we hear FFG reps speaking about spending destiny (force) points to influence the game (the example is "i suddenly remembered i DID pack a set of re-breathers!") ...

HOWEVER

the Scientist specialisation of the Engineer career has access to the talent "careful planning" which PERMITS the spending of a destiny point for EXACTLY this purpose.

SO: either NO-ONE else can do what the FFG reps describe! (ie: no-one in EotE !!) *or* an engineer-scientist is wasting his XP in buying this talent ...

so: which is it ? ... if its the first, then are destiny dice HIGHLY restricted and may ONLY be spent IF a PC has a talent that specifically permits destiny point spending ?

My take is that, with the Careful Planning, the GM doesn't have the same ability to say "no" - but then, every destiny use for other than a die upgrade/downgrade is a discussion with us.

mmm, so your (entirely reasonable) house rule is to essentially gloss over this contradiction - which is fine,
but I'd really like an FFGer to clarify what THEY intended us to do ...

Make it cool, make it fun and keep the players on the edge of their seats:

If the players forget the breathers and it will end the game there and then you can use the DP as the GM and continue on. If the players could get around the problem, maybe they can just make an athletics test to hold their breaths, then no spending of the DP to help. In this way the GM can use the DP to move past an oversight.

Now if the players have a character with Careful planning the player in question could, if the GM doesn't spend the DP put it forward that he had packed some breathers and they could make a shortcut past the problem. In this way the players can make a task easier.

I see those talents as license to go a little gonzo.

At our table, normal Destiny spends have to make sense. A guard may have left a blaster laying out at a terminal, but not a bureaucrat.

When you have something like that talent or Utility Belt we allow stuff that doesn't make that much sense (or more precisely, the narrative to the talent makes it make sense).

The spending of a destiny point, as shown in the examples, allows you to find, say, rebreathers, on your ship at just the right time.

The Scientist talent would allow you to spend them just to have them on your person, which normal expenditure of a destiny point wouldn't allow.

All nice ideas ... all admirable

And all are dancing around the issue ...

play the way that is fun is always best ... yes absolutely

But I don't buy the sort of 'speed of plot' crape that less well engineered gaming systems rely on to side step their weak mechanisms and logic gaps ...

So come on FFG, give us some clarity please

Its a simple question !!

"talent allows scientist to have it on his person ... which is not ... etc"

Nice work around, but not what the rules say

You would be better off contacting them directly if you want a response. They do not respond on the boards.

Hmmm ... well that is disappointing ... why do they bother having boards for a beta I wonder ...

Oh well ... guess they're as bad as Margaret Weiss Games after all then (whose boards excluded anyone that asked an embarrassing question )

Shame though, ... just as this was lookin' very very promising.

Hmmm ... well that is disappointing ... why do they bother having boards for a beta I wonder ...

Oh well ... guess they're as bad as Margaret Weiss Games after all then (whose boards excluded anyone that asked an embarrassing question )

Shame though, ... just as this was lookin' very very promising.

They do read the boards and it does affect their games, Dark Heresy 2 is in the middle of a serious revamp due to a significant dislike of certain mechanics (which has caused a great deal of debate especially from those who did like the new mechanics). If you want their specific answer though you will need to use the sites facility to ask a direct question.

Eldath

we hear FFG reps speaking about spending destiny (force) points to influence the game (the example is "i suddenly remembered i DID pack a set of re-breathers!") ...

HOWEVER

the Scientist specialisation of the Engineer career has access to the talent "careful planning" which PERMITS the spending of a destiny point for EXACTLY this purpose.

SO: either NO-ONE else can do what the FFG reps describe! (ie: no-one in EotE !!) *or* an engineer-scientist is wasting his XP in buying this talent ...

so: which is it ? ... if its the first, then are destiny dice HIGHLY restricted and may ONLY be spent IF a PC has a talent that specifically permits destiny point spending ?

Now I have had a chance to read the trait in question I can say that, no where does it state that it permits the spending of a destiny point. What it says is that once per session the character can introduce a fact or additional context (like rebreathers?) AS IF he had spent a destiny point. Given the xp expenditure I would as a GM be more flexible as he is using a specific trait. Even if a GM chose not to be more flexible, the trait would only be used if the GM said yes, so it is still a free fact insert.

Eldath

As Eldath points out, that is also how I read it - that the character with this talent can - once per session - add facts/contexts/stuff without spending an actual DP, but following the same guidelines as DP expenditure. I might have it wrong, although eldath does seem to read the same into it...

I'm a bit confused by the title of this thread. What does the expendature of a Destiny Point, or a talent that permits one to do something as if he were spending a Destiny Point, have to do with the Force Die?

More to the point, how is it either redundant or a disadvantage for someone to be able to use said talent? It seems like a rather useful ability to allow a player to acquire an essentially "free" item that doesn't detract from an overall group resource- either Destiny Points or actual credits. Maybe you don't want to give the GM yet another Dark Side Point to spend at a certain point in the game.

Regardless, if you're not satisfied with the way the talent is written, by all means submit feedback using the instructions here .

When you flamebait by saying things like, "[Angry post], and because of that obviously FFG is terrible, just like [insert other company here]," people are going to assume that you're just grinding an axe and that you haven't come to the discussion in good faith. It's fine to have a rule question, or to not like something contained in the rules, but if you're not polite about it, you won't get very far.

Perhaps you simply misread the talent?

Yes, as pointed out, the talent allows for the same action as if you spent a Destiny Point once per session. That's a fairly substantial gain without spending one, especially at the right moment.

Our 'ME Sentinel' has this.

It allows the use of a 'fact' without spending a Destiny Point, as others have said.

It makes for quite a nice 'eureka!' moment, and getting the equivalent of a free Destiny Point per session isn't bad.

Hmmm ... well that is disappointing ... why do they bother having boards for a beta I wonder ...

Oh well ... guess they're as bad as Margaret Weiss Games after all then (whose boards excluded anyone that asked an embarrassing question )

Shame though, ... just as this was lookin' very very promising.

They even warn that they do not respond on the boards if you read the playtest instructions.

They haven't answered any of my questions, either, even emailed, except within the context of the updates.

I have received a couple of replies, and some questions have probably disappeared on a list of "not so important."

I'd say they are pretty good at reading on the forums (if the beta updates for EotE and AoR are anything to go by), and usually replies quickly to email. Of course, I do not know how they prioritise emails and question types, they can't reply to every email ... then how would they have time to develop and make the game?

I have received a couple of replies, and some questions have probably disappeared on a list of "not so important."

I'd say they are pretty good at reading on the forums (if the beta updates for EotE and AoR are anything to go by), and usually replies quickly to email. Of course, I do not know how they prioritise emails and question types, they can't reply to every email ... then how would they have time to develop and make the game?

I would assume there is some sort of BetaTester wrangler or Q&A person tied to the beta. Wouldn't that be their job?

I do genuinely apologise if I upset people.

I can see now that the phrase "AS IF" in the talent text (which I'd obviously missed), makes all the difference ... that is exactly the sort of clarification/explanation/answer I'd hoped for (ie: one which resolves the contradiction I *thought* I'd seen)

let me just say this however:

(1) the bulk of the initial responses here, though helpful and well intentioned, were ALSO explaining the talent in terms of the scientist spending DP, which means that the phrasing of the talent text in the AoR book has confused more people than just myself

(2) it would be nice if one didn't have to resort to expressing frustration (which i should NOT have done - i admit) before having a genuine (if misguided) question addressed

aside: I *did* send a direct question thru the website even though there is no place there for a rules question, and i have yet to get an answer. If I get one, I'll post it here - but I suspect it would also simply point out the "AS IF" clause, which I now believe resolves the issue entirely.

I can see now that the phrase "AS IF" in the talent text (which I'd obviously missed), makes all the difference ... that is exactly the sort of clarification/explanation/answer I'd hoped for (ie: one which resolves the contradiction I *thought* I'd seen)

let me just say this however:

(1) the bulk of the initial responses here, though helpful and well intentioned, were ALSO explaining the talent in terms of the scientist spending DP, which means that the phrasing of the talent text in the AoR book has confused more people than just myself

That isn't confusion, but the problem with reading ALL the details of a given talent. It doesn't take much to change the entire meaning of a sentence and so careful reading does help. Also, it doesn't help that it is a subtle detail in a massive tome of rules, fluff and other material. So, easy for the detail to get lost in the generally imperfect memory that is the human mind.

as promised, here is the reply I got from from FFG [i have redacted the staffer's full name, and my own] :

Hi. Thanks for your question. Here is what I found out for you:

Page 26 of the Beta addresses all the "basic" ways that anyone can spend Destiny Points. In addition, there are certain powerful talents that give you additional ways to spend Destiny Points . [emph added]

Hope that helps!

Tony

Customer Service Team

as you can see, FFG themselves have either missed the point of my question, &/or ALSO didn't spot the " AS IF " clause in the "Careful Planning" talent ... note above where FFG's Tony speaks of talents that give you " additional ways to spend Destiny Points " . Now, of course some few talents do just exactly that (I believe) ... but the specific one I asked about (and a few others, I believe) do NOT do that at all (as we now know).

... interesting. So, perhaps I'm not alone in being possessed of a mere and imperfect "human mind".

Keep in mind the question leads the answer because it indicates that Careful Planning costs a Destiny Point to use. I relied on your description of the talent to make my reply, perhaps Tony did too?

*sigh*

how many mea culpa's before I'm allowed to post without being put down?

I could observe that a response that allows itself to be led by erroneous assumptions in the question,is not an answer.

A number of 'answers' actually described house rule style play interpretations as if they were in place and operating - and that indicates that they, too, were operating under the same error that I had made ...

so, yes, I unwittingly "led" the question, but some of the answers described above give "past-tense solutions" ( we already play it like this ... ) which I could not have influenced ...

so, perhaps, can we get past MY many obvious intellectual shortcomings, quit with the ad hominems , accept my apology and just discuss the game & its rules?

Not everyone is familiar with every talent and not everyone has their book at hand when they respond. So errors can be made on both sides. Get over it and move on. Its not worth holding on to petty things like this.