What's the point of them?

If you're talking about ship defence zones, then it depends on the narrative - if your PCs ship is flying away from its opponents then it's obvious that they're attacking the aft zone etc. I know that space combat is abstract, but I don't make it that abstract - players like know and 'see' where is what and what's going on.

So you can have more protection against some foes than others. If a Stardestroyer is behind me and some TIEs are in front of me, I'm probably focusing on my shields on my arse.

Gain the Advantage poops on it though. When jerks are doing that you've got to spread your shields around evenly, else leave an exploitable weakness.

(Actually, is it obvious what the shield strength is in a defence zone at any given time?)

If you're talking about ship defence zones, then it depends on the narrative - if your PCs ship is flying away from its opponents then it's obvious that they're attacking the aft zone etc. I know that space combat is abstract, but I don't make it that abstract - players like know and 'see' where is what and what's going on.

What do you mean 'that abstract'? It is that abstract, that's the default setting. There are no rules or guidelines of any kind for monitoring tracking or following relative positions. If i put my ship shields to fore what stops the opponent from flying behind me and shooting me up the ass and why wouldn't you?

I don't think using the term 'narrative' is really a good enough answer when it coems to explaing actual mechanics.

The vehicle maouevres are just not structured this way. There's no 'get behind/flank enemy' move, for example. Just a general evasive move etc.

So you can have more protection against some foes than others. If a Stardestroyer is behind me and some TIEs are in front of me, I'm probably focusing on my shields on my arse.

Gain the Advantage poops on it though. When jerks are doing that you've got to spread your shields around evenly, else leave an exploitable weakness.

(Actually, is it obvious what the shield strength is in a defence zone at any given time?)

Capital ships are perhaps the only time they are usable, but even then how do you track the relative movement? You might as well jsut rule that an xwing, for example, can always flank a capital ship given their speed.

Capital ships are perhaps the only time they are usable, but even then how do you track the relative movement?

GM: "There's a Stardestroyer heading towards you like a Caterpillar boot toward an ant."

Pilot: "We fly away from it."

GM: "Okay, but there's TIEs in that sector."

Pilot: "So we'll be one range band further away from the SD, but one closer to the TIEs. That's fine."

Let's leave capital ships out for the moment. I've already said they are the only vehicle that might make them useful.

Cool.

How about during chase scenes? Anything behind you is targeting your rear zone. If something's ahead of you (a blockade, fer instance), it's targeting your forward zone.

EDIT: Back to GtA again for a second; is there a limit as to what range you can attempt this? Seems like there should be.

If the ship is small (s 4 or lower), the defender always chooses unless the attacker gains the advantage. Else, the players and gm decide where the hits are. If the gm says "the tie fighter starts trailing you" hits go to the back, if the player says he is flying head on towards the star destroyer, hits will go to the front and so on. There is no rule because players and GM are supposed to agree on it while describing the scene to make it more cinematic.

Same way, if you use gain the advantage and get behind a tie fighter, the tie fighter shouldnt be able to fire at you because it only has a front arc of fire.

You can read it in p235, where the attack action for vehicles is explained.

Cool.

How about during chase scenes? Anything behind you is targeting your rear zone. If something's ahead of you (a blockade, fer instance), it's targeting your forward zone.

EDIT: Back to GtA again for a second; is there a limit as to what range you can attempt this? Seems like there should be.

Since GtA is supposed to represent being a superior dogfighter, I only allow it at Close range. It doesn't make sense to me that a fighter at Short can claim GtA to fire missiles into the non-facing side of a capital ship.

If the ship is small (s 4 or lower), the defender always chooses unless the attacker gains the advantage. Else, the players and gm decide where the hits are. If the gm says "the tie fighter starts trailing you" hits go to the back, if the player says he is flying head on towards the star destroyer, hits will go to the front and so on. There is no rule because players and GM are supposed to agree on it while describing the scene to make it more cinematic.

If the defender always chooses, then he always chooses. It doesn't matter if he's being chased or tailed or flying towards a Star Destroyer, the defender can always pick the side with the highest shields. Even if the defender is sandwiched between a Star Destroyer and TIE Fighters, he can have both of them shoot at the same shield.

If you are supposed to resolve the facing by how the scene is being described, then the rules would have specified that, as they do for larger ships.

If the ship is small (s 4 or lower), the defender always chooses unless the attacker gains the advantage. Else, the players and gm decide where the hits are. If the gm says "the tie fighter starts trailing you" hits go to the back, if the player says he is flying head on towards the star destroyer, hits will go to the front and so on. There is no rule because players and GM are supposed to agree on it while describing the scene to make it more cinematic.

If the defender always chooses, then he always chooses. It doesn't matter if he's being chased or tailed or flying towards a Star Destroyer, the defender can always pick the side with the highest shields. Even if the defender is sandwiched between a Star Destroyer and TIE Fighters, he can have both of them shoot at the same shield.

If you are supposed to resolve the facing by how the scene is being described, then the rules would have specified that, as they do for larger ships.

It's specified I even wrote the page. page 235, asembling the dice pool. silhouette 4 of lower the defender chooses. I'm not sure how big is that tbh.

EDIT: Ah I think you misunderstood me. Second part of the explanation is for when the ship is larger than 4.

If the ship is small (s 4 or lower), the defender always chooses unless the attacker gains the advantage. Else, the players and gm decide where the hits are. If the gm says "the tie fighter starts trailing you" hits go to the back, if the player says he is flying head on towards the star destroyer, hits will go to the front and so on. There is no rule because players and GM are supposed to agree on it while describing the scene to make it more cinematic.

Same way, if you use gain the advantage and get behind a tie fighter, the tie fighter shouldnt be able to fire at you because it only has a front arc of fire.

You can read it in p235, where the attack action for vehicles is explained.

I have just read and you are correct. I missed this when I played (not that it wasn't fun, i just find this aspect of starship combat rather flawed). So that's my mistake.

However, the point remains. There really seems no point. It would have been better to give smaller ships (ie non capitals) an all round shield rating and perhaps have a manoeuvre to confound it.

If the ship is small (s 4 or lower), the defender always chooses unless the attacker gains the advantage. Else, the players and gm decide where the hits are. If the gm says "the tie fighter starts trailing you" hits go to the back, if the player says he is flying head on towards the star destroyer, hits will go to the front and so on. There is no rule because players and GM are supposed to agree on it while describing the scene to make it more cinematic.

If the defender always chooses, then he always chooses. It doesn't matter if he's being chased or tailed or flying towards a Star Destroyer, the defender can always pick the side with the highest shields. Even if the defender is sandwiched between a Star Destroyer and TIE Fighters, he can have both of them shoot at the same shield.

If you are supposed to resolve the facing by how the scene is being described, then the rules would have specified that, as they do for larger ships.

It's specified I even wrote the page. page 235, asembling the dice pool. silhouette 4 of lower the defender chooses. I'm not sure how big is that tbh.

EDIT: Ah I think you misunderstood me. Second part of the explanation is for when the ship is larger than 4.

The point is that a ship with a star destroyer behind him and a group of ties in front can, as the defender if both attack, choose to have shots land wherever. So he can set the shields to starboard where they face nothing and then have the shots from the SD and the TIES, if they hit, target his shields.

Now you could rationalise that, i suppose, by describing some fancy ass flying, which I don't have an issue with. But it does rather make the defence zone rule moot.

Regarding GtA Range: since there's no range limit called out to Gain the Advantage, I would find it reasonable to say that it doesn't matter. GtA applies to combat checks, so the relevant weapon ranges are a natural limiter. Most GtA actions would only matter at Close range. However, I do see the point about it being a "dogfight" action, and dogfights don't really take place at Short range still, I'd consider it on a case-by-case basis. If someone wanted to GtA at short range and then move in to attack, I wouldn't really have a problem with that.

Further, GtA does nothing against capital ships. 1) Capital ships can't take evasive maneuvers, and 2) on a capital ship, the defense zone is chosen based on relative position of the attacker to the defender.

Regarding Defense Zones: fighters, freighters and the like (e.g. a Z-95 Headhunter or a Lambda-class shuttle) are Silhouette 4 and smaller. Unless they are having GtA successfully performed against them, they choose the defense zone when being attacked.

Capital ships start at Silhouette 5 and get bigger. These guys DON'T get to choose the defense zone when being attacked, so their relative positions matter both from a narrative perspective and a mechanical perspective.

(So, whereas snubfighters can dip and dodge and do loops and barrel rolls and whatnot, Star Destroyers cannot dip and dodge and do barrel rolls)

For these reasons and more, defense zones matter.

We've already exempted capital ships.

So really the shield rules are a bit silly. The first thing you will do is dump all your shield points into one or as few shields as you can and just decide everytime you are attacked that you defend on that zone. So why even bother with shields and zones?

Ok i can GtA to decide where the zone i attacak is, so what? Are there any non capital ships that can shield all 4 zones?

It's a mechanic that didn't need to exist.

Like many things in the game, there is a chance that it has mechanics that are yet to be implemented. The powers that be have included many 'forward thinking' elements that include attachments and talents that have no use or limited application.

We've already exempted capital ships.

So really the shield rules are a bit silly. The first thing you will do is dump all your shield points into one or as few shields as you can and just decide everytime you are attacked that you defend on that zone. So why even bother with shields and zones?

Ok i can GtA to decide where the zone i attacak is, so what? Are there any non capital ships that can shield all 4 zones?

It's a mechanic that didn't need to exist.

First, you can't discard something from a system and then declare the system unnecessary. You've gotta look at it as a whole. Exempting capital ships from the equation and then saying that defense zones are silly is silly.

Second, if you and your gaming group really don't like the "defense zone" rules, change them!

Third, just to make sure we are all on the same page, Silhoutte 3 and smaller craft (like fighters and speeders) have only 2 defense zones, Fore and Aft. Silhoutte 4 and larger utilize all four defense zones.

Now in answer to your questions...

Q: why bother with shields and zones? (Also answering "so what?") A: the first thing a fighter group is going to do when making an attack run at an enemy capital ship is "angle deflector shields forward!" This means that any incoming attacks from enemy fighters or capital ships will have (let's say) 2 setbacks. But that Baron Von Sneaky in that TIE Interceptor gains the advantage, maneuvering himself into a position where the good guy pilot says "I can't shake him!" No setbacks for Baron Von Sneaky's next attack. Or the good guy pilot can split his defense zones, leaving himself more vulnerable to forward fire but better protected all the way around.

Q: are there any non-capital ships that can shield all four zones? A: yes, any Silhouette 4 ships with a high enough combined defense rating (4+) can shield all four zones at once. Not sure if that what you were asking, though, since I am not quite sure how that question follows the previous one. But I hope I was helpful.

As you say, the mechanic doesn't need to exist. But it does, and it can be put to effective use. It's your call whether to use it in your games.

Like many things in the game, there is a chance that it has mechanics that are yet to be implemented. The powers that be have included many 'forward thinking' elements that include attachments and talents that have no use or limited application.

We've already exempted capital ships.

So really the shield rules are a bit silly. The first thing you will do is dump all your shield points into one or as few shields as you can and just decide everytime you are attacked that you defend on that zone. So why even bother with shields and zones?

Ok i can GtA to decide where the zone i attacak is, so what? Are there any non capital ships that can shield all 4 zones?

It's a mechanic that didn't need to exist.

That's one of the things about how space combat works in this system, there are no universal blanket tactics an maneuvers. So your assumption that you'll automatically dump all shields into a single zone isn't valid, because you actually wouldnt unless the scenario called for it.

Q: why bother with shields and zones? (Also answering "so what?") A: the first thing a fighter group is going to do when making an attack run at an enemy capital ship is "angle deflector shields forward!" This means that any incoming attacks from enemy fighters or capital ships will have (let's say) 2 setbacks. But that Baron Von Sneaky in that TIE Interceptor gains the advantage, maneuvering himself into a position where the good guy pilot says "I can't shake him!" No setbacks for Baron Von Sneaky's next attack. Or the good guy pilot can split his defense zones, leaving himself more vulnerable to forward fire but better protected all the way around.

While what you're saying is true, the fact is that there is no game difference for a ship of Sil 4 or less between "angle deflector shields forward!" and "angle deflector shields to the aft!" because the defender picks the zone (or the attacker does if using GtA) regardless of the relative positions of the ship. So the terms "forward" and "aft" have no real meaning in terms of combat resolution. [To be clear, this is only true for Sil 4 ships or smaller]

The rules on page 235 directly contradict the example on page 226 just to make things more confusing.

Not completely following this (making starship combat more abstract seems to have made it more complicated, not less). The RAW does make them redundant. Our GM tends to make rulings based on description, however. e.g. If you're shooting someone with a forward-facing gun then return fire from that enemy is in your forward defence zone.

If I were running a game I'd be tempted to use miniatures and a measuring stick for ranges. Bang. Suddenly zones always have a purpose and people always know which zone is being attacked.

So.

[rant]If you are uncreative and prefer to use rules and mechanics to create and drive your stories instead of narration, creativity, cinematics and fun. Then sure. This might not be what you want. Defensive zones could then easily be disregarded for Silhouette <4[/rant]

On a more serious note:

This game, a lot more than many others, is what you and your group make it and want it to be. If you find it pointless to have multiple defensive zones for silhouette <4 then change it. This could make space combat even less exciting for you though, but you're not going to receive a cease and desist letter from Disney, FFG or Lucafilm. I'm pretty sure of that.

On the other hand, I find defensive zones to be useful. In open space with no terrain, perhaps it's a nobrainer to put it all evenly or spread out (depending on size and speed of the opposition), whereas when terrain comes into play - like when the Millennium Falcon navigates the asteroid field in ESB. As you will see in some of those scenes the terrain allows the TIEs to GtA and attack the forward defensive zone from behind it by going higher relative to the course of the MF, whereas in other scenes they are forced to attack the aft defensive zone as there isn't room to navigate in such a way as to attack the forward defensive zone. This is controlled by the narrative and creativity of the group and GM. Is this too much to ask of roleplayers? Really?

On the other hand, I find defensive zones to be useful. In open space with no terrain, perhaps it's a nobrainer to put it all evenly or spread out (depending on size and speed of the opposition), whereas when terrain comes into play - like when the Millennium Falcon navigates the asteroid field in ESB. As you will see in some of those scenes the terrain allows the TIEs to GtA and attack the forward defensive zone from behind it by going higher relative to the course of the MF, whereas in other scenes they are forced to attack the aft defensive zone as there isn't room to navigate in such a way as to attack the forward defensive zone. This is controlled by the narrative and creativity of the group and GM. Is this too much to ask of roleplayers? Really?

No matter what the terrain is, no matter what the narrative nor how creative the players are, the rules specify that the defender chooses the defense zone (baring GtA of course). If you are playing a scene where some TIEs can only fire at their target's Aft zone then you aren't following the rules.

This is a case where the rules are actively working against the narrative. Which is precisely the point of this thread. Why have rules that seem to support narrative gameplay but actually work against it?

On the other hand, I find defensive zones to be useful. In open space with no terrain, perhaps it's a nobrainer to put it all evenly or spread out (depending on size and speed of the opposition), whereas when terrain comes into play - like when the Millennium Falcon navigates the asteroid field in ESB. As you will see in some of those scenes the terrain allows the TIEs to GtA and attack the forward defensive zone from behind it by going higher relative to the course of the MF, whereas in other scenes they are forced to attack the aft defensive zone as there isn't room to navigate in such a way as to attack the forward defensive zone. This is controlled by the narrative and creativity of the group and GM. Is this too much to ask of roleplayers? Really?

No matter what the terrain is, no matter what the narrative nor how creative the players are, the rules specify that the defender chooses the defense zone (baring GtA of course). If you are playing a scene where some TIEs can only fire at their target's Aft zone then you aren't following the rules.

This is a case where the rules are actively working against the narrative. Which is precisely the point of this thread. Why have rules that seem to support narrative gameplay but actually work against it?

Negative Ghost Rider.

You can hit a targets front zone when you are pursuing it in the real world. Its called leading your target, if EA would bother to make an X-wing sequel you'd know all about it.

Stop thinking of your ship as a static model on a 2D map. Combat is dynamic, and a round is a minute or so, the assumed narrative is that your craft is making complex maneuvers and in continuous motion. The problem isn't that the rule is unnecessary, the problem is your minds eye isn't going far enough to make the rule visible.

On the other hand, I find defensive zones to be useful. In open space with no terrain, perhaps it's a nobrainer to put it all evenly or spread out (depending on size and speed of the opposition), whereas when terrain comes into play - like when the Millennium Falcon navigates the asteroid field in ESB. As you will see in some of those scenes the terrain allows the TIEs to GtA and attack the forward defensive zone from behind it by going higher relative to the course of the MF, whereas in other scenes they are forced to attack the aft defensive zone as there isn't room to navigate in such a way as to attack the forward defensive zone. This is controlled by the narrative and creativity of the group and GM. Is this too much to ask of roleplayers? Really?

No matter what the terrain is, no matter what the narrative nor how creative the players are, the rules specify that the defender chooses the defense zone (baring GtA of course). If you are playing a scene where some TIEs can only fire at their target's Aft zone then you aren't following the rules.

This is a case where the rules are actively working against the narrative. Which is precisely the point of this thread. Why have rules that seem to support narrative gameplay but actually work against it?

Even Sam Stewart concedes that on many occasions it makes narrative sense for an attack to target a specific defense zone. I'm okay with stepping away from Strict RAW and taking the advice and helpful hints of the lead developer of this game.