Hi, I'm new here. The game looks like it's going to be really fun.
Sorry if this is in the wrong section. I just have one small issue with an example in the book.
The Conflict example. I don't understand why this wouldn't have been an extended conflict. I can see a player being really disappointed losing the conflict and getting blasted. Convincing someone is not rolled against their mental attributes? If the convince roll fails, is the damage based on a basic 12 difficulty or the failed roll? There's no chance to react, because it's not extended?
I'm just confused by why a GM would decide to play it this way. I would change it in my games. As I said, this looks like a great game otherwise.
Extended conflicts are only used when the conflict is, well, extended. That is, you don't need to break out the initiative and damage and so on for every conflict, only the important ones that you want to zoom in on and spend time on every action. Some random meeting in a corridor isn't worth going to all that trouble, but your group planning a raid on the main control room of the enemy is.
You could use extended conflicts for every conflict if you really wanted, but it would get tedious very quickly.
I don't happen to own the limited edition, but the rules here are the same in every edition; it's just the example that changes. The basic idea is that the bad guys want to shoot you and you want to convince them not to. You roll Ingenuity + Persuade and they roll for Coordination + Marksmanship. Whoever rolls higher get to perform the action before the other side. Physical damage is assessed based on the difference from the roll of the other side. Now you can get on with the adventure.