NPCs can use stimpacks too. This means that Wounds can be regained quickly at the cost of a few Maneuvers. There is not an equivalent way to quickly regain lumps of Strain.

Actually, you can hide behind a barrier, use your negotiate skill to try to get the enemy to stop shooting and spend the advantages on recovering strain. Change "negotiate" for your highest ranked skill/ability pairing and it is not at all hard to recover half-a-dozen or more strain in a round. It is meta-gaming to the extreme and I really don't like it but if you're low on strain, instead of shooting the nemesis, shoot one of his minions with lower defenses, get tons of strain back. Or instead of shooting, use your athletics to push a console over to use as a barrier, use the advantages to recover tons of strain. If you have a 4 yellow roll against an easy task like a short range shot or pushing something, strain-recovery jackpot!

I think the point is sort of moot really. You can combine things like Deadly Accuracy and Soft Spot to be 1-shotting even the most lethal nemesis in the game. If your characters want to be good at combat, they can be so ridiculously good at it, there is literally nothing you can do to stop them.

A fourth reason is that the knowledge that most characters generally have lower strain thresholds is something called metagaming.

If it's observable in game that most characters fall faster to Stun weapons than to lethal fire, it's not metagaming. The character doesn't even have to spend time observing this himself - there have been tens of thousands of years of conflict in Star Wars, and I'm sure medical and tactical articles exist explaining the benefits of stun settings.

Except that, as far as any fan of Star Wars has seen, this isn't the case ¹ . People in Star Wars use the Stun setting when they want their target alive, and the Kill setting when they want them injured or dead. Just look at the fighting in the tightly-packed corridors of the Tantive IV ; despite the close-quarters and the well-trained Stormtroopers (or, you know, just Vader), the only time they bother with Stun is when they find Leia.

Stun being a superior combat option is a case of the game mechanics not matching the setting, and (most importantly) not making for a better role-playing game. For example, people have argued about Lightsaber stats and the Lightsaber skill, but FFG did it this way with a conscious eye towards making a game where Jedi don't necessarily trounce everyone else all the time. By contrast, the Stun setting as-is probably is not intentional, nor can I see how it might improve the game.

^{1. I do understand where you are coming from. I'm a big fan of Exalted (an awesome Epic Fantasy RPG), where the most recent edition suggested that in-universe scholars had quantified magic points, could recognize specific spells and powers, and generally knew all about the mechanics underlying their world. But the Star Wars universe is not defined by a single RPG book, and the overwhelming precedent in this case is that Stun is not supposed to be better at anything besides leaving a target breathing.}

Stun is *only* superior at short range. At any other range, by virtue of being *usable*, lethal shots are more effective. The tactical doctrine of using stun because it's 'better' is exactly this:

"Go ahead and stun your enemies if they're not already dead or otherwise incapacitated by the time you close to point blank range."

Pit two armies against one another. The first uses nothing but stun attacks, the second uses nothing but lethal attacks.

If you think the 'stun' army would come out ahead in the battle, then you're missing out on the *extreme* value of being able to wipe out the enemy before it gets within effective range against you.

Stun is undeniably effective at short range, but if all your combats are occurring at short range, then your adventure design needs a bit of work. (Try having some encounters outside instead of inside small buildings.)

as has been said, don't waltz into short range without support from a bunch of rivals and or minions.

additionally most nemesis have the adversary trait, use any dispair results to inhibit the effectiveness of stun. e.g. the stun setting fries on the weapon, the weapon is damaged reducing effectiveness, the nemesis moves out of short range.

Stun is undeniably effective at short range, but if all your combats are occurring at short range, then your adventure design needs a bit of work. (Try having some encounters outside instead of inside small buildings.)

It has nothing to do with the adventure, it is how the system works. It is ridiculously easy to engage, and so even easier to get to short range. It is by design because they want melee to be just as valid a choice as ranged instead of being completely silly like it would otherwise be.

Stun is worthless against droids. It is incredibly easy to make it so the players can't get any closer than medium range from the snipers in an encounter. If you mix the encounters, it won't mater if the players use a stun attack when it is viable. You just need to throw in more machines. Put in automated turrets and such. Set up encounters where the terrain hinders movement.

You don't want to run the same type of encounter each time. If your players use the same tactic every time, it says more about your encounters than it says about the game.

Stun works against droids according to the rules.

Stun is worthless against droids. It is incredibly easy to make it so the players can't get any closer than medium range from the snipers in an encounter. If you mix the encounters, it won't mater if the players use a stun attack when it is viable. You just need to throw in more machines. Put in automated turrets and such. Set up encounters where the terrain hinders movement.

You don't want to run the same type of encounter each time. If your players use the same tactic every time, it says more about your encounters than it says about the game.

It is not "incredibly easy" to make it so players can't get closer than medium. Using some highly contrived moat-and-wall with snipers encounter every time is pretty awful Most players would simply athletics, or grapnel, or jetpack it, or, you know, just leave.

Remember also that shooting a defenceless foe is a far-cry from engaging a capable enemy in open combat. I'd say it smacks of the dark side, where death can be avoided - an important issue to address, to be sure, if one of your PCs is a Force Sensitive.

It also doesn't really fit with how heroes are portrayed in the films, though that's not to say that players can't do it anyways. As others have mentioned, the range limitation is what works in the favour of a GM who's tired with players stunning-and-gunning: put your foes at a distance and at a point where closing the Ranges isn't an option: the party will need to rethink their tactics.

Stun is worthless against droids. It is incredibly easy to make it so the players can't get any closer than medium range from the snipers in an encounter. If you mix the encounters, it won't mater if the players use a stun attack when it is viable. You just need to throw in more machines. Put in automated turrets and such. Set up encounters where the terrain hinders movement.

You don't want to run the same type of encounter each time. If your players use the same tactic every time, it says more about your encounters than it says about the game.

It is not "incredibly easy" to make it so players can't get closer than medium. Using some highly contrived moat-and-wall with snipers encounter every time is pretty awful Most players would simply athletics, or grapnel, or jetpack it, or, you know, just leave.

By the same note the opponent could use the exact same methods to stay away from them.

Honestly stun usually isn't any better then lethal when you stop thinking about it in an abstract and start trying to apply it in practice. For starters stun only provides an "advantage" against some nemesis level enemies, against minions and rivals your targets will drop no faster on stun then on lethal. Against a nemesis they MIGHT drop turn one if the entire party can focus fire on that single target and manage to exceed the target's strain before he can get a chance to recover it.

Even using the Nemesis lvl hunter in the rule book take that and try rolling it out. At short range your players are going to be rolling their attacks against a base difficulty of 1 Red, 1 Purple, 1 Black. When the hunter shoots back he's going to be rolling against only a base of 1 Purple and maybe a black or two if the players have the right defensive gear. Basic math says the hunter is going to be generating more successes and advantages and triumphs then an equally statted player. So Unless the players can knock out the hunter before his turn comes up, there's a decent chance one of the players is gonna eat at least one blaster bolt.

In a sandbox unplanned campaign I can see a scenario that might start with the party going up against a lone Nemesis lvl opponent at short range. But as a sandbox, so what if he goes down? That's the nature of the beast.

In a planned campaign that's pretty much unlikely to happen, that Nemesis represents some time and effort on the GMs part, and probably has a destiny of his own in the campaign, so as the GM I'm going to take measures to make sure you don't stun and execute Vader right off the bat. In EotE that can be as simple as making sure your encounter with Vader also include 4 three-man minion groups of Stormtroopers and a nice Nemesis Level Boba Fett just to make sure I get my point across.

It takes a turn to use a stimpack (maneuver to get it out, maneuver to use it).

Were in the rules does it say this? Most people carry stim pack on there utility belt and it takes 1 maneuver to use. It takes 1 maneuver to reload a weapon, so I don't see any reason that jamming a needle in your arm takes any longer than jamming a clip in a weapon.

It takes a turn to use a stimpack (maneuver to get it out, maneuver to use it).

Were in the rules does it say this? Most people carry stim pack on there utility belt and it takes 1 maneuver to use. It takes 1 maneuver to reload a weapon, so I don't see any reason that jamming a needle in your arm takes any longer than jamming a clip in a weapon.

Reloading a weapon has a specific rule stating that it can be done for a Maneuver (if you have Extra Reloads). No such special rule exists for Stimpacks. As written, it takes one Maneuver to draw one (unless you have Quick Draw) and a second Maneuver to use it.

By the same note the opponent could use the exact same methods to stay away from them.

Uhhhh... no... They would have to be suffering strain or not shooting every round to keep the PCs at long. If the PCs are at medium they can maneuver to short and shoot. The NPCs then moving back to medium does nothing. As I said, the game is *MADE* assuming people who only use swords can get to engaged range against people with guns. (and then utterly destroy them in one hit with a superior mono-molecular vibro sword)

By the same note the opponent could use the exact same methods to stay away from them.

Uhhhh... no... They would have to be suffering strain or not shooting every round to keep the PCs at long. If the PCs are at medium they can maneuver to short and shoot. The NPCs then moving back to medium does nothing. As I said, the game is *MADE* assuming people who only use swords can get to engaged range against people with guns. (and then utterly destroy them in one hit with a superior mono-molecular vibro sword)

I agree that it is very hard to keep a range advantage in this game, whether on foot or in vehicular combat. Usually having the range advantage lasts for one turn, and it generally doesn't decide the fight unless it wasn't going to be close to begin with.

And the Nemesis can do that if he so desires, which he may not.

That's really the problem with the "Stun is Better" argument, it's based almost entirely around a very specific and boring scenario and the assumption that the NPC is going to be played in a certain way.

If you're talking about putting two people in an open field on a warm and slightly overcast day with no wind and the objective of fighting to the death, stun is better against some Nemesis level characters.

As soon as you turn it into a drive-by shooting, or a running chase through a crowded shopping mall, or a spice deal gone bad behind Nar Shadda's biggest biscuit baron, or against an NPC with an especially high Adversary talent level and/or strain threshold, or an adventure that lasts for more then a single combat encounter, or anything involving minions and/or rival level NPCs instead of Nemesis level, the benefits start to be overshadowed by the drawbacks.

That's why it's not this huge issue, because in the grander scheme of things stun isn't going to give you that much of an edge, and in a lot of encounters it won't give you any edge at all.

There's not much in this game that keeps the PCs from ganging up 5:1 on the Nemesis even if that means ignoring the Rivals and Minions for a turn. For most players I've seen, a Big-Bad is a priority target and most will concentrate on it. Generally speaking, Nemesis opponents tend to be the most dangerous, so it makes sense to eliminate them first. Unfortunately, it's quite anti-climatic to drop the Nemesis on Turn 1 or 2 and then have to mop up.

That's really the problem with the "Stun is Better" argument, it's based almost entirely around a very specific and boring scenario and the assumption that the NPC is going to be played in a certain way.

I think we've put to rest argument that the restriction of being max short range is not a restriction at all.

None of your examples prevent the PCs from getting to short range to use stun. The only way the NPC can do that is to consistently flee and never look back as soon as the PCs reach long range. I think THAT is what qualifies as a "very specific and boring scenario." I'm sure your PCs might get a kick out of every NPC running screaming in terror any time they get within sight, but for most people it'll get old real fast.

That's really the problem with the "Stun is Better" argument, it's based almost entirely around a very specific and boring scenario and the assumption that the NPC is going to be played in a certain way.

I think we've put to rest argument that the restriction of being max short range is not a restriction at all.

None of your examples prevent the PCs from getting to short range to use stun. The only way the NPC can do that is to consistently flee and never look back as soon as the PCs reach long range. I think THAT is what qualifies as a "very specific and boring scenario." I'm sure your PCs might get a kick out of every NPC running screaming in terror any time they get within sight, but for most people it'll get old real fast.

No the boring scenario is the one where it's 4 PCs and a Single Nemesis with a low ST in a scenario where there's no modifiers or environment to manipulate or effect. In this case, stun can provide an edge.

That's the reason there doesn't need to be an adjustment, because the mileage will vary so dramatically once the GM starts actually making something fun. Why just look at the Nemesis options alone:

A Pirate Captain (pg. 394) or Master hunter (pg. 400) have a pretty low strain, so attempting a stun might be worth the risks. But they've both got some high soak and defenses, and their skill ratings are so high that if they do start fighting back they'll probably be generating some Advantage and regaining that strain. Not to mention Adversary, so even at short range the PCs will be up against base difficulties that exceed medium range. It's entirely possible that these kinds of Nemesis will stick it out at short range because other then a low Strain Threshold, they've got the advantage.

A Spaceport Administrator (pg 398) isn't as bad a combat foe, but also the difference between his WT and ST is one whole point. No huge advantage to using stun there...

A Emperors Hand (pg 402) or Imperial Moff (pg 403) by comparison actually have higher ST then WT. So going in with stun against these guys is probably worse. Not to mention the hand has a disruptor pistol and a high Vigilance, so it's a good bet that even if you take him down in turn 1, there's going to be a PC with some missing limbs afterward.

And that's just a simple changing of the Nemesis. I haven't even spent destiny points, or made it a speeder chase, or added rain, or fleeing civilians, or additional Minions and Rivals, or basic NPC tactics or anything else.

So yeah, stun provides a bit of an edge, against an enemy of a specific build, of a specific type,before factoring in everything else that can go into a combat encounter. There's so many solutions within the game system as is to balance out that one issue, why do we need to change how stun works?

Just an element of interest that's related to the discussion, but I sent a question to FFG about the range on "stunblasters," as there had been some past debate over whether such weapons used the default listed range for the base weapon, or if it was automatically restricted to short range the same way the base weapon would be if it was set for stun.

From Sam's answer, if the blaster is a "stun only" weapon (in that you only ever deal Strain to the target), then it uses the listed range for that weapon type. So a light stunblaster pistol would have a maximum range of Medium, as opposed to a light blaster pistol that's simply set for stun having its maximum range reduced to Short.

And now we can get Stun-only blaster rifles hitting at Long! Yikes...

edit - no, just carbines, not rifles, so only Medium

And now we can get Stun-only blaster rifles hitting at Long! Yikes...

edit - no, just carbines, not rifles, so only Medium

Well, if you've got the Sniper Shot talent, then you'd be able to get a stun-only blaster attack at Long Range. Going to be a tough shot to make, but slap on a telescopic sight to your blaster carbine and that will help offset the shot's difficulty.

It takes a turn to use a stimpack (maneuver to get it out, maneuver to use it).

Were in the rules does it say this? Most people carry stim pack on there utility belt and it takes 1 maneuver to use. It takes 1 maneuver to reload a weapon, so I don't see any reason that jamming a needle in your arm takes any longer than jamming a clip in a weapon.

Reloading a weapon has a specific rule stating that it can be done for a Maneuver (if you have Extra Reloads). No such special rule exists for Stimpacks. As written, it takes one Maneuver to draw one (unless you have Quick Draw) and a second Maneuver to use it.

There is also no rule stating it can't be done in 1 maneuver. All it states is "it takes a maneuver to inject..." It stands to reason that if you can draw a energy cell and install it in a weapon in one maneuver, you can do the same with a stim. Unless it's in a backpack or something like that. As it stands to reason if the extra cell is in a locked box and in a backpack that's in a sack, you couldn't load the weapon in 1 maneuver even though the rule in the book says you could.

And that's just a simple changing of the Nemesis. I haven't even spent destiny points, or made it a speeder chase, or added rain, or fleeing civilians, or additional Minions and Rivals, or basic NPC tactics or anything else.

And again... nothing that you've named is any drawback what so ever to stun. In fact fleeing civilians pretty much dictate you must use stun.

There is also no rule stating it can't be done in 1 maneuver. All it states is "it takes a maneuver to inject..." It stands to reason that if you can draw a energy cell and install it in a weapon in one maneuver, you can do the same with a stim. Unless it's in a backpack or something like that. As it stands to reason if the extra cell is in a locked box and in a backpack that's in a sack, you couldn't load the weapon in 1 maneuver even though the rule in the book says you could.

I'm perfectly willing to believe a medical procedure takes longer than putting magazine A into slot B. Heck, if all it takes is hitting a syringe, why not have it cost an incidental, just wear a fannypack that will inject you when you give the voice command.

And that's just a simple changing of the Nemesis. I haven't even spent destiny points, or made it a speeder chase, or added rain, or fleeing civilians, or additional Minions and Rivals, or basic NPC tactics or anything else.

And again... nothing that you've named is any drawback what so ever to stun. In fact fleeing civilians pretty much dictate you must use stun.

I tend ramble so ok,try it this way:

1) Its only good against nemeses with lower strain then wound threshold, which is going to be some specific ones, but not all, and not Minions and Rivals. So less then 1/3 of opponents, probably less then once per session/adventure.

2)You (typically) will have to be a short range, which is not always hard to get to but more or that later.

3) The kind of nemesis lvl characters which fit this category will tend to be combat characters and will have plenty of soak, defenses, and combat skills and talents, and snazzy weapons important because...

4) At short range, against their defenses and adversary ranks they will have an easier time generating success and advantages then you, allowing them to regenerate strain, activate crits and special effects like auto fire, and otherwise cut you to bits. By extension melee and brawling nemeses will be able to move right into engagement range and do their thing.

5) Even after defeating the nemesis, unless you strain-killed him before he could act (unlikely) you'll be injured, which will suck if you have to fight another enemy later. If the nemesis survived and escaped, the he's just regaining his strain, and you're injured, so you better hope he's not mad about it and will just be back in a couple hours.

6) Encounters are usually a lot more complex then a simple shoot out with one guy. When fighting a nemesis you'll also have to contend with the two minion groups he's got backing him up and the pair of rivals in the airspeeder with the light repeating blaster circling overhead. Stunning one guy and hoping you'll have time to execute him in a scenario like that is probably more of a gamble then just shooting him on lethal setting up front.

And that's just a simple changing of the Nemesis. I haven't even spent destiny points, or made it a speeder chase, or added rain, or fleeing civilians, or additional Minions and Rivals, or basic NPC tactics or anything else.

And again... nothing that you've named is any drawback what so ever to stun. In fact fleeing civilians pretty much dictate you must use stun.

Wouldn't enemies with higher WT than ST be a drawback to using stun? Or ones with equal WT and ST it wouldn't be an advantage to use stun. Besides the fact, you would have to know which nemesis had more WT and then act accordingly. Couldn't a GM make a similar character but increase the ST somehow instead so that the ST was equal to or greater than the WT if the PC's were "exploiting" this advantage? It would make sense to me for a GM to modify character types to prevent the meta-gaming that players were trying to do, unless they were trying to capture their attackers.

Ghostofman's point #1 is what I was trying to say (he posted as I was typing). I don't see #'s 3 and 4 being any different at short or medium range. If he is going to have better dice at short range, he is likely going to have better dice at medium range as well.

On the whole, I don't see stun setting as better or worse in combat. I see it better if you want your target alive afterwards, but the GM doesn't have to "kill" the target regardless if you "lethal shoot" him or "stun shoot" him/her. The only way that death is assured is through a critical roll of 141+, unless I am missing something?