If you don't like the idea that AT-ATs can be thrown through the air like "tiddly-winks" then stop describing something that doesn't even damage them and at most moves them around 12 miles per hour (Extreme range is shouting distance, i.e. 1/5th of a mile at absolute best, one round = 1 minute) as "being tossed through the air like a tiddly-wink". It ends up X range bands away from you. Nothing there about hurtling AT-ATs or starting your next round high in the air.

Oh, cool, so if my PCs shoot their blasters at baddies at long range, the bolts move 12 mp/h, too? Do they get even slower when they shoot at closer ranges? At Engaged, the bolts really slow down to a crawl, right? Does Move get slower and slower the closer you are, too?

No because what the formula shows you is the minimum possible speed of transit. If something moves to a 1/5th of a mile away in 1 minute, you know that it must have moved at least 12mph, not that it moved at 12mph. 1/5th of a mile is just a rough idea of the farthest you could possibly shout and be understood, btw (exceptions made for Alpine Yodellers). So if you shoot someone with a blaster who is 1/5th of a mile away the plasma could well have travelled at 100mph and it still works. It could have travelled at 2,000mph and it still works. But why assume that an AT-AT moved at 2,000mph when all it needed to move at was about 12mph. Especially if you're not happy with your own assumption.

The point is to highlight the narrative nature of the rules and that Extreme range and a round has no need at all to equate to a flying AT-AT. Bradknowles' argument suggested the AT-AT had to travel at high speed but that neglects that a round allows lots of time to get to "Extreme" range which isn't actually that far, either. I'm using the basic maths to provide some context to what the rules actually suggest.

Of course not. The system is abstract on the concepts of time and distance as well as being vague about the specifics of actions in combat on purpose. That is spelled out very clearly in the rules and is one of the fundamental basics of the combat system. Maths like that do not belong in FFG's Star Wars line, which anybody who read and understood the rules would know.

Isn't the entire point I'm making that it's a narrative rules system and that the problem is someone choosing to put on a description they're not happy with when they don't have to?

No because what the formula shows you is the minimum possible speed of transit.

No, you wrote (emphasis mine):

[...] and at most moves them around 12 miles per hour (Extreme range is shouting distance, i.e. 1/5th of a mile at absolute best, one round = 1 minute) [...]

How is moving at most around 12 miles per hour in any way, shape or form a minimum? You actually wrote the exact opposite of what you now claim.

Isn't the entire point I'm making that it's a narrative rules system and that the problem is someone choosing to put on a description they're not happy with when they don't have to?

I am not talking about other points you are trying to make, I am just pointing out that the specific maths you used make no sense in the context of the rules system.

EDIT: OK, I realize that I may sound abrasive. I agree with your overall point of fitting the narrative to your own conception. I still think that some of the surprising amount of crunch and detail in this narrative game might interfere with that, but I have no strong feelings about the Move power one way or the other, mostly because my players are a great bunch which means I do not need to worry about power-gaming.

No because what the formula shows you is the minimum possible speed of transit.

No, you wrote (emphasis mine):

[...] and at most moves them around 12 miles per hour (Extreme range is shouting distance, i.e. 1/5th of a mile at absolute best, one round = 1 minute) [...]

How is moving at most around 12 miles per hour in any way, shape or form a minimum? You actually wrote the exact opposite of what you now claim.

Perhaps I should have written "the most you have to move them is 12mph". That's probably clearer. The "most" in that post was saying the most (highest value) you get for that figure is 12mph.

Isn't the entire point I'm making that it's a narrative rules system and that the problem is someone choosing to put on a description they're not happy with when they don't have to?

I am not talking about other points you are trying to make, I am just pointing out that the specific maths you used make no sense in the context of the rules system.

I'm pretty sure it does make sense. You cannot simultaneously argue the positions of rejecting basic maths ever being used in the game and at the same time that a GM has to describe the effect a certain way because basic maths makes them do so. It was actually bradknowles' argument that the AT-AT must have shot along at high velocity because it ends up at Extreme range in a round. I.e. the same mathematical argument I explored above. All I did was plug some numbers in to show that the maths didn't lead to the conclusion he said it did.

If you're willing to throw out any basis in maths then what constrains you to say that the AT-AT is bulleting about the place if that's not what you want? And if you're not willing to throw out any basis in maths, then plugging in what Extreme range and a round is - as described by the book - suggests there is no need for the AT-AT to travel at such speed. Either way, you're left with the situation where a GM is deliberately choosing to describe something in a way that the rules don't require of them and then objecting to their own descriptions and blaming the rules for it.

The "most" in that post was saying the most (highest value) you get for that figure is 12mph.

No, it was not saying that. Maybe you do not understand what " and at most moves them around 12 miles per hour " means? You are now claiming it meant the exact opposite what the words say, which is ludicrous, to say the least. If you say you made a mistake and meant something completely different, that is fine; claiming that the sentence means the exact opposite is not.

You like to argue a lot. So much that you feel the need to put arguments in my mouth and assign positions to me that I never made or took. Your whole post is in very bad faith. I will try again: Your initial maths was wrong. You used purposefully abstract measurements of time and distance to put an artificial restriction on maximum movement. I objected to that, now you claim you meant the opposite, i.e. showing the minimum movement needed. Which is fine, but one can only discuss what you wrote, not what you imagined you wrote.

Feel free to discuss further things with this imaginary version of me in your head, but please keep me out of it. I never said maths is wrong, I said your maths is wrong, which I have shown above. I never said I supported anyone in this argument, I specifically said I only take objection to your bad maths.

The "most" in that post was saying the most (highest value) you get for that figure is 12mph.

No, it was not saying that. Maybe you do not understand what " and at most moves them around 12 miles per hour " means? You are now claiming it meant the exact opposite what the words say, which is ludicrous, to say the least. If you say you made a mistake and meant something completely different, that is fine; claiming that the sentence means the exact opposite is not.

You seem more interested in arguing over whether my wording was acceptable or not than whether the argument we're discussing is valid. But I've already explained the meaning as 'this formula gives you 12mph at most'. I.e. this formula wont give you 30mph.

It was a formula that gives you a minimum speed so I figured it would be read as "the minimum speed is at most 12mph". You obviously either didn't quite get what the formula represented or I wasn't clear enough about what the formula was. Either way, I was happy to provide a clarification.

You like to argue a lot. So much that you feel the need to put arguments in my mouth and assign positions to me that I never made or took. Your whole post is in very bad faith.

Everything I wrote I believe to be a fair representation of your argument. It all followed directly from what you said. You are welcome to be specific and tell me what I said that was not what you said.

I will try again: Your initial maths was wrong. You used purposefully abstract measurements of time and distance to put an artificial restriction on movement.

Abstract doesn't mean you can't base an argument on them. Just because Extreme range band is described as "about the furthest you can shout" rather than say 300m, doesn't mean you can't say that calling it eight miles isn't wrong. Maths deals with abstracts all the time. We call them boundaries or ranges. It's why I wrote "about 12mph at most" rather than "8mph". What I wrote doesn't become invalid just because I don't have a high degree of precision provided. The principle remains valid. And besides, it was bradknowles' who introduced this in order to bolster his position that the AT-AT must have flown. All I did was plug in some rough numbers based on the actual terms used in the book and show it didn't imply hurtling AT-ATs at all.

You are muddling up 'Imprecise' with 'Incorrect'. They are not synonyms and in fact mathematics deals with the imprecise all the time.

I objected to that, now you claim you meant the opposite. Which is fine, but one can only discuss what you wrote, not what you imagined you wrote.

I clarified what I wrote when I saw you didn't see what I meant. If you were less adversarial you might regard that as a good thing that helps us discuss the actual argument, rather than something to attack me over.

Feel free to discuss further things with this imaginary version of me in your head, but please keep me out of it. I never said maths is wrong, I said your maths is wrong, which I have shown above. I never said I supported anyone in this argument, I specifically said I only take objection to your bad maths.

Well now it's clarified and you understood what I meant.

You seem more interested in arguing over whether my wording was acceptable or not than whether the argument we're discussing is valid.

Because, again, one can only argue with what you said. I objected to your initial post because it introduced an artificial constraint on speed not inherent to the rules. And it also comes from a point of specifics about time and distance that is not in the rules at all; it actually contradicts the rules as written (see below).

You are muddling up 'Imprecise' with 'Incorrect'. They are not synonyms and in fact mathematics deals with the imprecise all the time.

You were not imprecise, you actually were very precise in stating that the power " at most moves them around 12 miles per hour ", which is quite a precise maximum velocity. You meant minimum, I get that now, but switching maximum for minimum is not imprecise, it is incorrect. I cannot believe that you are actually claiming that confusing maximum and minimum is just being imprecise - that is cringe-worthy.

The overall argument is that the GM can decide, to which I agree. The specific argument hinges on plugging in specific times and distances into a system that is supposed to be very abstract. I see where you coming from, by using the maximums you try to arrive at the slowest speed possible. Personally, I find that quite unconvincing, because the rules actually tell us that time and distance is not defined in that manner for a very good reason. If I were to make your point, I would simply quote the rules:

Rounds can last for roughly a minute or so in time, although the elapsed time is deliberately not specified.

See, time is deliberately not specified, not even to the often-cited minute, so it is all up the GM (and players). They can last for roughly a minute. Can last, not have to last; and it is roughly a minute or so, which can be longer or shorter. This is so vague that using exactly one minute for anything results in a very weak argument, even if we ignore that the authors specifically tell us that the elapsed time is deliberately not specified. I will repeat that, because that qualifier is immensely important and yet seems to be ignored often: elapsed time is deliberately not specified . So saying rounds last one minute obviously goes against both the rules as written and their spirit.

And while this pretty much invalidates your maths (you plugged in specific values for variables that are deliberately not specified to arrive at a completely arbitrary result; I can plug in completely different values to arrive at very different result and still be within the rules of the game, which shows how useless your maths is), it also supports the "GM decides" argument. Because time and distance are deliberately not defined in a manner that allows to calculate speeds, the rules allow us to fit them to our own vision of the Star Wars universe. You want AT-ATs whizzing around? Cool, rounds can be short and AT-ATs zip around. You do not like that? Cool, it is not possible, rounds can be long and AT-ATs fly slowly. The only thing that needs to be done is making sure that everyone in your group understands and plays with the same assumptions and all is hunky dory.

Wow, I really did not want to get sucked into this whole argument, I only wanted to show that your 12 mp/h maximum speed is not only incorrect but also quite ridiculous, which it is. The 12 mp/h minimum is a little better, at least as long as we ignore pretty much everything the books tell us about how the system is supposed to work.

You are muddling up 'Imprecise' with 'Incorrect'. They are not synonyms and in fact mathematics deals with the imprecise all the time.

You were not imprecise, you actually were very precise in stating that the power " at most moves them around 12 miles per hour ", which is quite a precise maximum velocity.

'Around 12mph or over' is not me being "very precise". It sets a lower bound. One based on a reasonable interpretation of a round being about a minute long and Extreme range being about as far as you can shout. I was clear on this from the start and it's why I have always used qualifiers such as "at most", "around" and "minimum" all along. You are the one who keeps insisting that I was trying to be precise, so far as I can see so that you can condemn me for not being so. My posts are right back up there for anyone to read.

It also misses the point. Below you start talking about how you could have AT-ATs whizzing around at any speed you want under the rules. It's irrelevant because the argument is about whether or not you have to have this because of the rules. And you don't. Again, it was bradknowles who argued that AT-ATs must be shooting along because you could move it to Extreme range. I just showed that this didn't follow. You're arguing as if I say AT-ATs must move at speed X. What I actually did was use some very basic estimates and maths to show that there is no such requirement and its GM choice to describe it as such. You writing about how you can have AT-ATs whizzing around is actually supporting my point, though you seem not to realize it.

As I said before, just because the terms are left vague, doesn't mean you can't work with them within reasonable limits. The fact that the book describes Extreme range as "around as far as you can shout", doesn't mean put in any value you want, it means use a little common sense and what feels right for the story. All I did was give some rough boundaries on what a normal expectation of Extreme range and a round is. And I am absolutely fine with doing so - it's what GMs do all the time.

You meant minimum, I get that now, but switching maximum for minimum is not imprecise, it is incorrect. I cannot believe that you are actually claiming that confusing maximum and minimum is just being imprecise - that is cringe-worthy.

But I don't claim that maximum and minimum are other than what they are. I state that you misunderstood what I wrote which is a very different thing. I gave a formula for the rough minimum you could describe the AT-AT as moving at and still be consistent with the rules. I said that the formula gives around 12mph at most. You didn't understand that the formula was giving a minimum value and thought I was writing that the AT-AT can move at 12mph at most. I wasn't. When you raised this, I provided a clarification and agreed that if what the formula was didn't quite click, that it could well be ambiguous. And there it should have ended. Could have ended. But as far as I can see you wish to make this an epic point of battle even though you now know perfectly well what I meant and that what I wrote actually does make sense in the context I wrote it once it is understood. But most importantly of all, the misunderstanding has little to no relevance to the argument once it is cleared up. If you truly wanted to debate the Move power, we could move on. Instead your goal seems to be to prove someone on the Internet is wrong and you are right. I don't see the point. I've explained what I meant, I didn't mistype, you just read it incorrectly. This is not a big deal unless you want it to be.

The overall argument is that the GM can decide, to which I agree. The specific argument hinges on plugging in specific times and distances into a system that is supposed to be very abstract. I see where you coming from, by using the maximums you try to arrive at the slowest speed possible. Personally, I find that quite unconvincing, because the rules actually tell us that time and distance is not defined in that manner for a very good reason. If I were to make your point, I would simply quote the rules:

Rounds can last for roughly a minute or so in time, although the elapsed time is deliberately not specified.

See, time is deliberately not specified, not even to the often-cited minute, so it is all up the GM (and players). They can last for roughly a minute. Can last, not have to last; and it is roughly a minute or so, which can be longer or shorter. This is so vague that using exactly one minute for anything results in a very weak argument, even if we ignore that the authors specifically tell us that the elapsed time is deliberately not specified. I will repeat that, because that qualifier is immensely important and yet seems to be ignored often: elapsed time is deliberately not specified . So saying rounds last one minute obviously goes against both the rules as written and their spirit.

All of which is you supporting my argument that if a GM chooses to describe an AT-AT flying along like a bullet train, it's because of a choice by them, not something that the rules require of them and therefore they shouldn't blame the rules for them adding something they don't like.

And while this pretty much invalidates your maths (you plugged in specific values for variables that are deliberately not specified to arrive at a completely arbitrary result; I can plug in completely different values to arrive at very different result and still be within the rules of the game, which shows how useless your maths is),

No, you can't just plug in any variables you like. Plug in too low and you would have an AT-AT end up 5m away which plainly isn't "about the furthest you could shout". You can't say "I've decided a round is 3 seconds" when that leads to someone repairing a speeder engine or removing a suit of laminate armour in that time. Again, wiggle room provided by the game to make it play better and feel atmospheric does not mean that rough calculations are not possible. Again, you are confusing 'Imprecise' with 'Incorrect'.

Your determination to call my maths "useless" or try to prove what I wrote is wrong because you misread it, is leading you into adopting an unsupportable position. It is perfectly fine to use some basic logic around the books rough descriptions. A round doesn't have to be sixty seconds, the furthest you can shout doesn't have to be 1/5th of a mile. But you can say that based on the book these are reasonable choices and work from them. And then you arrive at the conclusion that you're not forced to have AT-ATs hurtling about which was bradknowles' argument.

Wow, I really did not want to get sucked into this whole argument, I only wanted to show that your 12 mp/h maximum speed is not only incorrect but also quite ridiculous, which it is. The 12 mp/h minimum is a little better, at least as long as we ignore pretty much everything the books tell us about how the system is supposed to work.

I've ignored nothing in the book. Everything I wrote used the book as a basis. Do you not get that it was not me who used the idea that you could calculate how fast the AT-AT was moving in order to show that it must be going at great speed? All you're arguing with is someone who took their argument and showed why it didn't work.

Resurrecting the thread, I am thinking of implementing the following house rules:

1)the jury rigged talent can't be used on the autofire quality.

2)the pressure points talent can't be used with two weapon fighting.

3)the pressure points talent ignores medicine ranks +1 soak instead.

4)the jury rigged talent can't be used on the linked quality.

I don't know what to do with the mono edged crit 1 vibro weapon + several lethal blows resulting into easy 100+ critical hits.

I don't know what to do with the mono edged crit 1 vibro weapon + several lethal blows resulting into easy 100+ critical hits.

This:

If you have the Dangerous Covenents book, beware the Heavy with an HOB Heavy Repeating Blaster.

Well, I am going to vote this as the best example of light side-dark side conversion within a forum topic. As an interested reader, it went from super helpful to one of the worst bickering threads I have seen in quite some team. Kudos!

Yowzers!

Resurrecting the thread, I am thinking of implementing the following house rules:

1)the jury rigged talent can't be used on the autofire quality.

2)the pressure points talent can't be used with two weapon fighting.

3)the pressure points talent ignores medicine ranks +1 soak instead.

4)the jury rigged talent can't be used on the linked quality.

I don't know what to do with the mono edged crit 1 vibro weapon + several lethal blows resulting into easy 100+ critical hits.

1) Congradultation, you just made jury rigged talent useless. Why not put Blast quality in your list while you are here?

2) I am far from my book but does Pressure point only work with brawl attack? Wich brawl weapon are that broken that you feel the need to house rule it?

As a GM, I really started mixing up my encounters to mitigate power builds and/or power gaming. One adventure finale could be a blaster shootout, the next adventure finale could be starfighter combat, the next could be underwater melee combat, etc. I feel, as GM's, we can at least curtail players from power gaming by consistently mixing things up.

Recently, when creating an adventure, I've also been looking at all the skills on the character sheet and striving to incorporate them all. After all, if for example, you never have your players make Athletics rolls, then your players may be less inclined to invest precious XP in that skill. Conversely, I've lately been putting my players in situations where they use most, if not all, their skills and this has resulted in my players spreading around their XP more.

My group and I prefer to play the game RAW, no house rules. So this solution has worked well for us.

Semper Fi.