One of the best things about this game is that it allows characters to build upwards and outwards. Too many games are into hyper-specialization. The unwritten assumption: Your ranger must strive to be the greatest version of "ranger" he can be. I like that this game captures the idea that there are limits to what a character can achieve within a given specialization.

Order 66 is a good example. No matter how awesome the Jedi were they were still vulnerable to being shot in the back by their clones. No matter how good you think you should be as a pilot you can't over specialize.

This does several things.

It makes things easier on your GM. He can pretty much always use tie fighters to threaten your pilot. He might need to use a whole lot of them to challenge an experienced pilot, but they are always a viable threat in enough numbers.

Your character can never be so good at piloting that the other players shouldn't even bother with learning. No matter how good you are, having a few friends who have at least some competence is a good thing. This is especially good for social skills and interactions as having the "Face" do all the talking gets old really fast.

Characters become multi-dimensional by necessity. Not everyone is a born role-player and sometimes even the folks that are have a bad day. Having a character who solves problems with a variety of tools is both more interesting and better for the group dynamic.

Every been playing when one of your friends gets pissy because he doesn't have anything to do that might help with the current challenge? If he's forced to figure out how his character is more than just a pilot he'll have something to do other than crack jokes.

Take Wash. He is more than just a pilot. He's quite socially adept. He uses humor to make peace and get what he wants. Most of the time he's so adept at this that the other characters don't even realize they're being manipulated. He's also well educated as indicated by his speech patterns.

"Yes Jayne, she's had congress with the beast."

"She's in Congress?"

Thinking outside the box is good for players and characters alike. I'm still bummed that we got squat in for new equipment and mods, however.

Just because Pilot exists in two careers (which i think is a good idea), doesn't mean you're allowed to buy it twice.

I don't know if the rules explicitly say, but I would think you're NOT allowed to buy 2 of the same specialization. A pilot is a pilot, you already have it. Similar to unranked talents. Once you buy an unranked talent, it counts as ALREADY owning it in all trees it exists in.

If you buy another tree that has that talent, you automatically have that talent. If you expand that to a greater scale, if you buy a specialization, you automatically own that specialization in all careers that it appears in.

That's how I see it anyway.

The final needs to EXPLICITLY allow or deny... otherwise, I know people who will rightly (as I did at first glance) assume that you can stack it up and get some really nifty bonuses. It's also important to know whether or not one can buy both Force sensitive paths, and whether that gives Force Rating 1 or 2, and if that allows a final force rating of 3 or 4.

Otherwise, My 14yo is likely to grab both, and grow from there...

Err, at last check Force-Sensitive Exile and Emergent both specify that they don't grant you a Force Rating increase in-and-of themselves from buying the specialization if you already have FR 1 (from buying the other); the general understanding is that you can indeed buy both specializations, though right now the AoR beta seems to not be built with "combining with EotE" in mind yet.

The final needs to EXPLICITLY allow or deny... otherwise, I know people who will rightly (as I did at first glance) assume that you can stack it up

The devs already have stated that they are the same specialization and that you cannot take it twice (order 66 podcast episode 17 iirc).They have also said they did not include rules that relate to combining with eote, as they want the beta to be tested as a standalone.

Yeah, buying F/S Exile and F/S Emergent just gets you Force Rating 1, as neither of them says "increase Force Rating by 1" the way the Force Rating talent does, but has the benefit of "Gain Force Rating 1." If you've already got a Force Rating of 1 or better, then you don't get any extra boosts to your Force Rating just from buying another Force-Sensitive specialization.

Frankly, all the careers feel very similar to edge of the empire counterpoints, with only a few unique talents (like incite rebellion). It is kind of weird. It also creates some annoying consequences if you let players branch out into both since ANY build can hyper specialize this way. For example, I have a trader in my group who pointed put he could pick up two more ranks in wheel and deal by picking up another career from rebellion, making him even more godly at selling legal goods. As things stand they are so similar I probably won't allow mixing the careers from both books in my games.

Mostly the sameness is annoying when making a new character. The GM in one of my games said we could switch over to Rebellion characters using the same XP we'd already earned and I was dissapointed to see that options mechanically were nearly identical to edge of the empire.

The final needs to EXPLICITLY allow or deny... otherwise, I know people who will rightly (as I did at first glance) assume that you can stack it up

The devs already have stated that they are the same specialization and that you cannot take it twice (order 66 podcast episode 17 iirc).They have also said they did not include rules that relate to combining with eote, as they want the beta to be tested as a standalone.

Stating in a podcast isn't the same as putting it in the rules. I don't listen to podcasts in general, and specifically don't listen to the Order 66 one. I have often enough encountered official clarifications from publishers that make the dev's comments online null, and unless it's in an official errata or rulebook, don't accept it as definitive.

The final needs to EXPLICITLY allow or deny... otherwise, I know people who will rightly (as I did at first glance) assume that you can stack it up

The devs already have stated that they are the same specialization and that you cannot take it twice (order 66 podcast episode 17 iirc).They have also said they did not include rules that relate to combining with eote, as they want the beta to be tested as a standalone.

Stating in a podcast isn't the same as putting it in the rules. I don't listen to podcasts in general, and specifically don't listen to the Order 66 one. I have often enough encountered official clarifications from publishers that make the dev's comments online null, and unless it's in an official errata or rulebook, don't accept it as definitive.

Some of these arguments cropping up here are just overly tedious and nit-picky. I for one would like a rule book filled with more good ideas, not explicit statements that account for every gamist, rules-lawyering, minutia-extracting instance. Discussion is one thing, but the tenacity exhibited here is something else. I think, aramis, you might mean "I know people who will erroneously assume" not " rightly " as you've said? Don't wanna put words in your mouth, just trying to understand.

Surely one could simply exercise common sense: there's a duplicated Force power, there are duplicated non-ranked talents, there are duplicated specializations, there are duplicated species. You can't have 2 Move powers, you can't be a Bothan twice, you can't take two instances of "Inspiring Rhetoric," and you can't specialize in Pilot twice.

And this isn't the sort of thing a dev would clarify online and then redact via "Official Errata." It's a bit of rules that have been confirmed by one of the designers. The copy specializations, from the title to the bonus skills to the entire talent tree, are complete copies. I agree with Dono: this is like requiring of the developers that they put rules in explicitly denying the use of two weapons in the same hand, otherwise my players will be wielding 5 vibroswords and I will be powerless to stop them.

Here's where some deductive thought is helpful:

Specializations aren't locked into careers. You've got one career, and any specializations found inside your career are cheaper for you to buy into. ALL other specializations are outside your career, and there's no reference made to which career you purchase out-of-career specializations from. You just purchase them as out-of-career specializations, add them to your list of specializations, and have access to the specialization's talent tree and bonus career skills.

Specializations are designed to be modular. Isn't it easier just to accept it and move on?

Some of these arguments cropping up here are just overly tedious and nit-picky. I for one would like a rule book filled with more good ideas, not explicit statements that account for every gamist, rules-lawyering, minutia-extracting instance. Discussion is one thing, but the tenacity exhibited here is something else. I think, aramis, you might mean "I know people who will erroneously assume" not " rightly " as you've said? Don't wanna put words in your mouth, just trying to understand.

Stating in a podcast isn't the same as putting it in the rules. I don't listen to podcasts in general, and specifically don't listen to the Order 66 one. I have often enough encountered official clarifications from publishers that make the dev's comments online null, and unless it's in an official errata or rulebook, don't accept it as definitive.

The final needs to EXPLICITLY allow or deny... otherwise, I know people who will rightly (as I did at first glance) assume that you can stack it up

The devs already have stated that they are the same specialization and that you cannot take it twice (order 66 podcast episode 17 iirc).They have also said they did not include rules that relate to combining with eote, as they want the beta to be tested as a standalone.

Surely one could simply exercise common sense: there's a duplicated Force power, there are duplicated non-ranked talents, there are duplicated specializations, there are duplicated species. You can't have 2 Move powers, you can't be a Bothan twice, you can't take two instances of "Inspiring Rhetoric," and you can't specialize in Pilot twice.

And this isn't the sort of thing a dev would clarify online and then redact via "Official Errata." It's a bit of rules that have been confirmed by one of the designers. The copy specializations, from the title to the bonus skills to the entire talent tree, are complete copies. I agree with Dono: this is like requiring of the developers that they put rules in explicitly denying the use of two weapons in the same hand, otherwise my players will be wielding 5 vibroswords and I will be powerless to stop them.

Here's where some deductive thought is helpful:

Specializations aren't locked into careers. You've got one career, and any specializations found inside your career are cheaper for you to buy into. ALL other specializations are outside your career, and there's no reference made to which career you purchase out-of-career specializations from. You just purchase them as out-of-career specializations, add them to your list of specializations, and have access to the specialization's talent tree and bonus career skills.

Specializations are designed to be modular. Isn't it easier just to accept it and move on?

No. You're blithely and grossly ignorantly ignoring that (1) it's NOT self evident, (2) rules lawyers and pedants are gamers too.

Its one of those issues that, without the all of two lines explicit answer in an official source (to wit, rules or published errata), will result in pissed off players.

It's one of those cases where "it doesn't matter" arguments are nothing but delusion. Rules clarity is vital, especially in a game that is likely to pull a disproportionately large number of newbs.

Everyone I've mentioned the duplicates to of my Edge players was of the "Cool, I can double up!". This is due in no small part to the presentation of a trait tree being labeled as part of the occupation on every tree.

It's a good thing, then, that you are an understanding, intelligent GM who has the benefit of access to these forums and can reign in your players a little.

(I'm not sure my ignoring was done in a "blithe" manner, nor am I positive what was meant by "grossly ignorantly." And I'm actually fairly certain that I wasn't ignoring anything—and I think that makes me inherently correct, as "ignoring" implies a fair bit intentionality on the part of the ignorer—but I'm more perplexed by the abundance of adverbs. I suppose blitheness is more in the eye of the beholder, and gross ignorance is more something ascribed to others than to oneself. Still, the benefit of the doubt is extended)

They also stated in the podcast the reasons why you cannot take it. They gave them the same name for this very reason. If you were a smuggler-pilot and you then wanted to take pilot again that you couldnt because you already have it.

If in doubt, go to the 'ask a rules question' bit of the site and get clarification. Hopefully this will be enough to satisfy up you of the answer.

Or as a GM, use your own judgement, which is what we used to do before the Internet came along and stopped us from thinking for ourselves!

(I have actually found that this set of rules mechanics, and the flurry of disagreements about rules interpretation, has encouraged me to go back to the old way of deciding how a rule worked - I read the rule in question, I say how it works and the players nod and we move on to playing the game, its awesome to behold. )

If in doubt, go to the 'ask a rules question' bit of the site and get clarification. Hopefully this will be enough to satisfy up you of the answer.

Or as a GM, use your own judgement, which is what we used to do before the Internet came along and stopped us from thinking for ourselves!

(I have actually found that this set of rules mechanics, and the flurry of disagreements about rules interpretation, has encouraged me to go back to the old way of deciding how a rule worked - I read the rule in question, I say how it works and the players nod and we move on to playing the game, its awesome to behold. )

This is very much akin to an OD&D or AD&D approach. Thanks. I feel the same way about this game and its rules.

Actually, pre-internet, it wasn't uncommon to get on the phone and CALL a company, or grab some paper, and mail it off...

For example, turn around of rules questions from Task Force Games back in 1985 was about two weeks, 10 days of which was the US Snail... GDW was closer to 3 weeks. Amarillo Design Bureau (affiliated with TFG at the time) was also in the 10-12 day range - SVC and SPP spent a portion of their work day, every weekday, responding to rules questions. If it was all common stuff, they simply wrote the answer next to the question, or copied the FAQ sheet, dropped it in the SASE, and put it in the next day's mail; if it wasn't common stuff, you got back a typed and copied response. By 1990, one could get the rules questions for SFB and Prime Directive via GEnie or Compuserve, and Starfire via Delphi. (All were paid BBS systems.) Avalon Hill Games Company was typically about 3 weeks, or 4 weeks if you asked about multiple games. (I know because I wrote in to all 3 companies with rules questions. as did friends.)

Most companies also had an errata sheet available for a SASE or an SASE+ $0.25 for copying costs. (Yeah, mail them a quarter.) And they often stuck it in later shipments of the affected products. More than one SJG game had a loose page of odd size with errata.

The worst of the bunch in the day was TSR - they didn't usually respond directly to rules questions in the 80's - but they published them in Dragon. Turn-around time was thus 6-12 weeks.

And rules-lawyers were as common as today.

Wanting the game to have clear rules isn't a flaw, guys!

Excusing a lack of clarity because "someone dealt with it on a podcast" is, at best, counterproductive, and at worst, asinine. The goal of playtesting is to figure out what isn't obvious and needs fixing.

A one-line or two line addition to the rules text solves it. And solves it far better than any podcast musings of the design team member.

Because a Combat Medic (short-term field care) and a Doctor (surgery) are two different things, where a Pilot is a Pilot .

It'd be akin to claiming you can wield a blaster pistol in your right hand while also wielding a blaster pistol in your right hand so you can shoot your blaster pistol while shooting your blaster pistol.

Wanting the game to have clear rules isn't a flaw, guys! Excusing a lack of clarity because "someone dealt with it on a podcast" is, at best, counterproductive, and at worst, asinine. The goal of playtesting is to figure out what isn't obvious and needs fixing.A one-line or two line addition to the rules text solves it. And solves it far better than any podcast musings of the design team member.

What podcasts and emails are useful for is pre-errata answers. You aren't gonna get an errata release every time someone in the community notices something in the rules can be read funny. I'm sure they are taking their time and making sure they're being as thorough as possible before putting out a quality errata document that answers the questions people are asking and looks fabulous while doing it.

Meantime, after decades of only having the phone and snail mail to rely on, you now have access to a fantastic global community of like-minded gamers who are here with the intention of helping other gamers out, and who all have different hooks in the water: some listen to podcasts, some look around for fan-made resources, some make the resources, some know how to Ask a Rules Question (I apparently have an aversion to such things), and some make memes.

I digress.

None of us gamers here can publish an official errata document, so we're giving the best answers from the best sources we've got.

One could just take that back to their table and run with it until further notice. What we've done here is established what the devs have clearly stated as their design intent and give very good contextual reasons as to why this should be the case. It. Just. Makes. Sense. One could just tell one's rules lawyers that "this is how it's gonna be in my game."

I understand that people want official rules definitivelh stated, however, it was not only mentioned in the podcast that you cannot do it as it stands, it also stated the reason why there is no rule for it, in fact there are no rules currently in AOR beta for combining with EOTE at all. This was also stated in the podcast as being by design. The final product however will have a chapter for how to work with EOTE.

Millandson,

Thanks, was hoping someone would do that

As for the issue of "well it was stated on a podcast but those don't count because I don't listen," the fact still remains it's an official statement right from the mouths of the designers, whether you listen or not. Since the design team doesn't post on these forums (not that I blame them one bit), a podcast appearance is probably one of the more expedient methods to discuss rules concepts.

Besides, if you're going to call podcast appearances into question, why not call into question people who post saying "well I got this e-mail response from Sam Stewart that says..." After all, it's not directly posted on the forum by a member of the design team, it's not on the website, so therefor it must be must as invalid as something said on a podcast, since you only have that person's word that Sam or Jay or Andy or whomever gave that particularly response.

Besides, if you're going to call podcast appearances into question, why not call into question people who post saying "well I got this e-mail response from Sam Stewart that says..." After all, it's not directly posted on the forum by a member of the design team, it's not on the website, so therefor it must be must as invalid as something said on a podcast, since you only have that person's word that Sam or Jay or Andy or whomever gave that particularly response.

You haven't been paying attention: people (including me) HAVE BEEN extremely dubious about the leaked via various means rather than properly published by the company as errata clarifications and corrections.

However given that this was an interview with the lead developer AOE and he gave the reason why there isnt an official rule yet. What you choose to do with the information is up to you , but since it doesnt specifically say in the game that you cant take the same spec twice(afaik), why not just rule it that for an extra 20 points you can just take the same spec a second time, thst way you save 10 points from having to choose the same spec from a different career.