Sorry Pac Man, it is not an issue with the system, it is an issue with your players. If they don't want to play this game, then why are they? "I win the game and every game" sounds a little too immature for a player for me. It is great that you want to game with your daughter, but is seems like she could care less. I don't know. But that is not a valid gripe about this system.

1) I never said there was an issue with the system. Nearly all my comments on the system ever have been quite to the contrary.

2) My daughter is 9.

3) I was exaggerating in my example of her suggestion (hence the word "tantamount").

Edit: clarity.

That is awesome your daughter likes SW and gaming! What a great way to bond. Sadly, when my daughter was 9, I played WoD and there was no way I was going to run that for her!

At the risk of speaking for Pac Man, I don't think he was griping...

This, and the rest.

Anyway, folks, I've very much enjoyed this evening's hostilities. Thank you.

Now, to bed.

Good night all. May the Force be with thee and thine.

Edit: @Alderaan Crumbs - Yeah, my daughter is quite possibly more into Star Wars than I am. And she's ruthless. She regularly beats me at the LCG and won her first game of X-Wing the other day as the Empire. Must keep an eye on that one.

At the risk of speaking for Pac Man, I don't think he was griping...

This, and the rest.

Anyway, folks, I've very much enjoyed this evening's hostilities. Thank you.

Now, to bed.

Good night all. May the Force be with thee and thine.

May naked Twi'lek women ride pink bantha through your dreams!

At the risk of speaking for Pac Man, I don't think he was griping...

This, and the rest.

Anyway, folks, I've very much enjoyed this evening's hostilities. Thank you.

Now, to bed.

Good night all. May the Force be with thee and thine.

May naked Twi'lek women ride pink bantha through your dreams!

Cheers. Now hopefully my wife won't ask me what I'm smiling about.

It is great that you want to game with your daughter, but is seems like she could care less. I don't know. But that is not a valid gripe about this system.

Actually, while the computer is still on and I'm not in my bedtime birthday suit, I just thought I'd add to my previous rebuttal, because the comment about my daughter annoys me a tad. Firstly, I guess you mean "couldn't care less", in which case that's quite an assumption. Though my daughter struggles with helping to interpret the pool, her solutions to problems are not only in the spirit of Star Wars but, in some cases, are knocking on the door of ingenuitive. If you'd like to see for yourself, here are a few session reports about the adventures she's participated in:

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/128330-awesome-edge-player-in-the-making/?hl=%2Bawesome+%2Bedge+%2Bplayer

And the first issue I mention in that thread is obviously still a bit of an issue

And now, I'm definitely going to bed.

Bwahahaha! Slurp, slurp. Mmmmmm, good beer (mind you any beer is good beer to me). Munch, munch. Mmmmmm, buttery popcorn.

You can run SW with mini-d6 and wookiepedia entirely for free, if you so choose. Then you have the WEG systems, in which I don't believe I ever invested more than 50$ in total, and that's hedging it on the high end (available for six! dollars on amazon atm...).

God, I wish I had only spent 50 bucks on WEG. Add a zero onto that and you're getting close to what's on my D6 shelf.

Look, Role Playing Games cost money. That's just a fact of the hobby. Wanna get Gurps? That'll be a fuckton of money, thank you very much. Want to get into D&D? That's an even bigger boatload of cash. Hell, even smaller games like Toon or Paranoia will cost you a 50 bucks at the door. And then god forbid you start throwing in suppliments and minis and maps and adventures - sell a kidney. You'll need it.

Also - who in the right mind pays the 60 MSRP? The core books are a slight tick over 40 at Mini Market and CSI. Wait until they do a sale and you'll get 'em even cheaper.

Well, this Alexadrian guy is so full of himself it is pathetic. He is a world renowned author, Thespian, inventor, statesman, diplomat, carsalesmen...you name it.

I checked out his site, and will never go back, he is not worth the agitation, heartache, and annoyance to me. I have better things to do with my time than try to argue with an egomaniac. If he doesn't like it, I'm ok with that. I just wish he would have stated up front that he hates the system because he didn't make it, and his game he made is so much better.

For all the people that hate this system, yet come here to cry about, please just go away. I hate Pathfinder, but I do not feel the need to go on their forums and tell them how much that game sucks.

Good morning all. Seems this is still going.

I feel obliged to point out that they didn't "come here to cry about it". DanteRotterdam started this thread by linking to the review on another site and then DR and another started quoting portions of it here so that the reviewer wouldn't get page hits. There was a lot of pretty unpleasant commentary directed to the author who eventually showed up here to post a couple of defensive comments and their list of house-rules they think makes the game better. Your demand for people to go away if they have criticisms of the system seems unreasonable to me. Especially when they've effectively been invited here by DanteRotterdam's thread.

Well, I am sure that R2Builder was not talking about the Alexandrian but about the other poster whose posts basically amounted to "FFG's Star Wars RPG's are stoopid and you are all big doodoo heads for liking it!"

The unpleasant commentary on the writer of the review (which he somehow calls "lies") is as I said the heat that comes from working in a kitchen. I agree with R2Builder that he acts like an egomaniac.

By the way I want to point out that Justin did not come here to post a few house rules to make the system better, he came here to introduce a "Big Fix" that presented us "THE NEW CORE MECHANIC" I hope you see the big difference between the two.

Seeing how this is the perfect illustration of what rubbed me (and apparently others) the wrong way about the guy and his posts I don't think it is weird that he got some flack over it.

I don't think writing a few articles for a self-owned RPG site or writing contributions to long gone, obscure systems grants you the right to "fix" an excellent RPG system designed by Jay Little, which has been carefully playtested by professional game developers and gamers that are active at these forums and that is guarded and maintained by a core team of excellent staffers at FFG. Especially not since you seem to have no working knowledge of how the system is supposed to work and your criticisme mostly boils down to you finding "too much crunch" and "sloppy design" in a very non-crunchy game that is not sloppy but purposefully open.

Anyway, I am sorry for having been rude at times, I guess...

Why is it in human nature that when we don't like something we are appalled by those that do?

Religion, ideologies, politics, call it what you want, it's basic, primal narcissism: "I'm right, everyone else is wrong, unless they agree with me." In most societies these strong urges of devolved primitive behaviour is socialised away (or if you will brainwashed), teaching people to conform (by idealising conformity, or by idealising non-comformity, in turn conformity in disguise as "individuality" and "uniqueness") and behave in a positive and social way, rather than anti-social. Of course, different cultures, ideologies and religions idealise different levels of conformity... so... the merry-go-round just continues...

I still think the reviewer, this Justin, has a lot to answer for (by which I mean crimes against humanity, decency, Ukraine, the developing nations and Democratic People's Republic of Korea . ) He still has to explain what is actually wrong, come up with some examples. His review is still less well founded and argued than a first year bachelor student's paper. It reminds me of a paper that "argued" that while Marx was a sociologist (he wasn't) and wrote about class struggle, his definition of class is wrong (ignoring the fact that he never defined class as such), providing no evidence or reason as to why, nothing but the written equivalent of a grunt. It's basically writing the paper, but not doing the assignment, that's what this review is. It's written, but there is nothing in it, the job isn't done, it's not even a half-assed job, there's no ass... It's making an argument, except that it isn't ... it's like saying "because, just because, just 'cause, man!" with no backing except prejudice, presumption and a worrying inability to write reviews.

His "fix" doesn't fix anything, except making the game less fun and interesting. He's also making it pointless to pick up ranks in skills as Triumphs are now basically pointless and easy to acquire through ability dice (yes, yes, proficiency dice have more faces with successes on so it still matters, somewhat. And yes, his silly version makes the triumphs into advantages that can't be cancelled. The innovation. The genius... it's ridiculous, amateurishly bad and sloppy, it's unimaginative, uncreative, it's basically useless to the point I'm seriously considering taking him to the European Court of the Human Rights in Strasbourg, which of course is silly (they really don't care about this game or bad writers, but they should at least care of about the latter, there are too many bad and horrible writers out there.)

So until this Justin fella gets his head out of his head (errr...?) and descends down here to the earth, where real people live, I will not relent. He has presented no rational reasoning, no arguments backed by examples or empirical evidence, just his own superiority, which of course is fallacious and misguided, even if he wrote a "qualitative" game mechanic 15 years ago (before it got hip, isn't he the proto-hipster!)

In case you (anyone reading this, not just you man, I'm talking to everyone!!!!) take offence by any of the above, or take it seriously: I am ready to call Ban Ki-Moon, I have him on speed dial, we're old friends. He regularly comes around for a game of Toss the Serf (traditional Norwegian game where inbred serfs from the British isles are tossed from a mountain top, like this one, you can see them getting ready here, checking the wind, the drop and getting ready to catch the serfs with a lasso):

The unpleasant commentary on the writer of the review (which he somehow calls "lies") is as I said the heat that comes from working in a kitchen. I agree with R2Builder that he acts like an egomaniac.

If you feel the need to attack someone instead of refuting their arguments, you have already lost the debate. The personal attacks are disgraceful and reflect very poorly on this community. I am very thankful that there are some posters on here that retain the decency to understand that disagreeing with a review is one thing, but attacking the writer is quite another. He is criticizing a set of rules, you are attacking a fellow human being.

And saying that he should not write reviews if he does not like personal attacks is pretty low, because that is what your kitchen-analogy actually entails.

In short, attacking the writer is never OK; there is a reason ad hominems are looked down upon in any reasonable debate.

The unpleasant commentary on the writer of the review (which he somehow calls "lies") is as I said the heat that comes from working in a kitchen. I agree with R2Builder that he acts like an egomaniac.

If you feel the need to attack someone instead of refuting their arguments, you have already lost the debate. The personal attacks are disgraceful and reflect very poorly on this community. I am very thankful that there are some posters on here that retain the decency to understand that disagreeing with a review is one thing, but attacking the writer is quite another. He is criticizing a set of rules, you are attacking a fellow human being.

And saying that he should not write reviews if he does not like personal attacks is pretty low, because that is what your kitchen-analogy actually entails.

In short, attacking the writer is never OK; there is a reason ad hominems are looked down upon in any reasonable debate.

Well, I did go over my entire role in this topic and only found one quote that could be seen as an insult, namely:

If anyone still thinks we are talking about a review here instead of a bout of megalomania or, in the least, total self absorbtion then I understand why you would find it weird that I put a link up.

And it is still talking about the review itself and not about its author.

I guess that it wasn't the nicest thing I ever typed but it definitely was not a personal attack.

He is criticizing a set of rules.

Hardly. Criticism needs a foundation of data, arguments, examples serves well here (I'd say it's imperative for relevance and validity, otherwise it amounts to the same as hearsay), sentences and reason. The review is vague at best and provides little of arguments, data or examples, it is made up of sentences (I've no clue why I put that in there...), but again few examples or reasoning. Nothing is really explicated, merely implicated (if you want to be nice.)

I call for a vote of no confidence in the validity and quality of this review, on the grounds that there has been provided no evidence, no rational argument, no empirical data whatsoever. The UN should demand that he removes it from the interwebz and rewrites it completely, sends it to at least 4 other people (two of which must be from this forum, obviously, we're completely impartial and objective) for review before publication and reposting on his blog...

However, you've based the bulk of your criticism on saying that the system doesn't give good guidelines for dice interpretation. That is a debatable subject, and you've not given specific examples to support your argument. You mention people house ruling the game, but don't say what they're changing. Going from your proposed rule changes, it sounds like you don't like the fact that the system has so many result states. For me, it's easy enough to define. Success is whether you do what you attempted, and more success can improve that action. Advantage can either improve a success or make additional good things happen regardless of success or failure. Threat can make additional bad things happen from a success or failure. Triumph makes something really good happen in addition to success or failure. Despair makes something really happen in addition to success or failure. These results can occur independent of an action, in conjunction with it, or because of it. The main rule to keep in mind is that none of the three result types (success/failure, advantage/threat, triumph/despair) can cancel out another kind of result. Succeed, good, really good versus fail, bad, really bad. I don't have any examples from you of when these became difficult to interpret. This lack of examples is what leads myself and others to question your experience.

First: Multiple examples of the inconsistent skill guidelines are given in the review.

Second: An example of the types of house rules I'm talking about is given literally two sentences later in the review.

Not only are all of these examples present in the review, multiple people in this thread have talked about them specifically. I'm really unclear how you (or Whafrog) could have missed them.

Third: " The main rule to keep in mind is that none of the three result types (success/failure, advantage/threat, triumph/despair) can cancel out another kind of result."

That is exactly what I'm talking about. What you just wrote there is not the way the game works. In the RAW, Triumphs count as successes (and thus cancel failures). Despair does the exact opposite. You've house ruled it in order to simplify the mechanic and apparently don't even realize you've done it.

And this has happened virtually every single time I've gotten into a discussion like this. The people championing the dice mechanics repeatedly reveal that they are not, in fact, using the dice mechanics as published.

In short, attacking the writer is never OK; there is a reason ad hominems are looked down upon in any reasonable debate.

It's okay, really. There have been several people in here saying things that are worth hearing. They've offered some good insights and helped me to develop my ideas in interesting and useful ways.

People like Jegergyte and DanteRotterdam, on the other hand, have done us all the great honor of making it abundantly clear what a waste of time it would be to take their posts seriously by lacing them with profanity, ad hominems, and factually inaccurate claims.

I will return in a few days to this post awaiting for responses XD

In short, attacking the writer is never OK; there is a reason ad hominems are looked down upon in any reasonable debate.

It's okay, really. There have been several people in here saying things that are worth hearing. They've offered some good insights and helped me to develop my ideas in interesting and useful ways.

People like Jegergyte and DanteRotterdam, on the other hand, have done us all the great honor of making it abundantly clear what a waste of time it would be to take their posts seriously by lacing them with profanity, ad hominems, and factually inaccurate claims.

I would love to see some example of my profanity, ad hominems and factually inaccurate claims. It shouldn't be too hard since my posts are "laced with them".

Edit: In fact I will accuse you of being the one making things personal by accusing me of "boiling rage" and calling me a "liar".

However, you've based the bulk of your criticism on saying that the system doesn't give good guidelines for dice interpretation. That is a debatable subject, and you've not given specific examples to support your argument. You mention people house ruling the game, but don't say what they're changing. Going from your proposed rule changes, it sounds like you don't like the fact that the system has so many result states. For me, it's easy enough to define. Success is whether you do what you attempted, and more success can improve that action. Advantage can either improve a success or make additional good things happen regardless of success or failure. Threat can make additional bad things happen from a success or failure. Triumph makes something really good happen in addition to success or failure. Despair makes something really happen in addition to success or failure. These results can occur independent of an action, in conjunction with it, or because of it. The main rule to keep in mind is that none of the three result types (success/failure, advantage/threat, triumph/despair) can cancel out another kind of result. Succeed, good, really good versus fail, bad, really bad. I don't have any examples from you of when these became difficult to interpret. This lack of examples is what leads myself and others to question your experience.

First: Multiple examples of the inconsistent skill guidelines are given in the review.

Second: An example of the types of house rules I'm talking about is given literally two sentences later in the review.

Not only are all of these examples present in the review, multiple people in this thread have talked about them specifically. I'm really unclear how you (or Whafrog) could have missed them.

Third: " The main rule to keep in mind is that none of the three result types (success/failure, advantage/threat, triumph/despair) can cancel out another kind of result."

That is exactly what I'm talking about. What you just wrote there is not the way the game works. In the RAW, Triumphs count as successes (and thus cancel failures). Despair does the exact opposite. You've house ruled it in order to simplify the mechanic and apparently don't even realize you've done it.

And this has happened virtually every single time I've gotten into a discussion like this. The people championing the dice mechanics repeatedly reveal that they are not, in fact, using the dice mechanics as published.

First: You call it inconsistent, but I (and others) say it isn't - you're just doing and reading it wrong. It's reasonable that different skills work differently, just like life (and that bit about advantages and knowledge skills...? that's reaching ... it's not an example that serves your argument.) The fact that you don't accept and like this is ok, fine even, but don't throw big words around and claim some false sense of authority just because it's not how you want it to be, whether it's because you don't understand it or because you simply disagree with it.

Second: Could you quote that example? And when you do, because I think I know what you mean, could you maybe be more precise and accurate?

Third: I think you're misunderstanding Nimsim here, or you haven't read the rules properly. Yes Triumphs counts as successes in addition to being Triumphs, which are not cancelled. Also, successes don't cancel failures, it's the other way around. That's an important distinction. So Nimsim is correct. There is no house-rule, you're either intentionally misreading him to make some silly pedantic point or don't know what you're writing about.

(the profanity I'll agree with, even the ad hominems, for which I apologise, it's all been in jest, which should be obvious due to the over top the nature of those posts.)

Well, I am sure that R2Builder was not talking about the Alexandrian but about the other poster whose posts basically amounted to "FFG's Star Wars RPG's are stoopid and you are all big doodoo heads for liking it!"

This would be the post that begins with "Well, this Alexadrian guy is so full of himself it is pathetic" ? Anyway, I don't recognize what you say has been said with what anyone else has said. I haven't said anyone is wrong for enjoying the game and I don't think anyone else has either. So you're doing a grave disservice to characterize it as that.

The unpleasant commentary on the writer of the review (which he somehow calls "lies") is as I said the heat that comes from working in a kitchen.

I strongly disagree with this. I don't think insults or aggressive dismissal are a necessary "heat" that comes with writing a review of a game. You chose to bring this here and add a lot hostility. And continue to do so. Many of the rest of us (I myself disagree with several of their points, namely the nine books part) are able to offer criticisms without resorting to terms like egomaniac as another poster called them.

By the way I want to point out that Justin did not come here to post a few house rules to make the system better, he came here to introduce a "Big Fix" that presented us "THE NEW CORE MECHANIC" I hope you see the big difference between the two.

Actually, no I don't. Whether someone wants to modify how Improved Reflect works or change the core mechanic, it's all the same to me. It's clear from the above that you think the more someone wants to change a game, the less entitled they are to comment about it. That makes little sense to me.

Seeing how this is the perfect illustration of what rubbed me (and apparently others) the wrong way about the guy and his posts I don't think it is weird that he got some flack over it.

Well some of us were civil, and you weren't. Yet we all see the same review. So I don't think you can reasonably just shrug and say "getting flak" is a natural thing as if you were observing from the outside. The "flak" was something you chose to post. If I insulted someone because they were gay and then responded with "well, there's a lot of prejudice and gay people do get insulted", that wouldn't make my insulting them okay. Identical principle at work here. The above reads very much like you hiding from the responsibility for what you write by saying "that's what happens". It makes little sense to me.

I don't think writing a few articles for a self-owned RPG site or writing contributions to long gone, obscure systems grants you the right to "fix" an excellent RPG system designed by Jay Little, which has been carefully playtested by professional game developers and gamers that are active at these forums and that is guarded and maintained by a core team of excellent staffers at FFG.

I agree - it doesn't give you that right. We all already have it. I do, you do, everybody else do. The only thing that really matters is whether someone supports their criticisms. And I have to be fair to them, there's examples of them doing so throughout their review.

Especially not since you seem to have no working knowledge of how the system is supposed to work and your criticisme mostly boils down to you finding "too much crunch" and "sloppy design" in a very non-crunchy game that is not sloppy but purposefully open.

Anyway, I am sorry for having been rude at times, I guess...

Then hopefully we can restore this thread to something more civil. They are, effectively, here at your invitation after all.

" and calling me a "liar".

Yeah, I never got that part. What have lies got to do with this? Who lied? About what? I mean, could I claim he's lying about the complexity of the system? or would that be me lying about him lying? THE LIES!!!!

Definitelly... I'll come back in a few days to the post XDD Take it easy

In the spirit of something more constructive, Justin - I would suggest amending the part of your review about needing nine books. Whilst FFG certainly spin things out getting extra money what with betas, beginner sets, etc. it's factually wrong to say you need all these. And they do actually provide some value helping bring people into the game and polish the rules. But regardless, the main thing is that all three core books are out now and each has more than enough depth with the careers and specializations that a group could cheerfully play just from the one core book for a very long time needing nothing else other than the dice. And you might also note that there are numerous dice roller programs about that can handle FFG's system. (They also print a conversion chart in the front of each book to more traditional dice, though obviously the dice apps are by far quicker to use). So anyway, whilst having the dice is traditional and obviously nice, you can use a variety of official or unofficial dice apps which actually do the job better (in terms of adding up results) than dice themselves. I have a very nice one on my Windows phone for free for example.

The "nine books" thing is the part of your review that I think is not supportable and the dice have this convenient work-around that should be highlighted.

DanteRotterdam, on 26 Aug 2015 - 09:53 AM, said:

Well, I am sure that R2Builder was not talking about the Alexandrian but about the other poster whose posts basically amounted to "FFG's Star Wars RPG's are stoopid and you are all big doodoo heads for liking it!"

Well, I am sure that R2Builder was not talking about the Alexandrian but about the other poster whose posts basically amounted to "FFG's Star Wars RPG's are stoopid and you are all big doodoo heads for liking it!"

This would be the post that begins with "Well, this Alexadrian guy is so full of himself it is pathetic" ? Anyway, I don't recognize what you say has been said with what anyone else has said. I haven't said anyone is wrong for enjoying the game and I don't think anyone else has either. So you're doing a grave disservice to characterize it as that.

I think we are misunderstanding each other here. I was talking specifically about (and I think Jeger did too) the post of Gamgee who said "All I know is Edge is an overrated pile of crap. I'm out."

Sorry that I wasn't more clear.

I strongly disagree with this. I don't think insults are a necessary "heat" that comes with writing a review of a game. You chose to bring this here and add a lot of very strong criticism of the writer themself personally. And continue to do so. Many of the rest of us (I myself disagree with several of their points, namely the nine books part) are able to offer criticisms without resorting to terms like egomaniac.

Please be mindful of the fact that I agreed with someone calling him an egomaniac and did not go into any personal attacks at all. The things I said might have been harsh but I made absolutely sure that I 'attacked' the review and the behaviour and not the writer.

DanteRotterdam, on 26 Aug 2015 - 09:53 AM, said:

By the way I want to point out that Justin did not come here to post a few house rules to make the system better, he came here to introduce a "Big Fix" that presented us "THE NEW CORE MECHANIC" I hope you see the big difference between the two.

Actually, no I don't. Whether someone wants to modify how Improved Reflect works or change the core mechanic, it's all the same to me. It's clear from the above that you think the more someone wants to change a game, the less entitled they are to comment about it. That makes little sense to me.

This is not a semantics game dude... You must agree that there is a difference between what you call "a few house rules" and a complete overhaul of the core system. Which all things considered is no skin off my nose had it not been for the fact that according to the review this way is "soooo much better than RAW and no one even uses RAW anyway."

I think everyone should do with the game whatever they want by the way so no there is no commentary fro me on that aspect at all. It is when the 'author' thinks that he has to tell everyone how amazing his way is and how bad the RAW is and how he "fixed" it that it rubs me the wrong way. Not that he wants to play a different game. Why should I care?

DanteRotterdam, on 26 Aug 2015 - 09:53 AM, said:

Seeing how this is the perfect illustration of what rubbed me (and apparently others) the wrong way about the guy and his posts I don't think it is weird that he got some flack over it.

Well some of us were civil, and you weren't. Yet we all see the same review. So I don't think you can reasonably just shrug and say "getting flak" is a natural thing as if you were observing from the outside. The "flak" was something you chose to post. If I insulted someone because they were gay and then responded with "well, there's a lot of prejudice and gay people do get insulted", that wouldn't make my insulting them okay. Identical principle at work here. The above reads very much like you hiding from the responsibility for what you write by saying "that's what happens". It makes little sense to me.

I ask you politely to go back and read my posts again. If you find somewhere were I crossed the line and made a personal attack than I would love to hear it. Also your example... Man, where do I begin.

My defending the writer getting flack was actually in defense of other posters.

DanteRotterdam, on 26 Aug 2015 - 09:53 AM, said:

I don't think writing a few articles for a self-owned RPG site or writing contributions to long gone, obscure systems grants you the right to "fix" an excellent RPG system designed by Jay Little, which has been carefully playtested by professional game developers and gamers that are active at these forums and that is guarded and maintained by a core team of excellent staffers at FFG.

I agree - it doesn't give you that right. We all already have it. I do, you do, everybody else do. The only thing that really matters is whether someone supports their criticisms. And I have to be fair to them, there's examples of them doing so throughout their review.

Every idea, no matter how stupid has its supporters.

DanteRotterdam, on 26 Aug 2015 - 09:53 AM, said:

Especially not since you seem to have no working knowledge of how the system is supposed to work and your criticisme mostly boils down to you finding "too much crunch" and "sloppy design" in a very non-crunchy game that is not sloppy but purposefully open.

Anyway, I am sorry for having been rude at times, I guess...

Then hopefully we can restore this thread to something more civil. They are, effectively, here at your invitation after all.

Well, again if you would go back over the thread you will be hard pressed to find any instance of outright rudeness on my part. I appologized for things that were so little that I am now doubting whether I should have at all since it is now seen as an admission of guilt apparently.

(and I think Jeger did too)

Don't you take me down with you!!! Frankly, that gamgee dude I couldn't care less about his opinion. If I'm doodoo in the head for loving this system as is, then so be it. Then I'm doodoo in the head

Strictly speaking I only have issues with the review. I simply think it comes across as dishonest about his motives and is badly written, argued and the conclusion betrays lack of knowledge and experience with the system, which is ok really (but that is what makes it a bad review.) For all my profanities and childish behaviour, that is all I have an issue with - and I do sincerely and unconditionally apologise for offending Justin and anyone else, and helping to drag the discussion to a level on par with a tabloid news article .) Whether or not Justin is convinced about his position is irrelevant (it's only his opinion, based on a misunderstanding of the facts as far as I'm concerned,) there are many who have issues with the system, in most cases it's an inability or unwillingness to learn something new (whether or not that's the case here I can only speculate wildly about, so I won't.) His so-called "fix" seems to me to betray a lack of knowledge and understanding of the system, but that is also fine, lots of people have issues and make their own house-rules (for a variety of reasons.) I don't have many issues and my only house-rules cover stuff to expand on the core mechanic, like generating kyber crystal colour as part of the harvesting check (see up coming article on d20radio blog on Friday [i think,] shameless narcissistic plug) additional manoeuvres and actions for starships and new stats and vehicles (if that counts as house-rules?) Basically stuff not covered in the rules.