16 minutes ago, NicoDavout said:

Is it written in the rules that the grenades do not affect people engaged with the target? I run the game that the grenade damage also covers everyone engaged with the target.

Minimum Range for Blast is engaged, so yeah you are basically "doing it wrong" as you basically trigger blast automatically. Now the idea is that you either did not throw precise enough to hit more targets or that those targets just jump away in time to avoid getting hit by the explosion.

6 minutes ago, SEApocalypse said:

Minimum Range for Blast is engaged, so yeah you are basically "doing it wrong" as you basically trigger blast automatically. Now the idea is that you either did not throw precise enough to hit more targets or that those targets just jump away in time to avoid getting hit by the explosion.

Tfu, I meant, thermals not grenades, because in the description it says that its Blast affects everyone in Short range, so I played that without the Blast it affects everyone engaged cause it is such a powerful weapon (at least in my SW universe).....anyway thanks for the clarification.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEu_U78XFg4

Adjusting the game to what suits your tables canon is anyway the best way to play, though it seems like Pre Vizsla is really supposed to using standard explosives in his fight with Maul, so that is the kind of blast you get from them without triggering blast. For heavier explosions we have quite the powerful explosive charges in the hired-gun career book.

Throwing a grenade at enemy engaged with a friendly target does upgrade check once, per rules about shooting at engaged enemy, correct?

1 hour ago, NicoDavout said:

Throwing a grenade at enemy engaged with a friendly target does upgrade check once, per rules about shooting at engaged enemy, correct?

Correct. Therefore a Despair will hit some other target within the engagement (can be PC or NPC)

3 hours ago, Richardbuxton said:

Correct. Therefore a Despair will hit some other target within the engagement (can be PC or NPC)

Or a GM can activate Blast if there are a lot of PCs and their allies.....sacrificing his lonely stormtrooper ;).

8 hours ago, NicoDavout said:

Throwing a grenade at enemy engaged with a friendly target does upgrade check once, per rules about shooting at engaged enemy, correct?

6 hours ago, Richardbuxton said:

Correct. Therefore a Despair will hit some other target within the engagement (can be PC or NPC)

That's an interesting situation when it comes to Thermal Detonators. I guess it's up to the GM which effect happens?

In addition to the idea mentioned in this thread for toning it down a notch, there's always the GM's last resort: Anything the players can do, the GM can do too. Have thermal dets suddenly start being a fad after the player characters popularize it, and suddenly they're facing down hordes of grenade throwing enemies who are mysteriously unharmed by their friends' grenades.

They might suddenly very quickly come around to moving back towards thermal dets being rarely used and only in specific circumstances.

This seems like a good enough group to get some opinions on a house rule for Blast.

So me and my group find the whole concept that you can through a grenade into a melee and because you choose/cannot activate blast only 1 individual is hurt is both abusive and well stupid. So are idea is to change blast to; On a successful hit with a blast capable weapon, blast activates dealing its blast value plus net successes to targets engaged to the target hit by the weapon. On a failed hit with a blast weapon you may spend 3 advantage to have the weapon deal its blast damage to the original target and each target engaged with them.

As you can see this house rule makes it so that blast is automatic on a success, preventing the potential abusive nature of blast. Now we actually have another personal problem with blast effects and that is the ambiguous nature of engaged range, you could fill a space with engaged combatants getting them all yet two gun men standing the same distance apart are not engage yet you only hit one of them. In fact the only times you really can use a grenade against multiple enemies is because they are engaged with an ally, which means its always better to use a gun then an expensive disposable weapon. (ignoring thermal detonators)

So for our own sanity we included this paragraph to blast; If Blast activates you may spend 2 advantage to include an additional target of your choice within short range of the blast to take the blast damage, and the GM may spend 2 threat to include an additional target of the GMs choice within short range of the blast to take the blast damage, these may be selected multiple times. A target can only take the blast damage once.

As you can see this throws some spice into grenades and actually allows them to be used against multiple non-engaged enemies. Main reason we fill good about this rule is that it functions similar to auto-fire or linked, but instead of a single target or increased difficulty there is a chance the opposition gets to include targets of there choice in the blast.

Now the final part is a bit different, under thermal detonators it mentions that if despair is rolled the detonator hits the thrower instead unless they have an available maneuver to spend to prevent it. So the question here is; would it be reasonable to allow a thrower to pre-spend a maneuver that makes it so they cannot be the/a target of their own blast effect so long as they are currently not engaged with another target?

On 5/11/2017 at 5:12 PM, Leopardao said:

This seems like a good enough group to get some opinions on a house rule for Blast.

So me and my group find the whole concept that you can through a grenade into a melee and because you choose/cannot activate blast only 1 individual is hurt is both abusive and well stupid. So are idea is to change blast to; On a successful hit with a blast capable weapon, blast activates dealing its blast value plus net successes to targets engaged to the target hit by the weapon. On a failed hit with a blast weapon you may spend 3 advantage to have the weapon deal its blast damage to the original target and each target engaged with them.

As you can see this house rule makes it so that blast is automatic on a success, preventing the potential abusive nature of blast. Now we actually have another personal problem with blast effects and that is the ambiguous nature of engaged range, you could fill a space with engaged combatants getting them all yet two gun men standing the same distance apart are not engage yet you only hit one of them. In fact the only times you really can use a grenade against multiple enemies is because they are engaged with an ally, which means its always better to use a gun then an expensive disposable weapon. (ignoring thermal detonators)

So for our own sanity we included this paragraph to blast; If Blast activates you may spend 2 advantage to include an additional target of your choice within short range of the blast to take the blast damage, and the GM may spend 2 threat to include an additional target of the GMs choice within short range of the blast to take the blast damage, these may be selected multiple times. A target can only take the blast damage once.

As you can see this throws some spice into grenades and actually allows them to be used against multiple non-engaged enemies. Main reason we fill good about this rule is that it functions similar to auto-fire or linked, but instead of a single target or increased difficulty there is a chance the opposition gets to include targets of there choice in the blast.

Now the final part is a bit different, under thermal detonators it mentions that if despair is rolled the detonator hits the thrower instead unless they have an available maneuver to spend to prevent it. So the question here is; would it be reasonable to allow a thrower to pre-spend a maneuver that makes it so they cannot be the/a target of their own blast effect so long as they are currently not engaged with another target?

Not sure it's perfect or necessary but on the surface it's a decent house rule. BTW person A can be engaged to person B, and person C can be engaged to person B without person A being engaged to person C... think a Congo line with a bit of space between people in the line

18 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

Not sure it's perfect or necessary but on the surface it's a decent house rule. BTW person A can be engaged to person B, and person C can be engaged to person B without person A being engaged to person C... think a Congo line with a bit of space between people in the line

Understood, and it's almost 100% likely that A and C are allies and B is their enemy, so you are blowing up your ally to blast the enemy.

Anyway;

On the other hand this actually caused way too many arguments early on. Mainly for us it came down to the fact that any engaged range band between enemy and allies is because of HtH combat and is fluid movement between them, so it isn't reasonable to say I'm engaged to B but not C in most cases, not to mention keeping track of who is engaged to who for determining how many maneuvers you must complete to break out of the engagement. Thus we decided that you join/leave the engagement not an individual in it and just have a within reason rule to how big an engagement is before it turns into something else.

Less debate, more fun...plus we don't need help finding something to debate about XP