32 minutes ago, FeBommel said:

Concerning 3., I don't have a problem with Leia surviving in the vaccum of space. An FaD PC could have a chance to survive that as well. Her "flying" is just an application of Move and there already exists a talent that allows a Force user to take less damage due to vaccum: Meditative Trance (... When exposed to vacuum, the character suffers 1 wound each round instead of 3.). It's even in a Consular spec (Ascetic) so it's quite fitting for Leia to have it. And she suffered serious damage during her space-walk (propably one or several Critical Injuries).

I don't have a problem with it conceptually.

Yet, I found it deeply groan-worthy from an aesthetic and literary perspective.

Not every criticism has to be about canonical verisimilitude.

On ‎12‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 0:42 PM, Stan Fresh said:

But I wanna be a suicide bomber!

For your sake, let's hope the search program sniffing through the masses of data collected at the NSA site doesn't catch this before Christmas or that knock on the door tonight might not be Santa!

4 minutes ago, Sturn said:

For your sake, let's hope the search program sniffing through the masses of data collected at the NSA site doesn't catch this before Christmas or that knock on the door tonight might not be Santa!

Good thing I'm not spending Christmas Eve at home!

On 12/18/2017 at 2:24 PM, Sturn said:

Quite a few things popped up in the Last Jedi that need to be explained away so it doesn't become an issue in future gaming sessions. GM's let us arm ourselves for the inevitable hyperspace bombs coming our way.

SPOILERS BELOW

First, a list of what may need to be explained or receive rules changes? Please respond with other issues and I will edit this list.

1. Slow-moving capital ships can be destroyed by kamikaze ships launching into hyperspace. Why haven't we seen this before? How can we make this a rare, over-costly, or extremely hard to do option for our PCs to avoid, "I'm putting my astromech in this battered Z95 and having it hyperspace into that pirate Corvette!"
2. "Bombers" exist that for some reason must get close to attack (as opposed to launching missiles like a Y-wing) and have bombs that fall....in 0G.
3. Force powers have taken a leap in what they can do. "I want that ultimate protection that Leia has so I can brush off huge explosions and survive in space....and she was only a force sensitive btw". or "But, Move can be used to toss aside large amounts of heavy boulders or demolish small buildings, so why can't I do it too?"
4. Turbolasers are much less effective (less damage) at longer ranges (which don't seem to be very far) per a quote during the space chase. Rule change needed?
5. Hyperspace fuel.
6. .......

I'll take a stab at this...

1: You need the proper mass to do this. So it would have to be another capital class ship in order to do that much damage. You'd also have to be close enough for the ship to be inside the "acceleration path" between subspace movement and hyperspace movement.
2: Bombers have existed for a while. Yes, most "bombers" have torpedoes or missiles, but there are "bombs" in the X-wing game, for example. And as someone else explained earlier, it's not propelled by gravity, but by electromagnets. And the reason you'd use bombs instead of torpedoes or missiles is the capacity increase from not having propellants and the like. (also, you actually complain about this when you have space ships flying about as if they were WWII prop fighters instead of in a zero gravity environment?)
3: They really haven't. She didn't brush off a huge explosion, she brushed off rapid decompression. She also wasn't "only a force sensetive". She recieved some training from luke, this is explained in the books. There's also the fact that humans seem to be able to survive in space in SW with only a breathing mask, so she's basically just holding her breath and using force pull.
4: I don't remember that quote. What specifically did it have to say about it? It certainly doesn't seem true when they do hit. They might have meant that they were a lot less accurate at those ranges?
5: Yes. It's a thing. Just because people don't mention running out of gas in movies doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Did you really think everyone had infinity fuel?

2 hours ago, OddballE8 said:

4: I don't remember that quote. What specifically did it have to say about it? It certainly doesn't seem true when they do hit. They might have meant that they were a lot less accurate at those ranges?
5: Yes. It's a thing. Just because people don't mention running out of gas in movies doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Did you really think everyone had infinity fuel?

#4: Yes it was actually mentioned that the turbolasers weren't strong enough at that range to do anything to the shields. It wasn't about accuracy, but the damage they could do at that range was negligible versus the shields.

#5: I've posted a document in these forums with detailed rules on Consumables, in which "fuel" is involved as evidence that I wasn't believing in "infinity fuel", which would be quite an unbelievable assumption for anyone browsing a scifi game forum. What I meant by my OP is that fuel had become an actual thing to contend with on the screen. It wasn't just hoses attached to X-wings, it was something on screen that created a problem for the characters - translated to player characters for this discussion.

14 minutes ago, Sturn said:

#5: I've posted a document in these forums with detailed rules on Consumables, in which "fuel" is involved as evidence that I wasn't believing in "infinity fuel", which would be quite an unbelievable assumption for anyone browsing a scifi game forum. What I meant by my OP is that fuel had become an actual thing to contend with on the screen. It wasn't just hoses attached to X-wings, it was something on screen that created a problem for the characters - translated to player characters for this discussion.

And as has been pointed out several times now, this was not a first for Star Wars.

On 12/23/2017 at 6:22 PM, Vondy said:

I don't have a problem with it conceptually.

Yet, I found it deeply groan-worthy from an aesthetic and literary perspective.

Not every criticism has to be about canonical verisimilitude.

I actually thought this was a pretty cool moment in the film. And judging from the reactions of the other audience members I wasn't alone.

Leia was involved in a force connection with her son, similar to what she experienced with Luke on Bespin but obviously much stronger due to their increased familiarity with the force. She sensed his desire to kill her and his connection to his past, and she felt when his finger left the trigger - then his shock as the missiles from his wingmen shoot past his fighter.

She had a moment to enter a force-trance (if she wasn't already halfway there) and even to create an aura of protection. Then she is blown into space - while as an audience member I was thinking, 'Was there a rewrite? Did they decide to have Leia die here?' - and though Rian had already shown he intended to invert every set-up or expectation he created in the film, I was still surprised when her hand twitched.

And here's the thing: How many fan boys wanted to see Luke be a force-wizard in this film, using the force in ways we never imagined? Here is Leia showing off a crazy mastery of the force - in a way we haven't seen before! - and these same peeps call it hokey and unbelievable.

I loved it. Leia's the teacher Rey needs. As the father of two little women, Girl Power!

5 hours ago, O the Owl said:

I actually thought this was a pretty cool moment in the film. And judging from the reactions of the other audience members I wasn't alone.

You and anyone else who enjoyed that are certainly entitled to their opinion. Aesthetics and literary criticism are largely subjective. I am happy to simply disagree. But, to be frank, agrumentum ad numerum, is a logical fallacy that not only fails to impress, but weakens the impact of your argument. Why bring up that other people liked it? Just tell me why you liked it (as you subsequently did) and let that stand for itself.

"And judging from the reactions of the other audience members I wasn't alone."

So what? Mass appeal is certainly important for financial (box office) success. It has nothing to do with anything else.

The thing that bugged me most was when Admiral Holdo said "Godspeed, Rebels."

You don't say "godspeed" without a concept of one or more gods. I don't remember god or gods being mentioned in previous Star Wars movies and I do not see a canon article on god in Wookiepedia, only Legends articles. Why introduce such an important concept in the 9th major motion picture in the series? If you got along without it in the previous movies you could have avoided it here too - with better writing and script editing. I know not everyone says "May the force be with you" so how about a simple "Good luck?"

Not trying to stir up a real world discussion of god, just commenting on it being a new concept in the 9th movie. Maybe it's just such a rare belief in the Star Wars galaxy that it makes sense that it took nine movies to show up? Maybe Holdo's canonically unusual home world, Gatalenta, http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Gatalenta

explains it?

22 hours ago, Sturn said:

For your sake, let's hope the search program sniffing through the masses of data collected at the NSA site doesn't catch this before Christmas or that knock on the door tonight might not be Santa!

If you are already on a no-flight list the problem which posts like this is minimal.
Though if you are planing to travel anywhere in the united states by plane ... might not have been such a great idea.

14 hours ago, OddballE8 said:

3: They really haven't. She didn't brush off a huge explosion, she brushed off rapid decompression. She also wasn't "only a force sensetive". She recieved some training from luke, this is explained in the books. There's also the fact that humans seem to be able to survive in space in SW with only a breathing mask, so she's basically just holding her breath and using force pull.

I at least was always under the impression that those breathing masks added some basic protective fields to maintain at least some pressure. But I am a culture fanboy and would accept ships and droids consisting mostly of fields just fine. ;-)

Must be super weird go up up against such a GSV in combat. "Target that ... uhm mountain?!"

2 hours ago, pnewman15 said:

You don't say "godspeed" without a concept of one or more gods. I don't remember god or gods being mentioned in previous Star Wars movies and I do not see a canon article on god in Wookiepedia, only Legends articles. Why introduce such an important concept in the 9th major motion picture in the series? If you got along without it in the previous movies you could have avoided it here too - with better writing and script editing. I know not everyone says "May the force be with you" so how about a simple "Good luck?"

2 hours ago, pnewman15 said:

The thing that bugged me most was when Admiral Holdo said "Godspeed, Rebels."

You don't say "godspeed" without a concept of one or more gods. I don't remember god or gods being mentioned in previous Star Wars movies and I do not see a canon article on god in Wookiepedia,

Short this one's attention span is. Missed the details he has. Missed as well the wasteness of the galaxy and different cultures all over the galaxy he has.

Now with less Yoda and more serious. Assuming that 20,000,000 species will ALL not come up with as fundamental concepts as gods, ****, afterlife, etc in a galaxy which has literal gods, magic, afterlife, etc seems incredible laser brain like. Focused on something (true or false does not matter) and ignoring the broader picture completely.

BTW, I like this part especially because it suggests that Holdo might have her own religion and is not following the jedi religion. It enriches the galaxy.

12 minutes ago, SEApocalypse said:

BTW, I like this part especially because it suggests that Holdo might have her own religion and is not following the jedi religion. It enriches the galaxy.

Atheists say Merry Christmas, good luck, like ****, bless you, and godspeed, too, though.

6 hours ago, Vondy said:

You and anyone else who enjoyed that are certainly entitled to their opinion. Aesthetics and literary criticism are largely subjective. I am happy to simply disagree.

I totally agree to disagree about that scene's aesthetic appeal.

6 hours ago, Vondy said:

So what? Mass appeal is certainly important for financial (box office) success. It has nothing to do with anything else.

I am quick to admit there are many things made for a mass audience that I do not enjoy. But sitting in a darkened theater and thinking, 'Ah, cool!' while hearing similar reactions from others around me is fun. There were many moments in TLJ like this, and Leia's demonstration of her control of the force was one.

2 hours ago, Stan Fresh said:

Atheists say Merry Christmas, good luck, like ****, bless you, and godspeed, too, though.

True. That's why I said "might have her own religion", it is a hint that this possibility exists. She could have said "may the force be with you rebels" instead, so it was a rather deliberate choice there too.

20 minutes ago, SEApocalypse said:

True. That's why I said "might have her own religion", it is a hint that this possibility exists. She could have said "may the force be with you rebels" instead, so it was a rather deliberate choice there too.

It's interesting that a lot of fans don't seem to consider the Jedi and Sith ways, and the belief in the Force displayed by some Rebels, as religion. I don't mean you; that's just the general impression I got over the years.

And people being weird about the word godspeed is bizarre to me. The ideas of religion and the divine have been part of Star Wars forever. Remember how Vader was mocked for being a sad relic of a bygone religion in the Death Star meeting room scene? How Han mocked Obi-Wan's beliefs as hokey religion? But the word godspeed somehow brings out the "experts" who claim that gods are something The Last Jedi had added.

It illustrates the quality of much of the criticism directed at the movie.

19 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

It's interesting that a lot of fans don't seem to consider the Jedi and Sith ways, and the belief in the Force displayed by some Rebels, as religion. I don't mean you; that's just the general impression I got over the years.

And people being weird about the word godspeed is bizarre to me. The ideas of religion and the divine have been part of Star Wars forever. Remember how Vader was mocked for being a sad relic of a bygone religion in the Death Star meeting room scene? How Han mocked Obi-Wan's beliefs as hokey religion? But the word godspeed somehow brings out the "experts" who claim that gods are something The Last Jedi had added.

It illustrates the quality of much of the criticism directed at the movie.

Yes, Star Wars has always showed the concept of _religion_, and the Jedi ways are the best example. It just has not showed the concept of _god_. For eight movies everyone was a space Buddhist, or a Space Taoist, or a Space Animist, or a Space Agnostic; and in movie nine we suddenly get a Space Deist. It seems like either sloppy writing or a sudden introduction of a new concept.

2 minutes ago, pnewman15 said:

Yes, Star Wars has always showed the concept of _religion_, and the Jedi ways are the best example. It just has not showed the concept of _god_. For eight movies everyone was a space Buddhist, or a Space Taoist, or a Space Animist, or a Space Agnostic; and in movie nine we suddenly get a Space Deist. It seems like either sloppy writing or a sudden introduction of a new concept.

Did you not look at the images from just a few posts ago? Really?

Because you are flat out, completely, utterly, bizarrely, hilariously, and ridiculously wrong.

The impressive part is that he even got the movie count wrong. °_^

17 hours ago, Sturn said:

#4: Yes it was actually mentioned that the turbolasers weren't strong enough at that range to do anything to the shields. It wasn't about accuracy, but the damage they could do at that range was negligible versus the shields.

Well, that is certainly intersting.
But I'm sure I've heard talk about weapons effectiveness at long ranges vs short ranges in the movies before.

7 hours ago, pnewman15 said:

The thing that bugged me most was when Admiral Holdo said "Godspeed, Rebels."

You don't say "godspeed" without a concept of one or more gods. I don't remember god or gods being mentioned in previous Star Wars movies and I do not see a canon article on god in Wookiepedia, only Legends articles. Why introduce such an important concept in the 9th major motion picture in the series? If you got along without it in the previous movies you could have avoided it here too - with better writing and script editing. I know not everyone says "May the force be with you" so how about a simple "Good luck?"

Not trying to stir up a real world discussion of god, just commenting on it being a new concept in the 9th movie. Maybe it's just such a rare belief in the Star Wars galaxy that it makes sense that it took nine movies to show up? Maybe Holdo's canonically unusual home world, Gatalenta, http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Gatalenta

explains it?

I'll see you in ****! (Can't have **** without a concept of god)

But someone else pointed out that the concept of "god" has been mentioned several times in the movies before.

Just wait until Episode 9! I hear they are going to have real-world animal references to spoil my immersion! Old Star Wars movies were never so sloppy or blasphemous!

1 hour ago, pnewman15 said:

Yes, Star Wars has always showed the concept of _religion_, and the Jedi ways are the best example. It just has not showed the concept of _god_. For eight movies everyone was a space Buddhist, or a Space Taoist, or a Space Animist, or a Space Agnostic; and in movie nine we suddenly get a Space Deist. It seems like either sloppy writing or a sudden introduction of a new concept.

You mean the concept of the abrahamic god?

That's irrelevant.

The term "god" refers to more than just the abrahamic god and the religions that worship it.

"godspeed" is as much at home in Star Wars as "****" and "blessing".

2 minutes ago, Sturn said:

Just wait until Episode 9! I hear they are going to have real-world animal references to spoil my immersion! Old Star Wars movies were never so sloppy or blasphemous!

You know, it's kind of funny you say that... the whole reason the Porgs are in the movie is to hide real-life birds from the audience... and yet everyone is complaining about the Porgs so much that they might just not bother next time.

(and yes, I am aware of real-world animal references in the old movies, I just felt like pointing out that thing about the Porgs)

21 minutes ago, SEApocalypse said:

The impressive part is that he even got the movie count wrong. °_^

Really?

Star Wars Episode IV
Star Wars Episode V
Star Wars Episode VI
Star Wars Episode I
Star Wars Episode II
Star Wars Episode III
Star Wars Episode VII
Star Wars Rogue One
Star Wars Episode VIII

That's 9 by my count.

(I didn't count the Ewok movies, since those didn't have Star Wars in their title)