What does the fact they are named snubfighter have to do with their surviabilty? The last definitions of fighter types I read, aka the ones in the Essential Guide to Warfare, lists snubfighters as a middle ground class between the superiority fighters like the TIE Fighters and Interceptors and the traditional heavy bombers, best represented in FFG IMO by the blastboats.

To slightly edit and quote part of the snubfighter article on Wokieepedia:

"Snubfighter was a slang term used to describe a type of fighter which usually carried a crew of one or two. The snubfighters were equipped to attack ground targets and warships along with other fighters. Because of this role they typically carried missiles or torpedoes in addition to laser or blaster based weaponry. They also often include a hyperdrive to allow planet based fighters to attack targets in nearby systems, or to allow deployment from carriers without forcing the carriers to enter battle directly."

I'm gearing up to run a massive set peice battle with both friendly and enemy fighters, trying to rescue a crippled and boarded friendly nebulon B, inside an asteroid field, while keeping away from the Lancer Frigate chasing them. My party has four fully manned (though not expertly so- they're really more wraith squadron than rogue) 2seat ywings, with astromechs, with allied tie intercepter minions and tie bomber minions from the nebulon B, while the enemy is bringing multiple tie/ln flights (2 flights of 4, 2 wingpairs of 2), Rival level tie bombers, and Imperial Refit gonzo transports. (I might also throw in a few rival intercepters, though the PCs might need a bit more assistance)

Everything will be using EvasiveManeuvers, and I expect there will be a lot of Torpedos, concussion missiles, and Gain the advantage flying around. And any PC who gets shot down (as well as anyone who is less comfortble in space combat) can board the nebulon and help them bring it back under control, as it really is the heavyweight in this fight.

So is the frigate trying to defect or something, or has it just not been equipped with Alliance fighters for some reason? (Lack of available craft or an undercover mission perhaps/

I said I was going to quit this thread but it amuses me to watch you guys argue.

I will concede that my post was mis labeled and should have been "starship combat needs work" not "Doesn't work"

I can also see the point that people have raised about the targeting computers being able to figure trajectory and speed therefore effectively taking it out of the equation.

I'm not real big on adding a bunch of changes and number crunching to the system, which could change the whole dynamic of how it works in relation to the manuvers and talents that characters have paid points for. But it just dawned on me that the mass of problems most people (including me) have with the starship combat could be fixed with one simple change.

Make GTA a maneuver instead of an action.

I'm pretty sure wouldn't fudge up the talents any and would force players to really think about it or evasives ..unless they want to pay the strain for 2 maneuvers.

Anyone have a legitimate reason (based on rules please) that this wouldn't work?

BTW am I the only one who thinks that the Ywing and Bwing should have short range sensors to make full use of their torpedoes? they are supposed to be heavy attack/ bombers right? if they can fit mediums in a tiny little Awing, couldn't they get shorts in the beasts....just sayin.....

T

As a side note to whoever it was that said that a target would have no idea he was about to be shot consider that 1) he prob knows someone is behind him so he's jinkin like crazy ( and being a better pilot would help) and 2) even contemporary aircraft have a sensor that gives a tone when an enemy gets a radar lock on them and there is no reason to believe starfighters wouldn't have the same "OH S**T he's about to fire" buzzer.

Make GTA a maneuver instead of an action.

I'm pretty sure wouldn't fudge up the talents any and would force players to really think about it or evasives ..unless they want to pay the strain for 2 maneuvers.

Anyone have a legitimate reason (based on rules please) that this wouldn't work?

Only that it would be the only default maneuver to grant a dice roll- barring high level talents for specific abilities, only Actions are allowed to try and generate advantage and triumph.

Really, Evasion should be considered the default maneuver. (Can you double evade?) Unless you need to move your ship or think you can finish the entire combat in a single solid hit, surviving is worth more than a little extra damage.

But if everyone is evading, GTA has it's place... even against unshielded fighters.

(As for the Frigate, yes, it's attempting to defect, and got caught trying.)

As a side note to whoever it was that said that a target would have no idea he was about to be shot consider that 1) he prob knows someone is behind him so he's jinkin like crazy ( and being a better pilot would help) and 2) even contemporary aircraft have a sensor that gives a tone when an enemy gets a radar lock on them and there is no reason to believe starfighters wouldn't have the same "OH S**T he's about to fire" buzzer.

So you're in a battle with hundreds of starfighters dishing it out in a huge dogfight... you've just passed the medical frigate when your target-sensor goes off telling you an ennemy is targeting you... you look right, a TIE Interceptor... not him he's after Rogue 3... you look left, a TIE Bomber, he's making a run for the Mon Cal Cruiser... you look up, 2 TIE fighters in formation laser blazing... SHÏT they took out your wingman... sensor still going on... FÜCK you hit the air brakes and veer to the left... SHÏT! 2 TIE interceptors right in front of you now, blasters blazing coming in hot.... FÜCK ! BOOM! YOUR DEAD !

Yeah... you've got your "Oh SHÏT buzzer" but it didn't do you any good in this fight... you were still too late to spot the one attacking you...

I hope it helps to understand why you can't defend against everyone.... it's a lot easier to manage in a small dogfight with less starfighters.

Good Night!

Personally I think evade should use a roll so it can better illustrate that a better pilot in a more agile fighter would evade more effectively then a crappy pilot in a freighter, but I'm willing to give that up for game speed. You are correct tho, there are no maneuvers in either combat system that use a roll (kinda what defines an action) the other alternative is to just kinda tie it in to the suggestion in the pilot skill about rolling for position and say that instead of being an action it's just automatically done by everyone at start of every round, you declare who your trying to engage and roll a GTA against them. It would also help paint a clearer picture of "who's behind who" in the overall setup.

T

JP that's kind an extreme "battle of endor" type example. I see most battles being more along the lines of yavin with small pockets of dogfighting where it's pretty obvious whos shooting at you.

T

Sure. The tie intercepter gains the advantage on you and immediately pumps 4 emerald beams of death into you before you can react.

The reason gain the advantage lasts a round, is so that you have a chance to break free before your attacker has a chance to take advantage of it. If it happens automatically, or as a maneuver, there's no play for dominance- you just gain the advantage, and kill people.

If your just doing evasive manoeuvers, you're not really moving on the field of battle... just in that little zone where your fighting against your target. If you want to hunt down that TIE Bomber going for a friendly cruiser (at medium range), you have to use Flyby to close the gap and shoot him. So unless you take 2 system strain, you can't do evasive manoeuvers also...

When you're in a Space Transport, like a YT-1300, the pilots spots in the initiative order is very important and is the one that usually moves the most up and down... one turn going first, the next turn going last and then going first again... to take a full measure of Evasive Manoeuvers or Gain the Advantage.

Yes but if you were worried about the interceptors blowing you away you would choose them as your target and it could become a contested roll. Or you could just leave the roll as written and say if you both succeed they cancel out and your still jockeying for position.

And the reason it lasts for a round isn't so you have a chance to cancel it.... it's because if it didn't it would be useless to single seat fighters as it takes your action and you could never take advantage of it.

T

Sure. The tie intercepter gains the advantage on you and immediately pumps 4 emerald beams of death into you before you can react.

The reason gain the advantage lasts a round, is so that you have a chance to break free before your attacker has a chance to take advantage of it. If it happens automatically, or as a maneuver, there's no play for dominance- you just gain the advantage, and kill people.

I know GtA is an action and lasts 2 rounds... it was just an exemple of play where you can't easily see who's shooting at you.

JP that's kind an extreme "battle of endor" type example. I see most battles being more along the lines of yavin with small pockets of dogfighting where it's pretty obvious whos shooting at you.

T

Yeah it's extreme... so in a usual fight, with 1 A-Wing and 2 X-Wing vs 3 packs of 2 TIE Fighters (minions), then when the A-Wing does a GtA action against one group, he can easily spent his 6 advantages to give each minion group a setback dice ; unifortunately, the X-Wing rolled only 4 advantages because it's less nimble so it can only give 2 minion groups a setback on attack.

It's strange that spending advantages and triumphs aren't the same for ground and space combat. In ground, you could use 3 advantages or a triumph to gain +1 Defense until the end of active character's next turn... I would have no problem allowing it for space combat (on a piloting roll) also even if it's not listed. In that case, you only need 3 advantages to give a setback to everyone shooting you... And then you could spend 2 advantages to give a setback to other targets (that's not listed also in the space combat table for advantages).

Would you allow it ?

No you can't give each group setbacks. The table specifically says the setbacks and upgrades can only be applied to the target of the roll therefore the awing and the Xwing could only effect one group each.

T

No you can't give each group setbacks. The table specifically says the setbacks and upgrades can only be applied to the target of the roll therefore the awing and the Xwing could only effect one group each.

T

Yeah you're right... haven't noticed that part... So I can't give Setback dices to everyone, only my target.... now that's an interesting piece of information... I'll have to tell my players about this because it will change how we spend advantages...

But, for 3 advantages, you can gain a free manoeuver... I guess you could do another evasive manoeuver, thus upgrading the attackers checks difficulty twice... that would be nice...

Ok questions questions...

Question #1 : Can you stack evasive manoeuvers, use 2 in the same round in anyway possible and thus upgrade twice the difficulty to hit the ship ??

Question #2 : Would you allow the pilot to use 3 advantages to gain +1 Defense until the end of his next turn (like in the ground combat table for advantages) ??

Thanks

Good Night!

I like both those ideas. But I'm still of the opinion that GTA is jacked to start with. my understanding of the maneuver is that i'm pitting my skill and maneuverability against yours to attain a better firing position ( or get out of yours) is this a fair interpretation?

If so why is it that the difficulty of my GTA isn't modified in any way by either your pilot skill or your handling?

so in essence it's just as easy to gain the advantage against a skill 5 pilot in a size 3, handling +3 ship( like an Awing) as it is to gain advantage against a skill 1 pilot in a size 4, handling -1 ship (like a freighter)....Does this make sense to anybody?

T

This is assuming both example ships are going the same speed.

This also brings up another point I found interesting. In the spending advantage chart it says in the entry for 2 "may preform free maneuver" blah,blah. in the 3 entry it says may perform a free pilot only maneuver blah blah implying that you can't use 2 to go evasive. This means that 2 would only be usable on aim and angle deflectors......right?

Question #1 : Can you stack evasive manoeuvers, use 2 in the same round in anyway possible and thus upgrade twice the difficulty to hit the ship ??

Yes, you can according to the official response of Sam over on the Edge thread.

That was why I was suggesting that super-maneuverable fighters might benefit from an extra free Evasive Maneuvers use per turn without System Strain as a house rule.

I fail to see the problem with GtA in the OPs first post or general the sentiment.

Excuse me, but GtA is a Piloting Check with it's difficulty depending on the speed difference. Therefore the A-Wing with it's faster speed has an easier time (1P) and the better handling makes it even easier (3Bs) too.

Add the possibility to use the advantages to hand out a second Evasive Maneuvers, a B and/or 2 Bs.

Wheras i have to wish the Y-Wing good luck with the higher difficulty (3Ps) and no boni (maybe even a B) to cancel out the A-Wings GtA. Otherwise attacking the A-Wing could be RR(P)BB.

The A-Wings second round would be an attack (with up to 2 Bs due to the spent advantages) against PPB.

Oh, and i hope for the Y-Wing that they did not put both their shields on the same side since thanks to GtA the A-Wing can choose to hit the unshielded front/rear thus rolling against only PP.

Edit: If i messed up the dice please point it out.

And the A-Wing can pull that same stunt against any other fighter that has less speed than himself (so nearly every other).

Or any other pilot with the right skills and talents in a ship faster than his opponents.

The better pilot is always harder to hit, even more so if he is in a fast/nimble fighter.

I therefore do not see the problem.

If you really want to make things more depending on the craft make it simply so that initiative in air/space combat is rolled with Piloting too, not the usual Cool/Vigilance. The boost dice from Handling will make it far easier to get first in line and then pull off GtA+EM(+EM) making you **** hard to hit.

I fail to see the problem with GtA in the OPs first post or general the sentiment.

Excuse me, but GtA is a Piloting Check with it's difficulty depending on the speed difference. Therefore the A-Wing with it's faster speed has an easier time (1P) and the better handling makes it even easier (3Bs) too.

Add the possibility to use the advantages to hand out a second Evasive Maneuvers, a B and/or 2 Bs.

Wheras i have to wish the Y-Wing good luck with the higher difficulty (3Ps) and no boni (maybe even a B) to cancel out the A-Wings GtA. Otherwise attacking the A-Wing could be RR(P)BB.

The A-Wings second round would be an attack (with up to 2 Bs due to the spent advantages) against PPB.

Oh, and i hope for the Y-Wing that they did not put both their shields on the same side since thanks to GtA the A-Wing can choose to hit the unshielded front/rear thus rolling against only PP.

Edit: If i messed up the dice please point it out.

And the A-Wing can pull that same stunt against any other fighter that has less speed than himself (so nearly every other).

Or any other pilot with the right skills and talents in a ship faster than his opponents.

The better pilot is always harder to hit, even more so if he is in a fast/nimble fighter.

I therefore do not see the problem.

If you really want to make things more depending on the craft make it simply so that initiative in air/space combat is rolled with Piloting too, not the usual Cool/Vigilance. The boost dice from Handling will make it far easier to get first in line and then pull off GtA+EM(+EM) making you **** hard to hit.

I like the idea Piloting being used for initiative a lot. In a narrative system that completely covers the 'I'm a more skilled Pilot' issue and can broadly represent a ton of activity.

I got that idea because in DH(1) you get a bonus to initiative depending on your Driving Skill. Since that would not work in the same degree why not replace it?

After all, your ability to react in an air/space fight depends on your skill of controlling your ride.

@2P51: I'm still not used to your new avatar.

I got that idea because in DH(1) you get a bonus to initiative depending on your Driving Skill. Since that would not work in the same degree why not replace it?

After all, your ability to react in an air/space fight depends on your skill of controlling your ride.

@2P51: I'm still not used to your new avatar.

Arrrr.......

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 targeting computer being better than squishies makes realistic sense. But in universe, it feels like it flattens the experience to dogfighting if done today: guided missiles, people killing people they only see on scopes, no visual contact.

And if that tone is taken, what advantage do the fast interceptor class ships provide? Especially since in the flicks blaster bolts have time to target, and so aren't fired at the speed of light. The only advantage in a pitched combat scenario that a fast ship would have is that it's harder to hit, speed only comes into play for outmaneuvering outside of combat. Especially since the A wing gives up some firepower for it's speed advantage.

The targeting computers make practical and logical sense. That's how it works in the real world, guided missiles relying on computer systems and radar to strike fast targets. But I don't want that to take away from the breadth of experience that could be offered by mimicking WW2 aerial combat.

I want all of the toys in the world to be useful. If there is no mechanical reason to use an A Wing in pitched combat over an X Wing, I'd like to change things so that each option is viable within it's role.

Now, how would I do that without seriously changing the rules? I don't know yet. Perhaps gunnery against an active Silhouette 3 or less target's difficulty is the target's Piloting pool, but that doesn't make the A Wing by itself more useful. Perhaps ships at Speed 5 or more get setback dice as defense due to their evasion. Or make successful gunnery attacks re roll. Lots of options, but I need to study the game dynamics before tweaking them.

Side note:

No TIEs have turret mounted weapons. Couldn't the A Wing, moving faster than them, simply stay out of their firing arc? Perhaps that's the only advantage that they need.

Side note:

No TIEs have turret mounted weapons. Couldn't the A Wing, moving faster than them, simply stay out of their firing arc? Perhaps that's the only advantage that they need.

Awing goe at the bttom of the inititive count, moves in, fires. Next tun, it moves at the top of the count, fires again, and moves out of range. The ties simply dont have the speed or range to keep up.

If the GM allows you to use your skill to stay out of their firing arc, yes, but there is nothing by the rules that let you do that.

Also GtA as a maneuver is a BAD BAD decision. Allowing people to make multiple rolls in one turn can really mess up the advantage economy, as well as mess up how GtA is supposed to work (allowing your opponent a chance to shake it).

Here is my opinion on a fix.

Disclaimer: This is not a statement that the system is universally screwed. If the game works as is for you, I am happy for you. It does not for me. Do not tell me how it is perfect and I'm just not playing it right and that is the only reason I have a problem.

All I would change is one maneuver (Evasive Maneuvers), and one action (Gain the Advantage).

Evasive Maneuvers

Add after "pilot's next turn": A ship performing Evasive Maneuvers also adds setback dice on any attacks against it based on its handling score, this effect also lasts until the end of the pilot's next turn.

-3 to +0= 0 Setback

+1 to +2= 1 Setback

+3+ = 2 Setback

If Evasive Maneuvers is performed twice in one turn, you gain the upgrade both times, but gain the setback dice only once.

Gain the Advantage

Add this somewhere in there: If you succeed in your Gain the Advantage roll, you may spend 2 advantage from your pilot roll in order to get on your opponents tail. While you are on an opponents tail, they may not fire on you except with weapons with a Fire Arc that includes Aft. This effect lasts until Gain the Advantage is ended or lost.

On a successful Gain the Adantage Pilot check, you may also spend 2 advantage from your pilot roll in order to cover your allies from an opponent. If you have an opponent covered, if he makes an attack against any target that is not you, the pilot may make a single weapon attack against the opponent for free, which resolves before the opponents attack. This effect lasts until Gain the Advantage is ended or lost.

Also, just another small thing that bugs me. small change to Accelerate/Deccelerate, add after by one: (two for vehicles with speed 5 or 6).

Maybe is a too basic simplification Norton but, just converting boost handling values (positives only?) into defensive setbacks with 1:1 ratio will be enough.

One important characteristic from Edge is that its a pretty quick system, in general therms, so simplify things can be useful too.