UPRISING OOC

[DeepSpacer]

Trandoshan #1 (w/Firelance)
NPC; UPRISING; Initiative:
2 Successes, 0 Advantage


Trandoshan #2 (w/net launcher)
NPC; UPRISING; Initiative:
1 Success, 2 Advantages


(4)Weequay Minion Group
NPC; UPRISING; Initiative:
1 Success, 1 Advantage


Cpt. Jameis Kettel
NPC; UPRISING; Initiative:
4 Successes, 1 Threat

[ShadoWarrior]

Kallachitlanna; Uprising; Cool check:
2 Successes, 0 Advantage

[Kal Drahr]

On the bright side I got a Triumph. But I have no idea on what to use it.

Per the book: "Notice details that can be useful later to gain boost on future interactions with noticed object." You fail to notice the target, but once you become aware of it you'll have a boost on checks against it.

Ah, thanks.

Initative: 1eP+2eA+1eD 0 successes, 2 advantage

[DeepSpacer]

Thank you Kal Drahr for chiming in. Looks like Shado's Initiative roll gets at least one PC to act before they do, which could be decisive. (We were fortunate!) You may discuss amongst yourselves who you think should take that slot this round. I'll remind you all that we have 6 white DP's and 2 black DP's on the board.

[ShadoWarrior]

It's a metagame issue that we as players don't know, but if the opponents are minions (rather than far more dangerous rivals) then we can rip through them with spillover damage and/or crits. Lanna only needs a single advantage to inflict a crit, so if I can get several to pop she can cleave through a pile of baddies in one swing.

In character, Lanna is being confronted by a species enemy, and it's she who they want. She's unlikely to show any restraint and wait for someone else when threatened in this fashion. It's probably best if we let her take care of the closest baddies and let the ranged folks take on those that are further away.

[SavageBob]

We had discussed using the cover story that Lanna is Vesper's personal bodyguard and is not a viable target for bounty hunters; is it a foregone conclusion we'll have to kill these guys? Seems unfortunate to have a huge brawl in town square when we're trying to lie low. Any chance we can try the ruse?

That said, if others are itching for combat, we can deal with the authorities later!

[ShadoWarrior]

There can't be a bounty that specifically names Lanna because IC she left no live bodies when she escaped slavery on Nar Shaddaa, and metagame-wise she was created using Duty not Obligation. That said, there can easily be a standing bounty on all Wookiees by either Trandosha or the Empire or both. Of course if I'm going to be dogged all game long by damned bounty hunters because of being a Wookiee then I should have gotten Bounty Obligation (she was built with Duty, mind you) and some tangible compensation (XP or cash or something) for said Obligation of being stuck with such a 'curse'.

I don't recall any of us rolling a Despair to cause us to get treated this way at the very start of our mission.

[SavageBob]

Yeah, the ruse was supposed to be that Lanna has the proper paperwork to be a bodyguard and shouldn't be subject to any general fugitive Wookiee laws. I don't think we have any forged paperwork to make this believable (though that would be a viable Destiny spend!), but it was one idea to keep this from happening again and again.

(As for the encounter, I'm guessing this is setting us up for something and isn't just a random fight.)

[ShadoWarrior]

I don't mind at all if it's a one time thing. I just don't want it to be a recurring theme.

[DeepSpacer]

I don't mind at all if it's a one time thing. I just don't want it to be a recurring theme.

No problem. A Trandoshan slaver with great personal enmity towards such a species enemy can sometimes act foolishly when such a prize that happens to cross his path. We're quite far from their home planets. What a story it would be to tell his Trandoshan friends!!!

From this Trandoshan slaver's point of view, there's ALWAYS a bounty on Wookiees and it extends to ALL parts of the galaxy. Now, whether that jives with laws on Mexeluine or in the Anoat Sector, well..... I suppose we'll find out!
(Avg + Setback Die Kn:Edu or Outer Rim check to recall something about the BH laws out here.)

Distance to each set of targets is the same. Short. Looks like there's just enough time for one PC to confront one set of targets before they act.

[SavageBob]

Here's the Knowledge (Education) check...

Vesper Reshari; Uprising; Knowledge (Education):
1 Success, 3 Threats

[DeepSpacer]

Here's the Knowledge (Education) check...
Vesper Reshari; Uprising; Knowledge (Education): 1 Success, 3 Threats

Vesper knows that any standing "Imperial" or "Trandosha" bounty does not extend this far into the Outer Rim as far as organized Gov't are concerned (1 Success). What you don't know (3 Threats) is if this gov't honors "legitimate" bounty hunter bounties through BH guilds. You are 'unsure' if this could be a legitimate bounty, or not. You're also not sure about the criminal element. Svae hinted as much in conversation back at Echo Base.

Regardless of the outcome of combat, there will be RP elements immediately following the fight where this may come into play. As could Streetwise or Underworld checks, but we'll make those when/if the time comes.

[ShadoWarrior]

Well, it's going to be problematic to have a positive outcome to the battle when the roller refuses to give me even 1 success pip out of 6 damned dice. Waste of a Destiny Point.

[SavageBob]

Yeah, that was a roll worthy of me! :O

Looks like we have three baddie goes before Kzar or Vesper can step in.

[ShadoWarrior]

Deep, I hate to break this to you (not really, but I'm trying to be polite) but it's the players that choose how to spend NPC threats, not the GM who rolled them for his bad guy. My choice for how to spend the threats is very different than yours:

1 threat: NPC loses prior maneuver (aim), so he gets 1 more threat
3 threats: NPC falls prone (due to entanglement in his own net)
1 threat: NPC takes 1 strain

I'm going for the above because it's more cinematic than just slapping two more setbacks on the other Tradnoshan's rifle attack, which would be my preferred choice for trying to screw over the bad guys. That and the fact that I do not trust Rider's roller today to do anything useful with two more setbacks.

[DeepSpacer]

You are correct. It was a lot keeping up with things. I had forgotten that much. Corrections made.

[ShadoWarrior]

Normally we'd also get to decide on Despairs the GM rolls, but in the case of Despairs rolled because of shooting into a melee the rules are very explicit, as you know, in saying that the shot hits a friendly target (in this case, himself). No choice allowed at all. Besides which it's what I'd pick anyway.


PS - you need to re-edit your post. He didn't net his partner (which would have messed up the attack on Lanna), he netted himself. He can't net his partner because his partner wasn't engaged with Lanna. Unless both guys are minions and engaged with each other (I'll skip the funny jokes about netting a partner and being engaged).

[SavageBob]

So, another insane roll. Should I have included setbacks for the dude's armor, DS?

Once that's settled, we can spend that Advantage.

[DeepSpacer]

Yes, they were standing beside each other to begin with ("close enough to interact directly with each other"). Both were engaged (in the combat sense of the word) and Trandoshan #1 with the Firelance is hit. Maybe (or maybe not) there's a minion/rival dynamic here that will split a hair with engaging with one npc but not the other npc that's right beside him (which I can't really visualize), but I am satisfied with the narrative result as it is and ready to move on. If there's a technical difference, then I will apply it next go-around.

Sure you don't want to see how Manna & Trandoshan #1 fare in a net together? (...just kidding...) At my gaming table, knowing my players well, we'd of gone for the most "chaotic" route over RAW....Triumph and Despair to ensnare BOTH in the net at the same time.

Off to work for a bit. I look forward to seeing what the next three PC actions do!
Ranges: all Short.

[DeepSpacer]

So, another insane roll. Should I have included setbacks for the dude's armor, DS?

Once that's settled, we can spend that Advantage.

They only have soak. I will try really hard to include Defense or Adversary when they come up.

[SavageBob]

So, am I reading the chart in the CRB right that I can use 3 Advantage to cause him to drop the firelance? I don't see any indication that I have to succeed at the attack or do damage to do so; it's the last entry in the chart for 3 Advantage: "Force the target to drop a melee or ranged weapon he is wielding."

Then +3 boosts to Kzar's attack as his next target moves into a less advantageous position to be able to avoid fire.

[ShadoWarrior]

Yes, they were standing beside each other to begin with ("close enough to interact directly with each other"). Both were engaged (in the combat sense of the word) and Trandoshan #1 with the Firelance is hit. Maybe (or maybe not) there's a minion/rival dynamic here that will split a hair with engaging with one npc but not the other npc that's right beside him (which I can't really visualize), but I am satisfied with the narrative result as it is and ready to move on. If there's a technical difference, then I will apply it next go-around.

Thanks for clarifying things. All things considered, the way you have it is actually better for us, I'm pretty sure. While I consider the net to be the most dangerous weapon to Lanna, if I can ever get a hit then that schmuck who's now prone at her feet is toast, so having the leader eat strain (which become wounds unless he's a nemesis) from the net hit gets that guy closer to being knocked out of the fight.

[ShadoWarrior]

So, am I reading the chart in the CRB right that I can use 3 Advantage to cause him to drop the firelance? I don't see any indication that I have to succeed at the attack or do damage to do so; it's the last entry in the chart for 3 Advantage: "Force the target to drop a melee or ranged weapon he is wielding."

The RAW omits mention that the attack has to succeed (it was in the table in beta). But if your attack fails to hit something much larger, such as the man, then how can you say that your shot is so well-aimed that you hit the weapon and knocked it out of his hands? Makes no sense. It's basically a rules-lawyerish thing to quote a badly written bit of text rather than looking at it with common sense. Since GMs can (and should) adjudicate all aspects of the rules, this is one (of many) examples where a GM should go beyond just the RAW and say that you also have to succeed at the check to knock the weapon out of his hands, by trading dealing damage for a disarm instead.

Bear in mind that called shots require an Aim maneuver and add 2 setbacks to the attack. Just to hit the weapon. So getting the same effect without declaring it first and eating the setbacks and the maneuver (for which you don't get the boost die), after the fact with 3 advantages, is already a gift and should come with a cost of trading damage for it (IOW, you hit but choose a non-lethal disarm instead). Getting to do it on misses is insanely, ridiculously abusive of the game. And do you really want the bad guys doing the same (*%$ to you whenever they miss and get a buttload of advantages?

[SavageBob]

I read it differently from you, and the way we've been running the PvP match I'm participating in on the FFG main boards is that no overall success is required. Damaging or destroying the weapon requires a success, but not disarming. In this case, Vesper is physically tackling the guy, so having him drop the weapon makes narrative sense. I'm fine with it being used against PCs, too, since it basically just forces the target to spend a maneuver to pick the weapon back up on his next turn. In other words, it's not that severe a penalty.

But it's not my intention to start a rules fight, just an attempt to do something cinematic and cool: Vesper rushes the guy, swings and misses, but her momentum carries her into him and knocks the weapon out of his hands. Pretty cool in my mind's eye!

I'm happy to abide by DS's ruling either way. If the disarm isn't allowed, I'll impose a setback on the guy's next check and pass a fourth boost to Kzar.

[ShadoWarrior]

Just so you know, the discussions on the FFG forums mostly agree that getting the weapon back should take 2-3 maneuvers. It's an assumption that the weapon falls at the target's feet (IOW, engaged with the target and easily picked back up). In almost all Hollywood shows, including Star Wars, we always see the weapon knocked into short range (always just beyond reach, forcing the guy to move to fetch it). Making a guy eat 2-3 maneuvers to get his weapon back (1 maneuver to move to engage with the weapon, 1 maneuver to pick it up, and perhaps a third maneuver if he had to disengage from someone first before moving to the weapon) is pretty darn good for something so cheap as 3 advantages.

The rules abuse part comes in, as I previously stated, in that if you'd tried to do that intentionally (make a called shot on the weapon) your dice pool would have been considerably different (1 less blue and 2 more blacks). Not to mention requiring you to declare your intention ahead of time. To get it so cheap, and after the fact adding insult to injury, is abusive as hell. Yes, it's cinematic, but only because you have justify it as the result of a melee collision. A creative player (bending the rules in their favor) can justify damn near anything that they want. Doesn't make it any less munchkin-y. The rules make no distinction as to ranged or melee on disarming via spending advantages. So Poe could do the same damn thing with a 'trick' shot that misses. IRL it's impossible to knock a weapon out of someone's hands on a miss, and it's damned hard to do intentionally as you need really good aim.

IMO, allowing a disarm without a Triumph is a bad idea. It breaks game balance.

I've said my piece so I'll shut up now.