On 1/29/2017 at 0:37 PM, politicfish said:

I even had a droid once who decided to remove and sell the life-support system on his ship since he didn't require oxygen.

Well that's one way to secure your starship against theft.

3 minutes ago, Aetrion said:

I like Jedi just fine, I just don't like that there is no limit to how many force dice you can have because it doesn't encourage people to make broad characters in long running games. I also like most of the force powers just fine, I just think Move was written for EotE way back when and keeping it backwards compatible has deprived us of more specific and balanced powers in F&D, and some of the dark/light requirements are a bit extreme. I also like hardpoints just fine for the purpose of making modifications to the ship's actual characteristics, they just become stupid when you're talking about how many hardpoints it takes to serve nice food on board.

You forgot the morality system. I think that system is also extremely weak, because it would make people who say mean things three times a session fall to the dark side, while people who murder a child every year at their birthday party would be paragons of light for the other 11 months of the year.

Other things: The defense system is weird because it's rarely clear what stacks and what doesn't. Taking cover is way too weak of a move, leaving the game without any decent defensive plays you can make that don't cost strain and require a heap of talents. Ship shields just adding black dice completely contradicts how people seem to treat shields in the movies and shows, where they are more like star trek shields and serve as a form of ablative armor that is generated from energy fields. Oh, and personal scale really needs to have rules that allow you to add a similar effect to "massive" to resisting various weapon effects.

So, yea, that's pretty much the list of stuff I don't like about this game.

What I do like about the game?

Uhh... everything else.

There is a limit on how many force dice you can have. It is called getting to the bottom of the tree+25 or so which is a very very significant XP investment. gettinf to 3 force rating is difficult. even with a class like Seer.

16 minutes ago, Aetrion said:

I like Jedi just fine, I just don't like that there is no limit to how many force dice you can have because it doesn't encourage people to make broad characters in long running games.

Oh, but the system does encourage broad characters. Anyone who's sole use of his XP is to attain more and more force dice will quickly find that he can't use them. What's the point of having 5, 6 or more force dice if you don't have the force powers to spend them on?

2 minutes ago, papy72 said:

Oh, but the system does encourage broad characters. Anyone who's sole use of his XP is to attain more and more force dice will quickly find that he can't use them. What's the point of having 5, 6 or more force dice if you don't have the force powers to spend them on?

Also what is the point in having them if your skills make it so you can't do anything with those force powers...

3 hours ago, ShadoWarrior said:

This is where house rules for conversion comes in. You don't just use space, there is also a cost associated with the conversion. That cost would include "wiring".

Yeah, you need requirements for power, environmental controls, hull integrity, cpu cycles, power bandwidth, network bandwidth, thrust per weight ratios to calculate loss of speed and handling, and at best you can flexible reroute some of those resources to operate different systems at different performance levels. But if you do all this, we are certainly not talking about an simple attachment system which can install you on the fly two quad laser cannons instead of a fully equipped retro-fitted hangar bay module. No, in this case we are talking about fundamentally and permanently changing the design of the ship. Which sounds like a fine job for for an starship engineer and not like something you can do without even a mechanic check. ;-)

Currently we have indeed no rules for this kind of modifications and can only modify in such way the attachments themselves. (Now that modding of attachments themselves is a super rudimentary system, so don't get your hopes to high for the engineeringing book, we most likely get a similar simplified system like for the other crafting options)

2 hours ago, Desslok said:

Fine. Do whatever you like.

You don't like Jedi, you don't like the force powers, you don't like hardpoints - what the hell about the system do you like?

Apparently not this one.

1 hour ago, papy72 said:

Oh, but the system does encourage broad characters. Anyone who's sole use of his XP is to attain more and more force dice will quickly find that he can't use them. What's the point of having 5, 6 or more force dice if you don't have the force powers to spend them on?

That's a complete strawman argument, because the point I'm making isn't that the system encourages people to spend all their XP on only force ratings. The point I'm making is that if you have a good variety of things you can use force dice on every additional force rating you go after stacks with everything you can already do, with no effective limit, and that discourages people from building a character sideways. There is no point at which Palpatine could go for Politico without missing out on being the most powerful force user he can be. Becoming a hermit and taming a monkeylizard would make him stronger, but actually having the politician class, no dice - literally!

And the "discussion" has now veered wildly off the original topic.

13 minutes ago, Aetrion said:

That's a complete strawman argument, because the point I'm making isn't that the system encourages people to spend all their XP on only force ratings. The point I'm making is that if you have a good variety of things you can use force dice on every additional force rating you go after stacks with everything you can already do, with no effective limit, and that discourages people from building a character sideways. There is no point at which Palpatine could go for Politico without missing out on being the most powerful force user he can be. Becoming a hermit and taming a monkeylizard would make him stronger, but actually having the politician class, no dice - literally!

Yeah, about that. I'm now 150-ish points further along from the last time we went around this mulberry bush and I've still not been rendered obsolete in a room full of Jedi.

That's an entirely different argument.

2 minutes ago, Aetrion said:

That's an entirely different argument.

Ok, then let's, just say that a starfighter ace usually will ignore most force rating specs to get, while lightsaber specs tend to come without force rating, meaning that even lightsaber dudes are mostly not getting those force rating specs, except simply one which has two force rating talents in the tree to save xp.

How those who actually want focus on their force powers … spend first significant amounts of xp on that force powers and naturally take indeed the force rating specs first and foremast, big surprise that the mage take more mage specs ;-)
And speaking of Palpatine, I would assume that half his specs come actually without force rating as he is an amazing lightsaber duellist …

5 hours ago, ShadoWarrior said:

So, per RAW, with the turbolasers on a Nebulon-B is 1 HP used for all 12, or 2 HP since they're grouped into two 6-gun batteries? (Disregarding the recent dev ruling that stock weapons cannot be recovered for HP. I'm just curious if one were building the ship from the keel up.)

Since everyone else has elected to remain off-topic, how about if someone will please answer the above, also off-topic, question I asked on the previous page? Please?

BTW from which source is that Onboard Amenities Unit? A kitchen sounds pretty much required as part of a starship which offers supply in weeks, months and years.

edit: Fly Casual. Ok, I am saying it now, this might be the most ridiculous and overpriced and gamey attachments of the whole system, which I could until now happily ignore. Now it can not be unseen and will haunt me forever and mock the whole system with its price of 1 hardpoint, while upgrading the weapons with autonomous droid brains cost you zero hardpoints which are in the freaking same book.

Thanks the maker, GMs can ignore silly stuff and just reduce the cost of this to zero and remove the charm bonus.

1 minute ago, SEApocalypse said:

BTW from which source is that Onboard Amenities Unit? A kitchen sounds pretty much required as part of a starship which offers supply in weeks, months and years.

Fly Casual, Page 63

It's described as essentially making sure your ship is an inviting home, and upgrades charm, deception and negotiation checks on board the ship once.

That's the sort of item where I feel like it should just be furniture, because the game doesn't contain anything you could put into an actual home that would give you the same bonus unless you treat a building as an entity with vehicle stats sans locomotion.

4 minutes ago, Aetrion said:

Fly Casual, Page 63

It's described as essentially making sure your ship is an inviting home, and upgrades charm, deception and negotiation checks on board the ship once.

That's the sort of item where I feel like it should just be furniture, because the game doesn't contain anything you could put into an actual home that would give you the same bonus unless you treat a building as an entity with vehicle stats sans locomotion.

Thanks, I just found it on http://swrpg.viluppo.net/transportation/vehicleattachments/1922/

And I totally agree, this is btw one of the big weaknesses of the system, this disturbing urge of the developers to give everything mechanical meaning. Personal "whatever" kit, at least a boost dice. Hammer of ship repair +1, another boost dice, glue cannon of glueyness "+1 upgrade on your pool", etc it is utterly ridiculous.

Tip: Always buy the owner's manual for your starship, because apparently they don't come with them and the boost is huge

It's catering to players that won't spend money unless there's a mechanical benefit to what they're buying. Which is, sadly, most. And since most attachments cost CHPs, which are highly limited in availability, can you really blame players? "Fluff" attachments wouldn't need to provide a mechanical benefit if the devs had created a system in which ships had more "HPs" (or whatever you want to call them) that could be used for "cosmetic" enhancements. Of course a GM is also free to alter the attachment and say it costs no HP but also provides no mechanical benefit. I wonder how many players would bother with it then? Rhetorical question: how many of your players bother to buy more than one set of clothes? Do they dress like Padme and Leia (changing outfits), or like Han (who never does)?

39 minutes ago, ShadoWarrior said:

It's catering to players that won't spend money unless there's a mechanical benefit to what they're buying. Which is, sadly, most. And since most attachments cost CHPs, which are highly limited in availability, can you really blame players? "Fluff" attachments wouldn't need to provide a mechanical benefit if the devs had created a system in which ships had more "HPs" (or whatever you want to call them) that could be used for "cosmetic" enhancements. Of course a GM is also free to alter the attachment and say it costs no HP but also provides no mechanical benefit. I wonder how many players would bother with it then? Rhetorical question: how many of your players bother to buy more than one set of clothes? Do they dress like Padme and Leia (changing outfits), or like Han (who never does)?

Thing is, there are plenty of of attachments with zero hp cost and huge to medium mechanical benefits, while something as a freaking kitchen/house bar needs a freaking 1 hp and brings a minor mechanical benefit and the rules are full of this nonsense, down to specific tools. So I am not criticising the HP system, but the HP cost and balance of a lot of the attachments.
And I like rhetorical questions: All players in the group have multiple outfits, actually we have even multiple sets of armor, weapons and starships, based on the occasion. This includes even the freaking astromech unit.

13 minutes ago, ShadoWarrior said:

It's catering to players that won't spend money unless there's a mechanical benefit to what they're buying. Which is, sadly, most. And since most attachments cost CHPs, which are highly limited in availability, can you really blame players? "Fluff" attachments wouldn't need to provide a mechanical benefit if the devs had created a system in which ships had more "HPs" (or whatever you want to call them) that could be used for "cosmetic" enhancements. Of course a GM is also free to alter the attachment and say it costs no HP but also provides no mechanical benefit. I wonder how many players would bother with it then? Rhetorical question: how many of your players bother to buy more than one set of clothes? Do they dress like Padme and Leia (changing outfits), or like Han (who never does)?

That's definitely true, there is a huge number of things in the game that give boosts when they should be taking away setbacks, or enable the checks in the first place.

I mean, when we're talking about something like a command center. For one, I don't think you should be able to throw your leadership at a mass combat check in the first place unless you're at a place where you can coordinate all your troops, so a command center is what you need to take the check, not what you need to upgrade the roll. Secondly, it's absurd to assume a Star Destroyer that is so big that it takes Sil 4 dumps before it goes to hyperspace doesn't have briefing rooms and command centers for the legion of stormtroopers and several squadrons of TIE fighters it carries. Of course there is some place on board where an operator stays in touch with each unit, and runs the information up the chain of command so they can give orders.

If I want to describe a ship as being luxurious or having a state of the art command center on board I don't really want to have to worry about codified mechanical bonuses or having to specifically modify the ship for it. For the most part that's just flavor.

Onboard amenities? That's literally a 750 credit rarity 3 item. Based on the price alone it can't be more than a small kitchenette, but if you installed it on the Executor it would suddenly be a better place to negotiate. Like, someone jumps in the hover train and takes it all the way down to deck 35, section 76B, junction 13 where that really nice mini fridge/microwave combo was installed to get a soda for IG-88 so he takes the contract.

3 hours ago, ShadoWarrior said:

Since everyone else has elected to remain off-topic, how about if someone will please answer the above, also off-topic, question I asked on the previous page? Please?

My understanding is the 12 turbolasers on the Neb-B are considered a single weapon system, and thus removing them would be worth 1 hard point. Or perhaps stated better, since their is a dev ruling you can't get HPs back for starting weapons, adding 12 Turbolasers to a Neb-B, even with the two different firing arcs, would be 1 HP, as they are considered a single weapon system.

3 minutes ago, Magnus Arcanus said:

adding 12 Turbolasers to a Neb-B, even with the two different firing arcs, would be 1 HP, as they are considered a single weapon system.

Thank you. It helps to understand the RAW, even if I may choose to house rule changes to it. This leads me to yet another question. Since by the RAW you can add a dozen weapons of some type and only eat up one CHP, other than cost (and GMs with common sense) what prevents players from packing Sil-5 and Sil-6 vessels with huge batteries of turbolasers?

Just now, ShadoWarrior said:

Thank you. It helps to understand the RAW, even if I may choose to house rule changes to it. This leads me to yet another question. Since by the RAW you can add a dozen weapons of some type and only eat up one CHP, other than cost (and GMs with common sense) what prevents players from packing Sil-5 and Sil-6 vessels with huge batteries of turbolasers?

Well if they have enough credits to do it, and the GM isn't going to stop them, then nothing prevents the players from doing it. But the GM should stop unreasonable rules exploitation from taking place, and page 294 of the EoE corebook, under "rules adjuication" gives the GM the right to stop any silliness.

And yes it is a balancing act between letting your players have their fun versus allowing rules abuse.

That's what I expected, and was afraid, that you'd say. The problem is that all too often it's hard to draw that line and maintain play balance. One usually ends up having to err far on the side of caution, to keep players from breaking the system and blowing through opponents. In both Saga and FFG it seems that you can create insanely powerful ships and still stay within the RAW. I had thought that FFG had fixed that, but I see that I was mistaken. In Saga you could do it because of converting space to HPs. In FFG it's having no RAW limit on how many identical weapons can be mounted per HP. Sad. Well, at least FFG is easier to tweak than Saga was.

Thanks again.

Wouldn't you just be adding a really high linked value which you'd need absurdly good rolls to make use of, though?

No. The weapons on a Nebulon-B, to continue with the example, are not linked. A player could use a Sil-5 or 6 vessel as a basic frame, mount a few dozen turbolasers (assuming an idiot GM) and then have every weapon fire independently at a target. Poof, there goes that pesky ISD. Only limit is cash. Because even crew for all those guns is no problem when using droid gunners. Never underestimate the cleverness of munchkin / power-gamers.

Yea, that seems pretty broken too. I guess having an actual system for weapons capacity wouldn't be such a bad thing to counteract installing a battery of guns on a single hardpoint.

Even if you rule that one hardpoint is only one weapon though you can pretty easily drop one-shot capability against star destroyers in a big ship by just replacing all the fluff guns with heavy torpedo launchers.