Here is the setup..... I was GMing a group this weekend and as a new group we finally did space combat. They were fleeing in a Lambda shuttle and had 3 TIE Fighters attacking them (2 from the front and 1 from the rear).

Initiative went as follows: PC, PC, NPC, NPC, PC, PC, PC, PC.

Combat started and the PC players shot their fore and aft weapons (killing 1 TIE). The TIE's shot back, doing some damage to the shuttle. Then then PC's used Slice Enemy's Systems, and rolled a TRIUMPH, so they could disable a weapons group for one round.

The question we had was: What does "One Round" mean in the text for Slice Enemy's Systems?

Slice Enemy's Systems - The crewmember uses powerful shipboard computers to attempt to disrupt the systems of an enemy vehicle. If successful, he reduces the defense of one zone on the target vehicle for 1 round per [HIT]. A [TRIUMPH] may be spent to disable a weapon system for one round, and [ADVANTAGE, ADVANTAGE] may be spent on inflict one system strain on the target vehicle.

We came up with a couple of meanings for the "One Round".

1. It lasts for the current round of combat, clearing at the start of the next. As GM this is the ruling I made as it means that the effect lasts only 1 combat round. Also, if going up against other vehicles with a defense rating, the Slice action would be used first so as to be effective with the defense reduction when shooting that round. Yes, this does mean that if the NPC has initiative and shoots first, the [TRIUMPH] from Slice has no effective usage.

2. "One Round" means that it lasts until the completetion of the next full round of combat, even if this action is the first one done that combat round. I am not a fan of this theory, as it is possible to disable a single fighters weapon system for 2 full rounds of combat.

3. It lasts until that specific PC makes their action/maneuver for the next combat round. See #2 for reasons why I don't like this meaning.

Any help would be nice.

I'd say the answer is "none of the above". In my campaign I run it as lasting until the affected ship has finished its next turn, whenever that may come. Essentially, the affected ship loses its next attack.

Tough one... I'm really having trouble making a call... though I do think Krieger's solution is pretty sound both mechanically and intent...

Why not submit it to the actual question to the Devs? That's one that could actually have a place in the errata...

Also color me impressed, it's rare someone finds a problem with the vehicle system that's actually a problem, and equally so that someone suggests a solution that I actually would use...

It's the same problem with most skills worded "for X rounds" like Disorient.

The way it is written is a round, not until after his next action/turn... so if you hit someone with Disorient 1 that has already acted this turn, you loose the disorient bonus since it won't affect your target, being good for 1 round (current round). I think the question was asked to the devs and they said "for that round"... but like you guys I find it dumb, so I go with the same approach has Krieger, affecting his next turn.

Validating with Sam could be an idea.

#3 fits with the way these things work in this game's dynamic initiative system. If the group is willing to take the risk and let the slicer go at the top of the round, they could be awarded with a single enemy ship's weapon system being taken offline for up to two effective rounds, if they are fortunate enough to have a PC slot in the first and last initiative places, and if the Slicer can get a Triumph on that first roll.

A) This many contingencies makes the effect a situationally useful, but not broken, tactic.

B) What this means mechanically for minion groups, I would say, is that their group skills are one skill rank less, likely downgrading their dice pools—not shutting down an entire minion group, but rather shutting down the cannons on one fighter. Again, useful, but far from broken.

This seems like a pretty easy solution. This question comes up in many other Tabletop RPGs like Pathfinder and D&D. The way it is officially resolved is that the target of the ability suffers the effect until the BEGINNING PCs turn. This would prevent not only the ability to make attacks on their turn, but all any attacks that take place out of their turn. To prevent abuse of this rule you could remember what slot the Slicer activated the ability and no matter which PC is in that slot, that is when the weapon systems come online again. Hope this make sense and is of some help.

IMO, it’s a lot simpler to go with the “Target suffers for their next X turns”, for whatever X may be. That way it doesn’t matter what slot you’re in where.

I'm surprised you left out interpretation number 4, since it is probably the most technically correct and problem-free option:

4. The effect persists until the end of the same action slot in the intiative order on the following round. In other words, an effect that is supposed to last for "one round" will actually last for one full round - no more, no less.

For example, suppose you get the following initiative order for four PCs and four NPCs:

PC, NPC, PC, PC, NPC, NPC, PC, NPC

If the third PC to act in round 1 were to perform an action with an effect that lasts for one round, then he would act here:

PC, NPC, PC, PC, NPC, NPC, PC, NPC

As a result, the effect of his action would last until the end of that same action slot in round 2 (regardless of who acts in which slot). So the person who acts here in round 2:

PC, NPC, PC, PC, NPC, NPC, PC, NPC

would still be experiencing the effects of the original action.

But the person who acts here in round 2:

PC, NPC, PC, PC, NPC, NPC, PC, NPC

would not, since the effect has just expired.

This might be what JakStarr was suggesting, but I found his language a little confusing.

^This is exactly what I was trying to say, but I had the family talking to me while I was trying to write it. Thanks for clarifying.

That could result in the effect not applying at all.

I think I'll just stick with my "weapon malfunctions on the ship's next turn"-interpretation. Seems like a lot less of a hassle.

That could result in the effect not applying at all.

Possibly, depending on the nature of the effect. At least in a certain sense. Regardless, I get what you mean.

However, the same issue applies to most of the approaches mentioned. The problem is the ability, in this system, to exercise a lot of choice when deciding the order in which characters act each round.

The only way to avoid this or similar issues is to simply eliminate all talk of effects lasting for a number of "rounds". You would have to adopt a different sort of language. What Krieger mentioned would be one alternative - e.g. don't talk of "rounds", instead say that effects last for a number of "actions" (regardless of when those actions occur), or something like that.

That "option #4" above is decidedly d20 and, IMO, has no place in this system.

I have seen stuff like this in my games. We never had a problem with it. I had actually thought the CRB was pretty clear on this. One round is just that one round. Since the initiative slots are fluid, I always ran "the effect" until the the beginning of the PC/NPC next turn in the order. So if the guy went last in round , but is now going first in round two, that would be his full round. As he lost his attack last, round, and can act in round two, doesn't matter the initiative slot.

So in the case of the OP, the third PC shot and disabled NPC 2. NPC 2 now cannot shoot this round, as he not acted yet. Now in the new round, if NPC 2 goes first for the NPC initiative slot, his "effect" is over, and he can shoot during his action in round 2.

Also, if you disabled weapons for someone who has ALREADY acted in the round, then the effect will last until the end of their next turn. They would lose that attack the following round. When it says "one round" it means that particular PC/NPCs round, not just the blanket generic term of round. So, in short, yes Emmjay, you did it correctly.

That is actually a built in benefit for the PC and NPCs of this game. If you do get hit with something like Disable weapon, and loose your attack in this round, the following round, you can bump up to an earlier initiative slot to act, so you don't have to wait for another whole round to get to act again. Yes that is meta gaming, and I'm all for it. Narratively, it could be described as the TIE pilot HAD his shot lined up, and as he pulls the rigger, the computer responds with a low groan, as the sensors recalibrate. In his annoyance, he just keeps pulling the triggers, and then blame, his shot blasts away. (Kind of like the people that keep pressing the walk button at a cross walk. Or just keep clicking the mouse button when windows locks up)

I am pretty sure the Devs did talk about this on an old, old Order 66 Podcast. I think it might have been the same one where they talked about the fluid initiative slots and starship gunners and missile spoofing.

@overmatt, your option 4 is not in line with the CRB. If you want to house rule that you can. The effects of weapons/actionsTalents, don't care about "time" in the sense of initiative slot. It cares about WHO they effect not when. It cares about "my" round or "your" round. As combat rounds are not a prescribed length of time, it doesn't matter if I loose my action during Round 1 and I am the last initiative slot. For Round 2, I can now be the first initiative slot and now take my action, as I had lost my action in Round 1. The effect should not carry over to an initiative "slot". I don't see the need for more terms in this game, a round is a round. By the CRB a round is a characters chance to do an action, a maneuver, and an incidental. So if I loose my action, I have to wait until my next action. It is that simple. Initiative slots are arbitrary to the matter, and only relative to the GM to keep things in order, and manageable.

@overmatt, your option 4 is not in line with the CRB.

None of the options are in line with the core rulebook because the core rulebook neglects to draw a line on the subject. That's the point of the discussion.

If you want to house rule that you can.

All of the suggestions are "house rules" since there is no official rule. That's the point of the discussion.

And for the record, I never said that the option I described was my rule. It is merely one of several possible interpretations of what a "one round" duration could mean.

By the CRB a round is a characters chance to do an action, a maneuver, and an incidental.

No, that's a "turn". A "round" is the collection of individual turns taken by each participant in a structured time encounter. Each participant gets one turn per round. Once all participants have taken one turn, the round ends and a new round begins.

The question, then, is what should be meant by a duration of "one round" when the effect in question might begin at any point during a round:

- Does it expire at the end of the current round?

- The end of the following round?

- The end of the same initiative slot in the following round?

- The end of the next turn taken by the character who initiated the effect?

- The end of the next turn taken by the character affected by the effect?

- Something else that no one has suggested yet?

The answer to this question will have serious ramifications in this system, and yet the rulebook neglects to answer it. Hence the discussion.

I'm surprised you left out interpretation number 4, since it is probably the most technically correct and problem-free option:

4. The effect persists until the end of the same action slot in the intiative order on the following round. In other words, an effect that is supposed to last for "one round" will actually last for one full round - no more, no less.

For example, suppose you get the following initiative order for four PCs and four NPCs:

PC, NPC, PC, PC, NPC, NPC, PC, NPC

If the third PC to act in round 1 were to perform an action with an effect that lasts for one round, then he would act here:

PC, NPC, PC, PC, NPC, NPC, PC, NPC

As a result, the effect of his action would last until the end of that same action slot in round 2 (regardless of who acts in which slot). So the person who acts here in round 2:

PC, NPC, PC, PC, NPC, NPC, PC, NPC

would still be experiencing the effects of the original action.

But the person who acts here in round 2:

PC, NPC, PC, PC, NPC, NPC, PC, NPC

would not, since the effect has just expired.

This might be what JakStarr was suggesting, but I found his language a little confusing.

This is how I would run it, in a way...

I would run so that the effect lasts until the characters turn in the next round.

That way (I'm assuming people don't roll new initiative every round here), even if the initiative turns get shuffled around a bit due to NPC's dying or PC's being knocked out, it always lasts from the PC's action in turn 1 until it's the same PC's action in turn 2.

I really think everyone is over complicating this way too much and putting way too much brain work in for it. I just reread that area of the book, and as far as slicing the enemy, it just says it lasts one round. Initiative slots are not that important. It boils down to just two questions. Has the PC/NPC being affected by the effect acted in this round yet? Just a yes or no question. If the answer is yes, then the one that is being sliced will loose this current action (Triumph). The next time he can act in the following round, this effect will be over. If the answer was yes, he/she/it had already acted this round, then the following round they will loose their action. If this is the case, then that PC/NPC can go on whatever initiative slot they which, but they still loose their action. Then the following round, the can act normally again.

The person doing the slicing's initiative slot is irrelevant to the process. In the case of the OP, the TIE can not shoot this round, the next round he will be able, on whichever initiative slot that the GM puts him in. I feel it is pretty easy, cut and dry. But if people really want to make it more convoluted, have fun. I believe that FFG made this system to be simple, and I have found when it comes to rules, K.I.S.S. usually triumphs.

For the effects of Staggered, Immobilized, and Disoriented, it states that the duration, if not specified, will last until the END of the characters NEXT action. So if you had not acted yet in the round, and got one of these, then on your next action, (which would be this round) you would suffer this, and at the end of your action, it will go away. So still only one round. If you had already acted in the round, then the effect will just last through your next action in the next round. I see this and the Slice terminology as the same. I don't really think this will have huge ramifications throughout the system, as I think Slicing an enemy ship is the only time that phrasing is used. I think they are meant to be worded the same, but through the editing process, one didn't get changed.

I really think everyone is over complicating this way too much and putting way too much brain work in for it. I just reread that area of the book, and as far as slicing the enemy, it just says it lasts one round. Initiative slots are not that important. It boils down to just two questions. Has the PC/NPC being affected by the effect acted in this round yet? Just a yes or no question. If the answer is yes, then the one that is being sliced will loose this current action (Triumph). The next time he can act in the following round, this effect will be over. If the answer was yes, he/she/it had already acted this round, then the following round they will loose their action. If this is the case, then that PC/NPC can go on whatever initiative slot they which, but they still loose their action. Then the following round, the can act normally again.

The person doing the slicing's initiative slot is irrelevant to the process. In the case of the OP, the TIE can not shoot this round, the next round he will be able, on whichever initiative slot that the GM puts him in. I feel it is pretty easy, cut and dry. But if people really want to make it more convoluted, have fun. I believe that FFG made this system to be simple, and I have found when it comes to rules, K.I.S.S. usually triumphs.

For the effects of Staggered, Immobilized, and Disoriented, it states that the duration, if not specified, will last until the END of the characters NEXT action. So if you had not acted yet in the round, and got one of these, then on your next action, (which would be this round) you would suffer this, and at the end of your action, it will go away. So still only one round. If you had already acted in the round, then the effect will just last through your next action in the next round. I see this and the Slice terminology as the same. I don't really think this will have huge ramifications throughout the system, as I think Slicing an enemy ship is the only time that phrasing is used. I think they are meant to be worded the same, but through the editing process, one didn't get changed.

Having it last from when player A does it in his turn of round 1 until it's player A's turn again in round 2 is hardly overcomplicated.

Player: "I slice the enemy's system"

GM: "ok, the effect is in play until it's your turn again in the next round"

How is that complicated?

All it does is that it ensures that the players action matters.

If the player happens to be last in the initiative order, then the slice action is more or less pointless if you make it just last for that turn. This way it lasts for exactly one turn (ie. until it's the players initiative turn again in the next round)

I don't know man. I would treat it like I would Disorient.

Or for a by the book answer.

ECRB (2013) Page 199.

Step 4: Round End

"Once all NPCs and Player Characters have taken a turn, the round ends. At this point, certain effects that last until the 'end of the round' may end."

Make what you will of the word "may".

I would still treat it like I would Disorient, where it is target dependent, not activator dependent.

I don't know man. I would treat it like I would Disorient.

Or for a by the book answer.

ECRB (2013) Page 199.

Step 4: Round End

"Once all NPCs and Player Characters have taken a turn, the round ends. At this point, certain effects that last until the 'end of the round' may end."

Make what you will of the word "may".

I would still treat it like I would Disorient, where it is target dependent, not activator dependent.

Hhhhhmmmm... this is interesting. Ignoring the "may", this would be an interesting way to play. It would make the top of the initiative order a LOT more valuable and strategic, because a lot of weapon qualities would become useless at the bottom of the order.

Upon reading of the rules and as much inferring as I could do, I've reached the conclusion that "Disabling a weapon for one round" means that, effectively, the weapon does not get to fire on its "next turn." If the weapon has already fired this round, it doesn't get to fire next round. If it has yet to fire this round, then instead it is disabled for this round, and next round it can shoot.

That seems to be the intent. If the weapon is disabled for a round, then that means it doesn't work during a turn in which it would normally operate. Any other interpretation as to intent seems, to me, too convoluted.

The easiest way to keep track of this, as has been mentioned before, is just to run it based on the PC's perspective. If the PC Jiim is acting, use "the end of Jiim's next turn" as a marker. If Jiim's ship is instead the target, (similarly) use "the end of Jiim's next turn" as a marker.

You could track it solely by the target's rounds, but I dislike getting the NPCs all complicated up in the dynamic initiative system. Just run it with reference to the PCs and save yourself some headaches. You might run into the very occasional situation where the weapon system is disabled for 2 turns. I say, big deal. It's a Triumph, and that sort of occurrence requires a very specific set of circumstances. Let the players be clever and move on.