The Surveillance skill got rolled into Perception.

The Surveillance skill got rolled into Perception.

Sorry, that sounds weird...what is the logic behind that? Checking whether I can see the icons and signs on my scanner's screen? No offense meant, but I think I'll use computer...

Thanks Venthrac, this is really good information...

[...]

Q: Why does the weighted head attachment, which is the only attachment for bludgeoning weapons, require two hard points when none of the bludgeoning weapons in the book have any hard points?

A: Per Sam: "Some of the things we did in the book, we did... with forward compatibility in mind. Just because the attachment may not work with any of the weapons we have right now, that's definitely not going to be the case later on."

Q: The Inventor talent grants a benefit "When constructing new items...." Where can I find the rules for item construction? They don't appear to be in the core rulebook.

A: Basically, see previous answer. This is more forward-compatibility stuff.

[...]

But i get disappointed when i read those two answers. Everything that is included in the Rulebook should be fully usable without being forced to buy additional supplements.

I disagree completely. Don't look at it as something was left out. Take the construction rules for example. That apparently was never intended to be in the core rules. It was reserved for supplements, which every RPG ever released has (unless they died after book 1). I hate it when supplements have to retcon the core book in order to make them work. I love the idea of FFG planning ahead so I don't have to pencil in notes to the Inventor talent in my core book when the construction rules later get released. Thank you FFG.

We all agree we want supplements right? Why not have core be already fully compatible with FFG's planned releases? I hate it when future releases make parts of my core book obsolete or full of errata.

The Surveillance skill got rolled into Perception.

Sorry, that sounds weird...what is the logic behind that? Checking whether I can see the icons and signs on my scanner's screen? No offense meant, but I think I'll use computer...

The Surveillance skilled go rolled into Perception AND Computer. I think that was officially said somewhere.

Yes, page 3 of the final beta update specifies: "Surveillance (page 81): Remove Surveillance and its entry.
In the final book, Computers and Perception will compensate for this skill."

Thanks Venthrac, this is really good information...

[...]

Q: Why does the weighted head attachment, which is the only attachment for bludgeoning weapons, require two hard points when none of the bludgeoning weapons in the book have any hard points?

A: Per Sam: "Some of the things we did in the book, we did... with forward compatibility in mind. Just because the attachment may not work with any of the weapons we have right now, that's definitely not going to be the case later on."

Q: The Inventor talent grants a benefit "When constructing new items...." Where can I find the rules for item construction? They don't appear to be in the core rulebook.

A: Basically, see previous answer. This is more forward-compatibility stuff.

[...]

But i get disappointed when i read those two answers. Everything that is included in the Rulebook should be fully usable without being forced to buy additional supplements.

I disagree completely. Don't look at it as something was left out. Take the construction rules for example. That apparently was never intended to be in the core rules. It was reserved for supplements, which every RPG ever released has (unless they died after book 1). I hate it when supplements have to retcon the core book in order to make them work. I love the idea of FFG planning ahead so I don't have to pencil in notes to the Inventor talent in my core book when the construction rules later get released. Thank you FFG.

We all agree we want supplements right? Why not have core be already fully compatible with FFG's planned releases? I hate it when future releases make parts of my core book obsolete or full of errata.

Supplements are good, i agree. But the GRW should be independent from the supplements. And i do not think that this would be a problem here.

1) weighted head attachment: Why not add it in the supplement which introduces weapons that could use it, or even better just add two or three weapons in EotE.

2) Inventor Talent: Why not include the rules for item construction in the GRW. Or move the talent in the supplement with additionall specialisations that have it in the tree?

To be honest, i have a tight budget and it is possible that i will never buy one of the supplements as the GRW gives a lot of oportunities for adventure allready. Therefore i am still disapointed about this!

Thanks Venthrac, this is really good information...

[...]

Q: Why does the weighted head attachment, which is the only attachment for bludgeoning weapons, require two hard points when none of the bludgeoning weapons in the book have any hard points?

A: Per Sam: "Some of the things we did in the book, we did... with forward compatibility in mind. Just because the attachment may not work with any of the weapons we have right now, that's definitely not going to be the case later on."

Q: The Inventor talent grants a benefit "When constructing new items...." Where can I find the rules for item construction? They don't appear to be in the core rulebook.

A: Basically, see previous answer. This is more forward-compatibility stuff.

[...]

But i get disappointed when i read those two answers. Everything that is included in the Rulebook should be fully usable without being forced to buy additional supplements.

I disagree completely. Don't look at it as something was left out. Take the construction rules for example. That apparently was never intended to be in the core rules. It was reserved for supplements, which every RPG ever released has (unless they died after book 1). I hate it when supplements have to retcon the core book in order to make them work. I love the idea of FFG planning ahead so I don't have to pencil in notes to the Inventor talent in my core book when the construction rules later get released. Thank you FFG.

We all agree we want supplements right? Why not have core be already fully compatible with FFG's planned releases? I hate it when future releases make parts of my core book obsolete or full of errata.

Supplements are good, i agree. But the GRW should be independent from the supplements. And i do not think that this would be a problem here.

1) weighted head attachment: Why not add it in the supplement which introduces weapons that could use it, or even better just add two or three weapons in EotE.

2) Inventor Talent: Why not include the rules for item construction in the GRW. Or move the talent in the supplement with additionall specialisations that have it in the tree?

To be honest, i have a tight budget and it is possible that i will never buy one of the supplements as the GRW gives a lot of oportunities for adventure allready. Therefore i am still disapointed about this!

I assume that GRW refers to the core rules, but what does it stand for exactly?

The core rules are already huge. It only makes sense to parse other subsystems to the appropriate supplements. While I feel for the tight budget, perhaps you could share the cost burden with the other players in your group? I have had to do that myself with a few titles before.

The Surveillance skill got rolled into Perception.

Sorry, that sounds weird...what is the logic behind that? Checking whether I can see the icons and signs on my scanner's screen? No offense meant, but I think I'll use computer...

Check the extra actions you can take in Starship combat, scanning and sensors use Perception.

Thanks Venthrac, this is really good information...

[...] Q: Why does the weighted head attachment, which is the only attachment for bludgeoning weapons, require two hard points when none of the bludgeoning weapons in the book have any hard points? A: Per Sam: "Some of the things we did in the book, we did... with forward compatibility in mind. Just because the attachment may not work with any of the weapons we have right now, that's definitely not going to be the case later on." Q: The Inventor talent grants a benefit "When constructing new items...." Where can I find the rules for item construction? They don't appear to be in the core rulebook. A: Basically, see previous answer. This is more forward-compatibility stuff. [...]

But i get disappointed when i read those two answers. Everything that is included in the Rulebook should be fully usable without being forced to buy additional supplements.

I disagree completely. Don't look at it as something was left out. Take the construction rules for example. That apparently was never intended to be in the core rules. It was reserved for supplements, which every RPG ever released has (unless they died after book 1). I hate it when supplements have to retcon the core book in order to make them work. I love the idea of FFG planning ahead so I don't have to pencil in notes to the Inventor talent in my core book when the construction rules later get released. Thank you FFG. We all agree we want supplements right? Why not have core be already fully compatible with FFG's planned releases? I hate it when future releases make parts of my core book obsolete or full of errata.

Supplements are good, i agree. But the GRW should be independent from the supplements. And i do not think that this would be a problem here. 1) weighted head attachment: Why not add it in the supplement which introduces weapons that could use it, or even better just add two or three weapons in EotE.2) Inventor Talent: Why not include the rules for item construction in the GRW. Or move the talent in the supplement with additionall specialisations that have it in the tree? To be honest, i have a tight budget and it is possible that i will never buy one of the supplements as the GRW gives a lot of oportunities for adventure allready. Therefore i am still disapointed about this!

Weighted Head is in the core book because the entry for it doesn't have to be reprinted everytime a new weapon is added that uses it.

I had a chance to ask Sam a few things in person at GenCon this weekend, so I've got a bit more to add to this thread.

My first question was about the damage control action. The action states that it can be used to repair hull trauma, but it doesn't say how much hull trauma is repaired. Sam clarified this for me, explaining that it repairs hull trauma in the same way as the manual repairs action, at a rate of one hull trauma repaired per success on the Mechanics check. So, it's nice to have that cleared up.

I then asked about the monetary cost of healing in a bacta tank at a medical facility, if the PCs need to purchase such healing. He suggested keeping it low because bacta is designed to help get PCs back in the fight quickly. Now, I don't have a recording of the conversation and I didn't take notes, plus it was very loud where we were and I could not hear every single word, but I believe he said that maybe 25 credits for a 2-hour block was a good baseline, and the cost might go up or down depending on where the healing was taking place. If bacta were scarce in the location, it should cost more, for example. It was my impression that Sam preferred not to have a hard rule for this, but rather that the GM should use his or her judgement in the matter.

The same was largely true of my third question, which was based around the idea of a skilled mechanic repairing hull trauma to the party's starship outside of combat. Currently the rules establish a base cost of 500 credits per point of hull trauma repaired, but the rule makes no mention of how a skilled PC mechanic might affect the process. Sam suggested that a Mechanics check might reduce the repair cost. For example, a PC mechanic might be able to repair some of the hull damage without needing to pay for it, or pay only half of the 500 credits that the rulebook suggests. Here again, the GM should decide this based on the circumstances. If parts and supplies are readily available and the facilities are good, a PC could perhaps make a Mechanics check and repair one point of hull trauma per success at no cost, and then the party would have to pay 500 credits for each remaining point of hull trauma they wanted to repair.

On the other hand, if the repairs were being made in a poorly-equipped hangar bay with very few tools and parts on hand, the GM might rule that the Mechanics check reduces the repair cost for a number of hull trauma equal to the successes rolled. For example, if a ship had suffered 6 hull trauma and the Mechanics check generated 3 successes, then three points of hull trauma could be repaired at 250 credits each, while the remaining three would cost the full 500 credits per the rules.

In summary, much of this works the way many of us already assumed it did. It's a narrative game so the circumstances of the action and the needs of the story will dictate much, but it was nice to hear some official guidance and clarification.

I had a chance to ask Sam a few things in person at GenCon this weekend, so I've got a bit more to add to this thread.

My first question was about the damage control action. The action states that it can be used to repair hull trauma, but it doesn't say how much hull trauma is repaired. Sam clarified this for me, explaining that it repairs hull trauma in the same way as the manual repairs action, at a rate of one hull trauma repaired per success on the Mechanics check. So, it's nice to have that cleared up.

To be clear, Manual Repairs repairs 1 point on a success and 1 additional point per two additional successes, unless the intent is to change both to 1 point per success.

Ah, okay, that mistake is mine. What Sam said is that it works the way Manual Repairs works, i was just remembering it wrong.

The Surveillance skill got rolled into Perception.

Sorry, that sounds weird...what is the logic behind that? Checking whether I can see the icons and signs on my scanner's screen? No offense meant, but I think I'll use computer...

Sitting at the cafe across from your targets home or office is surveillance as much as planting a bug or watching via a camera.

Repackaging Surveillance with Perception makes more sense than the Computer Use since it doesn't omit the standard methods of surveillance. At that point we can use the Computer skill in conjunction with Perception if there is electronic surveillance also in place.

If the only means of surveilling someone is electronic you still need to be perceptive to not miss something like electronic counter-measures, spoofing or even a stealth field generator(rare but they are known to exist).

Note that in AoR, the ACE gets Perception which is usually going to be going through sensors.

I would like to ask whether Force power upgrades work the same way as ranked talents for a Force power that appears in multiple Force specializations' talent trees, since I understand that Force powers work like unranked talents (automatically bought for the purpose of access to the subsequent upgrades, on any Force specialization that has that power, without spending XP ).

For example, the Force power Move appears in both of the official and publicly known Force specializations, so if I buy both specializations and Move in one of them, does that grant me the ability to buy all of the upgrades across both trees and thereby potentially have? It has four Magnitude upgrades in EotE, so if I pick up Force Sensitive Emergent which I understand has a 1:1 reprint of Move, do I thereby immediately unlock access to its own Magnitude upgrade branch and thus potentially buying up to eight Magnitude upgrades?

I would like to ask whether Force power upgrades work the same way as ranked talents for a Force power that appears in multiple Force specializations' talent trees, since I understand that Force powers work like unranked talents (automatically bought for the purpose of access to the subsequent upgrades, on any Force specialization that has that power, without spending XP ).

For example, the Force power Move appears in both of the official and publicly known Force specializations, so if I buy both specializations and Move in one of them, does that grant me the ability to buy all of the upgrades across both trees and thereby potentially have? It has four Magnitude upgrades in EotE, so if I pick up Force Sensitive Emergent which I understand has a 1:1 reprint of Move, do I thereby immediately unlock access to its own Magnitude upgrade branch and thus potentially buying up to eight Magnitude upgrades?

There's not two separate Move powers. Move was simply reprinted in the AoR Beta, and if you bought the Move power as a F/S Exile, then you've already got the same power that's listed in AoR. So the answer is "No, you can't buy eight Magnitude Upgrades," as there are only four of them available to the Move power.

This same sort of rule is in effect when it comes to specializations that appear under more than one career, such as Pilot (Smuggler and Ace), Mechanic (Technician and Engineer), Slicer (Technician and Spy), Scout (Explorer and Spy), and Driver (Explorer as of "Exploring the Rim" and Ace). Once you purchase the specialization, you've already acquired it, so you can't buy it a second time even if it shows up under a different career. And this one is directly from Jay Little.

I believe that you're misunderstanding me: I said that they're the same power in the way that unranked talents are the same between specializations' talent trees , but my interpretation is that Force power upgrades work the same way as ranked talents, that you can buy up but only as many as you've got instances/appearances of it across all of your current specializations, and of course buying the new specialization with its own XP cost is a prerequisite anyway. For example, if you go all four Magnitude upgrades deep in Move with either Force specialization, you're still paying (10 x total number of specializations that the character would have) XP up front for the other specialization before you can buy a fifth Magnitude upgrade.

(As with Balance vs. Invigorate, I too am hoping for this one to be cleared up in AoR, since in EotE it's a moot point unless using fan-made Force specializations.)

There is one Force Move Power. It is listed in both books but it is the same power can can only be purchased once. Force powers aren't part of any spec. They are separate things.

I believe that you're misunderstanding me: I said that they're the same power in the way that unranked talents are the same between specializations' talent trees , but my interpretation is that Force power upgrades work the same way as ranked talents, that you can buy up but only as many as you've got instances/appearances of it across all of your current specializations, and of course buying the new specialization with its own XP cost is a prerequisite anyway. For example, if you go all four Magnitude upgrades deep in Move with either Force specialization, you're still paying (10 x total number of specializations that the character would have) XP up front for the other specialization before you can buy a fifth Magnitude upgrade.

(As with Balance vs. Invigorate, I too am hoping for this one to be cleared up in AoR, since in EotE it's a moot point unless using fan-made Force specializations.)

Talents and Force powers are two completely different things. Thinking of them as similar is just going to cause headaches. There is one Force Move power, which is nothing like a talent, ranked or unranked. You can spend XP on the power, and any upgrades, but you can't "double dip" and take the power again for more upgrades—there can be only one Force Move power! lol

-EF

Of course you're not buying it again, I see that being in the same sense that unranked talents aren't double dipped but automatically "unlocked" in a talent tree for the purposes of moving on from it without spending XP .

I would like to ask whether Force power upgrades work the same way as ranked talents for a Force power that appears in multiple Force specializations' talent trees

No.

This evening I received an email from Sam Stewart answering a few of my rules questions.

My first question was an inquiry about how much hull trauma the damage control action can repair. I had asked this at GenCon, but I didn't record it right then and there (stupid me). This time I've got it in writing from the man himself, and it works even better than I initially thought it did.

Starship Repairs.

The amount of hull trauma Damage Control repairs is equal to the number of successes scored on the check, in the same fashion as a medicine check. If used to repair system strain, it is also equal to the number of successes scored on the check.

To your second point, technically you'd have to make repair checks to fix system strain until repaired. However, with enough "narrative down time" the GM can certainly rule that you fix it without making checks. After all, you'll be able to fix it eventually anyway; it's only interesting to track if you are going to be quickly thrust into another combat encounter or chase.

I also asked how blast damage works against minions.

Blast Damage

How blast damage works against minion groups depends on whether the minions are engaged with each other or not. If a group of minions is spread out across a room, and I throw a grenade at one, then the Blast quality cannot affect the group. In that case, the grenade deals direct damage to the minion group's combined wound threshold (if it deals 9 damage, and the minion has a soak of 3 and wound threshold of 4, then one minion drops, and the group still has two additional damage. This may represent random flying shrapnel, but could just as easily represent the stress of seeing a comrade killed).

If multiple minions are engaged with each other, then the damage from the Blast quality can do damage to as many additional minions as are engaged with the first minion. (Grenade hits a three minion group who are all engaged with each other. The grenade deals 9 damage, plus 7 blast damage, against the same minions as described earlier. Since the blast damage hits each individual separately, they apply their soak to it in every case, but the damage is still enough to wipe out the entire minion group with 2 damage left over).

All in all, grenades are a great way to take out tight clusters of faceless mooks; as they should be.

Good news on the repair clarification. I know a certain Trandoshan mechanic and a Twi'lek smuggler that'll be pleased about it.

Notably, there's a significant change from the rulebook here. Per the EotE core rulebook, the Damage Control action can only recover 1 system strain per use (though it can be used as often as needed). Sam's response changes that, allowing the ship to recover 1 system strain per success rolled on the check .

That is a big upgrade over the way the action is written in the text.

I wonder if that's how the rule was intended, but they didn't make the change in the book.

Taking that rule clarification and tying it to the mechanic's talents of Fine Tuning and Solid Repairs and you've got a lot of damage that can potentially be fixed with one die roll.