Some of these rules don't make sense; most every ship has a window (unlike submarines or ships that function similarly) and it seems like some ships have sensors that don't see things before the pilot, looking through the window!

Some of these rules don't make sense; most every ship has a window (unlike submarines or ships that function similarly) and it seems like some ships have sensors that don't see things before the pilot, looking through the window!

That's consistant with the films, actually.

I would think what sensors can pick up depends a lot on what one is looking for. Ships can probably take steps to mask their emissions and 'run silent'. I think ESB pretty clearly points out entry/exit from hyperspace is probably something detectable from quite a distance as ADM Ozzel's "clumsy and stupid" exit from hyperspace led to Vader killing him for alerting the Rebels on Hoth. So range of sensors is going to be a bit spongy imo depending on what information you are looking for.

I would think that the stated sensor ranges given in the book only represent the full detail scanners and weapons targeting the ship in question has.

Beyond that, everything can at least get some basic information about ships up to at least long range dependent on the size of the ship in question.

Say I'm in a freighter and there are 3 ships approaching me from long range. One is a Star Destroyer, one is a small freighter basically the same as mine, and the third is a Tie fighter.

I can totally tell that the Star Destroyer is a Star Destroyer. Maybe even get some readings of some of its major systems(like if its powering weapons)

I can detect the presence of the freighter, and maybe with a successful sensor check determine what its class is.

I cannot detect the Tie fighter at all. Its simply too small to distinguish from background noise. This might be different if its a wave of tie fighters as a group would give a signal I could detect.

Some of these rules don't make sense; most every ship has a window (unlike submarines or ships that function similarly) and it seems like some ships have sensors that don't see things before the pilot, looking through the window!

I would almost totally discount visual detection of anything besides capital ships at anything beyond short range. Space is big and you'll lose stuff in the blackness very quickly unless you are super close, its very large(and even capital ships are relatively tiny compared to the distances you'll be moving in), or its silhouetted against something.

Remember, the listed ranges are for passive scans. You can extend out with active in a given direction.

Some of these rules don't make sense; most every ship has a window (unlike submarines or ships that function similarly) and it seems like some ships have sensors that don't see things before the pilot, looking through the window!

That's consistant with the films, actually.

The way that I would imagine comms working in regards to fighters being able to transmit to a ship further than their listed sensor range is that they could actively transmit and get the +1 range modifier that sensors get to communicate. If that still wasn't far enough to reach the other ship, I would interpret that the larger ship with the longer sensor range would be able to pick up the transmission if it fell within it's own sensor range. That would allow it to also communicate with the smaller ship as long as its range could reach to within the range of the smaller ship. That seems reasonable to me.

I've always figured that all ships have long-range scanners that can at minimum detect enemy ships and identify silhouette, if not make/model and transponder codes. To not alter mechanics too much, I'd say these scanners are insufficient for targeting, bioscans, etc.

For me, communications is not sensors. That part is quite simple.

I had the same initial response to the thread until I pulled out the Core and saw the RAW regarding comm systems having range equal to the sensors (p. 227). After reading that is when I came up with a reasonable solution to how I will handle this:

The way that I would imagine comms working in regards to fighters being able to transmit to a ship further than their listed sensor range is that they could actively transmit and get the +1 range modifier that sensors get to communicate. If that still wasn't far enough to reach the other ship, I would interpret that the larger ship with the longer sensor range would be able to pick up the transmission if it fell within it's own sensor range. That would allow it to also communicate with the smaller ship as long as its range could reach to within the range of the smaller ship. That seems reasonable to me.

IOW, you feel that only the greatest Sensor Range of all participants matters for communications.

Ships can probably take steps to mask their emissions and 'run silent'. I think ESB pretty clearly points out entry/exit from hyperspace is probably something detectable from quite a distance as ADM Ozzel's "clumsy and stupid" exit from hyperspace led to Vader killing him for alerting the Rebels on Hoth. So range of sensors is going to be a bit spongy imo depending on what information you are looking for.

This happens again in RotJ (Leia's "The fleet will be here in moments"), and it also happens all the time in TCW. A guy will detect the hyperspace emissions well before the ships actually show up. Given the speed of hyperspace, they have to be able to detect them at least at Extreme range.

As far as communications go, Obi-wan sent a message from Kamino all the way to Jedi Temple just using the transmitter in his dinky fighter. This also happens all the time in TCW. There really is no justification for limited communication ranges in a Star Wars games. Sometimes it looks like FFG just copied WEG material without even considering if it made sense in light of the new canon material produced since them. Backup hyperdrive is another glaring example.

Some of these rules don't make sense; most every ship has a window (unlike submarines or ships that function similarly) and it seems like some ships have sensors that don't see things before the pilot, looking through the window!

That's consistant with the films, actually.

that per se is not enough of a justification.

It's a better justification than people just making stuff up.

Ships can probably take steps to mask their emissions and 'run silent'. I think ESB pretty clearly points out entry/exit from hyperspace is probably something detectable from quite a distance as ADM Ozzel's "clumsy and stupid" exit from hyperspace led to Vader killing him for alerting the Rebels on Hoth. So range of sensors is going to be a bit spongy imo depending on what information you are looking for.

This happens again in RotJ (Leia's "The fleet will be here in moments"), and it also happens all the time in TCW. A guy will detect the hyperspace emissions well before the ships actually show up. Given the speed of hyperspace, they have to be able to detect them at least at Extreme range.

As far as communications go, Obi-wan sent a message from Kamino all the way to Jedi Temple just using the transmitter in his dinky fighter. This also happens all the time in TCW. There really is no justification for limited communication ranges in a Star Wars games. Sometimes it looks like FFG just copied WEG material without even considering if it made sense in light of the new canon material produced since them. Backup hyperdrive is another glaring example.

Which are both primary canon examples of why I don't bother getting hyper technical over comms and sensors at my table.

Speaking for myself, I want the rules to actually work when they're put to the test. If they don't, then getting them changed (through errata or house rules) seems like a better answer than just ignoring them.

How do sensors and comms work?......They just do...........

How do sensors and comms work?......They just do...........

That answer might have been sufficient had they not gone to the trouble of giving us Sensor Range (which also covers the range of Comms) and rules for extending Sensor Range via Computers skill. IOW, there are rules that already go beyond "it just does" and sometimes those rules say "it just doesn't" too.

Speaking for myself, I want the rules to actually work when they're put to the test. If they don't, then getting them changed (through errata or house rules) seems like a better answer than just ignoring them.

I agree with this. I've never really understood just discarding what should otherwise be perfectly good rules.

I believe, communication range is different from sensor range, for one, communication range is far far longer, hence why a command ship can send data and info about targets the fighters have yet to even see.

Also, smaller ships have been used, abeit in the EU, to effectivley extend the range of a capital ships sensors by flying at the extream edge of the capitals sensors and relaying information back.

Speaking for myself, I want the rules to actually work when they're put to the test. If they don't, then getting them changed (through errata or house rules) seems like a better answer than just ignoring them.

I agree with this. I've never really understood just discarding what should otherwise be perfectly good rules.

Because the game in totality of circumstance is about story and not technical nit picking of a minor technical rule of space combat. If that technical specificity is what some require, they should be playing a tabletop tactical game and not a narrative focused RPG. Having very tight rules about sensors and comms adds extremely little to practically nothing to a story. This game is story driven, story focused. It's extremely abstract, it doesn't even use numeral dice, it's not meant to focus on this sort of thing. That's part of why there is no "Sensor MkIII can scan and ID targets at 3000km while Sensor MK X can see out to 20,000 km", because the devs didn't want people focusing on that minutiae.

I also don't see how even if they publish some errata about changing the range descriptions of comms and sensors that suddenly makes the game all better whereas before it was unbearable. Incidentally these two items occupy two whole paragraphs in a 440+ page rule book to give an idea how unimportant the devs thought they were to the game.

I have to say that the game can be as abstract, cinematic, narrative, story driven, or what ever fancy term one wants to say, but that does not justify that written rules are unconsisten and conflictive. Sensor & Comm rules as writen don't have to be more complex, just consistent and avoid confusion to players and gms.

What's inconsistent? It is perfectly plausible to be targeted by something you don't know is there and knows you are. It's perfectly plausible to be able to fire farther than you can see. I don't see any inconsistencies at all. In war there is no winner that relies on their own ability to see what is going on, you fuse information collected from multiple sources. Information is relayed.

A task force would deploy ISR assets to look for enemy contact. Those assets even if their sensors are short range, that means their direct search is medium, so tight beam comms would be medium, that ship's medium scan goes out, it beams a medium tight bean message back to a relay ship when it finds something. That relay vessel has short range comms on passive which equals what in total comm range? Long, extreme? Seems like whatever works for you. That receiving ship then disseminates that targeting information to a flag ship with another tight beam medium range comms message. The flag ship sends that information out and you've essentially spanned a play field and then some.

There are ships with sensor range close and weapons that can fire at short. How do you that?

There are ships with sensor range close and weapons that can fire at short. How do you that?

By having detected them with a tight beam, short sensor sweep, which per the rules you can do. They're close on passive, short on direct. That, or the targeting information was fed to you by some other source, narratively or mechanically.

Speaking for myself, I want the rules to actually work when they're put to the test. If they don't, then getting them changed (through errata or house rules) seems like a better answer than just ignoring them.

I agree with this. I've never really understood just discarding what should otherwise be perfectly good rules.

Because the game in totality of circumstance is about story and not technical nit picking of a minor technical rule of space combat. If that technical specificity is what some require, they should be playing a tabletop tactical game and not a narrative focused RPG. Having very tight rules about sensors and comms adds extremely little to practically nothing to a story. This game is story driven, story focused. It's extremely abstract, it doesn't even use numeral dice, it's not meant to focus on this sort of thing. That's part of why there is no "Sensor MkIII can scan and ID targets at 3000km while Sensor MK X can see out to 20,000 km", because the devs didn't want people focusing on that minutiae.

I also don't see how even if they publish some errata about changing the range descriptions of comms and sensors that suddenly makes the game all better whereas before it was unbearable. Incidentally these two items occupy two whole paragraphs in a 440+ page rule book to give an idea how unimportant the devs thought they were to the game.

This is a bziarre response: who has said they want over complicated rules?

Speaking for myself, I want the rules to actually work when they're put to the test. If they don't, then getting them changed (through errata or house rules) seems like a better answer than just ignoring them.

I agree with this. I've never really understood just discarding what should otherwise be perfectly good rules.

Because the game in totality of circumstance is about story and not technical nit picking of a minor technical rule of space combat. If that technical specificity is what some require, they should be playing a tabletop tactical game and not a narrative focused RPG. Having very tight rules about sensors and comms adds extremely little to practically nothing to a story. This game is story driven, story focused. It's extremely abstract, it doesn't even use numeral dice, it's not meant to focus on this sort of thing. That's part of why there is no "Sensor MkIII can scan and ID targets at 3000km while Sensor MK X can see out to 20,000 km", because the devs didn't want people focusing on that minutiae.

I also don't see how even if they publish some errata about changing the range descriptions of comms and sensors that suddenly makes the game all better whereas before it was unbearable. Incidentally these two items occupy two whole paragraphs in a 440+ page rule book to give an idea how unimportant the devs thought they were to the game.

They didn't give them ranges in kilometers, but they did give them ranges in terms of range bands (just like weapons). The issues I've mentioned come up when using the range bands they have given us, and could really use some cleaning up. Cleaning it up so the rules are written to allow what we see on screen would be ideal.

Speaking for myself, I want the rules to actually work when they're put to the test. If they don't, then getting them changed (through errata or house rules) seems like a better answer than just ignoring them.

I agree with this. I've never really understood just discarding what should otherwise be perfectly good rules.

Because the game in totality of circumstance is about story and not technical nit picking of a minor technical rule of space combat. If that technical specificity is what some require, they should be playing a tabletop tactical game and not a narrative focused RPG. Having very tight rules about sensors and comms adds extremely little to practically nothing to a story. This game is story driven, story focused. It's extremely abstract, it doesn't even use numeral dice, it's not meant to focus on this sort of thing. That's part of why there is no "Sensor MkIII can scan and ID targets at 3000km while Sensor MK X can see out to 20,000 km", because the devs didn't want people focusing on that minutiae.

I also don't see how even if they publish some errata about changing the range descriptions of comms and sensors that suddenly makes the game all better whereas before it was unbearable. Incidentally these two items occupy two whole paragraphs in a 440+ page rule book to give an idea how unimportant the devs thought they were to the game.

This is a bziarre response: who has said they want over complicated rules?

Perfect, then you're happy because the rules are simple and fine with you.

Speaking for myself, I want the rules to actually work when they're put to the test. If they don't, then getting them changed (through errata or house rules) seems like a better answer than just ignoring them.

I agree with this. I've never really understood just discarding what should otherwise be perfectly good rules.

Because the game in totality of circumstance is about story and not technical nit picking of a minor technical rule of space combat. If that technical specificity is what some require, they should be playing a tabletop tactical game and not a narrative focused RPG. Having very tight rules about sensors and comms adds extremely little to practically nothing to a story. This game is story driven, story focused. It's extremely abstract, it doesn't even use numeral dice, it's not meant to focus on this sort of thing. That's part of why there is no "Sensor MkIII can scan and ID targets at 3000km while Sensor MK X can see out to 20,000 km", because the devs didn't want people focusing on that minutiae.

I also don't see how even if they publish some errata about changing the range descriptions of comms and sensors that suddenly makes the game all better whereas before it was unbearable. Incidentally these two items occupy two whole paragraphs in a 440+ page rule book to give an idea how unimportant the devs thought they were to the game.

They didn't give them ranges in kilometers, but they did give them ranges in terms of range bands (just like weapons). The issues I've mentioned come up when using the range bands they have given us, and could really use some cleaning up. Cleaning it up so the rules are written to allow what we see on screen would be ideal.

There are no rules to clean up though. There is no sensor step in ship combat. The paragraph you're upset over is a fluff piece on the page proceeding where ship combat rules start. There is no sensor check in combat/shooting. They don't have anything to do with it. There is no "Locate the Enemy" Action, Maneuver, Incidental. So there is no rule to clean up.

p. 235 "Thanks to the advanced targeting computers installed in most starships, the range of the shot has no bearing on the attack's difficulty: If the target is within range, a starship can hit it."

The only portion of the rules where it would come into play might be some Actions like "Scan the Enemy" or "Slice the Enemy's systems"

If you want a better sensor range, grab one off a similar silhouette ship and install it as an upgrade on an existing one. Dream up a price that makes sense, or just make an attachment called advanced sensors and have the players pay a decent price. Maybe they will have some sort of attachment in one of the upcoming splat books.