Were prices on the Mask and stuff really supposed to fall from 50,000 to 4,000, or did the pink text have several typos each missing a zero? I'm a fan of saving money, but a difference of 46,000 credits is big, and I assume a typo, until someone says it's correct.

It's very likely intentional, since it was done to not only the Demon Mask, but also the Meditation Focus.

Yeah, I got the idea that it was done to allow for Knight Level characters without lightsabers to have cool Force-flavored items.

I've always wondered what the Force tasted like.

Were prices on the Mask and stuff really supposed to fall from 50,000 to 4,000, or did the pink text have several typos each missing a zero? I'm a fan of saving money, but a difference of 46,000 credits is big, and I assume a typo, until someone says it's correct.

It's very likely intentional, since it was done to not only the Demon Mask, but also the Meditation Focus.

Yeah, I got the idea that it was done to allow for Knight Level characters without lightsabers to have cool Force-flavored items.

I've always wondered what the Force tasted like.

Bittersweet, given all the drama and turmoil surrounding it...

Hell yes we have a backlog for the show. I'm speaking entirely from a personal POV. I've been waiting for this game since GenCon 2012. The Beta is like giving me a free/low-cost hit, and now I'll be twitching until I've got the 5 pound black book in my grabby hands.

...and then have sights on whatever F&D Career book gets announced first...

*sigh*

Oh man. I have the 3 for EotE, but I totally forgot about the fact that there will (in all likelihood) be career books for each of the F&D careers. Kinda makes me sad that they're so far away.

It kinda makes me sad that they might not be able to finished the splatbooks for F&D if they don't get to renew their licence. Though i think they will, but the possibility of them not getting it makes me a bit sad.

If anyone earns the right to the SW licence its FFG, they've done an amazing job with the RPGs (and the rest but that dosn't really interest me.)

I wouldn't be too worried. Licenses seem to last 10 years (WEG and WOTC). The FFG License was negotiated before the Disney purchase. I'd IMAGINE the contract is the same. Not sure how Development time factors in, but even if they lost 2 years on the license life to development that's still 8 years of products. In just over a 1 year we saw 3 of the 6 EotE careers, we're looking at the first AoR career book in a month or so, plenty of time to get out another Career book or two. I think we'll see all 6 F&D Career books before the license expires.

Even then, we have no clue what the re-negotiations will be like. WotC lost the license because they didn't want to pay for renewal, not because Lucasfilm took it away. If X-Wing (or whatever line) is still making money for FFG, they'll likely renew.

If X-Wing sales start to slump, then we can worry about that as we approach 2018-2020.

Until then...buy more books!

That's some reassuring information about the licence. No worries about that then. Now I can go back to worry about the government crisis and the extra election that just was announced here in Sweden

Were prices on the Mask and stuff really supposed to fall from 50,000 to 4,000, or did the pink text have several typos each missing a zero? I'm a fan of saving money, but a difference of 46,000 credits is big, and I assume a typo, until someone says it's correct.

It's very likely intentional, since it was done to not only the Demon Mask, but also the Meditation Focus.

Yeah, I got the idea that it was done to allow for Knight Level characters without lightsabers to have cool Force-flavored items.

I've always wondered what the Force tasted like.

Bittersweet, given all the drama and turmoil surrounding it...

So like dark chocolate.

So like dark chocolate.

Only the Dark Side. The Light Side tastes like white chocolate - rich, sickly when you eat (listen to them) too much, and you quickly get tired of it.

If you look at the timeline of the Disney purchase and the FFG starting their project the Disney purchase was being discussed BEFORE FFG got its license. I went through this on Reddit and it was pretty clear that the "behind closed doors" negotiations were going on during when the Star Wars License was purchased by FFG. So unless you magically believe that Disney didn't know what was going on with a major license during negotiations, I would assume that they knew about it and got the concessions they wanted.

Also seeing as the Negotiations for the FFG merger have been going on for 4 years I would assume that also played into it as well.

But don't let me stop you from freaking out over nothing.

DarthGM has a very valid point.

WotC kept the license even during the years they weren't producing an RPG as their collectible Star Wars skirmish minis game was very profitable.

If nothing else, as long as X-Wing, Armada, and Imperial Assault continue to rake in the bucks (and those likely have a much better cost-to-profit ratio than RPG lines, which are notoriously slim on the profit margins), I don't think there's any worry about FFG forsaking the gaming license any time soon.

I think they just gave me permission to ignore the Morality rules.

Not that I needed it, but, thanks guys.

(and bit of a typo, there's no such things as a 'monetary of monks'

Hiyas Mae!

Actually, AFAICT, the bulk of the Morality rules themselves (acquiring Conflict, tallying it, et al.), is still very much in place, only the "triggering Morality episodes" part is optional.

Jes' sayin'

HtH

L

MTFBW

A

LETE, she may still find that a substantive enough difference...

LETE, she may still find that a substantive enough difference...

That and she's noted her dislike of such systems since before the Beta was released, and I believe was pretty much intent on ignoring it regardless of what the rules might have said or suggested.

Fortunately there's no RPG police knocking down anyone's door, & if you want, you can ignore anything in any game (basically playing another thing)...

L

MTFBWY

A

Will FFG lose and/or give up the license? Almost certainly. The when, on the other hand, is the important bit. All business fold and change and grow and shift direction over time. So some 10 or 15 years down the line, we might have concern.

For the short term? Hell, for the next 5 years? Yeah - we're good. Don't sweat it guys.

I feel like I'm the only person less than thrilled with the changes to Morality. Sticking with the d10 roll I think.

I feel like I'm the only person less than thrilled with the changes to Morality. Sticking with the d10 roll I think.

The d10 roll is there still it is just optional. And I think rolling it at the end of tyhe session is the way to go. As then you can plan the encounter into the session. Instead of trying to figure out how to fit it in.

One question. I haven't buyed the previous Betas. There is so much difference between the Beta+Updates and the final product? (at least with the two cores until the moment)

The biggest difference is the fluff text and art, which makes it worth buying the core book when it comes out (IMHO)

My guess is that there will be some significant differences between final beta update and released version. (Do we have a pool going yet, by any chance?)

In the Edge beta there were significant changes. In the Age beta there were not. In the Force and Destiny Beta I expect some significant changes to the new systems and no changes to the existing systems.

IE Move Force power won't see changes. But Unleash Protect might see big changes.

I feel like I'm the only person less than thrilled with the changes to Morality. Sticking with the d10 roll I think.

The d10 roll is there still it is just optional. And I think rolling it at the end of tyhe session is the way to go. As then you can plan the encounter into the session. Instead of trying to figure out how to fit it in.

I feel like I'm the only person less than thrilled with the changes to Morality. Sticking with the d10 roll I think.

The d10 roll is there still it is just optional. And I think rolling it at the end of tyhe session is the way to go. As then you can plan the encounter into the session. Instead of trying to figure out how to fit it in.

Not exactly, the new optional rule is to use a d100, and the score closest to that result gets triggered. My gripe comes from the fact that doing it this way will result in triggered morality every single session. This works mostly fine with a full F&D party, but in mixed games like the one I run where there's only one player with a morality score, his is going to be the "closest" to the result every single time. So my options are either to never have morality trigger, or have it trigger every session. In that context I feel like the old d10 roll makes much more sense.

Maybe just set a threshold for how close the roll should be to the Morality. Instead of "the closest to the roll", make it "the closest to the roll within 10 points".

So if you rolled a 27 and you've got a player with a 16 Morality and one with a 72, the 16 would be triggered.

If you rolled a 94 and you've got a 16 and a 72, then nobody would be triggered.

I feel like I'm the only person less than thrilled with the changes to Morality. Sticking with the d10 roll I think.

The d10 roll is there still it is just optional. And I think rolling it at the end of tyhe session is the way to go. As then you can plan the encounter into the session. Instead of trying to figure out how to fit it in.

Not exactly, the new optional rule is to use a d100, and the score closest to that result gets triggered. My gripe comes from the fact that doing it this way will result in triggered morality every single session. This works mostly fine with a full F&D party, but in mixed games like the one I run where there's only one player with a morality score, his is going to be the "closest" to the result every single time. So my options are either to never have morality trigger, or have it trigger every session. In that context I feel like the old d10 roll makes much more sense.

Maybe just set a threshold for how close the roll should be to the Morality. Instead of "the closest to the roll", make it "the closest to the roll within 10 points".

So if you rolled a 27 and you've got a player with a 16 Morality and one with a 72, the 16 would be triggered.

If you rolled a 94 and you've got a 16 and a 72, then nobody would be triggered.

A fair alternative, especially since that would avoid the d10's issue(?) with multiple characters triggering at once

I feel like I'm the only person less than thrilled with the changes to Morality. Sticking with the d10 roll I think.

The d10 roll is there still it is just optional. And I think rolling it at the end of tyhe session is the way to go. As then you can plan the encounter into the session. Instead of trying to figure out how to fit it in.

Not exactly, the new optional rule is to use a d100, and the score closest to that result gets triggered. My gripe comes from the fact that doing it this way will result in triggered morality every single session. This works mostly fine with a full F&D party, but in mixed games like the one I run where there's only one player with a morality score, his is going to be the "closest" to the result every single time. So my options are either to never have morality trigger, or have it trigger every session. In that context I feel like the old d10 roll makes much more sense.

Maybe just set a threshold for how close the roll should be to the Morality. Instead of "the closest to the roll", make it "the closest to the roll within 10 points".

So if you rolled a 27 and you've got a player with a 16 Morality and one with a 72, the 16 would be triggered.

If you rolled a 94 and you've got a 16 and a 72, then nobody would be triggered.

A fair alternative, especially since that would avoid the d10's issue(?) with multiple characters triggering at once

why is multiple people triggering bad? Just roll at the end of the session so you can plan accordingly for the next session. do the same for obligation and duty. Problem solved.

I don't really have an issue with multiple people being triggered at once, but I did just realize that now with the d100, chances of getting triggered get skewed interestingly.

Let's say we have a group of five, it looks something like this: 30, 56, 73, 81, 100. Basically we've got somebody working towards dark side, somebody whose pretty neutral, two working up towards light side paragon, and one that's already there.

• Odds are, that the 30 player is more likely to be rolled, pretty much anything from 1-43 (43%) is going to trigger on him. As he drops further, his odds will drop, but will still hold a significant chance of being triggered.
• 56 will have the next highest chance initially, and probably end up having the highest chance triggering if continues staying towards the center of the scale. With the initial amounts, he's going to trigger on anything between 44-64/65 (21-22%).
• 73 starts with the odds of getting rolled 65/66-77 (12-13%); 81 with roll of 78-90/91 (12-13%); 100 with a roll of 91/92-100 (8-9%).

So let's say a few sessions go by. Now we've got: 1, 48, 78, 93, 97. Keeping it short, odds of each is, respectively: 24%, 39%, 22-23%, 9-10%, 5%.

Basically, instead of with AoR or EotE, where players are more likely to be triggered based on how much they're aiding the Rebellion or how much trouble they're getting into, players are more likely to be triggered by how different they are from other players and if they're on the edge of cluster. So if all players are clustered towards the darkside, the highest morality gets triggered the most; cluster of lightside, lowest morality gets triggered morality.

Obviously with all of the different system functions; Duty, Obligation, and Morality, GMs can push in something that can still affect non-triggered player scores, but, I don't know. You could conceivably have four players at 100, and one at 99, and 99 would nearly always get triggered until all players are 100, and then either everyone gets triggered every session or the GM just has to start pick players (or rolling additional dice to keep it random) for triggering Morality.

And I could see the potential narrative argument - people in a group together could have bigger moral conflicts (resulting in more moral triggers) because their actions and subsequent morality is different from the rest of the group. But it still seems a little off - like instead of players having an even chance of triggering, now it starts to focus on a player or two just because he's a few points ahead of above the rest of his group.

Just an observation. I'll have to try it more with my group before I can really have an opinion on it - if I can pry them away from Imperial Assault for more than 5 minutes that is.

Hi everyone!

Not sure if this feedback it's a bit too late but, Makashi Finish with high FR (6) can be (not sure) broken.