RAW would be the the statistics. The mechanics. The description for the gun is just fluff. Has someone actually submitted a question to the devs yet? If no one else has, I will. If for no other reason than to settle this childish argument.

You guys, have you ever held a dueling pistol or civil / revolutionary war pistol?? Those suckers are NOT light. Of course they are Enc 2! They are heavier and much harder to reload hence the 1 shot. It should only be for 1, ONE, UNO Gun! I believe the spirit of the description is that most people do not buy this gun as a single entity. Yes the Devs could have made the description better in this regard but COMMON SENSE will tell you that this is a Singular Gun! 1 Gun that is being sold. Otherwise they would put a sentence that says you get 2 items with something or multiple items.

Evil and DBL it would have been a lot easier if the devs had stated what you had to sit down and figure out.

They did. It's the stat line in the Weapon Chart. What your getting hung up on is the fluff text and the fact that fluff and crunch commingle in the text boxes just enough to blur the lines sometimes.

You guys, have you ever held a dueling pistol or civil / revolutionary war pistol?? Those suckers are NOT light. Of course they are Enc 2! They are heavier and much harder to reload hence the 1 shot. It should only be for 1, ONE, UNO Gun! I believe the spirit of the description is that most people do not buy this gun as a single entity. Yes the Devs could have made the description better in this regard but COMMON SENSE will tell you that this is a Singular Gun! 1 Gun that is being sold. Otherwise they would put a sentence that says you get 2 items with something or multiple items.

For what it's worth, the heavy blaster pistol (such as what Han uses) is also listed as Encumbrance 2, putting it and the Dueling Pistol about on par with the various high-caliber handguns (such .357 and .44 Magnums) in terms of both firepower and heft. Something like a Desert Eagle would be Encumbrance 3 (not only heavy, but significant recoil and not very easy to swing around, particularly in tight quarters).

I agree with the others that Osprey is simply splitting hairs and trying to justify a "two for one" price deal, when it's been pointed out repeatedly that like every single other weapon in the product line, the price listed is for a single pistol, just as all the rest of the stats are for a single pistol.

You guys, have you ever held a dueling pistol or civil / revolutionary war pistol?? Those suckers are NOT light. Of course they are Enc 2! They are heavier and much harder to reload hence the 1 shot. It should only be for 1, ONE, UNO Gun! I believe the spirit of the description is that most people do not buy this gun as a single entity. Yes the Devs could have made the description better in this regard but COMMON SENSE will tell you that this is a Singular Gun! 1 Gun that is being sold. Otherwise they would put a sentence that says you get 2 items with something or multiple items.

For what it's worth, the heavy blaster pistol (such as what Han uses) is also listed as Encumbrance 2, putting it and the Dueling Pistol about on par with the various high-caliber handguns (such .357 and .44 Magnums) in terms of both firepower and heft. Something like a Desert Eagle would be Encumbrance 3 (not only heavy, but significant recoil and not very easy to swing around, particularly in tight quarters).

I agree with the others that Osprey is simply splitting hairs and trying to justify a "two for one" price deal, when it's been pointed out repeatedly that like every single other weapon in the product line, the price listed is for a single pistol, just as all the rest of the stats are for a single pistol.

I agreed a long time ago that that was the price. My point was that the description is still raw and the OP asked because he was confused, if you read the entire thread there were others that a said the same as I did on the price and I stated that it was confusing is all. fluff would be for example the fact that they glowed all the time or something like that. If saying raw is both the description and the chart is splitting hairs then I apologize about that and you follow just one or the other no skin off of my nose. But if you are not looking at both then you may miss something. BTW Sam said hi and here is his emailed answer.

BTW if you look at any previous posts I have made and I was wrong I usually apologize, Won't happen with this as I did agree the price was for a single a few pages back and it turned in to one guy stating the chart is raw **** the description.

Have a nice day.

BTW if you look at any previous posts I have made and I was wrong I usually apologize, Won't happen with this as I did agree the price was for a single a few pages back and it turned in to one guy stating the chart is raw **** the description.

Have a nice day.

I am not getting into this again, It it there just read through what you wrote, and then come back and tell me that you weren't saying the description didn't matter. As a matter of fact, read all the threads and understand I wouldn't buy the pistols and some were saying what I said and some were saying what you said. I was trying to justify the price for someone else and just stated where I was confused at and when you and Evil pointed out that cutting the stats to show a single pistol that I agreed and I stated that the description wasn't fluff and was important and we should look at both.

You convinced me of the price being for a single, and did a good job I might add. You also blew off the fact that I stated that the devs could have made the description a easier to understand. Hell, it would have been best for them to leave out "almost invariably sold in pairs" from there and there never would have been a question in the first place.

I have read what I wrote, when you started arguing that the price was confusing it was then that I said the description didn't matter because it said nothing about the cost.

That's he problem though, the entry is clear. The description states that typically you need to buy 2 in a set (and yes I use typically do to the almost qualifier before invariably) and the chart states that each pistol will run you 750 credits. Which part is confusing?

And here we go again. the book states "almost invariably sold as a pair" not that you need to buy 2, but they are sold almost always sold as a pair. You guys have stated grammar a few times, well the sentence above is what it states grammatically. There are others that were under the same impression that invariably, typically means almost always. Not that you need to buy 2. If the description didn't say that they are almost always sold in pairs the question never would have come up. Thats where the confusion was and why the question was asked. I was looking at both the chart and the description, I have stated this before until the comment about the stats being cut and the pistols becoming worthless. It was making more sense that the missing S was a typo than them putting an entire sentence in and not detail what they meant.

Happy thank you!

Ok well this will be my last post on the matter but I still don't see how the text is confusing wether the description has said they're usually sold as pairs, always sold as pairs, or never sold as pairs it would still seem to reason that you'd just multiply the price times the number you where purchasing as the only thing that would matter in terms of cost would be how many the chart indicated the cost was for.

DBL The dead horse is dead stoop kicking it, you are smart and the guys it confused are not, we get the point you have won, ALL BOW DOWN TO DBL.

DBL The dead horse is dead stoop kicking it, you are smart and the guys it confused are not, we get the point you have won, ALL BOW DOWN TO DBL.

Pardon but once the letter back from Sam came in I said nothing, I was content leaving it at that... but then you decided to insult and misrepresent me. Forgive me if I didn't take that sitting down.

Side note, I never said nor implied that anyone who didn't agree with me was stupid.

I think this one is better.

BTW if you look at any previous posts I have made and I was wrong I usually apologize, Won't happen with this as I did agree the price was for a single a few pages back and it turned in to one guy stating the chart is raw **** the description.

Have a nice day.

I don't think anyone was arguing that the description should be over-ruled by the chart. I believe we were all saying that there wasn't any incompatibility between the two. The description didn't say the price was for two, it just said they were almost invariably sold in pairs. I don't see any conflict here.

EDIT: Oh! Whoops! I should have carried on reading the rest of the thread before I replied to that one.

DBL but the description states almost always sold in pairs, and that is rules as written also (sorry but its the truth and describes how the pistols are normally sold, so why the devs go against what the wrote in the description, the chart as you state is going against the raw). I agree with enc not being only weight but bulk also. Look at the pic of the dueling pistols and tell me that they are as bulky as the other heavy blasters pictured in any of the rule books.

Again I don't care if it says it's almost always sold in pairs, in fact I wouldn't care if it said it was only sold in pairs that caries no relevance since the listed price is for a "pistol" not "pistols". If you buy a pair then you're just paying double their is no RAW contradiction here.

Where are you getting the devs going against what they wrote? Listing the credit value of a pistol does not contradict it being sold as a pair.

Also again attacking the stats doesn't get you anywhere. RAW isn't what you think makes more sense it's what's actually written.

As for insisting the value must, for some obscure reason, match usefullness in contrast to other pistols that's absurd. I can't recall the armor name but there is a hide armor that is awful in the recent colonist book and it's quite pricy in contrast to other armors with equal or even better stats. The reason for that high price is the same reason it is here, they're fancy items for the wealthy, not neccessarily built as much for function in the field but instead for being flashy and ornate.

First sentence of this post.Beginning with the word again.

"Again I don't care if it says it's almost always sold in pairs, in fact I wouldn't care if it said it was only sold in pairs that caries no relevance since the listed price is for a "pistol" not "pistols".

If the description did state what is in red above he wouldn't care about the description, hence the description would not be raw, and in his mind not having an S on the pistols wouldn't matter, hence the chart is the only thing that does matter.

I was stating all along (after the statement that cutting all the stats make no sense). There were a lot of agreements on both sides that the price was single and price was for a pair. Typos do happen, grammatical mistakes do happen.

DBL, I believe that you make a hell of a lot of good posts, my frustration came from the fact you kept saying raw and referring to the chart, there is a bigger chance of an S being left off somewhere than an entire statement being thrown in to a description. When you get down to it, the singular pistol in the chart causes confusion in combination with the description or this thread would never have been started. There were 3 or 4 different wordings of what the description stated until Evil scanned the chart and paragraph and like I said before, until the other stats were pointed out as being ridiculous, it was more likely that an S would be left hence the confusion.

I would play any RPG with any person on this thread, and have a good time doing it. I used to DM/GM all the time and as a player the GM is the ruler of the table, and if I had a problem with a ruling during play (as a player or GM) it would have been raised after the session. I took some of what DBL stated as condescending, and made my statement, feeling that his statement was calling the posters stupid. Sometimes text in a forum (or texting on a cell phone) can be misconstrued because there is not a face to see emotion on.

Could someone LOCK this thread before someone wants to HIT SOMEBODY!!! PLEASE???!!!!

Could someone LOCK this thread before someone wants to HIT SOMEBODY!!! PLEASE???!!!!

I got the last word! Maybe! Okay probably not!

DBL The dead horse is dead stoop kicking it, you are smart and the guys it confused are not, we get the point you have won, ALL BOW DOWN TO DBL.

I made this post above feeling frustrated, I will not edit or pull it down, but will state that I apologize DBL for making it.

Whatever anyone's problem is, it is never so bad that you have to burn people's eyes with red text. That's just mean.

You know doc, you are correct. I tired to avoid the red text. But it was needed to point something out. I think this thread is dead answer in the errata, and a disagreement is being agreed that its a disagreement.

I think this a great forum and will enjoy reading everyone's posts and make my own when I feel I need to.

Everyone have a pleasant day and see you in the forums.

Whatever anyone's problem is, it is never so bad that you have to burn people's eyes with red text. That's just mean.