Hugh Neilson

It's also odd that someone with 1 STUN remaining of 100, or down 9 of 10 BOD, or even at negative BOD, can keep battling on.  But that is a compromise we accept for cinematic reality and ease of gameplay.
 
At 0 END, using END causes STUN.  Powers with no END cost can be used freely. 
 
I don't recall whether it continued in 6e, but older editions did have a rule that use of a combat maneuver (but not a martial maneuver) always cost at least 1 END.  It was rarely used, but that was the rule.

I don't see it that mathematical.  An OAF can be disarmed, rendered useless by Grab or Entangle, etc.  It need not be unavailable for an extended period to be limiting.

As I see the "1 END minimum" requirement, it is not saying it costs 1 END to use a charge.  It is saying that use of any non-martial combat maneuver costs the END required to use the power to which the maneuver is applied, or 1 END where there is no END cost to use the power (such as charges, Block and Dodge).  The 1 END for firing your 16 charge Blaster Rifle is not paid to use the Blast or KA slot of the Rifle, but to use the Strike maneuver itself in firing the blaster rifle.
 
Similarly, there is no END cost to use STR or movement to Block or Dodge - you spend 1 END to use the maneuver itself.

Apparently I am too subtle for this crowd.  I don't see "no extra ill effects at 0 END' being any different than "no ill effects for being at a fraction of normal STUN or BOD.

I don't see it that mathematical.  An OAF can be disarmed, rendered useless by Grab or Entangle, etc.  It need not be unavailable for an extended period to be limiting.

If you are dead set on "roll high", then roll the dice, subtract the result from 21 and apply that as the roll using the normal rules.
 
We still have some abilities that work better if you make the roll by half - how does that work in your model, Sean?

It's also odd that someone with 1 STUN remaining of 100, or down 9 of 10 BOD, or even at negative BOD, can keep battling on.  But that is a compromise we accept for cinematic reality and ease of gameplay.
 
At 0 END, using END causes STUN.  Powers with no END cost can be used freely. 
 
I don't recall whether it continued in 6e, but older editions did have a rule that use of a combat maneuver (but not a martial maneuver) always cost at least 1 END.  It was rarely used, but that was the rule.

https://bamfsies.blogspot.com/2018/02/2017-bamfsies-awards-announced.html

Excellent, excellent. Congrat Darren. And kudos on writing a fantastic supplement!

Congrats a well deserved win.

Celebratory Fireworks!!: (Total: 47 Active Cost, 8 Real Cost) Sight and Hearing Groups Images, +/-4 to PER Rolls, Autofire (3 shots; +1/4), Area Of Effect (32m Radius Explosion; +1/2) (47 Active Points); Extra Time (20 Minutes, Only to Activate, -1 1/4), OAF (-1), Set Effect (-1), 2 clips of 3 Continuing Charges lasting 1 Hour each (Recovers Under Limited Circumstances (something to celebrate); Increased Reloading Time: 1 Minute; -3/4), Inaccurate (0 OCV; -1/2), Side Effects (Always occurs whenever the character does someting dumb like set them off indoors; -1/4), Restrainable (Only by means such as dousing them with water before they're lit; -1/4) (Real Cost: 8)
 
Lucius Alexander
 
I didn't put Requires a Roll on it but the palindromedry still says I should get a qualified pyrotechnician to set them off.

There is no explicit rule permitting a character to gain altitude by running up a flight of stairs, either.  Should all players wanting their characters to be capable of running up stairs (rather than requiring a Climbing skill roll, and reduction to Climbing speed and CV) be required to buy an advantage on their Running?  Being a generous GM, I allow them to climb stairs without even a Power Skill roll.  I guess I am way too soft, allowing things the rules do not explicitly state are permitted.  Or maybe I am a malicious GM in that I would consider reducing Running SPD as a character climbs 20 stories of stairs when there is no reduction explicitly provided by the rules.
 
 
My understanding is that the authors considered this to be allowed from 1st Ed, and to be so obvious it went without saying.  The Great Linked Debate shows the latter was not correct. 
 
As to "ridiculously overpowered", if one cannot use two or more powers as a single attack, what is the benefit of buying a 12d6 Blast, a 6d6, 6 DEF Entangle and a 12d6 Flash as separate powers (180 points) rather than a Swiss Army Multipower (78 points)?  Isn't saving 102 points (a 56 2/3% discount) for no restriction on the use of those attacks ridiculously overpowered?  For that matter, what possible benefit would there be in taking those as flexible slots (96 points) rather than Fixed slots and spending an extra 23% if you can't use that to fire a 10d6 Blast + 2d6 Flash?
 
Given the premise that spending more points provides more options, perhaps the authors were not so far off believing this was pretty obvious (especially when the rules were 64 or 80 pages and did not seek to define every minute detail).

I think what I found most disappointing was that everything after the Dreadnought was destroyed before landing on Krait would have gone as well or better if the main characters (Poe, Finn and Rose) had simply done nothing and sat on their bunks.  The Luke/Rey/Kylo Ren scenes advanced the story.  Poe, Finn and Rose were worse than filler - they caused the detection of the escaping transports.  Heroic Fantasy generally gives the heroes something heroic to do.
 
Reflecting on it, Luke may have nailed it.  He was a legend.  So were Han, Leia etc..  Are the new characters likely to be legends?  Have they been given anything legendary to do?
 
In the original trilogy, the characters improvised using the resources they had, and things worked.  The SnowSpeeder cables were effective against the Walkers, for example.  Similar use of the resources given on Krait just got most of the rest of the pilots killed off, without impeding their opponents.  It almost feels like a bad RPG - the players come up with various ideas, all of which come to nothing (or worse, assist the opposition).  Even Rey's noble attempt to turn Kylo Ren just exchanges one Supreme Leader for another. 
 
It feels like the Heroes are not permitted to succeed in being Heroic.  Even a win (the destruction of the Dreadnought) is painted as a loss (all bombers and most fighters destroyed and all we did was buy a little time). 
 
The Rogue 1 characters felt heroic - their sacrifices meant something.
 
The new trilogy seems to say "it's all futile".  The new characters seem overwhelmed by a no-win situation.

The first four seem pretty reasonable.  How does one get proven experience when starting a career?  Presumably, all four can be demonstrated by a career outside politics.  Are we saying there should be an age restriction before entering politics, as you need to demonstrate these traits in a different career first?  What prior careers would be suitable to demonstrating these skills in a manner which the general public can clearly perceive?
 
And if one has demonstrated those skills, why shouldn't one start at the top?
 
Ultimately, it is we as voters (me in my nation, you in yours) who decide whether those criteria are the most critical, whether the candidate has demonstrated them appropriately and whether starting at the top is appropriate.  Both parties select their candidates based on who they believe has the optimal chance of winning, in my view.  That means they are selecting the candidates they expect voters will vote for, whether they are career politicians, outspoken Twitter using celebrities or whatever else the public will vote for.  Isn't that democracy?
 
Springer-Kardashian 2020!

1. Dedication to public service
2. Ability to listen, understand and respond to constituent concerns
3. Ability to get up to speed quickly on a variety of subject matter
4. Ability to achieve consensus, including with people who have greatly divergent goals and perspectives
5. Proven experience doing all of the above
 
More to the point, if you're going to get a brand new job in politics, starting at the very top seems a bit much, don't you think?  

If Obi-Wan and Yoda are anything to go by, the preordained career path for a top-tier Jedi master is to go to some secluded planet, become a recluse into old age, eventually train a young hero for a day or two, and then pass away in a moment of complete Force Enlightenment. Luke is merely conforming to proper Star Wars tradition.

The Imperials (actually Boba Fett, but same impact) set a trap for Han.  What did they do to set a trap for Finn?  Nothing.  From the outset of ESB, Vader was hunting for Luke.  Why?  He sensed the strength of the Force within him at the Death Star.  Snopes was hunting for Rey, too, as it turned out. 
 
Vader hired bounty hunters to ensnare Luke.  Boba Fett reasoned that he could catch Luke by setting a trap for his friends and drawing him in.  Every choice Han made during the flight from Hoth advanced his (and Leia's) escape from the Imperials.  How did Finn contribute to any escape from the Imperials?  Oh that's right - he didn't. 
 
Laying low on Bespin would have worked had Boba Fett not been tracking him.  Who was tracking Finn and Rose?  Oh, that's right - no one.  Who knew they were trying to slip aboard the command ship and disable the tracking just long enough for the Rebels to escape?  That same "no one"  But the First Order are still right there, waiting.  Thanks to Rose and Finn, they discover the Resistance's escape plan and start blowing transports out of the sky.
 
Han could be pretty confident  Leia, Chewie and the two droids could not repair the Falcon's hyperdrive.  So he seeks out an old contact.  The Resistance have every skill one can imagine on a ship, but no one who can break a code?  Yet there's a shady guy in prison who can do it, and Rose and Finn just happen to get locked up with him. 
 
Obi-Wan went looking for a pilot in a spaceport town, and he found one in a seedy dive that shady pilots (the only kind likely to smuggle him through Empire space) frequent..  Rose and Finn went looking for a codebreaker in a casino based on a transmission from someone Finn has briefly met once, don't find him, but happen to meet an "expert codebreaker" in a random prison cell.  Han was betrayed by an old friend he sought out for help when he had no other resources available, while Finn and Rose are betrayed by someone they randomly met in prison and decided to entrust with the fate of the entire resistance, rather than looking for the skill set they need in the entire Resistance community? 
 
Luke leaves his training with the noble aim of helping his friends, and falls into Vader's trap,.  Rey leaves her training with the noble aim of turning Kylo Ren back to the light side, and falls into Snopes' trap.  Her arc is comparable.  Finn and Poe's arc is not, at least to me.  They needed an arc where they could demonstrate some competency and heroism, even if their broader objectives failed, at least in my opinion.  Instead, they come across as a step or two up from Jar Jar Binks.  Trying hard, but not accomplishing much, if anything, and ultimately just making things worse.
 
Why couldn't Finn's experience as a Stormtrooper have proven useful evading capture on the command ship, allowing he and Rose to escape?  Why could we not have had a skilled codebreaker in the Resistance fleet (what was Rose's job, anyway?), allowing for a desperate (and, perhaps, even sanctioned) attempt to shut down the First Order's tracking capability, rather than a rogue mission and a mutiny?  It would have been nice to see the Heroes actually contribute to what limited success the Resistance enjoyed in the movie, rather than impeding it.
 
In the original trilogy, all of the main characters felt like competent heroes, relevant to the action and the plot.  I don't get that same feeling here.  Maybe I'm the curmudgeon.
 
BWT, agreed that the break from the Skywalker clan is welcome.  There were plenty of non-Skywalker Jedi before, and "strong in the Force" does not need to be restricted to a single bloodline.  Whether Ren was truthful or not, it seems pretty clear Rey is not a Skywalker, at a minimum.
 
ADDENDUM:  The movie felt like a lot of Bait & Switch.  We're supposed to expect the heroes to do heroic things, so instead they fall flat on their faces. 
 
Finn and Rose make a last-ditch desperate attempt to save the Resistance.  But it's useless, and ultimately futile as they already had a workable plan.  Poe Dameron leading a mutiny?  We expect it to turn out that he and his friends save the Resistance.  Instead, they basically doom it, when the plan which would have played out had they sat quietly like good little underlings seems like it would have succeeded. 
 
Shady character encountered in the last place we would think to look?  Diamond in the rough, with the Force bringing the players to their destiny, we think (especially when he returns Rose's medallion). Nope.  Traitor.
 
Had the movie not featured Poe, Finn or Rose, and focused entirely on Leia trying to get the Resistance fleet to Krait, and Rey's efforts to get Luke to train her, then to try to turn Kylo Ren back to the light side, with Poe and Finn getting as much screen time as, say, Biggs and Wedge, would the movie have lost anything?  It would still have deviated a long way from the original trilogy, and an All-Jedi Cast would have hearkened back to the prequels, but what have the new non-Jedi characters really added to the Saga of this new trilogy?
 
Hopefully the final part will let them be heroes too, not muggles scampering around while the Jedi Wizards get all the glory.
 
Had these been released in 1977 and 1980, I'm not sure we would have seen a return by the Jedi.  These seem more like the wannabe movies that tried to ride the Star Wars wave. 

I think what I found most disappointing was that everything after the Dreadnought was destroyed before landing on Krait would have gone as well or better if the main characters (Poe, Finn and Rose) had simply done nothing and sat on their bunks.  The Luke/Rey/Kylo Ren scenes advanced the story.  Poe, Finn and Rose were worse than filler - they caused the detection of the escaping transports.  Heroic Fantasy generally gives the heroes something heroic to do.
 
Reflecting on it, Luke may have nailed it.  He was a legend.  So were Han, Leia etc..  Are the new characters likely to be legends?  Have they been given anything legendary to do?
 
In the original trilogy, the characters improvised using the resources they had, and things worked.  The SnowSpeeder cables were effective against the Walkers, for example.  Similar use of the resources given on Krait just got most of the rest of the pilots killed off, without impeding their opponents.  It almost feels like a bad RPG - the players come up with various ideas, all of which come to nothing (or worse, assist the opposition).  Even Rey's noble attempt to turn Kylo Ren just exchanges one Supreme Leader for another. 
 
It feels like the Heroes are not permitted to succeed in being Heroic.  Even a win (the destruction of the Dreadnought) is painted as a loss (all bombers and most fighters destroyed and all we did was buy a little time). 
 
The Rogue 1 characters felt heroic - their sacrifices meant something.
 
The new trilogy seems to say "it's all futile".  The new characters seem overwhelmed by a no-win situation.

ummm...that IS the James Bond movies.
 

Is that the James Bond we see on the Silver Screen?
 
On Dr. No,
 

 
Pretty sure that one was one of the closer ones to the source material...

Yeah, a scumbag is a scumbag regardless of what flag they're flying.

If America has the absolute freedom of belief, and has always maintained that high standard, please explain "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist party?"
 
For that matter, please reconcile the belief that Muslims should not be permitted entry into the United States with the holding of Muslim religious beliefs while residing in the United States.
 
A less controversial perspective, perhaps, but if I believe in my own mind that everyone in a position of authority is a three-armed alien from Alpha Centauri working to enslave the Earth, I suspect I will end up locked up for the protection of myself and others.
 
Now, one could split hairs - you can believe something as long as you never act on, or share, that belief in any way. But I question the sincerity of such a belief.
 
There are no absolutes.

There are no absolute, total, unequivocal rights. Complete freedom on the part of one person is bound to conflict with the complete freedom of someone else; so society attempts to set reasonable boundaries, qualifications, and exemptions to balance the rights of the individual with the necessities for society as a whole.
 
Refusal to accept any sort of restriction on private gun possession or use (as one example) is just blindly dogmatic.

I recall an old article by Stan Lee where he commented on fans who, whenever Marvel published a book that did not work out, accused them of "Letting down the fans", but whenever they published a hit, accused them of "Just grabbing the cash".
 
You can't have it both ways. "Fan service" is "customer service" is "giving the people what they want".

I recall an old article by Stan Lee where he commented on fans who, whenever Marvel published a book that did not work out, accused them of "Letting down the fans", but whenever they published a hit, accused them of "Just grabbing the cash".
 
You can't have it both ways. "Fan service" is "customer service" is "giving the people what they want".

I recall an old article by Stan Lee where he commented on fans who, whenever Marvel published a book that did not work out, accused them of "Letting down the fans", but whenever they published a hit, accused them of "Just grabbing the cash".
 
You can't have it both ways. "Fan service" is "customer service" is "giving the people what they want".