Page 1 of 2
Star Wars Supplement
Posted: Sun May 03, 2009 6:24 pm
by knight508

I've created a homebrew Star WArs supplement. Let me know what you think. It might not be worth much, but it can really enhance a themed game.
http://707785945648512403-a-18027447737 ... vO2w%3D%3D
Posted: Sun May 03, 2009 6:37 pm
by Greenkey15
Looks good and complete. Only bad thing I see is that it's 2001.
2001 is bad?
Posted: Sun May 03, 2009 7:19 pm
by knight508

I wasn't aware that the 2001 ruleset was inferior. I actually prefer it, as in my glorious Star Wars nerdiness I feel that the 2001 rules give a lot more depth than the 2005 rules. I may eventually post a 2005 version of this stuff as well...
Posted: Mon May 04, 2009 2:17 pm
by pesgores
Lol how many time did you take to do this and then someone said that it should be done according to the 2005 ruleset instead of 2001?
Posted: Mon May 04, 2009 2:19 pm
by tahthing
pesgores wrote:Lol how many time did you take to do this and then someone said that it should be done according to the 2005 ruleset instead of 2001?
this is bad i am a dumbass.
Posted: Mon May 04, 2009 2:36 pm
by pesgores
tahthing wrote:pesgores wrote:Lol how many time did you take to do this and then someone said that it should be done according to the 2005 ruleset instead of 2001?
this is bad i am a dumbass.
"i am a dumbass" is bad grammar too.
Posted: Mon May 04, 2009 4:37 pm
by tahthing
no i am a dumbass is bad spelling
Posted: Mon May 04, 2009 4:52 pm
by birdman
tahthing wrote:no i am a dumbass is bad spelling

Re: 2001 is bad?
Posted: Mon May 04, 2009 4:57 pm
by Greenkey15
knight508 wrote:
I wasn't aware that the 2001 ruleset was inferior. I actually prefer it, as in my glorious Star Wars nerdiness I feel that the 2001 rules give a lot more depth than the 2005 rules. I may eventually post a 2005 version of this stuff as well...
It isn't inferior, just most players don't use it.
Posted: Mon May 04, 2009 4:58 pm
by birdman
many are of the impression that it is superior, just too in-depth. think of 2001 being to 2005 what rogue trader was to 4th edition.
Answering Questions/Comments
Posted: Mon May 04, 2009 8:21 pm
by knight508
Persegores Wrote:i am a dumbass" is bad grammar too.
Lol how many time did you take to do this and then someone said that it should be done according to the 2005 ruleset instead of 2001?
1. Both your grammar leaves much to be desired.
2. Actually, this took me about a week. 2001 as opposed to 2005 is a matter of personal preference. I prefer 2001. And, if you look at it, there really isn't anything that's incompatible with 2005 rules in my supplement. I've actually playtested this with 2005
and 2001. It works in both.
3. And in reply to the mole-type creature... I resent that.
Thanks for your comments.
Posted: Tue May 05, 2009 1:33 am
by IVhorseman
birdman wrote:many are of the impression that it is superior, just too in-depth. think of 2001 being to 2005 what rogue trader was to 4th edition.
4th edition is awesome and you know it (seriously, I just came back from the most brutal delve in my life).
Oh also (Rayhawk, listen up), they plopped gnomes AND bards into PHB 2, so Büttrøck can live again.
Re: Answering Questions/Comments
Posted: Tue May 05, 2009 1:38 pm
by pesgores
knight508 wrote:
1. Both your grammar leaves much to be desired.
I'm not a native English speaker. At least you understand me.
E agora começo mesmo a falar português só para te irritar e se usares algum programa tradutor temos pena. Além disso, podes não perceber certas expressões. Resumindo, cala a boca.
Posted: Tue May 05, 2009 3:05 pm
by Greenkey15
Sou um grande pato.
Chaos has Risen
Posted: Tue May 05, 2009 3:30 pm
by knight508
This entire thread is rapidly dissolving into chaos. The point of this was to act as as sounding board for a new supplement, not an infantile argumentation arena.
