Thought I would weigh in here.

I originally thought the same, that the sentence mentions that you can take an additional universal career at character creation to add thematic flair to the character.

However, since it is optional, I didn't (and still don't) see it as a problem to have it as part of the generator. Particularly since it is an optional mechanic. I do also agree the text could read either way.

Since Ogg mentioned that the person who investigated this contacted the devs and they've explained their original intent was to allow a universal spec to be taken as the main starting spec then I am even more in the camp of 'what is the issue?' because if the developers intended that, and the generator does that. Then there doesn't appear to be an issue. In fact it makes sense, you can start as a universal spec but it does come with a serious debuff in the fact you can never ever take a signature ability.

Although it does open up design space for a generic universal signature ability. Now that would be interesting to see.

I get you may read it different @Stan Fresh , but as Oggdude has said, you can just turn it off if you don't like it.

Developers, if you are reading this I'd recommend reprinting the rules in a new book and make it a bit more clear.

12 hours ago, Stan Fresh said:

And frankly, word of dev means nothing, considering how contradictory it has always been.

Well ****...why don't we just burn everything then. Clearly the game has no developers, mistakes can't be made and contrary information can't be provided.

As I reiterate in my prior post. It is optional. It can be turned off. I do not see why including an optional mechanic is an issue.

40 minutes ago, Ebak said:

Well ****...why don't we just burn everything then. Clearly the game has no developers, mistakes can't be made and contrary information can't be provided.

No one asked for perfection. You're fighting a strawman.

But this has developed into a topic for another thread.

2 hours ago, Ebak said:

Although it does open up design space for a generic universal signature ability. Now that would be interesting to see.

You know what, I bet something like that is coming. It makes sense: if you have universal specs, why not have universal signature abilities? The possibilities could be endless...

There are several universal specs that make sense as a starter spec. The ones in Dawn of Rebellion particularly so. But they’re not the only ones. Glad this is intentional and not an oversight. My Dawn of Rebellion is in a box in the garage right now and I was afraid I’d need to go digging to find an answer.

4 hours ago, Ebak said:

Thought I would weigh in here.

I originally thought the same, that the sentence mentions that you can take an additional universal career at character creation to add thematic flair to the character.

However, since it is optional, I didn't (and still don't) see it as a problem to have it as part of the generator. Particularly since it is an optional mechanic. I do also agree the text could read either way.

Since Ogg mentioned that the person who investigated this contacted the devs and they've explained their original intent was to allow a universal spec to be taken as the main starting spec then I am even more in the camp of 'what is the issue?' because if the developers intended that, and the generator does that. Then there doesn't appear to be an issue. In fact it makes sense, you can start as a universal spec but it does come with a serious debuff in the fact you can never ever take a signature ability.

Although it does open up design space for a generic universal signature ability. Now that would be interesting to see.

I get you may read it different @Stan Fresh , but as Oggdude has said, you can just turn it off if you don't like it.

Developers, if you are reading this I'd recommend reprinting the rules in a new book and make it a bit more clear.

Um you have to start with a career and your career sets your signature abilities. Whether you can attach the signature ability to the universal spec i dont know.

As far as i know, you have to attach all the signature abilities to one of the specs from the career they belong to. But it would be new to me that using a universal as the starting spec prevents acquiring an in career spec later on and attach the signature ability to it.

56 minutes ago, Malashim said:

As far as i know, you have to attach all the signature abilities to one of the specs from the career they belong to. But it would be new to me that using a universal as the starting spec prevents acquiring an in career spec later on and attach the signature ability to it.

It doesn't prevent it. You would just have to buy a career spec down the road somewhere to attach it to. If all you have is a universal spec, you won't be able to buy signature abilities.

2 hours ago, OggDude said:

It doesn't prevent it. You would just have to buy a career spec down the road somewhere to attach it to. If all you have is a universal spec, you won't be able to buy signature abilities.

As far as I am aware, your career never changes, and you can only get the signature ability for your career.

My train of thought was if they are going to allow universal specs from character creation it would be nice to have a very generic signature ability that any universal spec can take since effectively your career would be 'universal'?

4 minutes ago, Ebak said:

As far as I am aware, your career never changes, and you can only get the signature ability for your career.

My train of thought was if they are going to allow universal specs from character creation it would be nice to have a very generic signature ability that any universal spec can take since effectively your career would be 'universal'?

No. You need to select your career before you select universal spec. There is no universal career because the universal specs are considered a part of your career.

1 minute ago, Daeglan said:

No. YOu need to select your career beforee you selct universal spec. There is no universal career because the universal specs are considered a part of your career.

Aaah, that makes sense.

Also, the sig ability connects to the lowest row of a spec that *must* be in-career. You can't link it to an universal or out-of-career spec.

This is actually another thing I kind of like about being able to select a universal spec as your first spec: it adds nuance and complexity (in a good way) to the build process. On one hand, you can start off with something that could be considered outside your career and have more control over your abilities and progress. On the other hand, you won't be able to use the spec for signature abilities, since it's not a career spec. So, if you're going to want signature abilities down the road, you'll eventually have to get a career spec. You could end up with the same build, just getting your specs in a different order and at different times.

As RAW you cannot start with a Universal Spec in place of a Career Spec, I'd be in favor of the default setup being RAW, with the option to allow starting with a Universal Spec, not the other way around.

However, as this is Oggdude's program, I will take it any way he wants to make it! 😁

It's a super amazing program!

Thanks Oggdude! 👍 👍

@OggDude

Regarding the Armor Insert attachment:

It turns any clothing (max. Soak 1, Defence 0) into Armored Clothing. Should it not also give the clothing/armour the single Hard Point that Armored Clothing normally has? And maybe the same Encumbrance value?

59 minutes ago, Bellona said:

@OggDude

Regarding the Armor Insert attachment:

It turns any clothing (max. Soak 1, Defence 0) into Armored Clothing. Should it not also give the clothing/armour the single Hard Point that Armored Clothing normally has? And maybe the same Encumbrance value?

I could see Encumbrance value, but adding the hard point just reeks of min-maxing cheese. Especially for an attachment that's already as good as armor inserts are.

1 hour ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

I could see Encumbrance value, but adding the hard point just reeks of min-maxing cheese. Especially for an attachment that's already as good as armor inserts are.

I think Bellona was saying that the armor would be SET to 1 HP instead of adding a HP, basically making it great for low/no HP armor, but less so for something like a crafted Customizable armor.

4 hours ago, Bellona said:

@OggDude

Regarding the Armor Insert attachment:

It turns any clothing (max. Soak 1, Defence 0) into Armored Clothing. Should it not also give the clothing/armour the single Hard Point that Armored Clothing normally has? And maybe the same Encumbrance value?

This is another one that could go any number of ways, depending upon how it's interpreted. The description does say "turns any article of clothing into Armored Clothing", which implies that the armor is transformed into Armored Clothing. However, if it is truly transformed into a different type of armor, then armor such as Adverse Environmental Gear would would no longer have its "ignore setback" feature, for example, which doesn't make sense. If existing features of the base armor should be kept, then it's not really being changed into Armored Clothing, but only being given Armored Clothing's stats. If the encumbrance should be changed, then it would have noted that in the attachment table that lists it, which implies that the encumbrance remains the same. Which, in turn, implies that it's not an actual transformation. But on the third hand (you need to be a Besalisk to ponder this, I guess), maybe setting the encumbrance to 3 is implied by the fact that it's "turned into" Armored Clothing. And why am I envisioning Vizzini from "The Princess Bride" explaining this right now? Inconceivable!

It might be interesting to hear from the devs on what their intention was for this attachment.

32 minutes ago, OggDude said:

This is another one that could go any number of ways, depending upon how it's interpreted. The description does say "turns any article of clothing into Armored Clothing", which implies that the armor is transformed into Armored Clothing. However, if it is truly transformed into a different type of armor, then armor such as Adverse Environmental Gear would would no longer have its "ignore setback" feature, for example, which doesn't make sense. If existing features of the base armor should be kept, then it's not really being changed into Armored Clothing, but only being given Armored Clothing's stats. If the encumbrance should be changed, then it would have noted that in the attachment table that lists it, which implies that the encumbrance remains the same. Which, in turn, implies that it's not an actual transformation. But on the third hand (you need to be a Besalisk to ponder this, I guess), maybe setting the encumbrance to 3 is implied by the fact that it's "turned into" Armored Clothing. And why am I envisioning Vizzini from "The Princess Bride" explaining this right now? Inconceivable!

It might be interesting to hear from the devs on what their intention was for this attachment.

😁

For those still struggling to find it, Collapse of the Republic just popped up as available on Amazon. Grab it up before it disappears again.

1 hour ago, Kesin said:

For those still struggling to find it, Collapse of the Republic just popped up as available on Amazon. Grab it up before it disappears again.

@OggDude

1 hour ago, Kesin said:

For those still struggling to find it, Collapse of the Republic just popped up as available on Amazon. Grab it up before it disappears again.

Thanks for pointing that out, just ordered a copy of my own!

18 hours ago, OggDude said:

This is another one that could go any number of ways, depending upon how it's interpreted. The description does say "turns any article of clothing into Armored Clothing", which implies that the armor is transformed into Armored Clothing. However, if it is truly transformed into a different type of armor, then armor such as Adverse Environmental Gear would would no longer have its "ignore setback" feature, for example, which doesn't make sense. If existing features of the base armor should be kept, then it's not really being changed into Armored Clothing, but only being given Armored Clothing's stats. If the encumbrance should be changed, then it would have noted that in the attachment table that lists it, which implies that the encumbrance remains the same. Which, in turn, implies that it's not an actual transformation. But on the third hand (you need to be a Besalisk to ponder this, I guess), maybe setting the encumbrance to 3 is implied by the fact that it's "turned into" Armored Clothing. And why am I envisioning Vizzini from "The Princess Bride" explaining this right now? Inconceivable!

It might be interesting to hear from the devs on what their intention was for this attachment.

Hi Oggy,

I asked this the devs 15 months ago. I just copy & paste from the "FFG Developers Answered Questions".

Cheers

Rules Question:

concerning Armor Insert attachment (Cyphers and Masks)

... The main confusion comes from the sentence "Turns any article of clothing into armored clothing (see page 184 of the Age of Rebellion Core Rulebook)" and how this interacts with armors/cloths that have special features. If I take Banal Apparel (upgrade the difficulty of any checks made to identify the wearer once) or Cargo Clothing (may cary upt to 3 items of encumbrance 1 or lower) for example, and add the armor insert attachment to it, do I retain those specials? Or are those features lost because the attachment turns the clothing into armored clothing as described in the Core Rulebook? In addition, what happens to the number of hard points? Does the clothing/armor keep its original number of hard points or are they set to 1, as armored clothing in the Core Rulebook has 1 hard point? ...

Answered by Tim Huckelbery:

"Hi there!

It’s as written—your existing clothing becomes armored clothing, and its stats become just those of armored clothing.

However, it would be a cool possibility to discuss with the GM as to creating variants that are designed to be fitted into Banal Apparel or Cargo Clothing.

Hope this helps and thanks for playing!"

3 hours ago, Rogues Rule said:

Hi Oggy,

I asked this the devs 15 months ago. I just copy & paste from the "FFG Developers Answered Questions".

Cheers

Rules Question:

concerning Armor Insert attachment (Cyphers and Masks)

... The main confusion comes from the sentence "Turns any article of clothing into armored clothing (see page 184 of the Age of Rebellion Core Rulebook)" and how this interacts with armors/cloths that have special features. If I take Banal Apparel (upgrade the difficulty of any checks made to identify the wearer once) or Cargo Clothing (may cary upt to 3 items of encumbrance 1 or lower) for example, and add the armor insert attachment to it, do I retain those specials? Or are those features lost because the attachment turns the clothing into armored clothing as described in the Core Rulebook? In addition, what happens to the number of hard points? Does the clothing/armor keep its original number of hard points or are they set to 1, as armored clothing in the Core Rulebook has 1 hard point? ...

Answered by Tim Huckelbery:

"Hi there!

It’s as written—your existing clothing becomes armored clothing, and its stats become just those of armored clothing.

However, it would be a cool possibility to discuss with the GM as to creating variants that are designed to be fitted into Banal Apparel or Cargo Clothing.

Hope this helps and thanks for playing!"

While I understand their ruling, it does seem pretty strange and contrary to the entire career that the attachment was added to. The whole gist of the armor attachment, as stated in C&M is:

"...plates that can be sewn into clothing to give the wearer concealed armor protection. They can be added to any garment that is suitably large and alterable, and can be installed by a skilled tailor for a modest fee."

Why would that remove the carrying capacity of the Cargo Clothing, or remove the concealing features of Banal Apparel? They're meant to be discrete armored plates to enhance your current clothing, not change it into something else entirely.

That being said, the extra mods do make it seem absurdly strong, as it is basically allowing you to get super Armored Clothing (double-soak, double-def, harder to spot) for 75% of the base cost of Armored Clothing. If you also throw a Superior on there, you've got armor now that exceeds Kav-Dann/PX-11/Leviathan Power Armors (defensively, at least) for a fraction of the cost. It's a weird power-creep attachment, and super attractive to low-Brawn characters who have very little soak as it is.

3 hours ago, Tregolani said:

While I understand their ruling, it does seem pretty strange and contrary to the entire career that the attachment was added to. The whole gist of the armor attachment, as stated in C&M is:

"...plates that can be sewn into clothing to give the wearer concealed armor protection. They can be added to any garment that is suitably large and alterable, and can be installed by a skilled tailor for a modest fee."

Why would that remove the carrying capacity of the Cargo Clothing, or remove the concealing features of Banal Apparel? They're meant to be discrete armored plates to enhance your current clothing, not change it into something else entirely.

That being said, the extra mods do make it seem absurdly strong, as it is basically allowing you to get super Armored Clothing (double-soak, double-def, harder to spot) for 75% of the base cost of Armored Clothing. If you also throw a Superior on there, you've got armor now that exceeds Kav-Dann/PX-11/Leviathan Power Armors (defensively, at least) for a fraction of the cost. It's a weird power-creep attachment, and super attractive to low-Brawn characters who have very little soak as it is.

There's really no point in even getting Armored Clothing. Just get Heavy Clothing with a fully-modded Armor Inserts. Twice as effective for 75% of the cost. There's definitely something broken with this attachment.