6 hours ago, Magnus Grendel said:

I remember one time someone in an Only War game who knew the 'enemy' stats off by heart and counted off the number of grenades they had as they threw them. I had realised he was doing this based on something he could not possibly know; they'd not seen the enemy before they came under fire, and it's not like cultists have a 'standard issue' kit list they subscribe to like a more 'organised' enemy would.

If there's a moral difference between insider trading on the stock market and metagaming, I don't know what it is.

45 minutes ago, Concise Locket said:

If there's a moral difference between insider trading on the stock market and metagaming, I don't know what it is.

Insider trading on the stock market is making you (and people you care about) money, which they may genuinely need (or at least think they do).

Metagaming is doing the same thing when there is literally nothing on the line but (spoiled) enjoyment. From a certain point of view, it's worse.

3 hours ago, Magnus Grendel said:

Insider trading on the stock market is making you (and people you care about) money, which they may genuinely need (or at least think they do).

Metagaming is doing the same thing when there is literally nothing on the line but (spoiled) enjoyment. From a certain point of view, it's worse.

But, strangely, carries a much lighter legal penalty

One thing is also, that the combat system is fairly abstract. As the "maneuver to move to open, attack, maneuver to move to cover" shows. I.E. taking cover maneuver will cover that whole shenanigans. Personally I tend to keep it so that all action actually happens simultaneously (but is resolved normally), so it's easier to explain why maneuver - action - maneuver doesn't give invulnerability. Effect of actions is more important, than the actions itself.

Generally I tend to fudge rules and roll and stats, to enhance the dramatic tension. Last time I did this, was with star ship chase, when player obviously were bored, because it just went on and on. I broke opponents engines with two threats.

P.S. I have used 67 sessions to prepare campaign nemesis to give PCs a proper opposition, when they finally encounter her (inquisitor). She won't have just normal inquisitor stats. Also, she won't drop on first round, because she will fight smart. Though, If I know the players, there is 50% change they will win her with some weird plot. And if PCs will attack her straight, with light sticks of death, she will have many minions to block PC attacks (if drama requires it), using squad leader rules in AoR GM kit (?).

On 18.9.2017 at 6:40 PM, Concise Locket said:

Unlike Dungeons & Dragons and other trad simulationist games, the narrative FFG SW combat mechanics are designed for quick resolution. Yes, damage numbers are high. However, that's backstopped by the PC/Nemesis death mechanic which requires a 150 roll on a d100. I'm running my fourth campaign right now and I've only had 1 PC in all those games die in combat.

Here have a like and a nitpick.

Damage sponges are anything but decent simulationist. And even classic simulationist systems usually have one-hit combat solutions with critical hit mechanics. Take MERS / Runemaster as example, with its towns of damage and crit tables and in the end a balrog still can go down in a single critical hit just like the players could.
Either way, realistically speaking armed combat is deadly and not a trade of blows, it is over in an instant.

For heavy armored targets and heavy defensive options we have in this system anyway heavy armor, heavy soak values and parry/reflect, which increase survivability of targets by magnitudes, just like those did in the movies.