Skip to main content

On Sale: GamesAssetsToolsTabletopComics
Indie game storeFree gamesFun gamesHorror games
Game developmentAssetsComics
SalesBundles
Jobs
TagsGame Engines

This is incredibly helpful. However, I think there is a misunderstanding for Full Tech. (pg 71 Core):

"FULL TECH

When you use FULL TECH , you perform multiple tech

actions or a single, more complex action.

To use FULL TECH , choose two QUICK TECH options or

a single system or tech option that requires FULL TECH

to activate. If you choose two QUICK TECH options,

you can choose the same option multiple times."
The "you can choose" means you have the option to use the same option twice, but you are not locked into the same option twice. It contrasts with attacking, where you are unable to fire the same gun twice. Rules as written, you can, for example, scan and lock on with a full tech, or scan and scan two different mechs.

Also, this isn't needed for a player sheet, but keep in mind, Full tech works slightly different for NPCs: they are not allowed to do the same tech option, though they can use 2 different invades, because they count as different types of actions for NPCs. https://lancer-faq.netlify.app/  "Can NPCs do the same Tech Attack twice in one turn?"

(+1)

That's a good point! I'll adjust the wording to make the quick/full tech relation clearer in version 1.1. Thanks for bringing it up.

I've ended up in a weird place for this one. LARS v2 has a clearer model of tech actions, but the Full Tech wording still isn't quite RAW accurate. The challenge is, if I make it say "use 2 quick-techs", that vaguely implies 2 quick-techs can't be used on their own even though they can. And, as far as I can tell, there's rarely an advantage to declaring two different quick-techs as a Full Tech. So the wording is still unresolved and still on my mind- once I find a good solution I'll upload it as version 2.0.2. I remain thankful to you for pointing it out! 

That is a very good point. Personally, I think just removing the "can't move between the tech" wording solves the issue, since can't implies unable, but like you said, it is rarely useful to use a full tech in that way, so it probably can stay just fine.