Every now and then, I'll think of a game related question and hope it comes up in conversation somewhere on the boards because it's not something I think is worth creating a thread over. Now sometimes the topic comes up and I can ask the question. Sometimes someone else asks the same question and it gets answered for me. Sometimes the question never comes up at all.

I don't know if anyone else has had that same problem. Maybe some of you aren't as bashful when it comes to creating new threads. For the rest of us, though, here's a thread for questions that don't deserve their own thread.

I'll start.

*******

For those of you who have had a chance to get your copies of Enter the Unknown, what's the deal with the E-11s? No, I'm not referring to its game mechanics or anything of the sort. What I'm talking about is the photo included in the description.

For those of you who are familiar with the E-11 family of rifles, you know about the folding stock. For those of you who aren't and don't, there's this handy illustration.

Notice the "Extendable Stock" in the E-11 illustration. Now go back and look at that same part of the rifle on the E-11s. You see what I mean? On the E-11, the extendable stock makes sense. It is, after all, based on the real-world Sterling submachinegun. The E-11s, on the other hand, already has a fixed stock. Even if the fixed stock wouldn't get in the way of a second, redundant, folding stock, the length of the folding stock shown in the E-11s illustration would create a length of pull far too long for any human to comfortably use. I don't think the Empire had wookiees in mind when they designed her, if you know what I mean.

This leaves me to wonder if this was an art design mistake, or if there was perhaps some purpose to leaving the long piece of hinged metal on an already heavy rifle. Is it a monopod? A cosmetic throwback to the original E-11 rifle? Does someone not trust us to recognize that it's based on the E-11 without the folding stock? Is it a vestigial design element left over from an inefficient Imperial acquisitions program? What?

Does anyone else have any thoughts or ideas?

I think it is more likely that the artist didn't know about the extendable stock (as it is never used in the movies) and just used the original as a guide and added in the piece not knowing what it was.

Alternatively, the sniper variant of the E-11 might not have a folding stock. It doesn't make as much sense with a long rifle, since you'd always need a stock to steady your aim. The folding stock is designed for weapons where both modes (with and without) are useful for different scenarios.

So long as the basic core of the rifle remains the same, they can both be called E-11. It's even noted that the sniper variant is called the E-11S, rather than the basic E-11. My guess is the design was so popular, the Empire requested variants to fulfill a wide variety of roles.

Technically, could you break the E-11 down from a E-11s? Like modify it on the go if that makes sense? I nvr really thought about it till I saw this.

Your picture makes me wonder if the barrel was made to shoot around corners.

I was thinking limp blaster syndrome.. then I realised it was the curve of the page on an open book.

While on the subject of art mistakes, what's going on with the port nacelle on the Y-wing in the illustration that accompanies the stats in the core book? (Sorry, no book handy right now, so no page number.)

Technically, could you break the E-11 down from a E-11s? Like modify it on the go if that makes sense? I nvr really thought about it till I saw this.

Probably, if you swapped the barrel and made several other alterations. But I figure the cost of modifying an E-11S to an E-11 would be equivalent to the cost of a new E-11 anyway.

Force Power Sense

If you commit 3 force die can you upgrade 2 attacks per round 6 times?

I didn't even think of that as a folding stock. Just as a reinforced barrel for long range shooting.

Force Power Sense

If you commit 3 force die can you upgrade 2 attacks per round 6 times?

Nope. Each Ongoing Effect that's been officially published (both in EotE and AoR) is a "commit 1 Force Die to get the effect" and you can't commit multiple Force dice to the same Ongoing Effect.

Plus, even the base idea is pure rules-lawyering cheesiness.

Rule of Thumb, if it sounds too awesome to be true, it probably is.

E11 vs E11s I think the artist goofed. As for handwavium to correct the "error", I really like the built in bipod/monopod explanation. It makes sense for a sniper rifle and could look much like the extendable stock on the base model. See the illustration on page 194 for comparison. That certainly looks like a fold away bipod/monopod to me.

As for the port nacelle on the Y-wing, I think it just the angle we are viewing from. The starboard nacelle is extremely foreshortened and the port nacelle seems elongated.

While on the subject of spacecraft, what are the two ships in page 198? The firing ship looks almost like a Star Trek "Bird of Prey"', is this a nod to the old Star Trek vs Star Wars debate?

Every now and then, I'll think of a game related question and hope it comes up in conversation somewhere on the boards because it's not something I think is worth creating a thread over. Now sometimes the topic comes up and I can ask the question. Sometimes someone else asks the same question and it gets answered for me. Sometimes the question never comes up at all.

I don't know if anyone else has had that same problem. Maybe some of you aren't as bashful when it comes to creating new threads. For the rest of us, though, here's a thread for questions that don't deserve their own thread.

Every question deserves it's own thread. Who wants to wade through a bunch of stuff they don't need to know about on the off chance there is something there they do? I'm not that bored...

Don't be shy, make new threads.

My assumption on the E-11s, which could be completely wrong, is that it may be intended as a sort of bipod. Since the weapon is meant to be used from long ranges, any support would be helpful.

While on the subject of spacecraft, what are the two ships in page 198? The firing ship looks almost like a Star Trek "Bird of Prey"', is this a nod to the old Star Trek vs Star Wars debate?

Nope! That's actually a Maurauder-class corvette, and has been around for a long time. That said, you're right: that particular page looks very reminiscent of a scene in Star Trek III: The Search for Spock.

Edit: Not sure about the second, smaller ship. At least, not offhand.

I wonder whether FFG will release all three core rulebooks in a bundle, once each one's published to their satisfaction? I'd love to make a purchase of such a collection, but couldn't justify it if I had bought each rulebook individually, beforehand.

I could see the possibility of an omnibus rulebook once all three core games have been released. I doubt we will see the various splat books combine though, unless the profit margins are higher that way.

In theory, for players at least, it is a smaller financial bite to have smaller separate books as the player can then just buy the ones relevant to their character. In practice the GM buys all the books, and the players either buy all the books or none of the books.

True, but you can guarantee that there would be some out there who leap at the chance to get all three in a boxed set.

Given that they haven't done it for WH40K, I think it is safe to assume that they won't do it for SW either.

That's a shame. But on the plus side, not waiting for the boxed set simply means buying them independantly - which means getting them all earlier than if I decided to be patient.

"No disintegrations!"

That a reference to disrupter weapons or an entirely different bit of kit?

"No disintegrations!"

That a reference to disrupter weapons or an entirely different bit of kit?

Good question, since we never saw an ordinary blaster disintegrate anything in the movies and none of the RPG iterations have given them that capability. I'd say go with the disruptor hypothesis.

It could also just be a term used in universe for bounty hunters that bring in all their targets dead.

Could also refer to not blowing up their ship with them in it, that'd probably do a good job of disintegration.

Expanded Universe - so dubious as evidence - but:

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Mandalorian_disintegrator