The intention was that they do not stack.

The information surplus - overflow - of the internet could pose a greater challenge than the more limited resource of encyclopedia britannica … look for cats on the internet = LolCatz! In the encyclopedia = more specific. Larger amounts of data might not be so rigoursly tested for validity.

Still, for archives like this I guess one could make a good argument for a stacking function… and then, does the archive acutally contain the information you're looking for? if not, there is no bonus at all… it depends how you want to use it really. I'd go for non-stacking.

Oh, and thanks for all the praise!

I'm not good at the compliment stuff - we norwegians hate sticking out and being "blamed" for doing good work - unless we can point out it was a "team effort", which makes us feel slightly better. So I'm not good at the whole compliment thing, particularly showing that I appreciate it. This is my way of doing that, which I guess goes to show how awkward it is and makes me feel.

I enjoy making this supplement, but it will soon be over - I need to focus on my postgraduate project, and of course the Known Threats supplement. I'm making quite a few NPCs of various power levels, and all the major antagonists of my campaign (dead or alive) that is not of FFGs making will also appear in this supplement.

Hohum!

Since the book is starting to appear in people's mail boxes, I've started to consider updating stuff soon... and I've recently had a look at Qualities , and here are some thoughts on revisions and changes after playing the game a lot since making these, and also testing a few of them.

1) High-energy consumption cannot be applied to heavy blaster pistols, as they are considered to have it already. Should this be specified?

2) Should Blinding have a resilience (or some other skill) check. Idea: 2 adv to activate, all within short range make resilience (or other skill) check at average difficulty (can increase to hard if additional 2 advantage are spent for activation?). Failure means 1 round blind as per crit injury 116-120 (but does not of course count as a cirt injury), where threats can increase duration at a 1 for 1 cost? 2 for 1? Despair would make it for rest of encounter/scene?

3) Auto-fire friendly will have its drawback changed from two upgrades to 1 or 2 increases instead I think. Perhaps 1 upgrade and 1 increase? I just think the potential for a despair result with two upgrades is hideous and should have been mentioned long time ago by someone smarter and more aware than me

4) Should Limited range have a similar change? Exchange upgrades to increases?

5) After play-testing Serrated I'm thinking of a change; either a static boost for adv cost, or changing the cost or damage bonus in its current form. 2 advantages for +1 damage was not considered by players to be a good enough bonus - while potentially beardy if allowed on vibro-axes (which I don't think it should be), its hardly game breaking for vibro knives and/or swords, or other non-powered bladed melee weapons.
Suggestions (which could easily be variations of earlier thoughts):
a) Perhaps 2 advantages can be spent to apply Brawn once more to damage result? So 4 advantages can add brawn twice more. Really rewards brawny characters. Not a fan of this, sounds more like a talent.
b) 1 adv for +1 damage? At first look it seems very powerful, but I'm not so sure all things considered. I mean in some fights it will be the deciding factor sure, but in others you have to spend those advantages for crits or strain recovery anyway.
c) 2 or 3 advantage = doubles weapon's base damage?


And on that note, any other observations, criticisms or comments on the current version of the catalogue?

Since I cannot have urls in my signature anymore, here's a direct link to the supplement page.

AUFSTEHEN!

Uhm, in case anyone cares. This catalogue is in the process of being updated, revised and re-imagined. Follow this to see latest preview of the updated version. It'll take some time, but it'll be done.

Any pointers is welcome, particularly typos and nonsensical sentences.