I'd like a little clarification on what the adversary talent actually does. It says,

"upgrade the difficulty of any combat check targeting this character once per rank of adversary".

One of my players got into an argument with me because he thinks it means that if a NPC has rank 3 in adversary then that NPC can only upgrade the difficulty of combat checks made against him 3 times over the entire encounter, that is, if the NPC gets attacked once and uses its 3 upgrades it no longer has them for subsequent attacks. His argument was that the book said 'any' and not 'all'. He wouldn't listen to any of what I had to say. From what I understand it should be that the NPC gets to upgrade the difficulty 3 times on each attack made against him. A little clarification would be much appreciated. Thank you.

Well hi and welcome here!

You are correct, any in this instance means every time.

Adversary upgrades all combat checks VS the NPC with adversary-talent.

Edit: this is a case of semantics, but in this case it is meant to be every time.

Seconded. Your player is incorrect in this case.

You should talk with this player and make sure he understands that your rulings stand over his interpretations. That's part of your job as the Game Master, the arbiter of rules. If he still doesn't get it, tell him that you can always check on this forum afterwards, but even if you end up wrong your ruling will stand in the interim.

This is a great question, all though, I never read the part about the talent as anything but ALL checks.

This seems like a trivial case of a player who has played too much D&D/Pathfinder where they think the goal of the game is to "beat" the GM, not tell a story. I like it when players like to quote the book, but they always seem to neglect the early chapters of the book, specifically ECRB Pages 8-9.

"The Game Master is the player who sets the scenes..."

"The GM is not the PCs' adversary or playing 'against' the other players."

"Remember, since Edge of the Empire relies on narrative and interpretive play, all the players work together to evaluate results and describe how the story unfolds. The GM just has the additional responsibilities of managing the NPCs, helping resolve disputes, and establishing how the game rules will be applied. Ultimately, the GM's word is final. If the GM makes a ruling, the other players should accept it and keep the story moving."

Most people (players) always seem to forget that last part.

A couple of sessions ago, we too had a question come up about the Adversary Talent, so I thought this would be a good place to ask the question instead of creating a new thread.

i am the GM, just for clarification.

We were in space combat, and I had a TIE fighter jump in from hyperspace, and attack the Group's ship. They fired back, The difficulty was two purple, I said to upgrade the check to 2 red and two purple. They asked why, and I explained he had Adversary 4, so the attacks were upgraded 4 times. They of course did not like that, and tried to call BS on me. I took the moment to look up the Talent in the book, and read to them the above quote in the OP. "Upgrade any combat check..." they countered with the fact they they are not targeting the character, but the ship, I said I see your point, but I am the GM, and my word is upgrade the check by 4. They complied without further argument. My Group trusts me though, and we do not play the "Me versus You" type of game. They were trying to blow up a super baddie in a hyperspace capable TIE, but I would have none of that. The baddie got off one shot before they made the jump to hyperspace. But it left me wondering, did I make the right call.

I have no problem when my players "call" or "check" me on rules. Sometimes we can have a little discussion about them, but in the end, after I say, this is my final answer on it, they respect me enough to move on with it.

Thoughts? Should/does Adversary Talent also take effect in space combat?

We do try to play the game RAW as much as we can.

Logang, welcome to our group, and good luck with that player. He seems like he might be a handful for you...

Side note: All Talents that have a limited use is stated in the descriptions clearly with things like "Once per Encounter..."

This is a great question, all though, I never read the part about the talent as anything but ALL checks.

This seems like a trivial case of a player who has played too much D&D/Pathfinder where they think the goal of the game is to "beat" the GM, not tell a story. I like it when players like to quote the book, but they always seem to neglect the early chapters of the book, specifically ECRB Pages 8-9.

"The Game Master is the player who sets the scenes..."

"The GM is not the PCs' adversary or playing 'against' the other players."

"Remember, since Edge of the Empire relies on narrative and interpretive play, all the players work together to evaluate results and describe how the story unfolds. The GM just has the additional responsibilities of managing the NPCs, helping resolve disputes, and establishing how the game rules will be applied. Ultimately, the GM's word is final. If the GM makes a ruling, the other players should accept it and keep the story moving."

Most people (players) always seem to forget that last part.

A couple of sessions ago, we too had a question come up about the Adversary Talent, so I thought this would be a good place to ask the question instead of creating a new thread.

i am the GM, just for clarification.

We were in space combat, and I had a TIE fighter jump in from hyperspace, and attack the Group's ship. They fired back, The difficulty was two purple, I said to upgrade the check to 2 red and two purple. They asked why, and I explained he had Adversary 4, so the attacks were upgraded 4 times. They of course did not like that, and tried to call BS on me. I took the moment to look up the Talent in the book, and read to them the above quote in the OP. "Upgrade any combat check..." they countered with the fact they they are not targeting the character, but the ship, I said I see your point, but I am the GM, and my word is upgrade the check by 4. They complied without further argument. My Group trusts me though, and we do not play the "Me versus You" type of game. They were trying to blow up a super baddie in a hyperspace capable TIE, but I would have none of that. The baddie got off one shot before they made the jump to hyperspace. But it left me wondering, did I make the right call.

I have no problem when my players "call" or "check" me on rules. Sometimes we can have a little discussion about them, but in the end, after I say, this is my final answer on it, they respect me enough to move on with it.

Thoughts? Should/does Adversary Talent also take effect in space combat?

We do try to play the game RAW as much as we can.

Logang, welcome to our group, and good luck with that player. He seems like he might be a handful for you...

Side note: All Talents that have a limited use is stated in the descriptions clearly with things like "Once per Encounter..."

I may be wrong, but wouldn't Adversary 4 turn two purple into three red? Since its not adding a skill rank or a characteristic, and it's upgrading, the first two points of it changes the two purple dice into reds, the third point adds another purple, and the fourth point changes that last purple to a third red.

Or have i just read the "upgrade vs increase" section incorrectly? I don't mean to nit pick, it just stood out to me.

This is a great question, all though, I never read the part about the talent as anything but ALL checks.

This seems like a trivial case of a player who has played too much D&D/Pathfinder where they think the goal of the game is to "beat" the GM, not tell a story. I like it when players like to quote the book, but they always seem to neglect the early chapters of the book, specifically ECRB Pages 8-9.

"The Game Master is the player who sets the scenes..."

"The GM is not the PCs' adversary or playing 'against' the other players."

"Remember, since Edge of the Empire relies on narrative and interpretive play, all the players work together to evaluate results and describe how the story unfolds. The GM just has the additional responsibilities of managing the NPCs, helping resolve disputes, and establishing how the game rules will be applied. Ultimately, the GM's word is final. If the GM makes a ruling, the other players should accept it and keep the story moving."

Most people (players) always seem to forget that last part.

A couple of sessions ago, we too had a question come up about the Adversary Talent, so I thought this would be a good place to ask the question instead of creating a new thread.

i am the GM, just for clarification.

We were in space combat, and I had a TIE fighter jump in from hyperspace, and attack the Group's ship. They fired back, The difficulty was two purple, I said to upgrade the check to 2 red and two purple. They asked why, and I explained he had Adversary 4, so the attacks were upgraded 4 times. They of course did not like that, and tried to call BS on me. I took the moment to look up the Talent in the book, and read to them the above quote in the OP. "Upgrade any combat check..." they countered with the fact they they are not targeting the character, but the ship, I said I see your point, but I am the GM, and my word is upgrade the check by 4. They complied without further argument. My Group trusts me though, and we do not play the "Me versus You" type of game. They were trying to blow up a super baddie in a hyperspace capable TIE, but I would have none of that. The baddie got off one shot before they made the jump to hyperspace. But it left me wondering, did I make the right call.

I have no problem when my players "call" or "check" me on rules. Sometimes we can have a little discussion about them, but in the end, after I say, this is my final answer on it, they respect me enough to move on with it.

Thoughts? Should/does Adversary Talent also take effect in space combat?

We do try to play the game RAW as much as we can.

Logang, welcome to our group, and good luck with that player. He seems like he might be a handful for you...

Side note: All Talents that have a limited use is stated in the descriptions clearly with things like "Once per Encounter..."

I may be wrong, but wouldn't Adversary 4 turn two purple into three red? Since its not adding a skill rank or a characteristic, and it's upgrading, the first two points of it changes the two purple dice into reds, the third point adds another purple, and the fourth point changes that last purple to a third red.

Or have i just read the "upgrade vs increase" section incorrectly? I don't mean to nit pick, it just stood out to me.

You're correct here. Three red.

Thanks for your replies. Unfortunately, he still thinks his interpretation of the statement is correct. We've agreed to use the interpretation that it applies to every check. If anyone has a grammatical argument or logical argument as to why he's wrong, that would be very much appreciated.

I would bring to him examples in the rules that state similar abilities, but specifically state a one time use. Seeing as adversary doesn't state a limitation to its effect, there isn't one. It says any check against the character, right? There's no limited ammo function on adversary.

Or send off a request to the devs. They're pretty awesome at clarifying. You can also send the question to the order 66 podcast, seeing as they often have Sam himself on the show answering these questions.

That's my suggestion. Good luck with your player, though.

Well really, if it was 1 time use or you needed to to use it, it should be an active talent, out of turn incidental. It's a passive talent, which means always on.

Any ; definition by Google

2. whichever of a specified class might be chosen.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single time that is X uses per encounter; where X is not 1. It's either passive, active with a cost, once per encounter/scene, or once per session.

Thanks for your replies. Unfortunately, he still thinks his interpretation of the statement is correct. We've agreed to use the interpretation that it applies to every check. If anyone has a grammatical argument or logical argument as to why he's wrong, that would be very much appreciated.

Well, when he's the GM he can make rules calls however he likes.

"Any combat check" is any combat check , be it the first, second, or last combat check of the round. It's made to specifically make opponents more difficult to handle and if the Talent is crippled, you will have a harder time presenting challenging foes as the story progresses. It represents an inherent superiority for your baddies without having to spend a long time building NPCs.

Well really, if it was 1 time use or you needed to to use it, it should be an active talent, out of turn incidental. It's a passive talent, which means always on.

Any ; definition by Google

2. whichever of a specified class might be chosen.[/size]

"these constellations are visible at any hour of the night"

synonyms: whichever , whichever comes to hand, no matter which, never mind which;

informal any old

Merriam Webster tends to do it better. Note 1b.

1

: one or some indiscriminately of whatever kind:

a : one or another taken at random <ask any man you meet>

b : every —used to indicate one selected without restriction < any child would know that>

I'd like a little clarification on what the adversary talent actually does. It says,

"upgrade the difficulty of any combat check targeting this character once per rank of adversary".

One of my players got into an argument with me because he thinks it means that if a NPC has rank 3 in adversary then that NPC can only upgrade the difficulty of combat checks made against him 3 times over the entire encounter, that is, if the NPC gets attacked once and uses its 3 upgrades it no longer has them for subsequent attacks. His argument was that the book said 'any' and not 'all'. He wouldn't listen to any of what I had to say. From what I understand it should be that the NPC gets to upgrade the difficulty 3 times on each attack made against him. A little clarification would be much appreciated. Thank you.

I don't know if this has been resolved to the player's satisfaction yet, but I happened across another description that supports Adversary Talent's effect remaining through an encounter.

The same phrasing is used in the description for the benefits of Booster Blue. (EotB CRB, p. 184) "A character under the effects of booster blue may upgrade any Agility, Intellect, or Cunning related check he undertakes once , reflecting his improved concentration and mental acuity." And at the end of the paragraph, "Booster blue's beneficial effects last for one scene or combat encounter ."

edit: fixed typos and added emphasis.

Thanks for your replies. Unfortunately, he still thinks his interpretation of the statement is correct. We've agreed to use the interpretation that it applies to every check. If anyone has a grammatical argument or logical argument as to why he's wrong, that would be very much appreciated.

Your player seems to be inferring a meaning of "any one ," which simply isn't supported by anything but a very twisted and narrow interpretation of the rules.

"Any" can be "all," but needn't be. "Any" without any other qualifier gives the freedom of choice. If you came to a garage sale and put down $500 and the seller said, "cool, take anything you like," you would rightly assume that he meant "anything" and not "any one thing." This is similar. "Any combat chec" means "any combat check," not "any one combat check." If it were a once-per-encoutnter thing, it would say so. There are many many talents that are once-per-encounter, and you could point to any of those to support your case.

Finally, you can ask a rules question, up top on this website, by clicking "More..." And following the appropriate links. But honestly you don't need to; your player is inferring something that he might've picked up from another game, but which certainly doesn't belong in this game.

Also, you're the GM. He can accept your interpretation of the talent (which is correct) or leave the table.

Also, you're the GM. He can accept your interpretation of the talent (which is correct) or leave the table.

That's the important thing - a player can argue and debate and cite Rule Books, but the much like Judge Dredd , the GM's word is final and absolute. Now the GM can be wrong, they can go get clarification after the game, perhaps even calling a mulligan the next session - but for that brief moment in time, what they say goes. Period, full stop.

While I do feel GM's word is law, as GM I listen to compelling cases and try to work with my players for the benefit of the story. I often do the same as a player, as long as it doesn't slow down the action. However, there's no substitute for a clear understanding of the rules.

Thanks for your replies. Unfortunately, he still thinks his interpretation of the statement is correct. We've agreed to use the interpretation that it applies to every check. If anyone has a grammatical argument or logical argument as to why he's wrong, that would be very much appreciated.

It doesn't really matter if he's right or wrong in terms of the wording (but he's wrong - any as written under advesary, very clearly means every).

What matters however is that he's being a pain in the backside, when it very simply is obvious that it would be pointless and silly if advesary worked as he suggests.

I'd recommend the player to write in to the rules questions link for an official ruling as well.

Let’s just take a small detour. “He accepts the GM ruling or leaves the table.” Always nice in theory, but often times, terrible in application. I have 4 players and as such asking one to leave may just kill of my campaign.

This is not exactly my idea so don’t give me credit for it as much as remembering what someone else said: When a player argues a rule just ask him to find the rule in the rule book and play on. If he is a more rules lawyer type of person, then. Explain that if he can’t find the rule you’ll look it up between games, if it is a question or grammar or context then this is for you as the GM.

At this point make the player responsible for being the rules archiver, his task will be to help you with the rules. However, lay some ground rules for him. He does not interrupt the game, if he thinks you are wrong then between games he should engage with you.

In this way you turn him away from being an annoying rules lawyer and into a helper at the table.

But this wasn't a matter of a player wondering what a rule was. This was a player who (possibly deliberately) misinterpreted a very clear rule and refused to accept the GMs interpretation. That's not a situation a GM can allow to persist because then you'll spend the next 4 hours going "Is not!" "Is too." "Is not!". There are other people around that table who probably want to get on with the game and have some fun, and having one player ruin the fun for everyone is not acceptable behaviour for adults.

If the GM says "The rule is like this", then that's it. Even if you disagree with him you should at the very least be able to suck it up and keep quiet for the remainder of the evening, and then possibly bring it up again between sessions. But with such a clearly and consisely worded rule as the Adversary talent that really shouldn't have to be an issue.

I'm not saying that a GM should tell players "You can't play with us anymore", but if the GM makes a rules call then everyone has to accept it. Just like any sporting event or other formal competition. If someone absolutely cannot (or will not) abide by the GM's decision and feel that strongly about it then the only option for them is to get up and leave. The third option - spending the rest of the evening quarrelling about it - simply isn't OK.

Let’s just take a small detour. “He accepts the GM ruling or leaves the table.” Always nice in theory, but often times, terrible in application. I have 4 players and as such asking one to leave may just kill of my campaign.

But, putting up with a troublesome player may make the campaign not worth saving. I was running a game for some friends, and we had a player who I felt was disruptive. Sometimes it was rules arguments. Mostly he did a lot of scene stealing and munchkin playing. I was the new guy in a more established group of Shadowrunners, and when I brought it up, they said, "We know he's annoying, but we don't want to call him on it." They were a more close-knit, established group, and I finally decided I no longer wanted to put up with it, and stopped GMing with that group. It took me a while to find another group, but I did. Now I enjoy GMing again, and I like to think that makes the game more enjoyable for the players, too.

A couple of sessions ago, we too had a question come up about the Adversary Talent, so I thought this would be a good place to ask the question instead of creating a new thread.

i am the GM, just for clarification.

We were in space combat, and I had a TIE fighter jump in from hyperspace, and attack the Group's ship. They fired back, The difficulty was two purple, I said to upgrade the check to 2 red and two purple. They asked why, and I explained he had Adversary 4, so the attacks were upgraded 4 times. They of course did not like that, and tried to call BS on me. I took the moment to look up the Talent in the book, and read to them the above quote in the OP. "Upgrade any combat check..." they countered with the fact they they are not targeting the character, but the ship, I said I see your point, but I am the GM, and my word is upgrade the check by 4. They complied without further argument. My Group trusts me though, and we do not play the "Me versus You" type of game. They were trying to blow up a super baddie in a hyperspace capable TIE, but I would have none of that. The baddie got off one shot before they made the jump to hyperspace. But it left me wondering, did I make the right call.

I have no problem when my players "call" or "check" me on rules. Sometimes we can have a little discussion about them, but in the end, after I say, this is my final answer on it, they respect me enough to move on with it.

Thoughts? Should/does Adversary Talent also take effect in space combat?

We do try to play the game RAW as much as we can.

Sorry to necro a thread, but I just had this same instance come up in my game, and have not found an answer. Does the adversary talent work in space combat?

Sorry to necro a thread, but I just had this same instance come up in my game, and have not found an answer. Does the adversary talent work in space combat?

I don't see why not. It's an attack, right? Doesn't matter if it's a punch, a blaster or a missile at 50 kilometers. You think Vader's Adversary ranks went away when he was tearing up those A-Wings in that Rebels episode? Nope!

An a supporting argument for comparison:

Minions in vehicles are still auto-killed by a crit. So if you want to say adversary doesn't work in vehicles, then by extension minion wouldn't either...

I mean, you can have it work that way, but yikes, minion vehicles would become beasts....