditions depend on a counter being lightside up, or a character having performed action X or other similar explicit rules conditions - it's direct from the descriptive circumstances of the game world as narrated by the players and GM: "I am walking down the corridor with the blaster in my hand" says Player A. "I have it placed safely in my button down holster" says Player B. "A gundark leaps out of the dark with a gun!" The GM will allow Player A to shoot and require Player B to Draw their weapon. Description is the determinant here. So there is no grounds to reject description in the wrist mount because it is "fluff, not game rules".

Absent anything in RAW saying a "Draw" manoeuvre must be performed before using a wrist-mounted weapon (and there is nothing in RAW that states this), then we fall back to description. And the description says it is "always ready".

Now by all means a GM can say that the description doesn't mean that in their game - as BradKnowles kept doing early on the grounds that such a weapon would be unsafe ("Hello? You've strapped a gun to your arm and you live in a universe where people use lightsabres!"), but that is a GM preference - it is not RAW.

This line I think is the key difference in the two sides of this conversation. I could flip this line and say, "Stop applying things stated in the description, because the description is not game rules

No, you couldn't flip it around because the line you just quoted was very specifically calling out the poster for trying to twist things in their favour. The description in the text talks about specific hand gestures and neural interfaces. And the poster I was replying to started basing arguments on 'what if it were a pressure-plate in the hand - imagine if you shook hands with someone'. I was NOT calling them out for arguing based on description in that instance. I was calling them out for making up their own description never mentioned in the book in order to justify a position of wrist-mounts being unsafe and therefore the rules must mean what he thought they meant. You can't "flip that around". It's a specific case of strawman'ing and that's what I was pointing out.

Personally I think it's academic because nothing in RAW has indicated that a Draw manoeuvre is required to fire the wrist mounted blasters but I'm happy to oblige with a quote.

As often as I agree with Knasserll on these boards, I have to disagree on this one. Personally I think nothing in RAW indicates that a Ready maneuver is NOT required to fire the wrist mounted blasters.

Ah, but that is not what I wrote. I didn't say that nothing in RAW indicates you don't need to use a "Draw" manoeuvre (not "Ready", btw). There are many things that the RAW doesn't say are forbidden - indeed if you start with that approach then your rule book tends toward infinity in size. No, I said that was nothing in RAW that indicates that you did need to perform a Draw manoeuvre. This brings us on to the second part of what you wrote:

I'm not arguing the need to Draw. However, draw, holster, ready, or load a weapon all use the same rules, which is that a maneuver is needed to do these things. It's obvious that a wrist mounted weapon doesn't need to be drawn, holstered, or loaded. I'm simply arguing that at some point in the day, the wrist mounted blaster must be made Ready to use.

The Base Modifiers are the only rules for the attachment, which only mention hands free.

You're arguing that an attachment only overrides the base rules for a weapon if it says so. Problem is that the base rules for a weapon don't say they always require a Draw manoeuvre to use either. Pretty obviously if the blaster is already in your hands then you don't need to perform a Draw manoeuvre and the rules don't say you do, either. So there's nothing that the attachment needs to explicitly overrule. Which brings us on to the third part:

Yes, I am arguing that an attachment only overrides the base rules if it says so. How is that faulty logic? The Base Modifiers section of an Attachment are how the Attachment modify the game rules.

You are correct, when a blaster is in your hands then you don't need to draw it. But, the blaster is on the back of your wrist, not in your hands. Which is why I'm arguing that you still need to Ready the weapon at some point during the day to use it. This is not a Draw Maneuver, it's a Ready Maneuver.

Anything said in the description before the Base Modifiers is fluff, not game rules.

No, I don't believe that's correct because there is no boundary between the two in such a case as this.

This is a point we can agree to disagree on. I believe fluff is not rules. You believe fluff is rules. Seems like nothing either of us could say would change the other's opinion.

Absent anything in RAW saying a "Draw" manoeuvre must be performed before using a wrist-mounted weapon (and there is nothing in RAW that states this), then we fall back to description. And the description says it is "always ready".

AOR 215

Draw, holster, ready, or load a weapon. This maneuver covers the basic manipulations of most weapons, such as drawing a vibroknife from its sheath, recharging a blaster rifle's energy cells (provided the character has additional ammo at hand - see page 197), or drawing and prepping a thermal detonator for use.

The rules cover how to draw, holster, ready, or load a weapon. These are the basic manipulations of most weapons. A GM could rule that a wrist mounted blaster doesn't doesn't fall into the "most weapons" group and doesn't need any basic manipulation to be used. To me, that's a house rule because the wrist mounted attachment doesn't explicitly state that the basic manipulations to use the weapon are not needed.

This line I think is the key difference in the two sides of this conversation. I could flip this line and say, "Stop applying things stated in the description, because the description is not game rules

No, you couldn't flip it around because the line you just quoted was very specifically calling out the poster for trying to twist things in their favour. The description in the text talks about specific hand gestures and neural interfaces. And the poster I was replying to started basing arguments on 'what if it were a pressure-plate in the hand - imagine if you shook hands with someone'. I was NOT calling them out for arguing based on description in that instance. I was calling them out for making up their own description never mentioned in the book in order to justify a position of wrist-mounts being unsafe and therefore the rules must mean what he thought they meant. You can't "flip that around". It's a specific case of strawman'ing and that's what I was pointing out.

I will agree that it is pointless arguing the would be, could be, should be for how the wrist mounted blaster is used. We can all dream up situations based upon the description that fit our view points.

I'm not sure of other posters, but for me having any weapon out and able to be fired is ripe for using Dispair to do bad things. Isn't that what Dispair is for? To do bad things? To simulate accidents? If I tell my GM that I'm going to try to Coerce information out of my prisoner and hold my blaster on them to intimidate them further, and I roll a Dispair, it's within the rights for the GM to have the weapon fire and shoot the prisoner. With most weapons it's simple, either the weapon is in your hand and can be fired, or it's put away. A wrist mounted blaster is always on your wrist, so it is never put away. I'm arguing that by having a weapon that's able to be fired can be dangerous and if a wrist mounted blaster is always on and always ready to fire, it's just that much more likely to have an accident.

I feel like there are two arguments going on in this thread that are being weaved together.

1. Does a Ready Maneuver need to be done to fire a wrist mounted blaster?

2. Should there be any concequence to have a weapon always weilded and able to be fired?

My stance is this: 1 is RAW that a Ready Maneuver is needed and 2 is up to the GM.

Since 2 is up to the GM, if the GM feels that 2 will never happen in their games, then 1 can be easily glossed over. It would simply be assumed that the Ready Maneuver is spent whenever the wrist mounted blaster is put on.

PS: Who knew there was a limit on how may quote boxes can be in a post?

As for when the player Readies his weapon, and how dangerous it is to have a weapon always on, is between the player and the GM. In my games, having a Ready weapon would result in accidents where the weapon fires with Dispair.

Well the rest of us would probably do the same. No-one is arguing that you can't have an accident with such a weapon if a Despair is rolled. We're just saying that this possibility isn't so outlandish that this can't be RAW. And that drifts into RAI which is a different discussion anyway. Though there the ground is even shakier as the descriptive text very much backs up our interpretation for RAI.

Well lets look at the movies... Did Jango or Boba do anything to ready their wrist mounted weapons? Answer. No they did not. They just started using them.

IMHO, this is faulty logic. Lets look at the movies. Did Jango or Boba ever reload their weapons? Did they ever use Stim Packs? No? Then I guess weapons never run out of ammo and Stim Packs don't exist. Or did they do it off screen? They could've readied the wrist blaster off screen. Or, they could also just not care about it accidently going off. Or they talked with the GM and the GM decided that he will never spend Dispair to accidently have the weapon go off.

It's not faulty logic on the basis of Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence and the inverse of that principle. You're arguing that because we don't see something happen in a movie, then "weapons never run out of ammo and stimpacks don't exist". Or rather you're posing that as if it were what we were saying to show the absurdity of it. However, that doesn't match what we're saying - we're talking about presence of evidence. We SEE these people do something without special activation. Ergo it is possible.

We don't see something in a movie therefore it doesn't exist = flawed logic.

We do see something in a movie therefore know that it does = correct logic.

You have attempted to answer the second case by equating it with the first. This is not so.

It's not faulty logic on the basis of Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence and the inverse of that principle. You're arguing that because we don't see something happen in a movie, then "weapons never run out of ammo and stimpacks don't exist". Or rather you're posing that as if it were what we were saying to show the absurdity of it. However, that doesn't match what we're saying - we're talking about presence of evidence. We SEE these people do something without special activation. Ergo it is possible.

We don't see something in a movie therefore it doesn't exist = flawed logic.

We do see something in a movie therefore know that it does = correct logic.

You have attempted to answer the second case by equating it with the first. This is not so.

Counterpoint: if anyone in the movies had Quickdraw, it would be the famous bounty hunter.

Instead, lets look at the OTHER wrist mounted weapon example:

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTXAy01F6CLv8P2UYacuoWjnem49blBRZpz7Yne9pPpR0r3uezr

"Stowed"

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTmH6m4AFWbD-RCBltiCbW3f6W8Y-V5Kk--nDtp1Ho59DSsKvA4

"Drawn"

Discuss

I'm not arguing the need to Draw. However, draw, holster, ready, or load a weapon all use the same rules, which is that a maneuver is needed to do these things. It's obvious that a wrist mounted weapon doesn't need to be drawn, holstered, or loaded. I'm simply arguing that at some point in the day, the wrist mounted blaster must be made Ready to use.

You are not simply arguing this. You are then going on to argue that it is normal for the wrist-mounted blaster to not be ready. In absence of RAW saying so and in contrary to the descriptive text for the item. Again - no-one has a problem with you ruling it such in your game so far as I am aware. But if you are incorrect to argue that it is RAW and saying that you find it likely that something is the case is incorrect. It's as good as arguing that loading a blaster takes a manoeuvre and that this must take place at some point in the day and THEN arguing that this should be a normal start to combat. You are not "simply" arguing that a wrist-mounted weapon might have an on-off switch. You are building a lot more on top of that possibility. Including - and this is what people keep arguing with you about, that it is RAW despite no such rule. RAW = Rules As Written not What I Think.

Yes, I am arguing that an attachment only overrides the base rules if it says so. How is that faulty logic? The Base Modifiers section of an Attachment are how the Attachment modify the game rules.

As I just explained in the part you quoted, saying that there's nothing in the attachment that overrides the base rules is irrelevant when the base rules don't say it either.

You are correct, when a blaster is in your hands then you don't need to draw it. But, the blaster is on the back of your wrist, not in your hands.

And wired to your brain by a neural interface. It is your contention that pointing and firing such a weapon requires an action (small 'a') equivalent in effort / time to fire as a weapon that is in a holster and at your side. You can be of that opinion. But that does not make it RAW and is against the descriptive text. I know you don't care about the descriptive text, but yet you're making a ruling that something is RAW based on your own mental descriptive text. There's a gross inconsistency of standards, there.

Anything said in the description before the Base Modifiers is fluff, not game rules.

No, I don't believe that's correct because there is no boundary between the two in such a case as this.

This is a point we can agree to disagree on. I believe fluff is not rules. You believe fluff is rules. Seems like nothing either of us could say would change the other's opinion.

Whether or not your opinion changes is up to you, but that's not what I wrote and not what I explained. I made a clear and supported explanation as to how whether or not you need to perform a Draw manoeuvre was dependent on description. Something you cannot refute. I then pointed out that this is also a case of description. Which it clearly is.

Absent anything in RAW saying a "Draw" manoeuvre must be performed before using a wrist-mounted weapon (and there is nothing in RAW that states this), then we fall back to description. And the description says it is "always ready".

AOR 215

Draw, holster, ready, or load a weapon. This maneuver covers the basic manipulations of most weapons, such as drawing a vibroknife from its sheath, recharging a blaster rifle's energy cells (provided the character has additional ammo at hand - see page 197), or drawing and prepping a thermal detonator for use.

The rules cover how to draw, holster, ready, or load a weapon. These are the basic manipulations of most weapons.

Nothing in there states things are the way you say they are and indeed the wording explicitly allows for the possibility that it is not. The above cannot be used as an argument that requiring a Draw manoeuvre for wrist-mounted weapons is RAW.

A GM could rule that a wrist mounted blaster doesn't doesn't fall into the "most weapons" group and doesn't need any basic manipulation to be used. To me, that's a house rule because the wrist mounted attachment doesn't explicitly state that the basic manipulations to use the weapon are not needed.

The above is you making an interpretation of your own in contradiction to the descriptive text for the item and nothing RAW saying that it is required.

There are two things that you have consistently been unable to show in this entire discussion:

(1) RAW stating that a special Manoeuvre is required for Wrist Mounted Weapons

(2) That in the absence of any such RAW, your personal idea of how these work should trump the descriptive text in the book.

Without these two propositions being shown, there is no room for you to argue that requiring such a Manoeuvre is RAW. No-one has a problem with you doing what you want in your game. You are incorrect to tell us it is RAW or that we are "house-ruling" doing it otherwise.

No, you couldn't flip it around because the line you just quoted was very specifically calling out the poster for trying to twist things in their favour. The description in the text talks about specific hand gestures and neural interfaces. And the poster I was replying to started basing arguments on 'what if it were a pressure-plate in the hand - imagine if you shook hands with someone'. I was NOT calling them out for arguing based on description in that instance. I was calling them out for making up their own description never mentioned in the book in order to justify a position of wrist-mounts being unsafe and therefore the rules must mean what he thought they meant. You can't "flip that around". It's a specific case of strawman'ing and that's what I was pointing out.

I will agree that it is pointless arguing the would be, could be, should be for how the wrist mounted blaster is used. We can all dream up situations based upon the description that fit our view points.

Except that's not what I have done, but is what the person I was replying to has done. I haven't "dreamed up anything". I'm going purely by the description in the book. The person I was replying to deliberately ignored references to neural interfaces and the ability to scan for specific hand / finger gestures, in favour of "what if it's a pressure-plate in the palm". I correctly pointed out that they were deliberately ignoring what was written in favour of trying to make it sound like something that would support their case. And now you are for the second time challenging me on that and now trying to suggest that "anyone can dream up situations... that fit our viewpoint". I did not - I went from what is in the book. Other person did invent their own that didn't match. You're now trying to dismiss what I write by drawing equivalences. This is wrong and a rhetorical sleight of hand. My view is entirely based on the book.

I'm not sure of other posters, but for me having any weapon out and able to be fired is ripe for using Dispair to do bad things. Isn't that what Dispair is for? To do bad things? To simulate accidents?

I have no idea why you suppose that the above is a counter-argument to anything I wrote. Yes, Despair could result in such an accident as a prepared weapon going off. If you think that allowing for the possibility of such a result means the weapon cannot possibly function that way, see several previous posts on this - because you personally think such a weapon would be below your standards of safety, does not mean this is so. Citation: Star Wars Eps. I-VI, Scenes: All of them.

I feel like there are two arguments going on in this thread that are being weaved together.

1. Does a Ready Maneuver need to be done to fire a wrist mounted blaster?

2. Should there be any concequence to have a weapon always weilded and able to be fired?

No, there is only one argument, the first. No-one is arguing with you on the second. The only argument on the second has been when someone has attempted to argue that because it's dangerous, then it can't be the case. That is actually the first argument again.

PS: Who knew there was a limit on how may quote boxes can be in a post?

Me. I had to divide a post I made on the DH Beta forums into four separate posts once.

It's not faulty logic on the basis of Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence and the inverse of that principle. You're arguing that because we don't see something happen in a movie, then "weapons never run out of ammo and stimpacks don't exist". Or rather you're posing that as if it were what we were saying to show the absurdity of it. However, that doesn't match what we're saying - we're talking about presence of evidence. We SEE these people do something without special activation. Ergo it is possible.

We don't see something in a movie therefore it doesn't exist = flawed logic.

We do see something in a movie therefore know that it does = correct logic.

You have attempted to answer the second case by equating it with the first. This is not so.

Counterpoint: if anyone in the movies had Quickdraw, it would be the famous bounty hunter.

Instead, lets look at the OTHER wrist mounted weapon example:

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTXAy01F6CLv8P2UYacuoWjnem49blBRZpz7Yne9pPpR0r3uezr

"Stowed"

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTmH6m4AFWbD-RCBltiCbW3f6W8Y-V5Kk--nDtp1Ho59DSsKvA4

"Drawn"

Discuss

cough

Counterpoint: if anyone in the movies had Quickdraw, it would be the famous bounty hunter.

True, but that still doesn't make equating absence of evidence with evidence of absence valid argumentation. You're just trying to invoke Supposition in order to invalidate a rejection of the false equivalence. This doesn't work - it would only work to dismiss the original false equivalence if it had been in the other direction. The criticism of what I wrote is still invalid.

Instead, lets look at the OTHER wrist mounted weapon example:

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTXAy01F6CLv8P2UYacuoWjnem49blBRZpz7Yne9pPpR0r3uezr

"Stowed"

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTmH6m4AFWbD-RCBltiCbW3f6W8Y-V5Kk--nDtp1Ho59DSsKvA4

"Drawn"

Discuss

Shooting Mynocks, Shooting People. That's just aiming at different points.

Unless you're serious in which case I would say that again, this misses the point - we have seen cases of wrist-mounted weapons fired without special actions taken. This means it is possible for this to be the case regardless of whether it is always the case. And secondly, I wouldn't call that "stowed". They just haven't aimed yet. It's about as valid as seeing Han Solo with a gun in his hand but he hasn't pointed it at anyone yet and saying therefore it's "stowed".

cough

???

Are you upset at being ignored? You realize that you can (and did) post whilst I was writing my own? And you actually "coughed" whilst I was replying to your own post.

Counterpoint: if anyone in the movies had Quickdraw, it would be the famous bounty hunter.

True, but that still doesn't make equating absence of evidence with evidence of absence valid argumentation. You're just trying to invoke Supposition in order to invalidate a rejection of the false equivalence. This doesn't work - it would only work to dismiss the original false equivalence if it had been in the other direction. The criticism of what I wrote is still invalid.

Instead, lets look at the OTHER wrist mounted weapon example:

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTXAy01F6CLv8P2UYacuoWjnem49blBRZpz7Yne9pPpR0r3uezr

"Stowed"

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTmH6m4AFWbD-RCBltiCbW3f6W8Y-V5Kk--nDtp1Ho59DSsKvA4

"Drawn"

Discuss

Shooting Mynocks, Shooting People. That's just aiming at different points.

Unless you're serious in which case I would say that again, this misses the point - we have seen cases of wrist-mounted weapons fired without special actions taken. This means it is possible for this to be the case regardless of whether it is always the case. And secondly, I wouldn't call that "stowed". They just haven't aimed yet. It's about as valid as seeing Han Solo with a gun in his hand but he hasn't pointed it at anyone yet and saying therefore it's "stowed".

It is perfectly reasonable to draw without a special action with the quickdraw feat. And a bounty hunter can easilly get the quickdraw feat. Therefore your example shows the benifit of Quickdraw, NOT the benifit of Wrist mounts.

Which is why I bring up the droids, who DO distinctly "maneuver" to arm or disarm their wrist weapons in AotC.

(I guess OSHA was part of the Techno Union, which is why they wernt around for the Death Star)

The Fetts clearly just reached over to their forearms and hit a button to fire their wrist weapons. If there was any sort of safety to disengage, it must have been done offscreen. I have no problem with this being the case. However, as GM I would be inclined to have such a weapon being prone to going off at awkward times if a despair comes up. "Well you were sneaking, up until you bumped that table with your arm and set the drapes on fire with your flamethrower..."

And if that was just the safety?

The Fetts clearly just reached over to their forearms and hit a button to fire their wrist weapons. If there was any sort of safety to disengage, it must have been done offscreen. I have no problem with this being the case. However, as GM I would be inclined to have such a weapon being prone to going off at awkward times if a despair comes up. "Well you were sneaking, up until you bumped that table with your arm and set the drapes on fire with your flamethrower..."

If Han Solo had a wrist flamethrower, it would have happened at some point. Han would "Rather be lucky than good", and it shows.

It is perfectly reasonable to draw without a special action with the quickdraw feat. And a bounty hunter can easilly get the quickdraw feat. Therefore your example shows the benifit of Quickdraw, NOT the benifit of Wrist mounts.

Firstly, it's not my example, it's someone else's. Secondly your last sentence is not supportable from the first two. You're supposing that because we see Boba Fett fire a weapon without special preparation that it MUST be because he has the Quickdraw talent. This is an argument that presupposes the answer. It could equally be that the weapon requires no special preparation. Furthermore, what we see on screen would not be a representation of the Quick Draw talent because that would be seeing someone do something that should take longer really quickly - i.e. someone with Quick Draw still needs to draw the weapon, they are merely practiced enough that they can do it as an Incidental. Whereas what we see Fett do is something equivalent to pulling a trigger.

Regardless, it's academic as nothing I've said depends on this, it's someone else's argument. I'm just showing why your criticisms of it don't stand up. Even if we never saw a wrist-mounted weapon in the entire movie series, it would not affect my arguments which is that nothing in RAW makes a Draw action necessary for firing a Wrist Mounted weapon.

My contention is that the B2's in Attack of the Clones demonstrate needing a Maneuver to ready their wrist mounted blasters. Therefore, anyone without quickdraw needs a maneuver to ready their blasters. The argument that Boba/Jango did NOT need a maneuver is countered by "They could have had Quickdraw."

My contention is that the B2's in Attack of the Clones demonstrate needing a Maneuver to ready their wrist mounted blasters. Therefore, anyone without quickdraw needs a maneuver to ready their blasters. The argument that Boba/Jango did NOT need a maneuver is countered by "They could have had Quickdraw."

I understand. My counter-argument is that I see no meaningful difference between your droids standing with their guns pointed upwards and this: .

The latter does not require a Draw manoeuvre just because the gun is not yet aimed, therefore there is no reason to suppose your droids are in any other state than simply not having aimed yet. Furthermore, as pointed out, the existence of a weapon that did need drawing is not an indication that a different weapon does and nothing in the RAW says so. Indeed, whether a Draw manoeuvre is required is always dependent on description - has your PC been descrbing them walking down the corridor with gun in hand? Then no manoeuvre is needed. Have they been describing themselves keeping it in holster? Then a maneouvre is needed. The requirement follows directly from description. That is why Jamwes's argument that description must be ignored in a RAW description is flawed in this instance.

Finally, as I said, Quick Draw enables you to do something faster than normal. All we see the Fetts do is something equivalent to pulling a trigger (i.e. pressing a button). We do not see anything that would take longer than pulling a trigger. Ergo, talents or not are academic. Though again, this is someone else's argument. Mine does not depend on movie examples at all.

In fact, just following up to say that sometimes they don't even bother pressing a button:

(about 1min 07 seconds).

So I put the question to Sam as well, here is what I wrote:

Sam,

The question is regarding whither or not Wrist Mounted weapons and Armor Mounted weapons require a "Draw" maneuver to ready before firing once the encounter has begun or are they always ready to fire without any readying Maneuver such as the Draw Maneuver..

The arguments for are based on the following:

a) AOR 215

Draw, holster, ready, or load a weapon. This maneuver covers the basic manipulations of most weapons, such as drawing a vibroknife from its sheath, recharging a blaster rifle's energy cells (provided the character has additional ammo at hand - see page 197), or drawing and prepping a thermal detonator for use.

b) That the Base Modifiers of these Mods do not include the Innate Quick Draw ability (like such Mods as Filed Front Sight does) which as far as we can tell is the only rule that allows you to make the required Maneuver to "Draw" in to an Incidental and thus "readied" all the time.

c) That you could still follow the apparent RAW and get the effect of having the weapon ready all the time by adding a re-skinned Filed Front Sight Mod to the weapon on you wrist or on the weapon mount.

The argument against essentially boils down to a reading of the Fluff of the Wrist Mounted weapon Mod because is says: "always has a weapon ready" (see below)

DC 52

Corellian Arms model 2 wrist mount

Originally developed to allow species without opposable thumbs to use pistols, a wrist mount ensures that the user always has a weapon ready while keeping his hands free. Many users choose wrist mounts as a way to pack further firepower, while it is simply an aesthetic choice for some. Wrist-mounted weapons can be fired with a pressure-sensitive palm trigger, a particular wrist motion, or even by neural link. This attachment can be applied to any Ranged (Light) weapon.

Base Modifiers: The weapon can be worn on the user's wrist, allowing him to use his hands without interference.

Modification Options: None.

The thread that the discussion is on:

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/122405-dual-wielding-blaster-pistols/page-3

Thank you,

Greg

PS. Permission to post please.

Except that isn't the case. I feel it odd that you're going to the movies to try and justify a draw manuever when the CRB shows the intent clearly and should take precedence in its own game.

Let's look at the facts the draw manuever specifically says that only some weapons are going to require a manuever, and we know out of the instances there the only one that would apply is "readying" the weaon.

So this tells us, at best, that a weapon may or may not need to use a manuever to ready and that said call by RAW should typically be up to the GM as no hard mechanic says one way or the other.

Thus the only way to determine is to try and interpret the intent of the developers of the game. Now sure the movie is one way but you're overreaching there when the description is right in front of you. Are the descriptions mechanics? Nah not really. But are you really intend on arguing that they dont inform the intent of the designers? That the effect not only doesn't match the description but litterally is ruled in such a way that it's the exact opposite of what the description says?