osprey I am pretty sure you are reading what you are typing, but I am also pretty sure you are not reading a word I am typing.

I read the same line you do that states 2 strain for a second maneuver

I read the same line you do that states you can downgrade an action to a maneuver

I disagree that the second line means you don't pay the 2 strain.

You can re type your lines 10000 times, that is not going to add "you do not pay the 2 strain" to "you can downgrade an action to a maneuver".

It is fully clear that I am seeing an issue that others don't, but I do see an issue, and there IS an issue.

Words are missing. If it stated "The only cost is the downgrade of the action to a maneuver" or "it does not cost strain", nothing any "fan" types matters.

Look up actions in the book, it is there, follow the directions I the () to it, I am no longer going to have this discussion with you as you seem to refuse to do your research and want to ignore the actual cut and paste that I have done straight out of the book. Ask the Devs your question and please post the answer here and I will bet my left nut that they will say the same thing as everyone else. To include the play testers that have been chosen by FFG that answered your insistent questioning of this rule. Look at the people that have been around d for years that have answered you the same way. Most of them have credits in the books for play testing.

Well at least we know what an Ignorance Rhino looks like now.

Well at least we know what an Ignorance Rhino looks like now.

If you are not going to constructively contribute to this please refrain from opening your mouth or typing.

I disagree that the second line means you don't pay the 2 strain.

This is the part where (as many stated) you and the people who wrote the book disagree.

Zan, but nobody has addressed my main issue, they just keep stating the same thing as if new words will pop out that I state clearly are missing.

Osprey, again your line does not address my issue.

Because it is clearly laid out.

AGAIN, it's even been clarified by those who WROTE the books...

Moving on.

GM K.R. I find it interesting that you interpreted "a particularly successful skill check" to be the "spend 2 advantage to gain a free maneuver" when clearly in the RAW success and advantage are separate and different. If we read that section as precisely as you have been then there seems to be a rule allowing additional success to be used to gain a second maneuver...

Yet you don't interpret "or by other means listed elsewhere" to indicate that any listed way to get a maneuver is an option, including the trade an action for maneuver options.

Basically I see you reading half a sentence very precisely and the other half hand waving away.

In explanation of the actual sentence we are all discussing I think it's written to give an example, but then go on to leave an opening for the Devs to introduce new Tallents, Force powers, and Gear that won't contradict the CRB.

The AoR book uses the exact wording from EotE as well, so they must have felt it was an acceptable description.

Under your system a player can:

1. Have an action and a maneuver for no cost

2. Have 2 maneuvers after suffering 2 strain and forfeiting their action

3. Have 2 maneuvers and an action after suffering 2 strain.

We are all confused by this interpretation (clearly), as option 3 seems to make option 2 completely irrelevant.

I guess it's important to point out we are all playing by the rule that actions and maneuvers can be taken in any order, and only 1 has to be declared and completed at a time; ie If I take a maneuver to open a door, I don't have to declare what I'm doing after the door opens until the door is actually open half way through my turn.

I'm enjoying a debate with you about it, no offence is intended.

I'm going to go through the examples of play throughout the books I have because I'm certain there will be an example of all these instances that will indicate RAI.

GM K.R. I find it interesting that you interpreted "a particularly successful skill check" to be the "spend 2 advantage to gain a free maneuver" when clearly in the RAW success and advantage are separate and different. If we read that section as precisely as you have been then there seems to be a rule allowing additional success to be used to gain a second maneuver...

Yet you don't interpret "or by other means listed elsewhere" to indicate that any listed way to get a maneuver is an option, including the trade an action for maneuver options.

Basically I see you reading half a sentence very precisely and the other half hand waving away.

In explanation of the actual sentence we are all discussing I think it's written to give an example, but then go on to leave an opening for the Devs to introduce new Tallents, Force powers, and Gear that won't contradict the CRB.

The AoR book uses the exact wording from EotE as well, so they must have felt it was an acceptable description.

Under your system a player can:

1. Have an action and a maneuver for no cost

2. Have 2 maneuvers after suffering 2 strain and forfeiting their action

3. Have 2 maneuvers and an action after suffering 2 strain.

We are all confused by this interpretation (clearly), as option 3 seems to make option 2 completely irrelevant.

I guess it's important to point out we are all playing by the rule that actions and maneuvers can be taken in any order, and only 1 has to be declared and completed at a time; ie If I take a maneuver to open a door, I don't have to declare what I'm doing after the door opens until the door is actually open half way through my turn.

I'm enjoying a debate with you about it, no offence is intended.

I'm going to go through the examples of play throughout the books I have because I'm certain there will be an example of all these instances that will indicate RAI.

I was enjoying it also until he accused my of not reading his posts.

GM there is one other stipulation to changing you action to a manuever, but I didn't bring it up since you are hung up on the action manuever thing.

I gave up on the thread when insults were being thrown. So you can talk among yourselves I don't care anymore. I already made the ruling for my group.

Wow GMR, I really tried talking to you and to get your point of view in another way and you basically threw a temper tantrum (talk about passive aggressive), the brickwall was in the wording of the post, but I can see by your stubbornness that even if the Devs tell you what we all told you that you don't care.

Ultimately the action taking over the 2 strain thing is implied and we were getting frustrated at that as we couldn't figure out what each was saying, good luck with your group and have fun.

After spending a little more time researching this topic, I found an example in the Beginner's Adventure Book (ie, not the Beginner Game RuleBook) that I think clarifies the issue.

The caps/bold text quoted below is used to reflect the formatting of the cited sourcebook (Beginner's Adventure Book, page 11, sidebar on the left and halfway down) and is not a reflection on any one person's opinion.

ONLY ONE MANEUVER?

Characters can perform a second maneuver on their turn by suffering 2 strain, or by using their action as a maneuver. Characters can never perform more than 2 maneuvers during their turn, nor may they perform more than 1 action.

Example: On her turn, Oskara draws her blaster carbine (a maneuver) and fires at an enemy (an action). Her shot misses and Oskara elects to take cover behind a table by suffering 2 strain to perform an extra maneuver.

Note it says 'or' and not 'both'. Not to mention the example given is pretty definitive.

Short of getting FFG clarification (which, like Rhino, I have also done at my GM's suggestion), it's pretty clear that the official rule is a character can perform 2 maneuvers and 1 action during a single turn, at the cost of 2 strain.

Any deviation on that is (at best) a house rule.

After spending a little more time researching this topic, I found an example in the Beginner's Adventure Book (ie, not the Beginner Game RuleBook) that I think clarifies the issue.

The caps/bold text quoted below is used to reflect the formatting of the cited sourcebook (Beginner's Adventure Book, page 11, sidebar on the left and halfway down) and is not a reflection on any one person's opinion.

ONLY ONE MANEUVER?

Characters can perform a second maneuver on their turn by suffering 2 strain, or by using their action as a maneuver. Characters can never perform more than 2 maneuvers during their turn, nor may they perform more than 1 action.

Example: On her turn, Oskara draws her blaster carbine (a maneuver) and fires at an enemy (an action). Her shot misses and Oskara elects to take cover behind a table by suffering 2 strain to perform an extra maneuver.

Note it says 'or' and not 'both'. Not to mention the example given is pretty definitive.

Short of getting FFG clarification (which, like Rhino, I have also done at my GM's suggestion), it's pretty clear that the official rule is a character can perform 2 maneuvers and 1 action during a single turn, at the cost of 2 strain.

Any deviation on that is (at best) a house rule.

Pg 203 in EotE "Exchange an action for a maneuver" would be the more official way of saying that than the Beginner set, due to the Beginner set having a lot simpler rules (the CRB gets more complicated not less though), although this one from the Beginner Adventure Matches the CRB.

Good find all the way.

BTW in the example you quoted with Oskara, if she had the Quick Draw talent (pg 141 EotE) , she could draw the carbine as an incidental, once per round, without the maneuver being used (that talent is career specific so only if she were in a certain career).

After spending a little more time researching this topic, I found an example in the Beginner's Adventure Book (ie, not the Beginner Game RuleBook) that I think clarifies the issue.

The caps/bold text quoted below is used to reflect the formatting of the cited sourcebook (Beginner's Adventure Book, page 11, sidebar on the left and halfway down) and is not a reflection on any one person's opinion.

ONLY ONE MANEUVER?

Characters can perform a second maneuver on their turn by suffering 2 strain, or by using their action as a maneuver. Characters can never perform more than 2 maneuvers during their turn, nor may they perform more than 1 action.

Example: On her turn, Oskara draws her blaster carbine (a maneuver) and fires at an enemy (an action). Her shot misses and Oskara elects to take cover behind a table by suffering 2 strain to perform an extra maneuver.

Note it says 'or' and not 'both'. Not to mention the example given is pretty definitive.

Short of getting FFG clarification (which, like Rhino, I have also done at my GM's suggestion), it's pretty clear that the official rule is a character can perform 2 maneuvers and 1 action during a single turn, at the cost of 2 strain.

Any deviation on that is (at best) a house rule.

Pg 203 in EotE "Exchange an action for a maneuver" would be the more official way of saying that than the Beginner set, due to the Beginner set having a lot simpler rules (the CRB gets more complicated not less though), although this one from the Beginner Adventure Matches the CRB.

Good find all the way.

This was a concern. I don't think there wouldn't be any further point quoting 203 again though, it's already been done a lot and this source hadn't. Further, the CRB lacks a defined example like the one I found. Personally, I find gameplay examples more helpful in rulebooks I'm reading/learning about rather than page numbers and walls of text.

I realise there is stuff from the CRB and the Beginner's stuff that differ, but in every instance I can think of, it's done that way because it's a variation of an existing rule to make gameplay simpler or reduce the complexity of die rolls for newer players and people unfamiliar with FFG's system.

I really don't think that applies here for maneuvers/actions/suffering strain/whatever.

BTW in the example you quoted with Oskara, if she had the Quick Draw talent (pg 141 EotE) , she could draw the carbine as an incidental, once per round, without the maneuver being used (that talent is career specific so only if she were in a certain career).

Correct! This example occurs before the PCs gain any experience (ie, how Oskara acquires Quick Draw). It's a supplemental piece of information in the second encounter (the cantina firefight).

Absolutely right on the maneuvers and such, as far as quoting just the page number...I did copy and paste all of the paragraphs except the one I just referred to on the last message. I felt that telling you just the page number since you already had it quoted totally in your post was unnecessary.

The quote about the Talent is just a page number due to not knowing what books you have and since the release of the other books, it is multiple books.

All good. The "preference for examples over page numbers" thing was in the context of myself learning the rules for a system I'm unaccustomed with, as opposed to any points raised here.

All good. The "preference for examples over page numbers" thing was in the context of myself learning the rules for a system I'm unaccustomed with, as opposed to any points raised here.

I see says the blindman, no worries.

Hope you are leaving with a good understanding as I know I did.

Well at least we know what an Ignorance Rhino looks like now.

If you are not going to constructively contribute to this please refrain from opening your mouth or typing.

If you don't find a poster with the arrogance to call themselves "GM Knowledge Rhino" being wildly wrong about the rules to the tune of three pages worth of arguing against a dozen other posters and the official rulings on the topic amusing, you may be taking things a bit too seriously.

Well at least we know what an Ignorance Rhino looks like now.

If you are not going to constructively contribute to this please refrain from opening your mouth or typing.

If you don't find a poster with the arrogance to call themselves "GM Knowledge Rhino" being wildly wrong about the rules to the tune of three pages worth of arguing against a dozen other posters and the official rulings on the topic amusing, you may be taking things a bit too seriously.

If you don't find it a little trollish that someone with an immature name such as Talkie Toaster as an instigator in fights online then you aren't taking things serious enough.

It works both ways dude.

I do look at contributions made by people before I make the judgement on whether or not they are really trying to understand a subject and go where you went, which was down right rude of you to make your comment under the assumption that he was trolling or truly ignorant, when really he didn't understand. So seriously, instead of inflaming things please contribute to a subject as obviously he and I were missing things in our conversation that you may have noticed if you weren't so intent on slamming him.

osprey I am pretty sure you are reading what you are typing, but I am also pretty sure you are not reading a word I am typing.

I read the same line you do that states 2 strain for a second maneuver

I read the same line you do that states you can downgrade an action to a maneuver

I disagree that the second line means you don't pay the 2 strain.

You can re type your lines 10000 times, that is not going to add "you do not pay the 2 strain" to "you can downgrade an action to a maneuver".

It is fully clear that I am seeing an issue that others don't, but I do see an issue, and there IS an issue.

Words are missing. If it stated "The only cost is the downgrade of the action to a maneuver" or "it does not cost strain", nothing any "fan" types matters.

While I'm pretty sure you're not going to see this, if you do happen to follow up.

The clarification you need is on EotECRB Pg 232. There is says that, like in personal combat, you can get a second maneuver by suffering 2 strain OR spending advantage.

osprey I am pretty sure you are reading what you are typing, but I am also pretty sure you are not reading a word I am typing.

I read the same line you do that states 2 strain for a second maneuver

I read the same line you do that states you can downgrade an action to a maneuver

I disagree that the second line means you don't pay the 2 strain.

You can re type your lines 10000 times, that is not going to add "you do not pay the 2 strain" to "you can downgrade an action to a maneuver".

It is fully clear that I am seeing an issue that others don't, but I do see an issue, and there IS an issue.

Words are missing. If it stated "The only cost is the downgrade of the action to a maneuver" or "it does not cost strain", nothing any "fan" types matters.

While I'm pretty sure you're not going to see this, if you do happen to follow up.

The clarification you need is on EotECRB Pg 232. There is says that, like in personal combat, you can get a second maneuver by suffering 2 strain OR spending advantage.

He is talking about the downgrade of an action to manuever still costing 2 strain.

osprey I am pretty sure you are reading what you are typing, but I am also pretty sure you are not reading a word I am typing.

I read the same line you do that states 2 strain for a second maneuver

I read the same line you do that states you can downgrade an action to a maneuver

I disagree that the second line means you don't pay the 2 strain.

You can re type your lines 10000 times, that is not going to add "you do not pay the 2 strain" to "you can downgrade an action to a maneuver".

It is fully clear that I am seeing an issue that others don't, but I do see an issue, and there IS an issue.

Words are missing. If it stated "The only cost is the downgrade of the action to a maneuver" or "it does not cost strain", nothing any "fan" types matters.

While I'm pretty sure you're not going to see this, if you do happen to follow up.

The clarification you need is on EotECRB Pg 232. There is says that, like in personal combat, you can get a second maneuver by suffering 2 strain OR spending advantage.

He is talking about the downgrade of an action to manuever still costing 2 strain.

Still on Pg 232. "must suffer two strain (or downgrade his action to a maneuver) to perform two maneuvers as per the combat rules."

Thanks Ghost he probably won't see it though as he is pretty upset

Probably, though the additional chatter might bring him back.

Probably, though the additional chatter might bring him back.

It's not very likely, though I suppose it's realised now who my GM was.

Rhino actually encouraged me to seek official clarification here on FFG, but apparently I've "handled it poorly" by making this thread because it's been perceived as an attack on him and an attempt to ridicule him publicly, even though I never once mentioned him, his hangouts, or his sessions by name. It's only clear now because of how outspoken he's been.

On top of that, I felt like it was a totally legitimate question to ask and I'm glad I did, because your responses have helped clear up my confusion entirely; however, the few resorting to name calling and insults are totally unwarranted. Despite a couple of his interpretations being unusually arbitrary, he is nothing short of a fine GM and the contention that created this thread was just a minor headbutt in an otherwise fun and exciting playthrough of the EotE Beginner's Adventure. It's just unfortunate that he doesn't see it that way.

EDIT: To clarify, I helped him run a roll20 session for a group of new players wanting to try the game. Playing Oskara on the very first round of combat, I spent my first maneuver taking up a good firing position, voluntarily suffering 2 strain to take a second maneuver so I could draw my weapon, and then using my action to fire on Teemo's thugs. But that wasn't his interpretation of this rule. As I'd already used my free maneuver, if I wanted to draw my weapon, I had to "suffer 2 strain, forfeit your action and end your turn."

I questioned it, as any experienced player would, but he denied that was a legitimate rule. Quoting page numbers and paragraphs from FFG sourced material still couldn't convince him. I was "so totally and completely wrong" and I gave up trying once he started name dropping FFG game developers that he'd played with personally. As a conscientious player, I conceded to his ruling for the sake of the game, even though I believed it's important for the newer players to be taught the core rules of the game rather than arbitrary interpretations.

@Quinn don't worry about him, I have seen his other posts in other threads, and he is very knowledgeable, it just seemed during this one that he couldn't fathom everything that to us is there in black and white, Ghost actually found the exact pg which although I was searching my rear off I couldn't find, plus you found it in the beginner adv.

So that being said he does have very good knowledge and I have no doubt that he is a good GM.

Cheers and have fun