Imagine someone with the Sense power's left-hand path maxed out manning a turret that has Linked 7 and a maxed out advanced targeting computer. Using the free True Aim talent that gives you, said character is able to upgrade the check five times and add two Boost dice if they spend two strain for an extra maneuver (three Boost dice if they're an Explorer using Unmatched Mobility). With an Agility of 6 and a Gunnery of 5, that's seven Proficiency dice and three Boost dice going up against what's probably no better than an Average combat check with a couple of difficulty upgrades and Setback dice...

...and all of that is WITHOUT considering Boost dice granted by other party members from things like Inspiring Rhetoric or skill checks (Perception and Computers come to mind), not to mention adding a Doctor's Stim Application to the mix for an extra Ability die and perhaps even a Boost die or check upgrade (Advantages and Triumphs Stim Application rolls can do that, after all).

It CAN be done lol. It's not a matter of odds, it's a matter of having the right abilities and the right help, and having only a handful of each is enough to make a HUGE difference.

Yes? So? Linked does not mean they always need to be used together. I said that they can be used independantly. The linked quality just means they can be used together in the arcs where they can be used together. Common sense says they couldn't be used in arcs they don't share.

This is not correct. Linked weapons are always fired together - they cannot be un-Linked and fired separately. The four lasers on an X-wing cannot be divided and used as multiple weapon systems, and two separate turrets are not linked as they can target independently of one another.

As for dorsal/ventral, there is a section on it where it talks about firing arcs.

Yes? So? Linked does not mean they always need to be used together. I said that they can be used independantly. The linked quality just means they can be used together in the arcs where they can be used together. Common sense says they couldn't be used in arcs they don't share.

This is not correct. Linked weapons are always fired together - they cannot be un-Linked and fired separately. The four lasers on an X-wing cannot be divided and used as multiple weapon systems, and two separate turrets are not linked as they can target independently of one another.

As for dorsal/ventral, there is a section on it where it talks about firing arcs.

Really? Because according to lore on the x-wing, the lasers may fired in multiple settings. Single fire, double fire, quad fire abd stutter fire. Not only that, but the quad laser turrets in Millenium Falcon can be operated from the cockpit, thus allowing the pilot to use them in the same firing arc if applicable. Nothing I've seen leads me to believe that linked weapons must be physically linked or only available if they both or all can only focus on the same arc. Nor does linked say you have to activate it or is always in effect. Gunnery systems allow for you to use weapons individually (obviously less effective on a craft llike an x-wing) or together. So I don't see why this can't be the case here.

And I am not saying they don't have to be used together in order to use the link quality. Of course they would have to he used together and firing in the same arc. But they can also be used separately, one by the pilot and the other by the co-pilot. Much like the turrets on the Millenium Falcon can be used by the pilot or individually by gunners.

I think the biggest mistake was not creating the Signature Abilities for all the Careers and releasing them on PDF long before the individual Career books were released. If every Career had their own abilities at the same time, people might be less upset about one Career getting theirs.

I don't expect to see free major game mechanics released any time soon. I would think when the hired gun book comes out and there are some more SAs in that, people will see and understand all careers will be getting lovin and there is less reason to have any tantrums.

Yep, yep, yep... Everyone should be able to think for themselves that their chosen career will eventually get sych an ability. No reason to give away the farm by releasing such a pdf...

I don't expect to see free major game mechanics released any time soon. I would think when the hired gun book comes out and there are some more SAs in that, people will see and understand all careers will be getting lovin and there is less reason to have any tantrums.

Yep, yep, yep... Everyone should be able to think for themselves that their chosen career will eventually get sych an ability. No reason to give away the farm by releasing such a pdf...

I'm not sure I see it as quite as big a deal as you. Giving away two pages from each upcoming splat? Yes, I understand that it's a new game mechanic, but it's also about banking the goodwill of your fan base.

Where did I say I thought it was a "big deal"?

I just think there is no reason for it. Also what "good will"? Are you owed something? Some of you are actually acting like FFG did something wrong in creating new abilities.

Stop acting so entitled.

And I am not saying they don't have to be used together in order to use the link quality. Of course they would have to he used together and firing in the same arc. But they can also be used separately, one by the pilot and the other by the co-pilot. Much like the turrets on the Millenium Falcon can be used by the pilot or individually by gunners.

The rules do not allow this. An entry of Laser Cannons with Linked 1 is one weapon system. It cannot be fired as two laser cannons without Linked. Likewise an entry of dorsal turret-mounted laser cannon and ventral-turret mounted laser cannon are two separate weapon systems. They cannot be Linked on the fly as you suggest, and even if they could, dorsal and ventral arcs are exclusive and can't target the same thing simultaneously.

Show me where the rules state this please, so I know what to ignore. The only exclusivity that dorsal and ventral weapons have is that a dorsal weapon can not fire ventrally and vice versa. Both systems can be fired in all other arcs, hence the reason turrets generally have the descriptor Fire Arc All. So both can be linked to fire forward, aft, etc., together. I'm not seeing any reason why not. And yes, I agree that if a weapon is described as a dual laser turret with the linked quality, that that system would mean that they are fired together and could not be fired each independantly at different targets. But they can be used to only fire one cannon, much like can be done with the x-wing. I do not agree that two independant systems of the same type can not be linked together or used seperately.

The rules do not allow this. An entry of Laser Cannons with Linked 1 is one weapon system. It cannot be fired as two laser cannons without Linked. Likewise an entry of dorsal turret-mounted laser cannon and ventral-turret mounted laser cannon are two separate weapon systems. They cannot be Linked on the fly as you suggest, and even if they could, dorsal and ventral arcs are exclusive and can't target the same thing simultaneously.

Show me where the rules state this please, so I know what to ignore. The only exclusivity that dorsal and ventral weapons have is that a dorsal weapon can not fire ventrally and vice versa. Both systems can be fired in all other arcs, hence the reason turrets generally have the descriptor Fire Arc All. So both can be linked to fire forward, aft, etc., together. I'm not seeing any reason why not. And yes, I agree that if a weapon is described as a dual laser turret with the linked quality, that that system would mean that they are fired together and could not be fired each independantly at different targets. But they can be used to only fire one cannon, much like can be done with the x-wing. I do not agree that two independant systems of the same type can not be linked together or used seperately.

I'm done. You can ignore the rules as you like, but your willful misunderstanding does not change the need for clarification on the E-9.

He's got a point. No place in the rules does it explicitly say one thing or the other on the matter.

And from my own experiences in professional game design, there are times that the design team will break with what appear to be established rules for any number of reasons. Case in point, starship design in Saga Edition. Starships of the Galaxy had a system to allow players to build their own starships... but every designer that drafted starship designs (myself included) ignored that system entirely in favor of "what looked right."

FFG has done it themselves more than once. For instance, there are Adversaries listed that make use of rules and abilities that the PCs can't hope to attain, such as the Forsaken Jedi having the Deflection and Defensive qualities on their lightsaber, which was hand-waved as "that NPC's got special talents that we didn't list because of reasons."

Plus, there's the fact of two other ship designs that have the same thing (a weapon listed as a single entry but also having the Linked quality), but not even the 'excuse' of having two weapons of the same type as the E-9 does. Could be a mistake, could be intentional, but either way it doesn't break the game.

Ultimately, I don't think it's far to the designers to automatically assume that "they did it wrong!" just because some bit of stats doesn't entirely mesh with everything that's come before. Not saying that blindly accepting everything is the right answer either in those cases, but given the general quality of FFG's products (the total errata for the core rulebook is just over a page if discounting the images used, and the FAQ is just under a page; pretty **** good in comparison to WotC's efforts), I'd say they've earned the benefit of the doubt.

I'm done. You can ignore the rules as you like, but your willful misunderstanding does not change the need for clarification on the E-9.

I'm not ignoring the rules. I'm asking you to show me where they support your position. But sure, you want to drop it, I'm cool with that.

Where did I say I thought it was a "big deal"?

I just think there is no reason for it. Also what "good will"? Are you owed something? Some of you are actually acting like FFG did something wrong in creating new abilities.

Stop acting so entitled.

When did you say it was a big deal? Well... you called offering two pages for each career "giving away the farm". That sounds like a big deal to me. As for customer good will, this is a currency that every business dabbles in. It's not about entitlement, it's about offering things to your customers that engender a sense of positive feelings toward your business.

I'm not sure where you get the entitlement thing. Nobody said anything about deserving anything. I made a suggestion that would keep players of other careers from feeling like they were being forced to wait for "career balance". It doesn't matter much to me... I almost exclusively GM. So get off your high horse and stop acting as if you know... well, anything, because it's pretty obvious you don't understand what you're talking about.

Hahahaha, this must be the most hilarious answer ever. If you act like this at your table then you must be a delight to play with!

FFG is developing good will by putting out a game people want more of. Putting out mechanics for free would be foolish and probably go against there license. Especially something like the signature abilities for each career. That is something better left for future supplement books. Adventures and stat blocks are usually relegated to free pdfs.

Yeah for real. I'm fine with waiting for more Signature Abilities; it's not as if the other careers don't have stuff to spend XP on.

Hahahaha, this must be the most hilarious answer ever. If you act like this at your table then you must be a delight to play with!

But hey, it looks like ad hominem is your style, Dante, since that's all you've done in replying to me - attack my character rather than posting a reasoned response - so you run with that. (Look, I can play, too!)

One thing you could do is just tell Explorers to wait until others have access as well, but honestly I don't see it as all that unbalancing, particularly if you have a Force Sensitive Exile or two in the group.

One thing you could do is just tell Explorers to wait until others have access as well, but honestly I don't see it as all that unbalancing, particularly if you have a Force Sensitive Exile or two in the group.

You could certainly do that, Jonah, but you're right, it isn't that big a deal. I really didn't expect anyone to think I believed it to be. *chuckles*. Anyway, I'm done discussing that subject, as it's obviously brought out the bitter in at least one person. That was not my intent.

Moving on...

I get the impression the turrets are not supposed to be linked, but the idea of them being linked is not outside of the realm of possibility.

But hey, it looks like ad hominem is your style, Dante, since that's all you've done in replying to me - attack my character rather than posting a reasoned response - so you run with that. (Look, I can play, too!)

Oh, wait so it wasn't you that stated;

So get off your high horse and stop acting as if you know... well, anything, because it's pretty obvious you don't understand what you're talking about.

So you're saying this wasn't aimed at me? Because it's directly replying to my post. "Stop acting so entitled." If I was rude, it was in response to this, which was just as much so.

If it wasn't aimed at me, well, I offer my apologies. But you should perhaps look into clarifying what you write, because you started off talking to me, so there's no reason to think the last line wasn't targeted the same way.

Edit: I should probably clarify what I write, too. "So get off your high horse and stop acting as if you know... well, anything [about me or what my intentions were (unless you want to claim you do know about those things)], because it's pretty obvious you don't understand what you're talking about". There, in case it wasn't obvious.

Now. Are we done, or should we continue hashing this out for the next couple weeks instead of discussing something we both actually want to talk about - this game?

So yeah... Star Wars: Edge of the Empire is a cool game to play...

So yeah... Star Wars: Edge of the Empire is a cool game to play...

Mmhm. I'm running it three nights a week right now, and loving it. It's probably going to be my go-to game for a while, in the same way The Dresden Files RPG was for a couple years after it came out.

Enter the Unknown came across as a bit light when I pulled it out of the box, but I have to admit, it has a whole lot more in it than the 90 or so pages suggest. Overall, what really has my attention are new Specializations, specifically Big Game Hunter and Archaeologist. (Driver does nothing for me.) In fact, I find myself wishing my role wasn't GM-by-default so I could play an Archaeologist.

I'm also a big fan of the YV-560; it just feels right, ship-wise.

Still digging through it for a second read, though...

Where did I say I thought it was a "big deal"?

I just think there is no reason for it. Also what "good will"? Are you owed something? Some of you are actually acting like FFG did something wrong in creating new abilities.

Stop acting so entitled.

So you're saying this wasn't aimed at me? Because it's directly replying to my post. "Stop acting so entitled." If I was rude, it was in response to this, which was just as much so. If it wasn't aimed at me, well, I offer my apologies. But you should perhaps look into clarifying what you write, because you started off talking to me, so there's no reason to think the last line wasn't targeted the same way. Edit: I should probably clarify what I write, too. "So get off your high horse and stop acting as if you know... well, anything [about me or what my intentions were (unless you want to claim you do know about those things)], because it's pretty obvious you don't understand what you're talking about". There, in case it wasn't obvious. Now. Are we done, or should we continue hashing this out for the next couple weeks instead of discussing something we both actually want to talk about - this game?

I never had the intention to act high and mighty but I hate it when people put things in my mouth I never said nor meant, e.g. the big deal thing. Which was clearly your interpretation of what I said but didn't come close to my feelings on the subject. Of course having been in a major discussion with someone who couldn't act civil and insisted on using hyperbole earlier in this thread probably didn't help.

I appologize for my tone, it wasn't meant to sound as it must have come across.