usgrandprix said:

I've just assumed that the maneuver to enter cover is essentially a maneuver to engage with that cover. And since the rules state that characters engaged with the same object/character are also engaged with each other, then those 3 Storm Troopers are engaged with each other by entering into cover in the same place.

So would you never allow a character to be affected by blast unless they were specifically engaged with a target?

usgrandprix said:

I may be thinking of WFRP 3e where it doesn't cost a maneuver to engage a non-hostile ally (or object in this case). I agree with Inksplat, though. The alternative is to be next to cover but not engaged, which is weird. 

They should clarify that in a future revision.

Maybe some more granularity with area weapons since I'll bet a thermal detonator has a greater radius than a grenade. Two qualities?

Blast (passive), for larger weapons, must occur/player has no choice, on hit all within short range of target take blast rating in damage, on miss spend 2 (1?) adv to make target and all in short range take blast rating in damage

Explosive (active?), for smaller weapons, when activated all engaged with target take explosive rating in damage, on miss spend 3 adv to make target and all engaged take explosive rating in damage

FWIW I'd make the numbers a bit smaller than they are for these qualities.

I agree with the stormtrooper/speederbike/all engaged example. Good point. But I think there are situations where you'll not be engaged with the target but should be hit by blast. Some players will argue that point if you rule that against them (and with validity).

usgrandprix said:

1.  It costs an maneuver ("interact with environment") to take cover behind the speeder bike.  This could be considered to be a engagement maneuver as well.  Besides, to really take cover behind something, you are typically close enough to interact with it, the definition of "engaged".  Multiple characters or objects that are engaged with some common character or object, are all considered to be in one big engagement.  If a set of characters are all covering behind something the size of a speeder, its reasonable enough to say they are close enough to interact with each other, and are eligible for blast.  This may be different if they were hiding behind an X-wing.  But these are places where GM fiat is appropriate.

2.  Personally think the definition is fine as is.

The ranges are intended to be abstract to speed things up, instead of slowing the game down.  The GM should have the power to say "yeah, you're close enough" without counting grid squares.  It just requires more judgement than the older systems did.

Blast is active because it has an activation cost.  Re: TD's, there's a decent discussion on the gear thread about this.  Some consideration is given to having everyone engaged hit by a TD automatically, and blast activating to hit everyone at close range.

-WJL

 Well, one thing to realize is we're talking a narrative system here.

When thinking in Narrative terms, its -really- unlikely that the dudes in Short Range would be hit in a story or movie. The guys right next to it? Absolutely a chance to get blasted. But the people in Short Range are going to simply get that "Leap out of the way with an awesome explosion at their back" sequence that is oh-so-common.

So, honestly, I'm not sure I have a problem with it being Engaged for actual damage to be dealt. Especially since Minions all act as a group anyway, so the group of rookie storm troopers who get blasted can all get taken out by the initial attack anyway, and that pretty handily covers the aspect that's important--a hero throwing a grenade and nuking an entire group of baddies.

Henchmen & Nemesis have varying degrees of plot armor in those situations, so I think Engaged fits that.

Doc, the Weasel said:

I think what you're thinking of is that in the RAW you don't need to spend a maneuver to disengage from an engagement of only friendly targets (In EotE Beta, pg 131 "Move" maneuver, pg WFRP3E Player's Handbook pg 66).  I think you do need to spend a maneuver to engage with anything (hostile, friendly, neutral, inanimate) that you aren't at least implicitly already engaged with (e.g. a group of minions, or players walking together)

-WJL

Devil's advocate:

2 PCs

Each playing separate card games at separate tables.

They are sitting in unconnected chairs back to back five feet apart.

One is engaged with one seat/table/card opponent/whatever

The other is engaged with another seat/table/card opponent/whatever

Neither remotely engaged with the other yet 2.5 feet from where I could throw a grenade between them. But I have to target one PC.

RAW I can't say blast affects the second, untargeted PC. I would rule it and then a player would say "I'm not engaged with that target." Interestingly it does affect the guy with more cover on the other side of the table because he's engaged with the PC.

Then later when the PC uses a grenade and wants blast to affect an unengaged/just as close adversary (5 feet) but in my judgement becasue of a desk I have to say "no blast doesn't work." Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm not, but I might be coming from a different perspective becasue I know about more than the PC does by nature of the GM position knowing details of the situation. "But, but…"

Why even use an area weapon? PCs will not fear them. They are expensive and one shot and I can't remember but might require a manuever. It only ever affects one PC unless they say they are engaged with another PC or common item for some reason and that's not coming up. And I can't even target an area. I can only target a person. And you have to roll 3 adv to activate blast on a miss, which minions are not doing. Unless you're going to say unengaged people are affected…sometimes.

I'm not sure if this was mentioned (didn't have time to go through the thread), but it will be important to establish which specializations are purchased in what order.  If you are buying three specializations it will be cheaper to buy your non-career specialization first and your career specialization second. The way it is in update 4 it would even be cheaper for the player to buy the non-career at character creation then buy the career specialization after the game starts.

Career Spec (10) + Non Career Spec (30) = 40

Non Career Spec (20) + Career Spec (15) = 35

LethalDose said:

So what you said is certainly correct - from a certain (theoretical) point of view.

To provide another (based on play) POV: 20XP above means the character's second specialisation (assuming out of career). In my experience with the system, players tend to pick up their second specialisation during character creation anyway (at least 4, maybe all of my 5 players did), to round out their character. However, even if that second specialisation is taken purely for optimisation purposes, it's still often cheaper or at least a wash under the old system (remember that during character creation you're limited to 2 ranks in skills and as your math shows the equilibrium point is after 2 skill ranks). As I'm sure we all know, that extra XP during character creation might be a better option than spending it on something you don't really need now for longer term gains (which I'm not arguing are evident in your math).

The second scenario - i.e.: the third and subsequent specialisations - are usually more expensive than the 20 XP you quoted, and would be a pretty marginal investment for a single skill that is likely to be a long way outside your character's area of expertise - i.e.: a skill that you aren't likely to raise above more than 2-3 ranks anyway, at least not for a long time (until after you've raised all your character's "core" skills - represented by your career and first couple of specialisations - up to that level).

LethalDose said:

This hasn't been an issue in my game. The characters who want to be especially competent in combat will have either a career or one of their first couple of specialisations dedicated to something that provides combat skills anyway. Those that don't aren't really overshadowed by just defaulting to their characteristic in this system (as your previous math on the dice showed), and for those shots that really count they can always spend destiny to upgrade to a proficiency die. It's one of the things I really love about the game.

That being said, I'm still against the change, but for a different reason - namely that this change makes the order in which characters pick up specialisations significant. I.e.: picking up a career specialisation before a non-career specialisation is a bad move, when intuitively you would think it should be (if anything) the other way around. The math seems to work out if the cost were the same as the old out of career skill cost (i.e.: 5 + 5 times the number of specialisations the character has), at which point it makes sense to just change the skills back too for consistency.

Unless it was changed for a good reason - something I'm hoping the devs will speak up about.

GoblynByte said:

It's been mentioned in a thread in Game Mechanics. I believe the consensus is to change it to Number of Specs x 5 across the board, with a +10 surcharge if out of career. 

Doc, the Weasel said:

Personally I prefer a +5 rather than +10 surcharge, as it smooths the curve better, and if they revert the change to out of career skill costs it will keep the costs for out of career skills and specialisations in line, which was mentioned in the update as a goal.

Okay, good.

gribble said:

Well, with only 3 specializations available you're probably only gonna have that +10 once so the "curve" isn't going to be that steep.

usgrandprix said:

But here's the thing. In the book, Engaged also a spacial measurement. Its within the distance to touch someone.

"To reflect two or more targets close enough to interact directly with each other, there is a special range status called Engaged"

So, if they're really 2 and a half feet from each other, then they are within the Engaged Range band, even if they didn't actively move into it--because they both chose to Engage with the particular tables they are gambling at, that are established as that close together.

Now, in a situation where the player's haven't actively put themselves into that sort of position (within arms reach of each other), then no, the 2nd PC gets the "leap out of the way cinematically, completely unscathed". But in a situation where they put themselves that close to one another? Then they are absolutely Engaged.