The warden talent precision strike is worded thus

"When the character inflicts a Critical Injury with a Brawl, Melee or Lightsaber weapon, he may suffer 1 strain to change the result to any Easy Critical Injury result."

So far specifically we are talking close range weaponry or unarmed. Now moving on to the rest.

"Additionally, whenever the character defeats a minion or rival NPC, he may choose to do so by nonlethal means, even if the environment or exceptional circumstances would make it very difficult or impossible."

This last part doesnt specify the type of weapon. So my question is this, given that this is likely an improbable or impossible circumstance, would a Warden with this talent firing a rocket launcher at a group of rivals or minions be able to use this talent. The talent seems to suggest a big resounding YES.

What do you think.

You'd still need to be using a Brawl, Melee, or Lightsaber weapon for that second part.

FFG tends not to get into heavy specifics in regards to talents, generally assuming the players and GMs are intelligent enough to make certain connections and implied meanings without needing to have their hands held.

The last part has the word "additionally" which indicates that it is an extra effect of the talent that replaces the default effect when it comes to dealing with minions and rivals, who when defeated are most often assumed to be dead, especially minions who automatically go down upon suffering a critical injury.

So you do still need to be using a weapon from the requisite list provided in the first part of the talent in order to benefit from the later part. So no using this talent with rocket launchers or other forms of explosives, which anyone with practical experience with those types of weapons will tell you that "precision" isn't one of the first words to come to mind with explosive ordinance.

That is what I think however FFGf haveavr been very specific with wording before in the full description of talents and would normally have specified whenever you kill x with weapon type y and z in the past. So RAW it would apply, if you follow the flow of the writing of the talent.My intention is to try and see what rule should be RAI because RAW it definitely applies in all situations except when you are fighting a nemesis.

I second what Donovan said, the wording works in a way of placing the qualifier over everything in the talent of Brawl, melee, and lightsaber checks. The lack of reiterating this qualifier does not leave the secondary half of the effect open ended to any kind of attack.

The way im looking at it , is that its worded when x happens y happens. End of part1

The word additionally gives an addition to to the talent not an addition to the previous sentence. The inclusion of the full stop and even a new paragraph is separating the two different effects of the talent. If you were to take the sentence on its own it is clear it applies to any rival or minion kill. The problem lies with the word additionally if however it applies, as you both say to the previous part then it should also apply only when you cause a critical and spend the 1 Strain to drop it to an easy result, this definitely does not make sense.

For the record im not saying one over the other, when I first read it I took the same meaning it was only after reading it again it became ambiguous and to me look like 1 effect is listed and additionally a second unrelated effect is listed. Either its this way or the additional effect is tied to the original effect (ie the crit) also

You could submit the question for the Devs. Your question has merit.

You can always ask the devs but I'm not getting the same interpretation you are out of that. It seems specifically themed to revolve around those specific skills and seems a bit of a stretch to then move on to expand it to any attack skill after that. I don't think the separation of the paragraph nor the term additionally remove former said limitation, I think the separation of a paragraph is merely there to relate the secondary effect but the word additionally is there to tie in the formers limit.

Thats my problem, I cant understand the interpretation im reading, and believe it should be as you say.

I'm with Syrath on this one, actually. The Stunning Blow talent already lets a character "subdue" NPCs non-lethally with lethal melee weapons via Strain damage. Likewise the same can be said for most brawl weapons anyway. "Precision Strike", to me, is that character that knows how to shoot a guy in the leg without kill him, or toss a grenade just high enough that it shell-shocks his foes instead of killing them. Does it make sense? Not really. But that's what makes it heroic, right?

You'll also notice that similarly worded talents like Deft Maker ("In Addition") are used to separate two different parts of a talent. In the case of Deft Maker, it denotes one part of the talent that benefits from multiple ranks, and another that doesn't. I would likewise think that the use of "additionally" in Precision Strike denotes that the talent provide two separate benefits.

I'm with Syrath on this one, actually. The Stunning Blow talent already lets a character "subdue" NPCs non-lethally with lethal melee weapons via Strain damage. Likewise the same can be said for most brawl weapons anyway. "Precision Strike", to me, is that character that knows how to shoot a guy in the leg without kill him, or toss a grenade just high enough that it shell-shocks his foes instead of killing them. Does it make sense? Not really. But that's what makes it heroic, right?

You'll also notice that similarly worded talents like Deft Maker ("In Addition") are used to separate two different parts of a talent. In the case of Deft Maker, it denotes one part of the talent that benefits from multiple ranks, and another that doesn't. I would likewise think that the use of "additionally" in Precision Strike denotes that the talent provide two separate benefits.

In the future, we may see a version (perhaps Precision Shot) that applies to ranged attacks.

I can definitely understand the talent both ways. I have submitted a question for the devs and still await the answerr. I wish I had noticed the full description of the talent before the order 66 special on the book as I would have submitted it then. I had only read the briefer description on the warden page before. As a Gm even if it applied to ranged attacks I'd house rule gunnery as being out of the scope of the talent, however Im with jasonco2 on how it is intended to work, going by the wording of the talent, however ther have been similarstyle errors that have been in the books before.

Common sense says it's melee only by the talent's name: Precision Strike . If I told someone, "I struck a man with my gun," few people would wonder if I put a bullet in him, because striking implies melee. If I had shot the man, I would say, "I shot a man with my gun." The first half of the description also supports this idea by making the effect conditional on Lightsaber, Melee, or Brawl checks. I don't strike someone with a grenade, or strike someone with turbolasers, or strike someone with a blaster. I strike a man with something melee-esque, but I throw a grenade at someone, shoot them with turbolasers, and shoot them with a blaster.

That's a very "Spirit of the rules" interpretation over "Letter of the law," but it's my two cents.

Stunning blow itself then by the spirit of the name should only apply to bludgeon weapons since you cant cause a blow with an edged weapon

Suppressing fire specifies combat checks and not ranged combat checks.

I could go on with a list of generic talent titles that go against that train of thought

Grapple doesnt require a brawl check , blind spot allows you to make melee checks with advantage while in cover (not specifically ranged checks). Anatomy lessons allows you to do extra damage against non organics. Reflect doesnt actually involve reflecting a strike since you cant reflect half the strike, although in this case it couod be narrated as avoidance (in the case of a single sniper shot) or reflecting half of the hitsinthe case of a barrage of shots, depending on the narrative. Fine tuning doesnt actually require tuning a component, Healing trance doesnt require you to be in a trance. I think you get the point.

Ultimately the wording defines what I think it is, thetalent title here is irrelevant as has been shown on my post above, the only problem is that the first half of the talent specifies a weapon type, the second doesnt. What im trying to accertain, and hopefully get a dev answer, is whether the wording is correct, in which case it applies to all combat checks, deliberately vague (thereby open to interpretation by the gm) or is the wording incorrect and requiring errata'd. Im open to all 3. Ultimately its down to the individual GM anyway.

With regards to the word strike, if you apply your thinking Intuitive Strike, doesnt work since it applies specifically to vehicle weapons, so that particular point actually backs up the wording that it also applies to any combat check

Yikes, point made... I was just trying to contribute a new perspective that wasn't solely focused on the grammar, in case anyone thought that to be worthwhile. I didn't mean to touch any nerves (if a triple-post means you're made or frustrated - I don't want to assume anything from text alone).

Didnt mean to triple post, just came across more examples , the titles of the talents are anything but specific, perhaps a trifle overdone though

Eh, I'd allow the second bit with guns (although the Warden isn't a shooty spec). I don't see why not. I certainly understand those who wouldn't though.

This rule-set leaves a LOT to individual interpretation... as might be expected for a narrative game that has some purely narrative Signature abilities.

And for me, that's a feature, not a bug. It's not a competitive game like Warhammer, where rules have to be precise and exact to ensure a fair playing field for everyone.

I'm always interested in what the devs intention was in creating rules, but I don't treat their interpretations as holy writ either.

The intention of this talent seems to be 'bring 'em back alive', so I'd have no problems with the character using this to shoot someone in the leg rather than the head (the second bit rather than the first; if they crit him to death he's dead). But YMMV.

I'm with Syrath on this one...

I think the second part is a stand alone effect, so it can be applied to ranged weapons also.

Aye, upon reading it I also believe the second part is a standalone effect; just unspecified in the short description.

Still no answer from the devs its been over a week since I contacted the support

Submit for Questons from the Edge on the Order 66 podcast boards over on d20radio.com

Still no answer from the devs its been over a week since I contacted the support

Have you used the right channel to send Sam the question or just regular support who might not even have access tot he developers?

Still no answer from the devs its been over a week since I contacted the support

Often Sam will let Dev Questions build up and answer them in batches. It's not unusual for a couple of weeks to go by before you get an answer.

It was through the support page . Ive used it once before a long time ago. Answer was quicker then, although that was probably chance