So basically you are saying that what is shown in the Star Wars movies about the nature of the setting's weapons is wrong, and you are correct? Are you kidding me?

Yes the special effects set the speed of weapons fire to what they felt best suited their purposes. That in no way negates the fact that what we see on screen proves that the shots do not travel faster than light. What we see on screen in a setting like Star Wars is how things work in that setting. If we see energy weapon shots traveling slower than light than they travel slower than light.

No, what I am saying is that what we see in the movies is for nothing more than visual effect. Nothing in the movies can be used for actual physics. Everyone can have opinions on the physics, but until they actually define them in the movies, they are just that, opinions.

I dunno. The movies, not just SW ones are all representations of environments. Some exactly like ours, others quite different. In Harry Potter you can shoot fire balls and fly on broomsticks. The physics of that world are clear to see. One must suspend belief (because the metric is our reality) and accept those physics, of a world not like ours. Of a galaxy....... nothing like ours.

If we are going by the movies then the Troopers are trained by the A-Team and only have 1 purple die to attack no matter how many are attacking. If we make it to the prequels then clankers only have a 1 purple die in a minion group of four. A half a dozen troopers can shoot 50 times at a farmboy stunned and unmoving at his friend dying and never hit him. Jedi's just casually run through waves of clankers and they never hit anything. The movies are not perfect and should not destroy the use of common sense and logic. If we follow the movies I need to have sound travel through the void of space. I just can't do that.

Well, that goes to show the difference in design and intention between the games. One is purely tactical, whereas the other is more about story, narration, cinematics, stuff like that, you know role-playing. The difference is good as far as I'm concerned - both are good games, but for different types of gaming entertainment.

I think my problem with 'em is that the mechanics behind them are too visible. I'm too distracted to visualise the narrative elements. A simple Gunnery vs. Pilot roll by itself would've instinctively had me thinking about a hotshot pilot weaving to avoid accurate cannon fire.

I get that that degree of simplification would leave pilot specs hopelessly dry, however.

It takes some getting used to, and some won't get used to it (either out of inability, disinterest or lack of curiosity), and that's fair.

Quickly noting without checking rules and talents, please don't burn me at the stake.

Add the following new quality to all vehicles with Handling of +1 or better. The Handling score determines the Nimble level (a.i. +2 Handling gives Nimble 2):

NIMBLE (PASSIVE)

When an attack versus the vehicle using Gunnery occurs, compare the attacker's Gunnery skill versus the craft's Pilot's skill. If the Pilot's skill is higher, apply 1 Setback per point of difference up to the Nimble level. Example: Gunnery 0 shoots at an X-Wing (Nimble 1) with a Pilot 2. Apply 1 Setback. Example: Gunnery 1 shoots at a TIE Fighter (Nimble 3) with a Pilot 3. Apply 2 Setback.

I suppose you could also add a Sluggish quality to vehicles with poor handling, but let's consider the problems with Nimble above first?

Eta: As a GM I suppose you might apply the Nimble quality using your own opinion instead of using the handling rating. I might give an X-wing a Nimble 2 quaility even though it's handing is +1, for example.

Eta: If doing the math of Gunnery vs. Pilot slows play down, you could just say apply the Nimble rating in Setback anytime the Pilot's skill is greater then the Gunnery skill, to further simplify things. It does make this quality much more powerful though. Anytime a gunner shoots at a TIE figher pilot who has more skill, you would be applying 3 Setback (Nimble 3) to the attack regardless of how much difference there is.

Quickly noting without checking rules and talents, please don't burn me at the stake.

Add the following new quality to all vehicles with Handling of +1 or better. The Handling score determines the Nimble level (a.i. +2 Handling gives Nimble 2):

NIMBLE (PASSIVE)

When an attack versus the vehicle using Gunnery occurs, compare the attacker's Gunnery skill versus the craft's Pilot's skill. If the Pilot's skill is higher, apply 1 Setback per point of difference up to the Nimble level. Example: Gunnery 0 shoots at an X-Wing (Nimble 1) with a Pilot 2. Apply 1 Setback. Example: Gunnery 1 shoots at a TIE Fighter (Nimble 3) with a Pilot 3. Apply 2 Setback.

I suppose you could also add a Sluggish quality to vehicles with poor handling, but let's consider the problems with Nimble above first?

Eta: As a GM I suppose you might apply the Nimble quality using your own opinion instead of using the handling rating. I might give an X-wing a Nimble 2 quaility even though it's handing is +1, for example.

Eta: If doing the math of Gunnery vs. Pilot slows play down, you could just say apply the Nimble rating in Setback anytime the Pilot's skill is greater then the Gunnery skill, to further simplify things. It does make this quality much more powerful though. Anytime a gunner shoots at a TIE figher pilot who has more skill, you would be applying 3 Setback (Nimble 3) to the attack regardless of how much difference there is.

Way too much math and comparing this to that (as a GM what f I don't want the players to know the skill of the NPC?).

Conceptually it's kinda interesting though, and I could actually see an evolution of this as some kind of Talent on a new piloting tree.

I wonder if smuggler or ace splat books will give us more options to better satiate the void the OP perceives.

Way too much math and comparing this to that (as a GM what f I don't want the players to know the skill of the NPC?).

Conceptually it's kinda interesting though, and I could actually see an evolution of this as some kind of Talent on a new piloting tree.

Points taken. In this simplified version, it has less math and the players will only know the NPC's skill is greater or less then the PC's:

NIMBLE (PASSIVE)

When a non-surprise attack versus this vehicle using Gunnery occurs, compare the attacker's Gunnery skill versus the vehicle's Pilot's skill. If the Pilot's skill is higher, apply Nimble level in setback to the attack. Example1: Gunnery 0 shoots at an X-Wing (Nimble 1) with a Pilot 2. Apply 1 Setback. Example2: Gunnery 1 shoots at a TIE Fighter (Nimble 3) with a Pilot 3. Apply 3 Setback.

I don't think that is a huge concern since you aren't stating numbers during narrative play and many players will already have a general idea of an NPC's skills anyway unless it is a unique character. A player shoots at a Z-95 with Nimble 2 that has an elite pirate pilot, better then the normal pirates they have been dealing with. The GM already knows the player has Gunnery 1. The GM glances at his sheet and sees Pilot 2 for this one. "This guy seems more slippery then the other Z-95's you just took out", and adds 2 Setback to the player's pool.

If the amount of Setback is a problem, a GM could add Nimble qualities as he sees fit, perhaps limiting it only to Nimble 1 or Nimble 2, never Nimble 3 or more?

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?

Erm... currently playing a d6 Campaign and this isn't really an issue in that system. The bonuses to flying were countered by the bonuses to shooting ships got. The main issue is that manoeuvrability is not capped, so with high levels of pilot skill any ship can turn on a dime. +1D or +2D manoeuvrability isn't an issue when you have a pilot with 8 or 9D skill who can out fly a TIE fighter regardless of what tub he is boating around in (Speed was capped, which a starfighter might be able to use to his advantage... but only if he has the skill to survive high speed chases). That and the ridiculous advantage multi-crewed ships get in that system, making the average freighter a better dogfighter than any starfighter, unless the skill levels are hugely in favour of the starfighter's pilot.

Ok, yes, with the bonuses someone with no skill can fly a ship reliably in a straight line in open space... guess what: That isn't very hard, especially in a setting which seems to treat spaceships like vans in terms of availability. Have them try to fly at high speed through dangerous terrain (Asteroid field, for example), and they will just kill themselves though.

I wonder if smuggler or ace splat books will give us more options to better satiate the void the OP perceives.

I think you're asking for patience on the internet? Let me know when the flying unicorns show up......

I wonder if smuggler or ace splat books will give us more options to better satiate the void the OP perceives.

I think you're asking for patience on the internet? Let me know when the flying unicorns show up......

I'm an optimist.

... I like that Sturn posted something that was even more universally applicable than what I did and he doesn't get attacked at all.

On the "it doesn't matter if he doesn't know its coming". Yeah, that is why the suggested house rule I made changed the Evasive Manuevers manuever, so that when they are actively attempting to avoid being caught in the crosshairs (which is what you do when dodging, not try to dodge the bullet that is fired), a more agile ship is harder to hit. And didn't give faster more agile ships a blanket increase in defense.

I've run a fair number of starship combat scenarios focusing on starfighter squadrons, and the system does work.

But it takes a bit more work on the GM's part than running a standard character-scale combat does. It's incumbent upon the GM to bear in mind that starship combat is a lot more dangerous than ground combat, and that defensive options are much more limited outside of Evasive Maneuvers and Defensive Driving since there's really not any cover and most defensive talents wouldn't apply. Minion groups shouldn't be much more than three or four fighters (presuming bog-standard TIEs or maybe TIE interceptors) to avoid having your PCs be overwhelmed, and most opponents in a starfighter combat should be Minions, with maybe an occasional Rival in the mix.

It also takes some work on the players' parts as well with them remembering to use Evasive Maneuvers, accepting that their attack rolls might not be quite that successful, but it does help keep them alive in a dogfight. They'll also need to learn to work together, particularly if they're each operating their own starship, and work to dismantle those minion groups I listed above as quickly as possible so that the bad guys aren't rolling an abundance of Proficiency dice.

A part of it also depends on what the PCs are flying. One of my sessions had the group each piloting an X-Wing with an NPC astromech (which I allowed to perform either an Action or Maneuver each turn for free), and they did pretty well against an equal number of minion groups comprised of three TIEs each given the multiple activations of the Linked quality. But put those same PCs in a squad of Z-95 Headhunters, and the fight would go a bit differently as the Z-95s are slower, not quite as tough, and not packing the same amount of firepower. Using the default option of "1 Y-Wing for every 2 PCs" makes things more difficult, as though Y-Wings are a bit tougher, you don't have as many ships in the fight, meaning if you go one minion group per PC (even if using TIEs in groups of 2), the PCs are screwed... and thus it rolls back to the GM planning the encounter with an eye towards not screwing over their players.

And that's the real crux. The system works fine, just not as expected. The expectation, brought about by previous RPGs, tabletop games, Rogue Squadrons, and even X-wing and TIE Fighter combat sims is for a tactical style game with extreme focus on dogfighting, and the players being able to take on an entire table full of enemy craft.

The actual product is a cinematic system that allows for dramatic action scenes that won't drag out into dice roll offs and can be wrapped up in roughly the same number of turns as a dismounted fight.

As is the system works fine, but the encounter design has to match the system. Namely a space battle should be largely cinematic, with the actual level of direct action fairly low. The Players would only face off against a handful of enemy fighter craft, and have a specific goal, and that's really it.

If you want your game to be more tactical, and the players to be able to fight off whole wings of TIEs, then maybe that's what you need to say. Doing things like rejiggering the ranges to work on a grid, stacking defenses based on speed, having range count toward difficulty, bumping shields up across the board, and dropping weapon damage by a few points can do that.

Unfortunately we always seem to get wrapped around the axle because people disagree with the systems intent, but express it in terms of air combat functionality..

How is "fast manueverable craft should be harder to hit than a slow lumbering craft" any more tactical than slow lumbering craft getting more hull threshold.

When I think if cinematic combat, I don't think everything gets hit, tough ships absorb it, fast ships just blow up. I think "tough ships take damage and keep going, fast ships flit in and out of fire, rarely getting hit".

This whole defense with "WELL ITS NOT TACTICAL". No, it is a narrative system. But its a narrative system that bothers to differentiate between levels of armor, shields, weapon damage, keep track of your current speed, etc. But adding "manueverable craft are harder to hit" no, not THAT is trying to make it a tactical game.

How is "fast manueverable craft should be harder to hit than a slow lumbering craft" any more tactical than slow lumbering craft getting more hull threshold.

When I think if cinematic combat, I don't think everything gets hit, tough ships absorb it, fast ships just blow up. I think "tough ships take damage and keep going, fast ships flit in and out of fire, rarely getting hit".

This whole defense with "WELL ITS NOT TACTICAL". No, it is a narrative system. But its a narrative system that bothers to differentiate between levels of armor, shields, weapon damage, keep track of your current speed, etc. But adding "manueverable craft are harder to hit" no, not THAT is trying to make it a tactical game.

It's factoring in more details in a way the system wasn't originally designed to factor in.

If it upsets you, do it. Make craft moving at speed 6 and/or with a handling higher then +2 count as a Sil smaller, or have a special defense rule, or whatever. But don't go on for pages about how anyone who disagrees with you is wrong.

If I had argued every campaign specific tweak I've had to make to the playerbase at large I'd be the most hated person on the forums. But I don't, because it's my campaign, the effects I'm trying to generate are what I need for my game, and until Dono, or Happy, or 2P51, or Erik, join my playgroup (which I'm sure would be a largely enjoyable experience were it to happen), I really don't care what they have to say when it comes to stuff I've already made up my mind on.

If you've made up your mind, if you don't need input, then stop posting. No one will see you as less of a gamer. But I think we've gotten to the point where everyone has said all they have to say.

That in no way describes why that makes it tactical, while keeping track of your INDIVIDUAL SPEED does not.

Hell, if anything, tracking individual speed of every ship in combat is WAY more tactical than giving a slight defense boost to manueverable ships.

But keep shutting down discussion with "but its a narrative system" every single time anyone has an idea. I'm not against people disagreeing with me, I'm against people using ridiculous logic to dismiss the conversation.

I thought this was a place to discuss the game and our thoughts on it, not the place to sing kumbaya and never criticize anything ever about the system.

I talk about how I tweak things BECAUSE other people on the forums, who have similar problems, might find it useful. But it isn't very useful when ever single attempt at making a houserule on this board is met with pages of derision about how perfect the game is and how tampering with it is bad. If you don't want to argue for pages, you can step out just as easily as anyone else.

So basically you are saying that what is shown in the Star Wars movies about the nature of the setting's weapons is wrong, and you are correct? Are you kidding me?

Yes the special effects set the speed of weapons fire to what they felt best suited their purposes. That in no way negates the fact that what we see on screen proves that the shots do not travel faster than light. What we see on screen in a setting like Star Wars is how things work in that setting. If we see energy weapon shots traveling slower than light than they travel slower than light.

No, what I am saying is that what we see in the movies is for nothing more than visual effect. Nothing in the movies can be used for actual physics. Everyone can have opinions on the physics, but until they actually define them in the movies, they are just that, opinions.

I dunno. The movies, not just SW ones are all representations of environments. Some exactly like ours, others quite different. In Harry Potter you can shoot fire balls and fly on broomsticks. The physics of that world are clear to see. One must suspend belief (because the metric is our reality) and accept those physics, of a world not like ours. Of a galaxy....... nothing like ours.

The movies might not give us a full technical readout on how the weapons function or the physics involved but what they do show proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the bolts do not travel at light speed. This isn't some historical fiction movie where you can find some point and say "No that isn't what occurred or how it occurred. What we see happen in Star Wars on screen happened. A lot of things might so happen that we don't see but everything se see on screen, and even in the novels and video games about the speed weapons fire travels is all consistent with the shots not reaching the speed of light.

RogueCorona, I'd be careful trying to equate what happens on screen in Star Wars movies with some version of physics.

Do you have a theory to explain the sound of TIE Fighters screaming through the vacuum of space?

If I had argued every campaign specific tweak I've had to make to the playerbase at large I'd be the most hated person on the forums. But I don't, because it's my campaign, the effects I'm trying to generate are what I need for my game, and until Dono, or Happy, or 2P51, or Erik, join my playgroup (which I'm sure would be a largely enjoyable experience were it to happen), I really don't care what they have to say when it comes to stuff I've already made up my mind on.

I would pay to be in that game. Let's invite Maelora just to make this all happen!

If I had argued every campaign specific tweak I've had to make to the playerbase at large I'd be the most hated person on the forums. But I don't, because it's my campaign, the effects I'm trying to generate are what I need for my game, and until Dono, or Happy, or 2P51, or Erik, join my playgroup (which I'm sure would be a largely enjoyable experience were it to happen), I really don't care what they have to say when it comes to stuff I've already made up my mind on.

I would pay to be in that game. Let's invite Maelora just to make this all happen!

Careful, my usual crew is on break while one of em preps for the Bar...If my day job weren't on fire I'd be willing to think about it.

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.

Those that want to change the starship combat rules always talk about starfighter dogfights. In dogfights, both ships will be making evasive manoeuvers ; when a ship is not making any evasive manoeuvers, you can say it is mostly going in a straight line. So in your exemple, if both ships are doing evasive manoeuvers, then these would be the rolls to make :

YGG vs RRBB

or

YGG vs PP (if you did gain the advantage)

Also, if you roll gain the advantage with a more nimble starfighter, like an A-wing, you will probably have advantages to spend on either giving you Boost die to your attack roll or giving your target or another starfighter Setback dices. So the player will always have more advantages to spend if he's piloting a A-Wing instead of a Y-Wing. So having a more nimble fighter does help...

But... ppl often said that you won't get enough advantages to give all your attackers Setback dices.... and they are right... but think about it, you can't see all around your craft and see everyone attempting to shoot you, so it's pretty hard to evade everything.... Evasive Manoeuvers work against everyone, but you can get only that many advantages... So in a way, that's logical and fair in a dogfight.

I've also been thinking about the speed at which starfighters move...

If an A-Wing is moving head-on straight for me... it's speed wont matter when I shoot it out of the sky... same thing if he's moving in a straight line away from me... And if it's moving in a straight line from left to right in front of me, it might be a little harder to hit but my targetting computer should do the trick... So in both cases, speed is irrelevant to the targetting difficulty.

Hitting a target would only be more difficult if it's going all evasive manoeuvers.... I do agree that a more nimble starfighter should do better evasive manoeuvers then a less nimble starfighter... I agree... but.... is there an easy way to account for that fact...

Idea #1 : Make a piloting check and each success or advantages give you something... more upgrades or setback, etc.... But more rolls results in a slower pace... slower pace equals less fun usually... so NOT GOOD.

Idea #2 : Compare attacker's handling with the defender's handling and give setback dices to attacker for each point of handling the defender has more (only on evasive manoeuvers).... that might be an interesting solution, but in the end I think it's too much number crunshing and it will too slow the pace of the action. It would also make it very difficult for a freighter to hit starfighters, giving EotE characters a heavier beating... so again (imo) NOT GOOD.

So the devs chose to implement Talents that increase your defense or make you untargetable.... Seems like a good compromise.

At first, I was also boggle by the space combat system.... didn't like it that much.... but after using it more, learning the ropes... I think it fits quite nicely.

The only thing I don't really like is the difficulty to move around... An A-Wing going full speed would have a difficulty of PPRRR ??? But that's for another topic.

I hope my insight will help you guys out.

Cheers !

RogueCorona, I'd be careful trying to equate what happens on screen in Star Wars movies with some version of physics.

Do you have a theory to explain the sound of TIE Fighters screaming through the vacuum of space?

1: its an audio cue included in the sensor packages of the ships in setting. 2: the exhaust the of the craft carries the sound until it disperses beyond a certain level and when we hear the sound our viewpoint is within the range before it disperses, 3 both of the above. The internal sensors of the ship struck by the exhaust make the sound to let the crew know the exhaust is hitting them. Non-TIE engines could function differently enough that the exhaust on other craft disperses much faster, or perhaps TIE Engine exhaust has a higher radiation content than that of other craft thus triggering sensors that standard exhaust doesn't.

Before anyone points to the explosions in space thing Babylon 5 explained the presence of explosions in space in one episode and I don't see why the same couldn't be true for Star Wars ships. The atmosphere within a craft remains concentrated long enough for a brief explosion to be visible when the ship's fuel or reactor blows than the blast fades as the atmosphere disperses. .

I wonder if smuggler or ace splat books will give us more options to better satiate the void the OP perceives.

I think you're asking for patience on the internet? Let me know when the flying unicorns show up......

You totally missed it! Right there, when you were posting. Flying unicorn. It was awesome.

But to the general content of the thread, may I just say (and I'm sorry if I stepped on anyone's toes; it's taken me all day to catch up with this thing and I may have overlooked a post or two)...

They're called snubfighters for a reason.

Only the truly gifted pilots can expect long-term survivability in them.

EDIT: Otherwise, you should hope to be in a slightly more hardy ship that can take that extra laser cannon blast before blowing apart.

REEDIT: For a targeting computer, leading a faster target is the same as leading a slower target. And cannonfire travels faster than a pilot's eye-to-hand coordination can manage. So unless you've got that Force Sensitivity, fuggit about it.