Discussion in 'Literature' started by The Loyal Imperial, Sep 7, 2012.
Correct. Shame really, I so want the E-wing and K-wing to be canon.
It doesn't generally create canon *, although it seeks to be a resource that is consistent with the ongoing story.
* Although FFG did create the Imperial Raider class, which was picked up for use in the canon Battlefront II storyline.
This keeps coming up.
No. It's an RPG. It's never intended as canon. They're providing a framework, including with mechanics and fluff, to faciltiate roleplaying. It's not intended for people to obsess over stats like they perversely did with WEG.
Great Hastur, not this again... Well, you've heard Ender, so here's the default opposition:
Like any good RPG game setting, of course it has a canon. If you don't have some form of consistency from book to book, you have meaningless chaos.
If you're asking 'is it canon with the new Star Wars universe', nope. But they are drawing elements from New SW and adding them onto the hefty foundation that prior Star Wars RPG material established - and the New SW occasionally may borrow a bit or two without otherwise acknowledging it. In other words, not much difference from how the EU was treated.
I would imagine that this state of affairs can't last forever - either they'll have to let FFG run their own RPG universe or they'll rein them in. But that's for the future, and for now StoryGroup appears to be content in letting them lie in limbo..
Note: FFG have stated on the Order 66 podcast they're not considering canon.
Canon in what sense of the word?
Edit: Word is that the "Bothans" PC race is already being pulled from new printings of the AoR main rulebook, and that the Ghosts of Dathomir adventure was delayed because an 'official Canon mandated rewrite' had to be made.
If that's the case, that's a shame - I'll pass on buying any future supplements.
2x Quasar Fire
2x Gozanti flotilla
2x Home One Type
2x Liberty Type
2x Assault Frigate
I mean, they didn't make Arbooine (for Chronicles of the Gatekeeper) because it was to be an official planet. Nor have they sought to make it one. They made it because it suited that adventure.
As for the Bothan thing, I heard about that. Pablo apparently tweeted something about how Bothans would need to be designed by LFL.
I mean, I'm not seeing how it's mutually conflicting in the first place to, on the one hand, not really care about establishing whether their stuff is "canon" or not, while also still not wanting to tell their users "this is a Bothan" when they explicitly know something in the near-mid-future will be coming out saying "no, this is a Bothan".
Funny thing - I literally just heard Keith Kappel - who wrote the Disciples of Harmony book for Consulars - say how it was important to him to empower the GM to tell stories takes precedence over canon adherence. It's in response to GM Phil noting that no-longer-canon groups like the Baran-Do sages were included as examples in the book.
Order 66 Podcast, Episode 102, 29 minute mark. For any future questions about canon.
Wait, what? Where's this word being reported? AoR is by far the most explicitly at-odds with current canon book, so I'm curious about this development.
I've googled "age of rebellion bothans" and found nothing. Also if this is the case I'm surprised EOTE, the FIRST book they made, which also had Bothans as a playable race, wouldn't be altered too.
If true though, WHY are they changing it? Is one of the new movies going to portray Bothans as squid people or something? If they left Geonosians in that free EOTE adventure they released when recent Canon has made them extinct or near extinct, it seems odd that they would bother changing this, or at the very least it would be odd for them to not include rules for both versions of Bothans.
Nice! Our fleets are pretty damned similar in numbers.
I'm tempted to get more Hammerheads or CR90's to do a "rush" attack. I'm also excited they are finally going to release more of the original fighter expansions, as I'd love one more pack each of the Rebel & Imperial ones.
My understanding with the Bothans in AOR is that it's something they wouldn't let in the book now, if it were currently under LFL review. But I haven't heard anything about Bothans being pulled or anything.
Missa ab iPhona mea est.
All Pablo is saying is that if Bothans are used on-screen that they'd want to design the alien from scratch, not be tied to the old EU portrayal. Which makes sense. I think people are reading too much into that tweet if they think that FFG would rework the AoR sourcebook, unless someone from FFG stated that was the case.
This was mentioned on the FFG forums; someone from Germany indicated that the new edition of the German AoR rulebook was missing the Bothans from the race section; someone else confirmed it. The thread is here.
I'll hold off a final judgment until there's more concrete information, but if this is the taste of the future, it's rather disappointing. Ender, I'm concerned about this from an RPG side of things; I don't give a damn about 'Official Canon' or whatever, just the game's material being consistent - because that's the mark of a good RPG, unless the RPG is specifically about being against the idea of a defined game universe (i.e. Paranoia). Removing one of the main player races - and, apparently, not even replacing it with another - is bad game design. I suspect, also, that it may mark the march towards a new edition that will be confined but not allowed to contribute to 'Official Canon'... which you can look at the history of RPGs that were property tie-ins to know how that turns out. WEG was and always will be the exception to the rule, for obvious reasons.
Not that our campaign will be hampered in any way; I have enough books to have our round robin adventures continue for at least a couple years. But I would like to continue buying FFG's RPG products, I really would.
So in other words, you didn't click the link?
From the opening post:
Age of Rebellion finally hit the shelf in its german adaptation and apparently everything regarding Bothans is missing from the book. Obviously stats, as well as descriptions and any artworks have been purged.
I found that rather strange since it is merely a translation and not some kind of new edition.
Then from that poster's next post:
On 09/07/2017 at 8:46 AM, Blackbird888 said:
Not to sound like a critic, but is it just a rumor that the Bothans were removed from the book, or is there any confirmation?
Ramifications are significant.My game master has the german copy and I've seen it today. I can confirm that they are indeed missing.
Is it just the Germans that are missing the Bothans? Maybe it's a weird translation thing?
Sent from my SM-G386W using Tapatalk
Well it just came out in German and the Bothans are gone. We haven't seen reprints yet for AOR so we can't be sure.
Barring plans for huge games, or certain extreme builds, there is a fairly optimal number of ships to have
So the german fans are expected to pay more for less content? That's good news.
Btw has anyone heard about some errata for the Age of Rebellion core rulebook?
The description of the Victory-class Star Destroyer seems to have quite a few errors in it. The text is titled Victory-class Star Destroyer, the Stat Block calls it the Victory II and most of the stats seem to based on the Victory II, while the armament looks like it was taken from the Victory I.
How does that matter for an RPG?
Please explain how that will matter when you take a silhouette 3, 4, 5 ship up against one?
Ender, there are many people that enjoy these RPG books as sourcebooks. I don't RP at all, but I love the source material and lore. So to answer your question, it matters for people who use these products differently. Which is fully in their right.
Out of interest how much of the books is content someone who doesn't RP could appreciate? I mean it would be nice to give it a go I guess but I don't have anyone who would want to do that so it would just be a lore book or nothing for me.