I know there's a section in Battlefleet Koronus that offers a simplified version that's probably really great for huge combats with lots of mook ships. However when it comes to battles with named rivals I want it to be a bit challenging or a bit more challenging anyway.

The problem as I see it is that most NPCs especially the ones in the adventure and splatbooks have really godawful pathetic BS characteristics and most of them only have "competent" crews. My players are all rank 3 or higher at this point, they've taken advances and there are now half a dozen of their characters running around during a combat. The result of this is that they're pretty sure to hit in starship combat and out ship is really brutally macro-cannon focused. They're going to be making BS rolls at sixty+ as a general rule.

Meanwhile say Krawkin Feckward per the books I have in front of me and my best understanding of them is going to be making BS rolls at 40ish at best. I'm thinking at this point of just enacting my own little GM rule where I'll simplify the enemy ship BS roll by adding the crew competency and the Rival's BS up to a maximum of sixty before any range modifiers or other ship actions.

In addition I figure I'll run three ship actions per turn by the stats of any established NPC/NPCs on the enemy ship just to keep it interesting. What do you think?

Remember that named enemies should also have Astropaths and Navigators, and there are some nasty tricks that those two can pull off in Void Combat, including the Astropath's ability to potentially out of nowhere provide a ton of extra void shields for your players to have to get through, and a Navigator adding a huge bonus to armour in a single turn.

A nice rule of thumb I've adopted for my group is that important enemies get a number of ship actions equal to the rank of my players, which has required me to have a pretty quick decision making process in starship combat, but I've had some practice.

Also, PCs with macrocannon focus are why I recommend switching over to the Mathhammer fix.

Make sure to add up all the little extras; Feckward increases BS checks (sort of what Rogue Traders do), his bridge might, too.

Feckward: he's at Crew 30 + Bridge 5 + Him 10 with okay weapons. Note he's not a direct battle sort of jerk, so if you got him into combat, maybe the GM did something wrong, or he might've already dinged you up. I see him running from most fights, and hope his ship is built with evasive countermeasures.

The last little thing, and I feel I can't stress this enough, is that books like Lure of the Expanse, while great (IMO) don't seem to work with an XP range in mind; they seem to have wrote it, and others, so that it could be the very first adventure you and your group have done, and then the various RTs might be a fair challenge. if you have already "beefed up", as it were, the GM might need to shoot a little bit of nitrus into their engines. If I grab Edge of the Abyss, and find even Winterscale's write-up on p.102-103, he's about 15 points better on hitting, which still sounds less than your group, and is flying a much bigger, easier to peg vessel. he's the most powerful RT with stats, in the Expanse, but they still don't know, for sure, when you might encounter him, so he's not all-powerful. Work in a few nifty extras (anything you might be able to acquire in some adventure, they might've, before you). Also, as was said, this doesn't take into account that Feckward might have saboteurs aboard your ship, or a powerful psyker/navigator aboard his.

Yeah most of the NPC Rogue Traders are written as wimps, personally considering the power level of my players I'm just going to give any NPC RT an armor with the minimum rating of 5 and some sort of power weapon or exotic weapon of about the same lethality. Most of my players probably can't even be significantly hurt by a mono-sword anymore unless the enemy has unnatural strength. Similarly all the NPC RTs are the heroes of their own stories, I'm going to crank at least either their WS or BS up to a point where they're competitive to the players.

So I guess I'll just level him up, give him a few characteristic advances and maybe skill advances since yes as written he's built to menace a rank 1 crew. At this point I've thrown elite mooks at the players who had higher stats and my players made mincemeat out of them.

If the prewritten bad guys have lower characteristics/skill-level than you think they should, adjust it. A decent RT crew bad guy shouldn't be running around with BS of 40, should be 45-50. Maybe even higher if they're very good.

Larry: this is a concern that I have had as well. As you say, if the players are running a 65+ BS (and that's before extended actions) then most NPC ships, as written, won't have a chance without significant GM intervention.

The way I do it is this: The players are the command crew. They direct, lead and influence the crew. Are they actually the ones down in the gunwells aiming the ship's weapons? Especially when a single ship may have dozens of capital-scale weapons, and hundreds or thousands of crew running each weapon? Unless something has gone terribly wrong, no they are not. Nelson didn't do that, Yamamoto didn't, and Nimitz didn't either. Therefore, I have houseruled that shooting actions are based solely off of the ship's Crew Rating. Movement actions, extended actions, and other abilities can still be accomplished by a PC where appropriate. A void-master specializing in Ship Gunnery, for example, still gets to use his re-roll but he's not the one down there actually firing the weapons and so the BS roll is based off the crew quality, not his BS.

I have found that this method has the following benefits:

1. Crew quality becomes incredibly important.

2. More focus is placed on what the players are doing to help the ship and crew to succeed.

3. NPC ships of comparable power level can actually pose a threat if the players aren't on their toes. This is as it should be.

4. We've probably all seen a 6-hit macrobattery result kill an opposing ship in one broadside. That can still happen, but in order to stand a chance of accomplishing it, the players will need to squeeze every +5 or +10 bonus to hit they can out of each shot. This forces the players to THINK instead of just charging in. Surprise, proper positioning through maneuver actions, and good use of extended actions such as "Lock-on" and "Put Your Backs Into It" become key.

5. Since most macrobattery hits might knock down the shields and perhaps deal a mild to modest amount of damage, lances become important again. This is as it should be.

6. Eldar Holofields become a ***** . This is as it should be.

On the other hand, guns haven't been manually aimed at (naval) targets since before WW1. Talking about World War era tech, the guys in the turrets were simple executants, pointing the guns which way they were told. The firing solution was compuyed by a centralized system/team and sent to the turrets. Assuming they had rhe required cofnitive functions to set some dials straight I don't expect a ship's gun crew quality to have much impact on accuracy.

It is entirely possible for a single man to compute a firing solution aka direct a whole ship's guns by himself though, beyond the point of basic competence I'd expect the accuracy to depend more on the quality of Auspex and gunnery Cogitators than actual crew skill. And in any case it has nothing to do with one's ability to shjot hand-held guns IMO.

We've always house-ruled that for player ships, the players do all the Extended actions they want, but can also do basic maneuvering and shooting if they really want (and are more talented at doing so).
For NPC ships the crew will get a number of extended actions = to it's Crew Rating's 10s digit. So a standard NPC crew with 30 rating can do 3 extended actions in addition to a maneuver and a shooting action.

This gave NPC ships a chance against players and force us as players to pick our actions carefully. It can be better for us to use a player action on a Lock On extended action and boost our crew's chance of hitting than simply using a player to do the shooting, for example.

On the other hand, guns haven't been manually aimed at (naval) targets since before WW1. Talking about World War era tech, the guys in the turrets were simple executants, pointing the guns which way they were told. The firing solution was compuyed by a centralized system/team and sent to the turrets. Assuming they had rhe required cofnitive functions to set some dials straight I don't expect a ship's gun crew quality to have much impact on accuracy.

It is entirely possible for a single man to compute a firing solution aka direct a whole ship's guns by himself though, beyond the point of basic competence I'd expect the accuracy to depend more on the quality of Auspex and gunnery Cogitators than actual crew skill. And in any case it has nothing to do with one's ability to shjot hand-held guns IMO.

Actually, IIRC, WW2 era naval vessels still used analog fire control systems combined with a manual "fire direction" - i.e. someone would actually determine the proper angle and elevation based on the weapon being fired and range to target. But that's neither here nor there.

As for RT/40K, it makes little sense that people are using BS to aim/fire ship weapons, unless you are arguing that a person's "Ballistic Skill" includes things like spacial acuity and sense of direction.

Well, at most space distances, your average gunner would be looking at a video screen being fed by sensors, and IT would do most of the calculating. You'd either make a Use Computer check (or equivalent), or no check, merely providing fire timing and target priority. Not as much fun.

On the other hand, guns haven't been manually aimed at (naval) targets since before WW1. Talking about World War era tech, the guys in the turrets were simple executants, pointing the guns which way they were told. The firing solution was compuyed by a centralized system/team and sent to the turrets. Assuming they had rhe required cofnitive functions to set some dials straight I don't expect a ship's gun crew quality to have much impact on accuracy.

It is entirely possible for a single man to compute a firing solution aka direct a whole ship's guns by himself though, beyond the point of basic competence I'd expect the accuracy to depend more on the quality of Auspex and gunnery Cogitators than actual crew skill. And in any case it has nothing to do with one's ability to shjot hand-held guns IMO.

Actually, IIRC, WW2 era naval vessels still used analog fire control systems combined with a manual "fire direction" - i.e. someone would actually determine the proper angle and elevation based on the weapon being fired and range to target. But that's neither here nor there.

As for RT/40K, it makes little sense that people are using BS to aim/fire ship weapons, unless you are arguing that a person's "Ballistic Skill" includes things like spacial acuity and sense of direction.

Actually this is how WW2 era gunnery control looked like:

In a typical World War II British ship the fire control system connected the individual gun turrets to the director tower (where the sighting instruments were located) and the analogue computer in the heart of the ship. In the director tower, operators trained their telescopes on the target; one telescope measured elevation and the other bearing. Rangefinder telescopes on a separate mounting measured the distance to the target. These measurements were converted by the Fire Control Table into the bearings and elevations for the guns to fire upon. In the turrets, the gunlayers adjusted the elevation of their guns to match an indicator for the elevation transmitted from the Fire Control table — a turret layer did the same for bearing. When the guns were on target they were centrally fired.

That being said, for me using BS to fire ship guns falls into the same category as using Ag to fly them: not making much sense but not really worth changing for balance reasons (take away his BS and what's an Arch-militant to do in ship combat for example?)

I'm going to need to look into the homebrew rules for ship combat, I buffed and leveled Feckward to make him competitive but then the players critted him the first turn also knocking him down to -3 hull integrity crippling him, rolled high on the crit chart knocking out half of his components and then they hulked him on the third turn after wiffing on the second not that it mattered.

Starship combat as written in the core rulebook is pretty clearly broken.

That being said, for me using BS to fire ship guns falls into the same category as using Ag to fly them: not making much sense but not really worth changing for balance reasons (take away his BS and what's an Arch-militant to do in ship combat for example?)

Directing extended actions such as "Put Your Backs Into It!" and Triage.

He/she could be fulfilling one of the optional Ship Roles from Into the Storm.

He/she could be leading hit-and-run attacks and boarding actions.

I would also argue, what the hell is an Arch-Militant doing directing the ship's guns anyway? That's a void-master's job.

I admit that my solution to the "BS Problem" isn't perfect but the fact is that ship combat, as written, doesn't scale correctly when players are allowed to apply their own BS directly to the to-hit rolls. Period. Starting with base gunnery BS of 60+ before you've done anything else doesn't create stirring, memorable ship combat; it's just an I-win button.

My method has been very successful with my group. Ship combats are more challenging, it encourages my players to think tactically, and finally the crew's quality actually *matters.* Once again, this is as it should be.

I would also argue, what the hell is an Arch-Militant doing directing the ship's guns anyway? That's a void-master's job.

Well if he flies the ship he can't man the gunnery station, not every voidmaster has a fantastic BS. Meanwhile most Archmilitants usually do have a good BS even if they're primarily WS focused on the ground. The RT may or may not have a good BS but chances are he'll be the one with the high fellowship doing all the related actions like put your backs into it/disinformation/etc and if he's not gunning he can give the gunner his +10 buff which he can't give to himself.

That being said, for me using BS to fire ship guns falls into the same category as using Ag to fly them: not making much sense but not really worth changing for balance reasons (take away his BS and what's an Arch-militant to do in ship combat for example?)

The Arch-Militant could be doing the following:

Directing extended actions such as "Put Your Backs Into It!" and Triage.

He/she could be fulfilling one of the optional Ship Roles from Into the Storm.

He/she could be leading hit-and-run attacks and boarding actions.

I would also argue, what the hell is an Arch-Militant doing directing the ship's guns anyway? That's a void-master's job.

I admit that my solution to the "BS Problem" isn't perfect but the fact is that ship combat, as written, doesn't scale correctly when players are allowed to apply their own BS directly to the to-hit rolls. Period. Starting with base gunnery BS of 60+ before you've done anything else doesn't create stirring, memorable ship combat; it's just an I-win button.

My method has been very successful with my group. Ship combats are more challenging, it encourages my players to think tactically, and finally the crew's quality actually *matters.* Once again, this is as it should be.

Most groups only have one void-master, and most likely it's more valuable flying the ship. While a Mastery of Gunnery void-master is hands down best ship gunner, arch-militant is probably best second choice and not that far behind. On the other hand, with the exception of Dark Eldar with Skyterror alt rank, nothing comes close to a Void-master in flying a ship. So, from my experience, arch-militant is the most likely ship gunner in a group and quite good at it(why somebody would pick arch-militant over void master for ranged combat beats me, as you're gaining maybe 10% better combat ability in exchange for losing a lot of versatility in other fields, but fact is 90% of the groups I've been in have included an arch-militant).

Take that away and you're left with is a char whose best ability applicable to starship combat is Command, and he's mediocre at best at that (worse than Rogue Trader, Missionary, Void-master and several of the Xeno careers).

If the rule works for your group, great. Saying that it's as it should be is rather presumptuous though. At most, it's as you think it should be.

Personally, I find several issues with your rule (apart for the arch-militant uselessness above):

- since there are no crew quality upgrade rules you're pretty much introducing a 15 PF tax on the players since if you don't start with a veteran crew you'll be at a disadvantage forever.

- even if you start with a veteran crew, some people (like me) will be up in arms because some NPCs will have a rating 60 crew which they can't get themselves by the rules. I hate the idea that some NPCs have better crewmen than I can ever get, but in the end by RAW it doesn't bother me that much because it's the players doing the heavy lifting. In a game where crew quality mattered, it would bother me a lot.

- I play RPGs for my character to be the driving force behind the story. A part where my character's influence is marginal would not interest me too much as part of an RPG (and I don't think I'm the only one seeing things this way). If I want a me vs. GM strategy game we can always just take out the tabletop armies and do just that with a much more robust set of rules

- from a purely mechanical standpoint these rules encourage avoiding shooting combat altogether (where the players' influence is marginal) and focus on speed (where Evasive Maneuvers, Adjust Speed and Flank Speed are still rolled against PCs skills) and boarding actions (where a PC command monkey will crush any NPC commander utterly).

I like the crew rating idea, but I've implemented an easier option in my games. For challenging ship to ship combat encounters, I simply had NPC command crews with stats 5 - 10 less than the PC's. For deadly/main NPC rival encounters, the stats were 5 - 10 higher. Obviously, with mooks the stats were just out of the books.

The NPC's never had any names, unless it was required for the story. Which happened twice from what I can recall. Once when two Frigates from the Godwin Dynasty Fleet were attacked by the PC's (don't have my books or notes with me but it was the planet that was placed off-limits in the Koronus Expanse by the Ecclesiarchy) and the PC's wanted to know the name of the Captain who almost hulked them, so they could either try to hire him later, or kill him first next time they meet. The other time was a NPC controlled Star Clipper fleeing from the PC's in an asteroid field. It almost got away if it weren't for those blasted kids (shooting an asteroid into the ship). They replaced their current NPC Void Master and with the NPC from the Star Clipper instead. I said her name was Faye Valentine.

As always, I like the KISS method. Keep It Simple Silly. So if using the crew stats works for your group and everyone is having fun, then keep it simple and leave it at that.

And the fonts is black again.

That being said, for me using BS to fire ship guns falls into the same category as using Ag to fly them: not making much sense but not really worth changing for balance reasons (take away his BS and what's an Arch-militant to do in ship combat for example?)

The Arch-Militant could be doing the following:

Directing extended actions such as "Put Your Backs Into It!" and Triage.

He/she could be fulfilling one of the optional Ship Roles from Into the Storm.

He/she could be leading hit-and-run attacks and boarding actions.

I would also argue, what the hell is an Arch-Militant doing directing the ship's guns anyway? That's a void-master's job.

I admit that my solution to the "BS Problem" isn't perfect but the fact is that ship combat, as written, doesn't scale correctly when players are allowed to apply their own BS directly to the to-hit rolls. Period. Starting with base gunnery BS of 60+ before you've done anything else doesn't create stirring, memorable ship combat; it's just an I-win button.

My method has been very successful with my group. Ship combats are more challenging, it encourages my players to think tactically, and finally the crew's quality actually *matters.* Once again, this is as it should be.

Most groups only have one void-master, and most likely it's more valuable flying the ship. While a Mastery of Gunnery void-master is hands down best ship gunner, arch-militant is probably best second choice and not that far behind. On the other hand, with the exception of Dark Eldar with Skyterror alt rank, nothing comes close to a Void-master in flying a ship. So, from my experience, arch-militant is the most likely ship gunner in a group and quite good at it(why somebody would pick arch-militant over void master for ranged combat beats me, as you're gaining maybe 10% better combat ability in exchange for losing a lot of versatility in other fields, but fact is 90% of the groups I've been in have included an arch-militant).

Take that away and you're left with is a char whose best ability applicable to starship combat is Command, and he's mediocre at best at that (worse than Rogue Trader, Missionary, Void-master and several of the Xeno careers).

If the rule works for your group, great. Saying that it's as it should be is rather presumptuous though. At most, it's as you think it should be.

Personally, I find several issues with your rule (apart for the arch-militant uselessness above):

- since there are no crew quality upgrade rules you're pretty much introducing a 15 PF tax on the players since if you don't start with a veteran crew you'll be at a disadvantage forever.

- even if you start with a veteran crew, some people (like me) will be up in arms because some NPCs will have a rating 60 crew which they can't get themselves by the rules. I hate the idea that some NPCs have better crewmen than I can ever get, but in the end by RAW it doesn't bother me that much because it's the players doing the heavy lifting. In a game where crew quality mattered, it would bother me a lot.

- I play RPGs for my character to be the driving force behind the story. A part where my character's influence is marginal would not interest me too much as part of an RPG (and I don't think I'm the only one seeing things this way). If I want a me vs. GM strategy game we can always just take out the tabletop armies and do just that with a much more robust set of rules

- from a purely mechanical standpoint these rules encourage avoiding shooting combat altogether (where the players' influence is marginal) and focus on speed (where Evasive Maneuvers, Adjust Speed and Flank Speed are still rolled against PCs skills) and boarding actions (where a PC command monkey will crush any NPC commander utterly).

Listen man, I didn't come in here to start an argument, but you keep poking holes in the freely-offered suggestion that I have presented to the OP's question, and it's starting to sound rather rules-lawyerish, and frankly, a bit irritating.

For example, I noticed your comment that my solution actually discourages ranged combat. Oh really? That's interesting, because I don't remember you ever sitting at my table during our ship combats. Then you actually complain about other issues such character development, marginal roles, unfair NPCs, and unattainable items. Again... when exactly have you run with my group?

Finally, I find it rather odd that you are actually calling me presumptuous for stating "this is how it should be" when I also stated, in the words immediately preceding that statement, that "My method has been very successful with my group. " Good lord almighty man. But yes, to be clear, my group's interpretation of the rules *is* how it should be because that's how we want it. We've being doing it this way for three years and it works. Again, I don't see you sitting at my table.

In conclusion, the way I see it you have four options:

1. Use my suggestions as written.

2. Use them with modification to suit your group.

3. Don't use them.

4. Sod off.

Done.

As far as I can tell The OP isn't part of your group either, so whatever works for your group might not work for his, so 'poking holes' in your suggestion might actually help him see whether he wants to use it or not. It up to him to know whether any of the issues that I posted regarding your idea apply to his group or not.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to target the why and how this thing works for your group (it's my firm belief that if something enhances your group's fun you should do it regardless of whatever some random dude on the internet tells you), I'm trying to target why and how this this thing would or wouldn't work for other groups (that's why you posed it after all, right?)

In the end, if you don't want your ideas discussed, why post them on a forum?

I'm trying to target why and how this this thing would or wouldn't work for other groups (that's why you posed it after all, right?)

No. It wasn't. I stated why it works for us. At this stage, I don't care why you think it wouldn't work.

In the end, if you don't want your ideas discussed, why post them on a forum?

I have discussed it. At length. I have simply tired of your dismissive tone.

I'm trying to target why and how this this thing would or wouldn't work for other groups (that's why you posed it after all, right?)

No. It wasn't. I stated why it works for us. At this stage, I don't care why you think it wouldn't work.

Nobody says you should. As I said, if it works for your group, awesome. Other people however who might consider your idea might care why I think it wouldn't work though. Just because the issues I raised aren't a problem for your group it doesn't mean the aren't a problem for any group that might see the idea you posted and consider applying it.

In the end, if you don't want your ideas discussed, why post them on a forum?

I have discussed it. At length. I have simply tired of your dismissive tone.

I had no intention to offend or attack you personally and I apologize if you perceived anything I said as such. I merely think your suggestion is a bad idea in regard to what I feel the game should be like, hurting the game more than it helps and I provided my arguments as to why I think that. Some people might find what I said useful (I don't think groups where players want to be the protagonists and as such avoid parts of the game where their characters' influence is limited are a minority for example).

@Lord of the blades - your remarks where fine. Its good to see the other side of the coin. I plan to discuss this with my group, as I clearly see the advantage of high BS, and the disadvantage of shutting players out of their ship roles. I think we first try it RAW, then using mathhammer rulez, and then perhaps if it isn't enough, turning the players BS off. And dont apologize to him, he's clearly hurt.

I had an idea.

You could combine the concepts. Meaning, someone with a higher BS skill of the crew, gets them a min of +1 to max of +5 to the crew rating for the action.

Example: Arch-militant A has a 55 BS. The Crew Rating is 40. Due to the Arch-militant supervising the crew as they are firing the macrocannons, it increases their rating to 45.

Void-master B has a 43 BS on the same ship (Crew Rating 40). He supervises the lances and so the crew rating for it becomes 43 BS. (if he had 41, it would be 41 BS for crew rating).

Not saying I would use this concept. I'm about 50-50% on it, but figured I'd shoot another idea out there.

@Lord of the blades - your remarks where fine. Its good to see the other side of the coin. I plan to discuss this with my group, as I clearly see the advantage of high BS, and the disadvantage of shutting players out of their ship roles. I think we first try it RAW, then using mathhammer rulez, and then perhaps if it isn't enough, turning the players BS off. And dont apologize to him, he's clearly hurt.

For me, Mathhammer has been the solution to most BS related woes (especially in regards to broadsides and lances being semi-useless), but not other space combat woes (see below).

Another thing to keep in mind IMO: PCs start with skill levels not dissimilar to a rating 40 crew (25 base+some bonuses from origin path+an above average 2d10) but as they progress they will gain between 20 and 50 to something they're trying to be good at (+20 from advancements to the relevant characteristic and another +20 and Talented if it's a skill as opposed to BS). Expecting that the same crew rating that were proving challenging when they were starting out to prove challenging after they practically doubled their skills in their chosen fields is unrealistic IMO. To keep stuff challenging, at least as far as shooting space combat goes, you have 2 main options:

-up the crew rating of enemy ships. Even fully advanced, dedicated BS characters aren't out of the league of a rating 60 crew to duel in a shooting match. However, not all ships have an in-game reason to have such skilled crews.

-use more ships; by RAW it's not a very good solution (if PCs ship has a crew that can land n hits per shot reliably and is fighting n enemy ships whose crew can land 1 hit per shot reliably, then the enemy is probably boned, as the PCs ship gets to subtract armor once from it's damage, while the NPC ships subtract armor from every hit, most likely doing no damage) but if you're using Mathammer, n hits are equally damaging whether they're coming from one or from multiple ships.

My main issue with space combat ATM is the part based on actual skills (like pilot and command), which the PCs can get over 100 without much trouble and so far I have yet to discover a way for NPCs to really compete.

Also if you dont let players use their BS for shooting, you could let them assist. Eg one player tests BS to add +10 to roll.

As for the skills, it is reasonable to add a bonus to crew rating when testing skills. Crack crew (40) should have skills at +10, unless crack means that they have 30 +10. Also veteran and elite crews should have skills at +20.