Having now looked at the book, there are noticeable differences between descriptions (Fluff) and stats of the ships. Did two different people work on each?

Lancer Pursuit Ship: Fluff and Stats do not fit

"able to withstand hard use with irregular maintenance" but only Hull Trauma 20 and System Strain 10
"In addition, they are highly modular, allowing for a broad array of modifications to fit the needs of nearly any user" but only 3 Hard Points

Mandalorian Protectorate Starfighter: Fluff and Weapons do not fit

"A pair of medium laser cannons mounted in the S-foils" but in the stat block it is armed with a pair of LIGHT laser cannons (is this a mistake)

Kihraxz Light Starfighter: Vaksai Mod Package - Wouldn't it have made more sense to include the weapon upgrade in the base modifier...it would have made more sense cost-wise.

Also, hard point costs, some items seem to cost way too many hard points.

I'd like to know why this costs so much:

Enhanced Prisoner Lockup - 3 Hard Points (really...you could get a hanger)

Question on Integrated Holsters Mod: The increase encumbrance by 4, does this apply when worn or only to carry the armor?

Thanks

8 hours ago, Ferretfur said:

Having now looked at the book, there are noticeable differences between descriptions (Fluff) and stats of the ships. Did two different people work on each?

Lancer Pursuit Ship: Fluff and Stats do not fit

"able to withstand hard use with irregular maintenance" but only Hull Trauma 20 and System Strain 10
"In addition, they are highly modular, allowing for a broad array of modifications to fit the needs of nearly any user" but only 3 Hard Points

Just giving my two cents. However, I don't think there is a disconnect between the two...maintenance is not fixing damage in my eyes. Maintenance is all the small niggles you have to deal with during or between hyperspace jumps. Purging the coolant lines, cleaning the air scrubbers, running diagnostics on ship systems. That's maintenance and there is nothing in the game mechanics that forces this. The ship is reliable...it's not tanky, that's what the fluff means.

Ask them if they really wanted to make ND. Because the specs are freaking awesome, but the weapon and armor mods along with the ship mods almost come across as "Here. Here's you crap, try to figure out how to make it work."

It's almost as if whomever wrote the gear looked at characters like Cad Bane, the Fetts, Sabine Wren and almost every Mandalorian ever and decided to treat them like GMPCs. Meaning you don't get what they have.

Start a new thread if you want to discuss it.

I'd like to ask about the two melee weapons, the Peacekeeper and the ion pike. Compared to other, similarly styled and sized weapons (such as the force pike), these are not described as requiring two hands to wield. Is that something that was considered or overlooked when designing and testing these weapons?

Pretty much the last day to get your questions in before our show this Sunday night!

So did anybody listen in on the podcast last night? I was only able to listen up through chapter 2 (I think I had to go about when they started to get into the ship attachments).

As far as my question about the restriction of micro-rockets, I can't say I totally agree with the logic. I mean, when I first read the descriptions, I never got the impression that most micro-rockets are homemade, so the logic came out of left field for me. I guess the trophy armor makes a bit of sense, but not the rockets.

And the armored drop suit is misprinted; silhouette 1, folks.

18 hours ago, Blackbird888 said:

So did anybody listen in on the podcast last night? I was only able to listen up through chapter 2 (I think I had to go about when they started to get into the ship attachments).

As far as my question about the restriction of micro-rockets, I can't say I totally agree with the logic. I mean, when I first read the descriptions, I never got the impression that most micro-rockets are homemade, so the logic came out of left field for me. I guess the trophy armor makes a bit of sense, but not the rockets.

And the armored drop suit is misprinted; silhouette 1, folks.

I hate how the answer to a misprint is always "it will be fixed in the next printing" ffs! What about an errata for the most devout fans who buy day 1 every time, we can't all keep going back to listen to a podcast to find the correct answer when we may not even realise there is something wrong. Seriously how hard is it to produce a PDF with the corrections!

ok, rants over now I have it all out. I listened today to the podcast version (UStream is a dumpster fire and never works properly for me for some silly reason) and it was great, I always enjoy the insight.

I agree it's weird with the micro rockets, I could see some having legitimate uses, but most should surely be restricted. But as he said Restricted is really a guideline and anything can be illegal if the GM decides so that's a simple problem to solve. I did like the explanation of why the Armour attachment is restricted.

It was nice to here more about the three species and specs too. Martial Artist makes more sense to me now, the entire concept and reasoning behind its talents... even if Infiltrator is now even more meh and missing half the talents it probably should have.

20 minutes ago, Richardbuxton said:

I hate how the answer to a misprint is always "it will be fixed in the next printing" ffs! What about an errata for the most devout fans who buy day 1 every time, we can't all keep going back to listen to a podcast to find the correct answer when we may not even realise there is something wrong. Seriously how hard is it to produce a PDF with the corrections!

I have a feeling they have very little staff on hand to work on and produce an errata/FAQ anymore. They're so swamped with work about the best they can do is edit the document that goes to the printers.

Speaking of Martial Artist, for those who didn't listen, Precision Strike (Supreme) and Iron Body are specifically designed to be bare-handed, weapons free, but natural species weapons do work. With Unarmed Parry is trickier, but it was said that a free hand is at least necessary, so it does leave the room open for working with Brawl weapons, at least in principle (to be more specific, Unarmed Parry works by physically grappling the target, so you need at least a free limb to do so).

1 hour ago, Blackbird888 said:

I have a feeling they have very little staff on hand to work on and produce an errata/FAQ anymore. They're so swamped with work about the best they can do is edit the document that goes to the printers.

I find that to be a preposterous allegation. But then I go look and see the errata hasn't been updated for 1.5 years.

6 hours ago, themensch said:

I find that to be a preposterous allegation. But then I go look and see the errata hasn't been updated for 1.5 years.

It certainly is a disturbing thought, but probably the truth. I don't see why an internally shared google doc with before and after text copied in can't be produced, it's 30 seconds of copy and past. That's assuming their layout software doesn't have a method of tracking changes. Then once every couple of months dump it on a generic background and upload the PDF.

eg:

No Disintegrations

p43,Replace this: wrong text.

with this: correct text

16 minutes ago, Richardbuxton said:

It certainly is a disturbing thought, but probably the truth. I don't see why an internally shared google doc with before and after text copied in can't be produced, it's 30 seconds of copy and past. That's assuming their layout software doesn't have a method of tracking changes. Then once every couple of months dump it on a generic background and upload the PDF.

It really is that simple, I can't fathom how they wouldn't have some sort of change control process that could be leveraged to do this, even if by a human. To be honest I'd be pleased to see just a plain-text web page without all the bells and whistles - I have the pretty books, I just need the correct data. It doesn't need to be a themed PDF, it doesn't have to be in a fancy layout. Heck, it could come in diff format and I'd be pleased enough.

I did submit a question to the devs about it, I hope that helps. Perhaps other interested parties submitting similar requests would elicit a response.

7 hours ago, themensch said:

I find that to be a preposterous allegation. But then I go look and see the errata hasn't been updated for 1.5 years.

From what Rodney Thompson said on a much older Order 66 podcast during the Saga Edition days, any errata or updates they might have wanted to make to the books pretty much had to vetted by Lucasfilm's approvals department.

That's something that can happen with regards to licensed products, especially if the license holder's own resources are devoted to more important things. Classic example was the delays Green Ronin faced with the Dragon Age RPG box sets; Set 3 was pretty much set to roll once they had final approvals, but BioWare was so involved in creating Dragon Age: Inquisition that the approval process stalled out for well over a year.

With Star Wars as a property being in full swing due to a slew of new movies (Ep8 this winter, Han Solo in the works, Ep9 in the chute), TV shows (Rebels at least), books, and other media, it's quite possible the folks that do the approvals at Lucasfilm simply place errata as a lower priority in comparison to products that will generate substantial revenue for the IP's owners.

10 minutes ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

From what Rodney Thompson said on a much older Order 66 podcast during the Saga Edition days, any errata or updates they might have wanted to make to the books pretty much had to vetted by Lucasfilm's approvals department.

That's something that can happen with regards to licensed products, especially if the license holder's own resources are devoted to more important things. Classic example was the delays Green Ronin faced with the Dragon Age RPG box sets; Set 3 was pretty much set to roll once they had final approvals, but BioWare was so involved in creating Dragon Age: Inquisition that the approval process stalled out for well over a year.

With Star Wars as a property being in full swing due to a slew of new movies (Ep8 this winter, Han Solo in the works, Ep9 in the chute), TV shows (Rebels at least), books, and other media, it's quite possible the folks that do the approvals at Lucasfilm simply place errata as a lower priority in comparison to products that will generate substantial revenue for the IP's owners.

This makes sense to me, now that we've tied it to dollars. Still, trivial updates such as making a 1 a 2 would seemingly not require Lucasfilm but then again we don't have PDFs either so who knows. Business is business after all.

My only objection to that hypothesis @Donovan Morningfire Is that FFG make it clear the changes will definitely be in the next printing of the books, so if LFL is required to approve the changes then it's definitely going to happen, which removes the entire argument.

The simplest answer is probably the correct one, lack of time. And with over 18 months to go through to catch up it's unlikely we will ever see an eratta

Yeah no, if they have made the changes to the next printing of books then the approval has already been made, and that statement is therefore a bare-faced lie by that Rodney fellow. If SJ Games can keep an up to date errata on their GURPS line, a line they are otherwise strugglng to get enough people to work on, then there is absolutely no excuse for FFG to fail utterly with a franchise like Star Wars.

I have been getting more and more... 'frustrated' with FFG's behaviour, I understand they are a business but as a customer I feel gouged and that is not good, plus the line "It is only business" has always been a pathetic excuse to me, if you need to say it then it ain't only business. I no longer feel I can justify their actions and choices regarding their product lines, I'm finding it hard to justify to myself let alone other people their business choices, that I don't think I can bring myself to buy any more of their products now. I'll either look to move my games to another system in the future, or just play with what I got. I'll probably run the current campaigns as they are, we got enough stuff anyway I feel now.

Considering their excuse for printing three separate core rulebooks along with reproducing the same products (aliens, specs, vehicles etc) was that they wanted people to be able to just buy into one line if they wanted the placing of armour rules into the F&D line only and then saying people should buy that if they want the rules is just smack you in the face atrocious. I had been holding off on this, but if they are going to pull that then I am just going to copy the rules from someone else's book and share them for the group. As their books are pathetically layed out in the first place (spreading the ships, specs, species and gear around all the career books instead of doing a gear book that can be perused, a ship book etc is horrible for player use, yet I justified it as needed business practice, fool on me for expecting more), I am not buying multiple books with the same information in just to confuse people even more.

You know what? I think I'm done. I'm sure the loss of me as a customer isn't going to make any difference to their bank balance but I will feel better about myself to just get out now, I'm done all have fun I'm out. *salutes* It was a pleasure serving with you all, may we all find The Game that brings us Joy! May the Dice favour your character's success except for when it would be more fun to service the Plot! May all your Plots come to fruition!

2 hours ago, Flintlock Jazz said:

Considering their excuse for printing three separate core rulebooks along with reproducing the same products (aliens, specs, vehicles etc) was that they wanted people to be able to just buy into one line if they wanted the placing of armour rules into the F&D line only and then saying people should buy that if they want the rules is just smack you in the face atrocious.

I don't believe the intention has ever been to cater to a single line. A fun game could certainly be achieved with just one, but (apart from some duplicate information in the CRBs) the strategy FFG is using is built upon the failures of other RPGs. With recently renewed interest in the Star Wars franchise, and perhaps a nostalgia for tabletop RPGs in general (Stranger Things), I think this system could have a pretty long run.

Don't let the blast door close on your furry behind, on the way out, FJ. I'm still a noob here, so I may not be as jaded as some of you. Slowly growing my collection one book at a time, but excited to do so. As you said yourself:

2 hours ago, Flintlock Jazz said:

I'll probably run the current campaigns as they are, we got enough stuff anyway

You certainly have the tools you need to continue, with or without any new books. Don't let your frustrations with the company ruin the game for you. Rant and rave and vent on this forum all you want- so long as you can still have fun at the table.

13 hours ago, themensch said:

This makes sense to me, now that we've tied it to dollars. Still, trivial updates such as making a 1 a 2 would seemingly not require Lucasfilm but then again we don't have PDFs either so who knows. Business is business after all.

We're pretty much outsiders as far as the whole process goes, so who knows how many different factors are at play.

Personally, I'm guessing that updating information in the books (i.e. product that generates an immediate profit) for future print runs is far easier to accomplish than compiling an entirely new PDF document (which itself has to be an exception to the clause in the license that "electronic media" is covered under a separate license) detailing all the information. And it does sound like as far a in-house staff goes, there's not a lot of free hands for Star Wars RPG errata, given how RPGs have always been a niche product in comparison to the far more lucrative minis and card game products.

Flintlock Jazz,
Steve Jackson Games has the benefit of entirely owning the GURPS line and not really having to deal with licensees, so they can do whatever they want whenever they want. In contrast, FFG's RPG department is responsible for a number of different RPG product lines and have to deal with licensee contracts, many of which can get very convoluted in terms of what changes the license holder can make without needing approval.

So that's quite a bit of false equivalency you've got going on there in comparing a basket of lemons to a barrel of grapes.

13 hours ago, Richardbuxton said:

My only objection to that hypothesis @Donovan Morningfire Is that FFG make it clear the changes will definitely be in the next printing of the books, so if LFL is required to approve the changes then it's definitely going to happen, which removes the entire argument.

The simplest answer is probably the correct one, lack of time. And with over 18 months to go through to catch up it's unlikely we will ever see an eratta

As I noted above, the actual answer is probably a lot more complicated than what an outsider's view would suggest, given the complexities and vagaries of contract law, especially as none of us armchair quarterbacks have any clue what the license agreement between FFG and Lucasfilm entails.

If it is a case of limited time, then I'd rather that FFG focus on continue producing new content for an awesome RPG than spending time on a document that only a select portion of the RPG line's fanbase is going to honestly be aware of. And frankly, most of the "errors" are minor enough that they make no real difference in how the game plays, or are glaring enough that any sensible player or GM can spot that something is a mistake and make the necessary adjustments to their game without needing an official document from FFG.

I listened to the last episode during a horrendous commute so it might have slipped by me but I don't think I heard anything in the way of a question addressing the distribution fiasco outside of the United States.

Why is FFG this silent about that?

4 minutes ago, DanteRotterdam said:

I listened to the last episode during a horrendous commute so it might have slipped by me but I don't think I heard anything in the way of a question addressing the distribution fiasco outside of the United States.

Why is FFG this silent about that?

A similar situation cropped up on another podcast (unrelated to Star Wars) I watched. A question was "you had a developer on a previous episode, why didn't you grill them over [ongoing controversial thing]?" The answer was that these podcasts are not news outlets and their hosts are not investigative journalists, and the guests are guests. If they treated the guests rudely or interrogated them, FFG developers could just decide to discontinue any future appearances on the podcast.

So while the lack of product in Europe and other parts of the world is a sucky situation, and it would be wonderful to know why it's happening, the podcast is not the proper place.

3 hours ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

We're pretty much outsiders as far as the whole process goes, so who knows how many different factors are at play.

Personally, I'm guessing that updating information in the books (i.e. product that generates an immediate profit) for future print runs is far easier to accomplish than compiling an entirely new PDF document (which itself has to be an exception to the clause in the license that "electronic media" is covered under a separate license) detailing all the information. And it does sound like as far a in-house staff goes, there's not a lot of free hands for Star Wars RPG errata, given how RPGs have always been a niche product in comparison to the far more lucrative minis and card game products.

All too true, and it's too bad our passion doesn't equate to dollars for them. But if it's a PDF they're worried about, they sure do make other PDFs available for these lines so there has to be some sort of exception to the rule. And while I get it that they're short staffed - heck, I'm short-staffed - there's little excuse to not to allow an eager intern to complete the task. My point being, they could accomplish this task if it was important to them, so clearly it isn't. I hope it's because they're working on Great New Things™ but radio silence doesn't engender faith. Heck, I could find a dozen people on these forums that would be tickled to take the raw information and put it together for them for free.

7 hours ago, Flintlock Jazz said:

As their books are pathetically layed out in the first place (spreading the ships, specs, species and gear around all the career books instead of doing a gear book that can be perused, a ship book etc is horrible for player use, yet I justified it as needed business practice, fool on me for expecting more), I am not buying multiple books with the same information in just to confuse people even more.

So many RPGs do this though. New content in splatbooks is pretty commonly provided in a themed book with multiple kinds of content, rather than a utilitarian shopping list book. If that's grounds for you to dump an RPG, you're cutting yourself out of a LOT of RPGs. Most, I'd say.

As for the errata stuff, I wouldn't be surprised if it's some obnoxious case of contracts stipulating that any new releases be cleared with Lucasfilm, with an errata document counting as a release on a technicality. The contracts surrounding Star Wars media are notoriously a gigantic mess of outdated nonsense, so it wouldn't be surprising. Some more transparency would be nice for sure, but that might ALSO be tied up in contract BS.

10 hours ago, Flintlock Jazz said:

I have been getting more and more... 'frustrated' with FFG's behaviour, I understand they are a business but ... I no longer feel I can justify their actions and choices regarding their product lines, I'm finding it hard to justify to myself let alone other people their business choices, that I don't think I can bring myself to buy any more of their products now ... Considering their excuse for printing three separate core rulebooks along with reproducing the same products (aliens, specs, vehicles etc) was that they wanted people to be able to just buy into one line if they wanted the placing of armour rules into the F&D line only and then saying people should buy that if they want the rules is just smack you in the face atrocious. I had been holding off on this, but if they are going to pull that then I am just going to copy the rules from someone else's book and share them for the group. As their books are pathetically layed out in the first place (spreading the ships, specs, species and gear around all the career books instead of doing a gear book that can be perused, a ship book etc is horrible for player use, yet I justified it as needed business practice, fool on me for expecting more)

+1

I am one of those supposed "mythic creatures" (and I'm sure there are many, many more of us out there) who's only buying into one line per FFG's original manifesto. And it frustrates me to no end that the company's position has apparently changed midstream ... while continuing to pump out books with horrible layouts. (I've worked in advertising/publishing. Just fyi.) Are the books pretty? Oh, sure! They all look great. But I find myself always thinking, "Geezus, there's so much room wasted that could have gone toward giving us a bit more"...

Especially as someone who never plans on spending even more money for "Friends Like These" or that F&D book with the armor crafting rules or the Ace book with all of the stats for mounts or another core rule book for the Mon Cal, etc.

I understand, as a business, it's FFG's "responsibility" to gouge its customer base by spreading out all of these species, weapons, starships, vehicles, specs, and all other crunch across multiple books. But I think there comes a time when the fanbase needs to speak up.

Like Mr. Jazz, I'm now finding some of these practices to truly be "atrocious."

And, c'mon, can they not at least try to match images of spacecraft with the stats for said spacecraft?