21 hours ago, SEApocalypse said:

I think this is the wrong way to look at it. There are three fluffs, AoR, FaD, EoE, but they are all one system. So making the choice to stay just within one fluff is an odd one, because the themes of all three settings overlap and thus do the books. Riding, Driving, Flying, Diving, everything vehicle related is summarized in Stay on Target, because the main career for this stuff is the ace, which fits as well to include space and horse jockeys in the same book, especially as riding mounts are handled as vehicles, with all the advantages and disadvantages that comes with it. The same can be said about all other career books. If the focus activity of a career is important for your game, pick the book up. If it is not, you can ignore the extra, does not matter if is is part of your prefered fluff line or not.

Appreciate the commentary.

However, please look at my third point in the above post.

Thanks, SEApocalypse.

5 hours ago, Harlock999 said:

(1) I believe my quote above is something along the lines of "this is really the only area in which I believe FFG dropped the ball." Hardly contempt.

That said, in the past, I have certainly voiced opinions on how FFG's assignment of specs and species stats seem rather arbitrary at times. (E.g., beast rider in Ace, Kyuzo in soldier, martial artist in bounty hunter) But again, not what I would call contempt. In fact, I've often praised FFG for their work on these books! Heck, I own every bit of the EotE line with the exception of the card decks.

(2) So it's "callous disregard" for those of us who purchase only one line to ask for ONE item that, as I've pointed out, would only take up a page's worth of text? And an item that is intrinsically tied to the source material, as I've pointed out? I think you really need to look in the mirror before calling someone out as unreasonable. Especially considering you're angry that someone who didn't spend the hundreds of dollars on material that you did should feel "entitled" to a simple text box and a few statted creatures...

(3) Wow, bet you're a real blast at parties. Ha. Again, you're ignoring the fact that each line in the Star Wars roleplaying system by FFG was originally advertised as a complete game system. As time has worn on, many have seemingly forgotten this little tidbit ... and see all of it as ONE big thing. And that's fine. But... It's, again, not what was originally on the tin.

And, yes, as someone who elected to purchase the one line (whether I'm financially strapped or only interested in the "wild galactic fringe" setting is neither here nor there), I would like to think that FFG - and its playtesters - might be interested to find something (again, only ONE thing IMHO) lacking in one of its lines.

You know what happened when they did include things like this in more than one line? They got tons of complaints. As more people found it more objectionable to have duplicated info in multiple books. So they listened to their customers and don't. And really if this were a Edge book you would buy it. So how is it being an AGE book really that different than it being an edge book?

On 2/7/2017 at 1:26 AM, Daeglan said:

You know what happened when they did include things like this in more than one line? They got tons of complaints. As more people found it more objectionable to have duplicated info in multiple books. So they listened to their customers and don't. And really if this were a Edge book you would buy it. So how is it being an AGE book really that different than it being an edge book?

Because the vast majority of the material in the fighter pilot book isn't viable in an EotE-only campaign.

And seeing as there are Devaronians in the bounty hunter book, I'm hard pressed to believe FFG listened to the "tons of complaints" to avoid having duplicated info in multiple books. Instead, I'm optimistic enough to think the company listens to fans like me ... who make reasoned arguments based on original expectations from the FFG Star Wars license.

Again, a few statted creature mounts and a short text box on mounted combat should not be a problem for anyone. (I'm still hopeful for a Tatooine sector book with info on dewbacks and bantha.)

Mounts weren't included in EotE because EotE doesn't have a career specialization that focuses on interacting with riding animals. Both AoR and F&D do, hence, critter stats in those lines.

Material that's included in career books is material that's developed to support the missions of the various specializations. Arguing that a beast rider specialization should have been included somewhere is a valid point. Arguing that mount rules should have been included though no EotE career supports mounts, is not.

I can only assume the OP is either trolling or just really entitled because the argument is ridiculous. There are plenty of great "complete" RPG system out there that have very minimalist rules. I would argue that as long as the system has giving you the tools to handle a situation, that official mechanics are nice but unnecessary. I have included beast riding in every one of my campaigns for several years now and I have maybe once looked at the official rules.

In the same vein, I don't need a threat/advantage table to know how successful my character was at making dinner. Are there chef character concepts who'd love to have official rules? I'm sure there are. A system, no matter how robust, cannot include official rules for everything every player will want to do. That is why tabletop RPGs have GMs and what separates this from a boardgame.

This OP comments are doubly ridiculous by the fact that riding beasts do exist in a complementary product (AoR & F&D splat books), in supplementary product (creature card deck), and in multiple free, player-made products.

It is fine to be a purist who want's to play only your personal vision of the original trilogy. It's fine to refuse to buy products. It's even fine for you to take that sense of entitlement over to a company's forum and request that they add riding beasts to a future expansion. But you are high on your own farts if you think you're going to find a lot of people who agree with you after all the artificial limitations you impossed on the system.

5 hours ago, Harlock999 said:

Because the vast majority of the material in the fighter pilot book isn't viable in an EotE-only campaign.

And seeing as there are Devaronians in the bounty hunter book, I'm hard pressed to believe FFG listened to the "tons of complaints" to avoid having duplicated info in multiple books. Instead, I'm optimistic enough to think the company listens to fans like me ... who make reasoned arguments based on original expectations from the FFG Star Wars license.

Again, a few statted creature mounts and a short text box on mounted combat should not be a problem for anyone. (I'm still hopeful for a Tatooine sector book with info on dewbacks and bantha.)

By my count, 8 mounts in the beast deck, and again, the beast deck is a marked EoE line product.

On 7.2.2017 at 2:01 AM, Harlock999 said:

And, yes, as someone who elected to purchase the one line (whether I'm financially strapped or only interested in the "wild galactic fringe" setting is neither here nor there), I would like to think that FFG - and its playtesters - might be interested to find something (again, only ONE thing IMHO) lacking in one of its lines.

I ask again: Is the system incomplete because it offers no beast riding? What makes a complete edge of empire system for you? Does the scum of the galaxy need to ride tauntauns to feel complete?

For your third point: Can't argue with that. I really can't, I have two warnings.

BTW: A edge of empire campaign without space combat, now that sounds really odd.

8 hours ago, Harlock999 said:

Because the vast majority of the material in the fighter pilot book isn't viable in an EotE-only campaign.

And seeing as there are Devaronians in the bounty hunter book, I'm hard pressed to believe FFG listened to the "tons of complaints" to avoid having duplicated info in multiple books. Instead, I'm optimistic enough to think the company listens to fans like me ... who make reasoned arguments based on original expectations from the FFG Star Wars license.

Again, a few statted creature mounts and a short text box on mounted combat should not be a problem for anyone. (I'm still hopeful for a Tatooine sector book with info on dewbacks and bantha.)

Actually the vast majority of info is viable in an edge campaign as I see plenty of scum and villainy fighters and pilots. And as has been noted by others mounts are in beast deck including your precious bantha....do you need a Frick engraved invitation?

11 hours ago, Concise Locket said:

Mounts weren't included in EotE because EotE doesn't have a career specialization that focuses on interacting with riding animals. Both AoR and F&D do, hence, critter stats in those lines.

Material that's included in career books is material that's developed to support the missions of the various specializations. Arguing that a beast rider specialization should have been included somewhere is a valid point. Arguing that mount rules should have been included though no EotE career supports mounts, is not.

The Explorer, Colonist, and/or Bounty Hunter books *absolutely* should have included some sort of beast riding specialization.

As that did not happen? And there is no going back now? And playtesters on these boards are adamant about holding FFG to not repeating specializations?

Well, I'm only asking for some statted creature mounts in a book. (Not a freaking card deck.) As well as the most minimalist mounted combat rules. Which should be NO PROBLEM for an upcoming adventure or sector book. Again, it would take up a page at most.

I keep reading these attacks on me: I'm unwilling to just purchase a card deck or a book outside of my campaign line... I'm a troll... I'm entitled... I'm high on my own farts... Yet I have not attacked anyone here. Nor have I attacked FFG. I have only pointed out a small failing in the EotE line, which I would like to see addressed.

I do feel STRONGLY that not including mounts and a bit more clarification on riding beasts in the "Wild West" (!!!) line of Star Wars products is unforgivable. Again, we only have two statted mounts in 12 books! And those creatures were both in the same book.

I sincerely hope this becomes a non-issue with a future BOOK installment.

10 hours ago, 2P51 said:

By my count, 8 mounts in the beast deck, and again, the beast deck is a marked EoE line product.

While I appreciate you continuing to make this suggestion, 2P51, I'd ask you to please read my above post.

Thanks.

Out of idle curiosity, do you not allow any Age and F&D specs in your campaigns and just stick to the Edge line? If not then what is the harm with the occasional outside of the norm book purchase?

I think this discussion has run its course. You've stated your case, and we have also stated our very stong opinions on this. We, and by we I mean those that have commented thus far, have provided you with adequate compromises to reach the solution and you are adamant about maintaining your position and not wanting to compromise at all.

I agree, one page is not too much to ask, and I think that a page talking about it would not go amiss. However, people have cited you towards the creatures of the galaxy adversary deck for stat blocks, and towards the book with the actual beast rider specialisation in it. While these may not be an ideal solution to you, they are a solution to your dilemma.

Frankly, your opinion, that the Edge line is somehow incomplete due to the lack of beast riding and mounted combat rules is laughable due to how specific and niché the idea is. When I think of Star Wars, I do not think of mounts, I think of starfighters, land speeders and other technological means of conveyance. This is my opinion, and while there are aspects and mechanics I would like explored in the game, I am not arrogant enough to think that the system is incomplete due to these missing mechanics. It is also arrogant to think you know better than the people actually making the product, something I stand against in most circumstance due to how obnoxious and rude that comes across in my opinion as a game developer myself.

We are not going to change your mind, and you are not going to change ours it seems as we have also made up our minds. It takes two to tango, and while FFG certainly could have reprinted, or in the future reprint, that material in other books. You likewise could just as easily purchase one of the previously mentioned products yet it is you who decide to stand by the restriction that you placed upon yourself and your game. FFG may have arguably gotten you into this mess, but it is also your own fault for placing arbitrary restrictions that you apparently cannot bend in one reasonable circumstance. You are in a hole and requested a ladder, we are throwing down rope in the absence of a ladder, yet that is not good enough for you.

Honestly I don't even like Beast Rider. Beast Rider is very niche and has no where to really go in Ace. For my tastes BH-Survivalist with its couple ranks of Hunter accomplishes the same thing as Beast Rider and is a way better spec.

59 minutes ago, Harlock999 said:

[...] And playtesters on these boards are adamant about holding FFG to not repeating specializations?[...]

By the time a book has moved into the playtesting phase, the concept for Specs and Species are locked in. There's absolutely nothing a playtester can do but playtest the content.

Some of the writers have commented that they were able to change up the species choice, but these decisions were made prior to the playtesting phase.

1 hour ago, 2P51 said:

Honestly I don't even like Beast Rider. Beast Rider is very niche and has no where to really go in Ace. For my tastes BH-Survivalist with its couple ranks of Hunter accomplishes the same thing as Beast Rider and is a way better spec.

Pretty much this, Big Game Hunter is the other EotE spec that's great for riding.

Riding rules are btw in E-CRB. Chapter III - Skills . This chapter and Chapter IV - Talents can solve about 50% of all questions about the game. It is a shame that the editing of both chapters makes them unreadable. ^-^

15 hours ago, Ebak said:

I think this discussion has run its course. You've stated your case, and we have also stated our very stong opinions on this. We, and by we I mean those that have commented thus far, have provided you with adequate compromises to reach the solution and you are adamant about maintaining your position and not wanting to compromise at all.

I agree, one page is not too much to ask, and I think that a page talking about it would not go amiss. However, people have cited you towards the creatures of the galaxy adversary deck for stat blocks, and towards the book with the actual beast rider specialisation in it. While these may not be an ideal solution to you, they are a solution to your dilemma.

Frankly, your opinion, that the Edge line is somehow incomplete due to the lack of beast riding and mounted combat rules is laughable due to how specific and niché the idea is. When I think of Star Wars, I do not think of mounts, I think of starfighters, land speeders and other technological means of conveyance.

I agree that I have made my case, you have offered help, and I continue to hold onto the hope that some additional info will be included in a future EotE supplement. (Crossing fingers tightly!)

However, the idea that riding beasts are niche? Or laughable? C'mon, now.

Riding beasts are prominently shown in EVERY SINGLE one of the films minus Return of the Jedi and Rogue One. They were also a large component of the old animated series Droids, which bears a strong resemblance to the look/feel of EotE.

Also, riding beasts (i.e., horses) are a HUGE component of the American Western, the primary basis for the EotE line.

I can understand that not every aspect of Star Wars is everyone's cup 'o tea. But let's not discount something because you simply don't like it...

14 hours ago, kaosoe said:

By the time a book has moved into the playtesting phase, the concept for Specs and Species are locked in. There's absolutely nothing a playtester can do but playtest the content.

Some of the writers have commented that they were able to change up the species choice, but these decisions were made prior to the playtesting phase.

Thanks for this.

27 minutes ago, Harlock999 said:

I agree that I have made my case, you have offered help, and I continue to hold onto the hope that some additional info will be included in a future EotE supplement. (Crossing fingers tightly!)

However, the idea that riding beasts are niche? Or laughable? C'mon, now.

Riding beasts are prominently shown in EVERY SINGLE one of the films minus Return of the Jedi and Rogue One. They were also a large component of the old animated series Droids, which bears a strong resemblance to the look/feel of EotE.

Also, riding beasts (i.e., horses) are a HUGE component of the American Western, the primary basis for the EotE line.

I can understand that not every aspect of Star Wars is everyone's cup 'o tea. But let's not discount something because you simply don't like it...

And yet it is not something a lot of star wars gamers were clamouring for. And you have the ability to get them. You have just created an artificial barrier to you getting them and are whining about it.

You do understand that this is like being mad at a restaurant because they don't have tomato soup on their lunch menu. Then when the waiter points out that you are welcome to order the tomato soup from either the dinner menu or the child's menu you refuse because you came for lunch. "The sign on the building says that you serve Lunch here", you say.

The product you want is available without restrictions. It comes in two sizes with two price points. The only thing preventing you from having what you want is a self imposed restriction.

14 hours ago, Harlock999 said:

Riding beasts are prominently shown in EVERY SINGLE one of the films minus Return of the Jedi and Rogue One. They were also a large component of the old animated series Droids, which bears a strong resemblance to the look/feel of EotE.

Also, riding beasts (i.e., horses) are a HUGE component of the American Western, the primary basis for the EotE line.

And all EotE type characters prefered to ride ships and not beast. The bounty hunters, the mercs, the pirates, every single one. They all prefer their own customized and specialist gear and ships over biological solutions. The only ones atual riding beast are a) primitives b) military units when stationed on special environments, be it hoth and the alliance tauntauns or tatooine and the stormtrooper rides or even clone troopers when on some god forsaken place with better adapted creates than standard issued vehicles or the jedi who are one with the environment and prefer the living force over technological solutions. **** space hippies. ;-)

The fringe of the civilized galaxy is still well, civilised enough to use ships and swoops and usually as well dependent on hyperspace travel, so beast are out of question as prefered ride anyway.

The only edge setting which would had make sense to have beast riding in it would have been the colonist book, but I would say that this book is already plenty of full with content, it one of the few splatbooks which are actually not thin on content and I would not mind getting a location book based on different colony settings, which than actually should include a reprint of beast to vehicle conversion rules. But that is not a huge component of the EotE line, not is it a huge element of the canon, it is rather a background drop and even in the western style elements like cade bane the guys are not riding beast, but swoops.

Now if you are interest in riding swoop bikes, you might find Stay on Target a delightful read with plenty of ideas how to make vehicle combat and chases more interesting. ;-)

I think a really interesting adventure could be written around the riding of beasts, that's where I would guess it will appear in Edge (if it does)

On 2/5/2017 at 0:57 PM, Harlock999 said:

Two mounts in one book (out of how many)? And no other info is, again, ridiculous.

Make something up yourself?

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/products/star-wars-roleplaying-accessories/products/creatures-galaxy/

I can do no more to help....

Wait a second - where are you finding that sexy Talent tree? I've been looking for something to pick up the slack ever since Begging for XP went silent, but have found all the replacements wanting.

12 minutes ago, Desslok said:

Wait a second - where are you finding that sexy Talent tree? I've been looking for something to pick up the slack ever since Begging for XP went silent, but have found all the replacements wanting.