Currently you can use Jury Rigging (there may be other ways as well) to get the Activation of Auto Fire down to a single Advantage. A lot of us are finding this is having an enormous negative effect on combat. It's just too powerful when higher ranked PCs can activate extra damage for each single uncancelled Advantage they roll.

Since AoR is still in Beta this is a great time to reassess this rule to make sure that this is the intended effect before it gets printed again.

I'm suggesting that people send a note asking them to reassess this rule to:
http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_faq.asp

thanks FG

Jury Rigger combined with Auto-fire, the Pressure Point talent, and the usefulness of Barrage are the only real issues I'd like to see addressed with this system. There are a few other nitpicks here and there, but most of those fall under the GM's umbrella and are thus easily ignored, if desired.

Player stuff by necessity needs to be a lot tighter, because a player with an overpowered ability/piece of equipment will be hard-pressed to give it up, and a player with an underpowered ability/piece of equipment will quickly grow frustrated if it was something they really wanted roleplaying-wise.

So you don't want Disruptors to have a Crit activation at 1 Advantage either?

IMO Pressure Point is only really an issue when the Doctor is a Brawn 4-6 character with natural weapons - which unfortunately means Trandoshans or Wookiees can start out very close to this point. The intent I think was for a low-Brawn non-combat-primary character to have a decent superpower to help out in fights. Unfortunately it seems like they thought that intent should be sufficient to deter mechanical optimization…lol.

The developers should definitely have foreseen this optimization and it's frankly disheartening if they never thought someone would pair high brawn/unarmed-focus species with possibly the best melee attack option in the game.

So you don't want Disruptors to have a Crit activation at 1 Advantage either?

While this is very strong and usually a guaranteed 1-shot, it's still only able to affect 1 target at a time, unlike reducing the cost for autofire, which can let one person mow down, jeez, a lot of enemies in one action.

While this is very strong and usually a guaranteed 1-shot, it's still only able to affect 1 target at a time, unlike reducing the cost for autofire, which can let one person mow down, jeez, a lot of enemies in one action.

IMO Pressure Point is only really an issue when the Doctor is a Brawn 4-6 character with natural weapons - which unfortunately means Trandoshans or Wookiees can start out very close to this point. The intent I think was for a low-Brawn non-combat-primary character to have a decent superpower to help out in fights. Unfortunately it seems like they thought that intent should be sufficient to deter mechanical optimization…lol.

The developers should definitely have foreseen this optimization and it's frankly disheartening if they never thought someone would pair high brawn/unarmed-focus species with possibly the best melee attack option in the game.

So you don't want Disruptors to have a Crit activation at 1 Advantage either?

While this is very strong and usually a guaranteed 1-shot, it's still only able to affect 1 target at a time, unlike reducing the cost for autofire, which can let one person mow down, jeez, a lot of enemies in one action.

IMO Pressure Point is only really an issue when the Doctor is a Brawn 4-6 character with natural weapons - which unfortunately means Trandoshans or Wookiees can start out very close to this point. The intent I think was for a low-Brawn non-combat-primary character to have a decent superpower to help out in fights. Unfortunately it seems like they thought that intent should be sufficient to deter mechanical optimization…lol.

The developers should definitely have foreseen this optimization and it's frankly disheartening if they never thought someone would pair high brawn/unarmed-focus species with possibly the best melee attack option in the game.

So you don't want Disruptors to have a Crit activation at 1 Advantage either?

While this is very strong and usually a guaranteed 1-shot, it's still only able to affect 1 target at a time, unlike reducing the cost for autofire, which can let one person mow down, jeez, a lot of enemies in one action.

But couldn't one also do the same thing with a Grenade?

This was asked in another thread, and one response I think nailed it on the head:

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/90971-auto-fire-with-a-scope/?hl=autofire#entry874280

Someone else also suggested that Jury Rigged only applies to the first 'extra' shot fired with autofire. First hit requires succesful hit, second hit requires 1 advantage, third hit and beyond all require the normal 2 advantage.

So I got a response from Sam:

Hello Greg,

In regards to Jury Rigged and Auto-Fire, the rules are working as intended.

You may post this answer publicly.

Sam Stewart

Senior RPG Producer

Fantasy Flight Games

It's pretty much what I expected but it's still disappointing that such a powerful exploit would be allowed to stand. The problem we're having is that the one gal with the Heavy Blaster Rifle just lays waste to adversaries within a few rounds and the other players in the group are feeling like they don’t have much to contribute to combat anymore, no real time to maneuver or do special stuff, and their shots in comparison don’t count for much. If I gang up on her it’s obvious and unfair, and if I bring out more adversaries to balance it out and give the other’s something to do the non-combat centered PCs get walloped. Anyway I guess thats what happened in the play test and they’re okay with that so as much as I avoid House Rules I'm going to make this exception: Jury Rigging brings down only the first Activation of anything.

So you don't want Disruptors to have a Crit activation at 1 Advantage either?

I haven't had this issue yet but I'll use the same House Rule for this one as well.

It's not unfair if enemies focus fire on the one person with a big automatic rifle. If anything it's logical.

It's not unfair if enemies focus fire on the one person with a big automatic rifle. If anything it's logical.

I get that but she can do so much damage the first time she whips it out that a good chuck of the Adversaries will likely go down before they could reasonably be expected to react. It's possible to create situations where it can work out but because die rolls are what they are a misstep on my part as the GM and the whole thing could go south for the other PCs really fast. It's not that I don't create challenging combats, there should always be the possibility of serious consequences, it's just increasingly difficult to build in the right number and power of the adversaries.

Yeah I understand, this is a common thing in a lot of systems: actually challenging the uber-combat character results in overwhelmingly dangerous combat for the other characters; challenging the non-combat characters results in a threat steamrolled by the combat character.

My suggestion is to turn to the environment though even then it will wind up making things a lot harder on the other characters, and possibly only marginally harder for your rifleman.

I'm doing this already when it makes sense but i think the House Rule I'm going to use will make a some difference. It's still worth Jury Rigging, you're pretty much guaranteed one activation, but it should bring Auto-Fire back into something more reasonable.

Maybe Dangerous Covenants will have some advice for this, as I suspect wee will get a whole load of new heavy weapons in that book.

Had a thought on a house rule for auto fire and was curious about opinions. I was thinking of handling it like raising attributes and saying the first auto fire hit, or second hit after the primary, requires 2 advantages, the next, or third hit, 3 advantages, then 4 and so on. I thought this was a way to both allow jury rigging to enhance the auto fire quality, while simultaneously coming up with a way to rein in the output potential. Thoughts?

This sounds like a situation where you have to "play around your players", and remember that encounters aren't just combat or just noncombat. Start building encounters where your noncombat players have an objective (slice a computer, fix machinery, sneak into an air vent, etc.) and the heavy defends them, or has to distract the guards (by PUMMELING THEM). When the win condition of the encounter isn't just "kill all bad guys" it makes it a lot more interesting for a varied group. The "kill all bad guys" win condition is a hard mindset to get out of, believe me I know

Just curious, do they have to have access to a heavy blaster rifle? It's a rarity 6 item and fairly expensive...seems pretty powerful depending how far advanced they are. You can treat gear as easy come, easy go...no reason they have to have constant access to that particular weapon. Does the GM have to let him jury rig said heavy? Does he have to to jury rig it? Does he need a component..maybe a side adventure..just some thoughts. Does the character who chose that have to jury that item? It's like handing out a vorpal blade with a character that is double weapon spec and saying wow that is good.

This sounds like a situation where you have to "play around your players", and remember that encounters aren't just combat or just noncombat. Start building encounters where your noncombat players have an objective (slice a computer, fix machinery, sneak into an air vent, etc.) and the heavy defends them, or has to distract the guards (by PUMMELING THEM). When the win condition of the encounter isn't just "kill all bad guys" it makes it a lot more interesting for a varied group. The "kill all bad guys" win condition is a hard mindset to get out of, believe me I know

I multi task my players but the bottom line is RAW make auto fire way over the top. Having other tasks for them to do doesn't change that combat is a walk on the beach with a jury rigged auto fire weapon and with Suns of Fortune players have access to an auto fire pistol, Yah, dual wielding, auto firing pistols. So something has to give.

Do you have them face enemies with Autofire weapons?

Do you restrict them from carrying around huge Autofire weapons in civilized worlds? (Or other areas where they wouldn't be allowed to just walk in loaded to the teeth)

At some point when the PC's are walking through laying waste to the location, the baddies or local law enforcement are going to up the opposition.

Do you have them face enemies with Autofire weapons?

Do you restrict them from carrying around huge Autofire weapons in civilized worlds? (Or other areas where they wouldn't be allowed to just walk in loaded to the teeth)

At some point when the PC's are walking through laying waste to the location, the baddies or local law enforcement are going to up the opposition.

Yes and yes. To the first point, if they win initiative and are skilled and modded up enough, under the current rules the enemy can be carrying nuclear warheads for all the good it will do them. To the second, yes I apply common sense guidelines to what weapons can be carried where. What I do in my game has nothing to do with the mechanic being just too plain good. A skilled Range(H) with jury rigged and some mods, will hose down a target with a ridiculous number of hits and damage.

Do you have them face enemies with Autofire weapons?

Do you restrict them from carrying around huge Autofire weapons in civilized worlds? (Or other areas where they wouldn't be allowed to just walk in loaded to the teeth)

At some point when the PC's are walking through laying waste to the location, the baddies or local law enforcement are going to up the opposition.

There are very few places where going around in heavy armor or carrying heavy weapons should be allowed. Hmm... Your players should have alternate load outs for more civilized situations. (Gotta pester Oggdude.)

How many places today would it be considered acceptable to see a Green Beret fully loaded hauling a mortar today? 50cal sniper rifle? Heckler and Koch, fully automatic shotgun? If you wanted to go into a bar with it, when and where would that bar be? Why wouldn't everyone there take him down?

Pistols, Rifles and Uzi's are a different story all together they can be relatively small and appear less threatening. (I was shocked in France seeing the local gendarme carrying machine guns and grenades... )

The only place players should reasonably cut loose is in the remote wild, war zones, or specific planned missions where the players are going in hot with intent to kill. Obviously it should vary with story line, but that is what I think.

My Gadgeteer has a very well decked out Heavyblaster rifle and I'm kinda concerned about what she might do with it.

I'm hoping that the next player sourcebook will have some guidelines and insight into handling heavy weapons in EotE games, since it's the Hired Guns book.

I personally feel that the mechanics still work fine. A tricked out Autofire weapon should do some heavy damage. If it didn't, it wouldn't feel right.

I still feel that the trick is to not let PC's always have the biggest and baddest guns on them in every location. As UHF points out, except fringe worlds and war zones, it's going to be weird for anyone to be walking around with that kind of gear.

At times when that gear is acceptable, then the PC's certainly won't be the only ones wearing it. Facing off against a variety of threats in those situations will still let the Autofire weapon wielder shine, without "ruining" combat for everyone.

Add seperate groups of enemies that can't all be caught in one fire arc. Put in bunkered heavy gun emplacements, enemies behind walls, reinforcements, and armored droids.

If the Nemesis is running away, but the party is going to get mowed down by armored droids if they chase him, the heavy weapon wielder can take on the heavy combat enemy while the rest of the group deals with the nemesis.

I know it's the mechanics that you have issue with, but it's easily handled with narrative and tactical solutions.

Do you have them face enemies with Autofire weapons?

Do you restrict them from carrying around huge Autofire weapons in civilized worlds? (Or other areas where they wouldn't be allowed to just walk in loaded to the teeth)

At some point when the PC's are walking through laying waste to the location, the baddies or local law enforcement are going to up the opposition.

"Please check your Wookie at the door. Here's your ticket. Remember no ticket, not Wookie."

There are very few places where going around in heavy armor or carrying heavy weapons should be allowed. Hmm... Your players should have alternate load outs for more civilized situations. (Gotta pester Oggdude.)

How many places today would it be considered acceptable to see a Green Beret fully loaded hauling a mortar today? 50cal sniper rifle? Heckler and Koch, fully automatic shotgun? If you wanted to go into a bar with it, when and where would that bar be? Why wouldn't everyone there take him down?

Pistols, Rifles and Uzi's are a different story all together they can be relatively small and appear less threatening. (I was shocked in France seeing the local gendarme carrying machine guns and grenades... )

The only place players should reasonably cut loose is in the remote wild, war zones, or specific planned missions where the players are going in hot with intent to kill. Obviously it should vary with story line, but that is what I think.

My Gadgeteer has a very well decked out Heavyblaster rifle and I'm kinda concerned about what she might do with it.

Star Wars takes a much more "wild west" attitude towards weaponry (and an equivalent on personal armor). There are a great many frontier areas even within the Core Worlds region where longarms and armor wouldn't be unusual at all. Hell, almost every civilian starship carries weaponry too.

On the subject of Auto-Fire Pistols, I'm not sure I'd worry too much.

Base difficulty for Dual-wielding pistols: Range+1

With adjustment for ONE pistol's Auto-Fire: Range+2

Adding Adjustment for second pistol's Auto-Fire: Range+3

So in total, to have it all go off, even at Short range it's 4 Difficulty dice

AND they need 2 Advantage to hit once with both weapons

AND they need 1 additional advantage per weapon with Jury-Rigged Auto-Fire

So a minimum of 4 Advantage just to trigger Auto-Fire on each weapon ONCE, against a minimum difficulty of 4. That's before cover, additional range penalties, setbacks and upgrades from other factors, etc.

On Topic: I don't personally feel that this particular combination is overpowered. It is ridiculously strong, but it's entirely possible to work around it. Dealing with the super-optimized guy/gal is a problem as old as GMing itself, and its a tough one.

And honestly, if you can't mow down a pack of goons with a tricked out machine gun, then what's the point of having one?

There is no benefit to using a second weapon with Auto-fire. Instead, just keep burning the Advantages on getting more hits.

Even in the Wild West, if a guy was walking around with a Gatling gun on his back he would draw a lot of unwanted attention.

The original post was saying that they felt bad extra targeting the Autofire character, but honestly it's pretty unrealistic not to give them extra attention.

As DrBraininaJar said, dealing with optimized characters happens in every game. A full auto blaster weapon should be pretty deadly. It's up to the GM to make the opposition equally challenging. The character should also run into disadvantages for trying to lug all that heavy gear with them everywhere, from unwanted attention to struggling to carry it and protect it from the elements.

I love how posts about heavy weapon seem to assume that characters are "always" carrying them around. I hardly see that as being the problem. Its not an issue of a modified heavy blaster rifle being pulled out in bar fights that's the problem (although in certain groups it may be a problem, it's not the one that caused this thread to begin). Instead, it's that in a straightforward combat encounter (where it's intended to be used) that the modified heavy blaster rifle is far too effective compared to all other alternatives.