1 minute ago, killerbeardhawk said:

I read it. Im not sure why you think intimidation and bullying would change what i said before.

Not sure what you mean? I simply gave you my reasons why I don't beleive it's warranted, butam still leaving the final decision up to you. Please read my reasoning carefully, and make a final ruling. I'll abide by that, whether I agree with it or not.

11 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Not sure what you mean? I simply gave you my reasons why I don't beleive it's warranted, butam still leaving the final decision up to you. Please read my reasoning carefully, and make a final ruling. I'll abide by that, whether I agree with it or not.

It doesnt require you to agree, because its correct. Its not an opinion or something you can talk you way out of.

Just now, killerbeardhawk said:

It doesnt require you to agree, because its correct. Its not an opinion or something you can talk you way out of.

If that's your final ruling, fine.

@killerbeardhawk , here's my Morality roll:

Morality : 1d10-3 1

6 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

If that's your final ruling, fine.

Im glad you can come to your senses and admit you were wrong. That shows a small amount of progress.

3 minutes ago, killerbeardhawk said:

Im glad you can come to your senses and admit you were wrong. That shows a small amount of progress.

I don't admit being wrong. I still disagree with your ruling and provided you with my reasons why, but I accept it . There is a difference.

8 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

I don't admit being wrong. I still disagree with your ruling and provided you with my reasons why, but I accept it . There is a difference.

Are you ever wrong?

2 minutes ago, killerbeardhawk said:

Are you ever wrong?

Oh yeah, quite often. And if I am genuinely wrong, I will admit it. I even admitted to one such mistake several posts back in this very thread. In fact, it was a mistake I caught myself. So, yes, I do admit when I am genuinely wrong. However, in this case, I know I am not.

Remember, I've been playing this character on and off for over twenty years since back in the old D6 days, and I am well versed and practiced in the various previous incarnations of the RPG (SAGA excepted, since I boycotted that version). I have almost every RPG book from those lines as well, and I've done a lot research on what is and is not " allowable " by the Jedi Code, and by the Force, both by RAW and by canon (both old and new), as opposed to what would incure "Dark Side Points or Conflict, and using the Force to avoid a fight while "trespassing" on an enemy post , by canon precedent, is well within the tenets of the Jedi Code and, therefore, not something which would be worthy of Conflict, particularly when said enemy is a Dark Side aligned terrorist organization that threatens the freedom of the galaxy.

And, when it is my turn to GM, I would certainly not make that same ruling against any player who made the same action under similar circumstances. By canon, Jedi have a certain leeway when it comes to the law while going about their duties and using the Force. The Force does not care about human"law", just whether or not the action was done for a noble cause and not a selfish or evil one. The " legality " of it is irrelevant . The old d20 Power of the Jedi Source Book also went into similar details about it and what a Jedi could and could not do regarding such things, including lying, deception, even breaking the law, if necessary,and, as far as the Force is concerned , the legality of said action has no bearing. Jedi are allowed to lie, deceive, etc if it is for a noble cause. Using the Force trick a "guard"of an enemy outpost into letting you pass rather than having to kill him is certainly a noble cause, particularly if you believe that other Force users may be in danger from said enemy, particularly an enemy which seeks to wipe out the Jedi.

If something is illegal, then, yes, that Jedi may have to answer to the proper legal authorities, on the matter, depending upon the "severity" of the infraction, but the Force itself doesn't care. All the Force cares about is the nobility of said action, and whether or not it was for a just cause or a selfish one.

Simply out, whether something is "legal" or not has no bearing canonically, only whether the act was for a noble cause or a selfish one.

Regardless, as a player, I don't get final say on it, the GM does. That doesn't mean I can't protest that decision and ask for reconsideration, which is what I did, but the final ruling was still up to you , and I accept that. However, I still don't agree with it and would not make the same ruling when I GM. It is a bad ruling, as far as I am concerned, and itself sets a very dangerous precedent to other players. This is because it tells them that no matter what their action, they will get Conflict. And I don't agree with that mindset. That being said, right or wrong, the GM has final say .

And, if and when you play while it's my turn to GM, I expect you to question any ruling you genuinely think is a bad call, with solid reasons and/or rules to back it up. I would also expect you to accept any final ruling made afterwards as well.

We don't always have to agree.

On 4/12/2018 at 1:26 PM, killerbeardhawk said:

Whats at this new planet the droid knows about?

Was this just a place holder for the introduction of new players?

I sent you a private message to answer your question in case you wanted to use my idea for plot fuel.

You're under no obligation to do so, as I'm sure you are well aware.

On 4/12/2018 at 4:16 PM, Tramp Graphics said:

And, if and when you play while it's my turn to GM, I expect you to question any ruling you genuinely think is a bad call, with solid reasons and/or rules to back it up. I would also expect you to accept any final ruling made afterwards as well.

Or one could yield and just let it go, if only to make the game enjoyable for others by keeping it moving forward, even if they still believed they are in the right.

That's my self improvement goal.

4 minutes ago, Mychal'el said:

Or one could yield and just let it go, if only to make the game enjoyable for others by keeping it moving forward, even if they still believed they are in the right.

That's my self improvement goal.

On 4/12/2018 at 2:15 PM, Tramp Graphics said:

My starting character is still on Mandalore barring some unexpected emergency.

Could your starting character possibly be enroute to Kafrene for better business opportunities? Don't armor smiths travel the galaxy to sell thier wares?

Kafrene seems like it would have less regulations, permits and taxes than Mandalore. Probably a wider range of clientele too.

On 4/12/2018 at 5:16 PM, Tramp Graphics said:

And, if and when you play while it's my turn to GM, I expect you to question any ruling you genuinely think is a bad call, with solid reasons and/or rules to back it up. I would also expect you to accept any final ruling made afterwards as well.

We don't always have to agree.

I'm gonna call BULL$H!T on that because, we just saw it didn't happen when I was the GM.

42 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

I'm gonna call BULL$H!T on that because, we just saw it didn't happen when I was the GM.

Sure it did, when I talked about the possibility of using Enhance as a maneuver for something other than for Force Leap , which was a mistake.

13 hours ago, Mychal'el said:

Could your starting character possibly be enroute to Kafrene for better business opportunities? Don't armor smiths travel the galaxy to sell thier wares?

Kafrene seems like it would have less regulations, permits and taxes than Mandalore. Probably a wider range of clientele too.

Nope. My starting character, Rei Atin, is an apprentice armor smith, and therefore, would still be under the tutelage of a master smith (Rei's father), not gallivanting across the galaxy alone.

23 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Nope. My starting character, Rei Atin, is an apprentice armor smith, and therefore, would still be under the tutelage of a master smith (Rei's father), not gallivanting across the galaxy alone.

I wouldn't call running errands for the family business "gallivanting".

32 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Sure it did, when I talked about the possibility of using Enhance as a maneuver for something other than for Force Leap , which was a mistake.

You didn't accept my final rulings, respond to the part I quoted.

3 minutes ago, Mychal'el said:

I wouldn't call running errands for the family business "gallivanting".

Considering that the Atin family is Mandalorian, Rei would be using Mandalorian materials, and, therefore, wouldn't need to go "running errands" to other parts of the galaxy for materials. Rather, any errands would be to other parts of Mandalore, and possibly to one of its colony worlds.

Besides, Rei doesn't have a ship.

1 minute ago, EliasWindrider said:

You didn't accept my final rulings, respond to the part I quoted.

That's because I didn't accept you as GM in the first place, because your "rulings" were in direct contradiction to RAW. Conflict is much more subjective, whereas the range bands and sensor rules are very black and white. There is no room in them for "subjective interpretation". I accepted @killerbeardhawk 's ruling because, while I don't agree with it, it is not in direct contradiction to RAW , it's just a bit too overzealous. Besides, that one Conflict has no major bearing on how the game works, nor any long term bearing on the campaign as a whole. It's a judgement call.

By contrast, your "interpretation" of the planetary range bands, particularly in regards to sensor and comms ranges has major effects on the game balance and how the game works, and what a character is capable of doing, making certain actions that, by RAW, are perfectly reasonable, completely impossible to even attempt. That's a huge difference. Not only that, but the RAW clearly spelled out what each Range Band represents, and how far each type of ship's sensors reach. You were basically rewriting the entire Sensor rules to suit your personal views on what they " should " be, not what the RAW says they are. Every one of your "rulings" were given with the express intent to force me to abandon my course of action and instead make a direct run against the Star Destroyer.

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Nope. My starting character, Rei Atin, is an apprentice armor smith, and therefore, would still be under the tutelage of a master smith (Rei's father), not gallivanting across the galaxy alone.

And who said alone?

44 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Considering that the Atin family is Mandalorian, Rei would be using Mandalorian materials, and, therefore, wouldn't need to go "running errands" to other parts of the galaxy for materials. Rather, any errands would be to other parts of Mandalore, and possibly to one of its colony worlds.

Besides, Rei doesn't have a ship.

I was talking about selling anyway.

If you want to pick her up on Mandalore, just say so. No need for debate, I was just trying to get you to think of ways to explain that she could be where your GM wants her to be.

Unless you are just using her to spend a long time off screen making really awesome armor for Korath.

2 minutes ago, Mychal'el said:

And who said alone?

I was talking about selling anyway.

If you want to pick her up on Mandalore, just say so. No need for debate, I was just trying to get you to think of ways to explain that she could be where your GM wants her to be.

Unless you are just using her to spend a long time off screen making really awesome armor for Korath.

Well first off, I haven't revealed Rei Atin's gender yet, The character could be male or female, for all you know.

As for armor for Korath, Korath doesn't wear armor, never has. It's not his style. Heck, he doesn't even wear hard -soled boots.

Double post

3 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

That's because I didn't accept you as GM in the first place, because your "rulings" were in direct contradiction to RAW. Conflict is much more subjective, whereas the range bands and sensor rules are very black and white. There is no room in them for "subjective interpretation". I accepted @killerbeardhawk 's ruling because, while I don't agree with it, it is not in direct contradiction to RAW , it's just a bit too overzealous. Besides, that one Conflict has no major bearing on how the game works, nor any long term bearing on the campaign as a whole. It's a judgement call.

By contrast, your "interpretation" of the planetary range bands, particularly in regards to sensor and comms ranges has major effects on the game balance and how the game works, and what a character is capable of doing, making certain actions that, by RAW, are perfectly reasonable, completely impossible to even attempt. That's a huge difference. Not only that, but the RAW clearly spelled out what each Range Band represents, and how far each type of ship's sensors reach. You were basically rewriting the entire Sensor rules to suit your personal views on what they " should " be, not what the RAW says they are. Every one of your "rulings" were given with the express intent to force me to abandon my course of action and instead make a direct run against the Star Destroyer.

And thereby reproving I was right to call BULL$H!T on your claim to accept GM rulings you don't agree with.

BTW empirical evidence says that for 8 weeks you did accept me as the GM because you were treating me as the GM

10 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Well first off, I haven't revealed Rei Atin's gender yet, The character could be male or female, for all you know.

As for armor for Korath, Korath doesn't wear armor, never has. It's not his style. Heck, he doesn't even wear hard -soled boots.

Ok, no matter. I just assumed Rai was female.

According to your character sheets, Korath is a 5'6" white male with tanned skin, whereas Rai is a 5'3" human with fair, lightly tanned skin. They both have long brown hair. Why play two characters that look so similar unless one is a younger clone or the opposite gender?

Male writers tend to use the word "fair" instead of "white" when discribing women. Males also tend to prefer women to be slightly if not considerably shorter than themselves.

And the phrase " gal livanting across the galaxy alone" sounds like a domaneering father barking at his disloyal daughter, whereas the male writer would discribe a young man "bravely adventuring across the galaxy on his own."

But the fact that you haven't revealed Rai's gender yet, as if it's a big deal, and you are so confident about how carefully you've guarded that secret, is a glaring clue in itself.

Am I wrong?

20 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Every one of your "rulings" were given with the express intent to force me to abandon my course of action and instead make a direct run against the Star Destroyer.

Good thing this was all well documented

On 3/1/2018 at 7:24 PM, EliasWindrider said:

I've repeatedly said that RACING TO ORBIT AND JUMPING AWAY is the easiest/safest way to escape WITHOUT fighting the tie fighters, and unless you make a frontal assault on the star destroyer you don't even have to worry about fighting it (it's a set piece for dramatic tension, nothing more, at least not until you make it something more)

By choosing to stay in atmosphere YOU are choosing to NOT disengage from the tie fighters because you can't outrun them in atmosphere because they are faster than you, are flanking you, and have infinite opportunities to catch up. And I'm getting tired of repeating that.

There is always a third option