I have a question regarding this talent. My apologies if ths has been asked before, as I tried to research an answer before posting.

The text says that the character gets to add a boost die per rank of Quick Strike to combat checks against any target that "has not yet acted." Does this mean against foes that have not acted, at all ? Or does is mean against foes that haven'tyet acted in a particular round? I'm thinking the former, and that once the foe acts, for the first time, the character loses any more Quick Strike abilitty against him.

Thanks in advance on any advice!

Lord Dynel said:

The way I've been playing it is that it requires the target to have not acted in the current round, otherwise it borders on near-uselessness. Given the fluid nature of initiative in this system, this would enable someone that has Quick Strike to make fairly frequent use of this talent.

Donovan Morningfire said:

That's what I had originally thought, that it can be used every round. Then I started flip-flopping between that line of thinking and the "only once during combat before the foe acts" mindset. Reading your post has kind of got me back to the original thinking. Then, rereading the talent, I do believe that the spirit of it does indeed intend on a once per round usage.

hmmm, i would have thought it was once per encounter. thematically it is taking advantage of someone who is flat footed.

quick draw is a talent that effectively only has a benefit of once per encounter.

New Zombie said:

Heh, this is why I was flip-flopping. Good point!

But I'm wary over falling into the " X works just like the Y mechanic from [saga, etc]" mentality. That could be a very dangerous trap to fall into.

Looking at the other talents, they seem to be very specific as to when they can be used (i.e. once per session, at the end of the encounter, when X check is made, etc.).

One part of the wording of Quick Strike seems to indicate - to me at least - that it can be used whenever there's an attack check, while another part of it may indicate it can only be used once per combat (the "not yet acted" part, which I feel is a bit vague).

It is probably vague as there is the possibility of new combatants entering an encounter that is already in progress. So, it isn't just for the first round of combat, but I wouldn't let it be used on NPCs that have already become part of the encounter (by having acted on an initiative this encounter).

Kallabecca said:

Exactly.

While it may seem extremely useful, bear in mind that thanks to the way initiative works, that one bad guy you were really hoping to take down with the help of your two or three ranks in Quick Strike might have the chance to act before you, and not every player is going to let you always go first in the round, as they may have something cool that they want to do and may be more beneficial to the group's objectives than you simply having a better chance to hit.

I've gone with the "acted yet in round" interpretation. Might change once they get tons of ranks in it, but I feel its pointless if it only has an affect in the first round of combat - or if new opponents appear during combat.

Jegergryte said:

Indeed. It only apprears twice in the Scoundrel and Scout trees, and once in the Assassin tree, so I think it would be quite a heavy investment for a player wanting to "exploit" this talent. And, if somone really wanted to jump around a few talent trees and invest a crapton of points just to get a couple boost die advantage in combat, I'd would be fine with it as a GM. After reading some good points in this thread, on both sides of the debate, I think I'd rule it as a "per round" ability.

if you're interested and feel that their opinions have any weight, the order 66 podcast team addressed this question in episode 4 around the 45 minute mark.

… they felt it was per encounter.

One of my players asked me for railing on this talent before he invested in it, as other talents specifically mention per turn usage and this one doesn't I opted for 'once per encounter', he agreed with my interpretation but still bought the talent. I am soo glad that most of my players accept the 'gm's word is final' ethos.

New Zombie said:

Well, they've also been wrong, as noted on the first episode in regards to how damage works, with GM Chris have used both methods before getting the final word from Jay on how it actually worked (turned out quite a few GMs, self included, had that one wrong). They've had the same happen to them with Saga Edition, with Rodney Thompson coming in and saying "Sorry guys, but this is actually how it works." At the end of the day, they're two guys with an unofficial podcast, and while their words might reach a far greater audience than you or me, they've got the same chance of being wrong as you, me, or anyone else that's not listed as a designer/developer on the EotE game.

I'll admit I haven't listened to the latest show yet, but the only official FFG guest for this show was the art director according to the show's description.

Like Lord Dynel said, it's going to take a lot of tree-hopping and XP to rack up more than a couple instances of this talent, so allowing it's use once on a foe that hasn't acted in the current round isn't going to result in more than two boost dice in most circumstances, and even in some of those more extreme ones, we're talking well over a hundred XP spent to get those talents, so it'd take a pertty dedicated build to really start abusing Quick Strike.

Donovan Morningfire said:

considering that jay and sam very rarely post on the official forums, then the community answering any question where ambiguity is present in the rules is pointless by your rationale.

as for my table i'm gald that my players choose the advancements that appeal to their sense of role, and don't weigh up the XP costs.

lupex said:

My table and I agreed on this interpretation. You don't have to manipulate any rationale, or claim to "know what the designer really meant" to interpret the text and understand that the talent does what the talent says: +Boost vs targets that haven't acted. At least to our eyes, that kind of manipulation is neccesary to come to a different conclusion.

Beyond that, our table is realizing that the boost die is not equivalent to the conditional +1 or +2 bonuses in d20 editions (comparison made to for simplicity, not to start some edition war) that got tossed around like freakin' tic-tacs in those systems. From both simulation data and empirical "@ the table" experice, the boost dice feel like they represent substantial, important, or influential conditions, more similar to the +4 bonuses in the d20 games that got tossed around with less frequency. As GM I rarely add more than 1 Boost (or 1 Setback ) die by fiat, and this has led to smaller slightly smaller pools that are easier to roll and count up. Yeah, this is based on both our experience and the actual numbers behind the dice, which may make us "math nerds", but we're empirically more satisfied math nerds. YMMV.

The relevance is to all those words is that, based on the feel and the numbers, it makes more sense to us that, given the magnitude of the benefit, Quick Strike works best when roughly once per encounter, instead of once per round.

Just another way of looking at it using facts about the dice.

-WJL

Donovan Morningfire said:

Dono's correct.

At this point, GMD and I are just podcasters and somewhat experienced players/GMs offering our opinions on the matter, and how we'd run it. Some folks find those opinions somewhat useful, LOL… But as for their value… An opinion and 60 cents will get you a can of coke.

Seriously, though, the bottom line is that you should ALWAYS do what's best for you and your group. Period.

It's strange… all of us (every player and GM out there) is flying pretty blind right now. We've got our navigational data (the beta and beginner's set), but can't quite see the runway. ;-) And we won't until next quarter, when the "real" full rules are released. Thankfully, developers like Jay are eager to help us all out and take part in the Order 66 Podcast, which means (when they CAN talk about this stuff), we'll be proud to be the place where questions like this can get answered by someone who knows for sure. :-D

Peace, Love, and Good Gaming!

GM Chris said:

Didn't mean to sound overly harsh, but at the same time I've seen some pretty nasty volleys over on the WotC boards due to some folks treating your's and Dave's opinions as having as much weight as Rodney's or even Gary Sarli's (back when there was an active Jedi Counseling). Doubt anyone got banned, as Gary had retired from mod duties and the mods listed did next to nothing to keep things civil.

Some people have had a similarily mistaken belief that my statements carry anymore weight than the next guy's. About the stuff I could speak with any authority one is the section of material I wrote for two books, and I'm not hesitant to say "sorry, can't give you an author's word on X because I didn't write that part." Anything else just boils down to being one gamer's opinion. Though in my neck of the woods, it'd be dollar and said opinion that'd get you that can of Coke.

I got this as a reply from the people at FFG on it:

" The Quick Strike talent allows the character to add the appropriate number of Boost dice to combat checks against any target that has not yet acted in the encounter as a whole."

So it seems to be a once an encounter deal, but it looks like it will shine in encounters where enemies arraive at staggered intervals.

DeadInkPen said:

If you don't mind my asking, was this a specific person at FFG, or just a general customer service rep?

Again, harkening back to WotC and how their customer service reps were known for giving blatantly incorrect answers for questions about D&D and M:tG (their two biggest product lines) that directly contradicted the written material in each respective game's rule books.

Donovan Morningfire said:

Here is the name, position of who sent me the email answering that question.

Chris Gerber
Managing RPG Producer

I have never had a general customer service reply to any rules/mechanics related question from FFG yet. Hope that helps you out for it. I decided to email them on the ruling since it was getting debated by the players after a game wraped up. So I figured I might as well ask them for their official ruling on it.

Donovan Morningfire said:

I really don't see much reason to doubt this ruling. There's nothing in it that contradicts the rules we have now, even if someone from a different company gave wrong information about a different game at some time in the past.

-WJL

DeadInkPen said:

Fair enough.

I personally don't agree with the ruling, but I can always house-rule otherwise for my own games if the situation comes up.

Donovan Morningfire said:

The way I read it is that the RAW for this talent says that you get a boost dice against an enemy that 'has not acted', whilst RAW for other talents says 'per turn', which is how I made my ruling.

It is interesting dono that for this talent you don't ascribe to the 'common sense' approach and feel that more clarification text needs adding, whilst for other rules queries you have said that added clarification text isn't needed as people should use 'common sense'.

I would say that if the rules are brief, then take them as they are and use common sense for the rest.

but that's just my opinion, that and £2 will get you a coffee.

lupex said:

I think that's part of the problem in this instance, is that the rules are brief. Having done RPG design work both officially and unofficially, I've run headfist into the issue of too much brevity.

Could be that to me, Quick Strike equates to the d20 Sneak Attack feature, only instead of working against flat-footed/unaware targets like Sneak Attack does, the Quick Strike talent just means you got the drop on your target in some way. Also from a lot of time spent playing Star Wars minis, where similar abilities (bonus to hit and/or damage if target hasn't acted/been activated that round) existed, namely Advantageous Attack (bonus to damage) and Cunning Attack (bonus to hit and damage). Maybe part of why the official response was "per encounter" was a reaction to how easy it was in D&D (particularly 4e) for a character to get their Sneak Attack damage on a round-to-round basis.

That and one of the cases against Quick Strike being a "per round" was that it was deemed too powerful. And yet, for a paltry 350 credits, a character with a blaster carbine/rifle can enjoy a Boost Die to all their attacks no matter when they act in the round via the Forearm Grip with the Mod (Accurate +1) quality. The cheapest that Quick Strike can be obtained is at 10 XP and only under 3 specializations that are each under a different career.

Plus, for those specialications, it's pretty much a required talent if you want to advance further along the talent tree, and one thing I strongly dislike is a player feeling like they are being forced to spend valuable character resources on something they may only occassionally get to use.

As for "common sense," I'd be wary of using that as a blanket statement, given that a lot of folks' "common sense" told them that the successes leftover after the initial one to hit your target was accounted for (i.e. rolled 3 successes, damage bonus is +2 for those 2 successes above what you needed to hit) rather than what Jay clarified it to be.

By the same token, the "hasn't acted" could also be taken to mean that if the bad guys do something that triggers a combat encounter, even if it's not attacking, before initiative is rolled, then they've technically "acted" during the combat, and Quick Strike would be useless. Probably not the intent, but one of the players at my table posed this question (for what it's worth, he's a contract laywer by profession, so exact wording is a day-to-day aspect of what he does to provide for his family), and I doubt he'd be the only person to wonder something like that.

Maybe I am overthinking it, but after 20+ years in this hobby and exposure to a wide variety of RPG rules (some good, some not so good), I tend not to just accept rules at face value without thinking them over, if only to try and get a better grasp of what was intended rather than simply what was written.

Fair enough buddy, how you interpret the rules in your game is up to you. And as GM its always going to be your call.

However, I would advise against comparing the rules in Edge to the rules in other systems, as you have said yourself, we need to unlearn what all the years of D20 micro-rules -for-everything have taught us.

Trust your feelings……

Lupex,
Please avoid the preaching. It's really not necessary.

And given there are other instances where the rules are nebulous, for most gamers it's going to be up to them to figure out what those rules mean. On the surface, Quick Strike can and has been read by others (not just me) as being once per round because of the printed lack of a qualifer.

As for dropping the "what you've learned from other systems," it's that very trait of keeping in mind the information from other systems, where they worked and where they failed, that helped land me a freelancing gig with Wizards of the Coast, and it's proven quite useful on a number of other occasions of untangling a number of thorny and unclear rules issues in this game and a plethora of others.

Far as I'm concerned, it's a dead issue. There's an official ruling, and while I don't agree with it for reasons already cited, I'm not going to argue that the designers screwed it up the way some other folks on the FFG boards have done about design decisions that FFG has made, Jedi and dice system being the two big ones.