To backup whafrog I will make these observations. Episode 3 Obi-Wan and Anakin were both two great fighter pilots and they still got shot at and Obiwan got hit by a missile. In episode 4-6 you had some of the Best pilots in the galaxy in those space battles and many of them got killed. Han one of the Best pilots in a Episode 5 while trying to evade 3 star destroyers and a whole wing of TIE fighters still got hit by both to the point of losing his rear shields. Oh and those ties most of them were just bumbling minion pilots. So the argument that speed is a factor is moot otherwise how were 3 star destroyers that are slower than paint drying able to keep up with one of the fastest ship in the rebel fleet? Go through a list of the dead in those engagements you will find pilots who survived missions in TIE fighters to the point some were up for tie interceptor promotions before they joined the rebellion.

But the Death Star just a big slow moving target. Yep still 2 of them almost wiped out the Rebellion. Admittedly they had tie fighter help and the second one almost the entire Imperial fleet. Still wracked up kills on its own against highly skilled ace pilots. So speed and skill help but aren't the only factors in Star Wars universe.

If you need rl examples take a look at ww 2 fighter statistics. They were not great for the British and though America did help turn the tide we still lost a good many great pilots.

This topic makes too many assumptions. Being a great shot with a gun, doesn't make you great at being a soldier in a war. Someone could be a fantastic pilot and if they never climbed into a cockpit of a fighter they don't know squat about aerial combat. That to me is the difference between just the skill and the skill combined with talents.

The OP is trying to assign too much combat capability to just the skill and that isn't how the entire system of this game is structured. Anyone can make a negotiating check and even have a high skill and Presence, but a Trader or Quartermaster are the ones that will really shine with Smooth Talker. You want to excel in the cockpit of a kite like an A-wing, you need to spend the xp on those ranks of Defensive Driver, Brilliant Evasion, Full Throttle, Tricky Target, that's just how it works and it works fine how it is.

While I don't think that the system works fine for the most part, I still can't figure out what exactly is controversial about "fast, maneuverable starfighters should be harder to hit than a slow, lumbering starfighter".

While I don't think that the system works fine for the most part, I still can't figure out what exactly is controversial about "fast, maneuverable starfighters should be harder to hit than a slow, lumbering starfighter".

Because fast and maneuverable doesn't mean poopy when guns fire rounds at the speed of light and computers that think a bazillion times faster than a squishy pilot are firing them would be my answer.

You want to excel in the cockpit of a kite like an A-wing, you need to spend the xp on those ranks of Defensive Driver, Brilliant Evasion, Full Throttle, Tricky Target, that's just how it works and it works fine how it is.

Except every one of those talents works just as well if not better with a Y-Wing, since if you get hit you aren't immediately taken out of the fight.

I have no problem with skill being more involved with talents, I have a problem with the A-Wing being easier to hit than a Y-Wing piloted by the same person in fighter to fighter combat.

(The ONE exception is 1 rank of tricky target combined with the A-Wings jamming system can cause other fighters to have a harder time hitting you, but that has nothing to do with the a-wing being fast and maneuverable, it has to do with it having a jamming system).

This topic makes too many assumptions. Being a great shot with a gun, doesn't make you great at being a soldier in a war. Someone could be a fantastic pilot and if they never climbed into a cockpit of a fighter they don't know squat about aerial combat. That to me is the difference between just the skill and the skill combined with talents.

The OP is trying to assign too much combat capability to just the skill and that isn't how the entire system of this game is structured. Anyone can make a negotiating check and even have a high skill and Presence, but a Trader or Quartermaster are the ones that will really shine with Smooth Talker. You want to excel in the cockpit of a kite like an A-wing, you need to spend the xp on those ranks of Defensive Driver, Brilliant Evasion, Full Throttle, Tricky Target, that's just it works and it works fine how it is.

The issue might be because you can be a perfectly good shot with just a good Gunnery skill, but being a combat pilot requires Talents more than skill rank. Theoretically, a guy with only a low level of Piloting (Space) could have three ranks of Defensive Driving and Tricky Target making him way harder to hit than a better skilled but less talented pilot. This game seems to do this with offense being easy and defense being harder to obtain.

Because fast and maneuverable doesn't mean poopy when guns fire rounds at the speed of light and computers that think a bazillion times faster than a squishy pilot are firing them would be my answer.

Then why make fast and maneuverable ships? Why would anyone manufacture them at all if they have no effect in combat conditions? Why not make nothing but heavy bombers like the y-wing and b-wing if maneuverability and speed has no signiicant advantage in a dogfight, especially considering outside of a dogfight, the y-wing and b-wing are definitely going to do better anyway since they have stronger and more heavy missiles/torpedoes.

Because fast and maneuverable doesn't mean poopy when guns fire rounds at the speed of light and computers that think a bazillion times faster than a squishy pilot are firing them would be my answer.

Then why make fast and maneuverable ships? Why would anyone manufacture them at all if they have no effect in combat conditions? Why not make nothing but heavy bombers like the y-wing and b-wing if maneuverability and speed has no signiicant advantage in a dogfight, especially considering outside of a dogfight, the y-wing and b-wing are definitely going to do better anyway since they have stronger and more heavy missiles/torpedoes.

The game will also make you wonder why anyone would make single-seat fighters. With the way the rules work, the Y-wing is absolutely awesome because of the extra crewmember. I'd imagine the ARC-170 will likewise be pretty awesome for the same reason.

You want to excel in the cockpit of a kite like an A-wing, you need to spend the xp on those ranks of Defensive Driver, Brilliant Evasion, Full Throttle, Tricky Target, that's just how it works and it works fine how it is.

Except every one of those talents works just as well if not better with a Y-Wing, since if you get hit you aren't immediately taken out of the fight.

I have no problem with skill being more involved with talents, I have a problem with the A-Wing being easier to hit than a Y-Wing piloted by the same person in fighter to fighter combat.

(The ONE exception is 1 rank of tricky target combined with the A-Wings jamming system can cause other fighters to have a harder time hitting you, but that has nothing to do with the a-wing being fast and maneuverable, it has to do with it having a jamming system).

Do I need to bring up pg 251 again?

The character skill generates success, advantage, and triumphs on skill checks.

Good handling generates success and advantage on piloting checks.

Speed reduces difficulty on maneuvers that may be useful in combat.

So Skills+Handling+Speed=More Success, Advantage, and Triumph. If all you are looking at is Success and Failure, you're not playing the system in the first place and... there's your problem.

If you need a frame of reference play some D6. In that system a vehicles maneuverability was added to all piloting checks. The part where it got Derpy was when you had a really maneuverable craft the player could go in with no skills at all, and still fly like an ace. It wasn't until combat that you actually needed those bonuses, and even then fighters like the Defender could still almost fly themselves.

Is that really what you want? A 30XP character to be able to hop in an A-wing and outfly a 300XP character in a Y-wing just because the A-wing is faster and more maneuverable, and not because he's any better or worse a pilot?

Oddly, you do know you can actually generate advantage and stuff on... gunnery checks right? And using GtA means giving up an attack roll, so its not like you get an extra roll in there to create more advantage.

On top of that, each of those little bonuses you talk only apply to one target.

And no, what I want is that if two identical skilled, talented pilots jump into an A-Wing and a Y-Wing, that the A-Wing isn't easier to hit. Which it is. No matter how many times you yell "But you can generate advantage!" Well yes, so can the Y-Wing.

Seriously the difference of +3 handling is 3 blue dice and the speed difference means one less purple on GtA (against a speed 4 enemy, higher it equals 2 purple), that means you will average 2.75 (3.5) more advantage on the GtA roll with a A-Wing over a Y-Wing. Enough to buy 1 black die for the next attack by one enemy. Close to 2 MAYBE. You know, like you already get from the Y-Wing having 1 more defense to move around.

Did you actually even read my suggestions for rules? They were minor tweaks to make Evasive Manuevers better for faster ships and to make GtA more attractive. You act like I'm overhauling everything to add handling to every check and as a defense or something like that. Minor tweaks. To make faster ships a little harder to hit.

On top of that, each of those little bonuses you talk only apply to one target.

Plus, those Setback generated from Advantages can only go to the targeted enemy, so you can't even spread them around.

We add setbacks for speed. One for 2-4, two for 5+. Gives a gunner something to get rid of when Bracing (although, I think aiming is statistically better, and technically Brace shouldn't work since it's not an environmental condition).

I personally don't want to add setback based on speed, mostly because it just makes it feel redundant with shields. That is why I would just rather give them a bonus when using evasive maneuvers and make GtA more interesting.

I'd also probably change the speed chart for GtA a bit more. If it didn't let you fire at them at all, you would need to flatten the speed advantage some, since the more maneuverable ship is already getting its handling bonus.

To backup whafrog I will make these observations. Episode 3 Obi-Wan and Anakin were both two great fighter pilots and they still got shot at and Obiwan got hit by a missile. In episode 4-6 you had some of the Best pilots in the galaxy in those space battles and many of them got killed. Han one of the Best pilots in a Episode 5 while trying to evade 3 star destroyers and a whole wing of TIE fighters still got hit by both to the point of losing his rear shields. Oh and those ties most of them were just bumbling minion pilots. So the argument that speed is a factor is moot otherwise how were 3 star destroyers that are slower than paint drying able to keep up with one of the fastest ship in the rebel fleet? Go through a list of the dead in those engagements you will find pilots who survived missions in TIE fighters to the point some were up for tie interceptor promotions before they joined the rebellion.

But the Death Star just a big slow moving target. Yep still 2 of them almost wiped out the Rebellion. Admittedly they had tie fighter help and the second one almost the entire Imperial fleet. Still wracked up kills on its own against highly skilled ace pilots. So speed and skill help but aren't the only factors in Star Wars universe.

If you need rl examples take a look at ww 2 fighter statistics. They were not great for the British and though America did help turn the tide we still lost a good many great pilots.

Actually the Second Death Star didn't bring down any fighters that I can recall seeing being brought down by its weapons, or are you counting the ones that crashed into it? Even than if memory serves most of those were its allies. And you only see 2 rebel cruisers brought down by the Death Star II on screen that I recall. If you are counting Legends than between both the Death Star II and the Imperial Fleet at Endor the Alliance fleet only lost 20 percent of its forces. A hard blow for certain but nowhere close to being nearly destroyed.

And the Death Star I brought down a grand total of one starfighter that we see it shoot down on screen, a starfighter that was malfunctioning as well.

While I don't think that the system works fine for the most part, I still can't figure out what exactly is controversial about "fast, maneuverable starfighters should be harder to hit than a slow, lumbering starfighter".

Because fast and maneuverable doesn't mean poopy when guns fire rounds at the speed of light and computers that think a bazillion times faster than a squishy pilot are firing them would be my answer.

1: The weapon bolts in Star Wars don't travel at anything remotely close to the speed of light,

2: There has been nothing in Star Wars showing targeting computers functioning that fast, almost all ships have humans or other sentient beings at the weapon controls rather than computers, and even the completely droid controlled ships aren't portrayed as reacting at anything remotely close to that kind of speed.

You want to excel in the cockpit of a kite like an A-wing, you need to spend the xp on those ranks of Defensive Driver, Brilliant Evasion, Full Throttle, Tricky Target, that's just how it works and it works fine how it is.

Except every one of those talents works just as well if not better with a Y-Wing, since if you get hit you aren't immediately taken out of the fight.

I have no problem with skill being more involved with talents, I have a problem with the A-Wing being easier to hit than a Y-Wing piloted by the same person in fighter to fighter combat.

(The ONE exception is 1 rank of tricky target combined with the A-Wings jamming system can cause other fighters to have a harder time hitting you, but that has nothing to do with the a-wing being fast and maneuverable, it has to do with it having a jamming system).

Do I need to bring up pg 251 again?

The character skill generates success, advantage, and triumphs on skill checks.

Good handling generates success and advantage on piloting checks.

Speed reduces difficulty on maneuvers that may be useful in combat.

So Skills+Handling+Speed=More Success, Advantage, and Triumph. If all you are looking at is Success and Failure, you're not playing the system in the first place and... there's your problem.

If you need a frame of reference play some D6. In that system a vehicles maneuverability was added to all piloting checks. The part where it got Derpy was when you had a really maneuverable craft the player could go in with no skills at all, and still fly like an ace. It wasn't until combat that you actually needed those bonuses, and even then fighters like the Defender could still almost fly themselves.

Is that really what you want? A 30XP character to be able to hop in an A-wing and outfly a 300XP character in a Y-wing just because the A-wing is faster and more maneuverable, and not because he's any better or worse a pilot?

In my D6 starfighter combat experience, and trust me I've had tons, the TIE Defender is an exception to the rule. It was basically built from the ground up to be a game-breaker. Using it as an example is tipping the scales too far. Now put a 3D pilot in an A-Wing versus a 6D (Pretty much the low end of skill common for pilot focused characters in d6) and the Y-Wing will have a definite advantage over the A-Wing. (1D Advantage in the opposed checks to hit the A-Wing and 2D to evade the A-Wing's fire, though the A-Wing's Jammer can eliminate the to hit advantage.)

Oddly, you do know you can actually generate advantage and stuff on... gunnery checks right? And using GtA means giving up an attack roll, so its not like you get an extra roll in there to create more advantage.

On top of that, each of those little bonuses you talk only apply to one target.

Handling doesn't apply to gunnery though. The purpose of GtA isn't to get you some kind of extra roll, it's to reduce difficulty for you next turn and increase it for them and everyone else. The little bonuses apply to one target, but Evasive action applies to all.

Not fantastic, but as I mentioned, if I'm flying solo in a one-man fighter and the GM sends more then one or two enemy fighters into an encounter, that's not a mechanical flaw, that's the GM. Vehicle combat requires you to design encounters to the craft and the pilot, in that order, and yeah, that's something you've gotta learn. I fried a player once learning that myself. But we just did a do-over with an adjusted encounter and it worked a lot better.

Did you actually even read my suggestions for rules? They were minor tweaks to make Evasive Manuevers better for faster ships and to make GtA more attractive. You act like I'm overhauling everything to add handling to every check and as a defense or something like that. Minor tweaks. To make faster ships a little harder to hit.

I did, I see what you did and why, but it's the greater impact that concerns me.

Doing what you've proposed increases the odds of a despair for anyone targeting the fast craft, and yeah, if I'm in the A-wing that sounds fine.

But what if I'm in a Wayfarer? Now, a TIE Interceptor Group which is already a pain, can drop Despairs on me even better then before (which I can't override with GtA because of what I'm flying)? That's not fun.

I get it if you want to do a little something extra, and if I were playing Hobbit's game and he wanted to add a setback on me for the targets speed being something like 3 greater then mine? Eh, ok I'll go with that. But upgrading is kinda a big deal because of the effect it can have on the narrative.

OK, now, I can see that issue, as the frequency of despairs could make things a bit wonky.

What if instead, Evasive Manuevers upgraded the difficulty once (as it does now) and grants +1 setback die per speed over 4?

(I really would rather adjust maneuvers rather than mess with the basics)

OK, now, I can see that issue, as the frequency of despairs could make things a bit wonky.

What if instead, Evasive Manuevers upgraded the difficulty once (as it does now) and grants +1 setback die per speed over 4?

(I really would rather adjust maneuvers rather than mess with the basics)

I'd have it based on the speed difference rather then the speed, but that's something that sounds a lot more reasonable and more applicable to the system, as something like Brace could conceivable be applied to cancel it.

In my D6 starfighter combat experience, and trust me I've had tons, the TIE Defender is an exception to the rule. It was basically built from the ground up to be a game-breaker. Using it as an example is tipping the scales too far. Now put a 3D pilot in an A-Wing versus a 6D (Pretty much the low end of skill common for pilot focused characters in d6) and the Y-Wing will have a definite advantage over the A-Wing. (1D Advantage in the opposed checks to hit the A-Wing and 2D to evade the A-Wing's fire, though the A-Wing's Jammer can eliminate the to hit advantage.)

TIE Defender was never officially statted, WEG lost the license before they could get around to it.

The Defender Starfighter is what I was referring to, but I'm sure you knew that.

I kind of try to not do it off of difference because it makes it change versus every target and that slowly gives me a headache. Though looking at it again, rather than speed, it might be more interesting to do it off of handling difference.

I still haven't seen any evidence in this thread that makes me think the idea of the mechanics being "broken" is anything but poor GM'ing of the mechanics.

(Honestly, it's hard for me to get past the opening statement "...with some rebels doin there thang...up until I really looked into the starship system, and WOW this is junk."). :/

Meanwhile numerous examples have been given (& dismissed out of hand) for how the system does work well for what it was designed to be.

Anyway, here's another example from the FAQ which answers the highly maneuverable craft complaint yet again...
"On page 116 under Piloting (Space) it says that an opposed Piloting (Space) check can determine the relative facing of two ships, but on page 235 it says that when shooting at ships with a silhouette 4 or smaller, the defender chooses the targeted facing. Which is correct?
A. Simply put, both. The latter rule is a specific rule designed to work within the mechanics of vehicle combat, while the former is a more general rule. There are situations where the rule of “defender chooses the zone” does not apply, whether because the defender is silhouette 5 or larger, or because the rule does not work within the ongoing narrative (an agile airspeeder attacking a lumbering AT-AT walker should be able to choose which facing it attacks, even though the AT-AT is silhouette 4). In that case, GMs can use the former rule instead."

Combat rounds also represent up to a minute of time. It's not one exchange of blaster fire, it's all sorts of maneuvering.The Falcon probably spent one combat round in the cloud of TIE's in episode 6, and Lando was just performing Evasive Maneuvers against a bunch of minions.

A highly tactical system is never going to represent the narrative of the films, which is why many of us really enjoy the more freestyle system offered in these RPG's.

Is it wrong that I look at all these arguments and think: To hell with the fluff, I want my games to be fun, not murked down in details of 'Oh but the Y-Wing is slower and thus SHOULD be easier to hit than an A-Wing but its not!'. If a player said that to me I would turn to him and say in not so many words. Yeah...I'm the GM ***** and for the purpose of balance, fun and simplicity...this is how it is going to work, don't like that, there is the door. If you want to blag that it should be easier to hit the Y-Wing, fine, boost dice on the roll. Otherwise...just go with it.

Which, once again, ignores my entire complaint which is that in fighter to fighter combat, tough beats fast, period.

Tougher fighters get better defense, better armor, better hull, better weapons, and in a lot of cases more strain.

Faster fighters get... the ability to close distance faster and a boost to one combat action that is of questioniable usefulness. (Seriously, as written, GtA just isn't that great. Its almost always better just to fire instead).

The Tie Interceptor and the A-Wing are INTERCEPTORS. They should excel against bombers. That is the purpose of their design, outmaneuvering and dogfighting. But as written they just don't have that.

And "Well just put every single encounter in a asteroid field or on a planet with obstacles" is kind of silly. Its space combat, these ships were designed for SPACE COMBAT. Why in gods name would anyone ever make an Interceptor style high manueverable ship if targetting computers had made speed and manueverabiltiy useless in open space? Where you know, STARfighters are designed to fly.

OK, now, I can see that issue, as the frequency of despairs could make things a bit wonky.

What if instead, Evasive Manuevers upgraded the difficulty once (as it does now) and grants +1 setback die per speed over 4?

(I really would rather adjust maneuvers rather than mess with the basics)

I'd have it based on the speed difference rather then the speed, but that's something that sounds a lot more reasonable and more applicable to the system, as something like Brace could conceivable be applied to cancel it.

In my D6 starfighter combat experience, and trust me I've had tons, the TIE Defender is an exception to the rule. It was basically built from the ground up to be a game-breaker. Using it as an example is tipping the scales too far. Now put a 3D pilot in an A-Wing versus a 6D (Pretty much the low end of skill common for pilot focused characters in d6) and the Y-Wing will have a definite advantage over the A-Wing. (1D Advantage in the opposed checks to hit the A-Wing and 2D to evade the A-Wing's fire, though the A-Wing's Jammer can eliminate the to hit advantage.)

TIE Defender was never officially statted, WEG lost the license before they could get around to it.

The Defender Starfighter is what I was referring to, but I'm sure you knew that.

I know it was never officially statted but finding unofficial D6 stats for the TIE Defender is a piece of cake and the Defender Starfighter, unless I'm remembering wrong, has the same maneuverability as the A-Wing, but has lesser Fire Control and lacks the jammer which means the Y-Wing crew's superiority will be even more telling than in the A-Wing verus Y-Wing example I gave. The Y-Wing will still have the 1D edge on to hit rolls but has a 3D advantage on rolls to evade the defender's fire.

And while the Defender's lasers do 1D more damage than the Y-Wings those lasers are the only weapons the Defender has and when you compare weapon damage -hull and shields the Y-Wing's lasers have a damage output of 1D+1 over the Defender's hull +shielding while the Defender's lasers have a 0D+2 output over the Y-Wing's hull and shielding.

Norton, you really can't keep saying that speed should be a defining factor in dogfights, and then keep taking out the entire reason it should be a factor. (Terrain)

Besides, its not pure speed that realistically gives any advantage in a dogfight, its maneuverability. Maneuverability also gives you an advantage in this game.

No, GtA doesn't auto-win a combat for you, should it really?

Yes, armor and shields help in combat, like they should.

In ANH, the TIE's can fly circles around the Falcon, but the Falcon's armor and shields hold out while Han & Luke take them down.

That whole combat is also probably just a couple rounds in the RPG.)

What's the argument? Its been pointed out numerous times that maneuverability does in fact affect combat, it just doesn't auto-win for the A-Wing.

A-Wing is a scout ship. Y-Wing is a battle wagon.

Manueverability does not help in combat. Not much. GtA is trash. Why the hell would you ever use it rather than just FIRE? Don't go off feeling, use actual math.

If I have 3 Agi and 1 Gunnery (which is really not good)

If a Y-Wing does Evasive Manuevers and angles deflector shields, I'm facing a RPBB to shoot him. If I Gain the Advantage, I have a PP chance of shooting him.

Over 2 turns I can do one of two things, GtA + Fire, or Fire twice.

YGG vs RPBB

Chance to Hit: 48%

Chance of 1+ Advantage: 49%

YGG vs PP

Chance of Hit: 69%

Chance of 1+ Advantage: 62%

Now, it looks really nice until you think, Oh, I have to give up shoot half as many times to get that. So I can nearly 50% of the time twice (meaning 50% of the time I'll hit once, 25% of the time I'll hit twice), or I can take a 70% chance of hitting once. And as you go up in gunnery skill, it just gets worse.

And the A-Wing is NOT a scout ship. What it is is in the name. RZ-1 Light INTERCEPTOR.

Also really, TERRAIN is a defining feature that would make you want to have a more manueverable craft? I guess all those mountains hanging way up in the sky is why people in WWII pushed to make more manueverable dogfighters.

Dude, maneuverability adds to every **** piloting roll made in the game. If you want to keep refusing to believe that, I can't say any more.

Be ignorant.

WWII fighters used maneuverability... just like I have copy and pasted from both the book and the FAQ.

They also used the sun and cloud cover... which is SKY TERRAIN.

Space terrain isn't mountains, don't be such a ****.

Space terrain can be as simple as a dust cloud or a stars light or a capital ship.

Do you really think WWII pilots dodged individual bullets with their maneuverable planes?
They performed maneuvers.

Fly your A-Wing behind them where they can't shoot, with an opposed PILOTING + HANDLING roll.

You keep saying "with higher gunnery" but shouldn't someone with good gunnery be able to shoot better???

Where are you coming from?

I'm done, peace out.

Dude, maneuverability adds to every **** piloting roll made in the game. If you want to keep refusing to believe that, I can't say any more.

Be ignorant.

Except piloting rolls happen in only two cases, when the GM asks for them, and when you attempt to use GtA.

Oh there is also moving through terrain... but oh yeah, let's not forget that the check difficulty is based on speed...

(And Full Throttle and Brilliant Evasion once you have them. Brilliant Evasion is probably the strongest case you can make for Handling, but that is a once an encounter move that is on the last row of a talent tree, and at that point you probably have a really high skill rating ANYWAY.)

So all the advantages of a Y-Wing are solid and rules based: Tougher, harder to hit, more damage, more strain.

Most of the advantages of an A-Wing are nebulous: When the GM asks for a roll. Which in combat sort of breaks the whole point of having all these detailed maneuvers like Evasive Maneuvers and GtA and stuff to get an advantage over your opponent.

I really get tired of "ITS BALANCED BECAUSE THE GM CAN FIX IT".