2 hours ago, HelloRPG said:

Partially its also difficult to make a universal tool kit, like a gear list, because Genesys is based on narrative interpretation of setting more than the mechanical bounds of the system. One example of this is that you can't just transfer mundane modern weapons into the sci-fi setting, but have to translate it so if fits some narrative sense (especially the rarity and price). I mean why won't you take the shotgun (166) and reskin it into every setting you can? My fave weapon that's only 500 credits, kills mostly everything in its range! This is made more complex with the variety of mods you can put on your equipment (magical, technological, and quality/materials).

I concur. Genesys is just fine as is as long as your campaign sticks to one setting. If you've got one that bounces around to various settings then you've got some work to do. A simple fix could be to use boost and setback dice to simulate the tech gap between settings. Just apply a setback or boost die depending on how many tech levels separate the two items that are interacting with one another, such as a long sword vs powered armor or a plasma rifle vs full plate.

On 10/14/2018 at 2:49 PM, HelloRPG said:

Partially its also difficult to make a universal tool kit, like a gear list, because Genesys is based on narrative interpretation of setting more than the mechanical bounds of the system. One example of this is that you can't just transfer mundane modern weapons into the sci-fi setting, but have to translate it so if fits some narrative sense (especially the rarity and price). I mean why won't you take the shotgun (166) and reskin it into every setting you can? My fave weapon that's only 500 credits, kills mostly everything in its range! This is made more complex with the variety of mods you can put on your equipment (magical, technological, and quality/materials).

You could give mundane weapons the quality “Archaic”. Weapons with this quality, depending on how you wish to portray the difference in tech levels, may add setback dice, difficulty dice, or simply reduce the base damage when used against non-Archaic defenses (armor, shields, etc). If you want mundane weapons to have a similar damage effect to advanced weapons, reduce the number of threat required to run out of ammo by 1. This represents the lack of a power pack to supply the weapon with additional energy “ammo” compared to a kinetic weapon. You could also increase the damage of archaic firearms by one to represent the superior stopping power of a kinetic weapon against advanced armor in conjunction with having a greater likelihood of running out of ammunition. Of course, or archaic weapons also don’t show up on energy sensors.

You could also do something similar with melee weapons. In this case, perhaps, archaic melee weapons would have limited effectiveness against advanced armors but would get the benefit of not having an energy signature or battery pack to run out of juice (increase threat to break by one).

As for weapon attachments, you just declare some to be archaic, some as Advanced, and some of as magical. Each attachment with a matching weapon type. Rarity would depend on how each of the weapon qualities apply to your game and it’s technology levels.

Listening to this, I want to play/run a cyberpunk game soo baddd!

The decks for adversaries were previewed on FFG's site:

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2018/10/31/faces-in-the-crowd/

Computers (Hacking) and (SysOps) are separate skills, as are piloting and driving. Knowledge (Society) seems like a fairly common - and therefore important? - skill. But sod all of that, because teacup giraffes .

Why they don't put two or three new adversaries on every deck is beyond me.

1 minute ago, CitizenKeen said:

Why they don't put two or three new adversaries on every deck is beyond me.

If you had to chose between a new adversary or a teacup giraffe, you'd do the same!

9 minutes ago, Endersai said:

If you had to chose between a new adversary or a teacup giraffe, you'd do the same!

Sorry, misscommunication. I love teacup giraffes. I meant, why don't they put stat blocks unique to the deck in every deck.

14 minutes ago, CitizenKeen said:

Why they don't put two or three new adversaries on every deck is beyond me.

Because then they'd be forcing me to pay for the same seventeen-or-eighteen adversaries twice in order to get the two-or-three new ones I actually wanted. This way owning duplicate references for any given creature is my decision.

I bought the Foes' deck despite there being nothing new in it. Personally I just wish the packaging advertised the contents more explicitly.

2 minutes ago, Cantriped said:

Because then they'd be forcing me to pay for the same seventeen-or-eighteen adversaries twice in order to get the two-or-three new ones I actually wanted. This way owning duplicate references for any given creature is my decision.

I bought the Foes' deck despite there being nothing new in it. Personally I just wish the packaging advertised the contents more explicitly.

Do you mean as in they're just reskinned Star Wars adversaries?

8 hours ago, Endersai said:

Do you mean as in they're just reskinned Star Wars adversaries?

No, I meant that I bought the "Foes of Terrinoth" deck knowing it only contained creatures already published in Realms of Terrinoth. I wouldn't know about adversaries from Star Wars, having never played it.

I bought them to test how well they'll work for me as GMing aids. However I wish the packaging advertised explicitly which adversaries it contained.

If I had just wanted new creatures instead, I would have felt cheated if FFG had forced me to buy ~18 creatures I already stats for just to get the ~2 that I didn't.

8 hours ago, Cantriped said:

No, I meant that I bought the "Foes of Terrinoth" deck knowing it only contained creatures already published in Realms of Terrinoth. I wouldn't know about adversaries from Star Wars, having never played it.

I bought them to test how well they'll work for me as GMing aids. However I wish the packaging advertised explicitly which adversaries it contained.

If I had just wanted new creatures instead, I would have felt cheated if FFG had forced me to buy ~18 creatures I already stats for just to get the ~2 that I didn't.

Ah right ok - this is not dissimilar to Star Wars, where minions like Stormtroopers are reprinted on the cards.

Having said this, I would not hesitate to buy the android ones, simply because the convenience factor of having them on hand and not needing to flip through the book without losing the page the stats are on is huge.

So, as a guy who runs a lot of Star Wars/Genesys at cons and such, I can say that I rarely lug a Core book with me. A few character sheets, a deck or two or adversary cards, and a GM screen with the crit tables on them (and dice), and I'm good to go. Adversary cards are so, so amazing as a product. Strongly prefer them to flipping through a book.

I hope it’s Tannhauser. Was really disappointed with Modiphius and their terrible handling of Dust Adventures, and feel like FFG is giving Genesys enough support to make it worth picking up should the sourcebook ever be released. Who knows, we might be able to get them to make a new version of the board and card games.

On 10/2/2018 at 1:54 PM, Duciris said:

Shadow of the Beanstalk

Woo-hoo!

Honestly, the entire reason I bought Genesys was for this setting. looking forward to it.

On 10/2/2018 at 3:15 PM, 2P51 said:

The World of Android book was a sourcebook looking for a RPG all along.

That's literally what I bought it to be anyway (using things like Fate, Savage Worlds, etc.).

Do we know when the sourcebook is roughly expected to drop? I'm looking to run a cyberpunk setting with Genesys come January, and it'll be very helpful.

On 12/23/2018 at 10:10 PM, souledgar_ said:

Do we know when the sourcebook is roughly expected to drop? I'm looking to run a cyberpunk setting with Genesys come January, and it'll be very helpful.

No. I assure you every site that has anything remotely to do with Android and Genesys will be blasting it. If you don't see it then we don't know.

Does anyone have an estimate of when we might get new and "spoilers" about Shadow Under Beanstalk, based on how they released the info about Realms of Terrinoth?

My suspicion is we'll hear something in January. The book has to be done as far as development goes, I can't imagine there is anything rule wise they're trying to hammer out. Maybe some delays in layout, or waiting for some art assets (although I imagine all the art will be coming from the LCG). Maybe something with the budgets around sending the books to printer? Although why not release the PDF?

47 minutes ago, Gundark said:

My suspicion is we'll hear something in January. The book has to be done as far as development goes, I can't imagine there is anything rule wise they're trying to hammer out. Maybe some delays in layout, or waiting for some art assets (although I imagine all the art will be coming from the LCG). Maybe something with the budgets around sending the books to printer? Although why not release the PDF?

I don't know about the rule thing. It was played at PAX Unplugged less then a month ago. I could see some lessons learned that are being worked on or fine tuned or player feed back to go through. I'm hoping we'll hear see something in January. Soon (TM) is when I'm sure we'll have an announcement.

On 1/1/2019 at 6:03 AM, Gundark said:

Although why not release the PDF?

Doesn't FFG prefer to publish the physical books before the electronic versions? Granted I haven't been following their publishing schedule closely, so I could be mistaken.

2 hours ago, Berg_Katze said:

Doesn't FFG prefer to publish the physical books before the electronic versions? Granted I haven't been following their publishing schedule closely, so I could be mistaken.

Generally now a days they prefer to print the physical copy, then fix any mistakes in the digital version; Was for both Genesys and the new L5R. Granted, when they publish the pdf is also somewhat random, as Genesys core took two week, the same day for Terrinoth, and L5R took about a month or so.

Yeah, that was my impression, so I wouldn't expect the pdf to come out sooner than the physical copy. Which is fine with me, since I'd get the dead tree version anyways.

On 10/23/2018 at 12:01 AM, Larry Ho-Teep said:

Listening to this, I want to play/run a cyberpunk game soo baddd!

Just scrolling through this thread again and saw this; ironically that's a 1978 Porsche 911 SC!

Well we have a release time for it (1st quarter- which means April). So yay!!! Looking forward to playing it.