Oh please.

Why the hell have all these rules for manuevers and actions if you are going to do "just let them roll an opposing pilot check to get behind them".

That is what GtA is SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT. So, if you aren't going to use the rules of GtA as written to represent what its supposed to represent: WHY WOULD YOU CARE IF I CHANGED THEM?

I'm serious. If they cut the entire maneuver and action sections and wrote it up as "Have the gm have characters make opposing pilot checks to perform maneuvers, have the successes and advantages dictate how well they do in comparison" I wouldn't complain. Which is basically what you are saying. But that isn't how the system is written.

Did you read the piloting skill or the quote I posted from the FAQ? A player can use the Piloting skill (and thus Handling) any time. The FAQ specifically calls out a slower vs faster ship example.

I wouldn't replace GtA with an opposed piloting roll in every situation, but in some of the very specific situations you are trying to use as examples, yes, it works fine.

The difficulty based on speed for moving through Terrain only furthers my point. A poor handling craft going speed 4 through terrain is going to have a worse time of it than a great handling craft going speed 4 through terrain.

Are you saying the Y-Wing shouldn't be good in combat or that the A-Wing should always auto-win because "speed"?

This has become a useless argument, so think what you want. I've used loads of ship combat in actual play since EotE released. You're not going to make me think it's broken because of one situational argument in a vacuum.

You're not going to make me think it's broken because of one situational argument in a vacuum.

I love a good pun.

I like the exaggerations. No, I don't think the A-Wing should autowin. But neither should the Y-Wing. And a 2 seater Y-Wing would stomp an A-Wing with equal skilled crew. Consistently. A 1 seater would as well. Hell, a 2 hit shot from a Y-Wing is instant A-Wing gone, and there is nothing really to stop the Y-Wing from hitting a good percentage of the time.

Also, you mean the FAQ that pointed out an extreme case where the "defender picks arc" rule doesn't apply (snowspeeder vs ATAT is extreme levels of manueverability difference)? I'm almost certain they intended dogfighting to be represented with the GtA action, why the hell else would they write it?

And also, aha, ha, broken. Because yes, I'm totally accusing the game of being broken. Its not like I didn't say that I like the space combat system, but just feel there are some wonky issues with it at starfighter scale. Yeah, I didn't say that a few pages back. Nope, I said the system was broken apparently.

The system works REALLY well for Space Transport vs fighters. REALLY well. I like it. But apparently thinking it needs small changes is calling it broken and I'm a big bad enemy of the true FFG way, because NARRATIVE (which is the defense this forum has for everything)

Hell, I even said that it didn't work well for starfighters at MY TABLE in one post.

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".

Well yeah its an abstract combat system meant to being played more cinematic than pure tactics, you also bring up the A-wing alot, you do know its a lightly armored, fast ship meant for recon, to attack smaller capital ships and engage the same light armored fast moving ties of the empire right? its not meant to take on Y-wings who are meant to take a abit of a pounding to bomb the larger capital ships.

Have you read the description of the A-Wing in the book? It performs exactly as described. It's not meant to go toe to toe with a Y-Wing.

Sorry you try to negate every advantage the game gives the ship by calling it irrelevant, exaggeration, extreme case, whatever.

(Why do I keep answering? Okay, really out now)

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.

Now you're just asking questions that have to do with designs of aircraft. Quite frankly stressing the dog fighting capability as most important criteria means you are probably designing a poor aircraft. If you are in dog fights in air war you're strategy is failing and you're well on your way to losing. Modern fighter design doesn't stress dog fighting. Radar cross section, payload, combat radius, EW/ECM, and cost per flight hour are all far more important design considerations.

The point carries over to the Alliance as well. Getting in lots of dogfights with TIEs would be an overwhelmingly stupid strategy. Having fighters that can deliver payloads against capital ships and facilities would be far more important. You bemoan the difference between A wings and Y wings but frankly the Y wing was a far more valuable vehicle to the Alliance.

I've said it before but it bears repeating. There is no such thing as 'more maneuverable' against weapons that fire at light speed and computer targeting, you have a mythic attachment to that notion that simply isn't born out by historical example in war or physics. For starters in order for higher maneuverability to even play a part in being hit you have to know you are being targeted, but you aren't actually ever going to know when someone 'pulls the trigger' and since the round is moving at lightspeed you are not going to be able to react. Even if it were possible to react at lightspeed you have to be in a position to act on that information, but in a dogfight, or combat overall, you aren't always going to be positioned correctly by default 100% of the time, so you expecting that you will be isn't realistic.

Yes, its an abstract combat system when they bothered writing very specific combat maneuevers and actions for 95% of situations.

Seriously, if it was as abstract as everyone pretends it is, why would they bother writing the long list of maneuvers and actions?

Except nothing you are typing here is remotely similar to what we see on screen in Star Wars. Dogfighting is the primary method of starfighter combat, blasters don't move at light speed, targeting systems are rather primitive. Missiles/Torpedoes weren't even used in the movies except in two cases 1. Firing at the exhuast port, 2. Firing at the Death Star II's core.

The Y-Wing DOES excel against heavier ships, as it should, but the A-Wing should have a purpose, WHY ELSE WOULD THEY BUILD IT? The A-Wing is an interceptor. Meant to chase down and destroy enemy bombers. As it stands, it sucks at its role. Oh yeah, it can catch them, but then it will just get blown away.

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.

Now you're just asking questions that have to do with designs of aircraft. Quite frankly stressing the dog fighting capability as most important criteria means you are probably designing a poor aircraft. If you are in dog fights in air war you're strategy is failing and you're well on your way to losing. Modern fighter design doesn't stress dog fighting. Radar cross section, payload, combat radius, EW/ECM, and cost per flight hour are all far more important design considerations.

The point carries over to the Alliance as well. Getting in lots of dogfights with TIEs would be an overwhelmingly stupid strategy. Having fighters that can deliver payloads against capital ships and facilities would be far more important. You bemoan the difference between A wings and Y wings but frankly the Y wing was a far more valuable vehicle to the Alliance.

I've said it before but it bears repeating. There is no such thing as 'more maneuverable' against weapons that fire at light speed and computer targeting, you have a mythic attachment to that notion that simply isn't born out by historical example in war or physics. For starters in order for higher maneuverability to even play a part in being hit you have to know you are being targeted, but you aren't actually ever going to know when someone 'pulls the trigger' and since the round is moving at lightspeed you are not going to be able to react. Even if it were possible to react at lightspeed you have to be in a position to act on that information, but in a dogfight, or combat overall, you aren't always going to be positioned correctly by default 100% of the time, so you expecting that you will be isn't realistic.

Norton, the A-Wing gets in fast and deploys missiles. That's its purpose.

So despite every single thing we've seen on the screen in the Star Wars universe, no one dogfights, and everything is just a missile platform?

You heard it here folks, Star Wars space combat has never had anything to do with dogfighting.

Yes, you did hear it here first.

Planes and starship's fly missions. They don't fly to dogfight. Bombers get in and destroy targets. Fighters protect targets and bombers. Interceptors (usually in large flights) try to get in fast and ruin a mission by damaging or downing a bomber, etc.

It's all mission based.

And when those things fight back, which you know, they inevitably do... how do starfighters fight each other in the Star Wars universe?

Now you're just being ignorant for the sake of it.

Of course dogfighting exists. It's not the point of the mission or the planes/starships.

You don't go in and try to attrition their planes by dogfighting.

If the A-Wing goes in, deploys missiles against a light bomber, and then gets caught in a dogfight instead of flying back out for some reason, it probably dies.

Except the bomber is even less specialized in dogfighting than an interceptor, to the point that historically they have been screened by multirole or air superiority fighters, so why should they not face the same death sentence if caught in a dogfight?

(Also, come on man, we are playing STAR WARS. Star Wars starfighters have always been about cool dogfighting, you can play it any way you want, but to deny that Star Wars space combat has been primarily about dogfighting is just ignorance of the source material).

Are you sure you're not confusing the movies for the videogames?

In ANH the TIE's are sent to destroy the Falcon. The light fighters are defeated by the shielded and armored freighter. (whose "mission" is to escape)

In ANH the assault on the Death Star, the Rebel squadrons mission is to destroy the Death Star with a trench bombing run. The dogfighting occurs on the way to the trench as TIE's defend. Once the run starts, 3 TIE's destroy most of the trench runs, as their mission would be. The bombers wingmen don't engage in dogfights, staying to protect the bomber instead.

In ESB, the TIE's are deployed to destroy the Falcon. Being an Ace Pilot, Han outmaneuvers them in Asteroids (Space Terrain), and escapes (his mission). He doesn't dogfight any of them.

In RotJ, the mission is to destroy the new Death Star. Dogfighting happens because the shields are still up, stalling the mission while defense forces attack. Once the shield is down, the mission proceeds with no dogfighting.

To answer your other question, I'd be willing to say that the Y-Wing (bomber) is in big trouble if attacked by the A-Wing's missiles from behind.

Except nothing you are typing here is remotely similar to what we see on screen in Star Wars. Dogfighting is the primary method of starfighter combat, blasters don't move at light speed, targeting systems are rather primitive. Missiles/Torpedoes weren't even used in the movies except in two cases 1. Firing at the exhuast port, 2. Firing at the Death Star II's core.

The Y-Wing DOES excel against heavier ships, as it should, but the A-Wing should have a purpose, WHY ELSE WOULD THEY BUILD IT? The A-Wing is an interceptor. Meant to chase down and destroy enemy bombers. As it stands, it sucks at its role. Oh yeah, it can catch them, but then it will just get blown away.

They aren't blasters, they are lasers. Turbo lasers, quad lasers, twin linked medium laser cannons, so they are lasers.

Missiles are in the movies and we see them in the PT pre-dating Episodes 4 thru 6, so guided weapons do exist in Star Wars.

How do you draw the conclusion targeting systems are primitive? I see no evidence of that in the movies. I see swarms of droid fighters acting independently targeting Republic ships, which is pretty much the pinnacle of computer targeting.

The military builds a lot of stupid crap. We only see A wings in one movie, we see Y wings in all three. Maybe the Alliance considered the A wings junk but were throwing everything they had at the Battle of Endor.

Yes, they had missions. But those missions, when both sides were fielding fighters, always led to dogfighting. Destroy the fighter screen to continue the mission, take out fighters until the shields went down.

When two enemy fighters meet each other in the Star Wars universe, they dogfight.

The one real exception is when people are flying in very very narrow confines with no real room to maneuver, but even that is preempted by dogfighting (DS Trench, DSII Core).

Also, for all the claims of lightning fast targetting systems, it sure as hell took Vader a long time to line up a shot on a few bombers flying fairly straight in a trench.

There are deep lines in this thread where you can see the goal posts being dragged and moved.

Yes, they had missions. But those missions, when both sides were fielding fighters, always led to dogfighting. Destroy the fighter screen to continue the mission, take out fighters until the shields went down.

When two enemy fighters meet each other in the Star Wars universe, they dogfight.

The one real exception is when people are flying in very very narrow confines with no real room to maneuver, but even that is preempted by dogfighting (DS Trench, DSII Core).

Also, for all the claims of lightning fast targetting systems, it sure as hell took Vader a long time to line up a shot on a few bombers flying fairly straight in a trench.

Yah, because they were flying X wings and Y wings and not POS A wings.....

My position is the same position as it was when I started: Light fast manueverable interceptors should be harder to hit than slow lumbering bombers, and dogfighting is a major part of Star Wars starfighter combat.

My position is the same position as it was when I started: Light fast manueverable interceptors should be harder to hit than slow lumbering bombers, and dogfighting is a major part of Star Wars starfighter combat.

I think everyone gets that, it's just no one agrees, except for the OP who had a man tantrum and left.....

Yep, no one agrees with me, that is why three separate people have liked my posts throughout the thread. (I'm not saying that no one agrees with you either, they do, but your assertion that no one agrees with me is patently false).

I didn't have a tantrum, and I didn't leave...I just refuse to argue with fanboys who can't see the simple fact that a fast moving maneuverable target will always be harder to hit than a slow lumbering one....it's pretty simple.

As for the comment about weapons and computers

Anyone whos seen even 5 minutes of one of the films can tell that weapons in starwars do not travel at the speed of light, your attributing real world physics to a fictional weapon and the source material doesn't support your theory

Also your super fast precise targeting computers can't even hit a 2 meter wide target when the firing ship is moving at a constant speed in a dead straight line...real precise eh. and the droid fighters you keep going on about are portrayed as being pretty lousy shots as well.

Now I'm leaving because it's obvious that even watching this thread is pointless as nothing worthwhile is ever going to come of it.

T