I looked through the errata and other 'rules questions answered by Sam' threads before posting, so I apologize in advance if this has been discussed already!

So when being attacked at close range a ship with an ECM suite counts its silhouette as one size smaller. Crucially, this means that a silhouette 5 ships counts as sil 4. Which I believe means that the target ship now gets to decide which 'arc' an attack will hit rather than the attacker deciding (crb page 235).

That seems kind of nuts though, since most heavy freighters could just stack all its shields on one zone and give every close range attack 4-5 setback dice. It wouldn't help against longer ranged attacks of course but against most weapons fielded by starfighters it could be huge. Anyone know whether the ecm 'silhouette reduction' is or is not intended to extend to that aspect of silhouette comparison in starship combat?

I knew we should have gotten the Wayfairer!

'Realistically' fighters attack in groups - at least 2 of them. So even if one is facing the super shield, the other is able to deal damage. That assuming some in game logic - if the freighter's crew decides to stack shields in one arc (and I may be wrong but isn't 4 shields a maximum?) then they leave another arc open to attack for that round.

4 shields is indeed the maximum that you can stack.

I would find it truly bizarre if an ECM system counted for silhouette in this manner. In fact, I think the rules for the module are pretty clear: "counting the ship or vehicle's silhouette as one step smaller when being fired at." CRB pg 269 is the reference.

Hmm, re-reading that there is the potential to say that the sil 5 ship gets to choose the arc, as that is when it is being fired at. I would suggest that choosing the arc is more a matter of manoeuvring than electronic warfare so the only thing that this module would do for a sil 5 ship is affecting the silhouette comparison to determine the difficulty of the shot, exactly as it does for every other silhouette of ship.

That's why the fighter does gain the advantage and gets to then pick which side they want to shoot.

That's why the fighter does gain the advantage and gets to then pick which side they want to shoot.

I guess that's true; between gain the advantage and just plain narrative style combat there should still be times that they will take hits on their unshielded areas.

The ECM package does not all-of-a-sudden make a large ship more maneuverable. Because it does not, in fact, lower silhouette by 1. It does, however, moves the targeted vehicle down one step on Table 7-4: Silhouette Comparison for the purposes of how many difficulty dice the attacker has to roll. That's it. Nothing else. No, you can't swing the capitol ship around willy nilly like a snubfighter. You're just harder to hit.

ccarlson101 is right. The ECM suite doesn't make the ship smaller or more maneuverable. It works by messing with targeting computers, and simply lowers the silhouette by 1 for the purposes of determining how many difficulty dice are used to target it. For a Silhouette 5 ship, this means that Silhouette 3 fighters will be rolling an Average difficulty check, rather than an easy one. Conversely, the same ship would also harder to hit when targeted by a larger ship, such as a frigate.

It's purely for determining how many purple dice get pushed out. For everything else, including shields and shield facing, it remains at Silhouette 5.

It's purely for determining how many purple dice get pushed out. For everything else, including shields and shield facing, it remains at Silhouette 5.

This is how I handle it.

ccarlson101 is right. The ECM suite doesn't make the ship smaller or more maneuverable. It works by messing with targeting computers, and simply lowers the silhouette by 1 for the purposes of determining how many difficulty dice are used to target it. For a Silhouette 5 ship, this means that Silhouette 3 fighters will be rolling an Average difficulty check, rather than an easy one. Conversely, the same ship would also harder to hit when targeted by a larger ship, such as a frigate.

It's purely for determining how many purple dice get pushed out. For everything else, including shields and shield facing, it remains at Silhouette 5.

It lowers your radar cross section. The F117 is tiny on radar. It does not have the maneuverability of that small size.

It lowers your radar cross section. The F117 is tiny on radar. It does not have the maneuverability of that small size.

I think you mean that the B-2 Bomber is smaller on radar but doesn't suddenly become more maneuverable. The F117 is a fighter and is maneuverable.

It lowers your radar cross section. The F117 is tiny on radar. It does not have the maneuverability of that small size.

I think you mean that the B-2 Bomber is smaller on radar but doesn't suddenly become more maneuverable. The F117 is a fighter and is maneuverable.

No, the analogy works. The F-117 was really more of a light bomber, the 'F' for fighter was to get funding (fighters are sexy, ground attack is not) and throw off people to it's capabilites for a bit. It really wasn't terribly manuverable and relied heavily on it's stealth for survival.

It lowers your radar cross section. The F117 is tiny on radar. It does not have the maneuverability of that small size.

I think you mean that the B-2 Bomber is smaller on radar but doesn't suddenly become more maneuverable. The F117 is a fighter and is maneuverable.

No, the analogy works. The F-117 was really more of a light bomber, the 'F' for fighter was to get funding (fighters are sexy, ground attack is not) and throw off people to it's capabilites for a bit. It really wasn't terribly manuverable and relied heavily on it's stealth for survival.

Actually the F was to hide what they were doing. And it is not maneuverable. Largely because its shape is such that it literally falls out of the sky if the flight computer fails. The procedure for flight computer failure is eject.