If a Z-95 fires its Concussion Missile Launchers (with Linked 1) at a target and misses but scores three Advantages, then the Blast can still harm the target. If an additional two Advantages are scored, can Linked be activated to allow the second Blast to also hit the target. I know that five Advantages (or some Triumphs) are unlikely, but it seems reasonable that the explosions of both missiles might catch the target.

For 5 advantages or a Triumph (or two)? Sure.

I don't remember which Order 66 it was, maybe the last one, but it covered this eventuality. They basically said unless otherwise specified that yes a Blast would be effective even if you would miss but only if it made sense that it would. However I believe you must hit to activate the linked quality (don't have the book in front of me), if it stipulates that you must hit then the answer would be no. You'd get the blast from the first one but since you cannot activate the linked quality you would be unable to activate the blast on the second missle.

The linked quality does say on a successful attack, so i would say no you could not activate the linked missile, only the initial one"s blast with enough advantages on a miss.

Sure, strictly speaking, but with 3 advantages (to activate Blast) and a triumph (to get a "linked blast"), I'd let it happen. That's me anyway. Of course, I'd let it happen, if my players wanted something else to occur, sure. There are other far more interesting things that could happen of course

Sure, strictly speaking, but with 3 advantages (to activate Blast) and a triumph (to get a "linked blast"), I'd let it happen. That's me anyway. Of course, I'd let it happen, if my players wanted something else to occur, sure. There are other far more interesting things that could happen of course

But would you let it happen too your PCs? And how do you think they will respond to your breaking the RAW when they get blasted out of space, eh?

I would, if I thought it narratively sound, if it was a good turn of event for the story - if not the immediate reaction or situation of the players - and as long as the chances for utter destruction (real high on the critical hit chart) were unlikely (i.e. no more than 1 to 3 critical hits from before), I could do it, and let them crash land on a planet/moon/capital ship, become dead in space, have them (attempt to) fix it, play dead, prepare for boarding action. Sure. I could do it, my players aren't stupid or arse-holes. The story is what is important, and the story is not always kind. Sometimes I think my players would rather I really try to kill and over-power them unfairly the way they go about doing stuff, I'm no evil GM (although I enjoy making them paranoid, that's not evil is it?), but I'm not overly kind either (I think).

Sure, strictly speaking, but with 3 advantages (to activate Blast) and a triumph (to get a "linked blast"), I'd let it happen. That's me anyway. Of course, I'd let it happen, if my players wanted something else to occur, sure. There are other far more interesting things that could happen of course

But would you let it happen too your PCs? And how do you think they will respond to your breaking the RAW when they get blasted out of space, eh?

That's the "rub" isn't it. I find a lot of GMs modify, house-rule, or interpret rules a certain way that makes "x" more powerful for the players. I.e. 1 advantage autofire weapons but only use it FOR the PCs, we have a rule if our group agrees on a rule or interpretation of a rule that the PCs and NPCs benefit from it.

We don't use linked misses to allow blast, to me, it just seems a bit much. However, if we agreed that what could happen then they would be getting hit with it too. That really seems to help create a good base line for rules and helps stop players wanting crazy things if they know and understand whatever they can do can happen to them too.

It reminds me of my mom teaching me and my brother to share; ok 1 of you cut that into 2 pieces the other 1 picks which piece you want. That lead to equal pieces.

I would, if I thought it narratively sound, if it was a good turn of event for the story - if not the immediate reaction or situation of the players - and as long as the chances for utter destruction (real high on the critical hit chart) were unlikely (i.e. no more than 1 to 3 critical hits from before), I could do it, and let them crash land on a planet/moon/capital ship, become dead in space, have them (attempt to) fix it, play dead, prepare for boarding action. Sure. I could do it, my players aren't stupid or arse-holes. The story is what is important, and the story is not always kind. Sometimes I think my players would rather I really try to kill and over-power them unfairly the way they go about doing stuff, I'm no evil GM (although I enjoy making them paranoid, that's not evil is it?), but I'm not overly kind either (I think).

I wasn't suggesting that you were evil, only that when I make a judgment on a rule I try and look at it from the other perspective. How would the players feel if I used that interpretation, or rule change, or hand wave against them?

In my experience the biggest issues at any gaming table are nearly always rooted in some way to the perception of unfairness. It doesn't even have to actually be unfair, just feel unfair and that will lay the groundwork for argument and discord. If you allow one PC to fudge a rule or you fudge one in their favor and you don't apply that equally or consistently to everyone it becomes the basis for argument: "but it worked last time!?" or "but you allowed X for player A, how is this any different!?"

You can justify any single incident easily enough but where it really gets tricky is after many such individual incidents. Remembering every time you changed or fudged a rule isn't easy and it has real consequences on your game. You may not remember off hand every time you hand waved something but I guarantee each player remembers the ones they disagreed with at some level, whither specifically or just the feeling they got shafted. Over time this adds up and players either shutdown and live with it or start to argue seemingly unrelated points, or claim gamer's fatigue.

My policy is to view the RAW not as gospel but as conservatively as possible and only break a rule if it's fair to everyone at the table to do so. The RAW is the foundation for that is supposed to minimize unfairness, one rule to rule them all as it were. Break this at your peril.

I didn't think you were suggesting that either, I was trying to be funny failure...

Fair points, but not an issue at my table, with this group at least. I've had others. I don't play with them any more. I usually try to make an informed decision, sometimes though I will say yes (or no), but add a caveat about me having to check properly after the session. Also, I try to point out that the consequences will also affect the players' survivability and so on.

Per RAW, this tactic wouldn't fly, since Linked specifies that you need to make a successful attack against the intended target, and Blast doesn't qualify, since the 3 Advantage activation allows you to deal damage to the primary target if your attack missed.

That said, if the PC rolled a Triumph and wanted to do that, I'd probably allow it, since it's a Triumph and in most instances the Blast quality is far less damaging than the initial attack would have been. Plus, it's a Triumph, which is the PC's ticket to do something cool. It could even be described as using the second missile to strike the first missile, causing both of them to blow up and hitting the ships in range with a double dose of explosiveness.

Yeah, taking cues from how some of the devs run games, a Triumph (or 5 Advantage) can be treated as "a bit better than the sum of its parts" when it comes to activating abilities. 5 Advantage is a big deal, and so narratively it should be "explosive" (no pun intended*).

*I lied, I actually did intend the pun.