The talent says, "Brace himself". Common sense speaks what this means - bracing yourself against some sort of environmental affect hindering YOU. It's easy to imagine bracing yourself against a strong wind, zero gravity, etc. in order to prepare for an action of some sort. But I can't imagine how bracing myself could help me negate the cover someone else is hiding behind. That cover your target is behind isn't physically affecting you at all, so holding myself more strongly in place has no affect upon it. That's non-sensical.

We shouldn't be getting so literal with reading of the rules when the common sense interpretation is already so obvious.

I don't know, "bracing yourself" when shooting a rifle to get a more accurate shot? Seems legit to me. Maybe your common sense and my common sense aren't ...common?

...Common...surable?

(That pun is terrible. Apologies.)

The talent says, "Brace himself". Common sense speaks what this means - bracing yourself against some sort of environmental affect hindering YOU. It's easy to imagine bracing yourself against a strong wind, zero gravity, etc. in order to prepare for an action of some sort. But I can't imagine how bracing myself could help me negate the cover someone else is hiding behind. That cover your target is behind isn't physically affecting you at all, so holding myself more strongly in place has no affect upon it. That's non-sensical.

We shouldn't be getting so literal with reading of the rules when the common sense interpretation is already so obvious.

I don't know, "bracing yourself" when shooting a rifle to get a more accurate shot? Seems legit to me. Maybe your common sense and my common sense aren't ...common?

...Common...surable?

(That pun is terrible. Apologies.)

That's called Aiming. It already has a rule. The description of Brace, using common sense, is not aiming. Holding yourself in place against the screaming winds buffeting you while firmly planting the stock of your rifle into your shoulder is Bracing. It's negating the affects of the Setback that your GM just placed against you for taking that shot while the monsoon blows against you . It's not negating the affect of that rock your target is hiding behind. It's still there no matter how well you brace yourself. Holding yourself firmly in place isn't going to do crap about that big rock the Ewok is trying to hide behind. But Aiming will.

Think about it from a narrative point of view since that is the style of the system we are using:

GM: "The massive engines of the factory trudge on about you, oblivious to the firefight, shaking the raised platform you stand upon". - I'm applying one Setback to your sniper shot against the battle droid on the factory floor below you.

Player: "I spread my legs apart and rap one arm tightly around the handrail of my platform", - I use Brace to negate the Setback.

GM: Sounds good, go ahead and roll.

VERSUS

GM: "The Ewok dives behind a large rock, peeking above it while trying to launch an arrow at you". - I'm applying a Setback for Cover to your sniper shot against him.

Player: "I spread my legs apart and rap one arm tighly around the branch of the tree I'm standing in". - I use Brace to negate the Cover of the Ewok.

GM: Huh?

Yah, I'm not seeing it negating Cover and none of my Players have ever asked it to (well the one that has the Talent at least).

You know, you don't really need an official answer for this, guys. Stewart is not going to send the RP police to your house and confiscate your dice if you're playing it wrong.

Sadly there are some posters on these boards that either can't or simply won't try to figure out a solution for themselves, and are reliant upon "official answers" for everything just short of actually running the game for them.

Personally, I blame a combination of D&D 3rd edition and the digital age for this, as said game system was the intro to RPGs for a lot of people in the hobby (love it or hate it, 3rd edition was the gateway RPG for many gamers that otherwise looked down their nose at RPGs), and WotC had a fairly active customer service line for rules questions; created as a need for their Magic: the Gathering CCG, but easily expanded to cover D&D as well, though quality of the answer could very tremendously (heard stories of reps giving answers that blatantly contradicted the rules in the core books).

Prior editions of D&D pretty much left things in the hands of the DM to figure any rules irregularities and you really couldn't phone up TSR to get an answer on a rules question, so back then we had to come to our own conclusions based on a blend of what made sense within the rules framework we did have and what sounded good to the players.

Okay, here's the thing. You can either aim or use Brace - you cannot use both at the same time, because they each take a maneuver. Aiming gives you boost dice. Brace negates setback dice. If the PC spends a maneuver, both have arguably about the same effect. (I haven't done the math.)

It's very nice to dissect what would technically be Brace and what would be simple aiming, but I doubt the distinction will ever be relevant to my gaming table. I can't believe I've written this down despite my limited attention look, a squirrel!

Edit: Brain fart, aiming does not allow you to remove setback dice. I know, kind of embarrassing that I had to look that up.

.....and actually you CAN use both by using one of several circumstances that grant an additional Maneuver (such as using 2 Strain for a bonus Maneuver).

Using a Maneuver to Brace yourself against the Tatooine sandstorm (removing the Setback it is causing) while using a second Maneuver (2 Strain) to carefuly Aim your weapon at the Jawa receiving a Bonus die.

It's very nice to dissect what would technically be Brace and what would be simple aiming, but I doubt the distinction will ever be relevant to my gaming table.

Bracing and Aiming are two completely different things with 2 completely different set of circumstances and game mechanics (removing Setback from environmental causes versus adding a Bonus, as you corrected above). I would think all game tables should be making such a distinction. You need to know the difference in order to properly use the right one for the situation.

Will it also never be relevant to your game table that a player's set of electronic tools gives a Bonus while his Bypass Security talent removes any Setback?

That's apples and oranges: You can add another boost die via subsequent aiming (something you cannot do with your electronic tools)

You don't need Brace - at all - for making efficient use of additional maneuvers.

But let me help you out, there are so many ways you can defeat my argument, it's not even funny. You could have called me out for ignoring that Brace is a ranked talent (I left myself wide open for that one.) So it becomes relevant if you have two ranks in Brace (to which I'd say, I'd rather have one rank in True Aim)

Fact of the matter is, despite our little intellectual excercise, a player making use of Brace to circumvent cover will not break any GMs game. There are worse talents to abuse. So it doesn't really matter what the GM decides, the worst thing that will happen is that the Scholar and a couple other non-combat specs can shoot a little better. So I reply with a resounding

whatever

I had seen this topic before and stayed out of it because, nobody has brace in our group for whatever reason, and I am really on the fence as far as how to play it. The only reason I posted before was that after reading the developer Q&A, I could see how some would still feel it is open to intepretation.

Brace removes setbacks from environmental conditions.

Cover provides Ranged Defense, which then imposes a setback on incoming ranged combat checks, and can be dealt with by the Precise Aim talent.

Ranged Defense, not environmental conditions, is what imposes the setback die on your ranged checks. My ruling is therefore that it's not a setback die caused by environmental conditions.

Now...if your bad guy was hiding behind some barrels that turned out to be highly explosive, and they went "boom" after being shot...and made lots of smoke and fire and caused setbacks to perceive/hit the target behind them...feel free to use Brace

I know that the Brace talent got discussed on the Order 66 podcast, though I don't recall which episode or if either Jay or Sam where a guest (thinking not, but could be wrong).

From what GM Chris as said, he fully allows Brace to be used to negate the effects of cover, based upon cover being a condition of the environment . And from what he's experienced in the various games he's run, it's not destroyed the system for him or his players. I've tried this in a couple of games, and amazingly found that it indeed does not break the game, or even invalidate the Aim maneuver.

Plus, if you read the full text of the Brace talent, it even says "other disruptive physical obstacles." Maybe I've got a weird definition of it, but I'd say cover falls under the category of "disruptive physical obstacles" since it's getting between the PC and the person they want to shot as a "physical obstacle."

And there are a few combat specs that get Brace (from the corebook, Bodyguard and Gadgeteer), so that also makes me think that part of the intent is that Brace can be used to defeat cover as well as steady their shots against other disruptive environmental conditions.

I have to ask...why are you limiting the use of a talent? How often is a person with the talent going to get its benefit if the most common use which would be ignoring cover were taken away? Is that 1 set back die that important to you that you won't let a player be awesome?

I know that the Brace talent got discussed on the Order 66 podcast, though I don't recall which episode or if either Jay or Sam where a guest (thinking not, but could be wrong).

From what GM Chris as said, he fully allows Brace to be used to negate the effects of cover, based upon cover being a condition of the environment . And from what he's experienced in the various games he's run, it's not destroyed the system for him or his players. I've tried this in a couple of games, and amazingly found that it indeed does not break the game, or even invalidate the Aim maneuver.

Plus, if you read the full text of the Brace talent, it even says "other disruptive physical obstacles." Maybe I've got a weird definition of it, but I'd say cover falls under the category of "disruptive physical obstacles" since it's getting between the PC and the person they want to shot as a "physical obstacle."

And there are a few combat specs that get Brace (from the corebook, Bodyguard and Gadgeteer), so that also makes me think that part of the intent is that Brace can be used to defeat cover as well as steady their shots against other disruptive environmental conditions.

I would have no issue with that, except that allowing Brace to work that way makes Precise Aim an even weaker talent option than it already is. I prefer to give Precise Aim some love, and at the same time make sure to design my encounters with plenty of environmental obstacles for my PCs to Brace against. Sandstorms, lubricant spills, intermittent electrical arcs, perhaps even an ambient dark side presence: these could all possibly apply setbacks to combat checks. But I'd leave Defenses alone.

Plus, if you read the full text of the Brace talent, it even says "other disruptive physical obstacles." Maybe I've got a weird definition of it, but I'd say cover falls under the category of "disruptive physical obstacles" since it's getting between the PC and the person they want to shot as a "physical obstacle."

There's an asteroid field I'm trying to fly my X-wing through. Let me use Brace (and hold on really tight and strap myself in real good to my pilot's seat) to remove any Setback it gives to my Pilot rolls since it is a, "disruptive physical obstacle", in my flight path????

To use a legal term, it's Letter of the Law vs. Intent of the Law. Letter of the law, due to poor wording, can allow it to be interpreted to be used against a near endless amount of obstacles. The Intent, however, was bracing oneself against some physical force that was directly hindering you, not some physical object between you and a target.

I have to ask...why are you limiting the use of a talent? How often is a person with the talent going to get its benefit if the most common use which would be ignoring cover were taken away? Is that 1 set back die that important to you that you won't let a player be awesome?

Because it's non-sensical for the intent of the Talent. There are lots of Talents in the Core that I would not allow to be used for something they were not intended to. If not, they make other Talents weaker. If Brace can be used to get rid of any physical hindrances, then any other Talent that also removes Setback from some physical hindrance is going to be made obsolete:

• That locked door is a disruptive physical obstacle in my way. Let me Brace myself and stand really firmly in place to remove any Setback while I attempt to use Skulduggery on its lock. Who needs Bypass Security?
• It's been raining (a disrupitve physical force) in the jungle and the GM has imposed Setback on the tracks I'm following. When I get down to look for tracks I'm going to hold onto my walking cane really tight and thus use Brace to remove that Setback. Who needs Expert Tracker?
• I'm trying to repair my jammed Blaster and the GM says I have a setback to my Mechanics check since it is full of sand from fighting in the desert. That sand is a disruptive physical obstacle, so I'm going to hold onto my workbench really tightly and use Brace to remove that Setback. Who needs Gearhead?
• I'm trying to push through this heavy forest. The GM has imposed Setback. But, all of that vegetation is a disruptive physical obstacle so I'm going to remove it by charging forward and bracing myself against all of the twigs, leaves, etc. Who needs Outdoorsman?
• The GM slapped some Setback on me as I'm trying to fly my Y-Wing through this asteroid field. I'm going to strap myself in to my pilot seat really tight and brace myself against this disruptive physical obstacle. Who needs Skilled Jockey?

Sorry, but to me, using Brace to negate the cover of a target off in the distance that is in no way directly affecting the shooter (pushing on him, disrupting him, moving him about, you know the reasons you might need to "brace yourself"), is just as non-sensical as those I listed above.

Plus, if you read the full text of the Brace talent, it even says "other disruptive physical obstacles." Maybe I've got a weird definition of it, but I'd say cover falls under the category of "disruptive physical obstacles" since it's getting between the PC and the person they want to shot as a "physical obstacle."

There's an asteroid field I'm trying to fly my X-wing through. Let me use Brace (and hold on really tight and strap myself in real good to my pilot's seat) to remove any Setback it gives to my Pilot rolls since it is a, "disruptive physical obstacle", in my flight path????

To use a legal term, it's Letter of the Law vs. Intent of the Law. Letter of the law, due to poor wording, can allow it to be interpreted to be used against a near endless amount of obstacles. The Intent, however, was bracing oneself against some physical force that was directly hindering you, not some physical object between you and a target.

I have to ask...why are you limiting the use of a talent? How often is a person with the talent going to get its benefit if the most common use which would be ignoring cover were taken away? Is that 1 set back die that important to you that you won't let a player be awesome?

Because it's non-sensical for the intent of the Talent. There are lots of Talents in the Core that I would not allow to be used for something they were not intended to. If not, they make other Talents weaker. If Brace can be used to get rid of any physical hindrances, then any other Talent that also removes Setback from some physical hindrance is going to be made obsolete:

• That locked door is a disruptive physical obstacle in my way. Let me Brace myself and stand really firmly in place to remove any Setback while I attempt to use Skulduggery on its lock. Who needs Bypass Security?
• It's been raining (a disrupitve physical force) in the jungle and the GM has imposed Setback on the tracks I'm following. When I get down to look for tracks I'm going to hold onto my walking cane really tight and thus use Brace to remove that Setback. Who needs Expert Tracker?
• I'm trying to repair my jammed Blaster and the GM says I have a setback to my Mechanics check since it is full of sand from fighting in the desert. That sand is a disruptive physical obstacle, so I'm going to hold onto my workbench really tightly and use Brace to remove that Setback. Who needs Gearhead?
• I'm trying to push through this heavy forest. The GM has imposed Setback. But, all of that vegetation is a disruptive physical obstacle so I'm going to remove it by charging forward and bracing myself against all of the twigs, leaves, etc. Who needs Outdoorsman?
• The GM slapped some Setback on me as I'm trying to fly my Y-Wing through this asteroid field. I'm going to strap myself in to my pilot seat really tight and brace myself against this disruptive physical obstacle. Who needs Skilled Jockey?

Sorry, but to me, using Brace to negate the cover of a target off in the distance that is in no way directly affecting the shooter (pushing on him, disrupting him, moving him about, you know the reasons you might need to "brace yourself"), is just as non-sensical as those I listed above.

You have never shot a gun have you? I do often. And I brace all the time. It allows me to shoot a smaller target. You could be bracing your elbows against your sides steadying your aim. You could be bracing your rifle or pistol against your cover a corner etc. giving you a steady shooting platform. Brace is literally one of the most common things you do with a firearm to hit a harder target. Like shooting the little bit of a person sticking out of cover. It makes total sense for it to help shooting a target.

I would be very surprised if that was not what the original thought was.

You have never shot a gun have you? I do often.

Ex military where I was often used as a marksmanship instructor. Police officer of over 20 years. Currently an SRT (aka SWAT) commander and team leader. I've personally created dynamic firearms courses for my department and evaluate officers performance in them.

I shoot a little bit.

And I brace all the time. It allows me to shoot a smaller target. You could be bracing your elbows against your sides steadying your aim.

Yes, it's a part of Aiming , just like slow trigger pull, exhaling and holding your breath, etc. Just because the word, "brace" pops up in this Talent and as one of the aspects of proper aiming, doesn't automatically mean that is what the Talent was meant for.

I would be very surprised if that was not what the original thought was.

I would be very surprised if it was.

Bace as a Talent is, "As a maneuver the character may Brace himself. This allows a character to remove Setback per rank of Brace from the next skill check based on changing conditions, inclement weather, unstable surfaces, zero gravity, heavy gravity, or other disruptive physical obstacles would make a skill check more difficult".

Reading that for intent (not parsing words), I think it's pretty obvious what it was meant for. It's bracing yourself against something that is physically affecting YOU and your stability. I will use each example listed in the Talent except for the openly ambiguous one that created this discussion:

• Changing conditions: The platform you are standing on keeps moving about. The Landspeeder you are in keeps making turns.
• Inclement weather: A rain storm, a blizzard, high winds.
• Unstable surfaces: Metal platform slippery with oil, icy surface, earthquake tremors.
• Zero gravity: Zero gravity.
• Heavy gravity: Heavy gravity.

None of those examples mention something that does not affect the character directly, affecting his/her stability while performing a task which has caused the GM to impose Setback. That was the intent of "Brace", to offset that environmental instability. That rock your target is hiding behind does not fit in that definition.

I don't think I can explain the difference anymore then I already have.

Bace as a Talent is, "As a maneuver the character may Brace himself. This allows a character to remove Setback per rank of Brace from the next skill check based on changing conditions, inclement weather, unstable surfaces, zero gravity, heavy gravity, or other disruptive physical obstacles would make a skill check more difficult".

Reading that for intent (not parsing words), I think it's pretty obvious what it was meant for. It's bracing yourself against something that is physically affecting YOU and your stability. I will use each example listed in the Talent except for the openly ambiguous one that created this discussion:

• Changing conditions: The platform you are standing on keeps moving about. The Landspeeder you are in keeps making turns.
• Inclement weather: A rain storm, a blizzard, high winds.
• Unstable surfaces: Metal platform slippery with oil, icy surface, earthquake tremors.
• Zero gravity: Zero gravity.
• Heavy gravity: Heavy gravity.

None of those examples mention something that does not affect the character directly, affecting his/her stability while performing a task which has caused the GM to impose Setback. That was the intent of "Brace", to offset that environmental instability. That rock your target is hiding behind does not fit in that definition.

I don't think I can explain the difference anymore then I already have.

And how does shooting a someone who has made themselves a small target not affect your ability to hit them directly? And why wouldn't bracing help?

I think everybody can see where you're coming from, you make a lot of sense. That is not the issue. Some of us just feel a bet more ...generous (for lack of a better word) though. As a talent, Brace is versatile, but kind of weak. I don't have a problem making it a bit more versatile, because it will not get stronger that way.

You have to use a maneuver to activate Brace. That's a massive tradeoff to remove a setback die. That alone makes me want to be a bit more generous - Maneuvers are rare and most other talents that remove setback dice do it without the need to maneuver.

I also feel it's not worth to get into a dispute over semantics (interrupts the narrative) because the effects are so negligible. Here, that's part of the fun, but at the gaming table the show must go on!

I think everybody can see where you're coming from, you make a lot of sense. That is not the issue. Some of us just feel a bet more ...generous (for lack of a better word) though. As a talent, Brace is versatile, but kind of weak. I don't have a problem making it a bit more versatile, because it will not get stronger that way.

You have to use a maneuver to activate Brace. That's a massive tradeoff to remove a setback die. That alone makes me want to be a bit more generous - Maneuvers are rare and most other talents that remove setback dice do it without the need to maneuver.

I also feel it's not worth to get into a dispute over semantics (interrupts the narrative) because the effects are so negligible. Here, that's part of the fun, but at the gaming table the show must go on!

My thinking exactly. It is a set back die. Why are some GMs quibbling over a players character getting a chance to be a little awesome in some manner? They spent XP on the talent and it makes some sense to let them use it. So let them use it. It is not cheapening other talents either. It basically does the same thing as precise aim for the same maneuver cost but does not cost strain and cannot remove the armor based setback Precise aim can.

And how does shooting a someone who has made themselves a small target not affect your ability to hit them directly? And why wouldn't bracing help?

We're talking in circles. I already posted my answer above, but will try one more time.

It does affect them. It adds a Setback of Cover. I've never denied that.

Brace, the Talent, is not meant to be the bracing of a weapon against your shoulder but the bracing of a person against the environment adversely affecting him. If you want to simulate that extra time taken bracing a weapon, breath control, slowing pulling a trigger, it's already covered by Aim. I believe you are hung up on a common word over the intent of the written definition. IMHO. The Talent, "Balance", doesn't apply to boosting Agility actions to stay on your feet, even though that is what "Balance" can mean. The intention is in the description of the Talent.

I think everybody can see where you're coming from, you make a lot of sense. That is not the issue. Some of us just feel a bet more ...generous (for lack of a better word) though. As a talent, Brace is versatile, but kind of weak. I don't have a problem making it a bit more versatile, because it will not get stronger that way.

You have to use a maneuver to activate Brace. That's a massive tradeoff to remove a setback die. That alone makes me want to be a bit more generous - Maneuvers are rare and most other talents that remove setback dice do it without the need to maneuver.

I completely understand this. Thank you for at least understanding my opposing point of view also.

I would be more onboard making Brace an incidental to give it equal power of other Talents that remove setback without a Maneuver. As is its more about realism for me. Yes it makes this Talent more costly to use then some others that remove Setback, but its realistic since "bracing", would take some time to do. There's no way you are going to make all Talents of equal purchase cost completely equal. Precise Aim takes a Maneuver AND Strain to reduce Setback. I'm ok with that too even though it is an even more costly Talent then Brace (25 vs 15). It makes sense. "Precise Aiming" SHOULD take more time then an incidental. It shouldn't always be about balance.

And how does shooting a someone who has made themselves a small target not affect your ability to hit them directly? And why wouldn't bracing help?

We're talking in circles. I already posted my answer above, but will try one more time.

It does affect them. It adds a Setback of Cover. I've never denied that.

Brace, the Talent, is not meant to be the bracing of a weapon against your shoulder but the bracing of a person against the environment adversely affecting him.

This follows along with my example of using Brace to remove environmental penalties to a Perception check. Another would be using Brace to remove Setbacks on Discipline checks imposed by a "spooky" location.

I'll try to be more productive then argumentive here and offer some house rules regarding the issues expressed above.

It seems silly (to me) that Brace is something that must be learned to be able to do (it's a Talent). Anyone should be able to take a knee against buffeting winds or take the time to hold themselves steady on an icy surface. I also agree that the Brace talent is weak when compared to others that remove Setback with an incidental versus Brace's maneuver.

So, make a normal Brace another Maneuver that anyone can take. By spending a Maneuver you can alleviate 1 Setback imposed by an environmental affect that makes you unsteady. Next, house rule the Brace talent to be, "Quick Brace". It now only takes an incidental. You can quickly brace compared to an average dude that needs to spend a Maneuver. The Quick Brace is now on par with other talents that need only an incidental to remove a Setback.

Somewhat related to our discussion is Precise Aim. I believe that is what should be used to "aim small" to get around Setback imposed by Cover. I think there has been discussion here before on how Precise Aim sucks versus Aim. Aim can be attempted by anyone, takes a Maneuver, and gives a Bonus. Precise Aim is a 25 point talent far up the tree that takes a Maneuver, a point of Strain, and removes a Setback (per point). I know removing Setback is not exactly equal to adding a Bonus, but it's at least in the ballpark. I can see many people going for the non-Strain causing Aim for a Bonus versus having to purchase the costly 25 point Precise Aim to intsead remove Setback at the cost of Strain.

So, another house rule. Precise Aim in its attempt should include Aim. By definition you are doing the same thing (spending a Maneuver to Aim). So, the benefits of Aim should be included in Precise Aim. This way, a typical Joe can only Aim - 1 Maneuver gives 1 Bonus. A person more highly trained can Aim, get the Bonus, and also choose to spend Strain to remove cover/defense Setback at the same time.

Thoughts?

You have to use a maneuver to activate Brace. That's a massive tradeoff to remove a setback die. That alone makes me want to be a bit more generous - Maneuvers are rare and most other talents that remove setback dice do it without the need to maneuver.

Not all Talents are created equal, some of them are weaker but cost the same because they are in the middle of a branch and are a prerequisite for more powerful abilities. Think of the Talent Tree branches as a whole rather than just parts.

There is no reason to make Brace more effective.

I'll try to be more productive then argumentive here and offer some house rules regarding the issues expressed above.

It seems silly (to me) that Brace is something that must be learned to be able to do (it's a Talent). Anyone should be able to take a knee against buffeting winds or take the time to hold themselves steady on an icy surface. I also agree that the Brace talent is weak when compared to others that remove Setback with an incidental versus Brace's maneuver.

So, make a normal Brace another Maneuver that anyone can take. By spending a Maneuver you can alleviate 1 Setback imposed by an environmental affect that makes you unsteady. Next, house rule the Brace talent to be, "Quick Brace". It now only takes an incidental. You can quickly brace compared to an average dude that needs to spend a Maneuver. The Quick Brace is now on par with other talents that need only an incidental to remove a Setback.

Somewhat related to our discussion is Precise Aim. I believe that is what should be used to "aim small" to get around Setback imposed by Cover. I think there has been discussion here before on how Precise Aim sucks versus Aim. Aim can be attempted by anyone, takes a Maneuver, and gives a Bonus. Precise Aim is a 25 point talent far up the tree that takes a Maneuver, a point of Strain, and removes a Setback (per point). I know removing Setback is not exactly equal to adding a Bonus, but it's at least in the ballpark. I can see many people going for the non-Strain causing Aim for a Bonus versus having to purchase the costly 25 point Precise Aim to intsead remove Setback at the cost of Strain.

So, another house rule. Precise Aim in its attempt should include Aim. By definition you are doing the same thing (spending a Maneuver to Aim). So, the benefits of Aim should be included in Precise Aim. This way, a typical Joe can only Aim - 1 Maneuver gives 1 Bonus. A person more highly trained can Aim, get the Bonus, and also choose to spend Strain to remove cover/defense Setback at the same time.

Thoughts?

Precise aim allows you to remove any setback from defense. This includes the setback from armor. Brace allows you to remove the setback from environmental factors. Cover is using ones environment to make your self harder to hit. Cover is a part of the environment. Brace allows you to ignore that environmental factor.

Away,

Precise Aim also works against the Defense provided by armor and weapons, something that Brace doesn't do.

I also think that Sturn is getting far too hung up on the name of the talent in regards to the effects, reading as 100% physical bracing, where based upon wording it seems to imply both mental and physical 'bracing', with bracing being read more as "preparations made before attempting a task" instead of "physically propping oneself up."

The pilot "bracing" before flying through an asteroid field would be perfectly fine in my book, as the pilot is giving up a maneuver (or their action traded down to a maneuver) in order to remove some setback dice, and can simply be explained as the PC doing some quick checks on the navigational computer and trying to plan out the course they need to follow in their head before moving forward. The Skilled Jockey talent does much the same (removes the setback dice), but doesn't require a maneuver to use, allowing the expert pilots to ignore those terrain hazards without slowing down or having to be as cautious as the PC using Brace would be, since the Skilled Jockey reflects a combination of skill at piloting and being able to make those mental calculations of what route to take or how to weave around the various hazards a whole lot faster and far more intuitively, allowing them to traverse the asteroid field much faster.

I see Brace as being the generally weaker cousin to the Aid Another maneuver; said talent affects the user, but doesn't provide a substantial benefit without further investment and applies to a specified criteria (environmental effects).

Rule Question:

Sam (or whomever),

Can you use the Brace Maneuver to negate the Setback provided by Cover?

Thanks and Happy Holidays!

Greg

PS. Permission to post in the Forum plz.