so I'm looking over these rules here and I want to make sure I have a grip on it:

So the threshold is peak of brawn+5. Saying your putting all you can really manage on your self. You will be penalized if over it for every point.

Than it says EVEN IF your over your brawn rating you will lose one free maneuver a round as well.

So this being said; if your 1 point over your penalized twice.

So basically if I choose a hold at blaster for 1 pt and choose to wear armored clothing at 3 pt-- my brawn is 3 (encumbrance threshold is 8 total) I will be down my free maneuver due to being 1pt over my brawn but no further penalty since I'm under my overall threshold?

I think you misread it. When you exceed your "encumbrance threshold" you are "encumbered." If you go past that point by your brawn, then you lose your maneuver.

Expanding the example on p. 152, "With a Brawn of 2, for example, Luke does not get a free maneuver each turn if he's carrying 9 or more points of encumbrance." 2+5=7 (encumbrance theshold) + 2 (encumbered by amount equal to brawn) = 9 no free maneuver.

Also, the armor encumbrance is only for when carried, not worn. When worn, armor encumbrance is reduced by 3 (p. 168).

Ahhhh thanks! See I have EOTE and AOR but the AOR book was open and it the way they broke the paragraph up is maybe what confused me. So you take heavy penalty basically. Because if you were over two you are -2 setback plus the no maneuver.

Yup...makes those utility belts and backpacks worth every credit!

Gotcha thanks!

So basically if I choose a hold at blaster for 1 pt and choose to wear armored clothing at 3 pt-- my brawn is 3 (encumbrance threshold is 8 total) I will be down my free maneuver due to being 1pt over my brawn but no further penalty since I'm under my overall threshold?

The armor example is also in error—worn armor subtracts 3 points of encumbrance. So armored clothing, when worn, would have an effective encumbrance rating of 0.

I think you misread it. When you exceed your "encumbrance threshold" you are "encumbered." If you go past that point by your brawn, then you lose your maneuver.

Expanding the example on p. 152, "With a Brawn of 2, for example, Luke does not get a free maneuver each turn if he's carrying 9 or more points of encumbrance." 2+5=7 (encumbrance theshold) + 2 (encumbered by amount equal to brawn) = 9 no free maneuver.

Also, the armor encumbrance is only for when carried, not worn. When worn, armor encumbrance is reduced by 3 (p. 168).

So basically if I choose a hold at blaster for 1 pt and choose to wear armored clothing at 3 pt-- my brawn is 3 (encumbrance threshold is 8 total) I will be down my free maneuver due to being 1pt over my brawn but no further penalty since I'm under my overall threshold?

The armor example is also in error—worn armor subtracts 3 points of encumbrance. So armored clothing, when worn, would have an effective encumbrance rating of 0.

I consider this constructive criticism of me being generally long winded in my rules lawyer posts, since you checked out before the end...

Weird. I've been adjudicating Encumbrance wrong?

The first paragraph talks about the Threshold being Brawn + 5. Once you go over that, you add a black setback die to all Agility- and Brawn-based checks. No worries there.

But the second paragraph's wording was throwing me off. It says, "Also, if a character is encumbered by an amount equal to or greater than his Brawn rating, he no longer earns a free maneuver each turn." Since it was in a paragraph separate from the previous statement, I was taking it on its own merit as its own rule. The word "further" would have made it a lot more clear!

"Also, if a character is further encumbered...."

And now I understand why the example uses 9. I just thought it was a weird number to use in the example since the guy has a Brawn of 2.

I even thought, "Wow... they want you to lose that free maneuver without even carrying much at all? That's strict!" So I houseruled it to say "exceed your Brawn" instead of "equal to or greater than."

Ha ha! Me so dummy.

Thanks!

Now what else have I been GMing wrong...

What about when a Talent or ability or something gives you an additional free maneuver in a turn? Is it not free if you are overly encumbered?

Weird. I've been adjudicating Encumbrance wrong?

The first paragraph talks about the Threshold being Brawn + 5. Once you go over that, you add a black setback die to all Agility- and Brawn-based checks. No worries there.

But the second paragraph's wording was throwing me off. It says, "Also, if a character is encumbered by an amount equal to or greater than his Brawn rating, he no longer earns a free maneuver each turn." Since it was in a paragraph separate from the previous statement, I was taking it on its own merit as its own rule. The word "further" would have made it a lot more clear!

"Also, if a character is further encumbered...."

And now I understand why the example uses 9. I just thought it was a weird number to use in the example since the guy has a Brawn of 2.

I even thought, "Wow... they want you to lose that free maneuver without even carrying much at all? That's strict!" So I houseruled it to say "exceed your Brawn" instead of "equal to or greater than."

Ha ha! Me so dummy.

Thanks!

Now what else have I been GMing wrong...

But without the word there to indicate a further encumbering beyond the Brawn + 5 encumbering, I was misunderstanding that it was not an additional statement, but a this-is-what-happens-if-you-go-even-beyond-the-Brawn-+5-encumbering-encumbrance. So maybe not "further," but definitely some word that has the same connotation. Pick a word you like.

Dark Bunny Lord is right, no additional word is needed. "A total encumbrance value over the threshold means the hero is 'encumbered...'" Also, if a character is encumbered by an amount equal to or greater than his Brawn rating..." In this line "encumbered by an amount" means the amount exceeding the threshold.

I think you misread it. When you exceed your "encumbrance threshold" you are "encumbered." If you go past that point by your brawn, then you lose your maneuver.

Expanding the example on p. 152, "With a Brawn of 2, for example, Luke does not get a free maneuver each turn if he's carrying 9 or more points of encumbrance." 2+5=7 (encumbrance theshold) + 2 (encumbered by amount equal to brawn) = 9 no free maneuver.

Also, the armor encumbrance is only for when carried, not worn. When worn, armor encumbrance is reduced by 3 (p. 168).

So basically if I choose a hold at blaster for 1 pt and choose to wear armored clothing at 3 pt-- my brawn is 3 (encumbrance threshold is 8 total) I will be down my free maneuver due to being 1pt over my brawn but no further penalty since I'm under my overall threshold?

The armor example is also in error—worn armor subtracts 3 points of encumbrance. So armored clothing, when worn, would have an effective encumbrance rating of 0.

I consider this constructive criticism of me being generally long winded in my rules lawyer posts, since you checked out before the end...

Ha ha...my bad, I was on my phone...I must have missed it scrolling with my clumsy thumbs,

If you get an additional free maneuver from somewhere, like a Talent, is it subject to the Brawn + 5 + Brawn rule as well? Is it free, or not free if you are overly encumbered?

I believe the idea is your loosing your basic Maneuver, so you have to be granted a Maneuver by another rule, such as spending strain or activation of a talent. It's not really free if you need a talent to access it.

What do guys think happens with the Xextos' species ability? Do they lose just one free maneuver, or both?

What do guys think happens with the Xextos' species ability? Do they lose just one free maneuver, or both?

That might be a good one to bring up to the podcast Q&A thread.